Reporting in the last few minutes indicates it's centered around his conversations with leaders in Ukraine. I'm calling it right now. Trump flat-out offered favorable treatment from the US government if the Ukraine would start an investigation of Joe Biden. Who we know for certain Trump is most worried about (rightly or wrongly) in regards to his general election opponent. If this is the case, it is him offering something concrete in return for outside interference in our elections. We let him get away with it the first time, and he has now become even MORE brazen about it. And now someone caught him. Book it. Trump has literally been shopping among world leaders for election interference. He's the biggest traitor in the history of this country. He makes the Rosenbergs look like Cub Scouts. I can't think of a single thing that is a bigger "high crime and misdemeanor" then offering US Government aide or support on the condition that they target your political opponent. It's a complete and total absue of power and subversion of the democratic process at it's core. If this is what the conversations focused on, and this is allowed to stand, we're nothing but a banana republic.
Edit: Rudy Giuliani is melting down on CNN and can't even keep his story straight for 60 seconds. This is absolutely what this is about. Trump was witholding military aide from Ukraine in an attempt to extort them into helping damage his political rival. Hundreds of millions of US taxpayer dollars he was treating as his personal bribe to illegally further his own reelection chances. This has to end. If this plays out like I think it's going to, he has to be impeached. Not doing so is tantamount to waving the white flag on the American experiment.
Edit 2: The fact they sent Giuliani on television to do what he did with Chris Cuomo tonight follows a distinct pattern. At a certain point last evening, it became clear to the White House that despite Trump and Barr's attempts to prevent the information from getting out, it IS getting out. The moment the Washington Post reported the Ukriane angle, Giuliani was dispatched to CNN. I've used this analogy a dozen times before, but Giuliani's role on multiple occasions has been to act as a Colonel Jessup-like figure and to admit they ordered the Code Red. They then immediately shift the defense from "nothing improper went on" to "yeah we did it, so what??" So that is where this is now going. They can't possibly keep a lid on this anymore.
Edit 3: This is all speculation, but we can take information we do know about and apply it retroactively to paint a preview about what is coming down. In this time-frame, Dan Coates either resigns or is fired as DNI. He also appatently walked into the middle of a meeting his Deputy was in (since she would be in line to at least temporarily hold the position) and tells her she needs to resign immediately. During this time, the White House lists 5 OFFICIAL calls with foreign leaders. But there is one they didn't make an official record of. With Ukraine. And we know this because while the White House does not have record of it, Ukraine DOES and we know it took place. Soon after, Schiff learns of a whistleblower complaint that is being buried by the DoJ and the White House. Could I be wrong about this?? Sure. But if you think any of this is above board, you're nuts. And if this hypothesis about Ukriane is correct and you're ok with it?? One can only assume you would gladly welcome everything up to and including a Trump dictatorship.
Edit 4: Trump has all bit admitted it at this point. His repsonse?? "It doesn't matter what I said". So that's where we are. The official position of the White House, Republican Party, and most conservative voters is now that the President can't be prosecuted, investigated, or held to account by anyone at all, and that it is perfectly fine to offer over a quarter billion dollars in military aide to a country as a bribe for them to dig up dirt on a domestic political rival. I'm not being hyperbolic here. The Republican Party is destroying this country. Full-stop. We don't have much time to stop them.
@ThacoBell: To be fair, I'm reasonably certain @Balrog99 doesn't object to the mere presentation of Trump administration misdeeds; the issue is that most of this discussion concentrates on it. It doesn't bore me, but I can definitely see why someone else might get weary of the subject and want to hear about other political events.
This issue is too important not to talk about. We are facing a facist leader who has already set up the foundation of a dictatorship. To ignore it is democratic suicide at this point.
Lindsey Graham is such a disgusting sycophant. He is now saying the whistleblower will be prosecuted. In this situation, I am very grateful I just went through MY mandatory training this year about whistleblowing at a financial institution. The entire idea of whistleblowing is to set up an apparatus totally outside the chain of command so that people can report wrongdoing without fear of reprisal. Whoever this is, they COULD have dropped their story at the doorstep of the Post or the Times. They didn't. They went through the proper channels. It is Trump, Barr, and pathetic men like Graham who are torpedoing and destroying the process, not whoever did the reporting. This is not Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning giving a wholesale document dump to Wikileaks. This went through the proper channels and the Inspector General of his department. That is how it is SUPPOSED to work if you are doing it by the book. The Republican Party wipes their ass with the book. The book is whatever they say it is on a given day. I despise these people.
If true, then the House has to immediately begin impeachment proceedings. There is no longer any waiting games to play or political game theory to work out. You think a guy who would do this AFTER the Mueller investigation is going to leave if he loses an election?? No more. Democrats must move:
Thanks for the WSJ link. The story seems to be gaining credibility, with now multiple outlets getting anonymous sources to more or less tell the same story about this whistleblower. Will be curious to see what the precise language of the "promise" made was, and hopefully that comes out.
One thing to be a little grateful for at least, is that Democrats won the House. I think there's absolutely no doubt that this scandal gets completely swept aside if Republicans still ran that body. And that indicates a sad reality of what will probably be the new normal for US politics even after Trump.
And before the narrative takes hold (which it will), let's get something straight about what happened with Biden. Biden was the Obama Administration point-man on what was essentially a nearly unanimous international consensus at the time that the Ukranian prosecutor was knee-deep in corruption. It had absolutely nothing to do with trying to get his son off the hook for anything. This story is from the same group of people who sold you Uranium One, and it's poised to take over the exact same way in the fever-swamp.
There are a multitude of reasons to oppose Biden for the nomination, but this is not one of them. And even if Joe and Hunter Biden were as corrupt as possible (which they aren't), it would still not change the fact that the President of the United States cannot be allowed to extort vulnerable foreign countries into materially supporting his re-election campaign by hanging the specter of a quarter billion taxpayer dollars in military funding over their head. Do NOT allow this to become a both sides issue. It's nothing but bad faith horseshit, and anyone who isn't already too far gone down the right-wing rabbit-hole should know better by now. But the media?? They'll fall for it like they always do.
As for Nancy Pelosi.....look, I've defended her, but I'm done doing so. If she will not let impeachment proceedings move forward at THIS juncture then she needs to step aside as Speaker. The Democratic base is going to revolt if they continue to sit on their hands after this.
Ok, if the Democratic Party actually starts the impeachment process, I'll probably rethink my moratorium on posting here. That I would consider real news. I'm still browsing the thread to see if there's any info about non-Trump related issues...
Ok, if the Democratic Party actually starts the impeachment process, I'll probably rethink my moratorium on posting here. That I would consider real news. I'm still browsing the thread to see if there's any info about non-Trump related issues...
That is kinda difficult as most of American politics revolves around Trump.
For example, the trade war with China took an important turn for the better as both countries lifted some tariffs off of certain products.
America’s was mostly a smorgasbord of items that, IMO, could have kept tariffs on such as electric skateboards and plastic drinking straws, but other high items that never should have tariffs on them to begin with such as medical equipment parts.
China lifted some of its tariffs on soybeans and pork last week.
The market is still skittish though as it was also stated that none of these changes are permanent and is just an attempt to get negotiations back on track.
