DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Impeachment: The Gauntlet

I thought he believed the Bible? I mean that is a book, right?

BREAKING! Judge just agreed the House is entitled to FULL Mueller Report and underlying Materials in opinion and order. Must be sent by October 30th. Link to follow.


Judge rules DOJ must turn over Mueller grand jury material to House Democrats

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/25...emocrats-000299

Uh, the 'author' didn't take any money. And if you believe for a second this 'anonymous' person was the author..........well.............

Here's how it most likely is/was: A writer, who gets paid from his publisher, spoke with this anonymous person.

They can claim the author made or will not make any money from the book, as the writer is paid by the publisher. And the 'anonymous source'? No mention of what that more than likely fired person gets for giving fake news, in order to sell a book based on lies, so that the writer can continue to receive a pay check from his employer.

Come on, it's simple math, with a few linguistic "hey, we covered ourselves" manipulations in terms.


If it's fact, why's the dude writing a book? And I promise you, he will benefit from any sale of the book, and NOT going to a prosecutor.


Hatred will get some people so riled up they can't see facts for what they are.

He says after writing a purely speculative/baseless rant about a situation that he has zero knowledge about.

Would it be better if I posted as "anonymous"?

You asked for a source showing the author didn't make any money. I gave you that source. No matter who the sources were for the book, and it seems that the author may be the main source, the author is not being paid for the book.

You were given the source and now you're twisting in the wind in an attempt to write a new narrative.

j/c

Oh lord please ... 40, Fish, et-al ... please watch, even for the first 30 seconds.

I'd ask Arch too as well but he'd dismiss the source.

Nah, dude. In situations like this, the author is paid by the publishing company. Contract, therefore they can claim the author is not getting paid for the book - he or she is getting paid by the contract. I'm surprised you don't know that.

The 'anonymous' informant most certainly got paid. And, the more lurid this informant was, the more he got paid.

It's how 'anonymous" books work. You don't have anything that will ring bells? Not paying you."

dem, repub, independent..............you know as well as I do sensationalism sells. Facts don't.

You asked for a link that showed they were not getting paid. It was provided to you. Now, once that tactic failed, you are changing the narrative.

You made up your mind and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change it. Even after giving you the source you asked for.

Well, first of all, the link requires me to stop my adblocker, and I don't do that.

Secondly, regardless of what your link said, someone got paid. Trust me. The writer got paid, I promise you. But, he got paid under his contract. Not based on sales of the book.

The anonymous source got paid as well. Trust me.


If you were anything of value, I could hire a writer, and anonymously give him any dirt I wanted to about you, and we could say "the author didn't get paid", even though being about you, I would probably only get a dollar.

The author would get paid by his company, I'd get my dollar, and we could say "any proceeds from this book will be going to charity."

A farce is a farce, and so far, regarding Trump, most everything has been a farce.

Yup, he paid a porn star to not talk. Despicable action on his part. Not illegal, though. Where's Michael Avennati now?





One thing I've discovered: If I block about 6 people on here, maybe 7, I'll be able to have a true chat conversation with people that live in reality. Of course, by blocking those 6 or 7 people, I'd miss out on 90% of the posts in pp.

Dude, you're really reaching without any substance. Let me pose exactly the same question you posed. "Do you have a link?"

Let's try this again.....



Advamces and sales of a book are the customary way authors are paid. Nothing but pure speculation and innuendo on your part even suggest otherwise.

I know it's hard to fathom, but some people actually care about doing the right thing. It's a strange and rarely seen concept I know.

What farce are you talking about?

Are you including the farce you posted about the Dems trying to impeach Trump for three years? That farce?

The Mueller investigation was Republican, not Democrat. The asst. AG, who was appointed by Trump, a Republican, appointed Mueller who was a Republican to investigate Trump. That covers half of the time you blame the Democrats for right there.

Or are you talking about the farce that gets repeated that there was no collusion? Because while I can't say for sure there was, Mueller plainly stated that he couldn't get to the bottom of it because witnesses were lying. That farce?



It would be far more comfortable to sit at home taking everything you think as fact without ever looking at any evidence to the contrary or the other side of anything.

