Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

[Impeachment] Public Hearings of Amb. Sondland, "Yes there was Quid Pro Quo" [2019/11/20]

1679111260

Posts

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Those theories are so completely boneheaded, and run counter to "Yes we did it because all admins do it" like christ even their lies don't make sense.

    It is a result of the White House providing no useful guidance on what nonsense to stick to.

    The fundamental problem is that the default directive from the whitehouse is to make Trump look smart, and not argue that he's dumb, incompetent, out of touch or control, or dependent on his aides to make decisions.

    You can't follow that directive while defending this charge, because the best and only real defense is that the President is staggeringly ignorant and completely out of control within his own inner circle.

    ElldrenmonikerCommander ZoomVishNubElvenshaerahkeesh2000Lord PalingtonshrykeMartini_PhilosopherBlackDragon480painfulPleasanceButtersForarMild ConfusionCantideThe SauceNobeardTofystedethA Kobold's KoboldHeirRaijuRchanenAegeriTicaldfjamdispatch.oLord_Asmodeusvalhalla130Kristmas KthulhujdarksunMr RayLabelTheDrifteremp123
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    All of this stuff with the phone call is nonsense, because the president literally committed treason of this exact quid pro quo nature on live television broadcasts three or four times

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
    ElvenshaeRickRudeMan in the MistsBlackDragon480ButtersCantideTofystedethAbsoluteZeroToxkimeIncenjucarLord_Asmodeusvalhalla130YoutubeKristmas KthulhuMagelljdarksunLovelyTheDrifter
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    All of this stuff with the phone call is nonsense, because the president literally committed treason of this exact quid pro quo nature on live television broadcasts three or four times

    As with all things, it isn't the crime its the cover up.

    The first charge on the impeachment sheet isn't going to be quid pro quo or abuse of office for political gain but obstruction of Congress.

    03x29di.png
    BlackDragon480
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    All of this stuff with the phone call is nonsense, because the president literally committed treason of this exact quid pro quo nature on live television broadcasts three or four times

    Those statements are criminal, but do not meet the narrow definition of treason.

    spool32ArdoliTunesIsEvilshrykeDoodmannGennenalyse RuebenpainfulPleasanceBlackDragon480Gnome-InterruptusForarElldrenThe SauceNobeardTofystedethRaijuAegeriToxdispatch.oLord_Asmodeusvalhalla130SorceKristmas KthulhuStabbity Styleemp123
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    So the argument is that the president's words on the call were just an accident and had nothing backing them up and all the evidence backing up that his words on the call were illegal was done without him knowing. So there was a conspiracy behind the scenes to do illegal things Trump had no knowledge about and he accidentally blurted out the details of it in a threat to the target without knowing the details of it

    Totally believable.

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
    DouglasDangerElvenshaeCouscousGnome-Interruptus
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Bolton: I got so much juicy info you would love, guys. Sue me if you want it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/john-bolton-ukraine.html

    Bolton Knows About ‘Many Relevant Meetings’ on Ukraine, Lawyer Says

    The former national security adviser would be an important witness in the impeachment inquiry, but his lawyer wants a court to rule on whether he should testify.
    ATLANTA — John R. Bolton, President Trump’s former national security adviser, has knowledge of “many relevant meetings and conversations” connected to the Ukraine pressure campaign that House impeachment investigators do not yet know about, his lawyer told lawmakers on Friday.

    The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, made that tantalizing point in a letter to the chief House lawyer in response to House committee chairmen who have sought Mr. Bolton’s testimony in their impeachment proceedings but expressed unwillingness to go to court to get an order compelling it.

    Mr. Cooper did not elaborate on what meetings and conversations he was referring to, leaving it to House Democrats to guess at what he might know.

    The House chairmen have withdrawn a subpoena for Mr. Kupperman and indicated they would not seek one for Mr. Bolton because they said they did not want to get dragged into lengthy court proceedings. Instead, Democrats have suggested that they may cite the refusal to testify by Mr. Bolton and Mr. Kupperman as evidence of obstruction of Congress by the president, which could form its own article of impeachment.

    In representing Mr. Bolton and Mr. Kupperman, Mr. Cooper denied that they were trying to delay proceedings and insisted that their legal position was not coordinated with the White House. Mr. Cooper argued that if the House was serious about an inquiry, then Mr. Bolton would be a logical person to question.


    Mr. Bolton “was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far,” Mr. Cooper wrote in the letter.

    RickRudeTicaldfjamFawstYoutube
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Honestly the trump admins strat seems to be run out the clock, tie everything up in court and hope to win enough in 2020 the GOP run the house and declare him innocent.

    I don't think they have to win the House. According on NPR yesterday Emily Bazelon, a staff writer for NYT Magazine that specializes in Supreme Court coverage, the subpoenas expire when the session of Congress ends. She said if the rulings are tied up in court past the session deadline then the cases become moot and the whole process would have to start over in 2021 with new subpoenas when the next session begins.

