White House Impeachment Response Strategy

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8011
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#826

Post by Slim Cognito »

When he's inevitably acquitted, he'll say he was never impeached. And his idiots will believe it.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 38924
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#827

Post by Addie »

Mediaite
Doug Collins, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and More Joining Trump Defense Team

The Trump impeachment trial team is adding a number of Republican House members to their ranks.

Tonight Fox News broke news that that following Republican congressmembers will be on the legal team:

Jim Jordan
Doug Collins
Debbie Lesko
Mark Meadows
John Ratcliffe
Elise Stefanik
Lee Zeldin
Mike Johnson

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8011
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#828

Post by Slim Cognito »

Has Nunes been demoted to Rudy`s co-scapegoat?
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 38924
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#829

Post by Addie »

Salon - Digby: Meet the goon squad: Donald Trump's defense team is amazing — but not in a good way

Christian fanatics, TV showboats and corrupt clowns: Trump and his lawyers clearly deserve each other
Adding:
Business Insider: Trump's impeachment team is so worried that John Bolton could sink his defense that it has drawn up plans to make him testify behind closed doors

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 10093
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#830

Post by GreatGrey »

Trump has bullied 14 or so state GOP organizations to not allow any primary challenges. In many of those states the filing deadline has passed.

So let’s say Trump actually is found guilty & removed, ineligible to hold any federal office.

What would happen then, no GOP candidate?

That would be something to see, the mad scramble to change state candidate filing statutes.
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 3514
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#831

Post by Turtle »

GreatGrey wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:25 am
Trump has bullied 14 or so state GOP organizations to not allow any primary challenges. In many of those states the filing deadline has passed.

So let’s say Trump actually is found guilty & removed, ineligible to hold any federal office.

What would happen then, no GOP candidate?

That would be something to see, the mad scramble to change state candidate filing statutes.
The RNC could still nominate someone at the convention.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 24437
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#832

Post by RTH10260 »

Turtle wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:57 pm
GreatGrey wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:25 am
Trump has bullied 14 or so state GOP organizations to not allow any primary challenges. In many of those states the filing deadline has passed.

So let’s say Trump actually is found guilty & removed, ineligible to hold any federal office.

What would happen then, no GOP candidate?

That would be something to see, the mad scramble to change state candidate filing statutes.
The RNC could still nominate someone at the convention.
It seems to me that they would be stuck with Pence to start with. :sick: Would Pence be in a position to do something remarkable in his own name in the coming months, to be remembered as more than a sleeping figure in the shadow of Great Leader?

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 3514
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#833

Post by Turtle »

RTH10260 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:00 pm
Turtle wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:57 pm
GreatGrey wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:25 am
Trump has bullied 14 or so state GOP organizations to not allow any primary challenges. In many of those states the filing deadline has passed.

So let’s say Trump actually is found guilty & removed, ineligible to hold any federal office.

What would happen then, no GOP candidate?

That would be something to see, the mad scramble to change state candidate filing statutes.
The RNC could still nominate someone at the convention.
It seems to me that they would be stuck with Pence to start with. :sick: Would Pence be in a position to do something remarkable in his own name in the coming months, to be remembered as more than a sleeping figure in the shadow of Great Leader?
I think Pence as a last resort would only happen in the late summer if Trump got disqualified after the convention. There was actually some serious talk about changing the ticket in 2016 after the Access Hollywood tape. If they nominate their ticket from the convention floor, it would be something like Kasich and Haley.

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#834

Post by AndyinPA »

:eek2:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 38924
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#835

Post by Addie »

Cross-posting
NBC News: McConnell makes last-minute, handwritten changes to Trump impeachment trial rules

The sudden revision in the Senate's organizing resolution also ensures House Democrats' evidence will be admitted.

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#836

Post by Gregg »

Turtle wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:43 pm
RTH10260 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:00 pm
Turtle wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:57 pm


The RNC could still nominate someone at the convention.
It seems to me that they would be stuck with Pence to start with. :sick: Would Pence be in a position to do something remarkable in his own name in the coming months, to be remembered as more than a sleeping figure in the shadow of Great Leader?
I think Pence as a last resort would only happen in the late summer if Trump got disqualified after the convention. There was actually some serious talk about changing the ticket in 2016 after the Access Hollywood tape. If they nominate their ticket from the convention floor, it would be something like Kasich and Haley.

