"Let me be clear ..." I think the likelihood of a 2/3 majority vote to remove the President from office is scientifically indistinguishable from zero. I am not even expecting so much as one vote from the Republican side on either one of the two charges of impeachment. Whether there are any witnesses called to be part of the proceedings, or not.
As far as these reported violations of the Impoundment Control Act during the Obama administration, put up here by "olejoedad," I will be having a look at that. I am curious about it.
I just returned from somewhere else.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-17-2020).]
"Let me be clear ..." I think the likelihood of a 2/3 majority vote to remove the President from office is scientifically indistinguishable from zero. I am not even expecting so much as one vote from the Republican side on either one of the two charges of impeachment. Whether there are any witnesses called to be part of the proceedings, or not.
Hmmm...…….. That somehow reminds me of similar actions taken in the House by Democrats. Just can't quite put my finger on it. Remind me again on which party did what in the Impeachment Inquiry...……….. Tell me again how this isn't totally partisan..
Hmmm...…….. That somehow reminds me of similar actions taken in the House by Democrats. Just can't quite put my finger on it. Remind me again on which party did what in the Impeachment Inquiry...……….. Tell me again how this isn't totally partisan..
Rams
That wasn't me, talking about this impeachment trial, or expressing any opinion(s) about it..
That was me, talking about my expectations of what is going to come at the end of this impeachment trial.
That was me, talking about this impeachment trial as if it were a sporting event or some other non-political event of interest for people who wager (place bets) on outcomes.
If I were going to compare this to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, in terms of votes that were cast and Democrats vs Republicans, I would have to start by looking up those vote counts from the Clinton impeachment and trial. The votes to convict (at the end of the Clinton trial) and the votes on other issues that were milestones on the way to that outcome. I'm sure there was a clear difference between Democrats and Republicans, but I am also aware that, at least on some of those preliminary milestones, there were crossover votes where some of the Democrats lined up with the Republicans. Maybe six (6) of the Democrats? I'd have to look it up.
Yeah, but in 1998, 31 Democrats joined with 227 Republicans in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in voting to start impeachment proceedings against President William Jefferson Clinton.
On the previous page of this discussion, I posted that the Government Accountability Office or "GAO" had just issued an opinion that the Trump administration had violated the (federal) Impoundment Control Act of 1974 by trying to delay the transfer of some hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of military assistance that was to be provided to the Ukraine. Congress had approved a bill that included these expenditures and President Trump had approved the bill by signing it.
"White House hold on Ukraine aid violated federal law, congressional watchdog says" Jeff Stein, Ellen Nakashima and Erica Werner for the Washington Post; January 16, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost....4772db96b_story.html
This prompted an invitation to look at an article about how the GAO similarly opined that the Obama administration had violated federal law in seven different circumstances.
This article from the Bongino Report is put forward as a parallel, or an equivalencing of some Obama-era deeds with what is now being argued in the Senate against President Trump.
I don't see it.
The largest sum of money referenced in this list of Obama-era illegalities is $5.1 million--"pocket change" compared to the $300 (or so) million of the Ukraine military assistance package that's front and center in the Trump impeachment trial.
One (and only one) of these Obama-era doings involved a foreign country, and that (to my mind) is the most noteworthy on this list:
quote
The Department of Defense was found to have violated the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014 and the Antideficiency Act in the infamous Bowe Bergdahl swap, when President Barack Obama traded five high-level Taliban detainees for a U.S. Army deserter. The administration transferred the five Taliban from Guantanamo Bay without notifying relevant congressional committees 30 days in advance, as required by law. Republicans complained; Democrats were silent.
That one--about the "Bowe Bergdahl for Five Talibans" prisoner exchange--jumps out at me as the only one on the list that would seem to have involved President Obama directly and personally.
Not one of these Obama-era no-no's--not even the "Bergdhal for Talibans" prisoner swap--impress me as so directly political, partisan and election-related as the Trump administration's U.S. to Ukraine quid pro quo. The holdback of military aid and other forms of recognition as pressure tactics, to push the Ukraine government into going public with an announcement that the Trump reelection campaign could use against a possible general election opponent (Joe Biden) in the 2020 Presidential race. With President Trump being personally and knowingly involved in the quid pro quo maneuvers, and President Trump looking to secure the election of not just a Republican successor to the Presidency, but to reelect himself (an aggravating circumstance.)
