The Swamp

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:41 pmThe beat down next November is going to be epic.

Unless the Dems promise to raise everyone's taxes.

It's weird to me that no one is ever shown with a cup of coffee in these hearings.

Did this yahoo just claim executive privilege for candidates?

I can't figure out if that's a Hilary jab or a Biden jab, but it applies moreso to Trump.

"Because the bad things didn't happen once everyone found out that bad things were about to happen, everyone involved is innocent."

I've been running around today and haven't been glued to any TV or Twitter feed.

But Jesus Christ, the Republicans really want to destroy civilization over Donald Trump? Really? I just don't get it. In the face of overwhelming evidence that has this party dead to rights, Republicans are either not watching our will decide to stick their head in the sand.

This Castro is an idiot.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:51 pm This Castro is an idiot.

Howso? I thought he had a good run, to be honest. Basically drove home that if it's decided that this wasn't illegal, it basically sets a precedent.

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:53 pm

Pruitt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:51 pm This Castro is an idiot.

Howso? I thought he had a good run, to be honest. Basically drove home that if it's decided that this wasn't illegal, it basically sets a precedent.

Ah, it was all statements masquerading as "questions" that could only lead to these guys saying (paraphrase) "I can't answer that."

Maybe I expected better.

ETA: But watching this idiot (Radcliffe?) question the chair raises him in my estimation.

Brother of Patton:

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:20 pm It's weird to me that no one is ever shown with a cup of coffee in these hearings.

Agreed

I wrote this up because I saw a thread I wanted to reply on FB, but in reality I don't think it's worth my effort to post. It was really just a writing exercise. Spoiler tag for length.

[+] spoiler

Upthread people are talking that others didn’t read the transcript. Well, I didn’t read the transcript as it was never released. I have read the Memorandum of the Telephone Call, declassified on 9/24/2019.

It says as much on the bottom of page 1:
“CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.”

There is a mention of hearsay before, but this Memorandum of the Telephone Call (I’ll refer to it as “MTC” moving forward) wouldn’t qualify as such. Since the White House were the ones who released it, it’s their own statement, and that statement can be used against them. Notwithstanding that, even if this would qualify as an A for A hearsay, it would be allowed under the business record exception.

Now for the law in question. Section 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals reads:
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

The law that we are looking at against the President is the second part, that he solicited the contribution against a foreign national, specifically then-president-elect Zelenskyy. There are two legal terms I’ll convert to more lay language. The first is “solicit”. If you ask a person to commit an act, and you want that act actually done, and that act is criminal in nature, you yourself committed a crime, specifically the crime of solicitation. Simply put, it’s against the law in general to ask someone to commit a criminal act, and specifically under this statute under (2). Secondly the term “thing of value”. Courts have not ruled whether compromising information (or as the Russians refer to it, kompromat) is a thing of value under this law. But if viewed as such, than asking a foreign national, in this case the Ukrainian President-Elect, to rake up dirt on a political, electable rival would be a crime under this act.

Also brought up upthread was other alleged “quid pro quo”s by past Presidents and whether those are impeachable. First, the bad acts of others has ZERO relevance as to whether this President committed an unlawful impeachable offense. Secondly, those monetary expenditures to foreign states were already made into law by passing both houses of Congress and either signature or inaction by the President. The $400 million already assigned to Ukraine in this case had already passed through that process I just described. If the President disagreed with that expenditure, he had the opportunity to veto it. He didn’t. Once it became an act, he as the Chief Executive was obligated to relinquish those funds.

Let’s not forget what those $400 million were for, too. They weren’t to build schools or power plants or natural disaster relief. They were to help pay for Ukraine’s national defense against Russia, who invaded Ukraine’s sovereign territory in Crimea. Ukrainians died due to this delay of funds.

Back to the MTC. At the end of page 2 and the beginning of page 3 the discussion moves to the act in question.

Zelenskyy: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. specifically [sic] we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.

Trump then discusses the Crowdstrike servers, as mentioned before. Later in regards to another request by Trump on page 4:
“The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… [sic] It sounds horrible to me.”

That right there is the solicitation. Trump is asking a foreign national for compromising information on a political rival. To say it was simply reviewing corruption is willfully ignoring that the person being investigated was at the time Trump’s primary challenger in the 2020 election. Well, either willfully ignoring or flat out lying about it.