On the other hand, if you did that you would not have learned today that Republicans are lying to you about the impeachment inquiry. That the Dems are actually following the rules the GOP passed in 2015.

So I guess there are two sides to the coin.

Don't know, don't care.

Trump dismisses need for impeachment team: 'I'm the team'

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...eam-im-the-team

lololol. what is wrong with this dude

How much time do you have?

Not nearly enough unfortunately

smdh

Why are you trolling me?

No troll in my mirrors.



Project much?

I love that you can't get me off your mind. Ever.

lol... lmao... lmfao

That is one of the funniest things you have ever said because I think you're the most forgettable guy on the board! Only time I bother to think about you is when I'm replying to you.

GOP worries it's losing impeachment fight

Republican senators fear President Trump and their party are losing the public opinion fight over impeachment.

Many in the GOP think House Democrats are playing politics with impeachment and that Trump’s actions don’t merit impeachment. They also think the media is biased against the White House and the president.

All the same, they think they’re losing the public battle and that Trump’s lack of discipline is hurting them.

“Does he need to be so unhinged? He says the dumbest things,” said one Republican senator who vented frustration with the president’s outbursts on Twitter and in front of the White House press corps.

“Yeah, there needs to be a coordinated response to everything. There needs to be a coordinated effort to just shut up,” the senator said.

GOP lawmakers say that President Trump and his political team need to overhaul their strategy to regain momentum and prevent their party from losing the White House and a number of congressional seats next fall.

They say the White House’s efforts so far not only could limit Trump to one term, but could spell doom for vulnerable Senate GOP incumbents such as Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Martha McSally (Ariz.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Joni Ernst (Iowa) and Thom Tillis (N.C.).

A veteran Republican strategist who advises on third-party independent TV expenditures told The Hill Wednesday that he thinks Trump’s reelection chances are well below 50 percent because his “negatives are so high.”

The strategist acknowledged, however, that many of his peers argue the 2020 battle for the White House is still a 50-50 proposition.

Even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of Trump’s most vociferous defenders on impeachment who is offering a resolution to condemn the House impeachment effort, said the White House needs to step up its game.

“What's missing here I think is that coordinated effort to put somebody in charge of developing a message and delivering it. I believe that's about to be corrected, I hope,” he said Wednesday.

It’s notable that while 44 Senate Republicans on Thursday signed on to the resolution, nine other GOP senators did not: Collins, Gardner, Sen. Dan Sullivan (Alaska), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio), Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah), Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Sen. Johnny Isakson (Ga.) and Sen. Mike Enzi (Wyo.).

Republicans are concerned about new revelations and unforced errors over the past week that have given Democrats new momentum.

One big moment came last week when acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said the administration withheld defense aid to Ukraine in order to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

“Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy,” Mulvaney declared at a press conference in a high-profile admission that left GOP lawmakers cringing.

Mulvaney later argued that his comments were misconstrued, but a bruising interview with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” showed the damage was done.

Another big moment came Tuesday when William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, delivered a damning 15-page opening statement to House investigators detailing a secretive effort led by Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to use military assistance to Ukraine as political leverage.

Senate Majority Whip John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican leader, later admitted to reporters the picture painted by Taylor’s testimony was worrying, even while he also criticized House Democrats for running the investigation behind closed doors.

“The picture coming out of it based on the reporting that we've seen is, yeah, I would say not a good one,” Thune told reporters Wednesday.

Trump’s actions at times have left his GOP allies dumbfounded, such as earlier this month when he called on Beijing to investigate the Bidens.

Even Graham admitted in an “Axios on HBO” interview that “that was stupid.”

And the president stepped in it again earlier this week when he compared the House impeachment inquiry to a “lynching,” a charged word that recalls the nation’s darkest episodes of racial violence.

Many Republicans scrambled to disavow Trump’s choice of words.

“Given the history of our country, I would not compare this to a lynching,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said somberly, reflecting broad dismay within his caucus over the language.

Other Trump allies say the president’s frequent zigging and zagging makes it tougher to defend him against Democratic attacks, even though they also acknowledge that past efforts to tamp down on Trump’s tweeting have proved unsuccessful.

