The ICIG's report to acting DNI Maguireabout the whistleblower complaint is also available online, for those who can't get enough PDFs of bureaucratic documents citing obscure bits of the U.S. Code.
The House Intelligence Committee has subpœnaed Rudolph Giuliani. It is apparently a "produce these documents" subpœna, not an "appear before the committee" subpœna. The exact documents under subpœna are not specified publicly, at least not anywhere I've been able to find.
Given the way Giuliani's been melting down in just about every media appearance he's made recently there's no telling how he'll react to this.
There is more to this story. Every time someone scratches the surface, more garbage leaks out.
Three years ago, Ukraine was promised by the Obama administration that it would supply Javelin anti-tank weapons.
Trump comes into power.
The Mueller investigation begins
Ukraine desperately needs those Javelins, but they are not coming.
Ukraine suddenly tells its investigators not to cooperate with Mueller.
The Pentagon issues a license to export the Javelins on 22 December 18.
Ukraine reports it has received the Javelins in April.
Our president holds up other military aid to Ukraine
July 25 in a phone call between the two presidents the Ukrainian president asks for more Javelins. Trump responds I have a favor to ask (investigate Biden).
Turns out Bolton did not want 45 to make that call. Also turns out Pompeo sat in on that call.
On a parallel track, 45 has been trying to prove Russia did not meddle in the US election. He has been sending his people to other countries trying to get them to provide proof it was someone else. Why is he doing this? Because Congress has imposed sanctions on Russia for interference in the election. If Trump can show it was someone else, he hopes to get Congress to drop those sanctions.
For me, the most damnable thing of the whole process is 45's people try to cover this all up by putting the transcripts on a super-secret server. Shades of Richard Nixon cover-ups
Trump’s conduct of the matters of state has apparently, in significant proportion, been devoted to the pursuit of the president’s personal bugbears and ambitions.
I laughed out loud!
This has been obvious from day one in his every word and tweet.
On a parallel track, 45 has been trying to prove Russia did not meddle in the US election. He has been sending his people to other countries trying to get them to provide proof it was someone else. Why is he doing this? Because Congress has imposed sanctions on Russia for interference in the election. If Trump can show it was someone else, he hopes to get Congress to drop those sanctions.
Let’s Say You Wanted To Destabilize Half a Dozen Countries All at Once…
If you wanted to bring down the governments of, at least, 3 of the 5 Five Eyes countries (US, UK, AUS) and several other western (Italy) and western oriented (Ukraine) governments, what has been reported on today would be a good way to do it. You’ve got at least five legitimacy crises being created by this that will at the very least weaken the stability of the governments in each state. I really do wonder what is on the transcripts of the calls between the President and Putin that have been stashed in the National Security Council’s Directorate of Intelligence’s code word access only computer system.
Let’s Say You Wanted To Destabilize Half a Dozen Countries All at Once…
If you wanted to bring down the governments of, at least, 3 of the 5 Five Eyes countries (US, UK, AUS) and several other western (Italy) and western oriented (Ukraine) governments, what has been reported on today would be a good way to do it. You’ve got at least five legitimacy crises being created by this that will at the very least weaken the stability of the governments in each state. I really do wonder what is on the transcripts of the calls between the President and Putin that have been stashed in the National Security Council’s Directorate of Intelligence’s code word access only computer system.
Huh? Is he suggesting this entire scandal, the whistleblower, etc was orchestrated by Putin? Perhaps the whistleblower is Putin! Woah. Call Rachel Maddow.
There's calls for the Australian Govt to release transcripts of the calls and conversations between Morrison and Trump, but I think that's about keeping the story running. I reckon the only way they are getting out is if they are left in a cab, or at a pub somewhere.
Let’s Say You Wanted To Destabilize Half a Dozen Countries All at Once…
If you wanted to bring down the governments of, at least, 3 of the 5 Five Eyes countries (US, UK, AUS) and several other western (Italy) and western oriented (Ukraine) governments, what has been reported on today would be a good way to do it. You’ve got at least five legitimacy crises being created by this that will at the very least weaken the stability of the governments in each state. I really do wonder what is on the transcripts of the calls between the President and Putin that have been stashed in the National Security Council’s Directorate of Intelligence’s code word access only computer system.