Well, in Israel, Netanyahu mercifully seems to have finally been defeated. On the one hand, this means nothing better for the Palestinians as Benny Gantz also seems intent on annexing 25% of the West Bank, but it does mark an end to Netanyahu's attempts to make himself immune from prosecution (ring a bell??) and means it is conceivable he might actually face consequences for his corruption.
Up north, Justin Trudeau has made his re--election campaign a real uphill climb with at least 3 different incidences of him dressing up in brown or black face coming to light. Why do people do this?? What is the appeal?? It seems like it would take hours to put on, hours to take off, and has ALWAYS looked ridiculous. Aside from the cultural appropriation aspects, it seems like the most impratical "costume" imaginable.
There are more canaries in the coalmine about the economy, with Wisconsin and Pennsylvania hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs and the Fed having to create money out of thin air overnight at least twice last week because of the demand for short-term loans.
All this being said, I still don't think any of this comes remotely close to being as explosive as the President actively pursuing prosecution of his political opponents by way of international extortion, but there you have it.
Ugh. Don’t get me started on the Canadian election and the populist theme that is cultivating around the party leaders...
Was Trudeau dressing up in brown face 15 years ago a stupid thing to do? Absolutely. Does it have anything to do with any of the combined platforms being presented by any of the political parties? Absolutely not.
It’s too bad the far left (NDP + Green) and right (Conservatives + new People’s Party) parties are going to be dividing votes, allowing the more central party (Liberals) squeak by without getting a majority in key ridings.
Trudeau’s (and the Liberal’s) elitism needs to go. He didn’t even bother showing up to the first leadership debate because he either thought it was beneath him, or he’d get destroyed or both.
Hopefully, he’ll only get a minority government come October, even better is if Sheer can form a minority government.
Ugh. Don’t get me started on the Canadian election...Trudeau’s (and the Liberal’s) elitism needs to go
Careful what you wish for you really don't want a Trump, Netanyahu, Boris Johnson, Modi, or Bolsanaro. Any issues from Trudeau are minor in comparison to those corruption filled authoritarians or wannabe authoritarian blowhards.
Don't say we didn't want you, you guys should learn from our mistakes.
The Des Moines Register/Selzer poll came out earlier today. Pretty significant in three ways.
Warren leads in Iowa, 22 (to Biden's 20)%.
Bernie Sanders was at 11% (which is under the 15% cut off requirement to get *any* delegates)
And Harris was below Buttigieg (He had 9%, she had 6%).
There's no telling if those numbers will hold up, but it's pretty hugely surprising to see Bernie underwater in Iowa, when he won ~50% last time. Warren is taking all of his oxygen, and if he loses Iowa, I dont know what state he's going to win (NH? You'd assume Warren does well there, too. SC should be a shoe-in for Biden. You might have to look at Nevada or wait until Super Tuesday for Bernie to win a state - which would be really, really bad for him).
Ugh. Don’t get me started on the Canadian election...Trudeau’s (and the Liberal’s) elitism needs to go
Careful what you wish for you really don't want a Trump, Netanyahu, Boris Johnson, Modi, or Bolsanaro. Any issues from Trudeau are minor in comparison to those corruption filled authoritarians or wannabe authoritarian blowhards.
Don't say we didn't want you, you guys should learn from our mistakes.
I would take Andrew Sheer over Trudeau any day. Canada’s Conservative party is not as right wing as anyone that was mentioned in your post and was reason why the People’s Party was created, which skews further right.
And that’s the type of fear, people painting any conservative leader as bad as Trump, that I am afraid of, because people are stupid enough to believe it.
The Des Moines Register/Selzer poll came out earlier today. Pretty significant in three ways.
Warren leads in Iowa, 22 (to Biden's 20)%.
Bernie Sanders was at 11% (which is under the 15% cut off requirement to get *any* delegates)
And Harris was below Buttigieg (He had 9%, she had 6%).
There's no telling if those numbers will hold up, but it's pretty hugely surprising to see Bernie underwater in Iowa, when he won ~50% last time. Warren is taking all of his oxygen, and if he loses Iowa, I dont know what state he's going to win (NH? You'd assume Warren does well there, too. SC should be a shoe-in for Biden. You might have to look at Nevada or wait until Super Tuesday for Bernie to win a state - which would be really, really bad for him).
Oh, Warren is going to win Iowa. And New Hampshire is essentially Bernie's home state (Vermont is right next door). If he doesn't win New Hampshire, I don't know what his campaign is banking on (I think he will win New Hampshire).
But if people want to know why Elizabeth Warren is surging, they don't need to point to ridiculous conspiracy theories like the media is favoring her because they don't want Bernie to win. Elizabeth Warren is working her ass off on the trail. She stands on line for 4 hours for people waiting to get a selfie with her. I bet you dollars to donuts MOST of those selfies then get shared by those people on social media. These early primaries are about retail politics, and Elizabeth Warren is willing to stand on line til all hours of the night if necessary to make those connections. She's starting to climb to the top of the polls for two reasons: she has concrete plans to address issues and she is working harder than the other candidates. Pure and simple.
It's a 3-person race at this point. Booker appears to be out of money. Harris has moved her entire campaign to Iowa and it won't work. Buttigieg isn't a threat to win any early state. Yang has made waves and bumped up his number significantly but they aren't going to translate to anything more than a 4th or 5th place finish AT BEST in any state. There is simply no room for anyone to move up enough to make up the ground when Warren, Bernie and Biden are already accounting for 60% of the vote. Moreover, most people's SECOND choices in recent polls also end up being the same 3 people.
I'll also throw it out there that Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate thus far who has issued a strong, no beating around the bush statement on impeaching Trump in regards to the latest revelations, AND she is now also calling out Democratic leadership for being complicit if they sit on their hands. So yeah, it's no shock why Warren continues to climb.
If Warren wins Iowa, it's likely to have a knock-on effect in New Hampshire. I suspect you would see a huge shift of Sanders voters swing Warren in that race, as primary voters tend to be strategic in their thinking, especially in the early states. I.e. The more leftward voters will coalesce around the best non-Biden candidate.
If Warren wins Iowa, it's likely to have a knock-on effect in New Hampshire. I suspect you would see a huge shift of Sanders voters swing Warren in that race, as primary voters tend to be strategic in their thinking, especially in the early states. I.e. The more leftward voters will coalesce around the best non-Biden candidate.
Exactly this. Also - I don't believe that Sanders is particularly far out in front of Warren there right now (she's also from the area).
It's very possible that Sanders still wins NH, but Warren (in that scenario) is probably a close second.
I'm probably even under-stating the effect. If Warren wins Iowa, it's likely to have a huge effect. That's more or less what swung much of 2008 primary in Obama's favor. And he barely won the state. To say "Sanders voters" alone is under-selling it. Since many of the second-tier candidates are likely to drop out after or even perhaps right before the Caucus and then endorse someone. So your Buttigieg, Klobuchar, maybe even Harris might all be gone by the time NH votes, and then those voters are more than likely going to gravitate to the candidate who just won -- folks like sticking with a winner, after all.
Well, you can start the countdown clock on a major outbreak starting at one of these plants and killing multiple people. Apparently we are, for all intents and purposes, going to let the pork industry regulate itself. I guess we stopped assigning "The Jungle" as mandatory reading in high school sometime in the last 20 years. Make trichinosis great again:
Ugh. Don’t get me started on the Canadian election and the populist theme that is cultivating around the party leaders...
