Impeaching Donald Trump

[Craig Lamson]

Yes Craig. And where was the approval by Congress?

So in other words you admit the headline on your post was fake news.  Thanks for that.

On the approval, exactly what timeline is required for that approval?  I don't know, do you?

[Craig Lamson]

I did watch the coverage.  Live and continuous.  Not all of it, but over 90% of it.

Your rebuttal is an example of effective FUD lawyering.  I have to give the guy credit for cornering Sondland.  It must have consumed significant rehearsal time.

It is, however, like much of the observed Republican shenanigans, both instructive and despicable.


vis:

"So, your honor, the witness can provide no real additional collaboration for the defendant's guilt other than his own direct, personal observations.  Therefore he's lying and his entire testimony is invalid".

That really funny Peter.  So the facts don't fit your narrative and you try and deflect.  Perfect. 

So, did Sondland get directions directly from Trump or not?  Its a really simple question.

[Peter McLennan]

That really funny Peter.  So the facts don't fit your narrative and you try and deflect.  Perfect. 

So, did Sondland get directions directly from Trump or not?  Its a really simple question.

“directions” on what?

[Craig Lamson]

“directions” on what?

ReallyPeter, that’s the best you have)

Let’s spell it out.


The so called “quid pro quo”.  Did trump tell Sondland directly there would be no meeting or aid unless Ukraine announced or undertook investigations into 2016 or the Bidens?   

It’s a very simple question and a direct yes  or no answer please.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So in other words you admit the headline on your post was fake news.  Thanks for that.

It was not known for how long the security assistance was going to be withheld. But no permission was asked.

The article (second paragraph) says:

But there was also a separate, less-noticed facet of the internal administration uproar set off by Trump’s July 12 order stopping the flow of $391 million in weapons and security assistance to Ukraine. Some senior administration officials worried that by defying a law ordering that the funds be spent within a defined period, Trump was asking the officials involved to take an action that was not merely unwise but flatly illegal.

The administration so far has declined to release copies of its internal communications about this vital issue – the legality of what Trump had ordered.

Congressional approval was not asked for.

On the approval, exactly what timeline is required for that approval?  I don't know, do you?

Again:

The administration so far has declined to release copies of its internal communications about this vital issue – the legality of what Trump had ordered.

According to the law, the White House is not allowed to withhold expenses approved by Congress without permission. So permission would have to be granted before the expenses are withheld. Instead they were still being withheld after the call as a means of pressure for a quid pro quo .

There also was another (but that's not an excuse for not asking permission) a technical deadline that had to be met, the end of the fiscal year on September 30, which increased the unrest at the OMB because it takes time to arrange these things. AFAIK, some of the expenses (last thing I read was something like 10-14%) have not been paid yet (which is too late) ... It would be interesting to know, because that then is another violation of the law, since permission was neither asked nor given for withholding part of the money either.

[JoeKitchen]

It was not known for how long the security assistance was going to be withheld. But no permission was asked.

The article (second paragraph) says:
Congressional approval was not asked for.

Again:
According to the law, the White House is not allowed to withhold expenses approved by Congress without permission. So permission would have to be granted before the expenses are withheld. Instead they were still being withheld after the call as a means of pressure for a quid pro quo .

There also was another (but that's not an excuse for not asking permission) a technical deadline that had to be met, the end of the fiscal year on September 30, which increased the unrest at the OMB because it takes time to arrange these things. AFAIK, some of the expenses (last thing I read was something like 10-14%) have not been paid yet (which is too late) ... It would be interesting to know, because that then is another violation of the law, since permission was neither asked nor given for withholding part of the money either.

Although true, I believe delays are allowed without consent by the executive.  The aid was eventually sent, so it was not withheld but delayed. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It’s a very simple question and a direct yes  or no answer please.

Talk to Rudy.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Although true, I believe delays are allowed.  The aid was eventually sent, so it was not withheld by delayed.

In a life or death situation in Ukraine, a hot war, people were getting killed at the eastern front each week. I don't recall that Congress said it could be used to bribe a foreign government. I don't know if Congress instructed with a deadline attached, but holding it up for months seems counter-productive, the money was needed badly. And to this day, no reason was given for the unnecessary delay.