That is the case (maybe not the "aggravating circumstance", that could just be my idea) that the House impeachment managers have started to present to the 100 jurors of the U.S. Senate.
Finally, the last two paragraphs from this article that I have been discussing, from the Bongino Report:
quote
As we explained yesterday, the impoundment of funds is a measure a great many presidents and public figures have supported, including: Abe Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton, the Bushes, John McCain, John Kerry, Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, Jeb Hensarling, Russ Feingold, Joe Lieberman, Judd Gregg, and not least both Paul Ryan… and Barack Obama have all supported the power of the presidency to balance the spending power of Congress.
The case that the House impeachment managers are presenting will argue that balancing the spending power of Congress was not what this "Ukraine thing" was about. Not in any credible way. It was all about the intended damaging of Joe Biden, a prospective political opponent.
quote
Remember that the impeachable offense that Democrats used to justify their impeachment circus was an alleged quid pro quo with Ukraine over withheld aid. It’s the intent for withholding aid that the basis of impeachment is over – not the withholding of the funds itself, which is what the GAO took issue with.
I wouldn't call it an impeachment "circus", but I agree that it's not the holdup of the aid package for Ukraine, in and of itself, that makes an argument for impeachment. It's the purpose behind it, of holding back the aid package and other recognition, and so creating a "quid," suitable for squeezing, in a toothpaste from tube kind of way, the "quo" of a political favor from the newly elected government in Ukraine.
But here's the big takeaway: I only posted about the GAO opinion that the Trump administration had violated the Impoundment Control Act as a selfless favor to the (future) producers of the Jeopardy (TV) game show--not because I think that Trump might be removed from office. The evidence speaks for itself: //www.fiero.nl/forum/F...L/124289-8.html#p317
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-19-2020).]
Originally posted by Hudini: What you fail to mention is that the aid was given, no investigation occurred, and Ukraine was unaware it was ever delayed.
Here's what I think the House impeachment managers are going to put before the Senate:
After being delayed during all of the attempted quid pro quo'ing, the Trump administration finally allowed the aid package to start flowing to Ukraine. The only credible reasons are (1) that the people at the top, who were closest to the President, had become aware of the "whistleblower" report, and knew that it was about to go public, and (2) there was pushback within the Executive Branch from people who argued that the blocking of the aid package was an illegality--a violation of the Impoundment Control Act--and the quid pro quo'ers (like Mick Mulvaney) were not coming up with convincing arguments to the contrary.
The "project" was first and foremost about having the Ukraine government go public with an announcement that they were starting an investigation of corruption. It was already scripted and planned for a "reveal" on CNN, naming Burisma and the Bidens as targets of the investigation. It was on the very threshold of happening (the announcement) and then... I think the Ukraine government became aware that the Trump administration was about to release the aid package, because of the reasons that I just described in my previous paragraph. So Ukraine's president pulled back from allowing the announcement to happen. It wasn't an announcement that he had ever wanted to go forward with.
(At that point, I wonder if the Trump administration--or the faction within it that was behind this scheme, a faction that included President Trump himself--would have wanted to have the announcement by Ukraine. I think they were in coverup mode by that point.)
All the reporting and testimony that I have seen contradicts the assertion that the president of Ukraine and his top advisors were clueless about the aid having been delayed, or clueless about why the aid package was being delayed.
President Trump had already tried to work the same scheme against Poroshenko, who had been the Ukraine president before Zelensky was elected to replace him.
But I don't hold it against anyone if they see it some other way. I can't say that I have an understanding of it--either an accurate understanding of it, or even an erroneous but internally consistent and complete "theory of the case"--that explains everything that happened in the exact sequence that it happened. I just indicated (above) where I have some "blanks" about the connection and sequencing of certain events. I think that's because I cannot remember, off the top of my head, all of the details that have been reported on MSNBC and certain other channels and Internet sites that I frequent.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-19-2020).]
rinse, you really need to widen your information base, as has been stated here before. I dont have any opinion, one way or the other, about your opinion on this matter. You are entitled to whatever opinion you desire, on whatever topic you find piques your interest. But opinions should be balanced based on information from all sides of an issue, something that you may be lacking from your choice of information sources.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 01-19-2020).]
