|
Post by dizzycheermom on Jan 27, 2020 19:10:56 GMT
"Take her out" is not fire her! That's mob talk! One of the most prominent and disturbing elements of Donald Trump's character (or lack thereof) is his tendency to embrace the language and behavior of mafia dons. He regards himself as an infallible and unchallengeable force who demands total obedience and blind loyalty. This weekend Trump displayed that mob boss fixation on several occasions.The recording of him telling Lev Parnas to "take out" U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovich was chilling to hear. Trump gave orders to Parnas, a shady figure with ties to Rudy Giuliani and Ukrainian politicos, to "Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it." Trump's apologists in Congress and on Fox News dismiss this as being within the President's power to fire an ambassador. That's true, but then either he fires her or he instructs his Secretary of State to do so. Parnas has no government role or authority to terminate the employment of an American diplomat. So what did Trump mean and why would he assign this mission to such a fringe player who is currently under felony indictment? ** Trump's foul and menacing behavior is notable not only for its similarity to that of a mob boss. It represents an imminent danger to innocent people in politics and the press. Past episodes of this rhetoric has resulted in actual bomb threats and other attempted violence. And the scary part is that that is precisely what Trump wants. He is a bully who believes that he can get his way through threats and intimidation. It actually fits the legal definition of terrorism. If he isn't stopped he will only get worse. That's why his impeachment is so urgent. Even if he were to be defeated at the ballot box in November, that would give him 77 days to exact revenge on those he deemed to have betrayed him. That's a risk that American can't afford. ** www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/26/1914292/-Trump-s-Inner-Mob-Boss-Emerges-with-Alarming-New-Threats-to-Politicians-and-the-Press?utm_campaign=trendingBTW: it is not just 77 days as mentioned in the last paragraph, it is a YEAR from now for him to continue what he is doing! I think they are talking about 77 days from election day to inauguration day - if he is voted out, he would still have time to exact revenge.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jan 27, 2020 19:13:11 GMT
Is there a republican challenger? Because Kentucky is RED. I don’t see him being ousted by a democrat. But another republican? Maybe, just maybe. Yes true. Although even another republican would not wield the power he has!! There are several groups helping to fund Amy McGrath. I won't deny that I have sent a few small donations too. She sounds great! I sincerely hope she wins. But I am worried that her being a democrat, and a woman (🙄) will be Too much of a deterrent to staunch republicans voting.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 5:51:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2020 19:14:55 GMT
Yamiche Alcindor...
”Ken Starr, who prosecuted the Clinton impeachment, is now arguing impeachment has been used too often and has become too political. He says: Those of us who lived the Clinton impeachment understand it is like "domestic war" & "divides the country like nothing else."
And yet Starr did everything he could do to find a reason to impeach Clinton. And in the end the only thing he could get was lying about a “blow job”.
|
|
|
Post by Gem Girl on Jan 27, 2020 19:17:37 GMT
Roberts has the power to call witnesses? I’m not sure that’s entirely correct. Even if it is, the Senate has the power to overrule by simple majority. And the rules package was already voted in. But, hey, if it is correct I wish he would, though I doubt he will. My guess is that he’ll just be another Rehnquist (his mentor) in the impeachment trial. I don't think Roberts can call witnesses, but he CAN expedite subpoenas. He is the Supreme Court sort of. I'm no expert on the law, but some who actually are professed an interesting theory in an OpEd in the NY Times today. www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 27, 2020 19:31:01 GMT
I think they are talking about 77 days from election day to inauguration day - if he is voted out, he would still have time to exact revenge. Of course!! But he already doing extensive damages now, today!
|
|
|
Post by dizzycheermom on Jan 27, 2020 19:34:23 GMT
I think they are talking about 77 days from election day to inauguration day - if he is voted out, he would still have time to exact revenge. Of course!! But he already doing extensive damages now, today! Oh absolutely! We need him removed now!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 27, 2020 21:32:07 GMT
Philben is boring. I can't even drum up points to yell WRONG!
