Jump to content
IGNORED

Impeachment Inquiry 2: Now It's Official!


GreyhoundFan

Recommended Posts

Clear your calendars, it’s going to be a busy week next week.

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that busy schedule, maybe some of the more rabid repugs will work themselves into such a frenzy that they'll pass out.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this NYT article the trumplicans are going to do exactly what we expect:

Quote

Republicans pledged to aggressively defend Mr. Trump against the charges by arguing that his efforts to push Mr. Zelensky to announce investigations into his political rivals were legitimate attempts to root out corruption. The president did it, they plan to concede, but for innocent reasons.

According to a memo circulated on Tuesday by their top impeachment investigators, Mr. Trump’s Republican defenders on Capitol Hill plan to raise doubts about the witnesses who have testified in the Ukraine affair, questioning the knowledge and judgment of the diplomats and national security officials who have expressed concern about Mr. Trump’s July 25 telephone call with Mr. Zelensky.

“Democrats want to impeach President Trump because unelected and anonymous bureaucrats disagreed with the president’s decisions and were discomforted by his telephone call with President Zelensky,” the memo’s author’s wrote. “The president works for the American people. And President Trump is doing what Americans elected him to do.”

 

Dana Milbank also delves into Dem and trumplican strategies.

The case against Trump in seven words

Quote

Now it gets real.

After three years of presidential assaults on democratic norms, after a 50-day impeachment inquiry, after 100 hours of closed-door testimony from 15 witnesses and after thousands of pages of publicly released depositions, the case against President Trump comes down to seven words:

He abused presidential powers for personal advantage.

Simple as that.

As the cameras go live at 10 a.m. Wednesday in the storied Ways and Means Committee hearing room, the risk for Democrats is not that they will fail to make the case against Trump. It’s that they will make the case in so much detail, with so many extraneous bits, that focus will be lost as Republicans throw up red herring after diversion after distraction in their attempts to create a circus atmosphere.

“This is a really simple case,” Neal Katyal tells me. A former solicitor general, he has argued some of the most difficult cases before the Supreme Court. But Katyal, author of the forthcoming book “Impeach,” summarizes this one in seconds:

“A sitting president secretly tried to get a foreign government to announce an investigation into his chief political rival. In essence, Trump was using the awesome powers our Constitution gives presidents not to benefit the nation, but to benefit him personally.”

Katyal also identifies what is less essential in this case:

“It doesn’t matter whether the plot succeeded. It was a grave offense (and one that opened the president up to blackmail). The other questions, like whether or not there was a quid pro quo (there was) and whether or not there was a coverup (there was), are gravy. They are important questions, but the case for impeachment is even more straightforward. Asking us to wait until the election to remove him from office is like asking to resolve a dispute based on who wins a game of Monopoly — when the very crime you’ve been accused of is cheating on Monopoly.”

Certainly, Democrats should, and will, make clear that they believe Trump broke election law, threatened to leave an ally defenseless against Russian aggression, obstructed justice, and violated his oath of office by acting as if constitutional restraints and the law don’t apply to him. They’ll say that he did this partially in pursuit of a conspiracy theory about Ukraine in the 2016 election that U.S. intelligence and his own appointees told him was nonsense. They’ll discuss how his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, circumvented and sabotaged U.S. diplomats with two associates now under federal indictment (they have pleaded not guilty).

But Democrats need to keep the emphasis on the core misconduct — abusing the vast powers of the presidency for personal benefit — if they are to defuse the Republicans’ weapons of mass distraction. Placing himself above the law and jeopardizing national security, Trump withheld an ally’s military aid to demand foreign interference in the 2020 election on his behalf, then he and aides tried to cover up these illegal actions.

The response from the White House, with a nonspeaking spokeswoman and without a reputable lawyer, has bounced among “where’s the whistleblower?,” “no quid pro quo” and “perfect call.” That the place is in disarray can be seen in just one day’s antics this week: Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney reversing himself on whether to join a lawsuit that names Trump as a defendant, Giuliani talking about doing a podcast on impeachment hearings and Trump tweeting about “Dancing With the Stars.”

House Republicans are tiptoeing away from White House claims of innocence; in a memo circulated Tuesday, they argued that Trump’s actions didn’t amount to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” In lieu of exoneration, they sampled mitigation strategies:

That the July 25 call between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart “shows no conditionality” (extensive evidence refutes this dubious reading); that both presidents said there was “no pressure” (did they expect the Ukrainian leader to antagonize the man who controls his country’s future?); that the Ukrainians weren’t aware at the time that their security assistance was on hold (they were soon after, and panicked); and that the funds were restored “without Ukraine investigating President Trump’s political rivals” (because Trump’s scheme was exposed).

The Republicans also reprised their greatest hits from recent weeks: “Capitol basement bunker” . . . “fabricated evidence” . . . “cherry-picked information” . . . “unelected and anonymous bureaucrats” . . . Ukraine’s “pervasive corruption” . . . “legitimate questions about Hunter Biden” . . . “Ukraine officials interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.” And they argued that “the president’s state of mind” was not criminal.