Was Trudeau dressing up in brown face 15 years ago a stupid thing to do? Absolutely. Does it have anything to do with any of the combined platforms being presented by any of the political parties? Absolutely not.
It’s too bad the far left (NDP + Green) and right (Conservatives + new People’s Party) parties are going to be dividing votes, allowing the more central party (Liberals) squeak by without getting a majority in key ridings.
Trudeau’s (and the Liberal’s) elitism needs to go. He didn’t even bother showing up to the first leadership debate because he either thought it was beneath him, or he’d get destroyed or both.
Hopefully, he’ll only get a minority government come October, even better is if Sheer can form a minority government.
On the flip side, Scheer has yet to apologize for anti-LGBTQ+ remarks made in the last decade. Associating with the likes of Faith Goldy isn't doing him any favors, either. I wasn't a fan of the way Harper governed, and since Scheer is one of his acolytes, the idea of him in power doesn't thrill me in the slightest.
That said, Justin Trudeau reneged on his promise of electoral reform, and handled the pipeline situation very poorly, so I won't be voting for him, either.
Like you, hoping for a minority government...and that the NDP (and Green Party to a lesser extent) gain enough foothold in Parliament to influence policy during the next term.
There are signs tonight the dam is breaking in the Democratic House Caucus on impeachment. It seems the White House will be given one more chance to turn over the whistleblower complaint and comply with oversight. After that, signs now point to them moving forward, at least at this hour. This is part of the reason why:
Here's a short article about the legal basis for the whistleblower arrangements in the US. Effectively, the argument between the White House and Congress relates to the issue familiar from the Mueller Report of whether the President is subject to the law.
- the law provides that information about a complaint must be passed to Congress if it is credible and relates to a "serious concern". This is defined as a “serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the director of national intelligence involving classified information.”
- the legal argument is not about whether there is abuse or some other sort of problem, but whether that relates to intelligence activity. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (who is primarily responsible for evaluating this matter) has said that in his view it does - a letter to Adam Schiff says "the subject matter involved in the Complainant's disclosure not only falls within the DNI's jurisdiction, but relates to one of the most significant and important of the DNI's responsibilities to the American people" (the detailed reasoning behind that has not been made publicly available though). The acting Director of National Intelligence (apparently after consulting with the Department of Justice and the White House) disagrees that this matter relates to an intelligence activity.
- although not categorically stated, the argument seems to be that the complaint concerns conduct of the President. The ICIG appears to take the view that his responsibilities relate to the purpose of intelligence activity. The DNI's line appears to be though that, as the President is not an employee or agent of the intelligence services, his actions cannot constitute an intelligence activity.
The DNI line seems very flimsy to me. In principle I don't see it as reasonable to suggest that people outside the intelligence community cannot affect intelligence activity and I don't see that line standing up in court if the matter ever got that far. However, there would then be a second line of defense, i.e. that the President is responsible only to himself and not the law (at least while in office).
If taken to extremes, the idea of Presidential immunity leads to absurd conclusions. For instance the President would be able to make what would be illegal orders by anyone else, whether or not those ignore the constitution upon which his supposed immunity rests. While it's certainly possible that others would refuse such orders (as was outlined on more than one occasion in the Mueller Report), it doesn't seem appropriate to rely on that as a means of upholding the constitution. I don't therefore think there's any chance that SCOTUS would support the idea of total immunity. There's an awful lot of damage that could be done to democracy though before getting to that point.
As an aside, while thinking about courts and constitutional matters, the UK Supreme Court is due to rule this morning on the legality of Johnson's prorogation of Parliament ...
I turn to Josh Marshall at TPM again because he always boils these things down to their heart, from a sensible liberal perspective. And this is surely the exact kind of thing that Nancy Pelosi has been hearing from members even in tough, red districts. We are now at the point where if she knows she has 218 votes, she will give the greenlight. She did not have the votes before this. She almost certainly does now. The Democrats tried to hold off. Trump has made it a matter of whether or not our system of government can survive:
It’s long been clear that if the President is driven from office it will only be by the voters in November 2020. Trump has overseen and catalyzed a decisive pivot by the GOP toward authoritarian rule and illiberal politics. Trump will always have 30-something Republican senators who will maintain him in office no matter what crimes he commits or how he violates his oath of office. But we’ve now reached an impasse, a critical juncture at which the House of Representatives, controlled by a party that still supports the rule of law, has no choice but to dramatically intensify its oversight efforts up to and including voting on articles of impeachment against the President. The very premise of democratic government and the rule of law is under active attack by a lawless President.
President Trump came to power through corrupt means. He has systematically violated his oath of office since becoming President. He is now actively plotting to subvert the 2020 election using his powers as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and head of state to coerce a desperate ally to intervene in the 2020 election on his behalf. Such an abuse of power is so total and so grave that any equivocation in branding it criminal and unacceptable in the American system simply cannot be justified. It is all the more so since it is not retrospective. Nor does it turn on mere pecuniary corruption. It is a conspiracy to subvert the American people’s one chance to end his tenure in office. In other words, it is an attack on the one failsafe in the constitutional system: facing voters in a free and fair election.
Critics of the House Democratic leadership have greatly underestimated the limitations on congressional power with an executive who simply rejects the entire concept of legitimate congressional oversight. Congress has no army or police. It relies largely on the constitution and the courts to compel some degree of good faith engagement and respect for the constitution. A flat no to any and all oversight simply means years of process in the courts and thus presidential impunity. We still don’t know the totality of what happened. Based on what we know the only proper response is to demand the President’s immediate resignation. Since he certainly won’t agree, an immediate investigation framed around the question of impeachment must be undertaken and if the facts are what they appear the President must be impeached.
Will he be removed from office in the Senate? Almost certainly not. It’s not at all clear to me that the Senate will even allow a trial. Perhaps that is a feature of this historical moment rather than a bug since President Trump should also be driven from office by the American voter. But this kind of brazen abuse of power merits the gravest form of constitutional sanction. And that is impeachment.
I've seen that this phone call to Ukraine, attempting to get a foreign power to meddle in the 2020 election, happened the day after Mueller testified and a couple weeks after he tried to get leverage over the Ukraine by halting their military aid. That's a standard Trump tactic, take something that is fine and screw it up and then offer to "fix" it. At any rate, Trump apparently felt he was clear of Mueller and immune from the law.
I thought the Supreme Court might shy away from saying outright that proroguing Parliament was unlawful - but they haven't in a unanimous 11-0 decision. There aren't any details on the judgment yet, but it looks like they've used the judicial review mechanism to declare the actions null and void - Lady Hale as the President of the court said "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification." It's the word 'reasonable' in there that's crucial - a much shorter prorogation would undoubtedly have been declared legal, but the court has effectively said that no reasonable government could have taken this decision on the grounds they claimed, i.e. there was an improper motive to frustrate the will of Parliament.
Seeing the first bits of information coming out show how strongly the court feels on this issue. For instance the judgement includes the following: "It is impossible for us to conclude on the evidence... that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks." That's a savage blow to Johnson and there are certainly going to be calls for him to resign. I think the judgement also constitutes a clear warning from the Supreme Court that they will be prepared to act very quickly if he tries to push the boundaries of the constitution again (in the run up to the judgement he's been leaving open the possibility of proroguing Parliament again, even if the first prorogation were declared unlawful).