I doubt it would be safe for John Kasich to show up at the GOP Convention and I'm not real sure he'd accept the nomination if they offered.
Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 38924
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#837

Post by Addie »

Associated Press
AP FACT CHECK: Trump defense misrepresents Mueller findings

WASHINGTON (AP) — In opening arguments of the impeachment trial, President Donald Trump’s defense misrepresented the findings of a special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election by claiming the president was cleared of obstruction of justice.

A look at some of his legal team’s claims Tuesday during debate on the format of the Senate trial:

JAY SEKULOW, on special counsel Robert Mueller: “We had the invocation of the ghost of the Mueller report. I know something about that report. It came up empty on the issue of collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction, in fact.”

THE FACTS: He’s wrong to suggest that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report cleared the Trump campaign of collusion with Russia. Nor did the report exonerate Trump on the question of whether he obstructed justice.

Instead, the report factually laid out instances in which Trump might have obstructed justice, leaving it open for Congress to take up the matter or for prosecutors to do so once Trump leaves office.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared after the report was released.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 38924
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#838

Post by Addie »

WaPo - Dana Milbank
And the White House defense is ... well, there isn’t one ...

Why such a hurry? The answer became apparent as soon as Trump’s lawyers opened their mouths for the first time during the impeachment proceedings.

They shouted. They spouted invective. They launched personal attacks against the impeachment managers. But they offered virtually nothing in defense of the president’s conduct, nor anything but a passing reference to Ukraine.

“These Articles of Impeachment … are not only ridiculous, they are dangerous to our republic,” declared Cipollone.

“It's ridiculous,” he added.

“It's ridiculous! It's ridiculous,” he repeated, for those who may have missed the point.

“They’re here to steal two elections — it’s buried in the small print of their ridiculous articles of impeachment,” he alleged.

Cipollone closed with a request to “end this ridiculous charade.”

But he didn’t rest his case there. He and his colleagues built on this playground-worthy argument: “Outrageous!” “No crime!” “No case!” “False allegations!” “Concocted!” “Hypocrisy!” “They don’t have the guts!” “A complete fake!”

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 38924
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#839

Post by Addie »

The Hill
Pompeo willing to testify in impeachment trial if 'legally required'

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Wednesday that he would testify in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump if compelled by law.

“If I am legally required to testify, as I’ve said before, I’d be happy to do it,” the secretary said when asked during a press conference alongside Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness during a visit to Kingston.

Pompeo also said he hasn’t been following the impeachment trial when asked by a reporter.

Pompeo has avoided the opening proceedings of the impeachment trial. He embarked on a cross-global trip Saturday that included an international conference on Libya in Berlin and diplomatic stops in South and Central America and the Caribbean.

The question of whether to call witnesses and which ones will be left to the end of the first phase of the impeachment trial and will require a simple majority for consensus.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 38924
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#840

Post by Addie »

Politico
Trump disrupts Republican trial strategy

But GOP senators rebuffed the president's suggestion to bring in new witnesses.


Just five hours after Senate Republicans carefully assembled and passed an impeachment trial framework that could clear Donald Trump by next week, the president himself delivered an unwanted surprise to the GOP: The prospect of a longer trial with lots of witnesses.

Senate Republicans have been publicly and privately maneuvering to give Trump as quick an acquittal as possible while still keeping 51 GOP senators on board. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has largely thrown cold water on the idea of hearing from new witnesses and many of his members are eager to end the trial, not extend it.

In interviews Wednesday morning ahead of House managers’ opening arguments, Republicans empathized with the president’s call for new testimony. But they also said that they will tune out any outside noise if they can — including the running commentary from a president who demands party loyalty — and potentially wrap up the trial far more quickly than Trump desires. ...

