"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.
Couscous on
+64
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
What the hell does absolute immunity mean in any legal or constitutional framework?
Basically the executive branch has historically taken the position that Congress can't force the president and close advisers to testify because the executive branch almost always takes the most expansive view of the executive's power that can be declared remotely legitimate. The idea has only ever been an issue in courts once and was never ruled on by an appellate court.
The argument against it is how the hell is Congress supposed to have oversight over the executive if they can't get their testimony? It especially makes no sense to apply to impeachment hearings.
But they can still hold everything up by forcing Congress to give up or go through a lengthy court fight, which is why it has not really gone to court before except once.
In support of McGahn’s immunity, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) released an opinion setting out the executive branch’s position. The opinion largely restates the reasoning provided in a 2014 OLC opinion, which concluded that President Obama’s senior adviser, David Simas, did not have to comply with a congressional subpoena for testimony. As Walter Dellinger, the former head of OLC and acting solicitor general during the Clinton administration, noted, there is “significant exec[utive] branch support” for the McGahn immunity opinion. And Bob Bauer, former White House Counsel to President Obama, wrote that the opinion was “not surprising” and that it “reflects the position that the executive branch has taken over time.” Indeed, the opinion goes to some length to explain that its conclusion is “consistent with nearly 50 years of executive branch precedent” and “has been consistently reaffirmed by administrations of both parties, most recently during the Obama Administration.”
At the same time, as Nadler noted in response to the White House’s letter, the only court to address the executive branch doctrine of immunity resoundingly rejected it, reasoning that “if the Executive’s absolute immunity argument were to prevail, Congress could be left with no recourse to obtain information that is plainly not subject to any colorable claim of executive privilege.” The McGahn opinion does acknowledge the adverse court decision, but, like the 2014 opinion, “respectfully disagree” with the district court. OLC likewise notes that the decision was stayed by the appellate court (a potential sign the appellate court disagreed with the ruling) and that no appellate court has ever had a chance to address the issue.
The merits of the immunity doctrine are thus largely unsettled and reflect a long-standing disagreement between the executive branch and Congress. Given the existing judicial opinion, a comprehensive analysis written by a well-respected judge, the administration likely faces long odds of prevailing in court—particularly on its claim that the immunity is absolute and cannot be undermined or outweighed by countervailing congressional interests or by evidence of wrongdoing. But judicial resolution may take some time, a refrain that should be familiar to anyone paying attention to the various oversight disputes
It is endlessly funny to me that Sondland paid a cool million to completely and publicly fuck up his own life for absolutely no reward.
Hey, now. That cool million got him a cool trip to Europe as ambassador and a close up view of the underside of a bus. That's gotta be worth the price of admission.
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 would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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.
Deny, distract, defy (subpoenas), delay. Sounds about right.
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.
If he gets reelected with all that is out now he's not getting impeached. We would literally be in that 5th Avenue scenario.
So he’s talking about a transcript of an earlier call, not the same call
So...proving he didn’t break any laws one other time absolves him? Bold strategy, Cotton.
And by picking some other call it lets them comb through the archives to find one where Trump looks the best and then publish that one.
Reporters should ask them to just release all calls related to Ukraine.
Why waste time looking at all calls? We have the call. We don't need to look at any others, because they don't matter.
All that matters is the abuse of power, use of Giuliani, and quid pro quo we already have. It is enough, it is substantiated, and Democrats should impeach based on it.
NBC News: NEW: House Minority Leader McCarthy announces he's appointing Rep. Jordan to the House Intel Cmte.; move comes during House's impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
I doubt they'll actually release a second memorandum. Like Trump has promised he'd do shit like this before and done nothing.
He'd really love to release a second transcript, but he's not allowed because his taxes are still under audit.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
NBC News: NEW: House Minority Leader McCarthy announces he's appointing Rep. Jordan to the House Intel Cmte.; move comes during House's impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
NBC News: NEW: House Minority Leader McCarthy announces he's appointing Rep. Jordan to the House Intel Cmte.; move comes during House's impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
NBC News: NEW: House Minority Leader McCarthy announces he's appointing Rep. Jordan to the House Intel Cmte.; move comes during House's impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Man this comes at a really bad time for Jim Jordan. So good job Kevin appoint the dude currently connected with looking the other way on other crimes.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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 to Emily Bazelon on NPR yesterday, 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.
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.
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.
A president abdicating his duty to the extent that his lawyer was in control of military aid to an ally seems like an entirely different kind of impeachable offense.
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
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.
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.
You may be able to argue against mootness under the "capable of repetition but evading review" doctrine from Roe v Wade iirc?
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.
Johnson had 11 articles of impeachment brought against him, and I always love the last one:
Dismissing Edwin Stanton from office after the Senate had voted not to concur with his dismissal and had ordered him reinstated.
Appointing Thomas Secretary of War ad interim despite the lack of vacancy in the office, since the dismissal of Stanton had been invalid.
Appointing Thomas without the required advice and consent of the Senate.
Conspiring, with Thomas and "other persons to the House of Representatives unknown", to unlawfully prevent Stanton from continuing in office.
Conspiring to unlawfully curtail faithful execution of the Tenure of Office Act.
Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War".
Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War" with specific intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act.
Issuing to Thomas the authority of the office of Secretary of War with unlawful intent to "control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War".
Issuing to Major General William H. Emory orders with unlawful intent to violate federal law requiring all military orders to be issued through the General of the Army.
Making three speeches with intent to "attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States".
Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions
As Vindman describes his reaction to hearing Trump ask Zelensky for a “favor,” he notes that the president did not need to explicitly demand something in order for Zelensky to understand what Trump wanted. American presidents have unmatched leverage over foreign leaders, Vindman explained.
