RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
The News In Cartoons
US Politics
- Thread starter RabzonKhan
- Start date
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Joe Biden holds a strong lead among black voters, new poll conducted by the Washington Post/Ipsos shows.
Trump on the other hand trails all Democrats in a hypothetical head to head matchup in the poll, he only has support of 4 to 5% black voters.
Former vice president Joe Biden is far and away the favored candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination among black Americans, boosted by his personal popularity, his service in the Obama administration and perceptions that he is best equipped to defeat President Trump, according to a national Washington Post-Ipsos poll.
The results, highlighting the views of a group that historically has played a significant role in determining the outcome of the Democratic nominating contest, help to explain the enduring strength of Biden’s candidacy. Despite questions about his age, his past positions on forced school busing and his relationships with Southern segregationist senators, the poll shows that 48 percent of black Democrats favor him for the nomination — a 28-point advantage over Sanders.
Biden “is the candidate that can try to get this country back on track, because we are way out of control,” said Eula Woodberry, a retired school district budget analyst in Dallas, where she still lives. “He’s levelheaded. I think he’s experienced, and I think he will look at the big picture. . . . He’s the type of person who can serve as the nucleus to bring people back together.”
Edward Phillips, 52, a former legal assistant who lives in New York City, called Biden a “known face,” adding, “You know he was vice president under [President Barack] Obama. You know his experience. I trust him. I believe him. I think he’s the only person among the Democrats who can defeat Trump.”
The survey, conducted by The Post and the nonpartisan research firm Ipsos, is one of the most extensive studies to date of views on the 2020 campaign among black voters, who, like other minority groups, are often represented by only small samples in customary national polls. It was conducted among 1,088 non-Hispanic black adults, including 900 registered voters, drawn from a large online survey panel recruited through random sampling of U.S. households. Read more
Trump on the other hand trails all Democrats in a hypothetical head to head matchup in the poll, he only has support of 4 to 5% black voters.
Former vice president Joe Biden is far and away the favored candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination among black Americans, boosted by his personal popularity, his service in the Obama administration and perceptions that he is best equipped to defeat President Trump, according to a national Washington Post-Ipsos poll.
The results, highlighting the views of a group that historically has played a significant role in determining the outcome of the Democratic nominating contest, help to explain the enduring strength of Biden’s candidacy. Despite questions about his age, his past positions on forced school busing and his relationships with Southern segregationist senators, the poll shows that 48 percent of black Democrats favor him for the nomination — a 28-point advantage over Sanders.
Biden “is the candidate that can try to get this country back on track, because we are way out of control,” said Eula Woodberry, a retired school district budget analyst in Dallas, where she still lives. “He’s levelheaded. I think he’s experienced, and I think he will look at the big picture. . . . He’s the type of person who can serve as the nucleus to bring people back together.”
Edward Phillips, 52, a former legal assistant who lives in New York City, called Biden a “known face,” adding, “You know he was vice president under [President Barack] Obama. You know his experience. I trust him. I believe him. I think he’s the only person among the Democrats who can defeat Trump.”
The survey, conducted by The Post and the nonpartisan research firm Ipsos, is one of the most extensive studies to date of views on the 2020 campaign among black voters, who, like other minority groups, are often represented by only small samples in customary national polls. It was conducted among 1,088 non-Hispanic black adults, including 900 registered voters, drawn from a large online survey panel recruited through random sampling of U.S. households. Read more
PeaceGen
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,889
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Trump readies impeachment defense with eye on scoring political wins
Pat Cipollone, the top White House lawyer, spent the weekend working from his office on the second floor of the West Wing, preparing to defend a client who, at one point, was on the second floor of the executive residence suggesting the impeachment charges against him should be dismissed outright.
Local : 2020-01-13(Monday) 21:02:10
Found via nicer.app/news
Pat Cipollone, the top White House lawyer, spent the weekend working from his office on the second floor of the West Wing, preparing to defend a client who, at one point, was on the second floor of the executive residence suggesting the impeachment charges against him should be dismissed outright.
