• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics The trump impeachment thread

So, impeachment has begun. So far it’s party line voting, but McConnell had to give up a couple of provisions in his resolution.

The vote wasn't a total loss for Democrats, however. McConnell changed two contested provisions at the last minute: one that would have required both sides to make their 24 hours of arguments in just two days and another that could have barred evidence gathered by the House.

Democrats complained that the two-day limit would have meant that they would be making arguments until 1 a.m. or later, depriving much of the public of the chance to watch the proceedings.

The other provision could have barred entering all of the evidence House Democrats gathered against Trump into the Senate record. The evidence now will be admitted automatically unless there's an objection, rather than depend on a proactive vote to admit it.

 
Democrats complained that the two-day limit would have meant that they would be making arguments until 1 a.m. or later, depriving much of the public of the chance to watch the proceedings.

The other provision could have barred entering all of the evidence House Democrats gathered against Trump into the Senate record. The evidence now will be admitted automatically unless there's an objection, rather than depend on a proactive vote to admit it.

The 2-3 day thing is just dumb. Even if it is 'fair' to limit each sides to 24h in their opening presentations, a 2d limit drives 12h days which is dumb. I could see a snarky remark from the right about 'House Dems want rush rush rush, then wait to submit, then scream for rush rush rush..now want to extend this bit' but that would be ridiculously petty. 24h over 3d is reasonable.

Allowing evidence? Major 'Duh!'. Absolutely anything gathered by the House and used as a basis for their impeachment vote ought to be part of any trial. Stupid to suggest otherwise.
 
The push to try to disallow evidence and further testimony by some is a pretty big alarm bell for me. One thing I keep cringing at every time I hear is when the Republicans try to say "why didn't the Dems subpoena Bolton? They didn't want to hear his testimony then, why do they now?" It's because getting the courts involved to force him to testify (after the Trump administration told him not to) would have delayed the whole thing for the better part of a year if not more. Now that he's said he'll testify, he should testify. Especially considering one of the things Repubs keep complaining about is how the whole House hearings went by without any firsthand testimony, but the only reason there was no first-hand testimony is because they blocked that testimony.

I'm really curious to hear such testimony. Times are so partisan that I don't think it will matter, few to no Republicans will vote outside of their party line, but considering Guiliani and what's his face have already admitted on live television that there WAS a quid pro quo ("get used to it, we do it ALL THE TIME"), I'd like to hear what one of the people highest up and closest to it has to say.

I was listening to the radio in the car today, there was a piece about how leading into the senate trial for Nixon's impeachment, the sentiment was along party lines, but the evidence revealed was so damning that the tides turned because senators saw they had an obligation to do the right thing. Sadly I don't see that happening these days (I couldn't see it happening if a Democratic president was up for impeachment either).
 

Trump Isn’t Letting His Crisis Go to Waste

Even as the president’s impeachment trial moves forward, the White House is acting aggressively on a range of policy proposals that are politically, legally, or morally suspect, wagering—probably correctly—that the press and the people will mostly overlook them amid the drama in the Senate.

On January 17, the Agriculture Department announced that it would roll back nutritional standards for school lunches that were championed by former first lady Michelle Obama. (In what the government insisted was a coincidence, January 17 is her birthday.) The changes will likely mean less healthy lunches, but repealing the old rules had become a rallying cry among some conservatives.
How do conservatives justify this garbage in their heads?
Today is still young, but already the administration is set to announce a drastic reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act that will exempt a large number of waterways from protection and allow more pollution.
All of this is only a few days’ worth of changes. Impeachment has dominated political news for nearly four months now, and the administration has made been plenty of other under-the-radar moves—cuts to food stamps, rollbacks to LBGTQ protections, and diverting Pentagon funds to pay for border-wall construction among them.
Theres’s a lot covered in the piece that I didn’t excerpt.
 
The New York Times broke the story that Bolton’s new book states that Trump directly tied holding up Ukraine aid in exchange for Biden investigation. I wonder who leaked it.

Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says

Drafts of the book outline the potential testimony of the former national security adviser if he were called as a witness in the president’s impeachment trial.

WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.

The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

Over dozens of pages, Mr. Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September. He described not only the president’s private disparagement of Ukraine but also new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement.

For example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients, Mr. Bolton wrote.

Mr. Bolton also said that after the president’s July phone call with the president of Ukraine, he raised with Attorney General William P. Barr his concerns about Mr. Giuliani, who was pursuing a shadow Ukraine policyencouraged by the president, and told Mr. Barr that the president had mentioned him on the call. A spokeswoman for Mr. Barr denied that he learned of the call from Mr. Bolton; the Justice Department has said he learned about it only in mid-August.

And the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was present for at least one phone call where the president and Mr. Giuliani discussed the ambassador, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Mulvaney has told associates he would always step away when the president spoke with his lawyer to protect their attorney-client privilege.

During a previously reported May 23 meeting where top advisers and Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, briefed him about their trip to Kyiv for the inauguration of President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mr. Trump railed about Ukraine trying to damage him and mentioned a conspiracy theory about a hacked Democratic server, according to Mr. Bolton.

The White House did not provide responses to questions about Mr. Bolton’s assertions, and representatives for Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Mulvaney did not respond to emails and calls seeking comment on Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Bolton’s lawyer blamed the White House for the disclosure of the book’s contents. “It is clear, regrettably, from the New York Times article published today that the pre-publication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript,” the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, said Sunday night.
(Article continues...)
 
I wonder who leaked it.

Rumor (unfounded) I hear is that he submitted a copy to NSA for review of what can be shared vs what may be confidential. If so, the swamp leaks again. If it were Bolton (which I doubt) he would put himself in jeopardy for revealing possible confidential info (I don't think he'd do that). However, 'a leak to the NYT' has historically proven not always accurate nor true. I'm not calling this outright BS, but keep the source in mind.
 
Seriously doubt that. Damage to gain ratio would call it a nuts move, and I can't see Trump ever allowing any part of his camp to show weakness in any way.

Same. It just doesn't track.

If it was someone on trumps side I'd imagine it'd have to have been someone acting on their own initiative. I just don't see Trump wanting to hear anyone say he did anything wrong. Not even if it were in his interests to do so.
 
Well, the latest right leaning theory...(Brietbart, with no other supporting info that I can see, which warrants as much respect as NYT in my book):

Source: Alexander Vindman’s Brother, Yevgeny, Clears Publications by NSC Officials

A source close to the Trump administration informs Breitbart News that Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior ethics lawyer for the National Security Council (NSC), is in charge of reviewing all publications by current and former NSC officials.

The official added that Yevgeny Vindman could have seen former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s draft manuscript after it was submitted for prepublication review at the end of December.

The review is a standard process that allows the NSC to review book manuscripts, op-eds, or any other material for any classified material to be eliminated before publication.

The New York Times reported Sunday evening that Bolton’s draft book manuscript, which had been submitted to the NSC for prepublication review on Dec. 30, alleged that President Trump told Bolton in August 2019 that he wanted to withhold security assistance to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, among others.

It was not clear if the Times had seen the Bolton manuscript; its sources were “multiple people” who “described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.”

Bolton’s lawyer, Chuck Cooper, issued a statement in which he said: “It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted.” He did not confirm or deny the Times‘ reporting on the content of the manuscript.

Yevegeny Vindman is the identical twin brother of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who is one of Democrats’ key witnesses in the impeachment of President Donald Trump. The brothers have offices across from each other.

Alexander Vindman told the House Intelligence Committee in his closed-door deposition that he told his brother, Yevgeny, about President Trump’s July 25th call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

In November, Yevgeny Vindman attended his brother’s public testimony at the House impeachment inquiry.

