Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[*Nately120*]

(10-09-2019, 11:23 AM)hollodero Wrote: *sigh*

I want to comment on two things. First, what kind of talking point is "there were impeachment cries from day 1, which was soooo ridiculous, hence no impeachment talk can ever be taken seriously again"? - This has to be among the intellectually worst arguments ever. On a sidenote, it's also factually doubtful. Who cried impeachment from day one? Maxine Waters? Someone on the streets? And what gives?

Trump has been crying "voter fraud" since before the election even took place, so I guess if the democrats win election 2020 by egregiously cheating we can blame Trump and his clan for crying wolf for so long.

[Dill]

(10-09-2019, 11:23 AM)hollodero Wrote: *sigh*

I want to comment on two things. First, what kind of talking point is "there were impeachment cries from day 1, which was soooo ridiculous, hence no impeachment talk can ever be taken seriously again"? - This has to be among the intellectually worst arguments ever. On a sidenote, it's also factually doubtful. Who cried impeachment from day one? Maxine Waters? Someone on the streets? And what gives?

I actually called for impeachment on day 1, but CNN bumped my interview in favor of Sean Spicer's report on Trump's record inauguration turn out.

By standards of rational discourse, you are quite correct that "they called for impeachment from day 1" is no reason at all for disregarding the president's crimes and obstruction. Doesn't mean that is not an effective talking point for Trump voters, though.

(10-09-2019, 11:23 AM)hollodero Wrote: Second, all GOP defenders are aware that Trump is officially argueing in court that a president shall never be indicted, impeached or even investigated - and that Nixon was treated wrongly. This is actually amazing, that open quest for absolutism. Tough to defend imho, but some seem up to the challenge. Because someone was "hysterical" once or whatever. Solid reasons for sure.

You see a tripartite government in which the legislative and judicial branches apply legal checks to the executive, whose CEO is not above the law. But Trump supporters see a "legislative coup" underway to undo the 2016 elections.  Extraordinary times call for extraordinary legal measures. Declaration of emergency powers needed to protect the people's choice? 

(10-09-2019, 11:23 AM)hollodero Wrote: Oh, and there is no "unofficial" inquiry. That talking point is flat-out wrong and even I know that. Congress has a right to oversight and denying them that right is unconstitutional. The inquiries are not. A vote in the house on impeachment procedures is not necessary for having that right.

Well YOU know that, but you don't get to vote.  Millions who do get to vote DON'T know that. 

Everyone who watches American crime tv knows that defendants are supposed to get a right to defend themselves, with a right to call their own witnesses and cross examine. None of that has squat to do with an "unofficial" impeachment inquiry, but it has tremendous appeal to voters encouraged to worry that Trump's "rights" are violated if he is held accountable--checked by Congress. 

If people like you manage to neutralize these talking points, there will be new ones out by Friday, just as effective. Watch Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes for the updates.

[hollodero]

(10-09-2019, 12:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I can somewhat understand this whole thing about the impeachment discussions from day 1.

Sure, somewhat i can understand it too. Those - as you say, fringe - cries probably were not too warranted at the time. You can't impeach because someone is a sleazebag (even though Lindsey Graham used to disagree with that).

But the conclusion that all impeachment inquiries are forever tainted because someone jumped the gun on that some years back still is intellectually dishonest.

(10-09-2019, 12:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Well YOU know that, but you don't get to vote.  Millions who do get to vote DON'T know that. 

For some reason, I have an easier time stomaching that as stomaching those who do know better and still choose to roll with that regardless.

Democracy dies (or has a chance to die) if a majority prefers lawlessness to having the wrong party calling things. Those who are that staunchly anti anti-Trump that they parrot Trump's points on that impeachment behaviour neglect their civic duties. Imho.

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2019, 12:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What exactly is an "unofficial" impeachment inquiry and why should the White House be a part of it?

Because they criticized the Dems for talking about impeachment without investigating and getting all the facts first.

So how are they supposed to get the facts first if the can't investigate?

[BmorePat87]

“Article Three of impeachment against Richard Nixon, the Article was based on the idea that Richard Nixon as president failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress

Congress was going through its oversight function to provide oversight of the president. When asked for information Richard Nixon chose not to comply and the Congress back in that time said you're taking impeachment away from us.

You're becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need, it is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you.

The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is that day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress and he became the judge and jury."

-Lolsey Graham 1998

[BmorePat87]

Trey Gowdy is being tapped to join the Trump impeachment defense team

He once said

"The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."

[GMDino]

There's nothing new to this but it's worthy of repeating that none of what Trump is doing is new.  He's a grifter, he lies, he cheats, he is only out to increase his personal wealth and "brand".