Local : 2020-01-13(Monday) 21:02:10
Found via nicer.app/news
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Senate opens impeachment trial against President Trump: Chief Justice John Roberts sworn in
Bart Jansen Christal Hayes and Nicholas Wu
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn in Thursday to preside over the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
Roberts, wearing his black judicial robe, was escorted into the chamber by four senators. The two Republicans were Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the chairman of the Rules Committee, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The Democrats were Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the longest-serving senator, and Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
“Senators I attend the Senate in conformity with your notice for the purpose of joining with you for the trial of the president of the United States," Roberts said after arriving. “I am now prepared to take the oath."
The longest-serving Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, administered the oath to Roberts. "God bless you," Grassley said afterward. "Thank you," Roberts replied.
A roll call of senators sitting at their mahogany desks was held before Roberts arrived. After he was sworn in, Roberts recited the trial oath to swear in senators, who stood at their desks and raised their right hands.
"Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?" Roberts asked.
"I do," senators replied in unison. Senators were then called in alphabetical order by their last names to sign the oath book.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., recited unanimous agreements setting deadlines for trial documents. The House has until 5 p.m. Saturday to file its trial brief, the White House until noon Monday to file its trial brief and the House until noon Tuesday to file its rebuttal.
"The Senate sitting as court of impeachment is adjourned until Tuesday Jan. 21 at 1 p.m.," Roberts said in gaveling the session closed.
Seven House lawmakers, who are called managers and who will prosecute the case against Trump, carried the articles of impeachment to the Senate on Thursday and read the charges aloud to formally begin the third trial of a sitting president.
The House managers were recognized at 12:06 p.m. and were escorted to the well of the Senate. The lead manager, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., then read the articles aloud as senators sat at their mahogany desks.
Senators find ceremonial start to trial 'sobering'
Feinstein said after the 15-minute session it felt “sobering” to sit on the floor as Schiff spoke.
“Until you're in that chamber and it's totally filled, and there's something stark and unusual before you, it’s sort of business as usual,” she said. “And then you go in to this stark and unusual procedure. And it's a very major endeavor.”
Many senators studiously took notes on yellow legal pads or notebooks from their desks.
“They help me remember the information that's being presented," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. "I was a note taker in school so I like to write as I listen."
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., also jotted down notes, explaining that they could come in handy later – both for her and her colleagues.
“I was just writing everything down because this is important proceeding. I'm a lawyer, former prosecutor,” Klobuchar said. “I like to write notes and one of the things you find out when you write everything down is then everyone comes over and says, ‘What did they just say.’”
One of the managers, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said after returning to the House that it wouldn't be a proper trial without calling witnesses. Senators aren't expected to make a decision about calling witnesses until after the House managers and White House lawyers give their opening arguments and senators pose written questions.
“I hope the senators have open minds, but the proof is so airtight,” Nadler said. “The fact that they are seriously saying they don’t want to hear witnesses and they may not want to hear witnesses, is a sign that they are trying to conduct a cover up."
The ceremonial start of the trial came amid heightened security throughout the Capitol. As the managers carried the articles through the Rotunda, the area beneath the central dome that is typically full of tourists on a weekday, was entirely cleared of people except for reporters and a few lawmakers who came to watch.
Security was tightened as the impeachment articles made their way from the House to the Senate for a second time. Many more Capitol Police stood guard in the corridors, some of whom did random checks of press badges for reporters.
Pelosi: Trump administration 'broke law'
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., cited a government watchdog report Thursday for finding that the Trump administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) violated federal law by withholding congressionally approved military aid for Ukraine.
“The OMB, the White House, the administration – I'm saying this – broke the law," Pelosi said.
