The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Smoove_B]

I'm pretty confident my link is referencing yours. As we say around these parts, BAM.

[Holman]

If you're an Independent (tm) and your feeling after 3+ years of this horseshit is that "impeachment is too radical a step" then I question your reality.

I can imagine that a lot of low-information voters have a vague sense that Trump is an embarrassment but an equally vague sense that all politicians are corrupt. If that's the case, impeachment is just a big meh.

I'm always surprised to hear from a co-worker or someone else who says "I vote every four years but I hate politics." Those are your Independents.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm pretty confident my link is referencing yours. As we say around these parts, BAM.

Yeah, but I actually went upstream for the primary source.

[Zarathud]

Many people are avoiding politics because it’s “too upsetting” or “just entertainment.” Then there are those who blame everyone without looking further.

Impeachment is a big step. After years of Republicans hounding Obama (Benghazi!), it’s easy to just call it more politics without looking at how horrible Trump is as a political leader. It’s bullshit, but an understandable reaction.

In more way than one, the mess we’re in is partly the fault of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton being embroiled in constant scandal.

[Holman]

In more way than one, the mess we’re in is partly the fault of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton being embroiled in constant scandal.

So we agree the GOP is to blame.

[malchior]

In more way than one, the mess we’re in is partly the fault of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton being embroiled in constant scandal.

So we agree the GOP is to blame.

I mostly agree but when you walk into obvious traps over and over...don't you partially bear the responsibility?

[Remus West]

In more way than one, the mess we’re in is partly the fault of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton being embroiled in constant scandal.

So we agree the GOP is to blame.

I mostly agree but when you walk into obvious traps over and over...don't you partially bear the responsibility?

No.

[malchior]

In more way than one, the mess we’re in is partly the fault of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton being embroiled in constant scandal.

So we agree the GOP is to blame.

I mostly agree but when you walk into obvious traps over and over...don't you partially bear the responsibility?

No.

Cool. Then hopefully they'll just miss the rakes the Republicans leave out on the lawn for them instead.

[Pyperkub]

In more way than one, the mess we’re in is partly the fault of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton being embroiled in constant scandal.

So we agree the GOP is to blame.

The key here is alleged scandal. Bill Clinton had one actual scandal. Hillary had zero actual scandals, but had been smeared for 25 years with alleged scandals, all of which were nothing.

Which isn't too say the smears didn't work.

This is why Trump sees it as so important to have Ukraine open an investigation publicly. He just wants the allegation so that he can use it to smear Biden. As with Hillary, he knows that he can amplify that allegation and perpetuate it long enough to make the difference.

[LordMortis]

In more way than one, the mess we’re in is partly the fault of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton being embroiled in constant scandal.

So we agree the GOP is to blame.

I mostly agree but when you walk into obvious traps over and over...don't you partially bear the responsibility?

I don't agree. Forgetting how terrible the GOP and Ken Starr were. They were terrible. I'm not sure I can have reasonable conversation with someone who comes to the table saying otherwise. Bill did take advantage of a position for solicit sexual favors and lied about it and democrats wanted to look the other way right up until, what, 2017? Hillary did sit on the board of directors for WalMart while they changed the way corporate employee relationships work ubiquitiously under illegal circumstance. WhiteWater was a thing. They were surrounded by people who were demonstrably guilty of fraudulent business dealings.

The willingness to look the other way only fuels bothsideism. Rather than continuing to hold Bill as role model and Hillary as slighted, you have a friggen shining beacon of Obama to point to when it comes to being clean in your political struggles.

[Holman]

Well this should be interesting.*

(*By which I mean batshit crazy from the GOP side.)

[Jaymann]

I can't wait until they grill the scholars on who the whistle blower is.

[Smoove_B]

Well, if I've learned anything over the last 3+ years, the GOP has nothing but profound respect for scholars and experts. I'm sure it's going to be great.

[Alefroth]

House Republicans release impeachment report-

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/02/78418348 ... nt-inquiry

[malchior]

From the NPR article above -

Republicans have argued that the entire impeachment inquiry, overseen by Rep. Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, was unfair and did not provide Trump or his legal team the opportunity to respond to allegations. Trump himself has labeled the inquiry a sham.

In keeping with how stupid this whole thing is this argument is already outdated as of this weekend.

