White House Impeachment Response Strategy

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 14954
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#376

Post by Kendra » Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:09 pm


This argument seems to be that since Trump's actions are ALL baseline corrupt, his actions are not impeachable unless he does something REALLY SUPER CORRUPT that goes above and beyond his normal corruption 🤔



User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 3214
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#377

Post by Gregg » Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:03 pm

So if you catch me robbing a bank but robbing banks is my normal occupation and I do it all the time...


We're good?

Does it really work like that?


Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 7212
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#378

Post by pipistrelle » Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:08 pm

Gregg wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:03 pm
So if you catch me robbing a bank but robbing banks is my normal occupation and I do it all the time...
We're good?
Does it really work like that?
Are you a cult head? Who has kompromat on you and who do you have kompromat on? This could help us help you figure this out.



User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 7212
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#379

Post by pipistrelle » Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:09 pm

This "logic" makes any Obama administration missteps worse.



User avatar
tek
Posts: 3862
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#380

Post by tek » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:07 pm

Off Topic
Chatting with my daughter about all this insanity..
a question on my civics exam in 11th grade...why can kissinger not be president. The whole class was like "who?"
(11th grade would have been somewhere around 2004)

So.. some idea how we got here :(


There's no way back
from there to here

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 35977
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#381

Post by Addie » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:12 pm

WaPo
Mulvaney's move to join impeachment testimony lawsuit rankles Bolton allies

White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s last-minute effort to join a lawsuit that could determine whether senior administration officials testify in the impeachment inquiry was an unwelcome surprise to former top national security aides, highlighting internal divisions among President Trump’s advisers in the face of the probe. Former national security adviser John Bolton’s advisers and allies were taken aback to learn late Friday that Mulvaney had gone to court seeking to join a separation-of-powers lawsuit filed against Trump and the House leadership, according to people familiar with their views, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing inquiry.

The suit was filed by Bolton’s former deputy, Charles Kupperman, who is asking a federal judge to determine whether a congressional subpoena takes precedent over a White House order not to comply with the inquiry. Bolton is willing to testify if the judge rules in favor of the House, The Washingon Post previously reported. People close to Bolton and Kupperman said the two were flabbergasted by Mulvaney’s surprise request to join the lawsuit because they and others on the national security team considered Mulvaney a critical player in the effort to get the Ukrainian government to pursue investigations into Trump’s political opponents.

Bolton views Mulvaney as a key participant in the pressure campaign, a situation that the then-national security adviser referred to derisively as “a drug deal,” according to congressional testimony by his aides. The two men were barely on speaking terms when Bolton left his post in September, according to White House officials. Charles Cooper, a lawyer for Bolton, declined to comment on Mulvaney’s effort to join the suit, saying only, “We will provide our answer in court.” William Pittard, an attorney for Mulvaney, said the chief of staff is simply seeking to resolve the competing demands of two branches of government. “As acting chief of staff, Mr. Mulvaney intends to follow any lawful order of the president and has no reason to think that the order at issue is unlawful — other than the fact the House has threatened him with charges of contempt and obstruction for following it,” Pittard said.

Lawrence Tribe, a constitutional law expert at Harvard Law School, said Mulvaney’s last-minute move could be an attempt to give himself legal cover to put off the House demand. By attaching himself to the Kupperman case, Mulvaney could avoid having to testify in the House inquiry for months if the suit is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. “I think he’s trying to be shielded from having to obey his legal duty to comply with an obviously valid subpoena,” Tribe said.



User avatar
tek
Posts: 3862
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#382

Post by tek » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:19 pm

If Bolton is so pissed, he should just raise his right hand and get to business.

Blow this wide open and there's nobody left standing to prosecute him for bogus Executive claims.

:daydream:


There's no way back
from there to here

User avatar
sad-cafe
Posts: 984
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#383

Post by sad-cafe » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:30 pm

but Bolton just advised his own Quid pro Quo

he wants 2 million to tell the truth



TexasFilly
Posts: 18662
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#384

Post by TexasFilly » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:42 pm

Mulvaney should be hoisted on his own Pittard.


I love the poorly educated!!!

Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 35977
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#385

Post by Addie » Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:40 pm

New York Times - Peter Baker
Bolton Rejects Legal Alliance With Mulvaney

A lawyer representing the president’s former national security adviser filed a motion opposing an effort by Mick Mulvaney to join a suit on impeachment testimony.


WASHINGTON — A long-simmering feud within the White House broke into the open on Monday as a lawyer for John R. Bolton, President Trump’s former national security adviser, filed a motion trying to keep Mick Mulvaney, the president’s acting chief of staff, from joining a lawsuit over impeachment testimony.