Trump withheld $391 million from Ukraine, while urging that country to investigate his political rival, which became a central element of the articles of impeachment against the president. The Government Accountability Office report found that because the money was suspended for a policy reason rather than a programmatic reason, that it wasn't allowed under the Impoundment Control Act.
Trump has said he was justified in fighting corruption in Ukraine.
"This reinforces again the need for documents and eyewitnesses in the Senate," Pelosi said.
Read more
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Moscow Mitch is shamelessly doing everything to undermine the impeachment trial. Without documents and witnesses is not a trial, it’s a cover-up.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
During the 2016 election "very stable genius" promised that if he becomes the president the world will respect us and no one will dare to laugh at the us.
He also once tweeted back in 2014:
The world laughs at him:
Our NATO allies laughs at him:
Our enemies laughs at him:
He also once tweeted back in 2014:
The world laughs at him:
Our NATO allies laughs at him:
Our enemies laughs at him:
Last edited:
Pakistani Fighter
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2011
- Messages
- 9,124
- Reaction score
- -5
Republicans have more members in Senate. How will impeachment trial begin?During the 2016 election "very stable genius" promised that if he becomes the president the world will respect us and no one will dare to laugh at the us.
He also once tweeted back in 2014:
The world laughs at him:
Our NATO allies laughs at him:
Our enemies laughs at him:
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate already kicked off on January 16.
Here’s how it works:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...hment-trial-process-how-the-rules-work-098226
-=virus=-
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 7,262
- Reaction score
- -44
- Country
- Location
He's headed to and for a landslide win in November, watch !
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Adam Schiff’s rocks, his brilliant presentation is crushing Trump defense.
"Donald Trump must be convicted and removed from office.
Because he will always choose his own personal interest over our national interest.
Because in America, right matters. Truth matters.
If not, no Constitution can protect us.
If not, we are lost."
"Donald Trump must be convicted and removed from office.
Because he will always choose his own personal interest over our national interest.
Because in America, right matters. Truth matters.
If not, no Constitution can protect us.
If not, we are lost."
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Judge Andrew Napolitano is a senior judicial analyst at the Fox News, also known as Trump News.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump's Senate impeachment trial -- What does it take to remove a president?
I don't blame President Trump for his angst and bitterness over his impeachment by the House of Representatives. In his mind, he has done "nothing wrong" and not acted outside the constitutional powers vested in him and so his impeachment should not have come to pass. He believes that the president can legally extract personal concessions from the recipients of foreign aid, and he also believes that he can legally order his subordinates to ignore congressional subpoenas.
Hence, his public denunciations of his Senate trial as a charade, a joke and a hoax. His trial is not a charade or a joke or a hoax. It is deadly serious business based on well-established constitutional norms.
The House of Representatives -- in proceedings in which the president chose not to participate -- impeached Trump for abuse of power and contempt of Congress. The abuse consists of his efforts to extract a personal political "favor" from the president of Ukraine as a precondition to the delivery of $391 million in military aid. The favor he wanted was an announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden and his son Hunter.
The Government Accountability Office -- a nonpartisan entity in the federal government that monitors how the feds spend tax revenue -- has concluded that Trump's request for a favor was a violation of law because only Congress can impose conditions on government expenditures. So, when the president did that, he usurped Congress' role and acted unlawfully.
But, did he act criminally? Is it constitutionally necessary for the House to point to a specific federal crime committed by the president in order to impeach him and trigger a Senate trial?
The Constitution prescribes the bases for impeachment as treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. However, this use of the word "crimes" does not refer to violations of federal criminal statutes. It refers to behavior that is so destructive of the constitutional order that it is the moral equivalent of statutory crimes.
For example, as others have suggested, if the president moved to Russia and ran the executive branch from there, or if he announced that Roman Catholics were unfit for office, he would not have committed any crimes. Yet, surely, these acts would be impeachable because, when done by the president, they are the moral equivalent of crimes and are so far removed from constitutional norms as to be impeachable.