The full judgement of the court can be found here. Reading through that I don't think the logic used is at all controversial - it's the strength with which that logic has been applied to the government's case that makes the judgement seem shocking. The main elements of the judgement I noted are:
- upholding the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament is supreme and other authorities cannot undermine this. The prerogative power by the Queen to prorogue Parliament cannot therefore be unlimited.
- upholding the principle of Parliamentary accountability. It is MPs and not the government that are elected and the government can only continue as long as it has the confidence of Parliament. The government cannot therefore be allowed to dictate to Parliament how accountability is exercised.
- there is an inherent conflict between the power to prorogue and Parliamentary sovereignty. Prorogation will not be unlawful just because this has a minor impact on Parliament - the question is whether this impact is reasonable. The relevant test is set out in para 50, amplifying on the standard test used in judicial review:
50. For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the
power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue
Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the
prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable
justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a
legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such
a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such
an exceptional course.
- the Prime Minister has a constitutional responsibility to Parliament and the country as a whole, rather than simply being the leader of a party with particular priorities. The evidence submitted by the government showed no indication that this responsibility had been recognized. I think the strength of this bit of the judgement partly reflects the court's disgust with the evidence submitted. One particularly obvious missing piece was that there was no witness statement from the Prime Minister explaining the reasons for his actions (possibly because any such statement would either have undermined the government's case, or left the Prime Minister open to a charge of perjury if conflicting evidence was also submitted to the court).
- the government also tried a slightly desperate strategy of claiming the court could not rule prorogation was unlawful as this was a proceeding in Parliament (and such proceedings are not subject to court judgement). The court gave short shrift to that argument, saying that it was clear that proceedings related to decisions of Parliament - and that prorogation is a decision imposed on Parliament and not made by them. The court therefore found unanimously that not only was the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen unlawful, but so was the prorogation made by following that advice.
In response to the judgement, Parliament will resume sitting tomorrow. There hasn't been any real response by the government yet, but I suspect that Johnson will be flying back from New York sooner rather than later ...
I think the judgement also illustrates a significant difference between the UK and US system. In the UK the Queen is Head of State and technically holds many powers as a result. There is a widely accepted argument that her exercise of these powers can't be challenged directly. However, she is only expected to exercise those powers on the advice of the government - and that advice given to her can be challenged (and in this case that's rendered the decision on prorogation unlawful).
In the US, the President is Head of State and, as with the Queen, there's an argument that his decisions cannot therefore be challenged in many areas. As he's taking those decisions without advice there's not the same possibility of challenging through that route - which leaves open the question of whether he is above the law. I don't think that can logically be correct as the President gets his powers from the constitution and it's the Supreme Court's role to determine what should be done when 2 aspects of the constitution conflict. Until they firmly assert that role though, there will be some continuing confusion over this.
Here’s an issue I have with starting impeachment over this whistleblower/Ukraine thing:
All of it at the moment is speculation. No one actually knows what the complaint is. No one actually knows what Trump said on the phone to the Ukraine government. If it comes out that the whistleblower complaint wasn’t about this, or that the phone conversation wasn’t bad as Trump is actually claiming, it will implode any impeachment talk in the future.
When it comes to this incident, the Democratic Party needs to slow down until information becomes available. They need to say that while the media reports are concerning, it is better not to speculate and to use the proper channels and hold people accountable who continue to obstruct these proper oversight channels.
Here’s an issue I have with starting impeachment over this whistleblower/Ukraine thing:
All of it at the moment is speculation. No one actually knows what the complaint is. No one actually knows what Trump said on the phone to the Ukraine government. If it comes out that the whistleblower complaint wasn’t about this, or that the phone conversation wasn’t bad as Trump is actually claiming, it will implode any impeachment talk in the future.
When it comes to this incident, the Democratic Party needs to slow down until information becomes available. They need to say that while the media reports are concerning, it is better not to speculate and to use the proper channels and hold people accountable who continue to obstruct these proper oversight channels.
The whole point is they are refusing to make the information available. This should have been turned over to Congress by law weeks ago. Nevermind the fact that Giuliani and Trump have already admitted it. They aren't saying it didn't happen. They are saying it's perfectly proper for them to do so.
This Administration has claimed in open court within the last ten days that not only can't a President be indicted, a President cannot be INVESTIGATED by anyone at all. The fact that the DoJ and Bill Barr were brought in to suppress this tells us what we need to know. If there is nothing improper, then they can turn the complaint over to Congress and defend it on it's merits. They could do so at this very moment. If they refuse to turn it over, then Congress has no other options. This Administration has made a mockery of the oversight process and separation of powers for the last year. The witnesses who do show up are often openly in contempt. There is only so much that can be excused before people (like myself and millions upon millions of others) who are saying "if not now, when??" Like my previous post stated, there is only one actual remedy to getting rid of Trump, which is the 2020 election. Trump is trying to materially effect that outcome by using taxpayer dollars and his status as Commander of the Armed Forces to essentially blackmail another country. This is so far beyond an Oval Office blowjob that they aren't even in the same solar system anymore.
Take just what we learned last night. At least 3 major newspapers confirmed from Administration sources that Trump ordered the OMB to withhold the aide money to Ukraine. First of all, that money was appropriated by Congress. There are indications they were told to LIE to Congress about why it was being held up. Rudy Giuliani then went on FOX News and claimed the State Department sent him on a "mission" to Ukraine. Even if that is the truth (and I don't believe a word that man says) why in the holy hell would the State Department be dispatching the President's personal criminal defense lawyer to go on a "fact-finding" mission in Eastern Europe?? In what universe is that even remotely proper??
Here’s an issue I have with starting impeachment over this whistleblower/Ukraine thing:
All of it at the moment is speculation. No one actually knows what the complaint is. No one actually knows what Trump said on the phone to the Ukraine government. If it comes out that the whistleblower complaint wasn’t about this, or that the phone conversation wasn’t bad as Trump is actually claiming, it will implode any impeachment talk in the future.
When it comes to this incident, the Democratic Party needs to slow down until information becomes available. They need to say that while the media reports are concerning, it is better not to speculate and to use the proper channels and hold people accountable who continue to obstruct these proper oversight channels.
The whole point is they are refusing to make the information available. This should have been turned over to Congress by law weeks ago. Nevermind the fact that Giuliani and Trump have already admitted it. They aren't saying it didn't happen. They are saying it's perfectly proper for them to do so.
You both have points. But while stonewalling and hiding the facts, the White House is pre-emptively waging a disinformation war and mischaracterizing facts with thier own spin on it before the truth is out. They are planting the story in the media that will be hard to dislodge with facts later.
It's the same exact thing that Barr did with his Barr summary of the Mueller report. The actual report was pretty damning but the Barr summary made it seem like everything was wonderful and for what seemed like weeks before the redacted report was released that was the only narrative out there.
It's exactly what Trump and Guilliani and all the other liars are doing with the Biden/Ukraine story. The truth is hidden, all we have are Trump's lies and spin.
Here’s an issue I have with starting impeachment over this whistleblower/Ukraine thing:
All of it at the moment is speculation. No one actually knows what the complaint is. No one actually knows what Trump said on the phone to the Ukraine government. If it comes out that the whistleblower complaint wasn’t about this, or that the phone conversation wasn’t bad as Trump is actually claiming, it will implode any impeachment talk in the future.
