Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the blunder by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of not submitting the impeachment case to the Senate — a mistake that now threatens not just the trial but the rules for impeachment trials.
On Sunday, Pelosi went largely unchallenged in her obviously incorrect claim that the House is still in court seeking witnesses in the impeachment. The House is litigating pre-impeachment witnesses, but has never sought to subpoena, let alone compel, key witnesses in the impeachment from John Bolton to Rudy Giuliani to others with direct knowledge of any alleged quid pro quo. Indeed, the House has done nothing for four weeks after the vote – a vote that I strongly discouraged in favor of spending a couple months seeking these witnesses and/or court orders. Now Pelosi is actually suggesting that they could still seek the witnesses while the House does nothing. It remains the most baffling blunder of the impeachment.
Here is the column:
“Situation quiet. The captain has been put away for the night.” The words from the movie “The Caine Mutiny” came to mind on Friday when House leaders announced that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not move until next week in submitting the impeachment of President Trump to a Senate trial. While various Democrats have publicly grumbled about the delay, going into its fourth week, without any sign of success in forcing the Senate to call witnesses, Pelosi continued a strategy that could jeopardize not just any trial but the rules governing impeachment. Indeed, Pelosi may force the Senate into a couple of unprecedented but well deserved rulings.
From the outset, the ploy of Pelosi withholding the House impeachment articles was as implausible as it was hypocritical. There was no reason why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would make concessions to get an impeachment that he loathed. More importantly, just a couple of days earlier, House leaders insisted that some of us were wrong to encourage them to wait on an impeachment vote to create a more complete record. Pelosi previously insisted that House committees could not pursue direct witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton because there was no time to delay in getting this impeachment to the Senate. She then waited a month and counting to send the articles over to the Senate.
The delay now seems largely driven by a desire to preserve the image of Pelosi as a master strategist despite a blunder of the first order. Senator Dianne Feinstein expressed the frustration of many members in saying, “The longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes. So if it is serious and urgent, send them over. If it is not, do not send it over.” But she and other members were quickly pressured to “correct” their earlier statements by stating the exact opposite and praising the brilliant strategy of Pelosi.
Perhaps the most pathetic change was House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, who correctly stated, “At the end of the day, just like we control it in the House, Mitch McConnell controls it in the Senate. It does not look like that is going to happen. I think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate and let Mitch McConnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial. He ultimately is.” It took just a few hours for Pelosi to get Smith to say that he “misspoke” and praise her inspired strategy.
Now what started as a demand to guarantee Senate witnesses has been downgraded to a demand to “know the rules” while waiting for the Senate to take a vote that it indicated weeks ago. In the alternative, sympathetic media figures insisted that Pelosi succeeded in “forcing a discussion” of Senate witnesses despite the fact that we had the same discussion in the trial of Bill Clinton without the House deciding to withhold the articles.
The fact is that Pelosi played into the hands of McConnell by first rushing this impeachment forward with an incomplete record and now giving him the excuse to summarily change the rules, or even to dismiss the articles. Waiting for the House to submit a list of managers was always a courtesy extended by Senate rules and not a requirement of the Constitution. By inappropriately withholding the articles of impeachment and breaking with tradition, Pelosi simply gave McConnell ample reason to exercise the “nuclear option” and change the rules on both majority voting as well as the rule for the start of trials. That is a high price to pay for vanity.
It could get even worse for the House case. I previously discussed that the Senate had an excuse to simply declare that a trial will start next week and either the House will appear with a team of managers or the case will be summarily dismissed. McConnell is now moving toward a summary vote in the Senate, in light of the House failing to comply with its own procedural obligations. That is what happens when prosecutors defy a court and fail to appear for a trial. It is known as “dismissal for want of prosecution.”
The Senate also is faced with two threshold problems that could create lasting damage to this process. First, the obstruction of Congress count, as I previously discussed, raises a troubling position that a president can be impeached for going to the courts rather than turning over evidence, even when the House set a ridiculously brief period for an investigation. The Senate could summarily reject that article as making the request for judicial review into a high crime and misdemeanor while allowing little time for deliberation. Second, if the Senate agrees to the Democratic demand for witnesses, it invites future rush impeachments where the House sends woefully incomplete and inadequate cases and demands witnesses it never bothered to subpoena, let alone compel to appear.
The Senate is, therefore, caught in a tough position of enabling the House in such slipshod impeachments or refusing to hear witnesses who, unlike the witnesses called by the House, could have direct evidence to share on the allegations. One possibility is that, as in a real court, the Senate could allow witnesses but give the House a set trial schedule. If the House wants to belatedly go to court to try to enforce a subpoena, the Senate will hear the testimony of witnesses like Bolton when that expedited litigation is complete. However, it will not extend the trial schedule of the Senate.
Trials will usually last a fraction of the time of an investigation, but few investigations are as hurried or heedless as the House investigation was. The House wasted four months after the whistleblower complaint without issuing a subpoena to Bolton or Rudy Giuliani or others. Had it sought to compel such subpoenas, it would have had rulings from the courts by now. Indeed, it took only three months for the appeal over the Watergate tapes to be ruled on by the Supreme Court in the case of Richard Nixon.
The Senate could set a generous period for the trial of three weeks. That is in addition to the four weeks the House wasted on the poorly conceived ploy by Pelosi. If the House is ready to present these witnesses, they can be heard. But if those witnesses are not ready to testify due to ongoing litigation, they will not be called and the Senate will proceed to its verdict. In that way, future Houses are now on notice that it is in their interest to complete their records before sending an impeachment to the Senate.
It would send a message for future impeachments, as the author Herman Wouk wrote, “Remember this, if you can. There is nothing more precious than time. You probably feel you have a measureless supply of it, but you have not. Wasted hours destroy your life just as surely at the beginning as at the end, only in the end it becomes more obvious.” It is now obvious.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump. He also serves as CBS and BBC legal analyst.
