Impeachment Inquiry

[Dandruff]

According to NBC Washington, another whistleblower has come forward:

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Second-Whistleblower-Trump-Ukraine-Scandal-562334081.html

Does the link work?  I need to learn how to insert outside stuff on FJ...

Edited October 6, 2019 by Dandruff
OK, it looks like the link works.

[fraurosena]

Yep, @Dandruff is right, there is a second whistleblower! And they have firsthand knowledge.

 

[smittykins]

Link works fine, @Dandruff.

[Dandruff]

Two whistleblowers and Mitt Romney.  I'm hoping this will bring on a cascade of others speaking out, though I'd expect more of a trickle.  I hope Romney doesn't backtrack - he made a very good point about Trump targeting political opponent Biden in his requests to Ukraine and China. 

At least some in the Senate must be wondering what four more years of Trump conflict would be like.  They can't be enjoying this, can they?

[Becky]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/trump-blames-energy-secretary-rick-perry-ukraine-call-center-impeachment-n1062931

Ricky Perry made him do it!  ?

 

[Howl]

54 minutes ago, Becky said:

Ricky Perry made him do it!  

Heh.  #ETTD, Rick! 

[formergothardite]

My representative has decided to hitch his wagon with Trump and has been frantically sending emails saying this entire thing is a scam made up by liberals because they want to undo the results of the 2016 election. 

My senators have stayed more quiet. 

[Dandruff]

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

My representative has decided to hitch his wagon with Trump and has been frantically sending emails saying this entire thing is a scam made up by liberals because they want to undo the results of the 2016 election. 

My senators have stayed more quiet. 

If the people in your rep's area already believe it, then why should he bother?  If they don't, then why is he bothering?  Could it be that someone's calling in a favor?

[formergothardite]

21 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

If the people in your rep's area already believe it, then why should he bother?  If they don't, then why is he bothering?  Could it be that someone's calling in a favor?

I would say a good chunk of this district already believe Trump is innocent or they just don't care and will vote republican no matter what. I wouldn't be surprised if a favor got called in. He shared this video that the house republicans made. I didn't watch it. 

Quote

 

 

[Dandruff]

21 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I would say a good chunk of this district already believe Trump is innocent or they just don't care and will vote republican no matter what. I wouldn't be surprised if a favor got called in. He shared this video that the house republicans made. I didn't watch it.

I watched it.  Claim seems to be that the Dems are moving toward impeachment to keep Trump from being reelected.

They spelled "Constitution" wrong.

[Penny]

Rick Perry is too stupid to make Trump do anything. 

[WiseGirl]

Just now. I know none of you are shocked.

[GreyhoundFan]

Ron Johnson (R-Dumb) may help get his overlord impeached if he keeps on this path: "‘Who leaked?’ An analysis of GOP Sen. Ron Johnson’s conspiracy-minded defense of Trump."

Spoiler

On Friday, a powerful Republican senator indicated to the Wall Street Journal that he had been concerned this summer that President Trump was creating a quid pro quo with Ukraine by holding up military aid. But he appeared to regret sharing something so potentially damaging and immediately tried to walk back his statements.

It was probably not a coincidence then that on Sunday, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, went on TV to try to defend the president. But arguably, he did more damage to the president’s cause by showing just how difficult it is to defend Trump.

In his interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Johnson refused to answer basic questions about why he was concerned about Trump, instead bringing up a completely unrelated conspiracy theory about a former FBI official. “Answer the question that I asked you instead of trying to make Donald Trump feel better here that you’re not criticizing him,” an exasperated host Chuck Todd says at one point.

The interview underscored that, to defend Trump amid revelations of a whistleblower complaint and diplomatic text messages alleging that the president used his power to pressure a foreign country for political gain, Republicans such as Johnson and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) increasingly have to ignore or ditch the facts altogether.

Here are three key excerpts from the interview, taken from a rough transcript provided by “Meet the Press.”

TODD: Let me start with something you told the Wall Street Journal late last week. You had said when Mr. Sondland — Gordon Sondland seemed to imply that — the frozen military aid was connected to a promise by Zelensky for investigations, you said, “At that suggestion, I winced. My reaction was, ‘Oh God. I don’t want to see those two things combined.’” Why did you wince and what did you mean by “those two things combined?”