When it comes to this incident, the Democratic Party needs to slow down until information becomes available. They need to say that while the media reports are concerning, it is better not to speculate and to use the proper channels and hold people accountable who continue to obstruct these proper oversight channels.
The whole point is they are refusing to make the information available. This should have been turned over to Congress by law weeks ago. Nevermind the fact that Giuliani and Trump have already admitted it. They aren't saying it didn't happen. They are saying it's perfectly proper for them to do so.
You both have points. But while stonewalling and hiding the facts, the White House is pre-emptively waging a disinformation war and mischaracterizing facts with thier own spin on it before the truth is out. They are planting the story in the media that will be hard to dislodge with facts later.
It's the same exact thing that Barr did with his Barr summary of the Mueller report. The actual report was pretty damning but the Barr summary made it seem like everything was wonderful and for what seemed like weeks before the redacted report was released that was the only narrative out there.
It's exactly what Trump and Guilliani and all the other liars are doing with the Biden/Ukraine story. The truth is hidden, all we have are Trump's lies and spin.
We shouldn't even take the time to defend it, but there is REAMS of evidence that the Biden story is bullshit. Now then, is the fact that his son was serving a board making money he probably didn't deserve inevitably because his dad was Vice President unethical in the way nearly EVERYTHING about our system is?? Yeah. Was anything about it corrupt or illegal?? Not even remotely. In fact, the prosecutor Biden (and rest of the world) wanted replaced was the one who WASN'T prosecuting people. Biden was advocating on behalf of the Obama Administration for a MORE aggressive prosecutor. Which is a strange way to "protect" your son if you think he's engaged in wrongdoing. But don't take my word for it. Take your pick from all these articles, The Intercept article chief among them, since they are a outlet who has NO use for neo-liberals like Biden:
The "story" is coming from the EXACT same place as Uranium One did. It was laundered through the exact same shitty New York Times reporter (Ken Vogel). It's essentially a sequel. A "scandal" where you have to jump so many mental hoops to have it make sense that you could become a contortionist in the circus.
The idea that this and the President attempting to extort and blackmail a foreign country to investigate and prosecute his main domestic political rival in the 2020 campaign are equal is like saying parking in a handicap spot is the same as vehicular manslaughter.
I'd have preferred Biden was never in the race to begin with, and wish he would just leave to be perfectly frank. But the idea that the President should be able to use OUR tax dollars appropriated by Congress to say to Ukraine "nice country you have there, shame if something happened to it" and then ask them to manufacture a criminal case against him and his son is the very definition of a high crime. For one thing, a President should be NOWHERE NEAR these kind of decisions. But for another, if what Biden and his son did is so bad, why isn't the wholly corrupt current US Justice Department doing anything about it??
Here’s an issue I have with starting impeachment over this whistleblower/Ukraine thing:
All of it at the moment is speculation. No one actually knows what the complaint is. No one actually knows what Trump said on the phone to the Ukraine government. If it comes out that the whistleblower complaint wasn’t about this, or that the phone conversation wasn’t bad as Trump is actually claiming, it will implode any impeachment talk in the future.
When it comes to this incident, the Democratic Party needs to slow down until information becomes available. They need to say that while the media reports are concerning, it is better not to speculate and to use the proper channels and hold people accountable who continue to obstruct these proper oversight channels.
The whole point is they are refusing to make the information available. This should have been turned over to Congress by law weeks ago. Nevermind the fact that Giuliani and Trump have already admitted it. They aren't saying it didn't happen. They are saying it's perfectly proper for them to do so.
You both have points. But while stonewalling and hiding the facts, the White House is pre-emptively waging a disinformation war and mischaracterizing facts with thier own spin on it before the truth is out. They are planting the story in the media that will be hard to dislodge with facts later.
It's the same exact thing that Barr did with his Barr summary of the Mueller report. The actual report was pretty damning but the Barr summary made it seem like everything was wonderful and for what seemed like weeks before the redacted report was released that was the only narrative out there.
It's exactly what Trump and Guilliani and all the other liars are doing with the Biden/Ukraine story. The truth is hidden, all we have are Trump's lies and spin.
We shouldn't even take the time to defend it, but there is REAMS of evidence that the Biden story is bullshit. Now then, is the fact that his son was serving a board making money he probably didn't deserve inevitably because his dad was Vice President unethical in the way nearly EVERYTHING about our system is?? Yeah. Was anything about it corrupt or illegal?? Not even remotely. In fact, the prosecutor Biden (and rest of the world) wanted replaced was the one who WASN'T prosecuting people. Biden was advocating on behalf of the Obama Administration for a MORE aggressive prosecutor. Which is a strange way to "protect" your son if you think he's engaged in wrongdoing. But don't take my word for it. Take your pick from all these articles, The Intercept article chief among them, since they are a outlet who has NO use for neo-liberals like Biden:
The "story" is coming from the EXACT same place as Uranium One did. It was laundered through the exact same shitty New York Times reporter (Ken Vogel). It's essentially a sequel. A "scandal" where you have to jump so many mental hoops to have it make sense that you could become a contortionist in the circus.
The idea that this and the President attempting to extort and blackmail a foreign country to investigate and prosecute his main domestic political rival in the 2020 campaign are equal is like saying parking in a handicap spot is the same as vehicular manslaughter.
I'd have preferred Biden was never in the race to begin with, and wish he would just leave to be perfectly frank. But the idea that the President should be able to use OUR tax dollars appropriated by Congress to say to Ukraine "nice country you have there, shame if something happened to it" and then ask them to manufacture a criminal case against him and his son is the very definition of a high crime. For one thing, a President should be NOWHERE NEAR these kind of decisions. But for another, if what Biden and his son did is so bad, why isn't the wholly corrupt current US Justice Department doing anything about it??
I like him in the race because Trump and Co waste a lot of resources and time attacking him. If he drops out, they will start focusing on Warren (again) or Sanders and start making stuff up about them.
Doing the right thing is often risky. Doing the right thing is often detrimental to your personal interests. No one knows how if will play out politically. The only thing I know is that we can't just sit by and allow this man to run roughshod over everything without consequences. Someone has to stand up to him. Ever reporter in Washington is now saying the same thing, and John Lewis giving a speech on the House floor was the final tell before the leaks started. It's real this time. It took longer than many would have liked to get there, and for many others it will be viewed as a tactical blunder. Let the chips fall where they may. The Democrats are going to start impeachment proceedings. I think the idea that Trump wants to be impeached is flawed and wrong. It think it will eat him to his core and whatever he has in place of a soul. I think he viewed the Democrats as too weak to challenge him directly, and for a long time he appeared to be right. He went to the well one too many times. It's time to put every elected official in the country on record about his conduct in office. My advise to those a liberal bent is to stop being afraid of your own shadow, saddle up, and fight.
Trump is already in Nixon-mode, bargaining that he will release a transcript of one phone call rather than the full whistleblower complaint. I trust these people not to alter a transcript in the same say I'd trust Ted Bundy at a sorority party. This is a guy who less than a month ago altered a weather forecast with a sharpie.
The whistleblowers attorney has come forward and requested a formal meeting with his client and House Intelligence.
Republicans are completely taken aback right now. They didn't ever anticipate the Democrats would grow a spine. When you do, even Mitch McConnell is flustered. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. I've never seen them this flustered.
