DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus IMPEACHMENT: James Madison warned us that Trump is dangerously un-American

HELP!

By Bill Maher

Trump asked Russia for help on TV during the 2016 campaign: “Russia, if you’re listening…” By the way, it’s in the Mueller Report that Russia tried for the first time to hack Hillary’s emails later that day. More recently, Trump asked Ukraine for help. Earlier this month he asked China for help, again, on TV.

This is Trump's feral political genius. His original quid-pro-quo to the Ukrainian President was made during a private Oval Office call, with the transcript immediately stored in a secure server. It took a whistleblower to expose it. Rudy Giuliani's "befuddled crime boss" act and the revelation of a second whistleblower intensified the sense of impropriety. So how does Trump respond? By repeating it in broad daylight. And just like that – at least in the public's mind – an impeachable abuse of presidential power doesn't feel so naughty. After all, if something's done so openly, it can't be that bad.

Here’s my question for Republicans: why does Trump need so much help? Republicans keep saying Democrats need to impeach Trump because they can’t beat him at the polls. But really, it’s Trump who can’t beat the Democrats fairly. He needed foreign help to eke out a win last time, and clearly he needs it again.

Trump also keeps saying Democrats have a “collusion delusion.” If you can’t see the collusion here – with multiple countries, on TV – you’re the deluded one. Moreover, the Russia collusion and the Ukraine collusion are the same story. He’s trying to get Ukraine to admit it meddled in our election in a crazed attempt to cover up the well-established fact that Russia did. I still don’t think people quite get that.

http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com/index/2019/10/17/help

Honestly, anyone that took trumps "russia, if you're listening" statement as anything but a joke, is, a joke themselves.

Yes, what more do you need?

Vote to begin impeachment immediately!

Mulvaney brashly admits quid pro quo over Ukraine aid as key details emerge -- and then denies doing so

Washington (CNN)White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney made a stunning admission Thursday by confirming that President Donald Trump froze nearly $400 million in US security aid to Ukraine in part to pressure that country into investigating Democrats.

Hours later, Mulvaney then denied ever saying those words.

The dramatic admission came during an afternoon news conference where Mulvaney insisted that he knew only of a US request to investigate the handling of a Democratic National Committee server hacked in the 2016 election, but text messages between US diplomats show efforts to get Ukraine to commit to an investigation into Burisma, the company on whose board former Vice President Joe Biden's son sat. There is no evidence of wrongdoing in Ukraine by either Biden.

"That's why we held up the money," Mulvaney said after listing the 2016-related investigation and Trump's broader concerns about corruption in Ukraine.

After weeks during which Trump denied the existence of any political quid pro quo in his withholding of security aid to Ukraine, Mulvaney confirmed the existence of a quid pro quo and offered this retort: "Get over it."

"We do that all the time with foreign policy," Mulvaney said of the influence of politics in the Trump administration.

Then on Thursday evening, Mulvaney attempted to claim that he did not admit to the quid pro quo despite clearly being asked if the Trump administration withheld funding for Ukraine for an investigation into the DNC server and answering affirmatively.

"The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption," Mulvaney said in a written statement, adding, "There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the DNC server."

In an unusual statement expressing public distance from the White House, a senior Justice Department official responded: "If the White House was withholding aid in regards to the cooperation of any investigation at the Department of Justice, that is news to us."

Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow told CNN's Jim Acosta: "The legal team was not involved in the acting chief of staff's press briefing."

Mulvaney's admission came after current and former Trump administration officials revealed in congressional testimony that a White House meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was also being conditioned on Ukraine launching politically charged investigations.

Mulvaney said he does not recall any "serious" conversations about setting up a White House meeting, but a senior White House official told CNN that Mulvaney was likely aware that the meeting was being conditioned on investigating matters related to the 2016 election, although not about the Bidens.

Efforts by Trump administration officials to pressure Ukraine into carrying out investigations into 2016 and the Bidens alarmed diplomatic and national security officials across the government.

For then-national security adviser John Bolton and Fiona Hill, Trump's top foreign adviser on Europe and Russia, July 10 brought the clearest sign yet that politics was troublingly being injected into US foreign policy toward Ukraine.

