The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[CAA Flagship]

Is Jeffrey Epstein still on the witness list?

He's part of the hung jury.

[Winterborn]

Is Jeffrey Epstein still on the witness list?

He's part of the hung jury.

[AZGrizFan]

The Dems should've either waited to get Bolton and others to testify OR censured Trump. They screwed themselves in this process.

I don't think there is anything Bolton could say that would sway 20 R Senators. We'd be in the same place with or without Bolton's testimony: Speedy trial and aquital.

Im not seeing how censuring would have been the smart move, but perhaps I'm just missing it.

The smart move for the Dems would have been to fucking GOVERN. But that went out the window on election night.

[Ibanez]

I don't think there is anything Bolton could say that would sway 20 R Senators. We'd be in the same place with or without Bolton's testimony: Speedy trial and aquital.

Im not seeing how censuring would have been the smart move, but perhaps I'm just missing it.

The smart move for the Dems would have been to fucking GOVERN. But that went out the window on election night.

That's the status quo. I'd be interested in seeing how many bills of importance were sent to either house and stalled.

I don't really care about the bill to rename some post office or a resolution to honor the memory of Luke Perry.

[93henfan]

Is Jeffrey Epstein still on the witness list?

Did you watch this week's 60 Minutes?

That nigga didn't kill himself!!!

[Winterborn]

I don't think there is anything Bolton could say that would sway 20 R Senators. We'd be in the same place with or without Bolton's testimony: Speedy trial and aquital.

Im not seeing how censuring would have been the smart move, but perhaps I'm just missing it.

The smart move for the Dems would have been to fucking GOVERN. But that went out the window years ago.

FYP

[93henfan]

The Biden Rule only applies when the President and Senate differ in party.

Keep moving the goalposts.

I'm not moving anything. I'm just reciting the rule the Democrats created in '92.

[GannonFan]

Keep moving the goalposts.

I'm not moving anything. I'm just reciting the rule the Democrats created in '92.

Agreed, it was pretty simple. If the opposite party controls the Senate and if they don't want to give the President of a different party a chance to fill an opening in an election year (either by voting down anyone nominated or by not voting on any nominees at all) then that's their prerogative. People then can vote on the President and on the Senators up for election and we can go from there. Heck, it's very likely that Hillary would've pulled the Garland nomination anyway, had she won, for a better jurist, and one that tilted to the left. Garland was never going to be on the SCOTUS and, considering he was a vanilla nominee meant to try to squeeze through without offending anyone, I think that's a good thing.

[93henfan]

Agreed, it was pretty simple. If the opposite party controls the Senate and if they don't want to give the President of a different party a chance to fill an opening in an election year (either by voting down anyone nominated or by not voting on any nominees at all) then that's their prerogative. People then can vote on the President and on the Senators up for election and we can go from there. Heck, it's very likely that Hillary would've pulled the Garland nomination anyway, had she won, for a better jurist, and one that tilted to the left. Garland was never going to be on the SCOTUS and, considering he was a vanilla nominee meant to try to squeeze through without offending anyone, I think that's a good thing.

So you are OK with this rule if Trump is elected again and the Senate goes Dem?

That was '92 in a nutshell. That's when Biden set the precedent.

And who cares who is good with it? They can't do a damn thing about it.

[93henfan]

That was '92. That's when Biden set the precedent.

And who cares who is good with it? They can't do a damn thing about it.

So this will also be the case if Trump is elected and the Senate turns D?

Do they teach reading comprehension in Maine?

[GannonFan]

Agreed, it was pretty simple. If the opposite party controls the Senate and if they don't want to give the President of a different party a chance to fill an opening in an election year (either by voting down anyone nominated or by not voting on any nominees at all) then that's their prerogative. People then can vote on the President and on the Senators up for election and we can go from there. Heck, it's very likely that Hillary would've pulled the Garland nomination anyway, had she won, for a better jurist, and one that tilted to the left. Garland was never going to be on the SCOTUS and, considering he was a vanilla nominee meant to try to squeeze through without offending anyone, I think that's a good thing.

So you are OK with this rule if Trump is elected again and the Senate goes Dem?

Absolutely. The Senate has to decide to approve a nominee no matter what anyway, so if they don't want to give an opposing President an approval on his/her nominee in a Presidential election year then have at it. The voters can decide if they don't like that and vote accordingly. If we avoid getting a marshmellow onto the bench who would've been seated just because him/her was the only one who could pass an opposing Senate then I'm all for it.