Another word about transcripts. This Administration has already doctored transcripts of something as mundane as interactions with a female reporter in a press briefing. They have actively pushed doctored videos. They have (as mentioned above) falsified weather forecasts. Anyone who takes anything these people put out tomorrow at face value is crazy. THIS is where all those seemingly insignifcant lies come onto play. I'll also remind people that the transcripts Nixon released, once the tapes were heard, not only deliberately omitted key sections but ADDED words Nixon never actually said. Anyone with any sense of history would know not to fall for this trap.
Comments
Edit: Rudy Giuliani is melting down on CNN and can't even keep his story straight for 60 seconds. This is absolutely what this is about. Trump was witholding military aide from Ukraine in an attempt to extort them into helping damage his political rival. Hundreds of millions of US taxpayer dollars he was treating as his personal bribe to illegally further his own reelection chances. This has to end. If this plays out like I think it's going to, he has to be impeached. Not doing so is tantamount to waving the white flag on the American experiment.
Edit 2: The fact they sent Giuliani on television to do what he did with Chris Cuomo tonight follows a distinct pattern. At a certain point last evening, it became clear to the White House that despite Trump and Barr's attempts to prevent the information from getting out, it IS getting out. The moment the Washington Post reported the Ukriane angle, Giuliani was dispatched to CNN. I've used this analogy a dozen times before, but Giuliani's role on multiple occasions has been to act as a Colonel Jessup-like figure and to admit they ordered the Code Red. They then immediately shift the defense from "nothing improper went on" to "yeah we did it, so what??" So that is where this is now going. They can't possibly keep a lid on this anymore.
Edit 3: This is all speculation, but we can take information we do know about and apply it retroactively to paint a preview about what is coming down. In this time-frame, Dan Coates either resigns or is fired as DNI. He also appatently walked into the middle of a meeting his Deputy was in (since she would be in line to at least temporarily hold the position) and tells her she needs to resign immediately. During this time, the White House lists 5 OFFICIAL calls with foreign leaders. But there is one they didn't make an official record of. With Ukraine. And we know this because while the White House does not have record of it, Ukraine DOES and we know it took place. Soon after, Schiff learns of a whistleblower complaint that is being buried by the DoJ and the White House. Could I be wrong about this?? Sure. But if you think any of this is above board, you're nuts. And if this hypothesis about Ukriane is correct and you're ok with it?? One can only assume you would gladly welcome everything up to and including a Trump dictatorship.
Edit 4: Trump has all bit admitted it at this point. His repsonse?? "It doesn't matter what I said". So that's where we are. The official position of the White House, Republican Party, and most conservative voters is now that the President can't be prosecuted, investigated, or held to account by anyone at all, and that it is perfectly fine to offer over a quarter billion dollars in military aide to a country as a bribe for them to dig up dirt on a domestic political rival. I'm not being hyperbolic here. The Republican Party is destroying this country. Full-stop. We don't have much time to stop them.
This issue is too important not to talk about. We are facing a facist leader who has already set up the foundation of a dictatorship. To ignore it is democratic suicide at this point.
One thing to be a little grateful for at least, is that Democrats won the House. I think there's absolutely no doubt that this scandal gets completely swept aside if Republicans still ran that body. And that indicates a sad reality of what will probably be the new normal for US politics even after Trump.
There are a multitude of reasons to oppose Biden for the nomination, but this is not one of them. And even if Joe and Hunter Biden were as corrupt as possible (which they aren't), it would still not change the fact that the President of the United States cannot be allowed to extort vulnerable foreign countries into materially supporting his re-election campaign by hanging the specter of a quarter billion taxpayer dollars in military funding over their head. Do NOT allow this to become a both sides issue. It's nothing but bad faith horseshit, and anyone who isn't already too far gone down the right-wing rabbit-hole should know better by now. But the media?? They'll fall for it like they always do.
As for Nancy Pelosi.....look, I've defended her, but I'm done doing so. If she will not let impeachment proceedings move forward at THIS juncture then she needs to step aside as Speaker. The Democratic base is going to revolt if they continue to sit on their hands after this.
And here comes the wagging dog:
Ok, if the Democratic Party actually starts the impeachment process, I'll probably rethink my moratorium on posting here. That I would consider real news. I'm still browsing the thread to see if there's any info about non-Trump related issues...
That is kinda difficult as most of American politics revolves around Trump.
For example, the trade war with China took an important turn for the better as both countries lifted some tariffs off of certain products.
America’s was mostly a smorgasbord of items that, IMO, could have kept tariffs on such as electric skateboards and plastic drinking straws, but other high items that never should have tariffs on them to begin with such as medical equipment parts.
China lifted some of its tariffs on soybeans and pork last week.
The market is still skittish though as it was also stated that none of these changes are permanent and is just an attempt to get negotiations back on track.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/us-china-trade-tariffs-1.5291005
Up north, Justin Trudeau has made his re--election campaign a real uphill climb with at least 3 different incidences of him dressing up in brown or black face coming to light. Why do people do this?? What is the appeal?? It seems like it would take hours to put on, hours to take off, and has ALWAYS looked ridiculous. Aside from the cultural appropriation aspects, it seems like the most impratical "costume" imaginable.
There are more canaries in the coalmine about the economy, with Wisconsin and Pennsylvania hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs and the Fed having to create money out of thin air overnight at least twice last week because of the demand for short-term loans.
All this being said, I still don't think any of this comes remotely close to being as explosive as the President actively pursuing prosecution of his political opponents by way of international extortion, but there you have it.
Was Trudeau dressing up in brown face 15 years ago a stupid thing to do? Absolutely. Does it have anything to do with any of the combined platforms being presented by any of the political parties? Absolutely not.
It’s too bad the far left (NDP + Green) and right (Conservatives + new People’s Party) parties are going to be dividing votes, allowing the more central party (Liberals) squeak by without getting a majority in key ridings.
Trudeau’s (and the Liberal’s) elitism needs to go. He didn’t even bother showing up to the first leadership debate because he either thought it was beneath him, or he’d get destroyed or both.
Hopefully, he’ll only get a minority government come October, even better is if Sheer can form a minority government.
Careful what you wish for you really don't want a Trump, Netanyahu, Boris Johnson, Modi, or Bolsanaro. Any issues from Trudeau are minor in comparison to those corruption filled authoritarians or wannabe authoritarian blowhards.
Don't say we didn't want you, you guys should learn from our mistakes.
Warren leads in Iowa, 22 (to Biden's 20)%.
Bernie Sanders was at 11% (which is under the 15% cut off requirement to get *any* delegates)
And Harris was below Buttigieg (He had 9%, she had 6%).
There's no telling if those numbers will hold up, but it's pretty hugely surprising to see Bernie underwater in Iowa, when he won ~50% last time. Warren is taking all of his oxygen, and if he loses Iowa, I dont know what state he's going to win (NH? You'd assume Warren does well there, too. SC should be a shoe-in for Biden. You might have to look at Nevada or wait until Super Tuesday for Bernie to win a state - which would be really, really bad for him).
I would take Andrew Sheer over Trudeau any day. Canada’s Conservative party is not as right wing as anyone that was mentioned in your post and was reason why the People’s Party was created, which skews further right.
And that’s the type of fear, people painting any conservative leader as bad as Trump, that I am afraid of, because people are stupid enough to believe it.
Oh, Warren is going to win Iowa. And New Hampshire is essentially Bernie's home state (Vermont is right next door). If he doesn't win New Hampshire, I don't know what his campaign is banking on (I think he will win New Hampshire).
