Mulva Spills the Beans

[Elixir]

Every time I see Mulvaney's name in print it reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry can't remember the girl's name, and all he knows is that it rhymes with a female body part. (One of the guesses was "Mulva?")
Anyhow... I thought one of the talking heads said it like it was at Mulva's presser yesterday; "Yes, we robbed the bank. We're bank robbers, it's what we do."

Given that this administration has admitted to and even flaunted its criminal behavior, does that make it more likely to shorten, or to lengthen the timeline for impeachment by the House? Is there a point at which failure to proceed to a vote actually has the effect about which Republicans are already complaining, i.e. it looks like Dems are holding it up just to keep the issue on the burner? I tend to think that while that might be displeasing to some voters, there's still the possible dynamic where more evidence comes out and the Senate Republicans are even further pressed to either vote Trump out (convict him) or make it plain that they are aligned with an anti-American agenda.

Popcorn futures are looking very bright.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Jesus Christ, don't give Trump ideas -- when he turns on Mickey, he'll be calling him Singing Mulva or Spilling Mulva. On the positive side: Trump doesn't read.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, Trump and his administration have now publicly admitted to every crime that they're accused of in the impeachment investigation. Why is it still just an inquiry?

 

[SLD]

So, Trump and his administration have now publicly admitted to every crime that they're accused of in the impeachment investigation. Why is it still just an inquiry?

Because the Dems want to slow walk this out so they can milk it for all it’s worth.

SLD

 

[Bronzeage]

So, Trump and his administration have now publicly admitted to every crime that they're accused of in the impeachment investigation. Why is it still just an inquiry?

Because they need the kind of evidence that would convict a person in a court of law. Richard Nixon provided that evidence when he released the tape which recorded him planning the pay off of the Watergate burglars. This was overt obstruction of justice, no way around it. Nixon was a lawyer and was fully aware he was committing a crime.

Right now, Trump's actions can only be labeled a crime, if his motives can be ascertained. We're not really sure if he understands his motives. If Trump is eventually impeached, the most likely charges will be perjury or violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Perjury is less likely because it's very unlikely Trump will ever take an oath to tell the truth. Conviction on an emoluments charge will depend upon exposing the financial records which show how much money he has made by exploiting his Presidency.

If it can be proved that he would have suffered great financial loss if not for being President, that's as damning as Nixon's Oval Office tapes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I see two complications.

1. When Trump said no quid pro, he was lying, but he was talking specifically about the Biden stuff. When Mulvaney said, yes, there was quid pro quo, he was talking specifically about dnc servers/crowdstrike/russian-ukrainian ip addresses involved in hacking etc. It's being oversimplified.

Now, Mulvaney admitted that aid was contingent on A and this was communicated to Ukraine. However, when Trump called Ukraine, he asked for A, B, and C, which implies they are all being linked to the aid but only because A was linked to aid in previous conversation. An unnecessary point to make is that Trump would have known this and he ended the call with a prediction the Ukrainian economy would do well.

Therefore, one actually has to infer Trump was witholding aid for purpose of investigating his opponent. People can refuse to make inferences and be in denial. Some people are too dumb to make the inference while others are only exposed to side A oversimplifying the case and side B debunking the oversimplification. That is the danger of oversimplifying the message.

2. That Democrats want to milk it is a bullshit claim. The opposition to Trump needs a super majority in the Senate to convict the President of misdeeds. That will only happen when many Republicans fear losing seats. And that is very difficult due to the right wing noise machine. Twitler is very good at obfuscation and holding power over the Republicans.

So the Democrats are legitimately waiting for enough evidence to make a convincing case to even stupid, brainwashed people. They need at least some of these people to oppose Trump. If they can't pull it all together, they will end up compromising in the Senate eventually for a censure which will just say "Mr. President, you were wrong to give the appearance of conflict of interest. You need to ensure you don't do that sort of thing again." And that will be an exoneration for Trump in RW land.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, Trump and his administration have now publicly admitted to every crime that they're accused of in the impeachment investigation. Why is it still just an inquiry?