[Craig Lamson]

It was not known for how long the security assistance was going to be withheld. But no permission was asked.

The article (second paragraph) says:
Congressional approval was not asked for.

Again:
According to the law, the White House is not allowed to withhold expenses approved by Congress without permission. So permission would have to be granted before the expenses are withheld. Instead they were still being withheld after the call as a means of pressure for a quid pro quo .

There also was another (but that's not an excuse for not asking permission) a technical deadline that had to be met, the end of the fiscal year on September 30, which increased the unrest at the OMB because it takes time to arrange these things. AFAIK, some of the expenses (last thing I read was something like 10-14%) have not been paid yet (which is too late) ... It would be interesting to know, because that then is another violation of the law, since permission was neither asked nor given for withholding part of the money either.

Thanks for admitting you don't know the answer. 

So you don't know how long a President may "DELAY" ( note, that is not withholding - which is another point altogether)  the release of Aid, nor do you know if what he did was against the law.  Now its my understanding that the requirement is to notify Congress that he woud be canceling aid, but I'm happy to be shown incorrect on that point.

The long and short of it is you have nothing in this regard that is unlawful or impeachable. 

Just more posturing.

[Craig Lamson]

Talk to Rudy.

Great, when did Sondland tell us Rudy told him?  (and bettrer yet did Rudy tell Sondland TRUMP told him to tell Sondland?)

[JoeKitchen]

In a life or death situation in Ukraine, a hot war, people were getting killed at the eastern front each week. I don't recall that Congress said it could be used to bribe a foreign government. I don't know if Congress instructed with a deadline attached, but holding it up for months seems counter-productive, the money was needed badly. And to this day, no reason was given for the unnecessary delay.

No reason given does no imply improper actions.  It could have simply been attributed to Trump unease with sending aid to foreign countries, which he demonstrated with NATO. 

Plus, people over here care very little about Ukraine.  They are told to care by the elite, but that is the extent of their caring.  Most could care less. 

[Alan Klein]

It's probably about time for this. The author sums up why Trump was elected, and his summary quite adequately explains why he'll be elected again, and why the Democrats' impeachment Kabuki will work against them. The Democrats will never understand this, nor will many of our posters here.

-------------------------------------------

There's a reason Donald Trump was elected, and it wasn't because of the Russians. It wasn't because of his tweets. It wasn't his crassness. It wasn't because of his money. It's not because he's a racist or a white supremacist. Not because he's a misogynist, homophobe or Islamophobe. It wasn't because of his oratory skills or his diplomacy.

In fact, his crassness, money, lack of diplomacy, twitter hysteria and awkward public speaking all worked against him. They were all liabilities in the eyes of most Americans. Libelous claims of racism, misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia fortified his adversaries and gave discomfort to us.

Hillary Clinton’s miscalculated campaign strategy wasn't the reason he was elected. And it wasn't her platform that defeated her. Nor was it the Electoral College.

That an inarticulate, abrasive man was elected president is a tell, a reveal of the state and the mood of average America. A man who can be insulting, demeaning, outrageous, arrogant and bombastic was the choice of half the country to serve as our leader because he more than holds a light on deceit, corruption and injustice, he lashes them to a tree where the sun is bright and relentless, where their shadows are exposed for us all to see. And they hate him for it.

We chose a man who appears insensitive and careless and elevated him to the most powerful leadership office in history because we are watching the world hemorrhage from dishonesty and tyranny. Tired of broken promises, neglected constituents, enriched politicians and a protected ruling class we chose an outsider and a brawler because he promised to return our stolen pride. Americans voted for an imperfect man who sacrificed his life of prosperity and privilege because he promised he would fight for us against those who deceive, destabilize and abuse us.

It’s not because he’s nice. We didn’t elect him because we would emulate him, but because he knows the dragon that is eating our soul and he has the courage and tenacity to go into its lair and lure it out where we can fight it. Donald Trump isn’t our president because he’ll smooth wrinkles and calm storms, but because the alternative is far worse.

Eloquent speeches divided us. Hope was chained. Change stole our dreams, our children and our morals. Flamboyance imitated Camelot and it wounded America. The great experiment was fundamentally changed.