JOHNSON: Well, first of all, your setup piece was — you know, typically, very unbiased. But, you know, let me first, before I started answering all the detailed questions, let me just talk about why I’m pretty sympathetic with what President Trump has gone through. You know, I’m 64 years old. I have never in my lifetime seen a president, after being elected, not having some measure of well-wishes from his opponents. I’ve never seen a president’s administration be sabotaged from the day after election. I’ve never seen — no measure of honeymoon whatsoever. And so what President Trump’s had to endure, a false accusation — by the way, you’ve got John Brennan on — you ought to ask Director Brennan what did Peter Strzok mean when he texted Lisa Page on December 15th, 2016?

This is the first question in the interview, and Todd spends the rest of it — nine minutes — trying to get Johnson to answer it. As Todd goes on to say, it is a basic question. He’s asking Johnson to repeat and elaborate on what Johnson told the Wall Street Journal: A high-level diplomat, Gordon Sondland, who appeared to be doing Trump’s bidding in Ukraine, according to text messages, privately told Johnson that military aid was tied to Ukraine agreeing “to get to the bottom of what happened in 2016.”

“At that suggestion, I winced,” Johnson told the Wall Street Journal. “My reaction was, ‘Oh, God. I don’t want to see those two things combined.’ ”

Todd wants to know why Johnson was unhappy with that. Johnson doesn’t answer the question. He responds by lamenting that Trump didn’t have “some measure of well-wishes from his opponents” and that his administration was “sabotaged” and brings up former intelligence officials whom Trump has made conservative lightning rods. He is, in other words, reiterating Trump’s talking points rather than criticizing the president.

2. TODD: Senator—

JOHNSON: —Special counsel appointed that has hampered his entire investigation—

TODD: Senator?

JOHNSON: —his entire— his entire— his entire administration. And now, once he’s been— that was proven false, he would like to know and I would like to know and I know his supporters would like to know, where did this all come from? Who planted that false story?

TODD: Senator—

JOHNSON: Who leaked? You know, I— I have— I have my third letter into the Inspector General of the Intelligence—

TODD: All right, Senator—

JOHNSON: —Committee, asking to just confirm— just confirm, are you investigating those leaks that Peter Strzok talked about in that—

TODD: All right, Senator—

JOHNSON: —text to Lisa Page—

TODD: —I have no idea why—

JOHNSON: We’re gettin’— no, that’s— that’s—

TODD: —why—

JOHNSON: —a setup. It is entirely—

TODD: —why a Fox—

JOHNSON: —relevant to this point.

TODD: —why a Fox News conspiracy, propaganda stuff is popping up on here.

More than anything, this section of the interview shows just how much Republicans in Congress think they need to ingratiate themselves to Trump.

Johnson is a member of the Senate Ukraine Caucus and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He also sits on the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee. In addition, he’s a member of a separate but coequal branch of government. He had a vested interest in getting security aid to Ukraine approved by members of Congress in both parties. We know based on his own words that he was concerned that Trump was holding it up.

Yet, rather than acknowledge that on camera, Johnson tries to deflect by throwing out false summaries of the Mueller report ⁠ — that the allegations were “proven false” ⁠ — conspiracy theories that someone “planted” the allegations of Russian collusion at the center of the special counsel investigation and by naming a former FBI official who was no fan of Trump but was ancillary to the investigations into his campaign. At one point, Johnson refuses to answer whether he trusts the CIA and the FBI, two agencies he oversees and works with in his role in the Senate.

More importantly, none of this has anything to do with Ukraine. Johnson was talking fast, tossing out these distractions like roadblocks to a journalist determined to get a legitimate answer.

3. TODD: ... Why did you wince?

JOHNSON: ... Because I didn’t want those connected. And I wanted — I was supporting the aid, as is Senator Murphy, as is everybody that went to that initial inauguration. But here’s the salient point of why I came forward. When I asked the president about that, he completely denied it. He adamantly denied it. He vehemently, angrily denied it. He said, “I’d never do that.” So that is the piece of the puzzle I’m here to report today that, unlike the narrative of the press that President Trump wants to dig up dirt on his 2020 opponent, what he wants is he wants is an accounting of what happened in 2016. Who set him up? Did things spring from Ukraine? ...

