DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Impeachment: Armageddon

What's even more cynical- Ukraine didn't even have to actually open the investigation. All Dolt45 wanted was for them to announce that they'd open an investigation. Once that was accomplished, Trump could run with it at all his rallies and in an endless stream of tweets. Another flea circus by the master of appearances.

Sondland even testified such under oath last week.

King Rat once again trying to dupe deplorables.

"I love the uneducated!"
-D Trump, 2016

Yep. And king rat's #2 guy... Or#3 or #4 ... Sounding guilty as hell when interviewed and asked a direct question on Fox!!!! Wonder if any Trumpers are gullible enough to swallow the BS that Nunes spewed!!! LMAO.

So if the House impeaches Trump, what will happen in the Senate?

The Senate will laugh and say no.

agreed.

Federal judge says former White House counsel Don McGahn must speak to House

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/25/politics/don-mcgahn-house-subpoena-impeachment/index.html

40's hammer seems to be swinging the wrong way!!

What a surprise, another Obama appointed Judge making her own rules.

The Justice Department will appeal the decision.

Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama.....

someone Puh-LEEEZE pull the stylus out of that groove. 3.5 years is long enough to hear the same old snippet from the same tired song.

He's been gone since 2017. He was in your face for 8, and he'll never be erased from American History books.

In the words of your boy's boy Mulvaney: "Get over it."

But like stepping in what the dog did, no matter how much you squirm, drag your feet, or wipe on the mat, you just can't get it all.

which will then be upheld in the SC.

sorry, but the president is not king.

You remember the right having a meltdown over Obama pushing the affordable healthcare act through the Dem controlled congress? They said "he's not a king!" and cried and cried... Imagine if he had done even 10% of the crap Trump has done.

You mean that healthcare that was never affordable?

Yea, I remember that.

Nancy said we must pass it and read it later as I recall.

Now she is pushing more lies with impeachment.

Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Judge tells Trump he's not a king -- the President is not so sure

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump is not going to like his Constitution 101 lesson: "Presidents are not kings."

A federal judge's stunning rebuke of the White House on Monday came as the result of a case by House Democrats to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify. But it serves as a thematic frame for an entire presidency that has never played by the rules.

All of Trump's scandals are fusing together into a momentous fight over his staggeringly broad claims of expansive presidential power. How it turns out will shape his personal political legacy, the nature of the office he has held for nearly three years and potentially the American political system itself.

The impeachment battle over Ukraine, Trump's efforts to keep Americans in the dark over his financial past, the lingering questions left over from special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia report and Trump's determination to rule as an unchallenged commander in chief now all boil down to two simple questions.

How much power does a President have? And how long can the governing institutions that he has incessantly challenged stand his wielding of instinctive yet often-erratic executive authority?

The White House on Monday walked away from its latest battles over presidential power with a loss, a temporary win and a bunch of new legal battles.

McGahn ordered to testify

Kicking off a frenzied half hour in Washington on Monday night, federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ordered McGahn to testify before the House of Representatives, which has been trying to force his appearance since April over Mueller's findings that suggest Trump obstructed justice in the Russia investigation. Jackson dismissed the President's claim that McGahn was subject to blanket immunity.

Getting right down to the basics that most Americans learn in school, the judge quoted Founding Fathers James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and French diplomat Alexis de Tocqueville to explain the nature of the presidency.

"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote.

"It is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the People of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," the judge added.

The Justice Department quickly said it planned to appeal the ruling, which has profound implications for the impeachment inquiry, since Trump has launched a similar effort to prevent administration officials from testifying under another sweeping claim of presidential immunity.

Minutes after Jackson's legal lecture emerged, Trump got a win of sorts -- as the Supreme Court blocked the immediate release of his financial records to a House committee, to allow his lawyers to file a brief arguing why the nine justices should take the case.

The legal fight is likely to create another reverberating precedent on the nature of presidential power, since it will test whether a president can refuse Congress' legally mandated request for the president's financial records -- a duty it can impose on regular American citizens.

Trump vs. the Pentagon

The legal drama erupted on a day when Washington was already waging a debate about the extent of presidential authority.

This time it was over a clash between a President who never plays by the rules and an institution -- the military -- that can't exist without them.

Trump's shielding of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who had posed with the corpse of a young ISIS fighter, led to a bewildering set of events that have yet to be explained and the firing of yet another senior official, Navy Secretary Richard Spencer.

This was a moment when it was the Pentagon's turn to get trampled by Trump, casting a shadow over the rule of law in pursuit of a big, personal, political base-pleasing win.