[Scraper]

Well, if I've learned anything over the last 3+ years, the GOP has nothing but profound respect for scholars and experts. I'm sure it's going to be great.

Todays GOP has no respect for anyone tasked with fact finding, reporting facts, researching facts and then drawing conclusions based on fact.

See the media, FBI, NSA, our own ambassadors, some of the GOPs own lawyers, scientists, college professors, expert witnesses, NATO, the UN and other foreign allies (I know I'm missing some) for examples.

[Grifman]

Well, if I've learned anything over the last 3+ years, the GOP has nothing but profound respect for scholars and experts. I'm sure it's going to be great.

They're just a bunch of ivory tower elitists.

[El Guapo]

If I know the public, the one thing that gets them fired up is constitutional experts debating the meaning of legal clauses.

From what I've seen so far, I don't trust Nadler's judgment nearly as much as I trust Schiff's at this point, so I'm expecting to see some strange and poor strategic choices by the Democrats in the Judiciary hearings. But who knows, maybe he'll surprise me. And I don't expect the judiciary hearings to make a difference in the outcome of all of this anyway (impeachment but not removal at the end).

[YellowKing]

The frustrating thing is that once again our country is being torpedoed by apathy. CNN's poll showed that of undecideds on impeachment, only 12% were following the hearings. We have a president who is actively helping Russia and undermining US global influence in every way possible, with the support and assistance of one of the major political parties, and a sizable portion of the American population can't be bothered to give a shit. An even more sizable portion is totally on board with it.

[Remus West]

The frustrating thing is that once again our country is being torpedoed by apathy. CNN's poll showed that of undecideds on impeachment, only 12% were following the hearings. We have a president who is actively helping Russia and undermining US global influence in every way possible, with the support and assistance of one of the major political parties, and a sizable portion of the American population can't be bothered to give a shit. An even more sizable portion is totally on board with it.

This is the truth that hurts me the deepest.

[Blackhawk]

The frustrating thing is that once again our country is being torpedoed by apathy. CNN's poll showed that of undecideds on impeachment, only 12% were following the hearings.

After the last three years, the only people who are genuinely undecided are those who genuinely don't care.

[malchior]

The frustrating thing is that once again our country is being torpedoed by apathy. CNN's poll showed that of undecideds on impeachment, only 12% were following the hearings. We have a president who is actively helping Russia and undermining US global influence in every way possible, with the support and assistance of one of the major political parties, and a sizable portion of the American population can't be bothered to give a shit. An even more sizable portion is totally on board with it.

What's crazier is that the entire GOP has gone full tilt along with it. Our intelligence agencies say the Russians attacked the election and were going to pin the blame on Ukraine back then. At least one Senator (Kennedy) who was briefed back in 2016 on that went on tv and peddled that conspiracy theory. Angus King claims he has had 25 briefings that indicated that - I can't imagine Kennedy didn't go to several. So think about that. We have a major party essentially aligning with a nation described in our National Security policy as an adversary. You have the party propaganda arm at Fox News literally supporting this with the morning news show and insane luminaries such as Tucker Carlson saying we should be aligning with the Russians over the Ukrainians. And people are just not paying attention. It is beyond depressing.

[malchior]

Nothing to see here...also there was a longer call (almost 9 minutes) that appears on the next page of the report appendix. So Nunes and Parnas spoke for about 9 minutes about something while the hornets' nest was buzzing on 4/12.



Context

On April 12, less than a week after the latest piece in The Hill, Ms. Toensing signed a retainer agreement
between diGenova & Toensing, LLP, Mr. Lutsenko, and his former deputy Kostiantyn Kulyk, two of the primary
sources for Mr. Solomon’s articles. The Committees’ obtained a copy of this document which is not signed by the
Ukrainians, but a spokesman for Ms. Toensing and Mr. diGenova confirmed that the firm represented Mr. Lutsenko.
See Giuliani Weighed Doing Business with Ukrainian Government, Wall Street Journal (Nov. 27, 2019) (online at
www.wsj.com/articles/giuliani-weighed-d ... 1574890951).