As a president who both wants to fight the charges against him while simultaneously arguing the “country has to get back to business,” Trump is sending his party mixed messages ahead of a critical point next week on whether to call witnesses. And that’s because the president himself is conflicted about how to handle the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history, allies say. ...

And though Trump ultimately left the question of how to handle the trial to the Senate, he made clear how he feels about whether to wind down the trial as quickly as possible: “Personally, I would rather go the long route.”

However, in an interview with Fox News later in the day, Trump then asserted “it would be very bad for the Republican Party if we lost that great unity that we have right now” by voting with Democrats for witnesses.
Also:
Politico: Matt Gaetz sees 'brush back' in being kept off Trump's impeachment team

The firebrand Trump ally thinks he may have been snubbed by a White House official for voting to rein in the president's war powers.

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#841

Post by AndyinPA »

Is that last sentence a threat?
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 3421
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#842

Post by p0rtia »

No, it's a bluff. He's bullshitting about wanting witnesses. His little habit of taking both sides of every issue, so that he can claim he is on the other side when need be--and claim that, when things go wrong, he told them so.

That is his sole management tactic.
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 16014
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#843

Post by kate520 »

I’m disappointed that of all the things trump deserves to be impeached for, Ukraine is it. I’m not saying it’s nothing, but the Republican voters don’t care, most probably think that IS the way all presidents do business. They parrot the talking points and blame Dems.

This whole Khashoggi/Bezos/KUSHNER plot with Saudi nuclear implications has drifted away, apparently. Maybe the latest revelations will revive the story but i doubt it. Stories like this, imho, are also impeachment-worthy.
The Trump administration approved two nuclear technology transfers to Saudi Arabia after the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, according to Democratic lawmakers who reviewed documents related to the deals, which they oppose.

The news Tuesday is the latest outrage for Congress, which has grown increasingly frustrated with the Saudis and especially President Donald Trump's defense of the kingdom after its war in Yemen and Khashoggi's brutal slaying by Saudi agents inside its consulate in Istanbul.

In particular, lawmakers have expressed concern about Saudi Arabia's pursuit of nuclear weapons and a lack of oversight on these agreements. But much of the ire also is focused on the Trump administration for moving ahead on high-level deals with the Saudis after a U.S. resident was murdered.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-a ... d=63492793

Or this:
However many Ukraine whistleblowers there may or may not be, Cockburn’s source says that at least one of the (purported) seven has nothing to do with Ukraine at all. Instead, it’s claimed that this whistleblower reported a call between Trump and the Saudi ruler, Mohammed bin Salman. He or she is said to have had ‘concerns’ about what was said on the call about the president’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner. Kushner himself is known to have a very close relationship with MBS. Cockburn has previously written that Kushner may have been what Cosmo would call an ‘oversharer’ when it came to MBS. Unfortunately, it’s claimed that what he was sharing was American secrets: information Kushner had requested from the CIA would (allegedly) be echoed back in US intercepts of calls between members of the Saudi royal family. One source said this was why Kushner lost his intelligence clearances for a while.

According to Cockburn’s source about the seven whistleblowers, there’s more. It is that Kushner (allegedly) gave the green light to MBS to arrest the dissident journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, who was later murdered and dismembered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. A second source tells Cockburn that this is true and adds a crucial twist to the story. This source claims that Turkish intelligence obtained an intercept of the call between Kushner and MBS. And President Erdogan used it to get Trump to roll over and pull American troops out of northern Syria before the Turks invaded. A White House official has told the Daily Mail that this story is ‘false nonsense’. However, Cockburn hears that investigators for the House Intelligence Committee are looking into it. Who knows whether any of this is true…but Adam Schiff certainly seems to be smiling a lot these days.
https://spectator.us/seven-whistleblowe ... in-salman/

Kushner is a sneak and a snake. He’s trumps plausible deniability, his felonious factotum, his back channel swimmer. I mean, that the president*’s son-in-law is possibly implicated in an assasination is...not bigger news? Where am I? A world beyond my wildest imagination, prior to 2016.
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 8497
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#844

Post by Estiveo »

Trump's defense flowchart just leaked: Sekrit Stuffs!
Screenshot_20200123_102037.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8011
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#845

Post by Slim Cognito »

We have a winner!
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 38924
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#846

Post by Addie »

Reuters: Trump will have hard time blocking potential Bolton trial testimony
Don't do stupid shit. -Barack Obama

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#847

Post by AndyinPA »

I don't see how he can legally claim executive privilege in an impeachment at all.
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 3421
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#848

Post by p0rtia »

HI Andy. I don't think legality is a consideration for Republicans at this point.