Would some grab the cain and pull Nancy off the stage. She and her party are only interested in reshaping the values and type of government that made this country great. She needs to retire.
With all respect, Anonymous, the word for which you were searching is “cane.” In this case, a “cane” would be a stick with a curved handle at one end.
“Would someone grab the cane and pull Nancy off the stage.”
“Cain” was Able’s brother. “Cain” is also “rent paid in kind, especially a percentage of a farm crop.”
Homonyms can be confusing!😊 perhaps your autocorrect “bit” you! I know mine sometimes bites me! 😜
I thought he poster was trying to say “chain”… as in Ball and Chain.
With all respect, Kelly, the word for which you were searching is “Abel.” In this case, “able” would be having the power, skill, means, or opportunity to do something.
“Abel” was Cain’s brother.
Homonyms can be confusing!😊 perhaps your autocorrect “bit” you! I know mine sometimes bites me! 😜
And with her family’s $500,000,000.00 in ill gotten gains from Nasty Nan’s insider trading and bribes, it will be a very comfortable retirement.
At the Constitutional Convention James Madison specifically excluded “maladministration” (407) as a proper cause for impeachment since the use of “so vague a term” would make the President not head of a co-equal branch but have him merely serving at “the pleasure of the Senate.”[2] Now, with the Democratic House’s impeachment of President Trump on those grounds, they have perversely decapitated the principal instrument of their own progressive ideology—the expert-based Chief Executive driving national policy from the center to build a Great Society.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/01/impeachment-end-era-conservative-challenge-donald-devine.html?utm_source=The+Imaginative+Conservative+%28Daily%29&utm_campaign=fe694297d9-Today%27s+Essays&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b25fb6fc69-fe694297d9-132528881&mc_cid=fe694297d9&mc_eid=c1f326aae5
Prof. Turley,
I’ve long believed that the writing of our incredible Constitution, which has survived for centuries, would not have been possible without divine intervention. I mean it defies logic that it was written by a bunch of middle aged men, wearing wigs and leotards, sitting around in a candlelight room, without some higher help.
Anyway, seeing the confusion that the vagueness of the Impeachment Sections have put us in, is starting to make me wonder….
Well they weren’t just sitting around writing a constitution. They were resisting the crown and eventually fighting the mighty British Navy and Army, conducting foreign affairs and securing financing from France, exploring and developing the continent, establishing colonies, and local governments, settling domestic politics, etc, etc.
Nancy is blatantly assisting Biden by timing what she thinks will be a weeks long trial in the senate that forces the running senators (next two places) to sit out the early campaigning and elections. Seh is a snake to her own party and should be called on it. Not that it would change the fact that she is a snake.
Bernie, you are about to get it stuck to you AGAIN!
Still do not understand how Nancy Pelosi is deemed to be so smart!! Seems like she is the dumbest Speaker of the House on record. She is obviously trying to keep her job and will try anything to gain some support.
A couple more points – 1. The Obstruction of Congress Article was about Trump’s refusal to allow witnesses, yet the Democrats continue to demand these same witnesses. If Trump now allows them, would that not completely cancel the Second Article since there is no longer any Obstruction?
2. How is it remotely possible that 4 Democrat Senators running for President against Trump, will be allowed to hypocritically cast a vote against their political opponent to prevent him from ever holding public office, for their own personal political gain. Isn’t this what this entire impeachment nonsense was about?
3. Adam Schiff is now a House Manager at the Trial. Is this an attempt to keep him off the witness seat? Much in the same way, HRC named all of her people as her personal atty’s prior to her FBI interview?
Mark Peterman:
“Adam Schiff is now a House Manager at the Trial. Is this an attempt to keep him off the witness seat?”
******************
I don’t think that immunizes him from testimony. It won’t immunize a prosecutor who is a fact witness in a case.
Any other trial he would be forced to recuse himself. However, he can still be called as a witness.
Thank you for the responses. I cannot find an answer anywhere to my question about the 4 Dems running for President sitting on their competitors jury. This is like being wrongfully sued by a company, and then at the trial you notice that the Board of Directors for the company suing you is sitting in the Jury box. Really weird
There should be NO ISSUE with Schiff for brains being a Manager AND a Witness! There is a PRECEDENT for that!! WHERE did that PRECEDENT occur? IN THE HOUSE PEACHMENT SHOW!! One of their peckerhead “Questioners” was also a WITNESS! SO THERE Mr. SCHIFF FOR BRAINS, YOU set the PRECEDENT now TAKE THE STAND and swear on this FIRE PROOF BIBLE that you will tell the truth!
They can call his staff members. I’m not sure there is a whistleblower. I think it is a fabrication Schiff used to springboard this impeachment. They had nothing and this confirms. Beside neither article they have are impeachable articles.
If Trump now allows them, would that not completely cancel the Second Article since there is no longer any Obstruction?
_______________________________________
yes maybe ….
There would definitely be “no longer” obstruction and quite possibly no longer any basis for Article one also.
but then the question is why was there obstruction previously?
There was no “obstruction”. Trump’s actions in this matter, including an appeal to the Courts, are entirely legal.
Not that I am blaming the almighty wisdom and foresight of the Founders, because they did get it correct in setting at least a 67% majority in order to convict .. they needed to go one step further and set the rule that you cannot even approve articles of impeachment in the House without a 67% majority. Judging by the rabid insanity in today’s political theater I would even bump up those majority percentages to 75% to approve articles of impeachment in the House and 75% to convict and remove in the Senate. This way you will at least know going forward that impeachment will never be used as a political weapon ever again. The only way you will ever go down the road of impeachment again is if you really have a true high crime or treason. I am sure the Democrats would be in favor of amending to higher percentages to impeach and or convict as they surely know their next Democratic President will be a marked person.