The first paragraph of the retainer agreement sets forth the services to be provided by diGenova &
Toensing, LLP to their Ukrainian clients:

Yurii Lutsenko and Kostiantyn Kulyk (“Clients”) hereby engage the firm of diGenova & Toensing, LLP
(“Firm” or “Attorneys”) to represent them in connection with recovery and return to the Ukraine
government of funds illegally embezzeled from that country and providing assistance to meet and discuss
with United States government officials the evidence of illegal conduct in Ukraine regarding the United
States, for example, interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.
See Retainer Letter, diGenova & Toensing, LLP, Yuriy Lutsenko, and Kostiantyn Kulyk (Apr. 12, 2019).
The scope of representation—which includes representing Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Kulyk in meetings with
U.S. officials regarding Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections—mirrors the allegations reported in The
156

Hill, pursued by Mr. Giuliani on behalf of President Trump, and pushed by the President on his July 25 call with
President Zelensky. According to the retainer agreement, Mr. Lutsenko was to pay diGenova & Toensing, LLP
$25,000 per month, plus costs, for four months for this work. See Retainer Letter, diGenova & Toensing, LLP,
Yuriy Lutsenko, and Kostiantyn Kulyk (Apr. 12, 2019).

On April 12, the same day Ms. Toensing signed the retainer agreement with Mr. Lutsenko, phone records
show contacts between Ms. Toensing, Mr. Giuliani, and Mr. Parnas, as well as contacts between Mr. Parnas and Mr.
Solomon, and Mr. Parnas and Rep. Nunes. In addition, among these calls are contacts between Mr. Giuliani and a
phone number associated with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an unidentified number (“-1”), and a
phone number associated with the White House

[El Guapo]

I know everyone's constantly looking ahead for the "ok, *this* is definitely going to change things" bombshell on Trump....but it's just hard to fathom how an actual Russian gangster who was operating at the direction of Trump to carry out corrupt and illegal schemes and who is now apparently cooperating with congressional investigators and prosecutors doesn't wind up moving the needle at least a little, right? Right???

[Alefroth]

That was long before anyone had heard of Parnas so I think Nunes has some 'splaining to do.

Not that he will, in this lifetime or the next.

[Holman]

The phone records are kind of a goldmine.

There are, for instance, a few calls from someone in the Office of Management and Budget to Rudy Giuliani.

There's no legitimate reason for such calls to occur (Rudy doesn't even work in government), and they track perfectly with the timing of decisions around withholding funds from Ukraine.

[Alefroth]

I know everyone's constantly looking ahead for the "ok, *this* is definitely going to change things" bombshell on Trump....but it's just hard to fathom how an actual Russian gangster who was operating at the direction of Trump to carry out corrupt and illegal schemes and who is now apparently cooperating with congressional investigators and prosecutors doesn't wind up moving the needle at least a little, right? Right???

[Pyperkub]

That was long before anyone had heard of Parnas so I think Nunes has some 'splaining to do.

Not that he will, in this lifetime or the next.

Eh, I'll trade putting Schiff under Oath like the GOP wants, to get Nunes under Oath

[malchior]

The phone records are kind of a goldmine.

There are, for instance, a few calls from someone in the Office of Management and Budget to Rudy Giuliani.

It is probably Mulvaney or someone on Mulvaney's staff. He is wearing dual hats as Chief of Staff and Director of the OMB.

Another level of craziness are the short calls to the White House switchboard that are then followed by long conversations from an unknown phone number. I'm sure that was a coincidence...

[malchior]

Hahaha - Nunes. I can't wait to see his name announced in an indictment.

On another note, with the hint of confirmation about what many suspected about Nunes' conduct, I think you have to consider that the Republicans can't break with Trump because so many of them are tied up in the criminal exposure. Several prominent members of the cabinet, the VP, and members of Congress are implicated in this one scheme. This feels like the tip of the iceberg and we have to consider that there is rampant lawlessness in the government at this moment. That is why Trump *must lose* next year because the risk is tremendous if he stays in office.

[Kurth]

Is Lindsey making a break for it?

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on Tuesday said he is "1,000% confident" that Russia, not Ukraine, meddled in the 2016 US presidential election, breaking from President Donald Trump and others in his party who have pushed the discredited conspiracy theory.

How can he maintain solidarity with Trump and the GOP and simultaneously discredit their chief theory and justification for pushing the Ukrainian investigations? Is he just going all in on the Biden corruption angle? Or does he think he can continue to attack "the impeachment process" and use that that as a way to keep Trump happy?