    The impeachment isn't going into 2021. The House will just keep "obstruction of Congress" to the charges and move on.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Heir
  • ArchangleArchangle Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Honestly the trump admins strat seems to be run out the clock, tie everything up in court and hope to win enough in 2020 the GOP run the house and declare him innocent.
    This has been the strategy with e.g. his sexual assault claims - "This came out before the election, and he still won. THE PEOPLETM have already declared him innocent and how dare you question THE PEOPLETM?"

    DehumanizedTetraNitroCubaneMan in the MistsBlackDragon480ElldrenCantideRhesus Positivevalhalla130MrVyngaardYoutubeMoridin889
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    The developing GOP argument is that it was a few rogue advisers doing it for themselves.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-gop-looks-to-protect-trump-by-raising-doubts-about-motives-of-his-deputies/2019/11/07/aaa14efa-0173-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html
    House Republicans’ latest plan to shield President Trump from impeachment is to focus on at least three deputies — U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, and possibly acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — who they say could have acted on their own to influence Ukraine policy.
    Republicans, however, face several potential problems if they try to pin a quid pro quo on Sondland alone.

    Sondland testified that he was “assuming” Giuliani was speaking for Trump when he said the president wanted Zelensky to investigate the Ukrainian energy company Burisma — which gave Joe Biden’s son Hunter a job on its board when the elder Biden was U.S. vice president — and also to pursue a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukraine’s interfering in the 2016 U.S. election.
    But while Giuliani is Trump’s personal lawyer, GOP lawmakers appear to think they can argue he was not coordinating his actions with the president.

    “There is no direct linkage to the president of the United States,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) told reporters this week, contending that while lawyers normally coordinate with their clients, Giuliani is a special case. “There are a whole lot of things that he does that he doesn’t apprise anybody of.”
    The suggestion that Sondland, Giuliani and possibly Mulvaney made demands of Ukrainians without Trump’s explicit blessing has emerged among several theories that Republicans have offered in Trump’s defense, as witnesses testify that they believed Ukraine was being squeezed.

    In a sign of how the GOP is scrambling, however, many of those theories run counter to each other.
    Sondland told lawmakers that his understanding was based on conversations with Giuliani, whom Trump had already told him he should listen to on Ukraine matters.

    “It must have been Giuliani, because I wasn’t talking to the president about it,” Sondland said, according to a transcript of his testimony, later adding: “I heard that from Rudy Giuliani. I never heard it from the president. I am assuming Rudy Giuliani heard it from the president, but I don’t know that.”


    That puts Giuliani back in the spotlight — and potentially in the crosshairs of Republicans on Capitol Hill.

    Giuliani’s freewheeling approach to representing Trump has frequently perplexed Republicans, who are frustrated by the former New York mayor’s loose-lipped media appearances, in which he has pushed conspiracy theories about Ukraine and even admitted that he directly asked Ukrainian officials to investigate the Bidens. Republicans also point to Giuliani’s business interests in Ukraine as reasons to think he may have been motivated by personal gain, and not his oft-claimed loyalty to Trump, as he ran what amounted to a shadow policy on Kyiv.

    That the argument relies on saying Trump let Giuliani, his personal lawyer, dictate US foreign relations with Ukraine and decide what was enough to release the aid without making sure Giuliani knew what Trump wanted says a lot about what they think is exculpatory.

    Ah, yes, the monarch is under the thrall of evil counselors

    Jesus these guys are pathetic

    uH3IcEi.png
    CelestialBadgerCouscousmonikerFencingsaxElvenshaeshrykeMan in the MistsGennenalyse RuebenElldrenMorganVMild ConfusionA Kobold's KoboldRaijuAbsoluteZeroKetBraTicaldfjamCantidoLord_Asmodeusvalhalla130never dieSanguinius666264sarukunMoridin889jdarksunLovelyZonugalTheDrifterWhiteZinfandelemp123
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    What if you have several dozen low grade henchman who obstruct Congress as a full time job, like a salaried one wherein you are expected to obstruct Congress at home on the weekend at 1230 Saturday?

    It's really starting to look like the strategy is just so many, many crimes! And most.of them aren't even good exciting ones, there are just so many

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
    TetraNitroCubane
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited November 8
    Couscous wrote: »
    Bolton: I got so much juicy info you would love, guys. Sue me if you want it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/john-bolton-ukraine.html

    Bolton Knows About ‘Many Relevant Meetings’ on Ukraine, Lawyer Says

    The former national security adviser would be an important witness in the impeachment inquiry, but his lawyer wants a court to rule on whether he should testify.
    ATLANTA — John R. Bolton, President Trump’s former national security adviser, has knowledge of “many relevant meetings and conversations” connected to the Ukraine pressure campaign that House impeachment investigators do not yet know about, his lawyer told lawmakers on Friday.