Mr. Bolton’s lawyer argued in court papers that Mr. Mulvaney should not be allowed to jump into the existing lawsuit as a plaintiff because his interests are significantly different. But the legal schism underscored a broader rift between Mr. Mulvaney, who facilitated Mr. Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine for damaging information about Democrats, and Mr. Bolton, who tried to resist it.

Not only did the motion from Mr. Bolton’s camp seek to keep Mr. Mulvaney out of the lawsuit, it even advanced an argument that the acting chief of staff may have to testify before House impeachment investigators. The motion noted that in a briefing with reporters last month, Mr. Mulvaney appeared “to admit that there was a quid pro quo” before later trying to take back the admission, meaning that he might not have the right to defy a House subpoena since he had already discussed the matter in public.

“Accordingly, there is a serious question as to whether Mulvaney waived the absolute testimonial immunity claimed by the president,” the motion said.

The strongly worded motion reflected the divisions within Mr. Trump’s senior leadership team that played out largely behind closed doors for much of the year but have begun spilling out this fall during the House inquiry.



User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 10236
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#386

Post by Chilidog » Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:34 pm

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5823
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#387

Post by Maybenaut » Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:35 pm

I haven’t read the brief, but how does Bolton have standing to make that argument? He’s not a party to the lawsuit, is he? He’s not even asking to be a party, is he? This is just weird.


"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
NotaPerson
Posts: 3353
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#388

Post by NotaPerson » Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:44 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:35 pm
I haven’t read the brief, but how does Bolton have standing to make that argument? He’s not a party to the lawsuit, is he? He’s not even asking to be a party, is he? This is just weird.
It's my understanding that he is a party on the lawsuit.

Anyway, I look forward to this particular episode in the future Netflix series. Bolton telling Mick to fuck off is just so precious. :-D


Am I being detained?

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5823
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#389

Post by Maybenaut » Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:51 pm

NotaPerson wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:44 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:35 pm
I haven’t read the brief, but how does Bolton have standing to make that argument? He’s not a party to the lawsuit, is he? He’s not even asking to be a party, is he? This is just weird.
It's my understanding that he is a party on the lawsuit.

Anyway, I look forward to this particular episode in the future Netflix series. Bolton telling Mick to fuck off is just so precious. :-D
Ah. OK.

ETA: I thought I read that he said that he would testify if the judge in the Kupperman case cleared the way. But I didn’t know he was actually a party to the lawsuit.


"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 35977
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#390

Post by Addie » Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:50 pm

WaPo - Jennifer Rubin
The Democrats may surprise us on impeachment ...

It is telling that Republicans’ talking points generally fall within one of three categories, none of them germane to the issue of Trump’s guilt.

Some choose to bury their heads in the sand, as Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) did when he said he won’t read the transcripts because his mind is made up. (“No. I don’t care what anybody else says about the phone call. The phone call I made up my own mind is fine. I think this is a bunch of BS.”) One would think that would disqualify him as a juror (not to mention as a senator).

Other Republicans raise ridiculous false-equivalences, ignoring the difference between Trump’s solicitation of a bribe for personal gain (an investigation into a political opponent) and the ordinary conduct of foreign policy. (Witnesses make clear that Rudolph Giuliani was operating some other scheme outside of and in contradiction to U.S. foreign policy.)

And finally, some choose to ignore what is in front of them, specifically a transcript in which Trump specifically raised CrowdStrike and the Bidens. They cannot explain why such matters would be raised if not to pressure Ukraine into helping him win reelection. Republicans choose to believe and simply repeat Trump’s denial he did anything wrong. (They do not quite explain how and why Trump suspended aid if the political dirt and the aid were not linked.)

You come away with the clear impression that Republicans are either victims of the Fox News propaganda operation (i.e., they believe conspiracy facts and ignore actual facts) or are simply giving enough fodder to keep the factually inured base on board, hoping that will be enough to save Trump and themselves. Democrats nevertheless do seem prepared to present a simple, clear and factually irrefutable case that Americans of good will should be able to comprehend. The more responsible Republican senators will have a tough time finding a logical rationale not to convict Trump (which doesn’t mean they won’t try).