Well one thing. He did say "No power goes unchecked in the Constitution"
Funny they keep saying that Congress doesn't have to right to check the president?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 5:51:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2020 21:35:00 GMT
The Hill..
”JUST IN: Collins: Bolton allegations "strengthen the case for witnesses"
Hart Hanson..
”No, Lucy, I am not going to try to kick that ball again. You don't have enough courage to keep your finger on the ball.”
|
|
|
Post by kmcginn on Jan 27, 2020 21:37:39 GMT
The lawyers for the president are being real a-holes. Not one of them has talked about what the president did on the call. They are only talking about process and previous cases.
I'm so sick of them!!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 27, 2020 21:41:51 GMT
WOW Bondi is a class act, NOT
Chief Justice, Senate, Senators........................ Rude, did not address the House managers!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 5:51:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2020 21:42:22 GMT
Manu Raju...
”Unless there's a witness that's going to change the outcome, I can't imagine why we'd want to stretch this out for weeks and months," said Sen. Roy Blunt. "And if we call any witnesses that are subject to privilege, it would take weeks and months."
Evan McMullin...
”According to Roy Blunt, senators should only defend the Constitution if it doesn't take too long.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 5:51:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2020 21:45:00 GMT
Manu Raju..
”Pam Bondy about to go after Burisma and Hunter Biden on Senate floor”
Tami Burages...
”Corrupt attorney who took $25,000 from Trump's fake charity to drop the case against Trump University is ready to attack Hunter Biden for getting paid legally and Joe Biden for letting him.”
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,544
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Jan 27, 2020 21:46:59 GMT
The Hill.. ”JUST IN: Collins: Bolton allegations "strengthen the case for witnesses"Hart Hanson.. ”No, Lucy, I am not going to try to kick that ball again. You don't have enough courage to keep your finger on the ball.” Wow! I am shocked.
|
|
|
Post by kmcginn on Jan 27, 2020 21:49:16 GMT
She's so arrogant!
|
|
peasquared
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,452
Jul 6, 2014 23:59:59 GMT
|
Post by peasquared on Jan 27, 2020 21:50:53 GMT
So Hunter profiting off his father - bad
Ivanka profiting off her father - just perfectly fine. What exactly are her qualifications for being in the White House? Or Jared’s?
ETA: I don’t like nepotism, but isn’t this the pot calling the kettle...?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 5:51:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2020 21:50:58 GMT
Paul Begala.. ”Ken Starr pushed so rabidly for the impeachment of Pres. Clinton that his ethics adviser resigned, telling Starr, `You have violated your obligations under the independent counsel statute and have unlawfully intruded on the power of impeachment.” AP November 20, 1998 link” WASHINGTON (AP) _ Former Senate Watergate Counsel Sam Dash abruptly resigned today as Kenneth Starr’s ethics adviser to protest the independent counsel’s decision to act as ``an aggressive advocate″ in the House impeachment hearing against President Clinton.
Mehdi Hasan.., ” I still can't get over it. Ken Starr - Ken Starr! Yeah, K-E-N S-T-A-R-R! - stood before the Senate today & said impeachment happens "too frequently" & is "inherently destabilizing" & "acrimonious."
Now I've seen everything. Seriously. The shamelessness. The hypocrisy. Wow.”
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,544
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Jan 27, 2020 22:00:41 GMT
I still can't get over it. Ken Starr - Ken Starr! Yeah, K-E-N S-T-A-R-R! - stood before the Senate today & said impeachment happens "too frequently" & is "inherently destabilizing" & "acrimonious."
Now I've seen everything. Seriously. The shamelessness. The hypocrisy. Wow.” But it sure as hell wasn't acrimonious when he was hellbent on removing Clinton for lying about a freaking blow job. Good golly, I don't even know what to say anymore. I really don't.
|
|
|
Post by Jen in NCal on Jan 27, 2020 22:06:46 GMT
Romney has said it is becoming increasing likely that four Republicans will vote to call witnesses. Do you think he is one of the four? How would it look if he wasn't?