Huh? Is he suggesting this entire scandal, the whistleblower, etc was orchestrated by Putin? Perhaps the whistleblower is Putin! Woah. Call Rachel Maddow.
Putin is on record as saying he wanted a Trump victory, and stuff like this shows exactly why: who wouldn't want their rival power bloc governed by a guy who turns everything he touches into sh*t, and threatens to bring allies down with him?
But the idea that Putin is actually behind everything Trump has done since being elected is loopy.
Let’s Say You Wanted To Destabilize Half a Dozen Countries All at Once…
If you wanted to bring down the governments of, at least, 3 of the 5 Five Eyes countries (US, UK, AUS) and several other western (Italy) and western oriented (Ukraine) governments, what has been reported on today would be a good way to do it. You’ve got at least five legitimacy crises being created by this that will at the very least weaken the stability of the governments in each state. I really do wonder what is on the transcripts of the calls between the President and Putin that have been stashed in the National Security Council’s Directorate of Intelligence’s code word access only computer system.
Huh? Is he suggesting this entire scandal, the whistleblower, etc was orchestrated by Putin? Perhaps the whistleblower is Putin! Woah. Call Rachel Maddow.
Putin is on record as saying he wanted a Trump victory, and stuff like this shows exactly why: who wouldn't want their rival power bloc governed by a guy who turns everything he touches into sh*t, and threatens to bring allies down with him?
And that's very straightforward. What this Adam Silverman seems to be hinting at is that maybe, if we dig up those Trump-Putin transcripts we'll hear Putin say, "You know, Comrade Donald, I was thinking it might be good if someone filed a whistleblower complaint to force you release excerpts from your conversation with Zelensky, so you could embarrass him right when he's in the middle of reaching a peace agreement with me over the Donbas. And, yeah, did you get the memo about including a cover sheet on your TPS reports? Yeah, that would be great."
Huh? Is he suggesting this entire scandal, the whistleblower, etc was orchestrated by Putin?
"Orchestrated" is pitching it a bit high. I'm thinking back to Helsinki where Trump met with Putin privately for two hours (after which Trump confiscated his interpreter's notes). Anyway, at the joint press conference afterwards Trump says this:
REPORTER (Jonathan Lemire from AP): Thank you. A question for each president. President Trump, you first. Just now President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every US intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did.
My first question for you, sir, is who do you believe? My second question is would you now with the whole world watching tell President Putin — would you denounce what happened in 2016 and would you warn him to never do it again?
TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts.
You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven’t they taken the server?
Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the democratic national committee? I’ve been wondering that. I’ve been asking that for months and months and I’ve been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media.
Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying? With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.
My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others and said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server. But I have confidence in both parties.
I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC? Where are those servers? They’re missing. Where are they?
What happened to Hillary Clinton’s emails? 33,000 emails gone — just gone.
I think in Russia they wouldn’t be gone so easily. I think it’s a disgrace that we can’t get Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 emails.
So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that president Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.
And what he did is an incredible offer. He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. I think that’s an incredible offer.
This seems like a stream-of-consciousness recap of something Trump was talking about with Putin. Most media attention at the time was given to the fact that Trump still claimed to believe in Russian innocence in the 2016 election interference against the shared opinion of the U.S. intelligence establishment, but you can also see the obsession with the idea that there's a "server" out there somewhere that will prove the innocence of Vlad the Elector. In other words, one of the base elements of Trump's apparent Ukraine obsession. It doesn't seem very far fetched to believe that Putin gave Trump this idea, or reinforced it. Trump is, after all, a known conspiracy theorist and a known fuck-up. Pointing Trump in this direction was almost certain to have results more or less like we've seen without the need for any in-depth "orchestration".
The idea that CrowdStrike hid the server in Ukraine doesn't make any sense. The only substantive link I'm aware of was when CrowdStrikegot busted for falsely reporting about Russian hacks into Ukrainian artillery systems.
The idea that CrowdStrike hid the server in Ukraine doesn't make any sense.
Just noting that the mere fact that the idea makes no sense has no bearing whatsoever on whether Trump believes it. For him, perception of reality is always more important that reality.
The idea that CrowdStrike hid the server in Ukraine doesn't make any sense.