    The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, made that tantalizing point in a letter to the chief House lawyer in response to House committee chairmen who have sought Mr. Bolton’s testimony in their impeachment proceedings but expressed unwillingness to go to court to get an order compelling it.

    Mr. Cooper did not elaborate on what meetings and conversations he was referring to, leaving it to House Democrats to guess at what he might know.

    The House chairmen have withdrawn a subpoena for Mr. Kupperman and indicated they would not seek one for Mr. Bolton because they said they did not want to get dragged into lengthy court proceedings. Instead, Democrats have suggested that they may cite the refusal to testify by Mr. Bolton and Mr. Kupperman as evidence of obstruction of Congress by the president, which could form its own article of impeachment.

    In representing Mr. Bolton and Mr. Kupperman, Mr. Cooper denied that they were trying to delay proceedings and insisted that their legal position was not coordinated with the White House. Mr. Cooper argued that if the House was serious about an inquiry, then Mr. Bolton would be a logical person to question.


    Mr. Bolton “was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far,” Mr. Cooper wrote in the letter.

    I imagine he wants to stick the knife in, but also wants to be seen as having been "compelled" so that he's not branded as a traitor by the base. (In the short term; he probably expects that in the end, he'll be seen as a True American Hero.)

    Alternative: he is "forced" to appear and immediately turns poison witness. "I don't recall"s and anything else that will F*** the Libs.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    MarathonFencingsaxRaijuTicaldfjam
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Do you think that "general incompetence in the performance of duties" found be an impeachment charge or is that just too subjective, because the dude has basically not done his job but a couple times since he's been in office.
    Couscous wrote: »
    Bolton: I got so much juicy info you would love, guys. Sue me if you want it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/john-bolton-ukraine.html

    Bolton Knows About ‘Many Relevant Meetings’ on Ukraine, Lawyer Says

    The former national security adviser would be an important witness in the impeachment inquiry, but his lawyer wants a court to rule on whether he should testify.
    ATLANTA — John R. Bolton, President Trump’s former national security adviser, has knowledge of “many relevant meetings and conversations” connected to the Ukraine pressure campaign that House impeachment investigators do not yet know about, his lawyer told lawmakers on Friday.

    The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, made that tantalizing point in a letter to the chief House lawyer in response to House committee chairmen who have sought Mr. Bolton’s testimony in their impeachment proceedings but expressed unwillingness to go to court to get an order compelling it.

    Mr. Cooper did not elaborate on what meetings and conversations he was referring to, leaving it to House Democrats to guess at what he might know.

    The House chairmen have withdrawn a subpoena for Mr. Kupperman and indicated they would not seek one for Mr. Bolton because they said they did not want to get dragged into lengthy court proceedings. Instead, Democrats have suggested that they may cite the refusal to testify by Mr. Bolton and Mr. Kupperman as evidence of obstruction of Congress by the president, which could form its own article of impeachment.

    In representing Mr. Bolton and Mr. Kupperman, Mr. Cooper denied that they were trying to delay proceedings and insisted that their legal position was not coordinated with the White House. Mr. Cooper argued that if the House was serious about an inquiry, then Mr. Bolton would be a logical person to question.


    Mr. Bolton “was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far,” Mr. Cooper wrote in the letter.

    Man, fuck these guys. Bolton has so much insider knowledge that the House would be foolish to not interview him.

    Oh, but if you ask him to testify willingly he won’t and if you subpoena him he’ll fight it tooth and nail in court and you have to stop everything because a judge won’t even hear opening arguments until December.

    Nope, fuck you. There’s enough evidence already. Either spill it willingly or kick rocks Bolton.

    Doctor DetroitFencingsaxElvenshaePreacherRickRudeHeraldSMan in the MistsGennenalyse RuebenBlackDragon480So It GoesGnome-InterruptusForarElldrenMild ConfusionCantideVeagleA Kobold's KoboldRaijuKetBraTicaldfjamXantomasLord_Asmodeusvalhalla130FawstSkeithRedTidesarukunMoridin889jdarksunCimmeriiMcFodderLabelemp123
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    House Republicans’ latest plan to shield President Trump from impeachment is to focus on at least three deputies — U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, and possibly acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — who they say could have acted on their own to influence Ukraine policy.

    Never in my life have I heard a sound so delightful as the *fwump* *fwump* of the bus driving over Giuliani.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    ElvenshaeJaysonFourElldrenRaijuZonugalMr Ray
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Trump said he hardly knows Sondland.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-leaves-to-fundraise-and-speak-in-georgia-today-2019-11-08/
    "I hardly know the gentleman," Mr. Trump told reporters on the South Lawn Friday morning, en route to fundraising engagements in Georgia.

    The president, who hadn't spoken to reporters for two days — a notable lapse for him — also told reporters he might release a transcript of an earlier phone call that he had with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.

    He said he's fine with having officials testify in the impeachment inquiry, but doesn't want to lend credibility to a "witch hunt" process.

    There goes another coffee boy.