Shame when “public officials now can use government resources for their private ends.” Partisan Impeachment was a personal political Vendetta for Democrat political gain, the shame POTUS Screwed and the tax payer for her pleasure.
Expel The Democrat Congress people, it is obvious they care not about us!
Think about it, We paid for a Partisan Impeachment no Republican voted for it?
How about this for fairness instead: the candidate with the majority of votes, and who DIDN’T cheat with the help of a foreign government, becomes President? As a corollary, if it is discovered that a candidate did cheat to win with help from a foreign government or foreign actor, the election is invalidated and the other candidate wins? The only people who don’t see Trump for the criminal that he is, and who believe that this impeachment is politically-motivated are Trumpsters, which is not most Americans. BTW: the standard is “high crime or misdemeanor”. Treason can only happen in time of war. Soliciting assistance with an election from a foreign government is a high crime.
Please quote the part of the Mueller Report that supports your accusation. Must be tough living with Stage 4 TDS.
It’ll be a long wait for you, TimMac
TimMac – My God, don’t tell TDS has Stages.
Mr. Shulte,
If Trump is elected again in November, I’d hate to see the next stage(s) of Natacha’s TDS.
Given the extreme TDS symptoms that she’s already put on display, it’s frightening🤪 to think of the consequences to her if Trump wins again in November.
Bernie’s campaign organizer Jurek says violence is being planned. If Bernie doesnt win and likewise if Trump wins, too. See James O Keefe’s twitter feed
I find it amazing that people who are blind disciples to a malignant narcissist actually repeat the Fox News cutesy and demeaning slur for those who oppose someone cheating his way into the White House with the help of Russia, who lost the popular vote, who brags about assaulting women, who behaves like a schoolyard bully, who engages in name calling, who is a racist, misogynist, xenophobe and the laughingstock of other world leaders. One cannot be an American patriot and a Trumpster.
One cannot be an American patriot and a Trumpster.
Oh, but millions can and are.
Natacha, the FBI apologized to Trump for illegally spying on him and his team. They have admitted the Steele report was all made up. So that proves no help was given by a foreign government. People are being fired at the FBI about this. simply google ‘FBI apologizes for spying’ I’m no Trump fan but the truth is out there.
Hmmmm. Foreign help to when the election. Just where did that Steele dossier come from? RUSSIA!!! Who paid for it??? HRC and the DNC!!! Now who was getting foreign assistance?
Natacha – are you talking about Bill Clinton? Right? You haven’t forgotten about the rape charges, have you? Nevertheless, he was President and impeached a long time ago.
Everything you say is ALL true Natacha … if you happen to be drunk on the MSM fake news cool aid. you really need to lose the “help from Russia” argument. and while at it lose the rest of that crazy talk of racist and laughing stock of other world leaders. I would hardly call Justin Time Trudeau a “leader”. The guy is a child .. on par with that of a high school girl giggling behind the Principals back. Justin is a Joke. Look up the word and I guarantee you’ll see his picture there.
You don’t get to define who a patriot is.
The word comes from the word for Father.
You hate fathers we know from your style and comments, this is typical of feminists, so you are per se incapable of being a patriot of anywhere
Here is a synopsis from Vox. Read the entire Mueller report for yourself.
•Two Trump campaign officials — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — provided polling information to a Russian oligarch Gates believed was a “spy” for the Kremlin
•Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, with Trump’s approval, tried to arrange meetings between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin
• Russia tried to hack Hillary Clinton’s office five hours after Trump called on Moscow to find her deleted emails
The report makes it clear that: 1) the Russian government tried to help Trump win; 2) the Trump campaign was eager to benefit from hackings targeting Democrats; and 3) Trump’s campaign advisers had a lot of troubling ties to Russia.
Trump did not cooperate with Mueller’s investigation, and did his best to try to prevent witnesses and documents from being disclosed, just like he tried to stymie the House’s investigation by refusing all witnesses and documents. Neither Mueller nor the House could do a complete investigation due to Trump’s obstruction of justice, but what they have obtained is enough to see what a consistent crook Trump is. What does he have to hide by refusing to cooperate?
You still don’t get what a forked attack is do ya natch.
they helped hillary too.
why? then their ploy had teeth either way.
the loser would find out and try to discredit the election
but if you discredit one election for these paltry interferences then you discredit American elections as such
which is precisely what Russia meddling operations intend
and precisely what Pelosi and you guys keep delivering them served up on a silver platter with your antics
good work for Putin Natch. You say he’s bad but you help him.
kind of like you guys and the Iranians. you say they’re bad and then you help them.
For my part, I think he’s not that bad, and Iran’s not even that bad, but I dont want to help them.
Seek help
How about this for fairness instead: the candidate with the majority of votes, and who DIDN’T cheat with the help of a foreign government, becomes President?
Hillary never won a majority and Trump didn’t cheat. You need to tell your handlers that the repeating-bald-lies-over-and-over strategy isn’t working.
Yes she did and yes he did.
Query: did he withhold aid to Ukraine for 84 days, which it desperately needed because it was in hot war with Russia? Did doing so benefit Russia at the expense of our ally, Ukraine? Did he hide the actual transcript of the telephone call with the Ukrainian President in the secure server, reserved only for the most sensitive state secrets and with extremely limited access, and if so, why? Why was the Ambassador to Ukraine forced out? Did Sondland testify there was “quid pro quo”? Is “quid pro quo” required for there to be a violation of the law? Why did he order Soleimani assassinated? Was there an IMMINENT threat? Where is the proof? Why should the American people put up with someone unqualified and unfit to be President, and who did not obtain the majority of the popular vote? Answer these questions, please.
You say I am lying and that “it isn’t working”. The majority of Americans disagree.
Here are a couple more for you: why won’t he let Pompeo and other witnesses testify? Why won’t he produce documents? Where in US law does it state that Congress must get a court to force a president under investigation to cooperate with an investigation, which is Turley’s argument? What authority supports blanket refusals to produce witnesses and documents, instead of an item by item objection? What does Trump have to hide?