Calling this a quid pro quo is a gross mischaracterization or again a flat out lie. Trump willfully withheld monies that were going to Ukraine for its own defense against a Russian invasion until and unless Zelenskyy investigated his political rival. That’s not a quid pro quo, that’s extortion. Claiming Zelenskyy didn’t know his funds were withheld doesn’t remove the criminality the same way that an infant who doesn’t realize she is being kidnapped wouldn’t negate the criminality of the kidnapping. Claiming Zelenskyy denied this was a shakedown is akin to a shopowner victimized by an extortion telling a policeman “no officer. The money I pay to Vinny the Tooth isn’t a protection racket, it’s a finder’s fee”.

Another point to show that this was not simply a request to investigate corruption but rather a shakedown was Trump’s insistence of involving Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani was and is not a government employee but rather Trump’s personal attorney. Involving the Attorney General to investigate corruption makes total sense. Involving Trump’s own private counsel was not. In the MTC pages 3 and 4, Trump made this specific request:

“Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.”

If this was really a criminal investigation, there is ZERO reason to involve his own personal counsel. Since it clearly is not, it is an extortion.

Look, if you want to suggest that maybe Trump doesn’t deserve to get fired over this, then that’s an arguable position. I wouldn’t agree, but I’d be willing to listen. But to sit there and try to say that he didn’t commit an impeachable crime is again being willfully ignorant or patently dishonest.

Excellent job laying out the case. One minor quibble, from everything I hear, and Preet Bharara discussed it with several guests, it is highly unusual and suspicious that Barr is running around investigating the President's personal political gripes and bizarre conspiracy theories across Europe. Trump has always promoted and fallen for conspiracy theories, and Rudy has pushed some doozies on him concerning Ukraine. That's what a lot of this is about, Trump thinks Ukraine worked to rig the election against him, and he want to prove he really won the popular vote. So much of this bullshit is because his fucking ego can't handle that Hillary got more votes than him.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:50 am I wrote this up because I saw a thread I wanted to reply on FB, but in reality I don't think it's worth my effort to post. It was really just a writing exercise. Spoiler tag for length.

[+] spoiler

Upthread people are talking that others didn’t read the transcript. Well, I didn’t read the transcript as it was never released. I have read the Memorandum of the Telephone Call, declassified on 9/24/2019.

It says as much on the bottom of page 1:
“CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.”

There is a mention of hearsay before, but this Memorandum of the Telephone Call (I’ll refer to it as “MTC” moving forward) wouldn’t qualify as such. Since the White House were the ones who released it, it’s their own statement, and that statement can be used against them. Notwithstanding that, even if this would qualify as an A for A hearsay, it would be allowed under the business record exception.

Now for the law in question. Section 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals reads:
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

The law that we are looking at against the President is the second part, that he solicited the contribution against a foreign national, specifically then-president-elect Zelenskyy. There are two legal terms I’ll convert to more lay language. The first is “solicit”. If you ask a person to commit an act, and you want that act actually done, and that act is criminal in nature, you yourself committed a crime, specifically the crime of solicitation. Simply put, it’s against the law in general to ask someone to commit a criminal act, and specifically under this statute under (2). Secondly the term “thing of value”. Courts have not ruled whether compromising information (or as the Russians refer to it, kompromat) is a thing of value under this law. But if viewed as such, than asking a foreign national, in this case the Ukrainian President-Elect, to rake up dirt on a political, electable rival would be a crime under this act.

Also brought up upthread was other alleged “quid pro quo”s by past Presidents and whether those are impeachable. First, the bad acts of others has ZERO relevance as to whether this President committed an unlawful impeachable offense. Secondly, those monetary expenditures to foreign states were already made into law by passing both houses of Congress and either signature or inaction by the President. The $400 million already assigned to Ukraine in this case had already passed through that process I just described. If the President disagreed with that expenditure, he had the opportunity to veto it. He didn’t. Once it became an act, he as the Chief Executive was obligated to relinquish those funds.

Let’s not forget what those $400 million were for, too. They weren’t to build schools or power plants or natural disaster relief. They were to help pay for Ukraine’s national defense against Russia, who invaded Ukraine’s sovereign territory in Crimea. Ukrainians died due to this delay of funds.

Back to the MTC. At the end of page 2 and the beginning of page 3 the discussion moves to the act in question.

Zelenskyy: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. specifically [sic] we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.

Trump then discusses the Crowdstrike servers, as mentioned before. Later in regards to another request by Trump on page 4:
“The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… [sic] It sounds horrible to me.”