    Donald, do you actually know anybody who works for you? I don’t understand how you can do your job when you hardly know anyone you’re appointing to these positions. Who do you know well?

    I swear the cock just never stops crowing he denies people so often.

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    ElldrenRaijuTicaldfjamvalhalla130
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    I don't really see a reason to give Lindsey Graham the benefit of the doubt anymore.

    Oh yea of course. Lindsey is your bog standard cowardly, opportunistic, regressive, bottom feeding Republican. But he has publicly criticized Trump before. I think he was testing the waters then, acting on lizard brain instincts. What he's doing now says to me he is afraid of something and I don't mean simply losing his Senate seat.

    Nah, he just saw that criticizing Trump was getting him nowhere and saw how Trump would just bluster through scandal after scandal and realized he was probably better off supporting Trump than opposing him. He's just an opportunist who realized the amount of despicable behavior he an get away with was much much greater than he previously thought.
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Oh weird suddenly Trump doesn't want public hearings



    CNN correspondent

    Of course.

    Trump doesn't think he should be impeached, ergo whatever step of the process they're on is wrong and he'll come out against it.

    If the pubs manage to grow a spine and throw him out of office, he'll be against that too, probably. :)

    Commander ZoomLegacyElldrenRaijuYoutube
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Those theories are so completely boneheaded, and run counter to "Yes we did it because all admins do it" like christ even their lies don't make sense.

    It is a result of the White House providing no useful guidance on what nonsense to stick to.

    The fundamental problem is that the default directive from the whitehouse is to make Trump look smart, and not argue that he's dumb, incompetent, out of touch or control, or dependent on his aides to make decisions.

    You can't follow that directive while defending this charge, because the best and only real defense is that the President is staggeringly ignorant and completely out of control within his own inner circle.

    See: Ronald Reagan. Whose entire last term was run by other people. Including Nancy who stepped in after the cancer surgery. The difference is that Reagan was largely served by competent people who knew how government worked and how to work the government.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
    ShortymonikerMan in the MistsDouglasDangerpainfulPleasanceBlackDragon480Commander ZoomGaddezElvenshaespool32HeirElldrenTicaldfjamIncenjucarLord_Asmodeusvalhalla130YoutubeMoridin889TheDrifterStabbity Style
  • DelzhandDelzhand Hard to miss. Registered User regular
    McConnell is the only Republican with a spine. You gotta admit, it's probably liberating to say "yeah fuck it, I'm evil, try to stop me, idgaf".

    Steam|FFXIV|Switch SW-3472-4893-0802
    GaddezYoutube
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Those theories are so completely boneheaded, and run counter to "Yes we did it because all admins do it" like christ even their lies don't make sense.

    It is a result of the White House providing no useful guidance on what nonsense to stick to.

    The fundamental problem is that the default directive from the whitehouse is to make Trump look smart, and not argue that he's dumb, incompetent, out of touch or control, or dependent on his aides to make decisions.

    You can't follow that directive while defending this charge, because the best and only real defense is that the President is staggeringly ignorant and completely out of control within his own inner circle.

    See: Ronald Reagan. Whose entire last term was run by other people. Including Nancy who stepped in after the cancer surgery. The difference is that Reagan was largely served by competent people who knew how government worked and how to work the government.

    Imagine Mrs Trump trying to run the country. She'd try for 5 minutes then someone in the press would say Mean Things and she'd give up in a huff.

    ElvenshaeMartini_Philosophervalhalla130Youtube
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Those theories are so completely boneheaded, and run counter to "Yes we did it because all admins do it" like christ even their lies don't make sense.

    It is a result of the White House providing no useful guidance on what nonsense to stick to.

    The fundamental problem is that the default directive from the whitehouse is to make Trump look smart, and not argue that he's dumb, incompetent, out of touch or control, or dependent on his aides to make decisions.

    You can't follow that directive while defending this charge, because the best and only real defense is that the President is staggeringly ignorant and completely out of control within his own inner circle.

    See: Ronald Reagan. Whose entire last term was run by other people. Including Nancy who stepped in after the cancer surgery. The difference is that Reagan was largely served by competent people who knew how government worked and how to work the government.

    Imagine Mrs Trump trying to run the country. She'd try for 5 minutes then someone in the press would say Mean Things and she'd give up in a huff.

    She'd just call Michelle Obama

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    PreacherFencingsaxJaysonFourCaptain InertiaForarElvenshaeCantideNobeardMartini_PhilosopherElldrenRaijuTNTrooperTicaldfjamCantidoShadowfirethatassemblyguyRhesus PositiveLord_Asmodeusvalhalla130SkeithSorceSanguinius666264Moridin889ZonugalKoopahTroopahLabelTheDrifterStabbity Styleemp123
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 8
    Looks like there is yet another person in the administration who helped hide the blackmail.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/john-eisenberg-white-house-lawyer.html
    WASHINGTON — The complaints came to the National Security Council’s top lawyer within hours of each other in early July. Two senior aides said they feared that one of President Trump’s top political appointees was improperly pressuring Ukrainian officials to help the president’s political fortunes.

