...And another Reasoned Case Against Impeachment

[Hank77]

Yes, we've already discussed Turley's false statement in the other thread.

Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff and technically still the director of the Office of Management and Budget, can answer one of the central questions of the inquiry: Why, exactly, did the White House freeze nearly $400 million in badly needed aid to Ukraine? But he is refusing to testify, and the House may not be able to force him to do so before the unofficial clock runs out on the inquiry. There’s no set time limit, but Democrats are understandably reluctant to let the process drag on deep into the election year.

The House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Mulvaney to testify Friday before the impeachment inquiry that three House committees are conducting. Mulvaney ignored the subpoena

Bolton was also subpoenaed and refused without the court forcing him.

 

[Hank77]

Have you read Turleys statement yet?....it is only 53 pgs. So far he does not affirm Trumps innocence only criticizes the thinness of the dems 'evidence'.
I am on pg 23 now....

My post you quoted was in response to a post about the three other witness.

I watched the hearing, the whole thing. That's exactly what I was saying. Turley doesn't say they don't have any evidence. He thinks there needs to be more direct evidence in order for the impeachment to be successful. If you're not going to do whatever you can to be successful, you probably shouldn't go ahead yet. That was his point.

However, imo, he is wrong about the House abusing their power. The power to impeach is solely with the House not the courts. Right now they could bring charges of Contempt of Congress against those not obeying subpoenas. This isn't a toothless law.

Oh, and I was reading something that Turley had written and he thought that there was enough against Obama that he could have been impeached.

 

[wing2000]

As far as they knew is was simply delayed and not withheld until Sondland told them otherwise and the expectation of the investigation even though no one had told him to do so. He even admitted he made a mistake telling them this during his testimony.

From the House Impeachment report:

On July 25, DOD officials learned that diplomats at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington had made multiple overtures to DOD and the State Department “asking about security assistance.” Separately, two different contacts at the Ukrainian Embassy approached Ambassador Volker’s special advisor, Catherine Croft, to ask her in confidence about the hold. Ms. Croft was surprised at the effectiveness of their “diplomatic tradecraft,” noting that they “found out very early on” that the United States was withholding critical military aid to Ukraine.

By mid-August, before the freeze on aid became public, Lt. Col. Vindman had also received inquiries from an official at the Ukrainian Embassy. The hold remained in place throughout August against the unanimous judgment of American officials focused on Ukraine policy. Without an explanation for the hold, which ran contrary to the recommendation of all relevant agencies, and with President Trump already conditioning a White House visit on the announcement of the political investigations, it became increasingly apparent to multiple witnesses that the military aid was also being withheld in exchange for the announcement of those. As both Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Holmes would later testify, it became as clear as “two plus two equals four.”

On August 22, Ambassador Sondland emailed Secretary Pompeo again, recommending a plan for a potential meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky in Warsaw, Poland on September 1. Ambassador Sondland noted that President Zelensky should “look him in the eye” and tell President Trump that once new prosecutorial officials were in place in Ukraine, “Zelensky should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to Potus and the U.S.” Ambassador Sondland testified that this was a reference to the political investigations that President Trump discussed on the July 25 call, that Secretary Pompeo had listened to. Ambassador Sondland hoped this would “break the logjam”—the hold on critical security assistance to Ukraine. Secretary Pompeo replied three minutes later: “Yes.”

page 22-23
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6566087/Full-House-Impeachment-Report.pdf

 

[redleghunter]

Of course they object, but they haven't sued, because there's no way a suit would be resolved before the 2020 election. As came up in the testimony yesterday, Congress subpoenaed documents in 2011 related to the the Fast and Furious Case. AG Eric Holder declined to produce them. Congress sued in 2012. The district court declined to throw it out in 2013. They were still filing documents in 2015. Ultimately, the case was resolved, in MAY OF THIS YEAR. 7 years.

So it's ok for Team Obama to exercise their legal rights, but not Trump.

 

[Albion]

It's about getting rid of Trump because they don't think they can beat him.

True. That's been admitted to.

It's not going to end here.

Also true--and also already admitted to.

Trump will most likely not be convicted in the Senate.

That's almost universally agreed to.

So the Dems will try and find something else.

Most likely. And please pardon me for saying it again, but that has already been publicly admitted to also.

This is just a part of the plan. If they get rid of Trump they have a better chance of winning next fall.

Now I disagree. They will not have time to go through all the pretending with rigged hearings and all of that before the 2020 election, but after that they most likely will start with something new, as impeachment will have become nothing more than a "vote of no confidence" with no real evidence of wrongdoing required.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So it's ok for Team Obama to exercise their legal rights, but not Trump.

No. Pay attention. I'm explaining why Congress isn't suing right now. There is an election in a year. If Team Obama can delay a case for years, so can Team Trump. So there is no point in suing.