Just noting that the mere fact that the idea makes no sense has no bearing whatsoever on whether Trump believes it. For him, perception of reality is always more important that reality.
Not quite clear what you are saying in the last sentence.
Are you saying, "For him, his perception of reality is more important than reality"?
Not to speak for Hedgehog, but I'd put it this way: Whatever Trumps believes to be true or wants to be true IS true, as far as he's concerned. The NYT recentlyr an an article about Trump's command to his staff last March to just shut the US/Mexico border down completely, And to do it by "noon tomorrow!"
Being told this was illegal cut no mustard. Being informed this would devastate trade for both countries had no effect. Being advised this would separate both US and Mexican families on both sides of the border failed to move him.
Here's what eventually did happen, though: a few months later, Trump began firing all the staffers who were providing all this accurate, cogent, sound advice.
What Donald wants is right, because Donald wants it.
The man is getting scarier and scarier--and it isn't even Halloween yet. Maybe he is trying to snag the Oscar from Jacquin Phoenix (in the Joker).
This is what the NYTimes reported today:
Privately, the president had often talked about fortifying a border wall with a water-filled trench, stocked with snakes or alligators, prompting aides to seek a cost estimate. He wanted the wall electrified, with spikes on top that could pierce human flesh. After publicly suggesting that soldiers shoot migrants if they threw rocks, the president backed off when his staff told him that was illegal. But later in a meeting, aides recalled, he suggested that they shoot migrants in the legs to slow them down. That’s not allowed either, they told him.
Of course, when reporters asked him about it, he denied it. As they kept pressing him he became more and more agitated.
Later in a formal press conference, with the President of Finland in attendance, he really went off the deep end, telling a reporter that "Biden and his son are corrupt--and you know it!!" Calling the press the corrupt press--not the fake press.
In his tweets he said if he was impeached there were be civil war and he will lead it (sounds of sedition). He said Congressman Schiff sould be tried for treason and had at least one profanity-laced tweet regarding Pelosi.
This makes my stomach turn.
In other news Kamala Harris is now telling Twitter they should close 45's account because he is using it to intimidate and harass (as well as demean) people he disagrees with.
Kamala Harris is kind of right about Trump’s use of Twitter. However, I think banning him from the platform is a bad idea. It just feeds into his monumental sense of victimhood.
let him keep digging his own grave. If I was Hannity, I'd be telling him that his base will peel off over civil war talk. But I'm not Hannity and I'm not sure if that's true.
Pence’s involvement in the plot was extensive. White House officials had him cancel a planned trip to Zelensky’s inauguration. One of Pence’s top advisers was on the July 25 call when Trump made clear his demand that Zelensky open investigations into various Democratic officials, including Biden, whom Trump named on the call. Pence was given the transcript of the call before his September 1 meeting with Zelensky, when he reiterated Trump’s threat.
Pence’s defense is that, even though the readout of Trump’s call with Zelensky was in his briefing materials on his trip to Europe, he did not bother to read it before the meeting. “Officials close to Pence contend that he traveled to Warsaw for a meeting with Zelensky on Sept. 1 probably without having read — or at least fully registered — the transcript,” the Post records.
So Pence didn’t read or understand the vital background information he needed before this important national-security meeting. He didn’t hear the widespread alarm rippling through the administration that Trump was acting improperly. He somehow failed to pick up on Rudy Giuliani’s repeated public boasts — in the New York Times, on Fox News, on Twitter, and in any media he could find — that he was pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in his personal capacity as Trump’s lawyer. He somehow accepted at face value Trump’s claim of being deeply concerned with corruption in Ukraine despite Trump’s record of greeting corruption in almost every other country he deals with with something ranging from indifference to enthusiasm.
Most amazing, Pence’s defense is that when he delivered Trump’s threat in the meeting with Zelensky, Pence had no idea that “corruption” was code for ordering up investigations of Trump’s domestic enemies. “A top Pence staffer rejected the charge that the vice-president was conveying an inappropriate — or coded — message from the president,” notes an obviously skeptical Post.
For those who don't remember (or never knew) Mike Pence became Trump's running mate at the urging of Paul Manafort.
“ The new twist in the impeachment inquiry leaves no doubt that the US state department was deeply involved in the effort to use the office of the presidency to pressure a foreign government to investigate Trump’s political enemies. The documents also show that Ukraine was being enlisted to discredit the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and they reveal that diplomats even drafted a statement for Zelenskiy to read out.”