Like the State Department, the Justice Department and the intelligence community, the fortress across the Potomac found that traditions, rules and decorum mean little to the President. In one way, the controversy actually offered Washington some relief Monday from the incessant impeachment drama that has dominated the last two months.

But at its root, the new storm shares a theme with the allegations that Trump abused his power and went behind the backs of US diplomats to get a political payoff from Ukraine.

In both cases, Trump seems to have used his authority as President to benefit his reelection campaign rather than to safeguard a traditional interpretation of US interests. In the Gallagher case, he ignored the structure of military justice. In Ukraine, he constructed a back channel to get a foreign power's political help in defiance of regular State Department channels.

Trump's entire time in office could be viewed as a struggle between the rules and customs that govern the presidency and his attempts to stretch such guardrails to their limits.

This has led to constant tension between the executive and the courts and Congress, especially as a Democratic-led House sought to honor its oversight and investigative function.

Trump claims his political reward

There is no doubt that Trump, as commander in chief, has the power to reverse the demotion of Gallagher, and to pardon two other soldiers accused of war crimes, as he did last week.

But the question becomes: Does his action serve the military, the reputation of America's servicemen and women, and the nation's image as a land of laws and military honor?

Gallagher was subject to a rigorous military legal process. He was acquitted of attempted murder, premeditated murder and obstruction of justice. It's hard to argue that he didn't get due process and fair treatment from the military.

But Trump left little doubt in an exchange with reporters Monday afternoon that he was seeking a political reward for ordering Defense Secretary Mark Esper to restore Gallagher's rank.

"I think what I'm doing is sticking up for our armed forces. And there's never been a President that's going to stick up for them and has, like I have," Trump said.

Trump has sharp political instincts. He knows that backing the troops is rarely bad politics. Critics of Trump's conduct risk being accused of siding with a dead terrorist over a certified American war hero.

"He was a great fighter. He was the -- one of the ultimate fighters. Tough guy. These are not weak people. These are tough people," Trump said Monday, driving the point home.

Yet there is dismay at Trump's action among senior military officers within the Pentagon, who see it as undermining the entire code of military justice, CNN's Barbara Starr and Ryan Browne reported.

It raises the prospect that Trump could choose to intervene anytime a US service member is accused of committing war crimes, leading to a culture of impunity in the ranks.

But no one could say Trump's support for Gallagher is out of character. All his life in business and his political career, he has treated the law and behavioral rules of the road as an inconvenience to be stretched for him to get his way.

"I don't think we ought to lose sight of the very central point here," Ray Mabus, who served as Navy secretary in the Obama administration, told CNN's Brooke Baldwin on Monday.

"None of this would have happened, not a bit of it, if the President had not inserted himself, absolutely inappropriately, in a way that undermines military justice in a way that dishonors the military that serves without committing war crimes," he added.

Spencer, meanwhile, left a blistering resignation letter in which he laid the extraordinary charge that the President is abusing his powers -- a warning that applies to any number of controversies raging in Washington.

"I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline," he wrote. "I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/...ower/index.html

Constitutional crisis.

Please detail the lies - otherwise I'd have to assume you are simply regurgitating Trump lies and propaganda. AS an Obama fan boy I expected better.

"I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline," he wrote. "I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Another part of the Deep State / Never Trumpers gone ... good riddance ! I mean who would take the word of a lifelong member of the military over President GOD himself appointed

Giuliani associate Lev Parnes to plead the Fifth on campaign donations

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...paign-donations

What did trump say about those who plead the 5th? Hmmmm

President Trump ROLLS in the next election.

People with half a brain see this is BS politics.

You people don't think past Presidents haven't twisted arms for any number of reasons?

It's the ultimate arm twisting position.

And people with a whole brain see trump for the lying sack of crap that he is.

It is President Trump. I never called President Obama, obama.

Until some of you at least afford common courtesy, I don't have any use for you.

Respectfully.

Respect is earned. trump hasn’t earned mine. (Being voted into office by a bunch of MAGA hatters with less votes, and the electoral college, isn’t enough.) His position is one above his skill, his intellect, and his personal sense of humanity. There’s nothing to respect.

I respect your thoughts on it Ballpeen. Even if I STRONGLY disagree with your love of trump.


Addendum: How am I to respect a man that mocked a physically handicapped person? How am I to respect a man that admitted to walking in on teen girls in a beauty pageant? How am I to respect a man that lies to the American people from his position?
If he were my uncle at the dinner table I’d not have it. If I dated someone with similar traits I’d expect my family to intervene. If I acted this way at work I’d expect to be checked, not elevated to higher levels. Yet here we are. Educated people like you Ballpeen making excuses. Supporting this person.
I’ll never understand.