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Jan 27, 2020 22:17:37 GMT
Romney has said it is becoming increasing likely that four Republicans will vote to call witnesses. Do you think he is one of the four? How would it look if he wasn't? He's the most likely candidate if Trump really were ousted and the Republican party needed someone else to run in the general election. I think it favors him to continue his measured criticism of Trump. He needs to fall on the right side of this without alienating the entire party. Tough line to walk.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 5:51:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2020 22:39:49 GMT
Walter Shaub...
”Herschmann ask why investigation of Biden isn't warranted. Let's review:
Who decided not to impeach Biden? - A Republican Congress
Who decided not to look into the Bidens? - A Republican Congress
Who decided not to investigate them until Biden started running for 2020? - Trump”
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Jan 27, 2020 22:44:36 GMT
So Hunter profiting off his father - bad Ivanka profiting off her father - just perfectly fine. What exactly are her qualifications for being in the White House? Or Jared’s? ETA: I don’t like nepotism, but isn’t this the pot calling the kettle...? Oh come on now! Everybody *KNOWS* that IOKIYAR!!!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 27, 2020 23:05:52 GMT
Walter Shaub... ”Herschmann ask why investigation of Biden isn't warranted. Let's review: Who decided not to impeach Biden? - A Republican Congress Who decided not to look into the Bidens? - A Republican Congress Who decided not to investigate them until Biden started running for 2020? - Trump” Yes, in fact, Sen Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Sen Rob Portman (R-OH).. Note: BOTH, still sitting today in the Senate, Republicans signed the letter to send VP Joe Biden, representing US, to Ukraine to fire Shokin with approval of other European countries also in 2016!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 27, 2020 23:09:32 GMT
Romney has said it is becoming increasing likely that four Republicans will vote to call witnesses. Do you think he is one of the four? How would it look if he wasn't? They are hoping for more then the four, so the forth is not 'punished' so much!
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jan 27, 2020 23:16:25 GMT
Romney has said it is becoming increasing likely that four Republicans will vote to call witnesses. Do you think he is one of the four? How would it look if he wasn't? They are hoping for more then the four, so the forth is not 'punished' so much! That makes a lot of sense. I mean, what Republican would want to be the 51st vote, right? I don’t think anyone of them is capable of being a John McCain. Well, let’s see…Murkowski, Collins, Romney, Alexander. Anyone of them brave enough?
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 27, 2020 23:20:58 GMT
They are hoping for more then the four, so the forth is not 'punished' so much! That makes a lot of sense. I mean, what Republican would want to be the 51st vote, right? I don’t think anyone of them is capable of being a John McCain. Well, let’s see…Murkowski, Collins, Romney, Alexander. Anyone of them brave enough? Toomey from Pennsylvania is thinking a trade, Bolton for Biden. Although that might make PA people angry but he is not running, so.....
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 27, 2020 23:42:36 GMT
He already has his plans in place for his victory tour! ** Trump plots a flashy series finale for impeachmentPresident Donald Trump is already itching to broadcast the series finale of his impeachment. In recent days, he and top White House aides have been considering how he should celebrate his presumed acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate and whether he should deliver a rare Oval Office address to mark the occasion, according to three senior administration officials. Trump has not settled on a specific plan yet, but the internal machinations show the extent to which the president remains focused on the details and optics of his ongoing impeachment trial — from the TV slot in which his lawyers argued his case to the performance of his legal team to the look and feel of a speech or ceremony marking the end of the months-long saga. “The president is giving a lot of thought to where he goes when he is acquitted and vindicated,” a senior administration official said. “This isn’t a one-and-done moment. This will be a sustained exit from a long dreary impeachment process and a great reset to 2020 — not just the 2020 reelection but the 2020 domestic and international arena.” ** President Donald Trump is already itching to broadcast the series finale of his impeachment. In recent days, he and top White House aides have been considering how he should celebrate his presumed acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate and whether he should deliver a rare Oval Office address to mark the occasion, according to three senior administration officials. Trump has not settled on a specific plan yet, but the internal machinations show the extent to which the president remains focused on the details and optics of his ongoing impeachment trial — from the TV slot in which his lawyers argued his case to the performance of his legal team to the look and feel of a speech or ceremony marking the end of