    The lawyer, John A. Eisenberg, remained impassive, taking notes as the aides conveyed their concerns, according to congressional testimony released Friday. He promised one official he would follow up and shared the complaints with the White House counsel, who advised him to raise them with Mr. Trump.

    But instead of briefing the president, Mr. Eisenberg and his deputy decided that while the efforts of the appointee — Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union — were unorthodox, they were not criminal, according to a person briefed on their decision. Mr. Eisenberg set aside the concerns of the senior aides, one of whom who would go on to describe Mr. Sondland to impeachment investigators as a national security risk because he was so unprepared for his job.

    Trump appointing a criminal lawyer is an "of course he would" thing.

    Couscous on
    Elvenshaevalhalla130
  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Looks like there is yet another person in the administration who helped hide the blackmail.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/john-eisenberg-white-house-lawyer.html
    WASHINGTON — The complaints came to the National Security Council’s top lawyer within hours of each other in early July. Two senior aides said they feared that one of President Trump’s top political appointees was improperly pressuring Ukrainian officials to help the president’s political fortunes.

    The lawyer, John A. Eisenberg, remained impassive, taking notes as the aides conveyed their concerns, according to congressional testimony released Friday. He promised one official he would follow up and shared the complaints with the White House counsel, who advised him to raise them with Mr. Trump.

    But instead of briefing the president, Mr. Eisenberg and his deputy decided that while the efforts of the appointee — Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union — were unorthodox, they were not criminal, according to a person briefed on their decision. Mr. Eisenberg set aside the concerns of the senior aides, one of whom who would go on to describe Mr. Sondland to impeachment investigators as a national security risk because he was so unprepared for his job.

    Trump appointing a criminal lawyer is an "of course he would" thing.

    Eisenberg is also the one who heard Vinman's complaints then buried the transcript on the secret server.

    Steam = VishnuOwnz
    Dota2 = Glitchmo
    Fencingsaxspool32Martini_PhilosopherElldrenRchanenshrykeRaijuTNTrooperBlackDragon480Lord_Asmodeusvalhalla130boogedybooYoutubeMoridin889
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    What if you have several dozen low grade henchman who obstruct Congress as a full time job, like a salaried one wherein you are expected to obstruct Congress at home on the weekend at 1230 Saturday?

    It's really starting to look like the strategy is just so many, many crimes! And most.of them aren't even good exciting ones, there are just so many

    I don't think that's the strategy because frankly that seems like there was some sort of honest to god planning involved to all of this.

    What we have here is simply put trump in his most naked state; A man who has run his businesses entirely with an eye for self gratification and short term gains and none for sustainability or ethics. What we're seeing here these past 4 years is the exact manner in which he has operated for the past 40 and how it may be possible to get away with that in the world of business due to the lack of oversite in a private company you simply can't operate that way in government and expect it to go smoothly.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    monikerFencingsaxGnome-InterruptusGennenalyse RuebenCommander ZoomArdolNobeardElldrenshrykeRaijuBlackDragon480Lord_Asmodeusvalhalla130YoutubeCelestialBadgeremp123Janson
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Honestly the trump admins strat seems to be run out the clock, tie everything up in court and hope to win enough in 2020 the GOP run the house and declare him innocent.

    I don't think they have to win the House. According on NPR yesterday Emily Bazelon, a staff writer for NYT Magazine that specializes in Supreme Court coverage, the subpoenas expire when the session of Congress ends. She said if the rulings are tied up in court past the session deadline then the cases become moot and the whole process would have to start over in 2021 with new subpoenas when the next session begins.

    The impeachment isn't going into 2021. The House will just keep "obstruction of Congress" to the charges and move on.

    I'm not talking about impeachment I'm talking about the legal battle over individuals dodging congressional subpoenas. If the White House is successful in dragging those rulings out past this legislative session then the subpoenas expire and they win by default.

    At least that's Bazelon's take on it and she's a pretty highly regarded lawyer and constitutional law journalist.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    monikerYoutube
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    It also happens to be Trump’s usual M.O. to fight everything as far as possible, even when anyone else would cut their losses, just in case the other side flinches. I generally get the feeling that any time he backs off of an issue it’s only because literally no one on his staff is willing to push it forward anymore (like holding the G7 at Doral.)

    Impeachment related stuff will go down to the last man, because there’s literally nothing left after that. He’s not going to cut his losses on congressional subpoenas to go focus on his wall.

    GaddezElvenshaespool32RaijuGnome-InterruptusRedTide
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Evander wrote: »
    It also happens to be Trump’s usual M.O. to fight everything as far as possible, even when anyone else would cut their losses, just in case the other side flinches. I generally get the feeling that any time he backs off of an issue it’s only because literally no one on his staff is willing to push it forward anymore (like holding the G7 at Doral.)