Yeah, but in 1998, 31 Democrats joined with 227 Republicans in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in voting to start impeachment proceedings against President William Jefferson Clinton.
This Lev Parnas was just interviewed on-air, on a certain known (maybe not well known) TV network. A TV network where one of the daytime anchors, the other day, said "It's Nancy Pelosi's world, and we just live in it."
He (Lev Parnas) made some references to the "Veep"... Mike Pence.
This is where I would look, if I were going to return to my previous message in this discussion and fill in some (at least one) of what I called "blanks"... blanks or gaps. Moments in the sequence of events that call for elaboration and clarification with a Theory of the Case-completing explanation of how one event was followed by another event, and how the two such events were connected with one another in a Cause and Effect kind of relationship.
The announcement that had been scripted for the Ukraine government, of a new corruption-related investigation into Burisma and the Bidens, that was going to be revealed on CNN... what happened that caused the Ukraine government to not go forward with this announcement?
It was news events that could only have informed the Ukraine government that the ready-for-CNN announcement to "dirty up the Bidens" had just morphed from a Trump-mandated "quid" in exchange for the release of the U.S. aid packages, to "non-quid" status. The announcement had just been rendered bereft of its raison d'être. There was no longer a need for the announcement, as is evident from this timeline:
quote
... the ... [public] revelation [on September 13, 2019] of [a U.S.] intelligence community whistleblower complaint related to a “series of events,” including a phone call between President Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
quote
[September 11, 2019.] State Department notifies Congress that it will provide Ukraine with $141.5 million of military equipment and other assistance under its “Foreign Military Financing” program that is available for a number of countries. The news emerges the next day [September 12] at the same time that U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham says the administration has released its hold on the separate $250 million of military assistance for Ukraine from the Defense Department under a program known as the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. President Trump gave permission to the OMB’s acting director, Russell Vought, to release the funds.
I move that this material be entered into the record.
I approve the motion.
The material is now part of the record.
What did Mitch McConnell say the other day, when Chuck Schumer was ragging on him about having Parnas testify? "This is no time for Lev-ity."Click to show
"There is some mystical gravitational force surrounding Donald Trump ..." That orange necktie, peeking out from the collar of that black knit sweater... it's a good look (for Rick Wilson.) https://www.msnbc.com/11th-...scumbags-77170245796
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-21-2020).]
A man walks into a bar. The bartender is a robot. Robot asks "What's your drink?" The guy answers "beer". The robot brings back his beer and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The guy say, “168.” The robot then talks about physics, space exploration, and medical technology. After the guy leaves and the more he thinks about it, the more curious he gets, so he decides to go back. The robot asks, “What’s your drink?” The guy answers, “Beer.” The robot returns with his beer and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The man replies, “100.” The robot talks about NASCAR, Budweiser, the Lions, and LSU. The man finishes his beer, leaves, but is so interested in his “experiment” that he decides to try again. He enters the bar and, as usual, the robot asks him what he want to drink. The man replies, “Beer.” The robot brings the beer and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The man answers, “35”. The robot leans in real close and asks, “So . . . Do you folks really think you’re going to impeach Donald Trump?”
When Lev Parnas speaks, I listen... but I'm skeptical.
It would be harder to dismiss evidence from Lev Parnas's mobile phone(s) and other electronic devices, which have been in the custody of SDNY investigators and prosecutors since October 10 of last year, when Parnas was arrested at Dulles International Airport, near Washington, DC.
If evidence in the form of electronic records of Lev Parnas's voice calls, text messages, emails and other documents were to become public.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-21-2020).]
Been awhile since I offered thoughts but the show is about to begin again. I had many thoughts but got tired of the circus.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: This ... Lev Parnas
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: What did Mitch McConnell say the other day, when Chuck Schumer was ragging on him about having Parnas testify? "This is no time for rinselberg."
Who is Lev Parnas ? Oh oh, I know. He is straight out of the Dumbocrat playbook. They are playing the "October Surprise" card. They play it every Presidential election, as well as other elections I am sure.