Where in the Mueller Report does it state that the investigators obtained complete records and the cooperation of all relevant witnesses? Hint: it doesn’t, which is why Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.
Why didn’t the House subpeona Pompeo?
Why didn’t the House subpeona what it claims were relevevant documents?
Where does U.S. law prohibit challenging a subpeona, and/ or invoking Executive Privilege?
Where in the Mueller Report does it say that its subpoenas were challenged, or deny the the Trump Administration turned over between one million and two million documents to the Special Counsel?
How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
Is it better to be loved or respected?
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
If Natacha peppers hundreds of comments with the same half dozen to a dozen silly-ass questions, should we return the favor to Natacha?
Natacha just a little curious .. what grade are you in ? Clearly you know nothing about the electoral college as you keep insisting Hillary won the 2016 election. and you don’t know much about executive privelage which is the right of the executive branch which is in the constitution. and you do know that Obama killed civilians with his drone strikes .. and their briefing was .. too bad they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
https://youtu.be/KU7_G2grxJE
Natacha’s comments remind me of one of my favorite movies.
Natacha – if the aid was so desperately needed, why the hell didn’t Obama send it during his term in office? Asking for a lot of friends.
When Obama was in office, was Ukraine in hot war with Russia? Had Russia invaded and occupied the Crimea? Did Obama’s campaign do the following, outlined in the Mueller Report?
•Two Trump campaign officials — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — provided polling information to a Russian oligarch Gates believed was a “spy” for the Kremlin
•Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, with Trump’s approval, tried to arrange meetings between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin
• Russia tried to hack Hillary Clinton’s office five hours after Trump called on Moscow to find her deleted emails
Did Obama bankrupt several businesses, so that no US bank would loan him money, so he had to go to Russia and Saudi Arabia to borrow to keep his business empire afloat? Did Obama disclose his tax returns? Did Obama defer to Putin publicly, over U.S. Intelligence officials? Did Obama try to get Russia back into the G-7? Did withholding aid benefit Russia? Was Obama the laughingstock of the rest of the world leaders?
Answering for a lot of friends.
It appears that Natacha does not know the answer to the first 2 ( of 8) questions she posed in her 3:19 PM comment.
Yes, Obama was in office when the hot war started in Ukraine, and yes he was in office when the Russians took back Crimea.
Obamas was the reason Russia took Ukraine. When he said to Putin win I win re-election in 2012 I can be more flexible with you (translation: I will gladly allow you to invade Ukraine). Obama di not bankrupt several businesses because he was never smart enough to know how to start up a business; he’s been a government worker slug his whole life. Once he got to the White House he was in position to start making hundreds of millions by selling the office of the President of the United States.
Did Obama disclose his tax returns? << who cares about tax returns. just ridiculous this is still being talked about. If someone is not legally obligated to make their tax returns public then why would anybody do it .. you would have to be an idiot to do so.
Did Obama defer to Putin publicly, over U.S. Intelligence officials? << if the official is Brennan .. I'd trust Putin hands down.
Did Obama try to get Russia back into the G-7? <<< nothing wrong with extending an olive branch to see if we can try to move away from old Cold War mentality. Two super powers can't remain enemies forever … how does that help the world ? think how much better world security would be if two super powers actually worked in synergy rather than hostility.
Did withholding aid benefit Russia? << I could just see it now .. the furious war front in the Ukraine .. and the Ukraines in the trenches yelling did that financial aid arrive yet .. we are down to half a dozen bullets left .. we need more ammo. That aid money was being funneled right back into the pockets of corrupt Democrats.
Was Obama the laughingstock of the rest of the world leaders? << based on a lot of the deals and decisions he made (Iran deal .. fast and furious .. Obama Care scam) .. I am sure plenty of people thought he was an idiot and a joke.
Again, the truth is out there. Through the Freedom of Information act, he has clearly stated why Trump held the funds. We are literally helping rebuild their nation and the prior Ukrainian president was known to be corrupt. Trump was holding fund to ensure that the transitioning President was not the same as the old. It is also documented pretty clearly that its common for conversations to be stored on secured servers. I would hope you would want nothing less. He held the conversation for 2 days. The new President of Ukraine was interviewed and said he wasn’t pressured. He understood the request for the information was because Hillary used a company called Croudstrike in Ukraine to hide her email server and they have it to this day This company is mentioned in the transcript. (This suggests that he is looking into the 2016 election and not the 2020 election.) He and the president of Ukraine both want to know why that is so. The Ukraine president also wants to understand why Biden was able to threaten to not provide millions of American money if the Ukrainian prosecutor that was looking into his son was not fired. Biden is on record for making this threat and laughs about it. it’s well documented. Read Ukrainian media about what is going on over there. They had huge problem with their last administration being corrupt. Again, it’s well documented. Once you do, you will see why the ambassador was fired. She was very much in favor of the prior Ukraine president and wasn’t going to support the new one nor honor Trump’s presidency. She deserved to be fired. Finally, with regards to the terrorists, Soleimani, look up the UN Resolution 2231 that prevented him from travelling outside Iran. Back in July of 2019, Trump authorized the military to kill him. He had already killed 600+ Americans and 2 more in mid December. What was he doing in Iraq where we killed him? He isn’t allowed to leave his county of Iran but he was in Iraq. We took him out and from all accounts about this person, it was the right thing to do.
You Are Delusional Girl
Trump 2020
Hillary got 48.5% of the popular vote, which is not a majority. It is a plurality.
“withhold aid to Ukraine for 84 days, which it desperately needed because it was in hot war with Russia?”
Did Obama withhold such desperately needed lethal military aid for 2 years? Why yes. Yes he did.
“Did he hide the actual transcript of the telephone call with the Ukrainian President in the secure server,”
Did details of several of his prior phone calls with world leaders get leaked to the press by people who had access to the regular server? Why yes. Yes they did.