#lifeintheautocracy
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#849

Post by Gregg »

Addie wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:36 pm
The Hill
Pompeo willing to testify in impeachment trial if 'legally required'

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Wednesday that he would testify in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump if compelled by law.

“If I am legally required to testify, as I’ve said before, I’d be happy to do it,” the secretary said when asked during a press conference alongside Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness during a visit to Kingston.

Pompeo also said he hasn’t been following the impeachment trial when asked by a reporter.

Pompeo has avoided the opening proceedings of the impeachment trial. He embarked on a cross-global trip Saturday that included an international conference on Libya in Berlin and diplomatic stops in South and Central America and the Caribbean.

The question of whether to call witnesses and which ones will be left to the end of the first phase of the impeachment trial and will require a simple majority for consensus.

And if Frogs had wings they wouldn't need to hop. For the administration, "legally required" is a phrase that exists only in theory and would require at least 20 years to establish.
Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 38924
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: White House Impeachment Response Strategy

#850

Post by Addie »

WaPo - Jennifer Rubin
The honest Trump defense that is too embarrassing to advance

House impeachment managers have demonstrated through a painstaking presentation of facts and law that: 1) President Trump wanted a foreign government to help him win reelection by announcing an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden; 2) there was no legitimate basis for such an investigation into the Bidens or the Crowdstrike conspiracy, as his own advisers admit, but served only Trump’s egotistical and political interests; 3) Trump ordered military aid held up in violation of law in an effort to pressure Ukraine and to the detriment of United States’ foreign policy; 4) His own officials knew this was wrong and began a coverup (e.g., moving the July transcript to a classified server); and 5) Trump refused to cooperate with the impeachment proceedings in any way, instructing administration officials to refuse to respond to any subpoenas without asserting executive privilege.

Republicans can pretend they did not hear the mountain of evidence in support of each of these points. They can pretend there is contradictory evidence (where?), though that would require them to allow definitive evidence in the form of new witnesses and documents. They can argue that abuse of power is not impeachable, but that is legally preposterous and dangerous. So what to do?

They could simply lie, as many are doing. (No facts! You need a crime!) That works for red-state senators who are shameless and operate entirely within the right-wing media bubble. But what’s the strategy for politically vulnerable senators who know the facts against Trump are irrefutable, his conduct was impeachable, and that the president has provided no legitimate defense? ...

There is actually an obvious and possibly accurate defense that no Republican senator dare advance. It goes like this: The president has never understood that there is a difference between his political/personal interests and national security. Trump has a narcissistic personality so he cannot intentionally betray the country for his own benefit because he thinks they are one and the same. He is also highly ignorant and malleable, so he will believe any illogical conspiracy theory that Russian President Vladimir Putin advances and/or that serves his interests. No matter how many times he was told that Ukraine did not interfere with our election, or that aid to Ukraine was in the United States’ interest, or that he could not stop aid in violation of law, he could not mentally process such information. He believed that advisers who told him such things were weak or out to get him. In other words, Trump is so mentally and emotionally defective, he cannot understand the import of his actions or concepts such as right vs. wrong, true vs. false and personal vs. national interests. As for obstruction, his lawyer told him to refuse to give up anything, so he simply took that advice.

That might all be true. But, of course, it also posits that Trump is entirely unfit to carry out his job and lacks the capacity to adhere to an oath that requires him to put the nation’s interests above his own. It would mean Republicans are keeping in power and urging the reelection of a dangerous, unfit and deeply damaged personality because they are afraid of him or afraid of his base, which has imbibed the lies perpetrated by right-wing media.
Don't do stupid shit. -Barack Obama

Post Reply

Return to “Impeachment”