“I think it could be helpful to have a more professional, coordinated communications effort. However, you have to be very careful to not prohibit Donald Trump from being Donald Trump and that’s the risk you run when you start institutionalizing these things,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.).

But Cramer said Trump’s unpredictability makes it tougher for GOP allies to defend the president.

“The reason it’s difficult is sometimes he changes in midstream and when that happens you find yourself out on a limb that has suddenly been cut off,” he said. “The lack of that sort of institutional discipline does make it more difficult for the rest of us, if you will, as we’re trying to carry his message.”

Thune on Thursday expressed his hope the White House messaging operation would become more organized in the weeks ahead.

“It always is an advantage to make sure that you are as organized, prepared and coordinated as you possibly can be. And to the degree they can step up the efforts, that’s great,” he said.

“I’ll leave that to them and I’m sure they’re preparing,” he added. “We’ll see if the House proceeds. If they do, they’re going to have be able to respond and put on a defense.”

As damaging revelations pile up, more and more senators such as McSally and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who both declined to comment on impeachment-related questions Thursday, are opting to stay quiet rather than defend the president.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/467388-gop-worries-its-losing-impeachment-fight

Key witness in impeachment investigation asks federal judge to rule on testifying

A key witness in the House’s impeachment investigation filed a lawsuit in federal court Friday asking a judge to rule on whether he can testify to congressional investigators after President Trump invoked “constitutional immunity."

Charles Kupperman, who served as President Trump’s deputy national security adviser, was subpoenaed by House Democrats Monday to testify in their investigation into the president’s dealings with Ukraine. However, the White House declared Friday that Trump had invoked “constitutional immunity” to bar Kupperman from appearing on Capitol Hill.

“Plaintiff obviously cannot satisfy the competing demands of both the legislative and executive branches, and he is aware of no controlling judicial authority definitively establishing which branch’s command should prevail,” the suit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia reads.

Democrats hope that Kupperman and John Bolton, former national security adviser, can deliver key pieces of information in their probe. Both were close advisers to the president, dealing with him directly on policy toward Ukraine, and could give investigators insight into closed-door conversations.

Constitutional immunity extends beyond the powers of executive privilege, which the White House has used to block testimony from several other current and former officials. While executive privilege frees a person from being forced to divulge any dealings with the White House to investigators, constitutional immunity means individuals cannot be forced to testify before Congress at all, and do not even have to appear at hearings.

“The president…has asserted that plaintiff, as a close personal adviser to the president, is immune from congressional process, and has instructed plaintiff not to appear and testify in response to the House’s subpoena,” the lawsuit reads.

Kupperman “is faced with irreconcilable commands by the legislative and executive branches of the government and, accordingly, seeks a declaratory judgment from this court as to whether he is lawfully obliged to comply with a subpoena issued by the House defendants demanding his testimony…or he is lawfully obliged to abide by the assertion of immunity from congressional process made by the president,” it continues.

Trump’s dealings with Ukraine are at the heart of the House’s impeachment investigation, with Democrats accusing the president of withholding $400 million in military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden, a chief political rival.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing, calling a July call with Zelensky – in which he repeatedly pushed him to launch a probe into Biden – “perfect,” and denying that the halted military aid was tied to his request to investigate Biden.

However, William Taylor, who serves as the chargé d’affaires for Ukraine, testified Tuesday that he believed there was a quid pro quo.

“During our call on September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman," Taylor told congressional investigators during his nearly 10-hour appearance behind closed doors, referring to Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland. "When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before singing the check."

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...ederal-judge-to

This guy sounds like he wants to testify! I'm cracking up at the breaking from Trump we are seeing from top officials. That speaks volumes.

Pompeo voices support for work of diplomat criticized by Trump

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appeared to offer support for a diplomat who has come under fierce attacks from President Trump over his testimony in the House’s impeachment investigation.

When asked by The Sunflower if he still has confidence in William Taylor, who serves as the chargé d’affaires for Ukraine, Pompeo said the two are aligned on how the U.S. should approach its relationship with Ukraine.