If this is true surely it’s the end for tRump?
If not then any president can do anything and the US is a dictatorship in all but name.
We could round out the series. The most obvious one (to me at least) is Sweary Plotter and the Server of Secrets. Though I suppose that sort of thing is more suitable for The Circus.
“The new twist in the impeachment inquiry leaves no doubt that the US state department was deeply involved in the effort to use the office of the presidency to pressure a foreign government to investigate Trump’s political enemies. The documents also show that Ukraine was being enlisted to discredit the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and they reveal that diplomats even drafted a statement for Zelenskiy to read out.”
If this is true surely it’s the end for tRump?
If not then any president can do anything and the US is a dictatorship in all but name.
I believe the preferred term among American conservatives is "unitary executive".
Ex-Ambassador Kurt Volker testified to a closed-door session of the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight Committees (that's three different committees, not one committee with a really long name) yesterday for nine or ten hours. Afterwards chairs Engle, Schiff, and Cummings released a statement [PDF]. It's not long, but the key bit (in my estimation) is this:
The Committees have now obtained text messages from Ambassador Kurt Volker, the former Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, communicating with other officials, including William B. "Bill" Taylor, the Charge d'Affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Andrey Yermak, Aide to Ukrainian President Zelensky, the President's agent Rudy Giuliani, and others.
These text messages reflect serious concerns raised by a State Department official about the detrimental effects of withholding critical military assistance from Ukraine, and the importance of setting up a meeting between President Trump and the Ukrainian President without further delay. He also expressed concerns that this critical military assistance at the meeting between the two presidents were being withheld in order to place additional pressure on Ukraine to deliver on the President's demand for Ukraine to launch politically motivated investigations.
A sampling of these texts is attached to the statement. There seems to have been a slow realization among the alleged conspirators sometime between early August and early September that this was all illegal AF and leaving a trail of texts was a bad idea, as illustrated by this tweet. Going from "potus really wants the deliverable" to "no quid pro quo’s of any kind" is quite the turn-around.
[9/1/19, 12:08:57 PM] Bill Taylor: Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?
[9/1/19, 12:42:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Call me
Nothing says "no quid pro quo" like suggesting switching to a method of communication that won't leave a transcript when asked about a quid pro quo.
[9/9/19, 12:41:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.
If text messaging allowed you do an over-obvious, mugging wink I'm pretty sure Sondland would have done so. It also seems that by early September the various alleged conspirators had moved to the ass-covering stage of the operation.
Example used in a sentence: Withholding or misdirecting funds appropriated by Congress to blackmail a foreign government into digging up (or manufacturing) dirt on your domestic political rivals is illegal AF.
It does feel like Trump has jumped the shark here.
He's gone sooooooooo far that it's politically much easier for the House to Impeach and he may have found what many of us thought didn't exist - the point at which the Senate might actually convict.
Let's see how this unravels...
Oh, btw, Pence is clearly implicated too.
Oh how I long for President Pelosi....
AFZ
P.S. Can we send you Boris please? After all, he was born in New York (just saying...)
He's gone sooooooooo far that it's politically much easier for the House to Impeach and he may have found what many of us thought didn't exist - the point at which the Senate might actually convict.
Hard to say. Yesterday Mark Meadows and Gym Jordan (two of Trump's most enthusiastic lackeys from the Oversight Committee) planted themselves in front of the press and declared that there was Nothing To See Here. Then the statement was released with all those (potentially) incriminating texts. That might have been the Committee chairs' way of telling Republican Congresscritters that if they take this approach they'll look like idiots or criminals.
This may not make a difference to folks like Jordan or Meadows, who make themselves look like idiots on a regular basis, but we'll see how it affects Republicans in the Senate. Of course, Jordan's ability to see wrongdoing has been notably deficient in the past.
He's gone sooooooooo far that it's politically much easier for the House to Impeach and he may have found what many of us thought didn't exist - the point at which the Senate might actually convict.
Hard to say. Yesterday Mark Meadows and Gym Jordan (two of Trump's most enthusiastic lackeys from the Oversight Committee) planted themselves in front of the press and declared that there was Nothing To See Here. Then the statement was released with all those (potentially) incriminating texts. That might have been the Committee chairs' way of telling Republican Congresscritters that if they take this approach they'll look like idiots or criminals.