Meeting with Ukrainian officials that day, Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union and a top Trump donor, made clear that the Ukrainian President could secure a White House visit if his government opened investigations -- including one into Burisma, the energy company on whose board Biden's son Hunter once sat -- that would be a political boon for Trump

The apparent quid pro quo so alarmed Bolton that he described the interaction at the time as "a drug deal" and urged Hill, who attended the meeting, to report their concerns to White House lawyers.

It would be just one of several instances where National Security Council and intelligence officials raised concerns with attorneys inside the Trump administration, believing they were witnessing a hijacking of Ukraine policy by the President's political allies for his political gain.

The ultimate inflection point -- which prompted an intelligence officials to file a whistleblower complaint that triggered the current House impeachment inquiry -- came during a phone call between Trump and Zelensky on July 25, in which Trump urged Zelensky to investigate 2016 election matters and Biden, the former vice president and the leading Democratic candidate for President at the time.

Concerns raised early

Much of the attention surrounding Democrats' current impeachment efforts has focused on that call and its aftermath. But the efforts by some officials to pressure Ukraine into investigating matters that would be politically beneficial to Trump and the concerns raised by other officials in the weeks before the call have become a focal point as lawmakers assess whether to impeach the President.

Mulvaney's role in the lead-up to that call is swelling.

Mulvaney was not only aware of the linkage between the withheld security aid to Ukraine and the political investigations Trump was seeking, but he was the official who carried out Trump's directive to freeze nearly $400 million in congressionally approved security aid to Ukraine.

He also led a meeting putting key officials -- including Sondland -- in charge of US policy toward Ukraine, according to testimony by current and former officials.

During the May meeting, Mulvaney put Energy Secretary Rick Perry, US special representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker and Sondland at the helm of US policy toward Ukraine, according to private testimony by George Kent, the State Department's deputy assistant secretary responsible for Ukraine matters. Mulvaney said Thursday he has never talked to Kent.

The news came as a surprise to US officials with more subject matter expertise on Ukraine, including those at the embassy.

"They revealed that decision at a meeting with Zelensky in Kiev, I believe on June 2," said Rep. Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat who heard Kent's testimony. "And for some Americans from the embassy that was news to them."

Text messages between Sondland, Volker and the top US diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, would later reveal Sondland and Volker's coordination with Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, and their efforts to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into 2016 matters and Burisma, the company on whose board Hunter Biden sat. Taylor raised concerns that a quid pro quo was afoot: withholding a White House visit for the Ukrainian president and security aid until Ukraine committed to carrying out investigations.

At key junctures, officials elevated their concerns about the situation to their superiors and to lawyers in the White House counsel's office. That includes Hill, the top Russia adviser at the White House, acting at the direction of her boss, Bolton.

It's not clear where -- if anywhere -- those lawyers took the matter from there. As evidenced by the transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call, there was no reversing the influence that Giuliani and Sondland were having on the administration's Ukraine policy, despite the serious concerns being raised by senior officials.

After Trump's phone call, those same lawyers fielded additional complaints about the conversation itself, and took the unusual step of placing a transcript of the conversation in a highly secured server.

But those steps amounted to a culmination of long-simmering concerns, not the start of them. Even before the visit from the Ukrainians on July 10, Hill and other top officials were alarmed by the removal two months earlier of Marie Yovanovitch, the 33-year veteran of foreign service who'd been recalled from her ambassador post in Ukraine. Yovanovitch told lawmakers last week she'd been told Trump had lost faith in her even though she'd done nothing wrong.

Confirming existing fears

The early-July meeting at the White House -- designed to introduce members of the new Ukrainian administration to Washington -- only confirmed the existing fears that politics was running roughshod over professional diplomacy in Ukraine.

It was what happened after those talks that unnerved aides like Hill, according to testimony she delivered behind closed doors on Capitol Hill this week. During a session in a White House dining room after the official meeting ended, she said she recalled Sondland discussing investigations — a subject that was interpreted as a reference to the President's call for investigations into the Bidens.

She also recalled hearing Sondland mention Burisma -- the energy firm on whose board Hunter Biden served.

"She saw wrongdoing related to the Ukraine policy and reported it," one source familiar with her testimony said.

But even as Bolton and Hill sought to call attention to potential impropriety, Bolton drew up a scheduling request for a call between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart.

The request was dated July 10, according to a senior White House official, the same day of that White House meeting that sparked concerns.