Tip of the iceberg. The little that we’re seeing is nothing compared to the mountain still to be uncovered.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Exactly -- we've only known about the Ukraine call for about a month. Trump has pretty obviously thrown off all restraint. Can you imagine a President telling an audience (of young adults and teens, no less) that the 2nd article to the Const. lets him do "whatever I want"???? Trump did. Just this week he awarded himself a government contract that will keep the cash registers ringing at The Roach Motel (or Doral.) He's in full gangsta form. Can anyone but the faithful believe that there aren't at least a few more nuggets of brazen criminality to be uncovered?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

On Faux News no less:

McRaven recalled that at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, a retired four-star general "grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, 'I don’t like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!'"

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

So, Trump and his administration have now publicly admitted to every crime that they're accused of in the impeachment investigation. Why is it still just an inquiry?

Because the Dems want to slow walk this out so they can milk it for all it’s worth.

SLD

No, they are being thorough enough the slippery bastard can't slither free this time. This has to be all nailed down so tight that the GOP Senators dare not balk at removing the Orange Buffoon.

 

[Patooka]

So, Trump and his administration have now publicly admitted to every crime that they're accused of in the impeachment investigation. Why is it still just an inquiry?

Because the Dems want to slow walk this out so they can milk it for all it’s worth.

SLD

I suspect the Democratic leadership is painfully aware that if this gets dragged out like the Special Counsel Investigation, it will be dismissed and derided also.

 

[Elixir]

So, Trump and his administration have now publicly admitted to every crime that they're accused of in the impeachment investigation. Why is it still just an inquiry?

Because they need the kind of evidence that would convict a person in a court of law. Richard Nixon provided that evidence when he released the tape which recorded him planning the pay off of the Watergate burglars. This was overt obstruction of justice, no way around it. Nixon was a lawyer and was fully aware he was committing a crime.

Right now, Trump's actions can only be labeled a crime, if his motives can be ascertained. We're not really sure if he understands his motives. If Trump is eventually impeached, the most likely charges will be perjury or violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Perjury is less likely because it's very unlikely Trump will ever take an oath to tell the truth. Conviction on an emoluments charge will depend upon exposing the financial records which show how much money he has made by exploiting his Presidency.

If it can be proved that he would have suffered great financial loss if not for being President, that's as damning as Nixon's Oval Office tapes.

Waitaminit - Trump's own summary of "The Call" shows that he asked for a political favor from a foreign leader. That' is a CRIME plain and simple. Add quid pro quo and all the smarmy shit, and it's just more smarmy shit. If the impeachment were a court of law - which is it NOT, and doesn't need to meet any criminal threshold - Trump would already be in jail. There's absolutely no way you can go around providing solid evidence of your crime, plus myriad corroborating witnesses and not earn a conviction. Except in an impeachment trial by a Republican Senate, where blowjobs are required in order to convict, and whether a behavior is criminal or not is irrelevant.

I suspect the Democratic leadership is painfully aware that if this gets dragged out like the Special Counsel Investigation, it will be dismissed and derided also.

Like the BIN-GOZZY investigation, or the 3-year email investigation? Those dismal and expensive failures seem to have earned little derision...

 

[Bronzeage]

Waitaminit - Trump's own summary of "The Call" shows that he asked for a political favor from a foreign leader. That' is a CRIME plain and simple. Add quid pro quo and all the smarmy shit, and it's just more smarmy shit. If the impeachment were a court of law - which is it NOT, and doesn't need to meet any criminal threshold - Trump would already be in jail. There's absolutely no way you can go around providing solid evidence of your crime, plus myriad corroborating witnesses and not earn a conviction. Except in an impeachment trial by a Republican Senate, where blowjobs are required in order to convict, and whether a behavior is criminal or not is irrelevant.

I suspect the Democratic leadership is painfully aware that if this gets dragged out like the Special Counsel Investigation, it will be dismissed and derided also.

Like the BIN-GOZZY investigation, or the 3-year email investigation? Those dismal and expensive failures seem to have earned little derision...