And his supporters/defenders all knew he lied and cheated but fell for his whining that he was the victim of unfair attacks.

So they can't admit they were/are wrong and they won't change no matter how many facts come down the pike.  They will just look for excuses to save their egos.  Just like Trump does.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-09-2019, 12:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I can somewhat understand this whole thing about the impeachment discussions from day 1. Granted, you are correct that it was only the fringe making the cries at the time,

Not quite Day 1, but it was brought up on this board literally less than a month after inauguration. By xxlt. (It likely was brought up earlier, but that was when the first dedicated thread towards it was made.) Granted, xxlt also made a thread less than half a year into Trump's presidency that it was "inevitable" that Trump will stage a coup. So maybe you're onto something with that whole fringe thing.

As far as less fringe, I think the Democrats shot themselves in the foot a bit in 2017 when they introduced articles of impeachment despite Republicans controlling both House and Senate. That's not fringe, and they knew it would never pass (and admitted so). Granted, it's not Day 1 either.

When you try to impeach a President 10 months into their Presidency despite knowing it has absolutely zero chance of succeeding, it's not a good look. Doubly so when it was in large part about firing James Comey, who a LOT people wanted fired.... until Trump fired him. It also doesn't help when you later now have much better grounds and potential support, but you've been banging on the Impeachment Drum for the last 48 months for random different reasons that didn't really meet the threshold. It creates fatigue. 

At this point, I think while Trump could be (and probably should be) impeached, I don't know if it'd do any good. By the time the whole process is done, either he'll either already be out of a job because he lost the election, or he'll be freshly re-elected... and impeaching a freshly re-elected President is going to be an absolute shit show (compared to getting him in Year 3 or 6 or something).


- - - - - - - -
God I wish Kasich or Weld would beat Trump in the primary. Never going to ever vote for Trump, but none of the Democrat candidates really tickle my fancy. Probably just going to go 3rd party again if I can find anyone worth a damn there either. I didn't vote in '12 and it felt dirty to not vote.

[Bengalzona]

Someone asked me today about why folks related to the admin can ignore subpoenas when normal folks who get subpoenaed by a court cannot. Here is why:

A Congressional subpoena is different that a judicial subpoena. The Congressional subpoena has to meet three criteria: 1) a committee's investigation has to be authorized; 2) the investigation must pursue a valid legislative purpose; 3) the inquiry has to be pertinent to the area of investigation.

If someone ignores a Congressional subpoena, Congress has two options: 1) let it go, or 2) hold the person(s) in contempt of Congress. Traditionally, courts have not entertained motions to quash congressional subpoenas, viewing them as 'political matters'.

If someone is found in contempt of Congress, it is considered the act of obstructing the work of Congress. Contempt proceedings are very time consuming. If someone ignores a Congressional subpoena, the committee issuing a subpoena has the option of holding someone in "inherent contempt", where the issue is only examined within the committee itself rather than the whole Congress.

Part of the problem with a contempt of Congress ruling against members of the Executive Branch or others protected by them is the enforcement of the contempt charges once they are found applicable. The Sergeant-at-Arms for the House has the authority at that point to find the person(s) and bring them before Congress. However, the Sergeant-at-Arms only has a certain amount of resources, and at some point they would need to lean on the Judicial Branch to assist in enforcement.

It is possible for Congress to find persons in contempt of Congress and not enforce. This would be helpful in a situation where Congress also might be involved in an impeachment investigation (i.e. added support for the impeachment charges). Impeachment is, after all, a purely political activity.

[GMDino]

(10-09-2019, 04:35 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Someone asked me today about why folks related to the admin can ignore subpoenas when normal folks who get subpoenaed by a court cannot. Here is why:

A Congressional subpoena is different that a judicial subpoena. The Congressional subpoena has to meet three criteria: 1) a committee's investigation has to be authorized; 2) the investigation must pursue a valid legislative purpose; 3) the inquiry has to be pertinent to the area of investigation.

If someone ignores a Congressional subpoena, Congress has two options: 1) let it go, or 2) hold the person(s) in contempt of Congress. Traditionally, courts have not entertained motions to quash congressional subpoenas, viewing them as 'political matters'.

If someone is found in contempt of Congress, it is considered the act of obstructing the work of Congress. Contempt proceedings are very time consuming. If someone ignores a Congressional subpoena, the committee issuing a subpoena has the option of holding someone in "inherent contempt", where the issue is only examined within the committee itself rather than the whole Congress.

Part of the problem with a contempt of Congress ruling against members of the Executive Branch or others protected by them is the enforcement of the contempt charges once they are found applicable. The Sergeant-at-Arms for the House has the authority at that point to find the person(s) and bring them before Congress. However, the Sergeant-at-Arms only has a certain amount of resources, and at some point they would need to lean on the Judicial Branch to assist in enforcement.