In Trump's case, though the House chose delicately not to accuse the president of specific crimes, there is enough evidence here to do so. Federal election laws proscribe as criminal the mere solicitation of help for a political campaign from a foreign national or government. There is no dispute that Trump did this. In fact, the case for this is stronger now than it was when the House impeached him last year. Since then, more evidence, which Trump tried to suppress, has come to light.
That evidence consists of administration officials' emails that were obtained by the media pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Those emails demonstrate conclusively that Trump ordered a halt on the release of the $391 million within minutes of his favor request, and the aid sat undistributed until congressional pressure became too much for Trump to bear.
This implicates two other crimes. One is bribery -- the refusal to perform a government obligation until a thing of value is delivered, whether the thing of value -- here, the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens -- arrives or not. The other is contempt of Congress.
If the request for the announcement of an investigation of the Bidens manifested "nothing wrong" as Trump has claimed, why did he whisper it in secret, rather than order it of the Department of Justice?
When the House Select Committee on Intelligence sought the emails unearthed by the press and then sought testimony from their authors, Trump thumbed his nose at the House. Instead of complying with House subpoenas or challenging them in court, Trump's folks threw them in a drawer. Earlier this week, his lawyers argued that those actions were lawful and that they imposed a burden on the House to seek the aid of the courts in enforcing House subpoenas.
Such an argument puts the cart before the horse. Under the Constitution, the House has "the sole power of impeachment." The House does not need the approval of the judiciary to obtain evidence of impeachable offenses from executive branch officials.
We know that obstruction of Congress is a crime. Just ask former New York Yankees pitching great Roger Clemens, who was tried for it and acquitted. We also know that obstruction of Congress -- by ordering subordinates not to comply with House impeachment subpoenas -- is an impeachable offense. We know that because the House Judiciary Committee voted to charge President Nixon with obstruction of Congress when he refused to comply with subpoenas. And the full House voted for an article of impeachment against President Clinton when he refused to surrender subpoenaed evidence.
Where does all this leave us at the outset of Trump's Senate trial?
It leaves us with valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment that he ought to take seriously. That is, unless he knows he will be acquitted because Republican senators have told him so. Whoever may have whispered that into his ear is unworthy of sitting as a juror and has violated the oath of "impartial justice" and fidelity to the Constitution and the law.
What is required for removal of the president? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Source
But on a serious note, it’s too early to predict the outcome. The 2020 election hinges on several factors. Here are some of the issues I consider crucial: Health care and climate change have emerged as the top issues for voters, both of these issues benefits Democrats, in the midterm 2018 elections Democrat’s main issue was healthcare and that won them 40 seats in the House.
What if the economy slows down or worse goes into recession?
What if there’s a high voter turnout among Democrats?
Many critical swing states; Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin had lost manufacturing jobs in 2019, would they recover this year before the election?
And of course, there are a host of other issues that will determine the outcome of 2020 election.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump's Senate impeachment trial -- What does it take to remove a president?
I don't blame President Trump for his angst and bitterness over his impeachment by the House of Representatives. In his mind, he has done "nothing wrong" and not acted outside the constitutional powers vested in him and so his impeachment should not have come to pass. He believes that the president can legally extract personal concessions from the recipients of foreign aid, and he also believes that he can legally order his subordinates to ignore congressional subpoenas.
Hence, his public denunciations of his Senate trial as a charade, a joke and a hoax. His trial is not a charade or a joke or a hoax. It is deadly serious business based on well-established constitutional norms.
The House of Representatives -- in proceedings in which the president chose not to participate -- impeached Trump for abuse of power and contempt of Congress. The abuse consists of his efforts to extract a personal political "favor" from the president of Ukraine as a precondition to the delivery of $391 million in military aid. The favor he wanted was an announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden and his son Hunter.
The Government Accountability Office -- a nonpartisan entity in the federal government that monitors how the feds spend tax revenue -- has concluded that Trump's request for a favor was a violation of law because only Congress can impose conditions on government expenditures. So, when the president did that, he usurped Congress' role and acted unlawfully.