    Impeachment related stuff will go down to the last man, because there’s literally nothing left after that. He’s not going to cut his losses on congressional subpoenas to go focus on his wall.

    The ting with impeachment for trump isn't the loss of power, it's the humiliation of losing.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    YoutubeMoridin889
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    The ting with impeachment for trump isn't the loss of power, it's the humiliation of losing.

    Sure, but for his staff the loss of power is the reason they will likely stay willing to push on with the “fight” as long as they are working for him. No one is going to threaten “I’m resigning unless you do.”

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Evander wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    The ting with impeachment for trump isn't the loss of power, it's the humiliation of losing.

    Sure, but for his staff the loss of power is the reason they will likely stay willing to push on with the “fight” as long as they are working for him. No one is going to threaten “I’m resigning unless you do.”

    They're sticking with him because they're screwed if he goes down.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    ElvenshaeMorganVNobeardRaijuEmerlmaster999Mild ConfusionFencingsaxLord_Asmodeusvalhalla130SorceYoutubeButtersMoridin889AngelHedgie
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Can some one explain the reasoning behind withdrawing the subpoenas? I understand that they don't want to waste time on court battles to enforce the subpoenas, as they feel like they have enough information given without those particular witnesses. But they keep claiming they will use officials refusal to appear as further evidence of obstruction, for the impeachment articles, and yet they withdrew the subpoenas, rather than letting them stand and have the person fail to show up.

    It's not like there is some requirement that forces a court proceeding if a subpoena is ignored. They could leave the subpoena in place, have the adminstration officials refuse, and then they would seemingly have a better position to claim obstruction than subpoena, hint of possible refusal, and then withdrawal.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Can some one explain the reasoning behind withdrawing the subpoenas? I understand that they don't want to waste time on court battles to enforce the subpoenas, as they feel like they have enough information given without those particular witnesses. But they keep claiming they will use officials refusal to appear as further evidence of obstruction, for the impeachment articles, and yet they withdrew the subpoenas, rather than letting them stand and have the person fail to show up.

    It's not like there is some requirement that forces a court proceeding if a subpoena is ignored. They could leave the subpoena in place, have the adminstration officials refuse, and then they would seemingly have a better position to claim obstruction than subpoena, hint of possible refusal, and then withdrawal.

    The subpoena was for testimony at a given date and time. They did not appear at the required time, thus they have already committed obstruction.

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
    Gnome-InterruptusFencingsaxRchanenYoutubejdarksun
  • RaijuRaiju regular Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    House Republicans’ latest plan to shield President Trump from impeachment is to focus on at least three deputies — U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, and possibly acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — who they say could have acted on their own to influence Ukraine policy.

    Never in my life have I heard a sound so delightful as the *fwump* *fwump* of the bus driving over Giuliani.

    So their whole strategy is that Sondland, Giuliani, and Mulvaney (all people Trump himself hired) are the Deep State agents that they keep crowing about? Interesting.

    ElvenshaeRchanenElldren
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Southpaw is a dog that is also a lawyer who tweets:
    Fiona Hill explaining that putting the read-out of President Trump's May 2017 Oval Office meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak on the WH's codeword computer system might be appropriate because Trump had said some things to the Russians that had to be redacted.
    In other words, this is confirmation from a top NSC official under oath that the President shared classified information with the Russian representatives in that meeting, fwiw.

    Hill is saying that the conversation with the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador was justified in being on the code-word server because when they looked it over there were things that were code-word-level classified in the transcript. As in, Trump said code-word classified things to upper level members of the Russian government.

    ElvenshaeGnome-InterruptusmonikerDarkPrimusBlackDragon480ArdolCommander Zoomchrono_travellerMazzyxNobeardBurnageMild ConfusionFencingsaxCantidespool32RchanenIncenjucarLeeksLord_AsmodeusTNTroopervalhalla130FawstJaysonFourToxElldrenHavelock2.0Man in the MistsboogedybooGennenalyse RuebenYoutubeThe SauceVeagleKristmas KthulhuButtersA Kobold's KoboldMoridin889BullheadjdarksunNiryaDevlin_DragonusMvrckNo-QuarterLabelStabbity Styleemp123
  • cncaudatacncaudata Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Southpaw is a dog that is also a lawyer who tweets:
    Fiona Hill explaining that putting the read-out of President Trump's May 2017 Oval Office meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak on the WH's codeword computer system might be appropriate because Trump had said some things to the Russians that had to be redacted.
    In other words, this is confirmation from a top NSC official under oath that the President shared classified information with the Russian representatives in that meeting, fwiw.

    Hill is saying that the conversation with the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador was justified in being on the code-word server because when they looked it over there were things that were code-word-level classified in the transcript. As in, Trump said code-word classified things to upper level members of the Russian government.

