BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Miscellaneous > The Room

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #19721  
Old 10-23-2019, 06:28 PM
Donnie D's Avatar
Donnie D Donnie D is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 8,695
Default

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”

Carl Sandburg
__________________
The irony of targeting the son of a White House occupant for making money in foreign markets seems to escape the Trump family.
Reply With Quote
  #19722  
Old 10-23-2019, 06:42 PM
Donnie D's Avatar
Donnie D Donnie D is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 8,695
Default

The LA Times laid out the 4 alternatives

Option 1 is to say it’s all hearsay, and that Trump was either misunderstood or misrepresented by Giuliani and others who conveyed his feelings about the matter. After all, Trump has insisted there was no quid pro quo, and he never lies, right? And yet a reconstructed White House memo of his July 25 call with Zelensky shows him noting how dependent Ukraine is on U.S. help, then asking for “a favor”: that Zelensky conduct an investigation into a wild-hair conspiracy theory that Ukrainians, not Russians, hacked into Democratic National Committee computers in 2016. Trump then asked Zelensky for an investigation into the Bidens’ actions in Ukraine.

Option 2 is to say there was a quid pro quo, but it doesn’t matter. Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick “Get Over It” Mulvaney floated this line of thought Thursday, only to backtrack later and insist that the president held up Ukraine’s military aid because of perfectly legitimate concerns about corruption in Ukraine and a lack of support from other allies. The problem there is that the president has no authority to hold up congressionally appropriated funds for such reasons, but at least that’s less obviously problematic than what Taylor described.

Option 3 is to say that there was a quid pro quo for the military aid, but it doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. That’s akin to saying a president can use the frightening power of his office to pressure other countries to help him win re-election, which seems like the sort of thing the public might find distasteful. But OK, run with that. Perhaps there’s some other form of sanction you could propose instead of impeachment, such as a formal censure.

Option 4 is to say that there was a quid pro and it is an impeachable offense, leaving it to the Senate to decide whether it’s bad enough to justify removing Trump.
__________________
The irony of targeting the son of a White House occupant for making money in foreign markets seems to escape the Trump family.
Reply With Quote
  #19723  
Old 10-23-2019, 07:23 PM
dannybolt's Avatar
dannybolt dannybolt is online now
Bingo Bob's Intermission Contest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Pete
Posts: 1,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie D View Post
The LA Times laid out the 4 alternatives

Option 1 is to say it’s all hearsay, and that Trump was either misunderstood or misrepresented by Giuliani and others who conveyed his feelings about the matter. After all, Trump has insisted there was no quid pro quo, and he never lies, right? And yet a reconstructed White House memo of his July 25 call with Zelensky shows him noting how dependent Ukraine is on U.S. help, then asking for “a favor”: that Zelensky conduct an investigation into a wild-hair conspiracy theory that Ukrainians, not Russians, hacked into Democratic National Committee computers in 2016. Trump then asked Zelensky for an investigation into the Bidens’ actions in Ukraine.

Option 2 is to say there was a quid pro quo, but it doesn’t matter. Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick “Get Over It” Mulvaney floated this line of thought Thursday, only to backtrack later and insist that the president held up Ukraine’s military aid because of perfectly legitimate concerns about corruption in Ukraine and a lack of support from other allies. The problem there is that the president has no authority to hold up congressionally appropriated funds for such reasons, but at least that’s less obviously problematic than what Taylor described.

Option 3 is to say that there was a quid pro quo for the military aid, but it doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. That’s akin to saying a president can use the frightening power of his office to pressure other countries to help him win re-election, which seems like the sort of thing the public might find distasteful. But OK, run with that. Perhaps there’s some other form of sanction you could propose instead of impeachment, such as a formal censure.

Option 4 is to say that there was a quid pro and it is an impeachable offense, leaving it to the Senate to decide whether it’s bad enough to justify removing Trump.
Option 3 is flat out unconstitutional if they want to take that tack. Anyone who is opposed to Trump is having their tax dollars used explicitly against their wishes. Not in a "I don't like that policy" sort of against their wishes, in an "I don't want my tax dollars going to help fund the campaign of a candidate I oppose", which is what it is when you use tax dollars to withhold aid for oppo research. It's a fundamentally undemocratic action. There is no logical spin that doesn't lead Option 3 straight to an impeachable offense. None.
__________________
Ondrej Palat fan club member
Reply With Quote
  #19724  
Old 10-23-2019, 07:56 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead View Post
Gaetz says, on camera, “Ok, lets go in there”. If this had been D’s storming aforementioned Benghazi hearings, the heads at Fox would have exploded. And the Trumpers in the panhandle just love that kind of shit. Disgusting.

Oh, btw, they go in to a secure room WITH their phones! Where’s the Sargent in arms???
What Gaetz did is, by law, a maximum of 1 year in federal prison and a $10K fine. I have no faith Barr's DOJ would press charges and I'm sure Trump would just pardon the fucker, but I'd have chucked him in holding at the least.

One theory I saw why that didn't happen was that Pelosi was at a family member's funeral and the leadership that has the authority to tell the Sargent at Arms to handle their business wasn't present. And Gaetz and the Republicans knew that, which is why they staged that shit today. Also, Trump and McCarthy were in on the plan and approved of it.
__________________
S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 04
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.