I’ve bolded the section where Johnson finally answers the first question Todd asked. Johnson allows that he did not want military aid and “investigations into 2016” connected. He said he wanted the aid to go to Ukraine, with no conditions. This is the second time Johnson acknowledges that he thought Trump was doing something with which he did not agree. Aside from this interview, Johnson has twice made clear that he knew about allegations of a quid pro quo — military aid for investigating election conspiracy theories held by Trump — and that he heard it from the highest levels of U.S. diplomacy with Ukraine.

Johnson goes on to explain the reason he shared this in the first place. He was trying to say that he had asked Trump whether there was a quid pro quo, and Trump had denied it. It was his second apparent defense of Trump that missed the mark, and Johnson is struggling mightily to get out from under that.

I like how the whines about the mango manboy not getting any well-wishes from the other party. Because he and the other repugs were soooooooo gracious to Obama, right?

[Dandruff]

10 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I like how the whines about the mango manboy not getting any well-wishes from the other party. Because he and the other repugs were soooooooo gracious to Obama, right?

Right - the Republican party of 2019 is all about grace and good manners.  Trump, especially, would never use a foul word or speak ill of an opponent.  He's our role model.

[SassyPants]

On 10/5/2019 at 3:41 PM, Cleopatra7 said:

I feel like this preoccupation with the idea that Trump must have been elected through foreign influence is a convenient way to retain some semblance of “American innocence” while absolving the voters who actually voted for him off the hook. Let me just say off the bat, that the question of whether Russia and/or China interfered in the election does not interest me in the slightest; cyber warfare is politics by other means in the 21st century, and the US has interfered in more elections than any other country. Assuming that election interference must have been the decisive factor in the 2016 election forgets the following:

1. The electoral college gives disproportionate weight to rural, conservative states, as does the two senators per state rule. The fact that Hillary Clinton got three million more votes than Trump is irrelevant because that’s not how the president is elected. 

2. Racism and genocide are baked into this country’s DNA. Trump’s rhetoric is a return to form after about forty years of superficial politeness and dogwhistles at the national level.

3. The same people who voted for Romney in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016, and would have voted GOP even if the candidate was an inanimate carbon rod. The difference is that more whites came out to support Trump and that put him over the top in the contested states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. The gutting of the Voting Right Act depressed the minority vote, especially in the South.

I think a lot of white liberals don’t want to face the reality that a lot of Americans really like Trump and spammy Facebook ads only played a marginal role. See those mobs of angry white people counter protesting civil rights marches in documentaries? Those people never went away, because they’re our neighbors, the people we see at the mall, the nice older couple at church, and in some cases, our relatives. Furthermore, they’re not sorry for what they did, because they think all the changes they don’t approve of will be rolled back, and they are. The fundamental problem isn’t Russian psyops, but the fact that Aunt Gladys gets excited thinking about the prospect of putting black and brown people in prison.

All of those things AND foreign interference is why we have a POTUS Trump. Both, not either or. The discussion here is about Trump using his position and influence to get the dirt on Biden via a foreign leader. You scratch my back or I will withhold military aid to your country. Does this behavior sound familiar ? This is why I made that particular parallel.

[Smee]

On 10/6/2019 at 7:14 AM, fraurosena said:

Ok, your residential Pollyanna is stepping in here before everybody gets all depressed and dispirited.

Sure, there is a chance that the Repugs will run away with the impeachment process and stymie any attempt to get rid of Trump. But with all the evidence against Trump's criminality coming out, and with Trump adding more impeachable acts on a daily basis, that chance is getting smaller by the day. Public opinion is already very much in favor of impeachment, and even removal from office, and those sentiments are growing. When the Repugs are confronted with the indefensible and irrefutable facts and with public opinion against protecting Trump, then they will have no other recourse than removal from office.

Will that leave you with Pence as president? Well, according to the rules it would. However, it is already publicly evident that Pence himself is also heavily implicated in the White House crimes. If Dems play it smart, and all signs say they are, they will impeach Pence first, and then Trump. Now, this won't automatically lead to Pelosi becoming president, of course. Spiro Agnew was threatened with impeachment and chose to resign before Nixon's impeachment was to start, and Agnew was replaced with Ford as veep. So chances are that a new veep will be in place before Trump gets impeached. Who that will be, is up to the Senate, not Trump. 