[Chizzang]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1214394027845414912

[CID1990]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1214394027845414912

Just a few years ago I was at my preferred tailgate at El Cid and Lindsey came through, pressing the flesh

About 75% of the people there had had it with Lindsey. He was getting primaried by several people including Nancy Mace. Lindsey’s star was setting

Fast forward to today... Lindsey can go out like ol Strom... his seat is guaranteed as long as he wants it

He saw that Trump train whooshing by and he was like:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1214394027845414912

Just a few years ago I was at my preferred tailgate at El Cid and Lindsey came through, pressing the flesh

About 75% of the people there had had it with Lindsey. He was getting primaried by several people including Nancy Mace. Lindsey’s star was setting

Fast forward to today... Lindsey can go out like ol Strom... his seat is guaranteed as long as he wants it

He saw that Trump train whooshing by and he was like:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buster Keaton?

[Skjellyfetti]

He's not wrong... Probably goes for most of the board as well.

[AZGrizFan]

He's not wrong... Probably goes for most of the board as well.

If it was OK for Obama/Biden, it’s ok for Trump/Pence.

[SDHornet]

He's not wrong... Probably goes for most of the board as well.

If it was OK for Obama/Biden, it’s ok for Trump/Pence.

Like Obama said, elections have consequences.

[Ivytalk]

Well, all seven Impeachment managers are Donks, led by Schitt and Nadless. I’m surprised that Nancy didn’t go “bipartisan” and pick Amash.

[Ivytalk]

Pelosi up there babbling away about the Constitution before she signs the articles of impeachment.

[kalm]

In the words of the immortal Lily Von Schtupp...”what a nice guy”



https://theintercept.com/2020/01/15/tru ... th-issues/

[kalm]

Looks like Trump is going to get his Ukrainian corruption investigation after all...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukra ... y-n1116881

[Ibanez]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics ... index.html

[img]The Government Accountability Office says the Trump administration broke the law when it withheld US security aid to Ukraine last year that had been appropriated by Congress -- an issue at the center of the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

The GAO, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, said in a decision issued Thursday that the White House budget office violated the Impoundment Control Act, a 1974 law that limits the White House from withholding funds that Congress has appropriated.[/img]

[GannonFan]

Impoundment Control Act is now going to be the new trivia answer along with the Tenure of Office Act.

I thought the original storyline is that one reason why the money was eventually paid to Ukraine was that they couldn't legally withhold the money across the new federal fiscal year, so while it got held up in mid July, they couldn't legally hold it past the end of September. So they could hold it up for those almost 2 months, but no longer than that.

Don't know if the law has ever been challenged in a case like this. Only case I saw was the Train v. City of New York but that was regarding domestic spending, and in that case the SCOTUS specifically excluded any consideration of separation of powers. Bank funds to foreign entities, government and private, get frozen all the time at the discretion of the President and foreign policy. Would be interesting if this ever gets taken further.

[Ibanez]

Impoundment Control Act is now going to be the new trivia answer along with the Tenure of Office Act.

I thought the original storyline is that one reason why the money was eventually paid to Ukraine was that they couldn't legally withhold the money across the new federal fiscal year, so while it got held up in mid July, they couldn't legally hold it past the end of September. So they could hold it up for those almost 2 months, but no longer than that.

Don't know if the law has ever been challenged in a case like this. Only case I saw was the Train v. City of New York but that was regarding domestic spending, and in that case the SCOTUS specifically excluded any consideration of separation of powers. Bank funds to foreign entities, government and private, get frozen all the time at the discretion of the President and foreign policy. Would be interesting if this ever gets taken further.

There's all sorts of reasons. One of the reasons the money was withheld is because the administration wanted to make sure Ukraine was doing enough to reduce corruption...regardless of the fact that the DoD did just that when they gave their approval of the aid.

The Claims: President Trump and senior administration officials have claimed that security assistance to Ukraine was held up because they were concerned the assistance would be diverted. For example:

But DOD Had Twice Certified Ukraine’s Progress on Corruption: Long before President Trump ordered a halt to security assistance, the Secretary of Defense—in coordination with Secretary Pompeo—twice certified that Ukraine had made sufficient reforms to decrease corruption and increase accountability, and that the country could ensure accountability for U.S. provided military equipment. Further, after OMB held the assistance to Ukraine in July, the Department of Defense (DOD) conducted an additional analysis and concluded that the assistance was effective and should be resumed. [Amb. Taylor testimony, 10/22/19]. Finally, before the July 2019 hold, the Trump administration had approved sending foreign assistance to Ukraine nearly 50 separate times without ever holding it because of concerns that it would be diverted due to corruption.

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ra ... benchmarks

Please note the source of this...the Senate Foreign Relations Committee


Also, look at the dates when the House begins to investigate the funds and when they're finally released..it's something like 2-3 days. Coincidence?

[CAA Flagship]

So the question is......why is any POTUS involved in this sort of thing in the first place? If the POTUS can only release the aid immediately, it's nothing but a rubber stamp. Let's streamline this and let it fly once it is approved on Capitol Hill.