Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[Horatio Parker]

First to Paloo, er, Patooka All subpoenas are subject to review. So your cite in spot on. Biden has the right to challenge such based on lack of foundation (illegitimate) and many other presumptive rights of citizens.

Yes, Horatio Parker, that includes those from Chief Justice of USSC.

Reviewed by whom? AFAIK, it would be the entirety of the court. Seems unlikely that they would overrule the CJ.

 

[Patooka]

You know who is funding the Islamic terrorists, right? Leftists. They don't want American companies getting rich off of oil because "Screw corporations!" so we need to get our oil from the Islamic world. We give them money, they use it for terrorism and threaten us. Thank you, leftists.

I don't expect you guys to learn, though.

That terrible! I'm shocked. I mean really flabbersmacked. So leftists are conspiring to make American companies "non-rich" and this is forcing us to get our oil from the Islamic world. That's dastardly! But you do have a link that supports this assertion?

Leftists are anti America and anti freedom, enterprise-anti capitalists and self hating idiots who still haven't come to terms that the Soviet Empire collapsed many years ago, and dream of a world without borders where everyone everywhere can live in poverty equally. Whatever leftists do is anti corporation, anti capital and anti America!

We also eat babies, want to make same sex marriages mandatory and compel everyone to watch Adam Sandler movies. Personally, I just want to implement sharia law and convert all cricket ovals into public beheading squares. Oh, and you are only allowed to consume soy. And unless you're a muslim-atheist-crypto-pseudo-neo-socialist, you can't own a gun. Because of course nearly half the population believes this.

Now shut up and eat your fucking kale.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Adam Sandler? Now that's too far.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

First to Paloo, er, Patooka All subpoenas are subject to review. So your cite in spot on. Biden has the right to challenge such based on lack of foundation (illegitimate) and many other presumptive rights of citizens.

Yes, Horatio Parker, that includes those from Chief Justice of USSC.

Reviewed by whom? AFAIK, it would be the entirety of the court. Seems unlikely that they would overrule the CJ.

I could be wrong, but if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is running (overseeing?) a trial, there is no "overview". He is the overview, unless a majority of the Senate overrule him. That would be a dubious thing to do, but clearly the GOP is either almost entirely compromised by either ambition to remain in the Senate or by others, so as to make them do the damnedest things right now. Requiring Biden or Schiff tor the Whistleblower to testify would be a mockery of the impeachment trial. Roberts almost certainly would veto that. And it comes down to a small number of GOP senators, Collins, Murkowski, Alexander, Romney, Gardner, maybe Sasse but doubtful that need to ask themselves what in the heck they stand for these days. They could block the GOP override of the Chief Justice... which in itself would be remarkably insane for McConnell to move forward with.

I think Pelosi has successfully "iced the kicker". It might not explicitly change the result, but she has successfully made McConnell own the process, publicly, requiring fence sitters to take vocal stands. Pelosi was never in charge of the Senate trial, but she and Schumer have been able to control the narrative on it. They had no idea AG Barr would with the Mueller Report what he did and now they are taking no chances in the public arena.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In essence Pelosi has the equivalent of a pocket veto wrt impeachment and it's probably to her advantage to just let it ride. If it convinces undecided voters to vote Trumpo out of office she has undertaken a brilliant strategy and for all practical purposes the impeachment proceedings have achieved their purpose.

If Trumpo is reelected she has done all in her power to convince voters. She could have done no more with the issue. If she can make headway on real economic and social issues that benefit voters that keep the spotlight on republican shenanigans she and her party have everything to gain.

 

[angelo]

In essence Pelosi has the equivalent of a pocket veto wrt impeachment and it's probably to her advantage to just let it ride. If it convinces undecided voters to vote Trumpo out of office she has undertaken a brilliant strategy and for all practical purposes the impeachment proceedings have achieved their purpose.