the months-long saga. “The president is giving a lot of thought to where he goes when he is acquitted and vindicated,” a senior administration official said. “This isn’t a one-and-done moment. This will be a sustained exit from a long dreary impeachment process and a great reset to 2020 — not just the 2020 reelection but the 2020 domestic and international arena.” ** www.politico.com/news/2020/01/27/trump-plots-flashy-finale-impeachment-105689************************** Trump plans victory lap tour after throwing Republican Senators under the busThe bombshell that John Bolton had a book coming, one which would confirm a quid-pro-quo and establish that the Trump administration defense was garbage may have surprised some Republican senators, but it came at absolutely no surprise to the person living in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The Washington Post cites a NY Times story, and makes the links. Bolton’s lawyer says he provided the manuscript to the White House on Dec. 30, 2019, for classification review — nearly a month ago. Importantly, the Times reports that the manuscript might have given Trump’s lawyers a preview of what Bolton would testify. The White House sat on this fact long enough that Republican Senators stuck their neck out there and swore loyalty oaths to the President, only now discover the man with the mustache may make them all fools. When US Senators are wondering what happened to them, what exactly should the president be doing? Well, planning a year-long party of sorts, right?** President Trump is spending more time plotting a victory lap tour — for being impeached — complete with a media plan and a tour. What remains to be seen is how many bus tire tracks are left on senate coattails in places like Maine, Arizona, Colorado. ** www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/27/1914390/-Trump-plans-victory-lap-tour-after-throwing-Republican-Senators-under-the-bus?utm_campaign=trending?detail=emaildksc
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 5:51:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2020 0:14:45 GMT
Lawrence Tribe... ”Here’s a scenario: 1. House Managers invoke Rules VII & XXIV to ask the CJ to subpoena Bolton & all relevant documents 2. CJ Roberts issues subpoena 3. Trump lawyers realize Senate can’t overrule this order 4. Trump sues Roberts in DC district court 5. What? I like Tribe but how did he figure this? Rule VII provides that rulings can be challenged by any member of Senate which will trigger a formal vote. Rule XXIV also provides mechanism for objection and voting. But, never mind. I don't think it really matters. Maybe Roberts will surprise everybody, but I doubt it. If he did not even enforce the rules of behavior in chamber (senators walking in and out, going on TV while hearing is going on, playing with toys, etc) what is the expectation he would issue subpoenas? "But it turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does. This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice. Most critically, it would take a two-thirds vote — not a majority — of the Senate to overrule that. This week, Democrats can and should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas on his authority so that key witnesses of relevance like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney appear in the Senate, and the Senate should subpoena all relevant documents as well. The Senate rules for impeachment date back to 1868 and have been in effect since that time. They specifically provide for the subpoenas of witnesses, going so far in Rule XXIV as to outline the specific language a subpoena must use — the “form of subpoena to be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel.” As you can see, there is no “Senate vote” requirement whatsoever in the subpoena rule. A manager can seek it on his own. The rules further empower the chief justice to enforce the subpoena rule. Rule V says: “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.” The presiding officer, under our Constitution, is the chief justice. As such, the chief justice, as presiding officer, has the “power to make and issue, by himself,” subpoenas. President Trump’s allies have tried to distort a separate rule (also still in effect), hoping that it could be stretched to say that a majority of senators can override the chief justice’s decision. Rule VII reads, in the relevant part: “the presiding officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate.” So President Trump’s allies are hoping that last clause authorizes a majority of Senators to overrule the chief justice on matters including subpoena issuance. But its plain text says otherwise. It’s carefully drawn to be about “questions of evidence”: whether, for example, a line of witness questioning is relevant or not. The issuance of a Rule XXIV subpoena, however, is not a question of evidence. In normal litigation, we’d call it a discovery question." www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 5:51:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2020 0:20:12 GMT
Reminder.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 5:51:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2020 0:34:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 28, 2020 0:44:02 GMT
Robert Rey just said since 'we' received the FULL call record there should be no problem...
All I have heard was that they released a SUMMARY of the call!
|
|