Trump's call with Zelensky would not take place until two weeks later -- on July 25 -- an unusual lag time between Bolton's scheduling request and the call, according to current and former White House officials.

The call was tentatively scheduled for July 20, but a senior White House official said it was delayed because Trump had a call scheduled with the Swedish prime minister to discuss the imprisonment of rapper A$AP Rocky, a top priority for Trump at the time.

As Trump was preparing to speak with Zelensky by phone in mid-July, officials throughout the government were warning of the dangers posed by his attempts to circumvent American diplomacy.

Some officials -- including Hill -- were skeptical of a phone call, believing it could be used to advance the political agenda pressed by Giuliani, but Perry and Sondland made the case for the call by focusing on the importance of Ukraine's energy independence from Russia and the prospects for increasing Ukraine's import of US natural gas, officials said.

But an official who reviewed Trump's briefing materials for his call with Zelensky said the materials focused on the new Ukrainian leaders' anti-corruption platform, not energy matters.

The call sheet Bolton generated to recommend scheduling the call focused "on Zelensky's potential to eliminate corruption in particular," one official said, and briefing materials talked up Zelensky's anti-corruption campaign platform.

In addition to scheduling issues with Trump's call to Sweden's prime minister on July 20, the call was pushed back five days to occur after parliamentary elections in Ukraine. One official said Bolton was also concerned that a call before the elections could signal that the US was attempting to improperly boost Zelensky's party, something Trump has not been afraid of doing with other countries' domestic politics.

The delay allowed Taylor, the US chargé d'affaires in Ukraine, to register his concerns about injecting politics into US-Ukraine ties.

"President Zelenskyy is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics," Taylor wrote in text messages.

Three hours later, Sondland replied to reassure him.

"Absolutely, but we need to get the conversation started and the relationship built, irrespective of the pretext," he wrote. "I am worried about the alternative."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/politics/...-aid/index.html

There you go, a confession!

What more do you guys need?

Vote to begin impeachment already!

I kind of like the way things are going without the vote. I mean keeping Trump's minions out of the hearings until the facts are gathered so they cannot interfere with nonsense or report back to the White House is kind of brilliant on Pelosi and Schiff's part.

But don't worry lil' buddy, looks like we're getting there.

Yes, I know you approve.
Here in the South, we call that a Lynching.
You certainly don't want to hear his side of the story or have him call his own witnesses.
Just keep on holding closed door secret meetings and leaking whatever supports your side.

See you get it when you have the time to absorb information.

All I have to do is watch 5 minutes of Tucker or Hannity clips to see which angle the GOPers are chasing now. Sad that they ignore facts and do almost anything to protect this traitor. But hey, hemp is legal again so there will be plenty of rope when the bill finally comes due.

In DC, it's called due process.
You see, The Speaker is under no obligation to hold a vote until the inquiry is satisfied. No obligation whatsoever. It makes no sense at all to hold a vote until all the facts are in.

As for 'his side of the story'... that is why we have the Senate to execute the trial. Not before. It is the House's responsibility to hold the inquiry, amass the evidence against, prepare a case, THEN hold a vote. Once the vote is held, and if the vote confirms, the case goes to the Senate for prosecution. THAT is his opportunity to plead his case, line up witnesses to support his cause, etc. That's how all this works according to the actual rules- not some bullpucky that extrudes from the hole at the bottom of Hannity's face.

Civics is my friend. Apparently, you and Civics are still strangers. It's my pleasure to introduce the two of you.

You can thank me later.
Or not.
Either works for me, as I make this #40factcheck thing look easy.

Sadly no matter the facts the Republican party as it is now won't vote to impeach... They are more outraged by the withdrawal in Syria than Trump acting like a mob boss and withholding appropriated funds to coerce allies to invent fake investigations into political opponents. They'd prefer to offer fake outrage over Trump talking points than address Trump undermining due process. They'll claim DEEP STATE rather than actually look n talk about what Trump has done and is doing.

If there is something to impeach him on, have at it. But, the dems won't have at it. Just talk.

They are really impeaching him for winning the 2016 election. That is why every few weeks their hair catches fire for one thing or another. Everything is impeachable for the Dems. They will keep throwing things out their until they feel they have something that will stick. The problem is they have not found anything that to bring the Republicans in and make it by partisan. Until they can do that they will just continue to drive a wedge in Country unity.