Lev Parmas is the new Dr. Christine Blasey Ford of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. He is the new Michael Avenatti / Stormy Daniels. He is a tool ... the Dumbs are trying to use to get the Senate to do the job of the sole power of the House of Representatives, to investigate.
In a trial, any attorney will tell you they will not bring forward a witness they have not deposed.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: If I were going to compare this to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, ...
If ? You already have. Your gate keepers of news intelligence say that the impeachment of Clinton had witnesses. They did not tell you that the only witnesses and documents were ones which previously testified and were imposed in the House proceedings.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
This Lev Parnas
If aid to Ukraine did not flow It must have been a Quid Pro Quo
Or not.
The Senate Dumbs are crying about process. They want fact witnesses, yet their Dumbs in the House never called any, not one. The House never allowed Republicans to call witnesses. The Republicans could not even cross examine Dumb wittnesses and any ones which they could, were cut off is the Dumbs deemed so.
The Senate Dumbs are crying about the Senate vote on impeachment rules, yet their Senate leader Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option. They now rue that day. Just as they will if they water down the reasons for impeachment.
quote
[B]Originally posted by cliffw:
It's your play Nancy. It's forth down, and inches. Usually teams punt. Or, you can turn it over to the Senate on downs Nancy . What is in your playbook that might work ? I know of one that will work. It is in your playbook too. At least to gain field advantage. Yet I don't believe you are that good of a coach and am not going to tell you.[/QUOTE]
You should have kept it in the House and reopened the investigation. Dumb azz !
Sadly, you are trolling fellow members. Your makeup is running.
There was a gun rights meeting yesterday. I was involved. I am taking steps to protect my future. The rally was extremely peaceful, much like the 22,000 the msm reported in Virginia. Imagine if a democrat were to protest? Put 22,000 democrats in the streets together.
He is the Left's new Christine Blasey Ford (remember her?)
Just like in the Justice Bret Kavanaugh hearings, Parnas is their last minute, "Hail Mary", LIAR brought in to sling wild accusations.
Parnassus is under investigation for.....guess??? Lying,. he falsified documents. But a typical Democrat witness....... as long as he is lying about trump. If Parnas had made the same exact accusations against Biden, he would not be "credible".
There are words from Lev Parnas's mouth, and there is a mobile phone (and maybe some other electronic devices, don't really know) which have been in the custody of SDNY investigators and prosecutors since October 10 of last year, when Parnas was arrested at Dulles International Airport, near Washington, DC.
Electronic records of voice calls, text messages, emails, "home" movies or Word or Word-like documents related to itineraries and meetings ..?
It's no big deal in terms of the Impeachment Trial, because the rules are going to exclude the possibility that any records from Parnas's mobile phone (or other electronic devices) would become part of the trial. Or I'll eat my hat.
The Impeachment Trial will be ending in Acquittal in the blink of an eye, but "Ukraine-gate" will have some encore performances in the months ahead, in the theater of news broadcasting and publication. Even if it doesn't bring down the house, I'm looking forward to the entertainment of it. Something to help fill in that awkward gap between the NFL's Super Bowl and the first games of the 2020 MLB regular season. The National Hockey League? The NBA? Pro Golf? Motor Sports? Not for me. It's going to be that time of year again, to look for On Demand fare from other genres.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-21-2020).]
Rinse... you might very well be the only person who's actually watching this... I'm pretty hard-core with politics, and I haven't even caught a minute of it. Not because of any frustration, but it's just been so silly and ridiculous.
Schiff (D-Calif.) sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) last week summarizing a trove of evidence from Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. In one section of the letter, Schiff claims that Parnas “continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky,” citing a specific text message exchange where Parnas tells Giuliani: “trying to get us mr Z.” The remainder of the exchange — which was attached to Schiff’s letter — was redacted.
But an unredacted version of the exchange shows that several days later, Parnas sent Giuliani a word document that appears to show notes from an interview with Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma, followed by a text message to Giuliani that states: “mr Z answers my brother.” That suggests Parnas was referring to Zlochevsky not Zelensky.