“I’ve watched Bill — he and I have talked about Ukranian policy at some length. How do you take down corruption? How do you now help the new leader there, President Zelensky? How do we deliver on America’ national security interests? And he and I — full accord on that," he said. "He and I both share this vision for how American interests in Ukraine can properly be represented. I have every reason to think that he’s still out there, banging away at that problem set."

The comments come as Taylor faces a barrage of attacks from Trump over his testimony that the White House tied hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine to the country’s compliance with Trump’s request that it announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden.

“Here’s the problem, he’s a Never Trumper,” the president told reporters Friday at the White House in response to a question about Taylor’s explosive testimony from earlier this week.

"This is a hoax," Trump added. "This is a disgrace that this could happen in our country."

Taylor this week laid out in detailed testimony that Trump decided to withhold roughly $400 million in financial aid until he secured a commitment from Ukraine officials that they would investigate Biden, one of his top political rivals.

“During our call on September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman," Taylor told congressional investigators during his nearly 10-hour appearance behind closed doors, referring to ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.

"When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before singing the check," he continued.

Democrats have seized on Taylor’s testimony, saying it lays out a quid pro quo between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“This testimony is a sea change. I think it could accelerate matters,” Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), a member of the Oversight and Reform Committee, said this week.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...icized-by-trump

There goes Pompeo trying to realign himself.

Pelosi: Court ruling 'another blow' to President Trump

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) touted a federal court ruling ordering the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide Congress with redacted information from Robert Mueller's special counsel report as a blow against President Trump’s efforts to fight the House’s oversight efforts.

“Today’s ruling in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is another blow to President Trump’s attempt to put himself above the law,” Pelosi said in a statement Friday.

“This critical court ruling affirms Congress’s authority to expose the truth for the American people," she continued. "Most importantly, the Court recognized the House’s right to obtain grand jury information pursuant to its impeachment inquiry.”

The statement comes after D.C. District Court Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, ruled that House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have a justifiable reason for obtaining the records related to Mueller’s grand jury now that they are conducting an impeachment probe into the president.

“In carrying out the weighty constitutional duty of determining whether impeachment of the President is warranted, Congress need not redo the nearly two years of effort spent on the Special Counsel’s investigation, nor risk being misled by witnesses, who may have provided information to the grand jury and the Special Counsel that varies from what they tell [the House Judiciary Committee],” Howell wrote in her decision.

The Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress have said officials do not have to cooperate with the House’s investigation, arguing that it is illegitimate until authorized by a vote in the House.

The DOJ rolled out that argument to the district court last month, writing in a filing that “impeachments of Presidents Clinton and Andrew Johnson were investigated in multiple phases with each phase authorized by the House’s adoption of resolutions.”

However, Howell dismissed that argument Friday, ordering the DOJ to hand over all information that was redacted from the Mueller report in order to protect grand jury secrecy.

"Even were this statement accurate, which it is not, the manner in which the House has chosen to conduct impeachment inquiries encompasses more than past Presidents and no sound legal or constitutional reason has been presented to distinguish the House’s exercise of impeachment authority for a President from the exercise of such authority more generally," she wrote.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/46755...-to-put-himself

Trump seems to be winning!

Seems to be quite often. Rent free, in your head. But, it is obviously spacious there.

LOL ... we all are here. Get a grip.

The federal judge is Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell. Judge Howell gave the Justice Department until Oct. 30 to produce the materials to the House Judiciary Committee.

Read below-The judge is stating the the Trump administration and the DOJ are "willfully" trying to impede the investigation