But, did he act criminally? Is it constitutionally necessary for the House to point to a specific federal crime committed by the president in order to impeach him and trigger a Senate trial?
The Constitution prescribes the bases for impeachment as treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. However, this use of the word "crimes" does not refer to violations of federal criminal statutes. It refers to behavior that is so destructive of the constitutional order that it is the moral equivalent of statutory crimes.
For example, as others have suggested, if the president moved to Russia and ran the executive branch from there, or if he announced that Roman Catholics were unfit for office, he would not have committed any crimes. Yet, surely, these acts would be impeachable because, when done by the president, they are the moral equivalent of crimes and are so far removed from constitutional norms as to be impeachable.
In Trump's case, though the House chose delicately not to accuse the president of specific crimes, there is enough evidence here to do so. Federal election laws proscribe as criminal the mere solicitation of help for a political campaign from a foreign national or government. There is no dispute that Trump did this. In fact, the case for this is stronger now than it was when the House impeached him last year. Since then, more evidence, which Trump tried to suppress, has come to light.
That evidence consists of administration officials' emails that were obtained by the media pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Those emails demonstrate conclusively that Trump ordered a halt on the release of the $391 million within minutes of his favor request, and the aid sat undistributed until congressional pressure became too much for Trump to bear.
This implicates two other crimes. One is bribery -- the refusal to perform a government obligation until a thing of value is delivered, whether the thing of value -- here, the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens -- arrives or not. The other is contempt of Congress.
If the request for the announcement of an investigation of the Bidens manifested "nothing wrong" as Trump has claimed, why did he whisper it in secret, rather than order it of the Department of Justice?
When the House Select Committee on Intelligence sought the emails unearthed by the press and then sought testimony from their authors, Trump thumbed his nose at the House. Instead of complying with House subpoenas or challenging them in court, Trump's folks threw them in a drawer. Earlier this week, his lawyers argued that those actions were lawful and that they imposed a burden on the House to seek the aid of the courts in enforcing House subpoenas.
Such an argument puts the cart before the horse. Under the Constitution, the House has "the sole power of impeachment." The House does not need the approval of the judiciary to obtain evidence of impeachable offenses from executive branch officials.
We know that obstruction of Congress is a crime. Just ask former New York Yankees pitching great Roger Clemens, who was tried for it and acquitted. We also know that obstruction of Congress -- by ordering subordinates not to comply with House impeachment subpoenas -- is an impeachable offense. We know that because the House Judiciary Committee voted to charge President Nixon with obstruction of Congress when he refused to comply with subpoenas. And the full House voted for an article of impeachment against President Clinton when he refused to surrender subpoenaed evidence.
Where does all this leave us at the outset of Trump's Senate trial?
It leaves us with valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment that he ought to take seriously. That is, unless he knows he will be acquitted because Republican senators have told him so. Whoever may have whispered that into his ear is unworthy of sitting as a juror and has violated the oath of "impartial justice" and fidelity to the Constitution and the law.
What is required for removal of the president? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Source
Ok buddy, maybe you have a crystal ball, I certainly don’t.
But on a serious note, it’s too early to predict the outcome. The 2020 election hinges on several factors. Here are some of the issues I consider crucial: Health care and climate change have emerged as the top issues for voters, both of these issues benefits Democrats, in the midterm 2018 elections Democrat’s main issue was healthcare and that won them 40 seats in the House.
What if the economy slows down or worse goes into recession?
What if there’s a high voter turnout among Democrats?
Many critical swing states; Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin had lost manufacturing jobs in 2019, would they recover this year before the election?
And of course, there are a host of other issues that will determine the outcome of 2020 election.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Bombshell news: Excellent news at the right time By the New York Times. The news story has shaken up Trump’s impeachment hearing, Trump and his cronies in the Senate are in a panic mode. No doubt New York Times is one of the best American newspaper.