The word document contains a series of questions and answers, but doesn't identify who is doing the asking or answering. Yet the questions center on the hiring practices at Burisma, while the responses include statements such as "we wanted to build Burisma as [an] international company” and "we also thought it would help in Ukraine to have strong international board figures,” which seems to point to Zlochevsky — not the Ukrainian president — as the respondent.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: but I'm skeptical.
I'm not hanging on every word, or trying to take in all of it.
There were intervals (earlier today) where I turned the video off and just had the sound, like background music, while I attended to some lower hanging fruit.
I was getting a "vibe" that Mitch McConnell and the President's "men" will not be able to make this impeachment trial into as small and as hurried of an event that I think they would originally have liked. A "vibe" that there will be some witnesses called to testify, and some further documents entered into the record of the trial, beyond just the articles of impeachment.
It's obvious to think of it in terms of only two outcomes, Acquittal of the President, or--like a snowball's chance in hell--Conviction.
I got an idea today about a third kind of outcome. Acquittal of the President, and a bi-partisan mandate to create new federal legislation (or some revision of current law) to put new "guardrails" into place; i.e., to erect more formidable obstacles to block another conspiracy-minded President from being able to "hijack" a package of Congressionally-authorized foreign aid, in a POTUS-led, "full court press" to bully the leaders of a foreign country (like Ukraine) into granting POTUS an illicit political favor.
I wouldn't know where to start (I can imagine your shocked face) in terms of any such lawmaking or legislative overhaul. I think that was former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. The idea.
An impeachment trial with some substance to it--not the "McConnell special" that I've been predicting, up to this point--would be like a set of "X-rays" to reveal, in Hi Def, the inner workings of the Ukraine-gate conspiracy, so that legislative remedies could be crafted using deep knowledge of the Ukraine-gate network architecture and transition state diagram. It would be like creating a virus-killing "designer drug" by working backwards from deep knowledge of the virus. A veritable apogee of reverse legislative engineering.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-23-2020).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Rinse... you might very well be the only person who's actually watching this... I'm pretty hard-core with politics, and I haven't even caught a minute of it. Not because of any frustration, but it's just been so silly and ridiculous.
C'mon man ... ( ), Not that I am fixated with it, but I have heard more than an hour of it. Having XM, I could tune in from time to time. I was tuned in to the comedy channel, liberal radio. It was boring, comedic, infuriating, appalling, and more. I had to keep upon the latest attempted coup of our President, unfiltered by just media recaps.
I started this post early yesterday. There was something, about some statement / claim that I was going to mention. Damn, I should have jotted it down. Maybe I will remember.
Day one was boring but more interesting than day two.
Day two was the Dumbs presentation of "evidence" umm, claims. Senator Shifty opened, spending two hours, instructing us how to make salad. Not different salads, the same ole' plain jane salad. While explaining, he mentioned that our ally, , Ukraine was invaded by Russia in 2014 and we have been providing military assistance since then. You remember that. Blankets and pillows. It seems that each House handler (the members of the funeral processsion who delivered the Articles of Impeachment) also spent hours teaching us how to make the same salad. (I was tuned out by then.)
Originally posted by rinselberg: I got an idea today about a third kind of outcome. Acquittal of the President, and a bi-partisan mandate to create new federal legislation (or some revision of current law) to put new "guardrails" into place; i.e., to erect more formidable obstacles to block another conspiracy-minded President from being able to "hijack" a package of Congressionally-authorized foreign aid, in a POTUS-led, "full court press" to bully the leaders of a foreign country (like Ukraine) into granting POTUS an illicit political favor.
Illicit ? Your team keeps saying the American people want to see witnesses (the one they have in mind) and documents. I love the way they say it. First they say it then say it again, real slow, with pauses.
POTUS, political favor ? C'mon man. The ... American ... people, ... want ... to ... know ... why ... Hunter Biden ... got paid ... $80,000 a month, ... with no experience ! We might be electing his Dad as President. Don't you want to know ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: An impeachment trial with some substance to it--not the ...
... completely partisan opposition party brew ha with no crime alleged.
That somehow reminds me of similar actions taken in the House by Democrats. Just can't quite put my finger on it. Remind me again on which party did what in the Impeachment Inquiry...……….. Tell me again how this isn't totally partisan..
Put 22,000 democrats in the streets together.