This may not make a difference to folks like Jordan or Meadows, who make themselves look like idiots on a regular basis, but we'll see how it affects Republicans in the Senate. Of course, Jordan's ability to see wrongdoing has been notably deficient in the past.
Yep. Depressingly, whilst Impeachment is theoretically a legal process, it is of course a political one too. Ultimately the question is whether enough Republican Senators will vote to convict. I can't quite remember the Senate numbers but it's about 30 that's needed. Some will turn if the politics shifts - i.e. when Trump becomes a liability. Of course Trump's core base will support him no matter what; but there's another group - who have no idea how bad the Mueller report is, never mind this new stuff. They will turn against him and against any Senators that support him, if the Nixon impeachment enquiry is any guide.
I dunno. I recall that Trump supporters generally laud him for fiddling his taxes. It could prove hard to put the populist message that "entering high office is merely an opportunity to game the system to the max for personal benefit as everyone would" back in the bottle. It's fast becoming normalised head-of-state behaviour.
I dunno. I recall that Trump supporters generally laud him for fiddling his taxes. It could prove hard to put the populist message that "entering high office is merely an opportunity to game the system to the max for personal benefit as everyone would" back in the bottle. It's fast becoming normalised head-of-state behaviour.
Indeed. However, I don't think all of the people who voted for Trump fall into this category. How big each group is, that's a matter for debate but on current polling numbers, Trump doesn't have a realistic route to an electoral college victory. That's a little beside the point when talking impeachment, of course: the issue here is the constituencies of the senators in question.
Depressingly, whilst Impeachment is theoretically a legal process, it is of course a political one too. Ultimately the question is whether enough Republican Senators will vote to convict. I can't quite remember the Senate numbers but it's about 30 that's needed.
Twenty Republican Senators would need to vote to convict Trump in order for him to be removed from office following an impeachment.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
- U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 3, cl. 6
The current Senate consists of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats (Angus King and Bernie Sanders). It takes at least 67 Senators to reach the threshold of two-thirds (there are no current vacancies in the U.S. Senate).
There is a possible work-around, but it's all kind of skeevy from a procedural point of view even if it is technically constitutional.
Art. I, § 3, cl. 6 specifies you only need "the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present" to convict. Art. I, § 5, cl. 1 specifies that a majority of members of each house must be present "to do Business", which means that you really only need 51 Senators to try an impeachment. This would require a significant number of Republican Senators to "take a dive" and abandon their Constitutional obligations to represent their states, but it's technically within Constitutional legitimacy. I'm also not sure history or their voters would make much of a distinction between voting to remove Trump and conspiring with Democrats to remove him without having to personally vote for it, other than to view the latter as a particularly rank form of cowardice.
For those who are interested in some actual Republican Senators, here's Marco Rubio talking to constituents in Florida and explaining that there's apparently an "owning the libs/press" exemption to the Constitution.
Joni Ernst is getting questions in Iowa, to which she provides a non-answer. (Ernst's answers start around 1:50 on that video.)
He's gone sooooooooo far that it's politically much easier for the House to Impeach and he may have found what many of us thought didn't exist - the point at which the Senate might actually convict.
Hard to say. Yesterday Mark Meadows and Gym Jordan (two of Trump's most enthusiastic lackeys from the Oversight Committee) planted themselves in front of the press and declared that there was Nothing To See Here. Then the statement was released with all those (potentially) incriminating texts. That might have been the Committee chairs' way of telling Republican Congresscritters that if they take this approach they'll look like idiots or criminals.
This may not make a difference to folks like Jordan or Meadows, who make themselves look like idiots on a regular basis, but we'll see how it affects Republicans in the Senate. Of course, Jordan's ability to see wrongdoing has been notably deficient in the past.
Yep. Depressingly, whilst Impeachment is theoretically a legal process, it is of course a political one too. Ultimately the question is whether enough Republican Senators will vote to convict. I can't quite remember the Senate numbers but it's about 30 that's needed. Some will turn if the politics shifts - i.e. when Trump becomes a liability. Of course Trump's core base will support him no matter what; but there's another group - who have no idea how bad the Mueller report is, never mind this new stuff. They will turn against him and against any Senators that support him, if the Nixon impeachment enquiry is any guide.