If Trumpo is reelected she has done all in her power to convince voters. She could have done no more with the issue. If she can make headway on real economic and social issues that benefit voters that keep the spotlight on republican shenanigans she and her party have everything to gain.

You mean the only chance any of the Dem busload of clowns has of unseating the Trump is to try to derail the American economy and bugger the consequences, as long as one of those clowns beats the Trump?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In essence Pelosi has the equivalent of a pocket veto wrt impeachment and it's probably to her advantage to just let it ride.

Not really. The veto isn't much of a veto, in fact, it can be exploited by the GOP as wickedly partisan. They impeached the President, but know the Senate won't convict because *witch hunt*.

What Schumer and Pelosi are accomplishing is forcing vocal stands and uneasy positions for a small number of GOP'ers... enough to majority convict Trump in the Senate.

Now, the one major concern I have with witnesses is that you really never put a witness on the stand if you don't know what they are going to say.

 

[TV and credit cards]

In essence Pelosi has the equivalent of a pocket veto wrt impeachment and it's probably to her advantage to just let it ride. If it convinces undecided voters to vote Trumpo out of office she has undertaken a brilliant strategy and for all practical purposes the impeachment proceedings have achieved their purpose.

If Trumpo is reelected she has done all in her power to convince voters. She could have done no more with the issue. If she can make headway on real economic and social issues that benefit voters that keep the spotlight on republican shenanigans she and her party have everything to gain.

You mean the only chance any of the Dem busload of clowns has of unseating the Trump is to try to derail the American economy and bugger the consequences, as long as one of those clowns beats the Trump?

The “derail” was in our elected representatives slowly and persistently bending to the will of corporate America and any benefit to the American people was incidental.
Having a government that acts in the best interest of the American people first and foremost, I think is how all this was suppose to work in the first place.
And no, I am not advocating for government giving the people anything and everything they want at the expense of business driving the world into the deepest depression the likes of which the world has never seen. I’m assuming something along these lines would be your typical Trumpian response.

 

[Elixir]

Now, the one major concern I have with witnesses is that you really never put a witness on the stand if you don't know what they are going to say.

I'm uneasy about that too. Should Moscow Mitch agree to call any of the first hand witnesses to Cheato's criminal behavior, it's a near certainty that they will lie their faces off. And from there it's also a near certainty that they will never suffer the prescribed consequences of lying to Congress.

 

[Patooka]

Now, the one major concern I have with witnesses is that you really never put a witness on the stand if you don't know what they are going to say.

I'm uneasy about that too. Should Moscow Mitch agree to call any of the first hand witnesses to Cheato's criminal behavior, it's a near certainty that they will lie their faces off. And from there it's also a near certainty that they will never suffer the prescribed consequences of lying to Congress.

I wouldn't be so sure. Lying to congress has serious consequences nowadays. I think/hope people won't be apathetic if bullshit testimonies become trivial again.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Now, the one major concern I have with witnesses is that you really never put a witness on the stand if you don't know what they are going to say.

I'm uneasy about that too. Should Moscow Mitch agree to call any of the first hand witnesses to Cheato's criminal behavior, it's a near certainty that they will lie their faces off. And from there it's also a near certainty that they will never suffer the prescribed consequences of lying to Congress.

I wouldn't be so sure. Lying to congress has serious consequences nowadays. I think/hope people won't be apathetic if bullshit testimonies become trivial again.

History will be the judge. The details will eventually come to light as they always do. And witnesses get cross examined.

To me it's like what happened with the trial in Dover about creationism. No one really knew what the judge was going to decide, and along the way the creationist big players backed off, probably because they didn't want to commit perjury.

The Senate, however, has a partisan jury and still needs a 2/3 majority to remove. But getting the information out in the open is a good thing regardless the outcome. Pelosi is being pretty smart. The republicans are more afraid of Roberts than are the dems.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Technically we don't need history. We have the modified transcript. That was the smoking gun. That it is being ignored by the GOP is evidence of how bitterly partisan they have become.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Holy shit, it gets even worse:
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/...ts-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/

“Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.”