Here We Have It. The Trump Impeachment Smoking Gun.
A report about a book by John Bolton makes the president’s Republican defenders look like liars and fools. Maybe they’ll be fine with that.
By Jonathan Bernstein
January 27, 2020
President Donald Trump’s team opened its impeachment-trial defense in the Senate on Saturday morning. I was wrong about how the president’s lawyers would go about the job. I had suspected that they would use a tantrum to rally Republicans to their side, but it turned out that Republican Senators had their tantrum late Friday night when they chose to be outraged that the lead House impeachment manager, Representative Adam Schiff of California, referred to a (somewhat thinly sourced) news report that someone at the White House had threatened that Trump would have the “head on a pike” of any Republican who opposed him.
Trump’s lawyers began with a misstep, rehashing their flimsy claim that there’s some kind of significance to the fact that Schiff paraphrased, instead of directly quoting, the words Trump used in the July 25 phone call in which he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to participate in a smear of a leading Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
But they didn’t rely on emotion in their presentation. Instead, they did what defense attorneys do. They floated alternative interpretations of the evidence the House managers, serving as prosecutors in the Senate trial, had presented in support of the articles of impeachment accusing Trump of abusing his power by trying to coerce that country’s interference on his behalf in his 2020 re-election effort. They pointed out that some of the witnesses who testified on the House side were not entirely reliable on some questions. And they added a bunch of mostly irrelevant points, such as the administration’s overall support for Ukraine (which in fact only makes Trump’s decisions to pause congressionally approved military aid and refuse to schedule an Oval Office meeting with Zelenskiy harder to understand as anything but elements of a pressure campaign) and the fact that previous presidents had also put foreign aid on hold (which no one denies, but the question is why it happened this time).
I’m not sure I’d call the first few hours of their presentation strong, but then again if they are constrained by their client to pretend that the Zelenskiy call was “perfect,” they have a difficult hand to play. It could have been worse.
And then, Sunday night, it fell apart. The New York Times reported that former National Security Adviser John Bolton has written in his upcoming book that Trump made explicit the quid pro quo that his lawyers are denying: that Trump told him directly that he wanted to keep the military aid frozen until the Ukrainian government agreed to help with investigations of Democrats. Not only that, but apparently the White House has had Bolton’s manuscript all month. Trump’s team knew this was coming.
While I certainly don’t expect the president’s support in Congress to collapse, it’s impossible not to see close parallels to the “smoking gun” tape that ended Richard Nixon’s presidency in 1974. That tape, proving that Nixon ordered his staff to have the Central Intelligence Agency block the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s inquiry into the Watergate scandal and released to Congress and the public after the House Judiciary Committee had passed articles of impeachment, was so devastating for Nixon not so much because it was proof of his crimes; plenty of proof of plenty of crimes had long since been placed in the record. Instead, it became the moment when conservative Republicans realized that Nixon had deliberately set them up with false arguments even though Nixon knew that the evidence, if released, would undermine those arguments and make them look like liars and fools.
That is exactly what appears to have happened with the Bolton book. Trump knew that Bolton’s testimony and supporting notes, if they ever surfaced, would undermine the claims of his supporters. In some ways, it’s not quite as strong as Nixon’s smoking gun, since there’s no tape (as far as we know!) furnishing absolute proof of what Trump said to Bolton. But in some ways, it’s worse. Nixon knew what was on the tapes, but until the Supreme Court ruled against him he might at least have hoped that he could keep them secret. Apparently in the Trump case, at least some people in the White House have known for weeks that Bolton was going to release this book, and yet they still encouraged their allies to say things that were about to be shown to be false.
