The Trump Impeachment Proceedings (Page 33/49)
williegoat JAN 17, 03:02 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Time for me to be somewhere else.



You keep feeding "straight lines" to your opponents.
blackrams JAN 17, 05:52 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

You keep feeding "straight lines" to your opponents.



It was all I could do to hold off on that one.

Rams
rinselberg JAN 17, 07:57 PM
"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).]

E.Furgal JAN 17, 10:02 PM
Poor, mittens,
Romney will get dragged into this, poor mittens,
fight the bull, get the horns.

[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 01-17-2020).]

blackrams JAN 18, 06:58 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

"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..

Rams
rinselberg JAN 18, 03:02 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

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.
Hudini JAN 18, 04:29 PM
Clinton committed actual crimes. Trump is accused of crimes that don’t actually exist. This is 100% partisan chicanery. And everyone knows it.
olejoedad JAN 18, 10:20 PM
Save ya some time...
rinselberg JAN 18, 11:46 PM
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.

That's straight from "Quartz."

Where else would anyone go to learn this stuff?


"Why the Trump and Clinton impeachments are nothing alike"
Ephrat Livni for Quartz; January 17, 2020.
https://qz.com/1785846/the-...linton-impeachments/
rinselberg JAN 19, 02:12 AM
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.

FLASHBACK: Seven Times the GAO Said the Obama Administration Broke Federal Law
Matt Palumbo for the Bongino Report; January 17, 2020.
https://bongino.com/flashba...n-broke-federal-law/

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:
http://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...L/124289-8.html#p317

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-19-2020).]