“Why was the Ambassador to Ukraine forced out?”
Because she was in tight with previous (widely believed to be corrupt) Ukrainian President Poroshenko, and didn’t like Donald Trump? How’s she supposed to act as a diplomatic liaison between two administrations she doesn’t support? Zelenskyy didn’t trust her, either, and said as much in the call. She was not pleased that he had won, and had made it obvious.
“Did Sondland testify there was “quid pro quo”?”
Yes. And then when questioned further during the hearing, he admitted he had no direct evidence of said alleged quid pro quo, and that he had nothing but his own presumption to back up that claim. He had *assumed* there was a quid pro quo.
“Is “quid pro quo” required for there to be a violation of the law?”
No. Nor is a quid pro quo necessarily a violation of the law. If Trump had suspicions that Joe and Hunter Biden were engaging in corrupt activities in Ukraine, or that Crowdstrike had any involvement in previous fiascos, even if those suspicions later turn out to be wrong, he has every right (and some would argue, a duty) to look into it.
A genuine but mistaken belief is exculpatory regarding malice. And running for president (as we should all know very well by now) does not immunize a person from being investigated.
“Was there an IMMINENT threat? Where is the proof?”
The very same intelligence community that investigated Trump’s campaign and his early presidency were the ones who advised him that such action was justified based on intel they had gathered.
And the very same people who jumped down Trump’s throat over the attack on the embassy (calling it his very own Benghazi, despite the fact that, unlike Hillary in the original Benghazi, he actually evacuated and intervened, and there was no loss of American life), are now jumping down his throat for taking out the individual who funded and orchestrated that attack.
It seems like you desperately want to have things both ways. We should trust the IC when they target Trump, but not when they advise him. We should criticize Trump for not being tough enough on Iran, and blame that for the attack on the embassy, but we should also criticize him for taking an action that would, according to the IC, prevent further embassy attacks.
Karen for the defense – ok, let’s look at your items on impeachment.
Obama did not hold up aid appropriated by Congress, and his opposition to some arms going to the Ukraine was a policy choice not a shakedown effort. The former is a presidential prerogative, the latter is an abuse of power.
Hiding the transcript is not a crime except if part of a blanket obstruction of justive. Experts say the level of security attached to the transcript is unique and goes to motive, though again, not a crime by itself.
I don’t know where you are getting your slanderous information about Ambassador Marie, which is mostly if not all false. She served with distinction for Republican and Democratic administrations and the previous Ukrainia prosecutor Lutsenko is who worked to get her fired – see Parnas interview. She spoke glowingly of Zelensky in her testimony and his comments about her in the transcript were a triggered suck up response to Trump’s bad mouthing. Zelensky even says “you were the first one who told me she was a bad ambassador” while incorrectly stating she was on the previous administration’s side.
Sondland testified that he assumed a QPQ after 20+ phone conversations with Trump. The fact that the words QPQ did not come up is not surprising. If you are proposing that the cumulative actions of multiple administration officials, including the withholding of aid was all based on 1 man’s mistake, rather than the direction of the president, that’s some really weak tea.
If TruMp had real suspicions about the Biden’s regarding illegal behavior, he should have passed it off to the FBI. Muscling a foreign government for a public announcement of an investigation of the one man in the world most likely at that time to beat him in the next election is inappropriate for obvious reasons and should be – if true – cause for removal from office.
Mueller said there was no cheating on the part of Trump or his campaign. So, he would still be POTUS.
Don’t worry. The one who collided with the Russians, and cheated, Hillary Clinton, lost the election.
You can put your mind at ease.
Karen would you have an anxiety attack if you were prevented from tuning in to Hannity, Ingraham, and loudmouth fake “Judge Jeanine”?
Trump did cheat and because he tried to do it again and got caught, he got impeached. Hillary won the popular vote and was smeared by Russians at the direction and with the assistance of the Trump campaign, but only in key districts where it could sway the Electoral College. The information on where this smear campaign would do the most good came from the Trump campaign. Read the Mueller Report. The majority of American voters were cheated out of their choice as POTUS. These are true facts.
That’s not what the Mueller Report says, Natacha.
YOU “read the Mueller Report”, or at least have someone explain to you what is in it.
It says the following, in summary form, from Vox:
•Two Trump campaign officials — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — provided polling information to a Russian oligarch Gates believed was a “spy” for the Kremlin
•Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, with Trump’s approval, tried to arrange meetings between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin
• Russia tried to hack Hillary Clinton’s office five hours after Trump called on Moscow to find her deleted emails
The report makes it clear that: 1) the Russian government tried to help Trump win; 2) the Trump campaign was eager to benefit from hackings targeting Democrats; and 3) Trump’s campaign advisers had a lot of troubling ties to Russia.
Alleging that your political opponents, one of the two major parties in America, including the Minority Leader of the House, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the President of the United States are wholly owned assets of a foreign power is the height of irresponsibility.
How can we take anything you say seriously if you engage in such utterly baseless allegations? Are you really too stupid to understand that by making such claims, you are becoming an asset in exactly the kind of undermining effort the Russians have advanced to run down trust in our representative government? The effort to seed distrust has been one of the best returns on investment of any foreign power – and when Pelosi and her fellow leading Democrats engage in such crazed speculation, they are doing the work of America’s enemies.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/15/nancy-pelosi-is-doing-putins-bidding/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=38ca87cb58-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-38ca87cb58-79248369
Vox…..now there’s an unbiased source. 😃😂
The Mueller Report clearly states he didn’t cheat. Did the Russians buy ad space to influence? yes! What you are suggesting is that Americans were duped by ads. When they went to the polls they had 2 choices. If you are suggesting an Ad MADE them choose trump, you are wrong. No ad removes free will. The Russians didn’t electronically pump 30 million votes into our voting process. That would be stealing the election. But lets not forget, we have an electoral voting process which is held by 538 Americans that represent the Electoral College vote, not based on the popular vote but based on what’s best for their respective states. Russia had no roll in who these 538 voted for. There is no way to cheat American’s out of their vote.