Democrats hate the country!!! They hate when people who work hard and play by the rules prosper. Democrats want to be the ruling class and make all of us peasants. President Trumps policies have led to the best economy since before man walked on the moon. How can they run against that. They know it! That is why they are attempting a partisan Coup. It is beyond laughable.

Lol I love waking up in the morning, kissing my wife, helping the kids get ready for school, and reading conservative rants like this.

Is that the same type of lynchings ya all have down south?

I could care less about impeachment at this point - I wasn't even looking for impeachment from the Mueller report. The next election is coming faster than we are likely to get the GOP to cooperate on the Due Process that is needed to investigate Trump. Add to that the spineless - sold their souls GOP won't remove Trump no matter what is proven. Trump is good at playing the victim ... look at how much he wails and whines about the media ... while in comparison Obama faced the same from the Right and he didn't.

The investigations - federal and state level - are good for exposing the truth. Some will accept that truth and want to ask hard questions - some will listen to the Trump spin and lies and instead of talking about what Trump did they will start asking questions about fake issues like Hunter Biden.

I like how the trumpians were silent for almost the first two weeks after the Ukraine news broke and now they are active in off hours like cockroaches when the lights go out.

And these posts have become 'must read' for two reasons IMHO.

First they show the ever evolving reaction to Ukraine-gate where they seem to be stuck between daily breaking allegations of new criminal activity and White House admissions of guilt while trying new applications of the Pee Wee Herman defense "I know you are but what am I?".

The second thing is much more fascinating IMHO. Anyone who can read or listen just has to understand that fully 90% of the statements coming from the right are currently projections of their own ineptitude, fears, and hate onto dems, investigators, and witnesses. They literally have nothing to defend these things.

They think “it’s a witch-hunt” is the defense.

ikr

j/c

The Mueller investigation was ordered by a Republican that was appointed by Trump. Rosenstein. He appointed a special prosecutor who was a Republican. Mueller.

And they are so confused and looking to blame people other than Republicans for it, they still blame the Democrats for it.

A year and a half of the time they continue to blame the Democrats for investigations into Trump are owned by Republicans, not Democrats. But facts haven't been their strong suit since they started backing Trump no matter what he does.

The House is not working with a report from Muller or Archibald Cox at this time. So in this case they are acting as the investigator.

That is why they are taking depositions in private. You don't want witnesses having the benefit of hearing the stories of others and adjusting their verbiage to match.

Once the depositions are taken, they will probably be made public and there may be additional questioning in public. May, but not a requirement.

Once the depositions become public, Trump will have a chance to present his own evidence in the Senate trial.

Trump is going nowhere and ALL you Demos can do nothing but...

Wrong.

This is an impeachment investigation, not a Grand Jury.
It is political in nature, not criminal.

What Grand Jury excludes Republicans from being Jurors and hearing testimony?
What Grand Jury leaks portions of the testimony to the Press on a daily basis? It is illegal to talk about Grand Jury testimony.

This is nothing but an unauthorized and underhanded campaign to undermine the President and try him in the court of public opinion with a daily drip drip drip of the Democrat side of the story.

Cheating the American People by playing these political games is obvious to every American.

There is zero testimony at this point that military aide was something the Ukrainians felt was being withheld to influence their decision.

This is a farce from the beginning.

This is an investigation, nothing more. It's an inquiry to gather evidence. Nobody would allow witnesses to hear other witnesses before they testify. It's a fact finding mission.

Your diatribe changes nothing.

Please cite and rule or law that requires a vote or others outside of congress to be present during this process.

You can't.

This isn't the first impeachment investigation in our history.

There are previous examples, precedence and procedures.

None of which are being followed in this laughable campaign debacle.

There was a precedent that Presidents release their tax returns as well.

Sounds like your own logic has come back to bite you in the butt.

Your claim was there is no law that requires a president to release his tax returns. Suddenly you want to rest on precedent?

OMG - Trump But, you are a day late and a dollar short.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zyXtCPntl8

Cry me a river, 40anne.



This is a wheel of Camembert. It's a nutty, mild cheese from the north of France. It pairs beautifully with that case of whine you're becoming famous for.

