Impeaching Donald Trump

[RSL]

...in particular, former national security advisor John Bolton, who has already revealed in the manuscript of a forthcoming memoir what he believes were Trump's motives for delaying congressionally-appropriated military assistance to Ukraine.

What John Bolton "believes" about Trump's "motives" is not evidence. Not even close.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Israel is the first line of defense against medieval islamism. That’s why we support it. An island of democracy and civilization among the barbarians. That’s why we support it. Should Palestinians abandon the futile fight and the goal to destroy Israel, billions of investments would pour into the region and they too would quickly become quite prosperous. But, of course, the Democrats need victims to represent, just like the blacks here. That is their raison d’etre, without peddling victimhood domestically and internationally, they would run out of ideas. 

[Alan Klein]

I'm not familiar enough with Israeli law or politics to know how the announcement will benefit Netanyahu, but the timing from Trump's perspective couldn't be better.  Perhaps as soon as the end of the week, the Senate will decide by majority vote whether to summon witnesses in the impeachment trial, several of whom could provide testimony that would undermine Trump's defense—in particular, former national security advisor John Bolton, who has already revealed in the manuscript of a forthcoming memoir what he believes were Trump's motives for delaying congressionally-appropriated military assistance to Ukraine.

Public opinion surveys indicate that a large majority of likely voters, including approximately half of those who identify themselves as Republicans, want witnesses to be called.  But public sentiment in general tends to have less influence over American politicians than the views of the political activists within their respective parties.

I suspect the timing of the announcement of the Middle East "peace plan" and quite possibly at least to some extent its substance were intended to energize parts of Trump's political base that could influence Republican Party senators who are considering voting with the Democrats to include witness testimony rather than proceed immediately to judgment.  The critical constituency isn't Jewish voters or donors, who are divided both in their party affiliations and their approach to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, but Christian evangelicals, who believe the Jewish state is a biblical imperative and whose support or opposition is critical to many of the Republican senators who must run for re-election this year.

I see it somewhat differently Chris. While Congress and the senate in particular are fussing around with political nonsense accomplishing nothing, Trump is doing stuff with Isreal, has just signed a new NAFTA agreement regarding trade between America and Canada and Mexico, and doing the other business of America. What are the Democrats going to say they did in November's election?  He'll still be president.

[Craig Lamson]

As many other peope, including those in Rhodesia.

It does nor forgive Israeli (100% supported physically if sometimes not verbally by the USA) and the USA for the charade taking place today and over many years.

And for Craig: lobbing rockets over the fence is tit for tat. What would you do if held virtual prisoner in your slum? Apart from emboldening Israel in grabbing ever more land for settlements, the US has contributed what, apart from arms? In echoes of Ukraine, the US also played the withholding game concerning aid to the Palestinians. Nice.

Rob, they have had over 30 years to work this out.  Its not going to happen. Unless you destroy Israel, which I think is the goal.  At least for Hamas.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

What John Bolton "believes" about Trump's "motives" is not evidence. Not even close.

It depends on what those believes are based on. Maybe Trump told him?

[RSL]

It depends on what those believes are based on. Maybe Trump told him?

Maybe that would be true in The Netherlands, Bart, but what somebody "believes," no matter what those beliefs are based on isn't admissible evidence in the United States. The only possible exception would be if Trump were dead. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

[Rob C]

Rob, they have had over 30 years to work this out.  Its not going to happen. Unless you destroy Israel, which I think is the goal.  At least for Hamas.

30 years is just dandy: a few more like the current and there will be no Palestinian land left; it will be de facto Israel. Just like the Wild West is now de facto paleface land. Time erodes everything to the advantage of the strong. You see the same thing in business, accelerating fast with the Internet, and the parlous state of High Street, Anywhere.

Hamas, Fatah or any of the others in the region: what do you think gives them their legitimacy in the eyes of the Palestinians? It's one anybody can guess right first time, but in case of doubts, it's because those groups are the only weapons or soldiers the folks can find to help them or even represent or misrepresent them. It's like joining the local gang because if you don't, another gang will kill you. It's about choices and lack of them. Neutrality is a luxury not on the table.

[Chris Kern]

Maybe that would be true in The Netherlands, Bart, but what somebody "believes," no matter what those beliefs are based on isn't admissible evidence in the United States.

No, his testimony as to what Trump said to him is admissible in any legal forum as evidence of what Trump said to him, although not as to the truth of what Trump said.

[RSL]

No, his testimony as to what Trump said to him is admissible in any legal forum as evidence of what Trump said to him, although not as to the truth of what Trump said.

You're right, of course, Chris. I didn't say it very well. But in the end, it's the truth of what he said that matters.

[Chris Kern]

You're right, of course, Chris. I didn't say it very well. But in the end, it's the truth of what he said that matters.