So far, it appears that Republican politicians would rather look like liars and fools — following ever-less-plausible White House lines, perhaps hoping that no one notices — than dare to oppose Trump and his still-loyal allies in the Republican-aligned media. Maybe they’ll all stay on message, even after this episode. Some of them, I’m sure, are either such blind partisans or so far inside the conservative information feedback loop that they may not even notice. But I have to believe that, whatever they do about it, a lot of Republican politicians are feeling more uncomfortable than ever. Source
Here We Have It. The Trump Impeachment Smoking Gun.
A report about a book by John Bolton makes the president’s Republican defenders look like liars and fools. Maybe they’ll be fine with that.
By Jonathan Bernstein
January 27, 2020
President Donald Trump’s team opened its impeachment-trial defense in the Senate on Saturday morning. I was wrong about how the president’s lawyers would go about the job. I had suspected that they would use a tantrum to rally Republicans to their side, but it turned out that Republican Senators had their tantrum late Friday night when they chose to be outraged that the lead House impeachment manager, Representative Adam Schiff of California, referred to a (somewhat thinly sourced) news report that someone at the White House had threatened that Trump would have the “head on a pike” of any Republican who opposed him.
Trump’s lawyers began with a misstep, rehashing their flimsy claim that there’s some kind of significance to the fact that Schiff paraphrased, instead of directly quoting, the words Trump used in the July 25 phone call in which he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to participate in a smear of a leading Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
But they didn’t rely on emotion in their presentation. Instead, they did what defense attorneys do. They floated alternative interpretations of the evidence the House managers, serving as prosecutors in the Senate trial, had presented in support of the articles of impeachment accusing Trump of abusing his power by trying to coerce that country’s interference on his behalf in his 2020 re-election effort. They pointed out that some of the witnesses who testified on the House side were not entirely reliable on some questions. And they added a bunch of mostly irrelevant points, such as the administration’s overall support for Ukraine (which in fact only makes Trump’s decisions to pause congressionally approved military aid and refuse to schedule an Oval Office meeting with Zelenskiy harder to understand as anything but elements of a pressure campaign) and the fact that previous presidents had also put foreign aid on hold (which no one denies, but the question is why it happened this time).
I’m not sure I’d call the first few hours of their presentation strong, but then again if they are constrained by their client to pretend that the Zelenskiy call was “perfect,” they have a difficult hand to play. It could have been worse.
And then, Sunday night, it fell apart. The New York Times reported that former National Security Adviser John Bolton has written in his upcoming book that Trump made explicit the quid pro quo that his lawyers are denying: that Trump told him directly that he wanted to keep the military aid frozen until the Ukrainian government agreed to help with investigations of Democrats. Not only that, but apparently the White House has had Bolton’s manuscript all month. Trump’s team knew this was coming.
While I certainly don’t expect the president’s support in Congress to collapse, it’s impossible not to see close parallels to the “smoking gun” tape that ended Richard Nixon’s presidency in 1974. That tape, proving that Nixon ordered his staff to have the Central Intelligence Agency block the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s inquiry into the Watergate scandal and released to Congress and the public after the House Judiciary Committee had passed articles of impeachment, was so devastating for Nixon not so much because it was proof of his crimes; plenty of proof of plenty of crimes had long since been placed in the record. Instead, it became the moment when conservative Republicans realized that Nixon had deliberately set them up with false arguments even though Nixon knew that the evidence, if released, would undermine those arguments and make them look like liars and fools.
That is exactly what appears to have happened with the Bolton book. Trump knew that Bolton’s testimony and supporting notes, if they ever surfaced, would undermine the claims of his supporters. In some ways, it’s not quite as strong as Nixon’s smoking gun, since there’s no tape (as far as we know!) furnishing absolute proof of what Trump said to Bolton. But in some ways, it’s worse. Nixon knew what was on the tapes, but until the Supreme Court ruled against him he might at least have hoped that he could keep them secret. Apparently in the Trump case, at least some people in the White House have known for weeks that Bolton was going to release this book, and yet they still encouraged their allies to say things that were about to be shown to be false.