AFZ
Only 20 Republicans would have to vote to convict--along with all the Democrats.
The bet is Mitch will bring the impeachment to the Senate and after a show trial move to dismiss the charges. I think he would only need a simple majority to dismiss the charges.
The bet is Mitch will bring the impeachment to the Senate and after a show trial move to dismiss the charges. I think he would only need a simple majority to dismiss the charges.
Moscow Mitch wouldn't be running the trial though. John Roberts would, assuming such a thing happens. Roberts will have to do it according to Senate rules though, which represent Moscow Mitch's real venue for meddling.
And because the Trump era has destroyed Friday happy hour for the Washington press corps, we now have the House Oversight Committee (in cooperation with Intelligence and Foreign Affairs) requesting a bunch of documents from Mike Pence. (Letter here [PDF]). They gave him the same deadline as they gave Pompeo last week (October 15). I don't think they included a subpœna (though I've only had a chance to skim this), though they do say failure to comply will be construed as obstruction of the investigation. Unlike the Pompeo letter this one publicly lists the documents they seek.
[9/1/19, 12:08:57 PM] Bill Taylor: Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?
[9/1/19, 12:42:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Call me
Nothing says "no quid pro quo" like suggesting switching to a method of communication that won't leave a transcript when asked about a quid pro quo.
[9/9/19, 12:41:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.
If text messaging allowed you do an over-obvious, mugging wink I'm pretty sure Sondland would have done so. It also seems that by early September the various alleged conspirators had moved to the ass-covering stage of the operation.
For those who are interested in some actual Republican Senators, here's Marco Rubio talking to constituents in Florida and explaining that there's apparently an "owning the libs/press" exemption to the Constitution.
Joni Ernst is getting questions in Iowa, to which she provides a non-answer. (Ernst's answers start around 1:50 on that video.)
@Crœsos those two links are to the same tweet.
BroJames
Purgatory Host
Comments
The ICIG's report to acting DNI Maguire about the whistleblower complaint is also available online, for those who can't get enough PDFs of bureaucratic documents citing obscure bits of the U.S. Code.
Croesos, that crack about Miller just about made me fall off the dunny.
Given the way Giuliani's been melting down in just about every media appearance he's made recently there's no telling how he'll react to this.
(A subpoena to produce evidence rather than a subpoena to testify.)
Three years ago, Ukraine was promised by the Obama administration that it would supply Javelin anti-tank weapons.
Trump comes into power.
The Mueller investigation begins
Ukraine desperately needs those Javelins, but they are not coming.
Ukraine suddenly tells its investigators not to cooperate with Mueller.
The Pentagon issues a license to export the Javelins on 22 December 18.
Ukraine reports it has received the Javelins in April.
Our president holds up other military aid to Ukraine
July 25 in a phone call between the two presidents the Ukrainian president asks for more Javelins. Trump responds I have a favor to ask (investigate Biden).
Turns out Bolton did not want 45 to make that call. Also turns out Pompeo sat in on that call.
On a parallel track, 45 has been trying to prove Russia did not meddle in the US election. He has been sending his people to other countries trying to get them to provide proof it was someone else. Why is he doing this? Because Congress has imposed sanctions on Russia for interference in the election. If Trump can show it was someone else, he hopes to get Congress to drop those sanctions.
For me, the most damnable thing of the whole process is 45's people try to cover this all up by putting the transcripts on a super-secret server. Shades of Richard Nixon cover-ups
I laughed out loud!
This has been obvious from day one in his every word and tweet.
Blogger Adam L Silverman makes a related point.
There is also breathless media reporting to the effect that the Americans are noticing us.
[Translation: Never underestimate the level of American stupidity.]
Huh? Is he suggesting this entire scandal, the whistleblower, etc was orchestrated by Putin? Perhaps the whistleblower is Putin! Woah. Call Rachel Maddow.
Putin is on record as saying he wanted a Trump victory, and stuff like this shows exactly why: who wouldn't want their rival power bloc governed by a guy who turns everything he touches into sh*t, and threatens to bring allies down with him?
But the idea that Putin is actually behind everything Trump has done since being elected is loopy.