Assessing Trump’s “state of mind” has always been a fool’s errand. House Republicans’ state of mind is more transparent: They will try to provoke a shouting match over irrelevances and tangents. Democrats must return with discipline to investigating what matters: whether Trump cheated, broke the law and abused the highest office in the land for selfish gain.

 

  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he's always a victim...

 

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, who's ready for this? I'll be watching/listening live as much as possible. Maybe I'll be live posting, but life may get in the way, as it's late afternoon over here and I do have other things to do. :my_biggrin:

Anyway, I'm conversely rather looking forward to what the trumplicans are going to do in order to divert attention from the actual testimony. How much are they willing to abase themselves on live television for millions to watch... and rewatch? ?

Another thing I'm going to be monitoring (as much as I can) is what Trump is going to be tweeting, and what he'll be saying during his speech with Erdogan. 

:popcorn2:

If anyone wants to watch with me, here's a link to the House Intelligence Committee's youtube live video feed:

 

Edited by fraurosena
riffle
  • Upvote 1
  • Thank You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, Ratcliffe (emphasis on rat) has already interrupted Schiff to whine about process.

Schiff has spoken for about 30 seconds at that point.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schiff finished his opening statement. Now on to Nunes. Is it wrong that all I hear when Nunes open his mouth is a cow mooing?

Good grief. Nunes said that the closed door hearings were "cult-like".

  • Upvote 1
  • WTF 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nunes, of course, is attacking the Democrats. He is not, he cannot, going into the accusations themselves. If this is all he can do, this is not going to go well for the trumpians.

Edited by fraurosena
  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again with the cries of "it's a coup". Do the Rs never get sick of the same tired lines?

Nunes' argument seems to be straight out of the tangerine toddler's playbook: "I know you are, but what am I?" The Milk Dud is like a whiny fifth grader.

  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms. Stefanik is an asshat.

So the trumpian strategy is to prevent the testimony from starting. They are so scared.

  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, George Kent's opening statement is fantastic! He is tackling all trumplican talking points and is defending Yovanovich and Vindman and (?).

  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taylor's opening statement is devastating for the trumplicans. Even though we know all of what he is substantively saying already, it's really powerful to hear it from his own mouth. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During this important and difficult hearing, this made me laugh:

Spoiler

 

 

And one more:

Spoiler

 

 

  • Haha 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buckle up, it's the trumplicans turn. Nunes is off to a good start... attacking democrats again.

So Nunes is asking the 'questions' himself. He's sidelined George Kent.. because... he's afraid of what he'll say?

And he's spreading conspiracy theories galore... 

  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny anecdote. At the dinner table just now, I kept the hearing on in the background (sons and DH are well acquainted with my obsession; DS3 even shares it somewhat) when Jim Jordan got his five minutes. This exchange followed.

DH: "Why is that dude shouting?"

DS3: "Oh, that's Jim Jordan..."

Me: "Yeah, he always shouts."

DH: "Well, you need to turn that down then, because he makes me want to punch him in the face..."

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 8
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweet Rufus, the trumplicans are now going with the 'but Obama' argument. :pb_rollseyes:

If this continues, we'll be hearing about Hillary's emails soon.

  • Upvote 2
  • WTF 3
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurd is shooting the trumplican cause in the foot.. he's either very dumb, or not a trumplican and playing dumb.

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I like how Ratcliffe got called out on his questioning of Schiff, not only by Schiff, but also by Swalwell. 

Well played, dems, well played.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love this exchange!

Jim Jordan, ending a rant on the whistleblower: "Why can't we have the guy that started all this here to answer our questions?"

Welch: "I agree! We should have the guy that started all this here! Trump is very welcome to come here and answer questions..."

Edited by fraurosena
  • Upvote 7
  • I Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Jennifer Rubin: "William Taylor’s early testimony features a bombshell"

Spoiler

Wednesday’s testimony from acting Ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor, Jr. and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent kicked off the first public impeachment hearings, hearings that will seek to establish whether President Trump bribed a foreign power to help him smear a political rival. After 45 minutes of questioning by the House Intelligence Committee’s counsel, we are closer to concluding that yes, Trump tried to bribe Ukraine into manufacturing dirt on former vice president Joe Biden to help Trump win reelection. In particular, we heard critical new testimony that Trump was directly involved in the decision to hold up aid in exchange for an investigation into Biden.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) precisely outlined the stakes, announcing the opening of the impeachment proceedings for Trump. The weightiness of the moment was unmistakable. In simple and concise fashion, Schiff outlined the basic factual narrative, facts that Republicans have yet to contradict let alone disprove. He recounted the July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine’s president wherein Trump famously responded to a reaffirmation of Ukraine’s willingness to buy Javelin antitank weapons: "I would like you to do us a favor, though.” Schiff continued:

Trump then requested that Zelensky investigate the discredited 2016 “Crowdstrike” conspiracy theory, and even more ominously, look into the Bidens. ...