So far, it appears that Republican politicians would rather look like liars and fools — following ever-less-plausible White House lines, perhaps hoping that no one notices — than dare to oppose Trump and his still-loyal allies in the Republican-aligned media. Maybe they’ll all stay on message, even after this episode. Some of them, I’m sure, are either such blind partisans or so far inside the conservative information feedback loop that they may not even notice. But I have to believe that, whatever they do about it, a lot of Republican politicians are feeling more uncomfortable than ever. Source
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
The Democratic party’s first 2020 presidential primary is just three days away. On Monday the Iowa caucuses will be held. Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are neck to neck, followed by Buttigieg, Warren and Klobuchar.
Dem Caucuses Could Be a Five-Way Contest
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2020
Nearly half remain open to switching support on caucus night
West Long Branch, NJ – Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren continue to jostle for the top spot in the fifth and final Monmouth University Poll of likely Iowa Democratic caucusgoers. Support for Amy Klobuchar registers in double digits and could have an impact on the leaderboard if she reaches the viability threshold in a number of precincts. About half of likely caucusgoers say they are still open to changing their minds when they show up to caucus on Monday.
Four candidates remain in the top tier of likely caucusgoers’ first preference – Biden (23%), Sanders (21%), Buttigieg (16%), and Warren (15%). Klobuchar registers 10% support, while Tom Steyer earns 4% and Andrew Yang has 3%. Four other candidates earn 1% or less. [Note: Mike Bloomberg was not included in the poll because he is not participating in the Iowa caucus process.]
Changes from Monmouth’s poll earlier this month are not statistically significant. Two weeks ago, Biden had 24%, Sanders 18%, Buttigieg 17%, Warren 15%, and Klobuchar 8%. In terms of trajectory over Monmouth polls conducted since last summer, support for Biden has bounced around between 19% and 26%, Sanders has grown steadily from a low of 8% in August, Buttigieg jumped from 8% to 22% between August and November but has fallen back from that high point, Warren has slipped slightly from 20% in the summer, and Klobuchar has inched up from 3% in August. Read more
========================
Told ya, he’s panicked. Little does this man realizes what an inept loser he is, I mean, how come he keeps giving important jobs to people he then starts calling losers.
This is the man who often claimed that he hires only the best people.
Also note, how can a book be “untrue” and “classified”?
And world War six.
Dem Caucuses Could Be a Five-Way Contest
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2020
Nearly half remain open to switching support on caucus night
West Long Branch, NJ – Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren continue to jostle for the top spot in the fifth and final Monmouth University Poll of likely Iowa Democratic caucusgoers. Support for Amy Klobuchar registers in double digits and could have an impact on the leaderboard if she reaches the viability threshold in a number of precincts. About half of likely caucusgoers say they are still open to changing their minds when they show up to caucus on Monday.
Four candidates remain in the top tier of likely caucusgoers’ first preference – Biden (23%), Sanders (21%), Buttigieg (16%), and Warren (15%). Klobuchar registers 10% support, while Tom Steyer earns 4% and Andrew Yang has 3%. Four other candidates earn 1% or less. [Note: Mike Bloomberg was not included in the poll because he is not participating in the Iowa caucus process.]
Changes from Monmouth’s poll earlier this month are not statistically significant. Two weeks ago, Biden had 24%, Sanders 18%, Buttigieg 17%, Warren 15%, and Klobuchar 8%. In terms of trajectory over Monmouth polls conducted since last summer, support for Biden has bounced around between 19% and 26%, Sanders has grown steadily from a low of 8% in August, Buttigieg jumped from 8% to 22% between August and November but has fallen back from that high point, Warren has slipped slightly from 20% in the summer, and Klobuchar has inched up from 3% in August. Read more
========================
Told ya, he’s panicked. Little does this man realizes what an inept loser he is, I mean, how come he keeps giving important jobs to people he then starts calling losers.
This is the man who often claimed that he hires only the best people.
Also note, how can a book be “untrue” and “classified”?
And world War six.
Similar threads