And that's very straightforward. What this Adam Silverman seems to be hinting at is that maybe, if we dig up those Trump-Putin transcripts we'll hear Putin say, "You know, Comrade Donald, I was thinking it might be good if someone filed a whistleblower complaint to force you release excerpts from your conversation with Zelensky, so you could embarrass him right when he's in the middle of reaching a peace agreement with me over the Donbas. And, yeah, did you get the memo about including a cover sheet on your TPS reports? Yeah, that would be great."
"Orchestrated" is pitching it a bit high. I'm thinking back to Helsinki where Trump met with Putin privately for two hours (after which Trump confiscated his interpreter's notes). Anyway, at the joint press conference afterwards Trump says this:
This seems like a stream-of-consciousness recap of something Trump was talking about with Putin. Most media attention at the time was given to the fact that Trump still claimed to believe in Russian innocence in the 2016 election interference against the shared opinion of the U.S. intelligence establishment, but you can also see the obsession with the idea that there's a "server" out there somewhere that will prove the innocence of Vlad the Elector. In other words, one of the base elements of Trump's apparent Ukraine obsession. It doesn't seem very far fetched to believe that Putin gave Trump this idea, or reinforced it. Trump is, after all, a known conspiracy theorist and a known fuck-up. Pointing Trump in this direction was almost certain to have results more or less like we've seen without the need for any in-depth "orchestration".
Not quite clear what you are saying in the last sentence.
Are you saying, "For him, his perception of reality is more important than reality"?
Just seeking clarification.
Being told this was illegal cut no mustard. Being informed this would devastate trade for both countries had no effect. Being advised this would separate both US and Mexican families on both sides of the border failed to move him.
Here's what eventually did happen, though: a few months later, Trump began firing all the staffers who were providing all this accurate, cogent, sound advice.
What Donald wants is right, because Donald wants it.
This is what the NYTimes reported today:
Of course, when reporters asked him about it, he denied it. As they kept pressing him he became more and more agitated.
Later in a formal press conference, with the President of Finland in attendance, he really went off the deep end, telling a reporter that "Biden and his son are corrupt--and you know it!!" Calling the press the corrupt press--not the fake press.
In his tweets he said if he was impeached there were be civil war and he will lead it (sounds of sedition). He said Congressman Schiff sould be tried for treason and had at least one profanity-laced tweet regarding Pelosi.
This makes my stomach turn.
In other news Kamala Harris is now telling Twitter they should close 45's account because he is using it to intimidate and harass (as well as demean) people he disagrees with.
(shudder)
Lord, give me strength...!
Trump stood on the White House lawn and asked China to investigate* Joe and Hunter Biden.
The chair of the (inquorate) Federal Election Commission reminded people that it's illegal to solicit foreign help in an American election. I suppose it that should actually be "rereminded" since it was just a re-posting of the statement she made on June 13 with the snarky comment "Is this thing on? 🎙"
*I think we're all clear that in this case "investigate" means "fabricate", but it's probably best to specify it outright, hence this footnote.
For those who don't remember (or never knew) Mike Pence became Trump's running mate at the urging of Paul Manafort.
One internet memesmith referred to Trump and Pence as "Sweary Plotter and the Half-Bright Pence".
If this is true surely it’s the end for tRump?
If not then any president can do anything and the US is a dictatorship in all but name.
We could round out the series. The most obvious one (to me at least) is Sweary Plotter and the Server of Secrets. Though I suppose that sort of thing is more suitable for The Circus.
I believe the preferred term among American conservatives is "unitary executive".
Ex-Ambassador Kurt Volker testified to a closed-door session of the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight Committees (that's three different committees, not one committee with a really long name) yesterday for nine or ten hours.
A sampling of these texts is attached to the statement. There seems to have been a slow realization among the alleged conspirators sometime between early August and early September that this was all illegal AF and leaving a trail of texts was a bad idea, as illustrated by this tweet. Going from "potus really wants the deliverable" to "no quid pro quo’s of any kind" is quite the turn-around.
Nothing says "no quid pro quo" like suggesting switching to a method of communication that won't leave a transcript when asked about a quid pro quo.
If text messaging allowed you do an over-obvious, mugging wink I'm pretty sure Sondland would have done so. It also seems that by early September the various alleged conspirators had moved to the ass-covering stage of the operation.