    This argument doesn't make sense. Either he declassified it, in which case it wasn't ok to put it on the secret server, or he didn't declassify it, in which case he illegally shared classified info. The president can declassify anything he wants, but if he doesn't... it's still classified.

    PSN: Broodax- battle.net: broodax#1163
  • ChillyWillyChillyWilly Registered User regular
    edited November 9
    Schiff tells Gaetz to get fucked using my most favorite new term.

    "Absent yourself, King Dumbass."

    Also, an excellent response to "Oh, so you're going to have someone remove me?" is "No, you're going to remove yourself."

    Eat a dick, bro.


    From the Fiona Hill testimony:
    Rep. Adam Schiff tells Matt Gaetz to "absent yourself."

    I think that's going to be my NEW way of telling someone GTFOH.

    "Absent yourself" is 🔥.

    ChillyWilly on
    PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
    NobeardTicaldfjammonikerMild Confusionchrono_travellerCantideCantidokimeElvenshaeDarkPrimusRchanenAegeriFencingsaxGONG-00TetraNitroCubaneMillBlackDragon480ArbitraryDescriptorShadowfireLord_AsmodeusMorganVTNTrooperAridholdavidsdurionsRaijuspool32tyrannusvalhalla130MrVyngaardFawstJaysonFourToxSkeithElldrennever dieHavelock2.0boogedybooSanguinius666264Gennenalyse RuebenDrCongolonelyahavaYoutubeSleepSyphonBlueThe SauceVeagleRedTideGnome-InterruptusKristmas KthulhuMartini_PhilosopherbrynhrtmnChiselphaneiTunesIsEvilsarukunA Kobold's KoboldHeirTofystedethMoridin889HellerbooyBullheadjdarksunNiryaMvrckEinzelNo-QuarterZonugalKoopahTroopahMcFodderLabelThawmusLeeksStabbity Style38thDoeHappy Little Machineemp123
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Damn that is some prime grade "Get fucked"

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    DouglasDangerjmcdonaldTicaldfjammonikerMild ConfusionshrykeElvenshaeEmerlmaster999RchanenHeirMillBlackDragon480ShadowfireLord_AsmodeusMorganVTNTrooperRaijutyrannusvalhalla130MrVyngaardFawstJaysonFourToxJohnny ChopsockySkeithElldrenMan in the MistsSanguinius666264Gennenalyse RuebenSleepSyphonBlueThe SauceGnome-InterruptusbrynhrtmniTunesIsEvilsarukunA Kobold's KoboldTofystedethMoridin889HellerbooyjdarksunNiryaNo-QuarterZonugalKoopahTroopahEtiowsaLabelThawmusLeeksStabbity Style38thDoeemp123
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    edited November 9
    Well I guess I would be pissed too if someone trampled all over decorum and security for a dumb publicity stunt

    joshofalltrades on
    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    PreacherTicaldfjammonikerMild ConfusionFencingsaxBlackDragon480Lord_AsmodeusCommander ZoomRaijuvalhalla130JaysonFourToxSkeithElldrenMan in the MistsElvenshaeGennenalyse RuebenYoutubeSleepbrynhrtmniTunesIsEvilA Kobold's KoboldTofystedethjdarksunZonugalKoopahTroopahThawmusStabbity Styleemp123
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 9
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/giuliani-associates-urged-ukraines-prior-president-to-open-biden-election-probes-11573247707
    Giuliani Associates Urged Ukraine’s Prior President to Open Biden, Election Probes

    Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman pushed then-president Poroshenko to announce probes in return for U.S. state visit

    Dating back to 2015, the private Instagram account of Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian-American indicted for illegal campaign donations, appears to show VIP access to President Trump and a close relationship with Rudy Giuliani.

    Months before President Trump pressed Ukraine’s newly installed leader to investigate Joe Biden’s son and allegations of interference in the 2016 U.S. election, two associates of Rudy Giuliani urged the prior Ukrainian president to announce similar probes in exchange for a state visit to Washington, according to people familiar with the matter.
    Mr. Poroshenko at the time was in a tight re-election race and had expressed interest to aides in visiting Washington. A visit to the White House could have improved his electoral chances with Ukrainian voters because it could have enhanced his stature, and he was open to the idea proposed by Mr. Giuliani’s associates, one of the people said. “He wanted to come to Washington and meet with Trump and then after the state dinner he would have an interview” with a major news outlet, the person said of Mr. Poroshenko. “Then he would say he would investigate meddling in 2016 and the Bidens.”

    Robert Costello, a lawyer for Mr. Giuliani, said his client had no knowledge of the meeting. Representatives of Mr. Poroshenko and Mr. Lutsenko didn’t respond to requests for comment. Lawyers for Messrs. Parnas and Fruman declined to comment. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    Messrs. Parnas and Fruman were clients of Mr. Giuliani who helped him in his monthslong push for investigations in Ukraine. John Dowd, a former attorney for Messrs. Parnas and Fruman, said in a letter to Congress last month that both men “assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump.”
    Giuliani denies any involvement in the attempted bribe, and I don't believe that because Giuliani lies about everything.

