Jump to content
Toups

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

 

Meanwhile, from the woman who got shot in the gut by Jim Jones' Peoples Temple:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bright Eyes said:

Apologies for the inconvenience, but can someone explain in layman's terms what would happen if Donald Trump is impeached?

 

I second this request. Aussie news presenters seem to be under the assumption that Mike Pence is probably going down too and are saying that would mean Nancy Pelosi somehow ends up in charge? Like how soon are we talking that this would happen and does this have an effect on the election?

 

Also, can someone give me a brief summary of how this is different than the Richard Nixon situation? I had assumed he was removed but apparently he quit, so was that different than what's going to happen here or did he just quit before it got to this point?

Edited by AdelaideCate007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shít:

 

 

As for @AdelaideCate007's question: It is very unlikely Trump will be convicted in the Senate and removed, which is controlled by the Republican Party. It is very likely the House will move to impeach, though, which is a major blow. The only way Pence (who is indeed up to his neck in this) would take the White House is if Trump were convicted and removed. As of now, impeachment is simply a smart political and moral stance going into an election year.

 

The difference with Nixon is, there a bipartisan group of Senators from both parties were prepared to convict him. The GOP of the '70s was not as fanatical and corrupt as it is now, and they found Nixon's crimes beyond the pale. Nixon knew they would vote against him and resigned to avoid that conviction. Today's GOP will countenance any crimes for power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumbass Republican Chris Stewart tweeted the above, but here's the latest:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vee said:

If he is, he's not showing it. That's not his way.

 

Exactly.  Although, as I've said before, I don't think he is.  Ergo, folks who are reading into his actions of late -- passing election security bills, allowing the whistleblower resolution to proceed -- need to stop.  In a way, he's more inscrutable (and more dangerous) than either Pence OR Trump on their BEST days.

 

I also agree that McConnell values the GOP and the courts more than he does Trump.  Yes, there is the issue of Trump's voter base, which has most other Republicans in a perpetual state of fear.  However, it's just what many here having been saying: the GOP, and Mitch McConnell in particular, know how to play the long game.

Edited by Khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that McConnell's actions are more about insulating himself from trouble. His wife is under investigation and he would want less trouble. He's not rattled enough to turn against Trump, but enough to buy himself some insurance in case things really boil over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vee said:

Meanwhile, from the woman who got shot in the gut by Jim Jones' Peoples Temple:

 

Well, you know it has to be a must-read if SHE was stunned by it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa:

 

 

 

Wow. This just got even bigger.

Edited by Vee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ReddFoxx said:

I think that McConnell's actions are more about insulating himself from trouble. His wife is under investigation and he would want less trouble. He's not rattled enough to turn against Trump, but enough to buy himself some insurance in case things really boil over.

 

Agree.  I wouldn't put it past that man to sell even his wife down the proverbial river if it meant keeping his own neck out of trouble.

 

10 minutes ago, Vee said:

 

 

 

So...this began as part of an effort to pardon Manafort?  SAY WHA?

 

House Democrats wish to keep their impeachment inquiries focused squarely on the Ukrainian stuff.  However, this is quickly shaping up to be the mother of all umbrella stories, now drawing in [!@#$%^&*] from the Mueller investigation and God-knows-what-else.

Edited by Khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the above:

 

Quote

The effort by President Trump to pressure the government of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son had its origins in an earlier endeavor to obtain information that might provide a pretext and political cover for the president to pardon his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, according to previously undisclosed records.  

 

These records indicate that attorneys representing Trump and Manafort respectively had at least nine conversations relating to this effort, beginning in the early days of the Trump administration, and lasting until as recently as May of this year. Through these deliberations carried on by his attorneys, Manafort exhorted the White House to press Ukrainian officials to investigate and discredit individuals, both in the US and in Ukraine, who he believed had published damning information about his political consulting work in the Ukraine. A person who participated in the joint defense agreement between President Trump and others under investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, including Manafort, allowed me to review extensive handwritten notes that memorialized conversations relating to Manafort and Ukraine between Manafort’s and Trump’s legal teams, including Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

 

These new disclosures emerge as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s conduct. What prompted her actions were the new allegations that surfaced last week that Trump had pressured Ukraine’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate Trump’s potential 2020 campaign rival, Biden, and his son Hunter, placing a freeze on a quarter of a billion dollars in military assistance to Ukraine as leverage. The impeachment inquiry will also examine whether President Trump obstructed justice by attempting to curtail investigations by the FBI and the special counsel into Russia’s covert interference in the 2016 presidential election in Trump’s favor.  

 

New information in this story suggests that these two, seemingly unrelated scandals, in which the House will judge whether the president’s conduct in each case constituted extra-legal and extra-constitutional abuses of presidential power, are in fact inextricably linked: the Ukrainian initiative appears to have begun in service of formulating a rationale by which the president could pardon Manafort, as part of an effort to undermine the special counsel’s investigation.

 

[...]

 

Trump’s dangling of pardons to Manafort and others who might provide damaging testimony against the president to law enforcement agents, such as his former personal attorney Michael Cohen, have been widely reported, both by news media outlets and in the Mueller Report. According to the participant in the joint defense agreement discussions, Manafort was distressed at the uncertainty about whether President Trump would pardon him. There was no formal understanding that Trump would do so, because this would instantly have raised the specter of whether such a pardon might constitute an obstruction of justice. 