My prediction is that before Trump gets impeached, Pence will be out (I think, like Agnew, he'll 'voluntarily' resign). A new, not controversial veep will be installed by the Senate. Only after that will Trump be impeached and removed. The new veep will become president and another new veep will be installed by the Senate. To appease the public, these two will be infinitely more palatable than the current occupants of the White House.

But both will be out of the Oval by 20 januari 2021 and replaced by a Democratic president and veep.

 

My fear is that everything you’ve said here will happen EXCEPT that last sentence. If the general election was held today, I think enough people are disgusted by the actions of Trump (and Pence) to vote Dem. But if they’re both gone by the next election? All those racist, sexist, pro-life people and those who were swayed to vote for him in 2016 will have a new leader to stand behind without needing to conveniently ignore treason.

I kind of hope Pence does take over just so “being VP to the impeached Trump” is hanging around his neck come the election.

[fraurosena]

2 hours ago, Smee said:

My fear is that everything you’ve said here will happen EXCEPT that last sentence. If the general election was held today, I think enough people are disgusted by the actions of Trump (and Pence) to vote Dem. But if they’re both gone by the next election? All those racist, sexist, pro-life people and those who were swayed to vote for him in 2016 will have a new leader to stand behind without needing to conveniently ignore treason.

I kind of hope Pence does take over just so “being VP to the impeached Trump” is hanging around his neck come the election.

I understand your fear, but there is something you are forgetting. The role the whole GOP played enabling Trump, and the role they are playing right now in defending him. The elections will be less than a year after Trump and Pence are removed from office. The public has a short memory, but not that short I should think. Especially if the Dem candidate(s) keep pointing it out.

[fraurosena]

 

[Audrey2]

McConnell is tipping his hand that he won't let the impeachment vote (if it happens) come before the Senate.

McConnell vows to block Trump impeachment in fundraising pitch

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464379-mcconnell-vows-to-block-trump-impeachment-in-fundraising-pitch%3famp

Spoiler

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) reelection campaign is seizing on the fight over impeachment, pledging in Facebook ads that he will lead Republican efforts to stop President Trump from being removed from office.

 

"Nancy Pelosi's in the clutches of a left wing mob. They finally convinced her to impeach the president. All of you know your Constitution, the way that impeachment stops is a Senate majority with me as majority leader," McConnell says in an ad that began running on Thursday.

 

[mamallama]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I understand your fear, but there is something you are forgetting. The role the whole GOP played enabling Trump, and the role they are playing right now in defending him. The elections will be less than a year after Trump and Pence are removed from office. The public has a short memory, but not that short I should think. Especially if the Dem candidate(s) keep pointing it out.

While it's very true the GOP itself is rotten to the core a huge chunk of Americans get their new from FAUX and Facebook so as far as they know the problem is the crazy democrats can't accept the results of the 2016 elections.  I think they'll turn on Trump far sooner than they'll turn on the entire republican party

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, mamallama said:

I think they'll turn on Trump far sooner than they'll turn on the entire republican party

I agree with you there. But the one (turning on Trump) does not exclude the other. I don't think the GOP will survive the age of Trump. The GOP has been dying since before they lost the election to Al Gore and skewed the Florida votes to get Bush in office anyway. They have not won the popular vote since before Bill Clinton. Conservatism will remain (there's nothing wrong with the political ideology) but the GOP, with McTurtle, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, McCarthy, Lindsey Graham, and all the other self-serving, money-grabbing, voter-suppressing, gerrymandering, hypocritical rest of them? No, they won't survive. 

[mamallama]

From your mouth to God's ear.

 

[Audrey2]

So, what do you do when the President breaks the law and he gets called on it? You sue him (or threaten to), of course.

Giuliani's answer to impeachment inquiry: Sue Schiff

https://www.yahoo.com/news/giulianis-answer-to-impeach-inquiry-sue-schiff-164553599.html?bcmt=1

First part of the article here.