That right there is the solicitation. Trump is asking a foreign national for compromising information on a political rival. To say it was simply reviewing corruption is willfully ignoring that the person being investigated was at the time Trump’s primary challenger in the 2020 election. Well, either willfully ignoring or flat out lying about it.

Calling this a quid pro quo is a gross mischaracterization or again a flat out lie. Trump willfully withheld monies that were going to Ukraine for its own defense against a Russian invasion until and unless Zelenskyy investigated his political rival. That’s not a quid pro quo, that’s extortion. Claiming Zelenskyy didn’t know his funds were withheld doesn’t remove the criminality the same way that an infant who doesn’t realize she is being kidnapped wouldn’t negate the criminality of the kidnapping. Claiming Zelenskyy denied this was a shakedown is akin to a shopowner victimized by an extortion telling a policeman “no officer. The money I pay to Vinny the Tooth isn’t a protection racket, it’s a finder’s fee”.

Another point to show that this was not simply a request to investigate corruption but rather a shakedown was Trump’s insistence of involving Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani was and is not a government employee but rather Trump’s personal attorney. Involving the Attorney General to investigate corruption makes total sense. Involving Trump’s own private counsel was not. In the MTC pages 3 and 4, Trump made this specific request:

“Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.”

If this was really a criminal investigation, there is ZERO reason to involve his own personal counsel. Since it clearly is not, it is an extortion.

Look, if you want to suggest that maybe Trump doesn’t deserve to get fired over this, then that’s an arguable position. I wouldn’t agree, but I’d be willing to listen. But to sit there and try to say that he didn’t commit an impeachable crime is again being willfully ignorant or patently dishonest.

It's cute watching losers debase themselves.

Entering Trump's congrats phone call into the record is...something.

This poor woman has PTSD. She's incredibly sympathetic.

Repubs are going to look like fucking assholes attacking her.

"Fuck yeah they are." - Christine Blasey Ford

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:34 am "Fuck yeah they are." - Christine Blasey Ford

And guess what, go ask suburban white educated women how that went down.

There are long-term consequences for acting like fucking assholes all the time. Shit adds up.

Entering an intimidation tweet into the record real-time was a baller move.

I can picture Trump screaming at his staff as they gently suggest that he put down his phone. In my mind's eye, his hair is dishevelled and he is ranting like Rob Ford used to.

Delightful!

By the way, Trump has tweeted out a transcript of his 5 minute call congratulating President Elect Zelensky on his election win.

It clearly proves nothing and has zero relevance to the later call he made that has lead to the Impeachment hearings. I'd say that no one would be dumb enough to think otherwise, but that would be demonstrably untrue.

I should've mentioned that this was the context of what I posted. It was incredible.

Roger Stone being found guilty of lying to Congress during these hearings is pretty great.

So now it appears there tack is to say she didn't have firsthand knowledge of meetings and phone calls where Trump and his cronies were attempting to undermine her approach to Ukraine.

Fucking A.

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:20 pm Roger Stone being found guilty of lying to Congress during these hearings is pretty great.

Nixon about to get a facial in jail.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:56 pm Nixon about to get a facial in jail.

Gold!!

I watched chunks of today, and reading the coverage.

Things are not going well for the President.

Best description of this charade from a Reddit commenter:

He's actively trying to be removed from office. It's like we're in a Twilight Zone episode. A gypsy curses a man obsessed with winning to never lose. The man wins the presidency and he does everything he can to be removed from office but the curse keeps protecting him. He has too much pride to quit so he keeps doing more and more insane things in hopes of being fired, but nothing works no matter how wacky or cruel or illegal. It's called "The Dog Who Caught The Car".

And if you guys wanted a moment to go viral, they got it today when Trump literally was tweeting at Yovanavitch in real time and Schiff had her respond.

And I'll say it again, the GOP congressmen KNEW how bad they were going to look bullying her, so they basically tucked their tails and let this sympathetic woman tell her tale of severe distress and fuckery.

They TRIED to have their female congressperson continue questioning (ppl yielding their time to her) but it was totally against the agreed upon rules. A total stunt that everyone not breathing solely through their mouth saw right through.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:56 pm And if you guys wanted a moment to go viral, they got it today when Trump literally was tweeting at Yovanavitch in real time and Schiff had her respond.