Not my president and never will be. He may be in the office but he's no president by a long shot. The election was manipulated to put a traitorous con man and useful idiot in the highest office in America. In the face of treachery such as this, patriots resist.

I don't think any past POTUS has ever blackmailed a foreign government in order to help him vs a political opponent and then tried to lie and cover it up by obstruction. If you think otherwise, please feel free to let me know which POTUS did it and which foreign power was coerced and which political rival was nobbled. . . . and if you can't then your just drinking the Trump Kool Aid and regurgitating President Trump's talking points which are lies and disinformation. Of course - it is your right to believe President Trump's lies over the sworn testimony of many respected individuals ... and also the testimony of Trump appointed officials. People with more than half a brain would see this.

I'd agree with you if the proof wasn't so obvious.

As for other presidents doing it, assuming you are correct, what makes two wrongs a right?

That's just more whataboutisms that make little to no sense as an argument for allowing this fool to get away with it,

Also, if you are right, what was wrong with all the other congresses that they didn't fight a corrupt Admin?

And while you are so sure this politcal BS, Answer this, how come we are NOW hearing about Hunter Biden? Why didn't a republican controlled congress go after him when it was happening?

I thought we were better than this,, apparently I'm wrong.

No presidient has helped Russia by holding defense funds from an allie to further his own political career in an effort to apply pressure on them to investigate a political opponent. Peen knows it and just keeps making excuses for it.

No president has helped spread Russian propaganda about a nation being involved in our elections that tries to try and take the focus off of Russia.

Let's just look at the Crowd Strike conspiracy for a second. Crowd strike is not a company even based in Ukraine. It's an American company based in Sunnyvale, California. This theory has been debunked repeatedly and Trump just keeps pushing it.

I actually, at one time, thought Peen was smarter than to fall for such a con man.

Peen did not fall for Russian Collusion and Trump being a Russian spy like you did, hook, line and sinker.

Peen did not fall for Trump being insane and unfit for duty as one of the previous failed impeachment attempts suggested. You did though, hook, line and sinker.

Peen did not fall for this current, evidence free, circus of an impeachment inquiry like you have, hook, line and sinker.

Peen still has credibility.

Bottom line: We simply have a Coup d'etat going on in front of our faces by the Dems trying to overturn the results of a duly elected President and election.

You liberals sicken me. Just look at your hateful and vile posts!

You are all eternal Wile E. Coyote's...You are all licking your chops and are about to bite into the President...and woops...It doesn't work again...hahahahahahhahahhaaaaa

Obviously you have my posts confused with others. But that's what I would expect from you. You think everyone who doesn't think like you are all alike.

Mueller made it quite clear he couldn't get to the bottom of Russian meddling because witnesses were lying. So as it stands we'll never know the truth about that.

You support a vulgar, persistent liar who helps spread Russian propaganda and the nastiest person to ever be placed into the oval office.

Thank you comrade.

Top Democratic strategist pleads with party to abandon impeachment

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democrat-abandon-impeachment-president-trump

Perhaps they should go for censure or even a stern scolding of the President.

The sad part for you guys is America is a lot better off since Trump took office.

You don't read much do you?

I guess we will be discussing a violation of the Impound Control Act in the context of High crimes and misdemeanors in the future.

That may also open the door to the other evidence that the a White House has kept away.

Drip Drip Drip.

Did Trump Violate Impoundment Control Act In Ukraine Affair?

At the center of the impeachment hearings is $400 million in aid to Ukraine that President Trump suspended, witnesses say, for personal political reasons.

But Congressman Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut, said last week in the hearings that no matter the reason, withholding congressionally approved aid by itself is illegal under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act.

Here & Now's Robin Young speaks with Louis Fisher, visiting scholar at the William and Mary Law School. Fisher worked at the Library of Congress and with the House and Senate on the Impoundment Control Act.

This segment aired on November 26, 2019.

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/11/26/trump-impoundment-control-act

There is a 5 minute podcast explanation by one of the men responsible for the creation of the 1974 law in the article on the website.

White House budget officials resigned amid frustration with Ukraine aid freeze

An OMB official testified behind closed doors that one lawyer resigned over concerns that Trump's hold on Ukraine aid violated the law.

Two White House budget officials resigned in part out of frustration with President Donald Trump’s order to freeze U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, a senior budget official told House impeachment investigators.

Mark Sandy, whose closed-door deposition transcript was released Tuesday, said the initial concerns about the hold on military aid caused at least two officials within the Office of Management and Budget to resign.