But if people want to know why Elizabeth Warren is surging, they don't need to point to ridiculous conspiracy theories like the media is favoring her because they don't want Bernie to win. Elizabeth Warren is working her ass off on the trail. She stands on line for 4 hours for people waiting to get a selfie with her. I bet you dollars to donuts MOST of those selfies then get shared by those people on social media. These early primaries are about retail politics, and Elizabeth Warren is willing to stand on line til all hours of the night if necessary to make those connections. She's starting to climb to the top of the polls for two reasons: she has concrete plans to address issues and she is working harder than the other candidates. Pure and simple.
It's a 3-person race at this point. Booker appears to be out of money. Harris has moved her entire campaign to Iowa and it won't work. Buttigieg isn't a threat to win any early state. Yang has made waves and bumped up his number significantly but they aren't going to translate to anything more than a 4th or 5th place finish AT BEST in any state. There is simply no room for anyone to move up enough to make up the ground when Warren, Bernie and Biden are already accounting for 60% of the vote. Moreover, most people's SECOND choices in recent polls also end up being the same 3 people.
I'll also throw it out there that Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate thus far who has issued a strong, no beating around the bush statement on impeaching Trump in regards to the latest revelations, AND she is now also calling out Democratic leadership for being complicit if they sit on their hands. So yeah, it's no shock why Warren continues to climb.
Exactly this. Also - I don't believe that Sanders is particularly far out in front of Warren there right now (she's also from the area).
It's very possible that Sanders still wins NH, but Warren (in that scenario) is probably a close second.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/18/20869186/trump-administrations-slaughterhouse-rules-usda-pigs
On the flip side, Scheer has yet to apologize for anti-LGBTQ+ remarks made in the last decade. Associating with the likes of Faith Goldy isn't doing him any favors, either. I wasn't a fan of the way Harper governed, and since Scheer is one of his acolytes, the idea of him in power doesn't thrill me in the slightest.
That said, Justin Trudeau reneged on his promise of electoral reform, and handled the pipeline situation very poorly, so I won't be voting for him, either.
Like you, hoping for a minority government...and that the NDP (and Green Party to a lesser extent) gain enough foothold in Parliament to influence policy during the next term.
- the law provides that information about a complaint must be passed to Congress if it is credible and relates to a "serious concern". This is defined as a “serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the director of national intelligence involving classified information.”
- the legal argument is not about whether there is abuse or some other sort of problem, but whether that relates to intelligence activity. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (who is primarily responsible for evaluating this matter) has said that in his view it does - a letter to Adam Schiff says "the subject matter involved in the Complainant's disclosure not only falls within the DNI's jurisdiction, but relates to one of the most significant and important of the DNI's responsibilities to the American people" (the detailed reasoning behind that has not been made publicly available though). The acting Director of National Intelligence (apparently after consulting with the Department of Justice and the White House) disagrees that this matter relates to an intelligence activity.
- although not categorically stated, the argument seems to be that the complaint concerns conduct of the President. The ICIG appears to take the view that his responsibilities relate to the purpose of intelligence activity. The DNI's line appears to be though that, as the President is not an employee or agent of the intelligence services, his actions cannot constitute an intelligence activity.
The DNI line seems very flimsy to me. In principle I don't see it as reasonable to suggest that people outside the intelligence community cannot affect intelligence activity and I don't see that line standing up in court if the matter ever got that far. However, there would then be a second line of defense, i.e. that the President is responsible only to himself and not the law (at least while in office).
If taken to extremes, the idea of Presidential immunity leads to absurd conclusions. For instance the President would be able to make what would be illegal orders by anyone else, whether or not those ignore the constitution upon which his supposed immunity rests. While it's certainly possible that others would refuse such orders (as was outlined on more than one occasion in the Mueller Report), it doesn't seem appropriate to rely on that as a means of upholding the constitution. I don't therefore think there's any chance that SCOTUS would support the idea of total immunity. There's an awful lot of damage that could be done to democracy though before getting to that point.
As an aside, while thinking about courts and constitutional matters, the UK Supreme Court is due to rule this morning on the legality of Johnson's prorogation of Parliament ...
It’s long been clear that if the President is driven from office it will only be by the voters in November 2020. Trump has overseen and catalyzed a decisive pivot by the GOP toward authoritarian rule and illiberal politics. Trump will always have 30-something Republican senators who will maintain him in office no matter what crimes he commits or how he violates his oath of office. But we’ve now reached an impasse, a critical juncture at which the House of Representatives, controlled by a party that still supports the rule of law, has no choice but to dramatically intensify its oversight efforts up to and including voting on articles of impeachment against the President. The very premise of democratic government and the rule of law is under active attack by a lawless President.
President Trump came to power through corrupt means. He has systematically violated his oath of office since becoming President. He is now actively plotting to subvert the 2020 election using his powers as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and head of state to coerce a desperate ally to intervene in the 2020 election on his behalf. Such an abuse of power is so total and so grave that any equivocation in branding it criminal and unacceptable in the American system simply cannot be justified. It is all the more so since it is not retrospective. Nor does it turn on mere pecuniary corruption. It is a conspiracy to subvert the American people’s one chance to end his tenure in office. In other words, it is an attack on the one failsafe in the constitutional system: facing voters in a free and fair election.
Critics of the House Democratic leadership have greatly underestimated the limitations on congressional power with an executive who simply rejects the entire concept of legitimate congressional oversight. Congress has no army or police. It relies largely on the constitution and the courts to compel some degree of good faith engagement and respect for the constitution. A flat no to any and all oversight simply means years of process in the courts and thus presidential impunity. We still don’t know the totality of what happened. Based on what we know the only proper response is to demand the President’s immediate resignation. Since he certainly won’t agree, an immediate investigation framed around the question of impeachment must be undertaken and if the facts are what they appear the President must be impeached.
Will he be removed from office in the Senate? Almost certainly not. It’s not at all clear to me that the Senate will even allow a trial. Perhaps that is a feature of this historical moment rather than a bug since President Trump should also be driven from office by the American voter. But this kind of brazen abuse of power merits the gravest form of constitutional sanction. And that is impeachment.
Seeing the first bits of information coming out show how strongly the court feels on this issue. For instance the judgement includes the following: "It is impossible for us to conclude on the evidence... that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks." That's a savage blow to Johnson and there are certainly going to be calls for him to resign. I think the judgement also constitutes a clear warning from the Supreme Court that they will be prepared to act very quickly if he tries to push the boundaries of the constitution again (in the run up to the judgement he's been leaving open the possibility of proroguing Parliament again, even if the first prorogation were declared unlawful).
The full judgement of the court can be found here. Reading through that I don't think the logic used is at all controversial - it's the strength with which that logic has been applied to the government's case that makes the judgement seem shocking. The main elements of the judgement I noted are:
- upholding the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament is supreme and other authorities cannot undermine this. The prerogative power by the Queen to prorogue Parliament cannot therefore be unlimited.
- upholding the principle of Parliamentary accountability. It is MPs and not the government that are elected and the government can only continue as long as it has the confidence of Parliament. The government cannot therefore be allowed to dictate to Parliament how accountability is exercised.
- there is an inherent conflict between the power to prorogue and Parliamentary sovereignty. Prorogation will not be unlawful just because this has a minor impact on Parliament - the question is whether this impact is reasonable. The relevant test is set out in para 50, amplifying on the standard test used in judicial review:
power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue
Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the
prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable
justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a
legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such
a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such
an exceptional course.