It is possible for Congress to find persons in contempt of Congress and not enforce. This would be helpful in a situation where Congress also might be involved in an impeachment investigation (i.e. added support for the impeachment charges). Impeachment is, after all, a purely political activity.

First things first:

Here's some "light reading" about subpoenas and the Whitewater investigation:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31836.pdf

Someone asked Susan McDougal her thoughts on refusing a subpoena too.  This was in 2018 during the Mueller investigation.

McDougal did 18 months in prison for refusing to testify before a grand jury.

Secondly Trump and his minions can wail and gnash their teeth all they want about this but for them to say an impeachment inquiry is unconstitutional shows that they are either dumber than described or more evil.

The GOP has lost all credibility for being the "law and order" party.  And everyone who is backing Trump in this farce is in that same boat.

[ballsofsteel]

(10-09-2019, 11:51 AM)Nately120 Wrote: This whole thing, as well as Trump even being president in the first place, sort of reminds me of the whole OJ or Casey Anthony trial.  We all have this notion that he is guilty and we don't like that he is getting away with stuff, but we are far more judgmental on the people who are supposed to be smart and talented enough to put him away.

Much like those high-profile trials, there is evidence that isn't explained away by a "not guilty" verdict, but it's more about sticking it to the smug elitists who had the gall to think they had things won while the proverbial fish slipped off the hook.  Marsha Clark, Hilary Clinton and (I had to google this one) Linda Drane Burdick can all cry into their pantsuits for botching such easy cases...and we don't even feel bad that this stuff happened because it was such a slam dunk!

Suck it, Nancy Grace!  Admit it, it wasn't a good thing that a 4 year old girl was murdered, but seeing Nancy Grace meltdown after Casey Anthony walked was pretty entertaining.  Gah, it's so awesome seeing elitists get humbled!

One difference. OJ and Anthony never admitted doing what they were charged with. Trump admitted during the crimes he is going to be charged with.

[Bengalzona]

(10-09-2019, 05:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: First things first:

Here's some "light reading" about subpoenas and the Whitewater investigation:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31836.pdf

Someone asked Susan McDougal her thoughts on refusing a subpoena too.  This was in 2018 during the Mueller investigation.

McDougal did 18 months in prison for refusing to testify before a grand jury.

Secondly Trump and his minions can wail and gnash their teeth all they want about this but for them to say an impeachment inquiry is unconstitutional shows that they are either dumber than described or more evil.

The GOP has lost all credibility for being the "law and order" party.  And everyone who is backing Trump in this farce is in that same boat.

Some comments on your "light reading":
1) This is a report produced by Congress and for Congress and was based upon certain assumptions that no longer hold true.
2) It is from 2003. As far as the judicial branch (and I am sure you will agree), it is light years from where they were 16 years ago. Under AG Barr, they have already taken unprecedented action of involving themselves by quashing subpoenas.
3) One of the assumptions I mentioned above that no longer holds true is quoted in the report: " On the issue of withholding information from Congress,there are often sharp differences within an Administration, especially between the Justice Department and the agencies."
Congress assumed, at that point in time, that the Justice Department would remain neutral. That is no longer true. The current Justice Department leadership has shown itself to no longer be concerned with political neutrality and to be at one with the Admin.

The Mueller Investigation was through the Justice Department, not Congress. McDougal refused a "judicial subpoena". You cannot do that. It is different with Congressional subpoenas. The judicial subpoenas are backed by the power of the full judicial system (including the FBI and all public police and peace officer services). Congressional subpoenas are backed by the power of the Sergeant-at-Arms for the Congress and/or Senate, who in turn sometimes needs to turn to the Judicial Branch for assistance enforcing. Generally, in the past, the Judicial Branch has supported this enforcement. Things are different now. The Rule of Law has been co-opted for a political cause.

The impeachment process is not unconstitutional. It is very much constitutional. Moreover, obstruction (of justice or Congress) has usually been one of the key complaints for putting an impeachment investigation together. And this Admin has clearly done that repeatedly.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-09-2019, 05:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: First things first:

Here's some "light reading" about subpoenas and the Whitewater investigation:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31836.pdf

Someone asked Susan McDougal her thoughts on refusing a subpoena too.  This was in 2018 during the Mueller investigation.

McDougal did 18 months in prison for refusing to testify before a grand jury.

Secondly Trump and his minions can wail and gnash their teeth all they want about this but for them to say an impeachment inquiry is unconstitutional shows that they are either dumber than described or more evil.

The GOP has lost all credibility for being the "law and order" party.  And everyone who is backing Trump in this farce is in that same boat.

That was a grand jury, not Congress. Congress can just add it on to the articles of impeachment.