Can you name a specific Federal Statute which was violated by the QPQ? We can find statutes about perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice, which cover a multitude of sins. Maybe that will be revealed.

At this point, the House of Representatives will have to decide whether Trump's words and actions violate his oath of office. This depends upon an interpretation of the words of the Constitution. That is an ultimate judgment call.

 

[marc]

Can you name a specific Federal Statute which was violated by the QPQ? We can find statutes about perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice, which cover a multitude of sins. Maybe that will be revealed.

U.S. Code § 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

 

[Bronzeage]

Can you name a specific Federal Statute which was violated by the QPQ? We can find statutes about perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice, which cover a multitude of sins. Maybe that will be revealed.

U.S. Code § 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

That will be a hard sell if Congress does not declare foreign governments renting rooms in Trump hotels to be a violation of the emoluments clause.

 

[Elixir]

Waitaminit - Trump's own summary of "The Call" shows that he asked for a political favor from a foreign leader. That' is a CRIME plain and simple. Add quid pro quo and all the smarmy shit, and it's just more smarmy shit. If the impeachment were a court of law - which is it NOT, and doesn't need to meet any criminal threshold - Trump would already be in jail. There's absolutely no way you can go around providing solid evidence of your crime, plus myriad corroborating witnesses and not earn a conviction. Except in an impeachment trial by a Republican Senate, where blowjobs are required in order to convict, and whether a behavior is criminal or not is irrelevant.

I suspect the Democratic leadership is painfully aware that if this gets dragged out like the Special Counsel Investigation, it will be dismissed and derided also.

Like the BIN-GOZZY investigation, or the 3-year email investigation? Those dismal and expensive failures seem to have earned little derision...

Can you name a specific Federal Statute which was violated by the QPQ? We can find statutes about perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice, which cover a multitude of sins. Maybe that will be revealed.

At this point, the House of Representatives will have to decide whether Trump's words and actions violate his oath of office. This depends upon an interpretation of the words of the Constitution. That is an ultimate judgment call.

See marc's reference. QPQ is not required for criminality. And criminality is not (technically) required for impeachment, though Team Cheato is trying to convince the public that it is.

 

[Elixir]

Can you name a specific Federal Statute which was violated by the QPQ? We can find statutes about perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice, which cover a multitude of sins. Maybe that will be revealed.

U.S. Code § 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

That will be a hard sell if Congress does not declare foreign governments renting rooms in Trump hotels to be a violation of the emoluments clause.

No, all they need to convince the House of is that he sought something of value (Biden dirt) from a foreign entity. And he already admitted that. All the Mulvaneyism in the world won't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

 

[Gun Nut]

That will be a hard sell if Congress does not declare foreign governments renting rooms in Trump hotels to be a violation of the emoluments clause.

No, all they need to convince the House of is that he sought something of value (Biden dirt) from a foreign entity. And he already admitted that. All the Mulvaneyism in the world won't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

even if he "gave away" the hotel rooms to foreign leaders at great personal cost to himself, what he personally gains is the massive advertisement for his hotel and massive increase in future business that results from many world leaders simply attending. If one single person in the world says, "gee, why don;t we spend a night in that resort, it was where the G7 was, so it's got to be great", then Trump has benefited personally.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I liked Trump's statement that he would have done it "at cost" or if legal, for nothing. Oh we would only taken money because it'd been illegal to do it for nothing. Of course, what does "at cost" even mean for a resort?

Regardless, that crap was put to rest. Though the whole Mulvaney statement 'It was like this place was built for this event.' was truly a strand of bullshit thrown too far.

 

[Elixir]

... what does "at cost" even mean for a resort?

In this case, it would have meant the resort would get paid more than three times what it would have taken in without the contract Trump tried to award to himself. But there would be incredible special "costs" associated with it - millions for Trump's personal time and emotional suffering, a few thousand dollars per bottle of booze to ensure no exotic Russian poisons, a few million more to install and certify the absence of lots of listening devices in every room...
You get the idea. Sufficient manufactured "costs" to let Trump stuff his pockets while claiming bigly losses that would keep him from paying taxes for years hence.