Sorry, but what is "illegal AF?" Thanks.
AF: Stands for "as fuck". A qualifier used to emphasize seriousness or intensity.
He's gone sooooooooo far that it's politically much easier for the House to Impeach and he may have found what many of us thought didn't exist - the point at which the Senate might actually convict.
Let's see how this unravels...
Oh, btw, Pence is clearly implicated too.
Oh how I long for President Pelosi....
AFZ
P.S. Can we send you Boris please? After all, he was born in New York (just saying...)
Hard to say. Yesterday Mark Meadows and Gym Jordan (two of Trump's most enthusiastic lackeys from the Oversight Committee) planted themselves in front of the press and declared that there was Nothing To See Here. Then the statement was released with all those (potentially) incriminating texts. That might have been the Committee chairs' way of telling Republican Congresscritters that if they take this approach they'll look like idiots or criminals.
This may not make a difference to folks like Jordan or Meadows, who make themselves look like idiots on a regular basis, but we'll see how it affects Republicans in the Senate. Of course, Jordan's ability to see wrongdoing has been notably deficient in the past.
Yep. Depressingly, whilst Impeachment is theoretically a legal process, it is of course a political one too. Ultimately the question is whether enough Republican Senators will vote to convict. I can't quite remember the Senate numbers but it's about 30 that's needed. Some will turn if the politics shifts - i.e. when Trump becomes a liability. Of course Trump's core base will support him no matter what; but there's another group - who have no idea how bad the Mueller report is, never mind this new stuff. They will turn against him and against any Senators that support him, if the Nixon impeachment enquiry is any guide.
AFZ
Indeed. However, I don't think all of the people who voted for Trump fall into this category. How big each group is, that's a matter for debate but on current polling numbers, Trump doesn't have a realistic route to an electoral college victory. That's a little beside the point when talking impeachment, of course: the issue here is the constituencies of the senators in question.
AFZ
Twenty Republican Senators would need to vote to convict Trump in order for him to be removed from office following an impeachment.
The current Senate consists of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats (Angus King and Bernie Sanders). It takes at least 67 Senators to reach the threshold of two-thirds (there are no current vacancies in the U.S. Senate).
There is a possible work-around, but it's all kind of skeevy from a procedural point of view even if it is technically constitutional.
Art. I, § 3, cl. 6 specifies you only need "the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present" to convict. Art. I, § 5, cl. 1 specifies that a majority of members of each house must be present "to do Business", which means that you really only need 51 Senators to try an impeachment. This would require a significant number of Republican Senators to "take a dive" and abandon their Constitutional obligations to represent their states, but it's technically within Constitutional legitimacy. I'm also not sure history or their voters would make much of a distinction between voting to remove Trump and conspiring with Democrats to remove him without having to personally vote for it, other than to view the latter as a particularly rank form of cowardice.
Thx for that.
Joni Ernst is getting questions in Iowa, to which she provides a non-answer. (Ernst's answers start around 1:50 on that video.)
Only 20 Republicans would have to vote to convict--along with all the Democrats.
The bet is Mitch will bring the impeachment to the Senate and after a show trial move to dismiss the charges. I think he would only need a simple majority to dismiss the charges.
Moscow Mitch wouldn't be running the trial though. John Roberts would, assuming such a thing happens. Roberts will have to do it according to Senate rules though, which represent Moscow Mitch's real venue for meddling.
And because the Trump era has destroyed Friday happy hour for the Washington press corps, we now have the House Oversight Committee (in cooperation with Intelligence and Foreign Affairs) requesting a bunch of documents from Mike Pence. (Letter here [PDF]). They gave him the same deadline as they gave Pompeo last week (October 15). I don't think they included a subpœna (though I've only had a chance to skim this), though they do say failure to comply will be construed as obstruction of the investigation. Unlike the Pompeo letter this one publicly lists the documents they seek.
And in between subverting the Constitution and using his office to enrich himself Trump signed an executive order today that contains a lot of what used to be Paul Ryan's plan for privatizing (and then looting) Medicare. I guess that's a way of reminding Congressional Republicans why they support him.
@Crœsos those two links are to the same tweet.
BroJames
Purgatory Host