It was time to fight and we needed a Patton. This is why we elected him.


By Ward Wettlin in The Official Walter E. Williams Fan Club I got permission from Ward to copy this and paste it.

Brilliant analysis.  It's what is driving much of the country and people in other parts of the world as well.  Thanks for posting it.

[BernardLanguillier]

Brilliant analysis.  It's what is driving much of the country and people in other parts of the world as well.  Thanks for posting it.

Right... and what were the first actions taken by this great hero of the poor and the neglected?
- reduce taxation for his super rich friends and in the process deepen the debt of the country... and who is going to pay for that?
- get out of the climate agreement... no need to explain that the poorest citizens will be those who will suffer from global warming
- attempt to kill Obamacare, again hurting the poorest citizens
- set the ground for a war with Iran, where kids from poor families will go and get killed on behalf of the great nation

So this text describes why the people were misled to think Trump would be different. He is actually much farther away from the people than Obama was. He may not belong to the political leading class, but he belongs to the money leaders and those the ones killing the average citizens.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

I see nothing in the links provided that changes a thing on Sonderland’ testimony.

Despicable anx manipulative interrogation techniques yes.

Nothing changing the essence of what was reported.

There was indeed clearly a quid pro quo.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

- reduce taxation for his super rich friends...

Right.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-reform-has-delivered-for-workers-11577045463

“Tax Reform Has Delivered for Workers
Two years later the data show that investment has increased, with wages and job participation rising”

Those who say that the strong economy under President Trump is merely a continuation of past trends are in full-scale denial. Before Mr. Trump took office in January 2017, the Congressional Budget Office forecast the creation of only two million jobs by this point. The economy has in fact created seven million jobs since January 2017. At the same time, the Federal Reserve’s median forecast had the unemployment rate inching up toward 5%, almost 1.5 percentage points higher than the current 50-year low.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...There is also no need to interpret the Republican leader’s declaration to the press. Google it if you are interested. He made his intention 100% clear...

Since you repeatedly refused to clarify your position on this, I can only assume that you are troubled that the Senate leader and other Republicans in the Senate have already made up their mind about Trump’s “guilt” even before the trial. In other words, they can’t be impartial jury.

How unheard of!

You literally have people running for President as Dems that already said Trump is guilty, meaning they made up their mind.  Where is all your commentary about senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris saying Trump is guilty?

That does not even count so many others repeatedly announcing Trumps guilt like senators Hirono, Bennet, Blumenthal, et al.

Even Dick Durban, a Democrat, is appalled by this double standard:

[Craig Lamson]

I see nothing in the links provided that changes a thing on Sonderland’ testimony.

Despicable anx manipulative interrogation techniques yes.

Nothing changing the essence of what was reported.

There was indeed clearly a quid pro quo.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sheesh, you really do have it bad.

Yep it’s so clear, it was never told to your star witness Sondland.   He only PRESUMED it.   Now that’s some quality evidence.

Merry Christmas, Bernard.

[Peter McLennan]

ReallyPeter, that’s the best you have)

Let’s spell it out.


The so called “quid pro quo”.  Did trump tell Sondland directly there would be no meeting or aid unless Ukraine announced or undertook investigations into 2016 or the Bidens?   

It’s a very simple question and a direct yes  or no answer please.

Classic lawyer tactics. There is no "direct yes or no" answer to this question.

However, I'll play your brain-dead game, despite your transparent attempt to corner me. 

The answer is "How the eff would I know?" And, "Why would I care?"

The issue isn't whether or not Trump told Sondland to invoke the QPP.  The issue is whether or not TRUMP invoked it.

[Peter McLennan]

These semantic arguments about whether aid was "denied" or "withheld" are beneath contempt.

[BernardLanguillier]

Right.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-reform-has-delivered-for-workers-11577045463

“Tax Reform Has Delivered for Workers
Two years later the data show that investment has increased, with wages and job participation rising”

Thanks for confirming my point that taxes were indeed reduced for the super rich.

The correlation between this and increased job's is anybodies guess.

The reality is that Trump is largely surfing on the positive trend that had been prepared by the Obama administration.

Healthier workers protected by the Obamacare are also contributing more to the economy.

Cheers,
Bernard