“[T]he power disparity between the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine is vast, and, you know, in the president asking for something, it became—there was—in return for a White House meeting, because that’s what this was about,” Vindman told investigators. “This was about getting a White House meeting. It was a demand for him to fulfill his—fulfill this particular prerequisite in order to get the meeting.”
NBC News: NEW: House Minority Leader McCarthy announces he's appointing Rep. Jordan to the House Intel Cmte.; move comes during House's impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
The description of events makes it obvious the whole thing required a bunch of officials working on the blackmail for some time rather than just a few rogue people doing it quickly.
Several officials have testified that they learned about the aid holdup on July 18. But Vindman said he learned about it more than two weeks earlier, on July 3, shifting the known timeline of when the aid was held up.
The aid holdup may have been in the works as early as June, Vindman testified, because he was getting indications from the relevant departments that OMB was asking “abnormal” questions” about the aid, including how much and what kind of funding Kyiv was receiving.
The new timeline also raises questions about a July 3 meeting Special Envoy Kurt Volker had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Toronto, in which he urged Zelensky to commit to investigating “corruption.” Volker testified that he told Zelensky that the message of cleaning up corruption that the U.S. needed to hear in order to support him was getting “countermanded by a negative narrative about Ukraine.”
Vindman testified that he received a notice from the State Department on July 3 saying that the Office of Management and Budget was holding up a notification to Congress about the military aid, a required step to obligate the appropriated funds.
He didn’t understand why, initially, but sought to find out. Between July 3 and July 18, when the aid freeze was relayed to a sub-policy coordinating committee, Vindman said, the NSC was “trying to get to the bottom of why this hold was in place”—and that the reason became “quite apparent” during the July 18 meeting, when he learned that the hold came from Mulvaney’s office.
Posts
I hope we get another frat bro run on the hearings
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Shareblue writer with the video:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-leaves-to-fundraise-and-speak-in-georgia-today-2019-11-08/
There goes another coffee boy.
“make me” basically
If Trump hadn't gotten to pick 1 in 4 federal judges and two supreme court justices, I'd be endlessly amused at his dignity vampire act
pleasepaypreacher.net
I love it when people get pissy about legal representation for those they feel don't deserve it. And by 'love it' I mean hate it.
Basically the executive branch has historically taken the position that Congress can't force the president and close advisers to testify because the executive branch almost always takes the most expansive view of the executive's power that can be declared remotely legitimate. The idea has only ever been an issue in courts once and was never ruled on by an appellate court.
The argument against it is how the hell is Congress supposed to have oversight over the executive if they can't get their testimony? It especially makes no sense to apply to impeachment hearings.
But they can still hold everything up by forcing Congress to give up or go through a lengthy court fight, which is why it has not really gone to court before except once.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/testimonial-immunity-executive-privilege-and-presidents-authority-over-former-officials
Hey, now. That cool million got him a cool trip to Europe as ambassador and a close up view of the underside of a bus. That's gotta be worth the price of admission.
By that same logic, Cohen, Manafort, and Giuliani should all be sued for treason too.
Fair's fair.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Deny, distract, defy (subpoenas), delay. Sounds about right.
L'etat c'est moi
If he gets reelected with all that is out now he's not getting impeached. We would literally be in that 5th Avenue scenario.
So...proving he didn’t break any laws one other time absolves him? Bold strategy, Cotton.
The chances of this transcript of a totally different call showing him committing another crime is about 99.6 -repeating percent.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
And by picking some other call it lets them comb through the archives to find one where Trump looks the best and then publish that one.
Reporters should ask them to just release all calls related to Ukraine.
Why waste time looking at all calls? We have the call. We don't need to look at any others, because they don't matter.
All that matters is the abuse of power, use of Giuliani, and quid pro quo we already have. It is enough, it is substantiated, and Democrats should impeach based on it.
None of that is material to the crime from the call we already know about and everything surrounding it
More calls is just for distraction and desensitization
What about all those times I didn’t murder and eat people?
- Jeffrey Dahmer
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
He'd really love to release a second transcript, but he's not allowed because his taxes are still under audit.
Maybe they're going after the ironic vote
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
so who's losing their spot?
Man this comes at a really bad time for Jim Jordan. So good job Kevin appoint the dude currently connected with looking the other way on other crimes.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't think they have to win the House. According to Emily Bazelon on NPR yesterday, 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.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D011.pdf
Page 53 is where he talks about substantial omissions from the (not a) transcript.
Also, Fiona Hill testimony
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D010.pdf
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
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.
A president abdicating his duty to the extent that his lawyer was in control of military aid to an ally seems like an entirely different kind of impeachable offense.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It is a result of the White House providing no useful guidance on what nonsense to stick to.
You may be able to argue against mootness under the "capable of repetition but evading review" doctrine from Roe v Wade iirc?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Johnson had 11 articles of impeachment brought against him, and I always love the last one:
Dismissing Edwin Stanton from office after the Senate had voted not to concur with his dismissal and had ordered him reinstated.
Appointing Thomas Secretary of War ad interim despite the lack of vacancy in the office, since the dismissal of Stanton had been invalid.
Appointing Thomas without the required advice and consent of the Senate.
Conspiring, with Thomas and "other persons to the House of Representatives unknown", to unlawfully prevent Stanton from continuing in office.
Conspiring to unlawfully curtail faithful execution of the Tenure of Office Act.
Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War".
Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War" with specific intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act.
Issuing to Thomas the authority of the office of Secretary of War with unlawful intent to "control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War".
Issuing to Major General William H. Emory orders with unlawful intent to violate federal law requiring all military orders to be issued through the General of the Army.
Making three speeches with intent to "attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States".
Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/08/alexander-vindman-impeachment-testimony-released-067872
Rick Crawford
That's just corrupt-ese for quid pro quo
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126