This is what Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, in an Aug. 30 email, which has only been made available in redacted form until now. It is one of many documents the Trump administration is trying to keep from the public, despite congressional oversight efforts and court orders in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.

Arguably worse, is how much of this information was redacted or simply withheld from congress' when they issued a subpoena for all of this data earlier. That's clear obstruction.

Not that it matters, because GOP.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And, of course, here's the REAL issue that can't ever be addressed, which is that Trump was withholding the money because Putin wanted it done. Trump saw it as a way to force Zelensky to gin up fake evidence against Biden, but it was always going to be a double cross. Trump was never going to release that aid even after Zelensky did what Trump wanted.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Holy shit, it gets even worse:
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/...ts-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/

“Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.”

This is what Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, in an Aug. 30 email, which has only been made available in redacted form until now. It is one of many documents the Trump administration is trying to keep from the public, despite congressional oversight efforts and court orders in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.

Arguably worse, is how much of this information was redacted or simply withheld from congress' when they issued a subpoena for all of this data earlier. That's clear obstruction.

Not that it matters, because GOP.

The GOP is like the Nazis in Europe. Their day will come.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Given the sensitive nature of the request..."

Yeah, they knew some bad stuff was going on.

McCusker followed up in an email to OMB asking if this had gone through the Defense Department’s general counsel, indicating an early concern about the legality of these actions. When it released this email to the Center for Public Integrity, the Justice Department redacted this simple question from McCusker.

Wow!

But tension began to build between the Defense Department and OMB toward the end of August as the funding hold complicated all of the contractual processes that needed to take place in order to buy the equipment for Ukraine. OMB was pushing the Defense Department to micromanage down to the lowest level — the field contracting offices — in an apparent effort to buy time and keep the process on track even though the hold was upending everything. The Pentagon was growing frustrated.

It is interesting how many cogs were involved with this. The President put the brakes on the spending, gave no "perfect" reason, and the DoD wanted to get this going.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How do we know there is no reason provided by Trump?

She also tells Duffey that the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) is now asking questions, in addition to House Appropriators. The question from SASC is:

“Has OMB directed DOD/DSCA to halt execution of all or any part of FY19 funds for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative? If so, when, and what was the reason given?”​

There appears to be absolutely no reason provided to those that need a legal reason to hold back the funding.
​

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And then we finish with this.

Duffey, adding OMB and Pentagon lawyers to the recipients list, and in a formal and lengthy letter that was quite different from the way he’d addressed McCusker all summer, chastised her and the Defense Department for dropping the ball, saying that if and when the hold is lifted, and DOD finds itself unable to obligate the funding, it would be DOD’s fault.

“As you know, the President wanted a policy process run to determine the best use of these funds, and he specifically mentioned this to the SecDef the previous week. OMB developed a footnote authorizing DoD to proceed with all processes necessary to obligate funds. If you have not taken these steps, that is contrary to OMB’s direction and was your decision not to proceed. If you are unable to obligate the funds, it will have been DoD’s decision that cause any impoundment of funds.”
​

Essentially: You guys screwed up. Not us.
McCusker responded:

“You can’t be serious. I am speechless.”
​

This exchange, as well as the larger trove of unredacted emails, raises new questions about the Dec. 11 letter from OMB General Counsel Paoletta to the General Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional investigative office.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

“Glad to have this behind us,” Duffey told McCusker.

Looks like Duffey is the person to bring all of this up with in front of the Senate.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Yep, reading through that was pretty jaw dropping. I can see why the "Justice" dept wanted to keep it all covered up.

It's probably too long for the tumpsters to read though, so they are safe in their bubble. And as long as Moscowmitch can keep it from being introduced in the senate, rubio, et. al. can continue to pretend it doesn't exist.