Edit: Should have kept reading. Zona said it much better than I did.

Btw...love the Atlas sig. I used to say it’s like he would be doing a hand stand, but a picture says it much better.

[hollodero]

(10-09-2019, 03:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: When you try to impeach a President 10 months into their Presidency despite knowing it has absolutely zero chance of succeeding, it's not a good look.

I disagree with that on principle. If one feels his duty as Congressman leaves him no other choice, then impeachment seems the right thing to do - even if it stands no chance to go through.
Now I'm not saying this was necessarily the case here with Trump, but chance of success should not be the sole criteria for bringing up impeachment.

(10-09-2019, 03:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Doubly so when it was in large part about firing James Comey, who a LOT people wanted fired.... until Trump fired him.

It wasn't just about firing Comey though. It was about firing Comey because of "that Russia thing". Which would have been akin to Obama firing him because of "that Email thing".
Which ironically was the first reason the admin gave - Comey mishandling Clinton. Until Trump blew that up and then it turned out he had demanded loyalty and suggested to let Flynn go.
The fuzz over the Comey firing is about a little bit more than just Comey.

(10-09-2019, 03:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: God I wish Kasich or Weld would beat Trump in the primary. Never going to ever vote for Trump, but none of the Democrat candidates really tickle my fancy.

Well... you realistically got two options and get to choose the better one. Tickling one's fancy usually is not part of that decision, is it?

[GMDino]

Yeh bit of an overreach on my part with the subpoena thing.  Should have taken more time reading the difference there I guess.

I stand by my second statement though.

Anyway.

Pence is trying as hard as he can not to go down with the ship. pic.twitter.com/jrA8aoQSfb

— Matt Rogers ?? (@Politidope) October 10, 2019

 

[BmorePat87]

The reason you can “ignore” a congressional subpoena is because the sergeant at arms doesn’t have the resources to bring you into custody.

Of course, if the President refused a subpoena, they could and should be impeached.

[GMDino]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment

Quote:

Since July, support for impeachment increased among voters of all stripes: up 11 points among Democrats, 5 points among Republicans and 3 among independents. Support also went up among some of Trump’s key constituencies, including white evangelical Christians (+5 points), white men without a college degree (+8), and rural whites (+10).


CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS



Among voters in swing counties (where Hillary Clinton and Trump were within 10 points in 2016), support for impeachment increased to 52 percent, up from 42 percent in July. 

[BakertheBeast]

(10-09-2019, 11:23 AM)hollodero Wrote: *sigh*

I want to comment on two things. First, what kind of talking point is "there were impeachment cries from day 1, which was soooo ridiculous, hence no impeachment talk can ever be taken seriously again"? - This has to be among the intellectually worst arguments ever. On a sidenote, it's also factually doubtful. Who cried impeachment from day one? Maxine Waters? Someone on the streets? And what gives?

Second, all GOP defenders are aware that Trump is officially argueing in court that a president shall never be indicted, impeached or even investigated - and that Nixon was treated wrongly. This is actually amazing, that open quest for absolutism. Tough to defend imho, but some seem up to the challenge. Because someone was "hysterical" once or whatever. Solid reasons for sure.

Oh, and there is no "unofficial" inquiry. That talking point is flat-out wrong and even I know that. Congress has a right to oversight and denying them that right is unconstitutional. The inquiries are not. A vote in the house on impeachment procedures is not necessary for having that right.

Maybe who ever was "crying " this was taking a page from Moscow Mitch's playbook when he came out of his shell and said "We are going to make Obama a one term President" on day one. Real patriot that one there.

[Au165]

I wonder if using the 25th would be something both sides could agree on to get rid of Trump. GOP could say his mental state deteriorated and he had to go, but wasn't a criminal (impeachment) so they could save face a bit. Democrats still get the same outcome without the political fallout of impeachment. I honestly think proving he mentally has lost his mind wouldn't be that hard to do.

[Belsnickel]

(10-10-2019, 09:06 AM)Au165 Wrote: I wonder if using the 25th would be something both sides could agree on to get rid of Trump. GOP could say his mental state deteriorated and he had to go, but wasn't a criminal (impeachment) so they could save face a bit. Democrats still get the same outcome without the political fallout of impeachment. I honestly think proving he mentally has lost his mind wouldn't be that hard to do.

First off, I need to point out that criminality of actions is not, never has been, and never should be the line for impeachment.

As for this idea overall, it won't happen the way things stand right now. His popularity among Republicans is still high so GOP officials will be hesitant to do anything against him. Invoking the 25th would be seen as a GOP coup against him and would likely mean a party schism. People are playing this in partisan terms (it's all inherently political, which isn't bad, but staunch partisanship is) rather than what is good for the country.