The 45th POTUS - Donald J. Trump

[Simple Torture]

Nbd.

[epilogue]

I can't tell if this time feels different or not. Sometimes it really does.

[McParadigm]

“The president lamenting the ability to execute a government whistleblower is essentially harmless and unimportant,” says party that also thinks its ideological opponents are a threat to democracy.

[Bi_3]

I can't tell if this time feels different or not. Sometimes it really does.

It is. There is clear evidence of wrong-doing and conspiracy, assuming the evidence can remain intact (or still exists) to be verified.





And god Schiff is a piece of shit. Macguire was clearly in the right about the law, in the two hours i listened no one would explain where he failed to follow the law as written.

[tragabigzanda]

I can't tell if this time feels different or not. Sometimes it really does.

It is. There is clear evidence of wrong-doing and conspiracy, assuming the evidence can remain intact (or still exists) to be verified.





And god Schiff is a piece of shit. Macguire was clearly in the right about the law, in the two hours i listened no one would explain where he failed to follow the law as written.

And I'll reiterate that the Dems getting ahead of the press on this one is HUGE. Trump had two years to make the public distrust the Mueller investigation. This is completely different in how it will play out in the press.

[Peeps]

I can't tell if this time feels different or not. Sometimes it really does.

It is. There is clear evidence of wrong-doing and conspiracy, assuming the evidence can remain intact (or still exists) to be verified.





And god Schiff is a piece of shit. Macguire was clearly in the right about the law, in the two hours i listened no one would explain where he failed to follow the law as written.

didnt the wording say that the committees were to be notified within 7 days. no where did it say, its ok to go past 7 days if its the president and his apple dumpling gang

[epilogue]

I can't tell if this time feels different or not. Sometimes it really does.

It is. There is clear evidence of wrong-doing and conspiracy, assuming the evidence can remain intact (or still exists) to be verified.

And I'll reiterate that the Dems getting ahead of the press on this one is HUGE. Trump had two years to make the public distrust the Mueller investigation. This is completely different in how it will play out in the press.

I understand both of these points. But that's not what I meant.

[verb_to_trust]

I can't tell if this time feels different or not. Sometimes it really does.

It is. There is clear evidence of wrong-doing and conspiracy, assuming the evidence can remain intact (or still exists) to be verified.





And god Schiff is a piece of shit. Macguire was clearly in the right about the law, in the two hours i listened no one would explain where he failed to follow the law as written.

He ran to the Whitehouse instead of turning the complaint in to Congress. Isn't that the law?

[Strat]

I can't tell if this time feels different or not. Sometimes it really does.

It is. There is clear evidence of wrong-doing and conspiracy, assuming the evidence can remain intact (or still exists) to be verified.





And god Schiff is a piece of shit. Macguire was clearly in the right about the law, in the two hours i listened no one would explain where he failed to follow the law as written.

He ran to the Whitehouse instead of turning the complaint to Congress. Isn't that the law?

yea, and i think peeps is right about the time frame too.

They weren't accusing him of committing a crime, they were questioning his judgement on this matter.

[tragabigzanda]

The issue that Maguire had, which seems totally valid from his standpoint, was that there was some question as to whether POTUS could claim executive privilege, which is not under Maguire's purview to decide or act on. So he was taking a precaution of giving the WH extra time to figure out where they stood on that, while simultaneously notifying the main committee that there was going to be a delay for this reason.

For whatever reason, Trump waived that privilege by opting to release the thing.

[tragabigzanda]

any word yet on when they'll actually vote on this thing and make it official?

[Strat]

any word yet on when they'll actually vote on this thing and make it official?

I can't imagine this will be anytime soon. Definitely need to hear for the whistleblower themselves. Then will need to spend time investigating/laying out the facts and trying to turn public opinion.

[Norah]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/p ... lower.html

Whistle-Blower Is a C.I.A. Officer Who Was Detailed to the White House
His complaint suggested he was an analyst by training with an understanding of Ukrainian politics.


WASHINGTON — The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.

The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him. His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.

The whistle-blower’s expertise will likely add to lawmakers’ confidence about the merits of his complaint, and tamp down allegations that he might have misunderstood what he learned about Mr. Trump. He did not listen directly to a July call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the political firestorm over the president’s mixing of diplomacy with personal political gain.

Lawyers for the whistle-blower refused to confirm that he worked for the C.I.A. and said that publishing information about him was dangerous.

“Any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistle-blower is deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm’s way,” said Andrew Bakaj, his lead counsel. “The whistle-blower has a right to anonymity.”