Story Continued Below
One of those officials, a lawyer, stepped down over concerns that the hold was violating the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which sharply curbs the executive branch’s authority to alter congressionally appropriated funds; another resigned over “frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold.”

Story Continued Below
Sandy did not name the officials and emphasized that he could not know the exact reasons for each official’s decision to resign.

Sandy’s deposition was among the final transcripts released as part of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. Democrats held two weeks of public hearings in the House Intelligence Committee where they heard from key witnesses; the investigation moves to a new phase after Thanksgiving when the Judiciary Committee begins the process of drafting articles of impeachment.

The hold on nearly $400 million of U.S. military aid to Ukraine is central to the House’s impeachment inquiry, as investigators have sought to learn whether Trump conditioned the aid on Ukraine’s willingness to launch an investigation targeting former Vice president Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

The hold was released on Sept. 11, just hours after a whistleblower complaint about the matter was circulating around the government, and after House committees began investigating Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his efforts in Ukraine in spur Trump’s desired investigations.

Sandy was the only OMB official to testify as part of the inquiry. Other officials, including acting Director Russell Vought and national security chief Michael Duffey, spurned subpoenas seeking documents and testimony. Investigators have tried but largely failed to learn critical information about Trump’s order to freeze the aid, including the motivations behind it and the way in which it was implemented within OMB.

Story Continued Below
Sandy also told investigators that Duffey told him on June 19 that Trump had seen a media report on the military aid to Ukraine, which triggered his interest in the issue. It was not clear to Sandy which article Duffey was referencing.

Sandy said he tried for months to get an explanation from Duffey and other officials about the reasoning behind the president’s order that the aid be frozen, but said he later was told in early September that Trump was concerned about “other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.”

Other officials from across the government — including the Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council — similarly tried to figure out why the hold was put in place, but never could conclusively find out.

The release of Sandy’s deposition transcript came just hours after House Democrats accused OMB of “a pattern of abuse” in halting the crucial aid to Ukraine earlier this summer, as Democrats released a timeline of executive actions that they say ran afoul of congressional spending powers.

The timeline also shows how a political appointee at OMB retained control of the Ukraine aid, a point underscored by Democrats who said it was highly unusual.

Much of the chronology is corroborated by the testimony of Sandy, a long-time OMB career official. Sandy said he raised concerns about how the hold might conflict with federal budget law.

House Budget Chairman John Yarmuth and House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey said they’re now considering unspecified “legislative proposals and reforms” to rein in the OMB’s ability to slow or limit the flow of foreign assistance appropriated by Congress, known as apportionment.

The summary of executive moves says that the OMB's “unlawful” actions “suggest a pattern of abuse” by the agency. “Although the committees only received a partial production of the requested materials, OMB’s responses and documentation to date confirm that the apportionment process has been misused to withhold Congressionally enacted appropriations,” Democrats said.

An OMB spokesperson dismissed the charge, saying in a statement that the agency “has and will continue to use its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law. This is the same old spin from Democrats.”

A timeline of OMB’s actions to withhold Ukraine aid from the Pentagon and the State Department has largely come to light amid depositions and hearings during Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

But the chronology released Tuesday by the House Budget and Appropriations committees — which comes after Yarmuth (D-Ky.) and Lowey (D-N.Y.) demanded answers from OMB in September on the Ukraine aid freeze — still offers several points of interest.

The House Budget Committee released only a summary of the documents provided by OMB, noting the agency failed to turn over the bulk of requested material. An OMB spokesperson contended that the agency provided the committee with “hundreds” of documents.

The summary shows that OMB first inquired with the Pentagon about a $250 million pot of military assistance, known as the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, on June 19. That date is also confirmed by Sandy, who told House impeachment investigators that Trump sought a “description of the program“ from the Defense Department.

On July 12, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s office informed OMB that Trump planned to halt Ukraine’s military aid without providing an explanation for the freeze, Sandy said.

Sandy said he later raised concerns to Duffey, a political appointee, that the hold could potentially violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which spells out the steps that the president must take in order to pull back funds appropriated by Congress.

That’s because the funds were set to expire at the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, and “we need to ensure that agencies are able to obligate funds before they expire,” Sandy told impeachment investigators.

Military assistance to Ukraine was halted on July 25. Several days later, Duffey told Sandy that he would be taking over the Ukraine accounts due to “interest among the leadership in tracking the issues of moneys closely.”

Duffey assumed control of the agency’s hold on State Department and Pentagon funding from a long-time career official on Aug. 3 and Aug. 6, respectfully. Duffey still maintains control over apportioning aid through those accounts, OMB confirmed. The security assistance wasn’t made available again until Sept. 12.

