Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[cubby]

Rather telling that Republican senator Ron Johnson was the one that pushed Bolton to talk.

Indeed. Was he even on the radar as a possible "flip" to vote with Democrats for witnesses?

[Breccia]

Why? We already had a Democrat President go through the same thing? 2 wrongs don't make a right.

That's not the point, and I suspect @Gabriel knows it.

If the defense of Trump is that the President can break the rules, then that applies from now on. Even to situations you don't like. Saying "it's even now, so Trump can do it then we stop" is actually saying two wrongs make a right, something you seem to feel isn't fair.

So, either everyone can and should break the rules whenever they want like Trump did with no consequences, or, Trump has to face consequences. "Okay but just Trump this time" is not an allowable option.

[Breccia]

Which democrat president did the same thing Trump did?

I think he's talking about the one who actually answered questions under oath. So, nobody did what Trump did. It's a false equivalence.

[Reeve]

I think he's talking about the one who actually answered questions under oath. So, nobody did what Trump did. It's a false equivalence.

Lied under oath, to be fair. Still nothing as bad as what Trump's done.

[Shadowferal]

Moscow Mitch is pissed...(that amuses me)
How can I be totally coordinated with the WH when they have Bolton's shit without telling me?

A McConnell spokesman told The Courier Journal on Monday that the Senate majority leader "did not have any advance notice" that the National Security Council reportedly had a copy of Bolton's manuscript for weeks.

McConnell was among the Senate Republicans who were "angry at the White House" over the revelations about Bolton's manuscript, according to The Times.

Mere hours before the impeachment trial was set to resume Monday, The Times reported, McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., privately pressed the president's advisers to explain Bolton's account, which undermines a White House defense of the president and which blindsided several GOP senators, according to people familiar with their thinking.

[Breccia]

"McConnell was among the Senate Republicans who were "angry at the White House" over the revelations about Bolton's manuscript"

I'm Shadowferal, and I use italics instead of quotes because I'm edgy

As well he should be. It's like being the lawyer for a client when two more dead hookers show up in his dining room. I mean, there's an obvious answer: stop defending him. But we've been over that option, too.

McConnell's best move right now is to attack Bolton as a liar and a traitor, declare the book fiction, dismiss the entire idea and try to push out any new witnesses or evidence. I.e. what he did before, but with 25% more oomph. Even allowing the discussion that Bolton might be telling the truth destroys his defense of Trump.

[pathora44]

Which democrat president did the same thing Trump did?

He is talking about the one who lied about getting his dick sucked in the oval office because that is totally the same as withholding Congress approved aid to extort a foreign nation into stating they are investigating a political rival to hurt him in the next election. Yep those are totally the same apples to apples that counterbalance each other.

[Inuyaki]

Moscow Mitch is pissed...(that amuses me)
How can I be totally coordinated with the WH when they have Bolton's shit without telling me?

A McConnell spokesman told The Courier Journal on Monday that the Senate majority leader "did not have any advance notice" that the National Security Council reportedly had a copy of Bolton's manuscript for weeks.

McConnell was among the Senate Republicans who were "angry at the White House" over the revelations about Bolton's manuscript, according to The Times.

Mere hours before the impeachment trial was set to resume Monday, The Times reported, McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., privately pressed the president's advisers to explain Bolton's account, which undermines a White House defense of the president and which blindsided several GOP senators, according to people familiar with their thinking.

Good thing they all took an oath to be impartial

[Edge-]

Why? We already had a Democrat President go through the same thing? 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Which Democratic president asked a foreign head of state for assistance and then tried to cover it up?

[solinari6]

I wonder if he knows for sure that Bolton is telling the truth. Chief of Staffs are reasonably immune from testimony because of Executive Privilege (love it or hate it, having the CoS covered by EP has a very solid practicality to it) so Kelly can't say anything directly, but him coming out like that, speaks silent volumes.

Pretty sure that since Kelly is no longer a government employee, he isn't bound by executive privilege.

[Seiklis]

Rather telling that Republican senator Ron Johnson was the one that pushed Bolton to talk.

Ron Johnson is done in '22, this has been known for a long time.

Part of the reason Rep. Duffy got out when he did was to challenge for Johnson's seat against most likely Walker.

Johnson is basically playing liaison for the Republican Establishment since he doesn't have to win another election

So if Johnson is causing trouble...the Republican donors aren't happy atm.

Truthfully if things keep getting worse with the witnesses, I'm expecting a leak to come out that McConnell is considering doing a secret ballot on the vote. He won't of course, it's simply meant to scare Trump but I could see it planted out there nevertheless

[cubby]

As well he should be. It's like being the lawyer for a client when two more dead hookers show up in his dining room. I mean, there's an obvious answer: stop defending him. But we've been over that option, too.