 

[Hank77]

So it's ok for Team Obama to exercise their legal rights, but not Trump.

Sure they can, but it doesn't cause the impeachment process to wait for the courts decisions. If the House believes they have enough evidence they can move forward with the process, they don't need to wait for the courts decisions.

 

[Hank77]

Here's Turley testifying at Bill Clinton's hearing. He makes quite the argument as to why Clinton should be impeached, but it's just the opposite of what he is saying now.
He looks so young in this video.

Jonathan Turley's amazing impeachment flip-flop (Opinion) - CNN

 

[Bobber]

He has already undermined the American's electorate confidence in the 2020 election. He has demonstrated that he will do anything to benefit him politically.

Oh please! Clinton said before loosing the election in a Presidential debate what a horror it was that Trump might not accept the results of the 2016 election. Stated such an act would undermine America's sound tradition of accepting elections.....only to find after she lost she agreed to participate in Jill Stiens effort to do a recount of a number of states.

OK but tell us? How does Trump undermine confidence in the 2020 election? Merely because he might win and because he does something must be wrong?

 

[Bobber]

Your response is showing how little you grasp Trump's authoritarian nature and the potential consequences of that to our democracy.

Sorry whatbogsends I'd say how little it is you grasp the greatest threat to democracy is the push towards big government and the desire to want to federalize everything! That's mostly the Dems desire to want to see happen.

 

[redleghunter]

No. Pay attention. I'm explaining why Congress isn't suing right now. There is an election in a year. If Team Obama can delay a case for years, so can Team Trump. So there is no point in suing.

Therefore, the current impeachment timeline is politically motivated but not due process motivated. Got it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Therefore, the current impeachment timeline is politically motivated but not due process motivated. Got it.

Non sequitur.

 

[whatbogsends]

Sorry whatbogsends I'd say how little it is you grasp the greatest threat to democracy is the push towards big government and the desire to want to federalize everything! That's mostly the Dems desire to want to see happen.

Expanding executive authority, as Trump is doing, isn't an act of those who favor small government.

Moreover, under Trump, we've had a significant increase of government spending - again, big government. The only difference between Republicans spending and Democrats spending is that Democrats enact legislation (usually tax increases) to cover the additional spending, while Republicans grow the deficit and debt more as they increase spending without corresponding revenue increases.

Your claim of Democrats want big government and Republicans don't doesn't match with the actual policies enacted by Republicans at all.

 

[redleghunter]

Non sequitur.

Good comic strip.

 

[wing2000]

Oh please! Clinton said before loosing the election in a Presidential debate what a horror it was that Trump might not accept the results of the 2016 election. Stated such an act would undermine America's sound tradition of accepting elections.....only to find after she lost she agreed to participate in Jill Stiens effort to do a recount of a number of states.

OK but tell us? How does Trump undermine confidence in the 2020 election? Merely because he might win and because he does something must be wrong?

...try again with a valid comparison.

 

[usexpat97]

There's a big difference between accepting the election results and accepting the actual will of the people.

 

[rjs330]

Mick Mulvaney can tell us.

Ah the mantra of the left... This guys can tell us, that guy can tell us, yet when that person testifies they can't or don't tell them what they were hoping to hear. Much like the Mueller investigation. And that turned out to be a big nothing.

 

[rjs330]

Expanding executive authority, as Trump is doing, isn't an act of those who favor small government.

Moreover, under Trump, we've had a significant increase of government spending - again, big government. The only difference between Republicans spending and Democrats spending is that Democrats enact legislation (usually tax increases) to cover the additional spending, while Republicans grow the deficit and debt more as they increase spending without corresponding revenue increases.

Your claim of Democrats want big government and Republicans don't doesn't match with the actual policies enacted by Republicans at all.

It can't be denied that Democrats want big government. However, MOST Republicans do not. We are talking about th rank and file folks. Most rank and file Dems want big controlling government. Most rank and file repubs don't. And there are many Republicans in Congress that do too. But not enough. There are plenty of Republicans in the government who DO want and support a big government. Maybe not as big and controlling as the Dems, but big enough.

 

[rjs330]

Expanding executive authority, as Trump is doing, isn't an act of those who favor small government.

Moreover, under Trump, we've had a significant increase of government spending - again, big government. The only difference between Republicans spending and Democrats spending is that Democrats enact legislation (usually tax increases) to cover the additional spending, while Republicans grow the deficit and debt more as they increase spending without corresponding revenue increases.

Your claim of Democrats want big government and Republicans don't doesn't match with the actual policies enacted by Republicans at all.

What expansion of executive authority?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ah the mantra of the left... This guys can tell us, that guy can tell us

No, this is the mantra of Professor Turley. He faults the proceedings because some direct witnesses have not testified. However, the reason Mulvaney has not testified is because Trump has ordered him to ignore a valid Congressional subpoena.