House spending leaders said the decision to remove career staff from the apportionment process is “unprecedented” and “a troubling deviation from long-standing procedures.” OMB has previously asserted that there was nothing unusual or improper about shifting the responsibility into the hands of Duffey, and that the decision had nothing to do with the career staff concerns that the hold was not legal.

“Given Congress’ constant penchant to tell agencies they are not allowed to spend appropriated money and hold money for months on end, in scores of examples, we find it laughable that Congress is taking issue with the administration’s actions,” a senior administration official said on Tuesday.

While military assistance to Ukraine was freed up by Sept. 12, millions of dollars in State Department funding wasn’t released until Sept. 27 and Sept. 30, the summary provided by the House Budget Committee shows.

“Significant amounts” of State Department and military funding never reached Ukraine before the end of the fiscal year, Democrats noted. Ukraine is still waiting to receive at least $35 million in military assistance.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/26/democrats-trump-budget-ukraine-aid-074016

Trump denies sending Giuliani to Ukraine on his behalf

President Trump on Tuesday denied directing his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to go to Ukraine on his behalf amid scrutiny as part of the ongoing House impeachment inquiry.

"No, I didn’t direct him. But he is a warrior," Trump told former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly in an interview streamed online.

The comments appeared to contradict a frequent explanation from Giuliani, who has tweeted multiple times that he was operating in Ukraine to defend his client.

Trump urged O'Reilly to "ask that to Rudy" when the former Fox News host inquired what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine.

"I know he was going to go to Ukraine, and I think he canceled a trip," Trump told O'Reilly. "But you know, Rudy has other clients other than me."

Giuliani has tweeted multiple times in recent months that his activities in Ukraine — which included seeking damaging information on former Vice President Joe Biden — were meant to defend his "client." The former New York City mayor's dealings in the country are now reportedly the subject of a probe in the Southern District of New York.

"The investigation I conducted concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption, was done solely as a defense attorney to defend my client against false charges, that kept changing as one after another were disproven," Giuliani tweeted earlier this month.

Giuliani tweeted last month that "everything I did was to discover evidence to defend my client against false charges" and that "justice will prevail."

The president had until Tuesday defended Giuliani when asked about his relationship with his embattled personal attorney. He hailed Giuliani as a crime fighter and great mayor on Monday.

Two of Giuliani's associates, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, were indicted last month on charges of campaign finance violations. Giuliani's interactions with Ukrainian businessmen are reportedly the subject of a widening investigation.

At the same time, multiple witnesses testified in House Democrats' impeachment inquiry that Giuliani was part of an "irregular channel" to carry out Trump's foreign policy in Ukraine. Current and former State Department officials also said Giuliani was among those orchestrating a smear campaign to oust former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...e-on-his-behalf

Hey 40 - how could you "Like" this post .... we already established Obama was better at all of YOUR key metrics .... and you agreed and didn't offer any alternate perspective. So you "Liking" a post that we both know to be factually incorrect seems ... odd.

Conveniently misleading.

If the Republican Congress did not have McCain and the Democrat House did not fight him tooth and nail, we would have the wall and we would have had all these years to work on a healthcare plan if Obamacare was dead.

You can thank the Democrats for stalling progress as even today they can't pass the US/Canada/Mexico trade deal or a budget.

Conveniently misleading.

Mexico wasn’t going to pay for the wall. McCain, or not.

You’re correct in that trump is too inept to work on two policies at a time. In reality the wall issue has nothing to do with healthcare. If he can’t handle these two issues at the same time he’s not worthy of the position. The Affordable Healthcare Act doesn’t need to be “dead” in order for trump and his cronies in congress to propose a better alternative. They’ve got nothing. They don’t give a crap about it because they’ve got great socialized medicine. Screw the rest of us.

Mexico may not have ended up paying for the wall, I give you that one.

But President Trump has done a fantastic job despite having to fight off 3 Democrat coup attempts in 3 years.

-Russia Collusion, working with the Russians to get elected farce.
Insanity, unfit for office farce.
Ukraine farce.

Poor donny. The kids at school are being mean to him.
Screw that. Obama had to defend wearing a tan suit.
Here’s donny’s ‘fantastic job’ as I see it.
No healthcare proposals, no infrastructure, deregulation allowing our public lands to be plundered by private interests, rollbacks on pollution that’ll effect all our health.
Great job trump. Your buddies all love that tax cut. Now go spend some more of my tax money on another weekend of golf at one of your clubs.