And I'll say it again, the GOP congressmen KNEW how bad they were going to look bullying her, so they basically tucked their tails and let this sympathetic woman tell her tale of severe distress and fuckery.

They TRIED to have their female congressperson continue questioning (ppl yielding their time to her) but it was totally against the agreed upon rules. A total stunt that everyone not breathing solely through their mouth saw right through.

Asked seriously - are we at a turning point?

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:56 pm And if you guys wanted a moment to go viral, they got it today when Trump literally was tweeting at Yovanavitch in real time and Schiff had her respond.

And I'll say it again, the GOP congressmen KNEW how bad they were going to look bullying her, so they basically tucked their tails and let this sympathetic woman tell her tale of severe distress and fuckery.

They TRIED to have their female congressperson continue questioning (ppl yielding their time to her) but it was totally against the agreed upon rules. A total stunt that everyone not breathing solely through their mouth saw right through.

How amazing would it be if a fedup staffer snuck a video ad posted it, of Trump watching the hearings and losing his shit? That would be the most viral video ever, so Trump should want to release it.

How fucking far down the rabbit hole are we that Roger Stone's trial and conviction barely gets mentioned? Not just here, but everywhere. There is so much going on, what should be the story of the year is just buried under so much shit.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:07 pmAsked seriously - are we at a turning point?

Are you asking if maybe this is what sinks him?

Completely curious if the closed-doors depositions go differently for the Republicans. Do they still do the clown act about Hunter, Obama, and due process when there're no soundbites to be gleaned?

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:50 pm Completely curious if the closed-doors depositions go differently for the Republicans. Do they still do the clown act about Hunter, Obama, and due process when there're no soundbites to be gleaned?

Nope. All that shit is for an audience of one, to show their allegiance to Tremendous Leader.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:55 pm

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:50 pm Completely curious if the closed-doors depositions go differently for the Republicans. Do they still do the clown act about Hunter, Obama, and due process when there're no soundbites to be gleaned?

Nope. All that shit is for an audience of one, to show their allegiance to Tremendous Leader.

And his fanbase of credulous rubes who get their news from Fox as well.

If you want to know what goes on behind closed door in testimony, just watch the 30 minutes (or so) when the respective sides' counsels are up there doing their thing. And it's very telling, because they're both very good and they are both doing their job - building an actual legal case that would be the building blocks of an actual trial in the Senate.

As you guys are pointing out, everything the GOP congressfolk are doing publicly is directly focused on the Trumpbase. And that's not really reprehensible in and of itself. But, to reiterate, the more they dig in on these issues, the more they have to chuck one tenuous defense that is. in turn asunder (fuck yeah) by credible witnesses...

Their shit isn't holding up.

=-=-=-=

We've talked about a turning point, and I really don't think there is going to be one. This is going to be ride or die for the GOP through 2020. The argument from the GOP is going to remain "this isn't bad enough to undo an election." There's enough on the record that is obvious what Trump did here. It's not complicated (my newest broken record). The durr hurr crowd is dug in and the GOP is gonna take that and run with it.

And they're going to have their collective asses handed to them, other than the traditional red states in 2020.

I want to remind you guys of something we talked about prior to 2018. When the GOP folks have to worry and spend money in places like KY, TX and GA.... They are fucked. They have a lot of money, but they don't infinite coffers. And the DEM base is so fired up, they're raising millions of dollars to fund things like Stacey Abrams anti-voter suppression efforts... This isn't the type of money that has traditionally been available to Dems.

That Stacey money, btw, kept 175k voters on the books in KY this last election. We won that seat by 5k.

=-=-=-=

So, is this a turning point? No. Trump getting elected and then acting like a fucking maniac has been a constant klaxon, and it's starting to be heard in pockets heretofore unreachable.

Keep on tweeting, you fucking moron. Tweet tweet tweet.

My only concern is reading here and on twitter everything look awful for Twitter. Then when I listen to NPR/BBC, they do the both-sideism report, and sometimes they correct Trump's talking points but often they don't. And I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's amazing what stories don't seem to get traction -- the Miller emails coning out in the context of immigrant families being separated, another one of Trump's buddies going to prison, NRA taking Russian cash, Barr's corruption -- these are historically huuuge stories getting a ho hum treatment. I guess my fear is next year we'll have 24 hour a day coverage of something stupid like Hunter Biden's emails instead of all of this. I'll keep reading and re-reading Nonlinear's posts to make me feel better.