Seems like he's venturing out onto some thin ice. Would hate to see it crack.

[El Guapo]

Is Lindsey making a break for it?

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on Tuesday said he is "1,000% confident" that Russia, not Ukraine, meddled in the 2016 US presidential election, breaking from President Donald Trump and others in his party who have pushed the discredited conspiracy theory.

How can he maintain solidarity with Trump and the GOP and simultaneously discredit their chief theory and justification for pushing the Ukrainian investigations? Is he just going all in on the Biden corruption angle? Or does he think he can continue to attack "the impeachment process" and use that that as a way to keep Trump happy?

Seems like he's venturing out onto some thin ice. Would hate to see it crack.

Nah. He's declining to go full Nunes (into conspiracy theory land) at least for now, but that's about it. The chief defense is that Trump was pushing the investigations because he was deeply concerned about corruption in the Ukraine. Graham can argue that without venturing into CrowdStrike conspiracy-theory land.

[Remus West]

That was long before anyone had heard of Parnas so I think Nunes has some 'splaining to do.

Not that he will, in this lifetime or the next.

Eh, I'll trade putting Schiff under Oath like the GOP wants, to get Nunes under Oath

Why? You think putting him under oath will get the truth out of Nunes? Why would it make him flinch at all? He already knows his constitency does not care and nobody will actually hold him accountable for perjury no matter how obvious it becomes when he commits it.

[LordMortis]

That was long before anyone had heard of Parnas so I think Nunes has some 'splaining to do.

Not that he will, in this lifetime or the next.

Eh, I'll trade putting Schiff under Oath like the GOP wants, to get Nunes under Oath

Hasn't Nunes been a known mole since the Steele dossier was opened and then on day two, Nunes announces the investigation was closed from behind closed doors?

Why? You think putting him under oath will get the truth out of Nunes? Why would it make him flinch at all? He already knows his constitency does not care and nobody will actually hold him accountable for perjury no matter how obvious it becomes when he commits it.

This. He has no conscience, he doesn't do paper trails (again see his "investigation" on Russia), and he's a better liar than those around him.

[Scraper]

I just read the written statements from the constitutional scholars who are set to testify today. Holly shit are they blunt. They are all relatively short and to the point, they use historical background and precedent and they are all overwhelmingly bad for Trump.

How any Republican lawmaker can still stand by him and stick their heads in the sand on this is beyond me.

[malchior]

Initial impressions of Nadler. He is not up to this job. We will see but my past impression that he does not have the essential qualities to manage GOP shenanigans is holding up.

[malchior]

I'm also not impressed with the Turley argument against impeachment. I guess this was the best the GOP could dig up. Not that it matters because no one cares but it was relatively weak. It comes down to essentially:

1) There isn't enough evidence of a crime and that is the only time that an impeachment without a crime has happened. The constitution doesn't cover this type of abuse by name effectively.

*Counter-argument. There are only 3 past examples (small sample size bias) and the other panelists say that this is a political violation. A crime is not necessary. Also, the President stonewalled the entire process. There is no reasonable path forward to *prove a crime*. Fellow Professor Karlan says that this is a unique circumstance without comparison.

2) The time line is too short. He likens this to an impulse purchase and we are just pissed off and acting in a way that endangers that Republic because President's will be too concerned that they'll be constantly hauled in to be impeached.

*Counter-argument: I guess this is an argument? It relies on an appeal to emotion and a slippery slope argument so I'd rate this as pretty weak.

Edit: Counsel for the committee is doing a good job tearing down Turley's argument. This however feels like an unforced error. They allow this 'hostile witness' there and then basically ignore him while they undermine his argument and allow him only 'Yes or No' response on other things he wrote in the past. I get that it is a lawyer-ly way to proceed but it doesn't feel right watching it live. I guess if we are only collecting sound bites it'll work.

Edit 2: The GOP essentially just has Turley just talking through his argument and it is pretty weak. Basically you have 3 experts explaining impeachment in historical context and Turley basically saying that these are not the current way that these crimes are framed so...ignore the principles. Turley will be a hero on the right and a villain on the left and vice versa. This is a mess and misguided people like this are a big part of the why. Especially since his explanations will align with the wishes of the right and sound smart enough to repeat but are ultimately completely unprincipled. So clearly he fits in well with the right on this matter.