“You can put your mind at ease”
Karen S., I don’t see that happening with Natacha.
Obviously upholding the constitution only matters when it’s time to impeach President Trump.. But when it comes to the rules of how Presidential Election winners are determined by the Electoral College the constitution can be disregarded and thrown into the trash bin. As for who cheated don’t be naive. Hillary colluded with Russian thugs and an English pauper to come up with a joke of a dossier. Hilliary is as crooked as a $3 bill. Her biggest pain is that she cheated so much and she still lost. Talk about getting salt rubbed into the wounds.
Hillary colluded with Russian thugs and an English pauper to come up with a joke of a dossier.
_________________________________________
That is probably accurate statement. But in what way did that have any effect on the 2016 election?
I find it very curious that they had this ammunition against the Trump campaign but did not use it.
And why did the FBI help Trump?? During the campaign the FBI repeatedly reminded voters that Hillary was the subject of a criminal FBI investigation, but never once said boo about investigating Trump.
It’s not all “curious” why the attempts to get the established media to report the allegations in the Steele Russian Dossier failed.
It is untrue “that they had this ammunition against the Trump campaign but did not use it”.
They simply failed ( with one minor exception- Mother Jones) to enlist the media in their effort to regurgitate unsupported foreign campaign opposition research.
That failure continues to be dishonestly used by those who pretend that there was some sort of noble decision not to use the Steele Russian Dossier.
There were other less-than- noble reason that the dossier’s unfounded allegations did not become public before the 2016 election.
But the FBI and the FISA court were sure as hell made aware of those allegations before the election, and the public was made aware of the allegations before the Jan. 2017 Inaugeration.
It’s not all “curious” why the attempts to get the established media to report the allegations in the Steele Russian Dossier failed.
___________________________________
The evidence suggests the MSM wanted Trump elected so that alone explains why it was not used to harm trumps election chances.
They had no trouble printing it after the election. Before the election if FBI agents had passed the information to news media it could have been printed as coming from unnamed reliable sources. But none of that happened.
_____________________________________
But the FBI and the FISA court were sure as hell made aware of those allegations before the election,
____________________________________
How does that in any way hurt Trump getting elected? What makes no sense to me is everybody is so concerned that improper probable cause is used for a warrant to listen to a CIA informant’s phone calls but nobody cares that a CIA informant was planted in the Trump campaign.
Warrants with improper probable cause happen all the time. All it suggests is that there was no intent to pursue prosecution against Carter Page.
jinn – the Steele dossier was used for FISA warrants. FISA warrants have a three hop procedure. You talk to Fred, (I get to tap Fred), Fred talks to Sarah (I get to tap Sarah), Sarah talks Trump (I get to tap Trump) See how that works.
Then remember the txt or email said the WH wants to know what we are doing? Okay, then that info is transferred to the Clinton campaign. So, basically, the WH was hindering the election more than the Russians.
I recently mentioned why I don’t waste time in exchanges with a fraud like”Jinn”.
But credit where credit is due; Jinn’s determination to stack ever higher mountains of horse**** in these threads should be recognized and fully appreciated.
“The evidence suggests that the MSM wanted Trump elected”
———————————————————————————
One of the many “brilliant” observations from “Jinn” .
“The evidence suggests that the MSM wanted Trump elected”
——————————————————
One of the many “brilliant” observations
_______________________________
In the 2016 primaries MSM gave Trump something like 20 times the free advertising that they gave to all the others combined. You have to be really really stupid to believe they were not aware of exactly what they were doing.
Look at the profits of CNN and NYT in 2015. They were headed for bankruptcy. Then along comes Trump in 2016 and their profits soared. Then Trump got elected and their profits jumped again. Trump is the best thing that has happened to the MSM and they sertainly are not going to kill the goose that is layi9ng the golden eggs.
the Steele dossier was used for FISA warrants. FISA warrants have a three hop procedure. You talk to Fred, (I get to tap Fred), Fred talks to Sarah (I get to tap Sarah), Sarah talks Trump (I get to tap Trump) See how that works.
____________________________________
No I don’t see how that works. It might work that way if Fred and Sarah and Trump happen to be foreigners. The stated purpose of the warrant was to listen to foreigners phone conversations that involve Carter Page. Foreign is what the “F” in FISA stands for.
The simple fact is the Intelligence Community has the power to listen to any phone call. Edward Snowden revealed that they have the hardware set up in every Telecom company so that they have the capability to listen in at any time without the knowledge or permission of anybody. Of course a valid warrant is necessary if the evidence is to be used in prosecution.
___________________________________
Then remember the txt or email said the WH wants to know what we are doing?
_________________________________
That is correct. The FBI was investigating Russian interfering in the election. The WH inquired a few days before a meeting of Obama and Putin. The purpose of the inquiry was to get evidence of Russia wrong doing in preparation for that meeting. What is wrong with that?
______________________________________
So, basically, the WH was hindering the election more than the Russians.
__________________________________
There is no evidence of that. If the WH wanted to help Clinton they should have advised her to make an appearance in the swing states which contributed to her losing the election.
jinn – Trump Towers was tapped. The FISA warrants were used to get there.
Trump Towers was tapped. The FISA warrants were used to get there
______________________________
Every phone is tapped. Edward Snowden revealed that all the telecom companies have the hardware installed so that the Intelligence Community can intercept any phone call at anytime they want without anyone’s knowledge or consent.
But the Inspector General says your story is false.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/474134-doj-inspector-general-refutes-trump-claim-that-obama-tapped-his
“Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz said Wednesday that he found no evidence the FBI wiretapped anyone other than former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in connection with its Russia investigation.”
jinn – Adm Rogers met with Trump to warn him his phone were tapped. Trump moved to Florida with his staff.