McConnell's best move right now is to attack Bolton as a liar and a traitor, declare the book fiction, dismiss the entire idea and try to push out any new witnesses or evidence. I.e. what he did before, but with 25% more oomph. Even allowing the discussion that Bolton might be telling the truth destroys his defense of Trump.

That's what I would do right now if I were McConnell. Shut the whole thing down. Use the Dark Side to push those pansy-ass wanna-be-honest GOP Senators (what the fuck were they thinking, wanting honesty and truth - didn't they read the GOP Oath before they signed?) to vote no witnesses, and then call the question on convict, and get it the fuck done. Any delay just looks bad, and will only get worse for him. God only knows what Parnas still has to reveal.

lol re Shadowferal

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty sure that since Kelly is no longer a government employee, he isn't bound by executive privilege.

But he would be bound for what he knows because of his previous time in government service, as Trump's Chief of Staff. Think of it as an NDO - even if you stop working for Google, you can't tell everyone what you were just working on.

[Crispin]

One thing is for sure, history is not going to judge men like Lindsey Graham or Micth Mconnel well.

I hope they're alive when the movies about this mess comes out, and their narcissistic rotten characters will be exposed in cinemas across the globe.

[cubby]

Ron Johnson is done in '22, this has been known for a long time.

Part of the reason Rep. Duffy got out when he did was to challenge for Johnson's seat against most likely Walker.

Johnson is basically playing liaison for the Republican Establishment since he doesn't have to win another election

So if Johnson is causing trouble...the Republican donors aren't happy atm.

Truthfully if things keep getting worse with the witnesses, I'm expecting a leak to come out that McConnell is considering doing a secret ballot on the vote. He won't of course, it's simply meant to scare Trump but I could see it planted out there nevertheless

That would be an interesting development. The GOP money machine trumps McConnell's power to a certain extent. Maybe.

[solinari6]

But he would be bound for what he knows because of his previous time in government service, as Trump's Chief of Staff. Think of it as an NDO - even if you stop working for Google, you can't tell everyone what you were just working on.

Do you have any factual basis for that assumption? Not to be argumentative, but I'm pretty sure many ex-chief's of staff have ended up writing tell all books.

[cubby]

One thing is for sure, history is not going to judge men like Lindsey Graham or Micth Mconnel well.

I hope they're alive when the movies about this mess comes out, and their narcissistic rotten characters will be exposed in cinemas across the globe.

Depends on if Trump wins steals a second term. At the point we'll have Orwellian levels of revisionist history.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have any factual basis for that assumption? Not to be argumentative, but I'm pretty sure many ex-chief's of staff have ended up writing tell all books.

I hear what you're saying, and no worries on argumentative - I get what you mean about clarification. A tell-all book is different than direct testimony about conversations between the President. Those types of communication, when EP is properly applied, are covered because you want the President and the CoS to be able to speak frankly to each other. Obviously, Trump would abuse this (as he would everything else).

For factual basis - there some court cases and many instances. But really it boils down to "yes, but it depends" - which is usually the legal answer.

I'm not sure I answered your question though.

[cubby]

And it’s not an answerable question in this case anyway. EP being applicable in cases of impeachment is debatable.

Agreed, exactly. And even it was already addressed in previous SCOTUS rulings, Team Deplorable would sue to delay.

[Levelfive]

Depends on if Trump wins steals a second term. At the point we'll have Orwellian levels of revisionist history.

- - - Updated - - -



I hear what you're saying, and no worries on argumentative - I get what you mean about clarification. A tell-all book is different than direct testimony about conversations between the President. Those types of communication, when EP is properly applied, are covered because you want the President and the CoS to be able to speak frankly to each other. Obviously, Trump would abuse this (as he would everything else).

For factual basis - there some court cases and many instances. But really it boils down to "yes, but it depends" - which is usually the legal answer.

I'm not sure I answered your question though.

Executive privilege can be used protect people who don't want to testify; it can't be used to prevent people from testifying willingly. They would have to get a restraining order, which they've naturally already floated with regard to Bolton. We do know that Trump has all of them sign NDAs as well, but iirc those are likely not legally binding / enforceable for government employees. The real deterrent is that you and your family will be personally as well as professionally destroyed.

[cubby]

Trump's fuckwad of a lawyer called Bolton's book inadmissible. Which leaves only what now to get that information into the record? Anyone? Bueller?

McConnell has got to start screening Team Deplorable's attorneys.

(yes, that's a Faux News link; no, I'm not happy about visiting their site; yes, I am scrubbing my cache's to cleanse)

[Shadowferal]

All evidence is inadmissible.
All eye-witness testimony is hearsay.
/s