 

Instead, Manafort and those around him took the very public efforts by Giuliani to press Ukraine to investigate Manafort’s accusers as a favorable signal that the president might still pardon him after the 2020 presidential election. Trump is famously transactional, and Manafort feared that the president might be leading him on, according to the person who was party to the joint defense agreement communications. Giuliani’s constant touting of the Ukraine issue proved “reassuring” to Manafort, albeit to “a limited degree,” according to this person.

 

[...]

 

Giuliani did not add that he was also pressing for Kiev to investigate Manafort’s enemies. As I first disclosed last year in an article for Vox, Manafort encouraged the president and his top aides in this effort from the first days of the administration in early 2017. In recent months, both Trump and Giuliani have intensified those efforts, pressuring Ukraine to investigate not only Leshchenko and Chalupa, but also other Ukrainian government officials, activists, and journalists—and specifically to look into any part they may have had in publishing details of Manafort’s illicit political consulting work in the Ukraine. 

 

This past weekend, Trump acknowledged that he had also encouraged President Zelensky during a July 25 telephone call to have Ukraine’s law enforcement agencies investigate Hunter Biden’s business dealings. The White House has released a memorandum based on notes from officials, not a verbatim record. In it, Trump expressed concern to Zelensky that he was “surrounding [him]self with some of the same people,” an apparent reference to Leshchenko. Trump went on to disparage the Mueller Report, saying, “a lot of it started with Ukraine,” a seeming allusion to Manafort’s problems. And he urged the Ukrainian president to take calls from both his personal lawyer and Attorney General William Barr. Giuliani has admitted to repeatedly pressing the Manafort matter with Ukrainian officials.

 

The allegations that President Trump improperly pressured the head of state of a foreign government to improperly investigate the son of his potential Democratic opponent in the 2020 presidential race, and even withheld $250 million in military aid to that country, have become grounds for an impeachment inquiry. The new disclosures in this story underscore how this scheme originated in the long-running coordination between Trump, Giuliani, and Manafort to frustrate the Mueller investigation. 

 

[...]

 

Manafort is currently serving a seven-and-a-half-year federal prison sentence of eight felony counts, including money-laundering, tax avoidance, and mortgage fraud. Following those convictions in August 2018, Manafort agreed to cooperate with the Mueller investigation. As part of a plea bargain in which he admitted to additional crimes of witness-tampering and money-laundering, Manafort was guaranteed leniency as long as he were to “fully, truthfully, completely and forthrightly” answer any questions about “any and all matters” the government wanted to ask about.

 

But Manafort’s cooperation was a ruse. Little more than three months later, in December, the special counsel stated in federal court that Manafort had broken his cooperation agreement by telling prosecutors and FBI agents “multiple discernible lies.” Even more unsettling were disclosures that an attorney for Manafort had been constantly briefing President Trump’s attorneys on what Manafort was being asked and what he was telling the special counsel. Manafort and his attorneys argued that this conduct was legal under his joint legal defense agreement with the president—although many seasoned prosecutors were appalled that this had been allowed to continue. 

 

[...]

 

On Manafort’s and [his defense attorney’s] end, there is a circumstantial case for obstruction of justice. What purpose other than an attempt to “influence, obstruct, or impede” the investigation of the president can be discerned from Manafort’s service as a double agent? And on the Trump side, the communications emit a strong scent of illegal witness tampering (and possibly obstruction as well).

 

Littman also pointed out that Mueller had the right to compel attorneys for both the president and Manafort to testify about their discussions as part of an inquiry into whether they or their clients had obstructed justice. But Littman noted that “political considerations” might “possibly intercede.” Trump and his allies would criticize Mueller for overreach, he considered, and the then Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker might not permit Mueller to serve subpoenas. 

 

In the end, Mueller did not follow up. Nor have Democrats in the House, who had a similar legitimate right to independently investigate the matter. If they had, they would have discovered that as late as May of this year, Giuliani was in touch with Manafort’s attorneys to discuss how they could keep pushing the “Ukrainian collusion” narrative, as the records shown me demonstrate. In the absence of any branch of government holding them accountable, Trump and Giuliani faced no sanction for doing so. They had good reason, after all, to believe they were invincible.

 

Until now.

 

 

Why the dumbass quoting system insists on sucking my final line above into the quote no matter what I do is beyond me.

Edited by Vee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, to whom it may concern: Do not even think of posting that damn Spike/Drucilla picture for the millionth time like it's an actual meme

Edited by Vee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of these days, someone's gonna come up with a more clever name for the whistle blower than "The Whistleblower."  I just know it.

 

6 hours ago, Wendy said:

The White House accidentally e-mailed Democrats its Trump/Ukraine talking points. What a shitshow!

 

True, the average I.Q. among the Trump administration is staggeringly low.  However, something about THAT situation has me wondering whether someone from within the WH emailed the Dems on purpose, then played it off as a mistake to avoid recriminations.

Edited by Khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...