Adm Rogers met with Trump to warn him his phone were tapped. Trump moved to Florida with his staff.
_________________________________
That a story is silly in more than one way. As Obama’s head of the NSA, Adm Rogers knows that phones are tapped everywhere. Hillary’s phones are tapped also and so was the phones of Angela Merkel. What does moving to Florida have to do with anything?
How does any of this support the story that then Intelligence community and the FBI were trying to to help Hillary Clinton? All the evidence suggests the opposite.
““We didn’t find any evidence the FBI had tapped any other phones or anything else other than the FISA that we addressed,” Horowitz responded”
No evidence means no one admitted to doing so and no hardware was found long after the event was over and Trump moved his discussions elsewhere. Sounds like Anon doesn’t understand that an act can be comitted without evidence. Of course there is evidence from Admiral Rogers but that evidence doesn’t count becaue Anon doesn’t want it to count.
Of course there is evidence from Admiral Rogers
__________________________________
What evidence?
You have no evidence from Adm Rogers just another silly story. For one thing your story happened after the election so it is meaningless in support of the other silly story that the deep state was trying to prevent Trump getting elected.
The intelligence community has all phones tapped. The hardware is installed at all the telecom companies. Any phone can be tapped anywhere no permission from anyone needed and no hardware connection needs to be made it is already connected. Adm Rogers, of course, knows this.
Anon, all you are doing is proving how silly you really are.
Anon is back to his old talking points. I thought they had been flushed down the toilet after use.
Tell me, does it hurt to be that obtuse?
“How Ukraine’s top prosecutor went after Marie Yovanovitch, step by step”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/15/how-ukraines-top-prosecutor-went-after-marie-yovanovitch-step-by-step/
American policy is to create chaos and yes it is strategic and has been working.
You have to be really dense to not see that chaos was the goal in Libya, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
Iran is the only country in the region the US has targeted that has not yet been reduced to rubble and disorder.
Yes, Iran is doing an excellent job of reducing its own self to rubble and disorder. Very self-sufficient.
Perhaps there is something to be said for executing gays, imprisoning women for immodesty and shooting down protesters. One has to admire their determination to remain firmly entrenched in their totalitarianism masquerading as a religion.
Perhaps there is something to be said for executing gays, imprisoning women for immodesty and shooting down protesters. One has to admire their determination to remain firmly entrenched in their totalitarianism masquerading as a religion.
_______________________________________
There is a lot more of that going on in places like Saudi Arabia and other Arab states that the US is allied with…
And the Saudis are funding a lot more terrorism.
Your hypocrisy is showing.
Keep digging jinn, your deception won’t work.
https://www.islamreligion.com/articles/669/viewall/world-of-jinn/
Olly, imagine Jinn’s disappointment when he realized that the photo of Pelosi and Schumer in Iranian garb, standing in front of the Iranian flag, was not genuine.
I joined the US Navy in January 1979. We had Iranian students at my first command and their was nothing unusual about their presence there. If there were accommodations for religious practices, they weren’t public about it. Then all of a sudden, *poof*, they were gone before the year was out.
Anyway, I have a CPA I work with who is Muslim. We discuss religion quite frequently. I had a conversation with him yesterday and asked him about the term jinn. I then told him about the jinn on this blog. His assessment was that this jinn is likely Persian and Shiite. And given his attitude towards the death of Soleimani, he’s providing jinn-style propaganda for a terrorist regime. Think The Great Deceiver and you have jinn.
Keep digging jinn, your deception won’t work.
______________________________________
LOL
Do you think I set up my avatar 6000 years ago just to deceive you?
The problem is that the numbers don’t agree with Jinn. They demonstrate Iran to be a much greater killer and involved in a lot more state terrorism. He keeps repeating himself like a parrot and just like a parrot he repeats words but one has to doubt that he knows what those words actually mean.
The problem is that the numbers don’t agree with Jinn. They demonstrate Iran to be a much greater killer and involved in a lot more state terrorism
_________________________________________
What numbers?
Are you talking about the numbers from the deep state?
Is that the same deep state that you claim is lying about Trump?
Number of terrorist organizations supported by each country with the number of followers each organization has.
Number of actual people killed withing each state for crimes.
Let’s hear your numbers Anon. This is wheree you bail oout whether as Jan F. Anon, bythe book or any other name you have used.
Number of terrorist organizations supported by each country with the number of followers each organization has.
____________________________________
Those numbers come from the deep state
You know that sqame deep state you claim is always lying.
But even the deep state numbers don’r support your claim.
They claim that Iran (Soleimani to blame for them all) is responsible for 10% of US casualties in Iraq. Who is responsible for the other 90%? That would be the Sunni terrorists that are backed by Saudi Arabia.
Why aren’t you screaming about SA terrorism?
the answer is you have been brainwashed by the deep state.
In other words Anon you don’t have the numbers which are listed not just by the US but are listed elsewhere as well.
I don’t like Saudi Arabia, but first things first. We cannot permit Iran to get nuclear weapons. We can not pretend that they aren’t equipping Hezbollah and Hamas with advanced missiles.
Stop the nuclear weapons and threats and Iran can behave within their country with sovereignty. Same with Saudi Arabia.
Good policy is a balance of power.
“TRUMP SUPPORTER WHO DISCUSSED SURVEILLANCE OF AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH HAS HISTORY OF STALKING, MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES”
by Lee Fang
January 15 2020, 12:29 p.m.
https://theintercept.com/2020/01/15/trump-supporter-who-discussed-surveillance-of-ambassador-marie-yovanovitch-has-history-of-stalking-mental-health-issues/
“Meet the Trump Donor Who Allegedly Stalked America’s Ambassador in Ukraine”
“He was a longshot candidate with a penchant for the obscene. Now he’s at the center of the impeachment drama.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-is-robert-f-hyde-the-trump-donor-who-apparently-tracked-marie-yovanovitch
You claim that waiting was a “mistake”? The case for impeachment has only gotten stronger: now, Bolton indicates he is willing to testify, and additional bombshell information about Ambassador Yovanovitch was just disclosed yesterday. Both of these things will make it harder for the Senate to give Trump a free pass without any witnesses or evidence.