Would it be easier if witnesses such as acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton performed their civic obligation and testified, as have the raft of patriotic Americans who have already come forward? Sure. But one cannot rely on Republicans developing a conscience and a spine at this late date. You go to trial with the evidence you have, and right now the evidence of Trump’s solicitation of a bribe, extortion of an ally, obstruction of Congress and witness intimidation is overwhelming.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 29127
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#391

Post by Foggy » Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:50 pm

Kyle Cheney wrote:BREAKING: Mulvaney withdraws effort to intervene in impeachment lawsuit by Bolton aide pic.twitter.com/MEl7x19s6a


I put the 'fun' in dysfunctional.

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#392

Post by SLQ » Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:56 pm

So I'm not really clear about Bolton's status in the lawsuit, but I'm reading the article. Here's this:
While not technically a party to the lawsuit, Mr. Bolton, who left his post in September after clashing with Mr. Trump, is represented by the same lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, and is taking the same position as Mr. Kupperman in waiting for the court to decide whether he should testify or not.


"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#393

Post by SLQ » Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:06 pm

This article seems to make it clear that it was Kupperman who filed the motion. Perhaps some in the media have leaped to the conclusion that because Kupperman's lawyer also represents Bolton, Bolton filed the motion. That appears, ahem, inaccurate:
Charles Kupperman, who stepped down last month as Trump’s deputy national security adviser, made the unusual request through his attorney in a 10-page motion that opposes Mick Mulvaney’s bid to sign on as an intervenor in his case.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/1 ... uit-069309

The article has a link to the motion.
PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE
Plaintiff Charles M. Kupperman respectfully opposes the motion to intervene submitted by
Acting Chief of Staff John Michael Mulvaney.
It was filed by "Counsel for Plaintiff Charles M. Kupperman."

Edit: Direct link to the motion: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e ... f762320000


"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5823
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#394

Post by Maybenaut » Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:26 pm

Thanks for that! I was worried that I might be losing my mind, because I thought if Bolton had intervened we would have heard about it.


"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#395

Post by SLQ » Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:47 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:26 pm
Thanks for that! I was worried that I might be losing my mind, because I thought if Bolton had intervened we would have heard about it.
I'm with you on the confusion. Kupperman's brief appears to blur the line slightly in one section:
Fourth, all of Plaintiff’s official duties exclusively concerned advising the President on
highly sensitive matters of national security and foreign affairs, and if any close personal advisor
to the President qualifies for testimonial immunity, it surely must be the President’s National
Security Advisor and his deputy.
But I checked on RECAP, and Kupperman is the only plaintiff.


"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 35977
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#396

Post by Addie » Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:50 pm

CNN
Judge shuts out public from Mick Mulvaney hearing on House impeachment subpoena

Washington (CNN)The public couldn't listen to a public court hearing Monday night over acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney's House impeachment subpoena, a federal judge in Washington said. Court security told three reporters from CNN, Bloomberg and The Washington Post to leave the DC federal courthouse minutes before the 5 p.m. ET start time for the hearing. The hearing, which was held over the phone, would not be open to the public and the judge was not in his chambers, according to court security guards who spoke to the judge's chambers Monday.

For a courthouse that has hosted dozens of major hearings about the President over the past two years, the judge's move is a confounding approach to a case with such noteworthy players and significance in the House's impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump -- a case that, in its essence, asks whether the White House chief of staff must speak publicly under oath.

About 80 minutes after the hearing began Monday, Mulvaney wrote in a new filing to the court that he now plans to file his own lawsuit over his House subpoena, acknowledging developments in the hearing without giving more explanation of what happened. He said, though, that he believes his case is still related to another impeachment witness who wants the court's intervention -- potentially keeping it before the same federal judge, Richard Leon of the DC District Court. Mulvaney will be suing House members and committees over whether he must testify. He did not appear for his scheduled House testimony Friday despite having received the subpoena.

The lawsuit originated with another recalcitrant impeachment witness, Charles Kupperman, a former White House national security official who asked the court to decide whether he must testify or follow the White House's assertion that he's immune. Mulvaney said he wanted a similar determination from the judge late Friday. But Kupperman's attorney, who also represents former national security adviser John Bolton, and the lawyers for the House have opposed Mulvaney joining the case. Leon said he would listen to arguments over the phone. "Because of the time-sensitive nature of the motion that is in dispute, the conference call is being held on a federal holiday, and the courthouse is closed," Leon wrote Monday.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 35977
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#397

Post by Addie » Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:55 pm

WaPo
White House infighting flares amid impeachment inquiry

A dispute erupts between Mulvaney and Cipollone camps over how to counter House Democrats’ impeachment push


The White House’s bifurcated and disjointed response to Democrats’ impeachment inquiry has been fueled by a fierce West Wing battle between two of President Trump’s top advisers, and the outcome of the messy skirmish could be on full display this week, according to White House and congressional officials.

Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney has urged aides not to comply with the inquiry and blocked any cooperation with congressional Democrats. Top political aides at the Office of Management and Budget, which Mulvaney once led, have fallen in line with his defiant stance, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk freely about the behind the scenes developments.

Mulvaney’s office blames White House counsel Pat Cipollone for not doing more to block other government officials from participating in the impeachment inquiry, as a number of State Department officials, diplomats, and an aide to Vice President Pence, have given sworn testimony to Congress.

Cipollone, meanwhile, has fumed that Mulvaney has only made matters worse with his Oct. 17 news conference, when he publicly acknowledged a quid pro quo, essentially confirming Democrats’ accusations in front of television cameras and reporters. Cipollone did not want Mulvaney to hold the news conference, a message that was passed along to the acting chief of staff’s office, according to two senior Trump advisers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. A Mulvaney aide said a team of White House lawyers prepared him for the news conference and never said he should not do it.

Neither Mulvaney nor Cipollone has broad experience navigating a White House through such a tumultuous period. But their actions have contributed to the White House’s increasingly tenuous response to the impeachment inquiry, where public hearings are set to begin Wednesday in the House. Despite the high stakes, the White House moved slowly to hire a staff specifically dedicated to working on the impeachment issue, a concern that was expressed to the White House by multiple GOP senators, Hill aides said.



User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6917
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#398

Post by Slim Cognito » Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:55 pm

Mulvaney aide said a team of White House lawyers prepared him for the news conference and never said he should not do it.

Considering trump's campaign immediately started selling "Get over it," merch, I think Mulvaney is on the underbus short list.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 35977
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#399

Post by Addie » Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:20 am

Axios
GOP to argue Trump's "state of mind" on impeachment :twisted:

Confronted with a mountain of damaging facts heading into tomorrow's opening of the public phase of impeachment, House Republicans plan to argue that "the President's state of mind" was exculpatory.

The state of play: "To appropriately understand the events in question — and most importantly, assess the President's state of mind during his interaction with [Ukrainian] President Zelensky — context is necessary," says the 18-page staff memo, circulated to committee members last night. ...

Go deeper: Read the memo.
Adding:
Daily Beast: After Baseless Trump Claim About Transcripts, Lawyer Says Sondland’s Is Fine

Sondland's lawyer said there was “no reason to believe” his client's testimony to congressional investigators was altered.
New York Mag - Jonathan Chait: Republican: You Can’t Impeach Trump for a Crime He Does ‘All the Time’
The Atlantic: Republicans Know Trump Is Innocent—They’re Trying to Figure Out Why

The three leading GOP defenses of the president contradict one another.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 35977
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#400

Post by Addie » Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:14 am

New York Times - Michelle Goldberg
To Exonerate Trump, Republicans Embrace Russian Disinformation

In this week’s impeachment hearings, expect a lot of G.O.P. conspiracy theorizing.


On Friday, House investigators released the transcript of the former National Security Council official Fiona Hill’s testimony from last month. It showed a Republican staff member trying and failing to get Hill to concede that there might be some validity to the conspiracy theories underlying Donald Trump’s demands of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.

“Are you familiar with the, you know, the allegation about Serhiy Leshchenko?” asked the Republican aide, Steve Castor. He added, “You know, relating to publicizing Manafort’s role in the Ukraine?”

Leshchenko, whom I interviewed in October, is a former member of Parliament in Ukraine and probably the most famous investigative journalist in the country. He helped expose the so-called black ledger that listed $12.7 million in secret payments to Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, from his client Viktor Yanukovych, the wildly corrupt Russian-aligned oligarch who ruled Ukraine until 2014. Manafort is in federal prison in part for failing to disclose or pay taxes on the millions he sucked out of Ukraine. Nevertheless, to make Trump’s demands of Zelensky seem just and rational, some Republicans have started painting Manafort as the victim of Leshchenko’s plotting.

Hill, a Russia expert and co-author of a psychological study of Vladimir Putin, tried to shut down this line of questioning. “The Ukrainian government did not interfere in the U.S. election,” she said, adding, “The Ukrainian Special Services also did not interfere in our election.” As the Republican questions continued, Hill seems to have grown almost indignant. “I’m really worried about these conspiracy theories, and I’m worried that all of you are going to go down a rabbit hole, you know, looking for things that are not going to be at all helpful to the American people or to our future election in 2020,” she said.



Post Reply

Return to “Impeachment”