A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, said that protecting the whistle-blower was his office’s highest priority. “We must protect those who demonstrate the courage to report alleged wrongdoing, whether on the battlefield or in the workplace,” Mr. Maguire said at a hearing on Thursday, adding that he did not know the whistle-blower’s identity.

Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times, said The Times was right to publish information about the whistle-blower. “The role of the whistle-blower, including his credibility and his place in the government, is essential to understanding one of the most important issues facing the country — whether the president of the United States abused power and whether the White House covered it up.”

Agents, officers and analysts from the military, intelligence and law enforcement communities routinely work at the White House. Often, they work on the National Security Council or help manage secure communications, like calls between the president and foreign leaders.

The C.I.A. officer did not work on the communications team that handles calls with foreign leaders, according to the people familiar with his identity. He learned about Mr. Trump’s conduct “in the course of official interagency business,” according to the complaint, which was dotted with footnotes about machinations in Kiev and reinforced with public comments by senior Ukrainian officials.

[tragabigzanda]

any word yet on when they'll actually vote on this thing and make it official?

I can't imagine this will be anytime soon. Definitely need to hear for the whistleblower themselves. Then will need to spend time investigating/laying out the facts and trying to turn public opinion.

but they don't have to do that, all they have to do is take a House vote on whether or not to proceed, and they control the House. And they're supposed to recess tomorrow. So I don't understand the holdup.

[epilogue]

any word yet on when they'll actually vote on this thing and make it official?

I can't imagine this will be anytime soon. Definitely need to hear for the whistleblower themselves. Then will need to spend time investigating/laying out the facts and trying to turn public opinion.

but they don't have to do that, all they have to do is take a House vote on whether or not to proceed, and they control the House. And they're supposed to recess tomorrow. So I don't understand the holdup.

Vote on what?

[tragabigzanda]

This process so far is not an “official impeachment,” it’s basically a comittee-lead exploration of whether an official impeachment is warranted. Only once the House cotes on it does it become a constitutionally-supported process with the full power of the courts at the House’s disposal.

[epilogue]

This process so far is not an “official impeachment,” it’s basically a comittee-lead exploration of whether an official impeachment is warranted. Only once the House cotes on it does it become a constitutionally-supported process with the full power of the courts at the House’s disposal.

It's an impeachment inquiry. Articles of Impeachment have not been voted on yet. Articles haven't even been brought to the floor for a vote yet. There can be no Articles of Impeachment until an investigation/inquiry is complete.

And though the House seemingly has enough votes to Impeach right now if Articles of Impeachment were presented (though even that isn't a 100% guarantee as there are plenty of moderates and others on the fence who feel an inquiry/investigation is warranted but still need more evidence), Pelosi and many Purple Dems are hoping that the evidence they gather in this process will be enough to sway Republicans in the Senate (and Turtle-Dick Mitch, specifically) to HOLD a trial let alone vote for removal.

I'm not sure what which part of all this you want them to vote on right now. Whether to bring Articles of Impeachment? Whether to Impeach? But if they do that without a full inquiry/investigation this has a 0% chance of going further. It's a long shot anyway but it's null without gathering evidence for the trial.

[tragabigzanda]

This process so far is not an “official impeachment,” it’s basically a comittee-lead exploration of whether an official impeachment is warranted. Only once the House cotes on it does it become a constitutionally-supported process with the full power of the courts at the House’s disposal.

It's an impeachment inquiry. Articles of Impeachment have not been voted on yet. Articles haven't even been brought to the floor for a vote yet. There can be no Articles of Impeachment until an investigation/inquiry is complete.

And though the House seemingly has enough votes to Impeach right now if Articles of Impeachment were presented (though even that isn't a 100% guarantee as there are plenty of moderates and others on the fence who feel an inquiry/investigation is warranted but still need more evidence), Pelosi and many Purple Dems are hoping that the evidence they gather in this process will be enough to sway Republicans in the Senate (and Turtle-Dick Mitch, specifically) to HOLD a trial let alone vote for removal.

I'm not sure what which part of all this you want them to vote on right now. Whether to bring Articles of Impeachment? Whether to Impeach? But if they do that without a full inquiry/investigation this has a 0% chance of going further. It's a long shot anyway but it's null without gathering evidence for the trial.

I think we're saying the same thing, except for the second bold part. When you say "trial," are you talking about something other than an impeachment?

And then as to the first bold part, is this accurate? My understanding is that they can hold a vote on Articles whenever they want; they don't need any further inquiry and it really only serves to build support in the press.

[tragabigzanda]

Ok, WaPo explains further for me:

220 House members currently support an Inquiry, while 27 support an impeachment. That latter number will likely go up dramatically and quickly (my speculation, not WaPo’s).

[E.H. Ruddock]

so they have to vote on whether or not to have an inquiry?