Try not to soil your skirt while this plays out.
Your boy's been hip-deep in shadiness since the transition so now, he's getting the microscope treatment, as is only proper. If he's as guilt-free as he claims, the probe (and yes, I used that word on purpose) will come out clean.

Best thing you and he can do is relax your sphincter and wait for it to be over.

Here's a Kleenex.
In the words of Mick Mulvaney: get over it, missy.

I am not surprised that some republicans are taking issue with his actions.

Anyone who has held political office understands that there are certain things that you cannot do..

Trump just never took the time to learn and appreciate what it means to be an elected representative...

He is like "I am the President, I can do whatever I want"

His own ego led to this fiasco.

Probably his biggest blunder was to involve Rudy and the State Department. If he used one or the other, the case against him would have been less obvious, but by using both he painted himself into a corner. It's pretty obvious that those in the State department were dismayed and confused as to why Rudy was involved.

And Rudy is up to his neck with conflicts, I await his testimony.

All this said, impeachment is not assured. It is a political process involving a republican senate, and it is reasonably assured that any crime would not be investigated by Barr or the DOJ.

Exactly this.
At the start of his tenure, I assessed him as 'intellectually incurious.'

He has tried to run 1600 like he's always run his companies. In the private sector, you can get away with tactics like that. He's never embraced the concept that there exists a different set of rules for service in the public sector.

It's why I was convinced from the start that he'd find himself in hot water sooner or later. I had no idea how it would manifest, but was certain he'd step in it one way or another.

LMAO He couldn't even believe that he won! That was never his goal. He wanted to position himself for alt-right political broadcasting. They said Melania cried when he won and not tears of joy.

Fox's Wallace says 'well-connected' Republican told him there's a 20 percent chance GOP will vote for impeachment

Fox's Chris Wallace said a "well-connected" Washington Republican told him that there's a 20 percent chance enough Republicans will vote to remove President Trump from office in an impeachment trial in the Senate.

Wallace mentioned his source's comments during an interview with acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney on "Fox News Sunday."

Wallace cited an overwhelming House vote criticizing the president's policies in Syria and an op-ed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) slamming Trump's decision to withdraw troops from that country.

He then said he had "talked to a very well-connected Republican in Washington, someone whose name you would know well, who says that if the House votes to impeach and it gets to a trial in the Senate, there's now a 20 percent chance enough Republicans would vote with Democrats to impeach the president."

The Fox anchor then asked Mulvaney if he was concerned about the president losing GOP support.

"That’s just absurd," Mulvaney said. "The comment about the 20 percent is just a person who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about."

The acting chief of staff added that Trump knew his decision to withdraw troops from Syria would be controversial and wouldn't be "politically popular."

"The president is extraordinarily popular at home," Mulvaney said, emphasizing his likability in swing states.

When Wallace said he was referring to GOP lawmakers distancing themselves from the president, Mulvaney responded, "They have to go home eventually as well."



Trump decided earlier this month to remove troops from Syria, which led to a Turkish invasion of northern Syria.

The decision sparked bipartisan backlash, with Republicans saying it had stabbed Kurdish allies now fighting with Turkey in the back while giving new leverage to ISIS, Russia and the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Polls have indicated support for impeachment has grown since Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced an inquiry last month, with multiple polls over the past two weeks showing that a majority of respondents supported the impeachment of Trump.

But it's still considered highly unlikely that many Republicans would back Trump's impeachment.

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk...-percent-chance

Here's the funny part in all of this.

People like 40 kept parroting Trump....."“Bring our troops back home…. It’s time to bring them home."

Only the truth is he's sending the soldiers from Syria to Iraq in order to fight ISIS there. And to add to that, he deployed almost two thousand more troops to Saudi Arabia.

I guess some people's idea of bringing the troops home is actually the opposite of what it really means.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.
In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws " he would make a Trump.

What's really funny is the same fools who spent years chasing around the fake Russian Collusion story and now the fake impeachment story have the gall to call Trump stupid.

This individual was created by real-life Human Beings.
That makes him more chilling than any fictional creation by Mary Shelley.

Just in time for Hallowe'en.

You still can't grasp that Mueller said he couldn't get to the bottom of the collusion issue because the witnesses lied. But all you've done in the past three years is support the biggest liar that has ever lived in the White House so it's understandable how that concept confuses you.