    Couscous on
    Commander ZoomTicaldfjamElvenshaeBlackDragon480ArdolRaijuBrodyElldrenLord_AsmodeusMan in the MistsGennenalyse RuebenA Kobold's KoboldjdarksunZonugalKoopahTroopah
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited November 9
    cncaudata wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Southpaw is a dog that is also a lawyer who tweets:
    Fiona Hill explaining that putting the read-out of President Trump's May 2017 Oval Office meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak on the WH's codeword computer system might be appropriate because Trump had said some things to the Russians that had to be redacted.
    In other words, this is confirmation from a top NSC official under oath that the President shared classified information with the Russian representatives in that meeting, fwiw.

    Hill is saying that the conversation with the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador was justified in being on the code-word server because when they looked it over there were things that were code-word-level classified in the transcript. As in, Trump said code-word classified things to upper level members of the Russian government.

    This argument doesn't make sense. Either he declassified it, in which case it wasn't ok to put it on the secret server, or he didn't declassify it, in which case he illegally shared classified info. The president can declassify anything he wants, but if he doesn't... it's still classified.

    No, classification authority is absolute. He can grant specific access by dint of speaking it to someone without granting general access to the people he is talking to or the general public.

    Edit: Added apropos comma and adding below

    Its also an impeachable offense obvs

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
    monikershrykeBlackDragon480ArdolArbitraryDescriptorRaijuBrodyLord_AsmodeusMan in the MistsGennenalyse RuebenKristmas KthulhuCantido
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited November 9
    Couscous wrote: »
    Looks like there is yet another person in the administration who helped hide the blackmail.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/john-eisenberg-white-house-lawyer.html
    WASHINGTON — The complaints came to the National Security Council’s top lawyer within hours of each other in early July. Two senior aides said they feared that one of President Trump’s top political appointees was improperly pressuring Ukrainian officials to help the president’s political fortunes.

    The lawyer, John A. Eisenberg, remained impassive, taking notes as the aides conveyed their concerns, according to congressional testimony released Friday. He promised one official he would follow up and shared the complaints with the White House counsel, who advised him to raise them with Mr. Trump.

    But instead of briefing the president, Mr. Eisenberg and his deputy decided that while the efforts of the appointee — Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union — were unorthodox, they were not criminal, according to a person briefed on their decision. Mr. Eisenberg set aside the concerns of the senior aides, one of whom who would go on to describe Mr. Sondland to impeachment investigators as a national security risk because he was so unprepared for his job.

    Trump appointing a criminal lawyer is an "of course he would" thing.

    So Eisenberg reported it to Cipollone, then Cipollone- the chief White House counsel, paragon of ethical integrity, and all around good faith actor -told his underling to brief the president, but Eisenberg disobeyed?

    Yeah, I don't buy it. At best I would believe Cipollone only suggested Eisenberg take it to Trump himself as a veiled threat, and probably as an alternative to his first suggestion of "So handle it, what are you telling me for?"

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
    Elvenshae
  • SeñorAmorSeñorAmor !!! Registered User regular
    Schiff tells Gaetz to get fucked using my most favorite new term.

    "Absent yourself, King Dumbass."

    Also, an excellent response to "Oh, so you're going to have someone remove me?" is "No, you're going to remove yourself."

    Eat a dick, bro.


    From the Fiona Hill testimony:
    Rep. Adam Schiff tells Matt Gaetz to "absent yourself."

    I think that's going to be my NEW way of telling someone GTFOH.

    "Absent yourself" is 🔥.

    Was he removed, though (willingly or otherwise)?

  • TuminTumin Registered User regular
    SeñorAmor wrote: »
    Schiff tells Gaetz to get fucked using my most favorite new term.

    "Absent yourself, King Dumbass."

    Also, an excellent response to "Oh, so you're going to have someone remove me?" is "No, you're going to remove yourself."

    Eat a dick, bro.


    From the Fiona Hill testimony:
    Rep. Adam Schiff tells Matt Gaetz to "absent yourself."

    I think that's going to be my NEW way of telling someone GTFOH.

    "Absent yourself" is 🔥.

    Was he removed, though (willingly or otherwise)?

    Yes, Schiff states later that the record shall reflect Gaetz is no longer present

    JaysonFourFencingsaxTicaldfjamMan in the MistsElvenshaeGennenalyse RuebenCalicaYoutubejmcdonaldAegisShadowfireThe SauceBlackDragon480CantideGnome-InterruptusKristmas KthulhuBloodsheedMartini_PhilosopherbrynhrtmnRchanenButtersTynnankimeElldrenA Kobold's KoboldNobeardHeirMoridin889BullheadjdarksunMvrckDoodmannNo-QuarterKoopahTroopahLabelTheDrifterThawmusStabbity Styleemp123
Sign In or Register to comment.