I can just imagine Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow making the argument:

"Senators, you have heard John Bolton's testimony that President Trump said he was withholding congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine as leverage to get the Ukrainian president to publicly announce he was investigating the Bidens, but can you believe what the president said was true?

"You all know the president is a serial liar.  He makes things up all the time to suit his purpose of the moment and then, when circumstances change, claims the exact opposite of what he previously said.  John Bolton testified that he believed President Trump when he spoke about Ukraine, which only goes to undermine Mr. Bolton's credibility.  How could anyone be so naive as not to question everything that comes out of the president's mouth?  For all we know, Mr. Trump wouldn't be able to point out Ukraine on one of Mike Pompeo's maps.

"Common sense dictates that you ignore Bolton's testimony and vote according to your political instincts, as the president's supporters expect you to do if you want them to stick with you in your next election.

"I rest my case."

[Craig Lamson]

I can just imagine Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow making the argument:

"Senators, you have heard John Bolton's testimony that President Trump said he was withholding congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine as leverage to get the Ukrainian president to publicly announce he was investigating the Bidens, but can you believe what the president said was true?

"You all know the president is a serial liar.  He makes things up all the time to suit his purpose of the moment and then, when circumstances change, claims the exact opposite of what he previously said.  John Bolton testified that he believed President Trump when he spoke about Ukraine, which only goes to undermine Mr. Bolton's credibility.  How could anyone be so naive as not to question everything that comes out of the president's mouth?  For all we know, Mr. Trump wouldn't be able to point out Ukraine on one of Mike Pompeo's maps.

"Common sense dictates that you ignore Bolton's testimony and vote according to your political instincts, as the president's supporters expect you to do if you want them to stick with you in your next election.

"I rest my case."

 

[Craig Lamson]

Boom...

On Jan 23. John Bolton was told by the NSC via his attorney that he could not publish his book as written based on the manuscript he sumbitted.

On Jan 27 the NYT published the material he or someone else leaked.  Maybe he made changes and got it approved "over the weekend".

Somebody call a plumber, the sewer is leaking!

[Alan Klein]

Duplicate post.

[Alan Klein]

Trump said to Bolton, maybe others, "That guy Biden is a crook.  He shouldn't be president and should be investigated.  I'm going to ask Ukraine to follow up or I'll withhold the money."

All perfectly legal.

[James Clark]

Trump said to Bolton, maybe others, "That guy Biden is a crook.  He shouldn't be president and should be investigated.  I'm going to ask Ukraine to follow up or I'll withhold the money."

All perfectly legal.

Lois Lerner and Peter Strzok appreciate your sudden change of heart.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Trump said to Bolton, maybe others, "That guy Biden is a crook.  He shouldn't be president and should be investigated.  I'm going to ask Ukraine to follow up or I'll withhold the money."

All perfectly legal.

No, it was a decision made by Congress to supply the funding. It was not up to Trump to withold (without approval of Congress). Especially not when for his personal benefit, and not in the (military) interests of the USA.

[PeterAit]

The aftermath of a Trump rally in New Jersey. Great citizens, these Trump supporters, real examples for their children.

[Alan Klein]

No, it was a decision made by Congress to supply the funding. It was not up to Trump to withold (without approval of Congress). Especially not when for his personal benefit, and not in the (military) interests of the USA.

It was not up to Obama to make a treaty with Iran without Senate approval.  Our constitution states that very clearly.  How about presidents that have gone to war without congressional approval. A lot worse.   Presidents do all sorts of things bending the rules.  But none of it's impeachable.  It's like when you tell your wife "No, you can't have that new dress."  And she goes out and buys it anyway.  Do you get a divorce? 

Withholding funds is not new.  Certainly not impeachable.  At least until now. 

[LesPalenik]

It's like when you tell your wife "No, you can't have that new dress."  And she goes out and buys it anyway.  Do you get a divorce? 

That would be very prude. Otherwise, next time, she'll get you in a bigger trouble.

[Craig Lamson]

No, it was a decision made by Congress to supply the funding. It was not up to Trump to withold (without approval of Congress). Especially not when for his personal benefit, and not in the (military) interests of the USA.

Actually all he had to do was NOTIFY Congress. He then had 45 days.  If Congress THEN passed a law saying it approved of his withoulding, he could do it. If not he had to spend it.  Of course he did not notify Congress.  Instead they issued "footnotes" to document advising of the delay and when they proposed actually releasing the funds.

However the White House lawyers, the DOJ and OMB Lawyers claimed he had immunity from that rule because he was CIC.  Others disagree.  The thinking was supposed to be that the notification would hinder his bargining power in respect to corruption in Ukraine.  No doubt Trump is pushing the envelope.  It will be interesing to see if it is tested in court.

Yourfinal point here is still undecided.  Did he use the bargining chip for his own personal benefit or was there a national interest?  Or both? 

Maybe Chris Kern could chime in and fix everything I screwed up here