Howell said the the DOJ's interpretation of the law was "wrong."
"In carrying out the weighty constitutional duty of determining whether impeachment of the President is warranted, Congress need not redo the nearly two years of effort spent on the Special Counsel's investigation, nor risk being misled by witnesses, who may have provided information to the grand jury and the Special Counsel that varies from what they tell HJC," she said.
In court, the House argued that its Mueller-related investigation was part of an impeachment inquiry. That claim came before Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly sanctioned the current impeachment push that's focused on the President's recent dealings with Ukraine.
"The White House's stated policy of non-cooperation with the impeachment inquiry weighs heavily in favor of disclosure," she said alluding to the blanket ban the White House Counsel's office recently imposed on administration officials participating with the impeachment probe.
She cited the White House Counsel's letter to argue that claims of accommodation made by DOJ in the case "smack of farce."
"The reality is that DOJ and the White House have been openly stonewalling the House's efforts to get information by subpoena and by agreement, and the White House has flatly stated that the Administration will not cooperate with congressional requests for information," she said.
She also noted that some of the Justice Department's previous arguments doubting the legitimacy of the impeachment inquiry were now moot with Pelosi's public embrace of it.
Howell said that the House's impeachment inquiry clearly fits within the category of "judicial proceedings" within the grand jury secrecy law's list of reasons that grand jury materials may be disclosed.
The Justice Department had argued that the House's impeachment inquiry did not in fact satisfy as a "judicial proceeding" " a claim Howell said Friday "raises constitutional concerns. "
Howell, quoting Mueller's report, noted that DOJ policy barring indictments of sitting President "prompted the Special Counsel to abstain from mak[ing] a traditional prosecutorial judgment' or otherwise draw[ing] ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct.'"
"This leaves the House as the only federal body that can act on allegations of presidential misconduct," she said. "Yet, under DOJ's reading of Rule 6(e), the Executive Branch would be empowered to wall off any evidence of presidential misconduct from the House by placing that evidence before a grand jury."
Howell also dismantled arguments by the Justice Department and the top Judiciary Committee Republican claiming that the impeachment inquiry was illegitimate because it was not opened with a resolution approved by the full house House.
"Even were this statement accurate, which it is not, the manner in which the House has chosen to conduct impeachment inquiries encompasses more than past Presidents and no sound legal or constitutional reason has been presented to distinguish the House's exercise of impeachment authority for a President from the exercise of such authority more generally," Howell said, noting that several impeachment inquiries for judges have been launched without a House vote.
"Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry," she said.

The GOP is already losing the messaging war, as even Fox News analysts have stated that the GOP is whining about their own made up rules.

They’re whole defense was based around the process, not actually defending anything trump did. And now that defense has quickly fallen apart when it became clear the house GOP staged a scene despite having republicans in the closed door hearings.

And then to make it worse, trump is now lashing out at republicans, with the broadness of his anger getting wider and wider against the GOP.

The GOP can’t make the credibility argument.

The GOP can’t make the process argument.

The president is targeting them despite being on the same team.

And nobody is listening to their whatabouts.

Not looking good for trump.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/...ld-be-impeached

SEA ISLAND, Georgia — John Kelly warned President Trump that hiring a “yes man” to succeed him as White House chief of staff would lead to impeachment and, in hindsight, regrets his decision to resign.

House Democrats launched an impeachment inquiry into Trump less than a year after Kelly departed the administration. The retired, four-star Marine general suggested the blame lies squarely with acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and other advisers who are unable, or unwilling, to keep the president out of trouble.

Kelly, 69, said he privately cautioned Trump during his final days on the job that he would be impeached if he did not tap a chief of staff with the fortitude to check the president’s bad impulses. Kelly said he does not believe the president would be in this predicament had he stayed.

“I said, whatever you do — and we were still in the process of trying to find someone to take my place — I said whatever you do, don’t hire a ‘yes man,’ someone who won’t tell you the truth — don’t do that. Because if you do, I believe you will be impeached,” Kelly recalled in an interview at the Sea Island Summit, a political conference hosted by the Washington Examiner.

So even Kelly knew he was basically a glorified baby sitter.

Of course Trump denies Kelly ever said that.

Betting trump hates the national pastime right about now.

Trump's been in an impeachment since before he took office. The media started calling for it in November of 2016.

He's still NOT IN AN IMPEACHMENT. Impeachment begins when the house passes articles of impeachment to be sent to the Senate. He is in an inquiry, where normal critical thinking individuals question what he is or has been doing instead of just buying the lies flowing from his mouth every damn waking second.

last nights World Series game was a good sample of what more than half the population of this country wants right now. “Lock him up.” Enjoy.