The Wall Street Journal described Vindman as “an NSC lawyer handling ethics issues.” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman described his brother as the “lead ethics official” at the NSC. A U.S. Office of Government Ethics web page, updated on Friday, identifies Yevegeny Vindman as the “Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official” for the NSC.

VBQy9vsSIte1vO-y1dktUQfFYy_PHCeHSYlVndlewckA0aTSnal_u0xikd2V2eM-jqWAHQ=s162




To which there is this reply from Mulvaney's lawyer:
MickMulvaney_Boltonbook.jpg
 
sorry thought this was impeachment thread

Seems someone moved it. I'm kinda curious (but mostly don't givahoot) as to what's up behind her episodes like that. So long as she remains out of politics, or anything effecting my life or the country, I can just let that curiosity die unanswered.

= = = = = =

As to her point about having witnesses....

The HOUSE DEMS had the opportunity and chose not to pursue them.
The HOUSE DEMS impeached without anything Bolton's testimony would offer, so there must be enough grounds to do so, no?

Specifically to Bolton's words, as nobody has seen the actual manuscript other than NSC officials (Vindeman's brother?) who knows what they actually state. They could call out Trump directly with explicit first hand knowledge that Bolton was reluctant to testify with given the Executive Privilege, or it could be more 'nothing burger' just as everything else the Dems have thrown at Trump since before he was inaugurated. Nobody knows, and by that fact, the impeachment was voted on without it.
 
That's a cop-out. The Trump administration blocked the witnesses they requested, all the ones who had first-hand contact/knowledge. The White House blocked Bolton from testifying when he was calling to. You can't blame the Dems for that. Waiting for a court to decide would have delayed everything tremendously and they felt they had enough to move forward, and likely hoped they could make a compelling enough case to convince senators to vote for calling the witnesses, which would keep things moving and get results faster.
 
Waiting for a court to decide

This is the legal procedure per the constitution. Previous presidents have exercised the Exec Priv in this way, it isn't new. The HOUSE DEMS chose not to push the issue, 'for the sake of time' they say (likely) but it's also just as likely they'd lose given historical precedent. Regardless of the reason, it IS the way our gov't works.

would have delayed everything tremendously and they felt they had enough to move forward, and likely hoped they could make a compelling enough case to convince senators to vote for calling the witnesses, which would keep things moving and get results faster.

Again, they moved forward and voted based on .... what? What exactly gave them the 'open and shut' case they (eventually) passed to the Senate? Surely that evidence is enough to convict, no?


I've got two serious issues with this impeachment overall = the rush-delay-rush-delay-no_you_do_it by the House Dems, and the utter lack of substance to these nebulous claims. Actually, a third issue, in that the impeachment began right after he won and has been a long trail of looking for a reason to hang him, and failing repeatedly. You hang 'em if there's a reason, you don't hang 'em and search for a reason.
 
Rumor (unfounded) I hear is that he submitted a copy to NSA for review of what can be shared vs what may be confidential. If so, the swamp leaks again. If it were Bolton (which I doubt) he would put himself in jeopardy for revealing possible confidential info (I don't think he'd do that).
These theories are far too exciting and assume that famous professionals are terrible at their jobs. It's got to be some mook at the publishing company who hates Trump and doesn't care about making a mess.
 
Bolton's lawyer has stated the ONLY copy was submitted to NSC (under the White House, but also part of the intelligence community which does have some opposed to Trump) for review of confidential materials.

IF true, there is only one source, someone in NSC. It makes absolutely no sense for anyone from Trump's group to push this. It DOES make sense for those against him to put this out as the impeachment is losing steam and facing the senate. Really, NYT has been publishing 'leaks' since before Trump took office and nearly all point to the intelligence community.

IF false, which is possible, it could have been part of Bolton's team seeking to maximize publicity and demand for his book right at launch. A book, as I understand it, which was written (AND edited) in record time at the end of the year. I'm not sure the motivation for accelerated writing and publishing other than to capture the moment for sales. I'm not capable right now of imagining possible motivations, I need more coffee.
 
Top