[Isgrimnur]

USA Today

Rep. Devin Nunes filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN in federal court on Tuesday in which he is seeking $435,350,000 in damages.

The California Republican alleges that CNN – which the lawsuit describes as "the mother of fake news" – published a "demonstrably false hit piece" on him when it reported on Nov. 22 that a lawyer for Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of President Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, said his client was willing to testify that Nunes met with last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor in Vienna in an effort to get dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

In the 47-page filing, Nunes says he never traveled to Austria in 2018 and that he never met with or spoke to Viktor Shokin, the former prosecutor. The lawsuit says that during the time Parnas claimed Nunes was in Vienna, the congressman was actually in Libya and Malta. Pictures from those trips are included in the filing.

Shokin also denied meeting with Nunes after the CNN report.

CNN tried several times to contact Nunes about the report prior to publication but the congressman has refused to speak with the network or any of its reporters since 2017. In his filing, Nunes claims CNN ran the story as an "unmitigated act of retaliation against" him because he refuses to talk to the network "and this angers CNN."
...
Nunes is one of the more litigious members of Congress. In 2018, he sued the McClatchy newspaper company for $150 million over a Fresno Bee report on a winey that Nunes' has a stake in allegedly hosting a work function that included prostitutes and cocaine.

Last month, he filed a lawsuit against Esquire magazine's publisher Hearst and reporter Ryan Lizza for an article about his family farm moving to Iowa in 2007.

In March, he filed a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter, accusing the social media company of burying conservative content. In that lawsuit, he also named as defendants two parody accounts based on mocking him: Devin Nunes' Cow and Devin Nunes' Mom.

When Nunes' filed the lawsuit, the Devin Nunes' Cow account had less than 2,000 followers. It now has more than 675,000

[Pyperkub]

USA Today

Rep. Devin Nunes filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN in federal court on Tuesday in which he is seeking $435,350,000 in damages.

The California Republican alleges that CNN – which the lawsuit describes as "the mother of fake news" – published a "demonstrably false hit piece" on him when it reported on Nov. 22 that a lawyer for Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of President Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, said his client was willing to testify that Nunes met with last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor in Vienna in an effort to get dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

In the 47-page filing, Nunes says he never traveled to Austria in 2018 and that he never met with or spoke to Viktor Shokin, the former prosecutor. The lawsuit says that during the time Parnas claimed Nunes was in Vienna, the congressman was actually in Libya and Malta. Pictures from those trips are included in the filing.

Shokin also denied meeting with Nunes after the CNN report.

CNN tried several times to contact Nunes about the report prior to publication but the congressman has refused to speak with the network or any of its reporters since 2017. In his filing, Nunes claims CNN ran the story as an "unmitigated act of retaliation against" him because he refuses to talk to the network "and this angers CNN."
...
Nunes is one of the more litigious members of Congress. In 2018, he sued the McClatchy newspaper company for $150 million over a Fresno Bee report on a winey that Nunes' has a stake in allegedly hosting a work function that included prostitutes and cocaine.

Last month, he filed a lawsuit against Esquire magazine's publisher Hearst and reporter Ryan Lizza for an article about his family farm moving to Iowa in 2007.

In March, he filed a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter, accusing the social media company of burying conservative content. In that lawsuit, he also named as defendants two parody accounts based on mocking him: Devin Nunes' Cow and Devin Nunes' Mom.

When Nunes' filed the lawsuit, the Devin Nunes' Cow account had less than 2,000 followers. It now has more than 675,000

Note that *ALL* of his "defamation" lawsuits have been filed in Virginia, which Mr. Fed as noted as having a very weak SLAPP law.

[Pyperkub]

That was long before anyone had heard of Parnas so I think Nunes has some 'splaining to do.

Not that he will, in this lifetime or the next.

Eh, I'll trade putting Schiff under Oath like the GOP wants, to get Nunes under Oath

Why? You think putting him under oath will get the truth out of Nunes? Why would it make him flinch at all? He already knows his constitency does not care and nobody will actually hold him accountable for perjury no matter how obvious it becomes when he commits it.

I think he has already started to walk back some items (see his Hannity interview yesterday), and I do think that committing perjury will scare him (as it did Sondland). He'll tell more of the truth at least, and probably burn a ton of GOP FUD talking points.