President Trump wanted Mr. Zelensky “in a public box.” “President Trump is a businessman,” Sondland said later. “When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.”

In his somber introduction, Schiff asked, “The issue that we confront is the one posed by the president’s acting chief of staff when he challenged Americans to ‘get over it.’ If we find that the president of the United States abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, or if he sought to condition, coerce, extort, or bribe an ally into conducting investigations to aid his reelection campaign and did so by withholding official acts — a White House meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid — must we simply ‘get over it’? Is that what Americans should now expect from their president? If this is not impeachable conduct, what is?”

Schiff was followed by a meandering and incoherent opening statement strewn with conspiratorial accusations from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the committee’s top Republican. Nunes ignored the factual account Schiff laid out, and the contrast between the two sides — one relying on facts, and the other resorting to blather and hysteria — was clear. The complete absence of any factual or legal defense was telling. (One must ask Senate Republicans: Is this the example you wish to follow? If there is no factual defense for the president, do you still plan to acquit?)

The witnesses sat stoically throughout the introductory remarks. Before the testimony began, Republicans started spewing a flurry of demands for the whistleblower to be unmasked. Schiff politely shut them down.

Kent started by reciting his and his family’s decades of public service in war and peace. Intentionally or not, his biography and respectful demeanor put Republicans’ unprofessional and slimy conduct in perspective. Without naming Rudolph W. Giuliani specifically or Trump’s other cohorts (or Trump!), Kent declared, “It was unexpected, and most unfortunate, to watch some Americans — including those who allied themselves with corrupt Ukrainians in pursuit of private agendas — launch attacks on dedicated public servants.”

He dryly suggested, “I do not believe the United States should ask other countries to engage in selective, politically associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents of those in power, because such selective actions undermine the rule of law regardless of the country.” He movingly concluded with a tribute to foreign-born colleagues: “They all made the professional choice to serve the U.S. as public officials, helping shape our national security policy, towards Russia in particular. And we and our national security are the better for it.”

Taylor took up from there, stressing the strategic interest in preventing Russian aggression. He repeated his closed-door testimony that he thought it is “crazy” to hold up security assistance to a vital ally against Russia in order to obtain “help with a domestic political campaign in the United States.” He recalled the “weird” developments he witnessed in Kiev after being dispatched by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who assured him U.S. policy would continue to support Ukraine against Russian aggression.

Taylor also described an “irregular” channel manned by Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland, special envoy Kurt Volker, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Taylor shared his discovery that a meeting with Trump was conditioned on investigations into Burisma and a debunked conspiracy concerning the 2016 election. He also recounted being told by an Office of Management and Budget staffer that aid was being held up by Mulvaney and the president despite repeated, unanimous recommendations by national security advisers that aid should be released. Over and over again, members of the “irregular channel” confirmed that Ukraine needed to conduct political investigations and Zelensky’s concern about being used in American political machinations. He also stressed that withholding aid would result in Ukrainian deaths. There was no doubt that Ukraine knew it was being squeezed for U.S. political purposes. He also testified that Sondland told him that all aid was dependent on a public announcement of investigation into the Bidens.

Taylor also dropped a new fact bomb: A staffer had overheard Sondland talking to Trump about “investigations." The staffer asked Sondland what Trump thought of Ukraine, and Sondland told him Trump cared less about Ukraine than about the investigations into Biden.

In response to questions from Schiff after this bombshell, Taylor reiterated that security assistance had allowed Ukraine to defend against Russian measures. He also confirmed that withholding aid would weaken Ukraine’s ability to negotiate an end to the war and removal of U.S. troops. He underscored that Russia is an adversary violating treaties that have kept the peace in Europe, which if “we do not push back” will affect us, our children and “the kind of world we want to live in."

The Democrats’ lead lawyer, Daniel S. Goldman, asked Taylor if he ever heard, in all his years of service, of military aid being withheld for the personal or political benefit of the president. “No, Mr. Goldman, I have not,” he said simply. He later said, “It is one thing to leverage a meeting in the White House; it is another thing to leverage security assistance. ... It was much more alarming.”

Taylor also reiterated that he took notes of the conversations he had with officials, including Sondland. Taylor’s exceptional detail in his testimony was possible because of these contemporary notes, further adding to his credibility. Taylor recounted that Sondland made clear “everything” (the White House meeting and aid) was dependent on the Biden investigations. Taylor heard from Ukrainians the “clear concern, the urgent concern” Ukraine had about the holdup in security assistance. Goldman asked: Regardless of what you call it (“bribery”), was Ukraine not going to get aid or a meeting unless the investigations were announced? Taylor said that he was told this by Sondland, and moreover, in early September Ukraine felt pressure to commence investigations in order to get security assistance.

There will be much more to say as these hearings continue. At this point, though, aside from antics and conspiracy theories, Republicans have no factual rebuttal to the damning testimony that Trump put Ukraine at risk by withholding critical security assistance unless Ukraine helped his reelection effort. Nothing could be more impeachable than that.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • GreyhoundFan locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.