Spoiler

President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, says he is working with outside lawyers to prepare lawsuits against prominent Democrats such as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California and Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.

Giuliani’s remarks about his legal plans were made over the weekend in a series of calls with Yahoo News, amid cable news appearances in which he continued to aggressively defend the president. That defense was blunted by news of an additional whistleblower who would reportedly corroborate how Trump allegedly pressured the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, into investigating Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, a 2020 presidential candidate.

Folks, I think we've now officially crossed into a totalitarian state, with Rudy as the enforcer.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Audrey2

[fraurosena]

Also from @Audrey2's article above:

Quote

“I got the highest grade in constitutional law,” said Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York.

Oh, Rudy, that was more than 50 years ago... and it shows. 

In other Rudy-related news.

Lawyer Claims Congress Is ‘Harassing’ Rudy Giuliani’s Allies—by Asking Them for Ukraine Documents

Quote

Two of Rudy Giuliani’s associates will not meet a Congressional committee’s deadline to produce documents related to their work in Ukraine, according to their lawyer. That attorney, who previously represented President Donald Trump, accused Congressional investigators of trying to harass and intimidate the two men in a letter that The Daily Beast obtained. The men—Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman—had tried to help Giuliani investigate Hunter Biden, a project at the core of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. 

The House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees had set an October 7 deadline for Parnas and Fruman to voluntarily turn over records related to their activities with Giuiliani. “Your request for documents and communications is overly broad and unduly burdensome,” wrote their attorney, John Dowd. “The subject matter of your requests is well beyond the scope of your inquiry. This, in combination with requiring immediate responses, leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the Democratic Committee members’ intent is to harass, intimidate and embarrass my clients.”

Dowd said “The ‘Committees’”—in scare quotes—violated their standard procedures by asking the two men to turn over documents within seven days and testify within 15. 

“Considering the important factual questions and legal issues attendant to the alleged whistleblower, your investigation, your authority and requests for information, your charter should be amended to exhibit some semblance of due process, fairness, justice and common decency,” Dowd’s letter concluded. 

Parnas and Fruman, two Soviet-born Floridians, have connected Giuliani to various Ukrainian officials, including the ex-prosecutor who Trump and Giuliani claim was fired at Biden’s behest to protect his son, Hunter Biden.

According to the Associated Press, Parnas and Fruman also worked to orchestrate political changes in Ukraine that might help their nascent natural gas company, Global Energy Producers LLC. With Giuliani’s assistance, the two men successfully pressed for the ouster of America’s ambassador to Kiev, Marie Yovanovitch, and, the AP reported on Sunday, advanced efforts to overhaul leadership at Ukraine’s national oil and gas company, Naftogaz.

Congressional Democrats asked Parnass and Fruman for documents on Sept. 30. They also subpoenaed Giuliani that same day for documents. Giuliani told The Daily Beast he has not decided whether or not to comply. 

“I have a real question about whether I should recognize their legitimacy,” he said. “I think they are totally illegitimate...I’m going to go in front of a committee with a chairman who is a liar.”

Going on offense against Congressional investigators is a central part of the strategy that Trump’s allies are using to defend him. Chairman Adam Schiff of the Intelligence Committee has become their top foe. And the president himself has also lambasted the California Democrat, calling him “Shifty Schiff.” 

“I haven't made up my mind,” he continued, “but one of the issues is, do you acknowledge an illicit committee?”

I hate to break it to you, Rudy, but a Congressional Committee is as legitimate as a committee can get. The legitimacy of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is unquestionable, even if you find their line of questioning rather troublesome and you don't happen to like their chairman so much.

[Ozlsn]

2 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

So, what do you do when the President breaks the law and he gets called on it? You sue him (or threaten to), of course.

Giuliani's answer to impeachment inquiry: Sue Schiff

I somehow read the bolded before the top bit and thought "who's Sue Schiff??"

6 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

McConnell is tipping his hand that he won't let the impeachment vote (if it happens) come before the Senate.

McConnell vows to block Trump impeachment in fundraising pitch

Well I can't say that's surprising but I do think it might backfire on him. Maybe I have too much hope in the voting public but it seems like Trump is becoming more and more of a political liability and protecting him may come at a political cost.