- the government also tried a slightly desperate strategy of claiming the court could not rule prorogation was unlawful as this was a proceeding in Parliament (and such proceedings are not subject to court judgement). The court gave short shrift to that argument, saying that it was clear that proceedings related to decisions of Parliament - and that prorogation is a decision imposed on Parliament and not made by them. The court therefore found unanimously that not only was the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen unlawful, but so was the prorogation made by following that advice.
In response to the judgement, Parliament will resume sitting tomorrow. There hasn't been any real response by the government yet, but I suspect that Johnson will be flying back from New York sooner rather than later ...
I think the judgement also illustrates a significant difference between the UK and US system. In the UK the Queen is Head of State and technically holds many powers as a result. There is a widely accepted argument that her exercise of these powers can't be challenged directly. However, she is only expected to exercise those powers on the advice of the government - and that advice given to her can be challenged (and in this case that's rendered the decision on prorogation unlawful).
In the US, the President is Head of State and, as with the Queen, there's an argument that his decisions cannot therefore be challenged in many areas. As he's taking those decisions without advice there's not the same possibility of challenging through that route - which leaves open the question of whether he is above the law. I don't think that can logically be correct as the President gets his powers from the constitution and it's the Supreme Court's role to determine what should be done when 2 aspects of the constitution conflict. Until they firmly assert that role though, there will be some continuing confusion over this.
All of it at the moment is speculation. No one actually knows what the complaint is. No one actually knows what Trump said on the phone to the Ukraine government. If it comes out that the whistleblower complaint wasn’t about this, or that the phone conversation wasn’t bad as Trump is actually claiming, it will implode any impeachment talk in the future.
When it comes to this incident, the Democratic Party needs to slow down until information becomes available. They need to say that while the media reports are concerning, it is better not to speculate and to use the proper channels and hold people accountable who continue to obstruct these proper oversight channels.
The whole point is they are refusing to make the information available. This should have been turned over to Congress by law weeks ago. Nevermind the fact that Giuliani and Trump have already admitted it. They aren't saying it didn't happen. They are saying it's perfectly proper for them to do so.
This Administration has claimed in open court within the last ten days that not only can't a President be indicted, a President cannot be INVESTIGATED by anyone at all. The fact that the DoJ and Bill Barr were brought in to suppress this tells us what we need to know. If there is nothing improper, then they can turn the complaint over to Congress and defend it on it's merits. They could do so at this very moment. If they refuse to turn it over, then Congress has no other options. This Administration has made a mockery of the oversight process and separation of powers for the last year. The witnesses who do show up are often openly in contempt. There is only so much that can be excused before people (like myself and millions upon millions of others) who are saying "if not now, when??" Like my previous post stated, there is only one actual remedy to getting rid of Trump, which is the 2020 election. Trump is trying to materially effect that outcome by using taxpayer dollars and his status as Commander of the Armed Forces to essentially blackmail another country. This is so far beyond an Oval Office blowjob that they aren't even in the same solar system anymore.
Take just what we learned last night. At least 3 major newspapers confirmed from Administration sources that Trump ordered the OMB to withhold the aide money to Ukraine. First of all, that money was appropriated by Congress. There are indications they were told to LIE to Congress about why it was being held up. Rudy Giuliani then went on FOX News and claimed the State Department sent him on a "mission" to Ukraine. Even if that is the truth (and I don't believe a word that man says) why in the holy hell would the State Department be dispatching the President's personal criminal defense lawyer to go on a "fact-finding" mission in Eastern Europe?? In what universe is that even remotely proper??
You both have points. But while stonewalling and hiding the facts, the White House is pre-emptively waging a disinformation war and mischaracterizing facts with thier own spin on it before the truth is out. They are planting the story in the media that will be hard to dislodge with facts later.
It's the same exact thing that Barr did with his Barr summary of the Mueller report. The actual report was pretty damning but the Barr summary made it seem like everything was wonderful and for what seemed like weeks before the redacted report was released that was the only narrative out there.
It's exactly what Trump and Guilliani and all the other liars are doing with the Biden/Ukraine story. The truth is hidden, all we have are Trump's lies and spin.
We shouldn't even take the time to defend it, but there is REAMS of evidence that the Biden story is bullshit. Now then, is the fact that his son was serving a board making money he probably didn't deserve inevitably because his dad was Vice President unethical in the way nearly EVERYTHING about our system is?? Yeah. Was anything about it corrupt or illegal?? Not even remotely. In fact, the prosecutor Biden (and rest of the world) wanted replaced was the one who WASN'T prosecuting people. Biden was advocating on behalf of the Obama Administration for a MORE aggressive prosecutor. Which is a strange way to "protect" your son if you think he's engaged in wrongdoing. But don't take my word for it. Take your pick from all these articles, The Intercept article chief among them, since they are a outlet who has NO use for neo-liberals like Biden:
https://theintercept.com/2019/09/22/reporters-stop-helping-donald-trump-spread-lies-joe-biden-ukraine/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/ukraine-prosecutor-says-no-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-bidens
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/03/media/new-york-times-ukraine-spokesperson/index.html
The "story" is coming from the EXACT same place as Uranium One did. It was laundered through the exact same shitty New York Times reporter (Ken Vogel). It's essentially a sequel. A "scandal" where you have to jump so many mental hoops to have it make sense that you could become a contortionist in the circus.
The idea that this and the President attempting to extort and blackmail a foreign country to investigate and prosecute his main domestic political rival in the 2020 campaign are equal is like saying parking in a handicap spot is the same as vehicular manslaughter.
I'd have preferred Biden was never in the race to begin with, and wish he would just leave to be perfectly frank. But the idea that the President should be able to use OUR tax dollars appropriated by Congress to say to Ukraine "nice country you have there, shame if something happened to it" and then ask them to manufacture a criminal case against him and his son is the very definition of a high crime. For one thing, a President should be NOWHERE NEAR these kind of decisions. But for another, if what Biden and his son did is so bad, why isn't the wholly corrupt current US Justice Department doing anything about it??
I like him in the race because Trump and Co waste a lot of resources and time attacking him. If he drops out, they will start focusing on Warren (again) or Sanders and start making stuff up about them.
Trump is already in Nixon-mode, bargaining that he will release a transcript of one phone call rather than the full whistleblower complaint. I trust these people not to alter a transcript in the same say I'd trust Ted Bundy at a sorority party. This is a guy who less than a month ago altered a weather forecast with a sharpie.
The whistleblowers attorney has come forward and requested a formal meeting with his client and House Intelligence.
Republicans are completely taken aback right now. They didn't ever anticipate the Democrats would grow a spine. When you do, even Mitch McConnell is flustered. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. I've never seen them this flustered.
Another word about transcripts. This Administration has already doctored transcripts of something as mundane as interactions with a female reporter in a press briefing. They have actively pushed doctored videos. They have (as mentioned above) falsified weather forecasts. Anyone who takes anything these people put out tomorrow at face value is crazy. THIS is where all those seemingly insignifcant lies come onto play. I'll also remind people that the transcripts Nixon released, once the tapes were heard, not only deliberately omitted key sections but ADDED words Nixon never actually said. Anyone with any sense of history would know not to fall for this trap.