NUTCHACHA, you originally denied the 2016 election (in whatever fantasy realm you function in) then disgorged your incoherence after Mueller threw in the towel. Now you’ve taken up the latest hysterical and incoherent nonsense from Nanny Peloshe. Whatever will you do and say after the Senate expunges the Nanny impeachment and fully exonerates President Donald J. Trump?
The 2016 election was won by Hillary Clinton because:1. she didn’t cheat; 2. she wasn’t helped by a foreign government; and 3. she got more votes. It is only the aberration of the Electoral College that kept her from the White House, and Russians figured out where and how to manipulate enough votes to get this done with the help of Trump’s campaign. These are facts, not fantasy, and the only ones who are living in Fantasyland are those who call that fat slob narcissist occupying the White House “President”. He is morally, intellectually, psychologically and by virtue of cheating, unfit to join the ranks of Lincoln, Washington, FDR, JFK and others who didn’t cheat their way into the White House.
Regardless of what the Senate does, Trump will never be EXONERATED. They will vote however they vote, but the American people know the truth regardless of what the Senate does.
Please provide where in Mueller Report that concluded Trump “colluded” with the Russians or that because of Russian activities, the election result was substantially altered.
Must be tough suffering from Stage 4 TDS.
Please understand that for the presidential election, Only the electoral college vote counts. So it doesn’t matter how many votes she got. Next, if the Russians messed with the heads of 538 Electoral voters, it would be really easy to interview them and ask them why they voted the way they voted. No one is doing this because no one is questioning their decision. You have to ask yourself, why that is? I would think that if what you are saying is true, ANY news outlet could easily get to the bottom of what you are saying by interviewing 528 people. Please slow down and question why they don’t interview them.
Trumps behavior is crass. No question. But if his behavior is so bad, he will be gone in 2020. if he gets re-elected (and I think he will) you may need to reevaluate where you get your information or maybe turn off the TV and all news and go enjoy life. Please!? I’m trying to help here but …
SeekingTheTruth – I get most of my news from YouTube
https://babylonbee.com/news/group-of-known-criminals-meet-to-discuss-how-much-of-your-money-to-steal/
Mr. Shulte,
You should consider broadening your sources of news.
Here’s an example of an essential news source that you may have overlooked.
( Natacha could benefit from watching news sources other than Fox News; based on her comments, it appears that she is obsessively glued to Fox News 24/7 😉).
Anonymous – I do get The Onion deliver to my mailbox, however I do not subscribe to The Babylon Bee. However, people like you are kind enough to post relevant articles.
At first a thought this person was a Kool-Aid drinker with a bad case of TDS. However after reading a number of this person’s comments I have to admit to coming to the wrong conclusion. This person is an good olld fashion TROLL, living in a basement and a product of public education.
Do you really have to ask, George? She’ll stomp her feet and say that the Senate cheated.
Venal House leaders FAILED to thoroughly prepare. Tough shiite for them, LOL.
First you have no idea what Bolton is going to say. Second, Bolton will not testify because he was an adviser to Trump and Trump will rightfully claim executive privilege. Finally the Yovanovitch info is a nothing burger made by a discredited person and in no way implicates Trump. But keep dreaming Natacha.
What a joke
Sounds like a slam dunk for conviction in the Senate with evidence that has been “growing stronger”.😂
If the Senate does not convict Trump, Natacha can always rely on the claim that the Senators “cheated”.
Clean House! Help your local GOP Congressional candidates in 2020. We’ve got work to do.
“WaPo: Threatening Text Messages Show Yovanovitch Was Under Surveillance”
HEADLINE, JAN 15, 2020
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/15/headlines/wapo_threatening_text_messages_show_yovanovitch_was_under_surveillance
‘The Washington Post reports explosive new information at the center of the impeachment inquiry. New materials released by House Democrats show text messages between former Giuliani associate Lev Parnas and Robert Hyde, a Republican congressional candidate from Connecticut, in which the two have threatening exchanges about Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. In the text messages, Parnas and Hyde discuss how Yovanovitch was under surveillance. In one message, Hyde wrote, “They are willing to help if we/you would like a price. … Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money…what I was told.” In another message, Hyde described being in contact with a security team near the embassy, apparently monitoring her physical movements. He wrote, “Her phone is off. Computer is off. … They will let me know when she’s on the move.” Yovanovitch later received a call from the State Department and was told to leave Ukraine immediately. Her lawyer is now calling for an investigation. Yovanovitch has repeatedly said she felt threatened by Trump, who called her “bad news” in his now-infamous July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. During this call, Trump also said of Yovanovitch, “She’s going to go through some things.”’
Democrats to investigate ‘profoundly alarming’ Ukraine texts
By Mary Clare Jalonick and Eric Tucker | AP
Jan. 14, 2020 at 6:41 p.m. CST
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/house-releases-note-on-biden-case-from-giuliani-associate/2020/01/14/c57f852e-372f-11ea-a1ff-c48c1d59a4a1_story.html
‘Lawrence Robbins, an attorney for Yovanovitch, called for an investigation into the messages.
“Needless to say, the notion that American citizens and others were monitoring Ambassador Yovanovitch’s movements for unknown purposes is disturbing. We trust that the appropriate authorities will conduct an investigation to determine what happened.”’
When you work to undermine a president’s foreign policy, and you’re an Ambassador, you get monitored.
How did she (Marie Y.) “work to undermine [Trump’s] foreign policy”?