[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #671: Great and unmatched wisdom

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 23:20 schreef gniffie het volgende:
Weer een mooie uitspraak. US diplomaatje rijdt jongen dood in Engeland en vlucht terug naar Amerika. Weet iemand wat die ook maar kan bedoelen
[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 23:08 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
Het Huis kan z'n grondwettelijke macht als 1 geheel slecht uitvoeren wanneer er aan 1 van de volgende zaken wordt voldaan:

1. Stemming op de vloer.
2. Het volgen van vastgelegde regels. Regels vastgelegd door het Huis zelf. Actie voortvloeiende uit deze regels zijn impliciet goedgekeurd door het huis.
3. Het volgen van precedenten en tradities welke al lang worden geaccepteerd "without challenge"

Kort gezegd, een persoon kan niet simpelweg roepen "impeachment inquiry!!", dit moet door het Huis geroepen worden als 1 geheel, en dat is dus niet gedaan, en dus is er ook geen aankondiging geweest en dus kan Trump zn dikke oranje reet afvegen met die subpoenas.

quote:

Clause 5: Speaker and other officers; Impeachment

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

quote:

The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation. Presently, it is the House Judiciary Committee that initiates the process and then, after investigating the allegations, prepares recommendations for the whole House's consideration. If the House votes to adopt an impeachment resolution, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee recommends a slate of "managers," whom the House subsequently approves by resolution. These Representatives subsequently become the prosecution team in the impeachment trial in the Senate (see Section 3, Clause 6 below).

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 23:15 schreef OMG het volgende:

[..]


[..]

https://www.lawfareblog.c(...)-impeachment-inquiry

Geen stemming nodig.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 23:26 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Wow, een blog.

Nu even serieus.
Heeft het Huis als orgaan een aankondiging gedaan mbt de impeachment inquiry? Zo ja, kun je me even linken naar deze officiële aankondiging?
Zo nee, dan hebben de uitgestuurde subpoenas geen rechtsgeldigheid.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 23:08 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
Pelosi is niet het huis.
Pelosi is geen dictator.
Pelosi staat niet boven de wet.
Pelosi spreekt niet namens het huis, ondanks haar titel.
Pelosi heeft als spreker geen extra macht vanuit de grondwet.

Ze kan dus niet zomaar op eigen houtje roepen dat er een impeachment inquiry is en dat iedereen zich dan maar eraan moet houden.

Het Huis kan z'n grondwettelijke macht als 1 geheel slecht uitvoeren wanneer er aan 1 van de volgende zaken wordt voldaan:

1. Stemming op de vloer.
2. Het volgen van vastgelegde regels. Regels vastgelegd door het Huis zelf. Actie voortvloeiende uit deze regels zijn impliciet goedgekeurd door het huis.
3. Het volgen van precedenten en tradities welke al lang worden geaccepteerd "without challenge"

Er wordt aan geen van deze voorwaarden voldaan en dus is Pelosi niet meer dan een enkele persoon die wat roept in een microfoon.

Kort gezegd, een persoon kan niet simpelweg roepen "impeachment inquiry!!", dit moet door het Huis geroepen worden als 1 geheel, en dat is dus niet gedaan, en dus is er ook geen aankondiging geweest en dus kan Trump zn dikke oranje reet afvegen met die subpoenas.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 23:09 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Trump over de Koerden zojuist:
[ afbeelding ]

https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/1182034394925670402

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 23:35 schreef Lord-Ronddraai het volgende:

[..]

Damn, die kerel is echt pleurisdom.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 23:35 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Het wordt nu wel heel sneu, die misplaatste hautaine houding.
In de ene hoek hebben we "een blogje" van "Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University. He teaches and writes about American constitutional theory and development, federalism, judicial politics, and the presidency." dat uitgebreid beargumenteerd waarom een stemming overbodig is

In de andere hoek hebben we de hersenspinsels van fok!ker Refragmental.

Ik weet wel op wie ik mijn geld zou zetten.

twitter:

MarkSZaidEsq twitterde op woensdag 09-10-2019 om 23:12:54 1/WHISTLEBLOWER NEWS ALERT THREAD ON ALLEGED "BIAS":In light of the ongoing efforts to mischaracterize whistleblower #1's alleged "bias" in order to detract from the substance of the complaint, we will attempt to clarify some facts. reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 23:53 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Draadje over de beschuldiging van POTUS dat de WB 'biased' zou zijn:

twitter:

MarkSZaidEsq twitterde op woensdag 09-10-2019 om 23:12:54 1/WHISTLEBLOWER NEWS ALERT THREAD ON ALLEGED "BIAS":In light of the ongoing efforts to mischaracterize whistleblower #1's alleged "bias" in order to detract from the substance of the complaint, we will attempt to clarify some facts. reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 23:56 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Ook daar geldt overigens ook voor dat het totaal niet relevant is.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 23:09 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Trump over de Koerden zojuist:
[ afbeelding ]

https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/1182034394925670402

quote:

On Tuesday, the White House released an eight-page letter sent to top Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, calling the inquiry "constitutionally invalid".

It continued: "In order to fulfil his duties to the American people... President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances."

Ms Pelosi dismissed the letter as "manifestly wrong".

A self-inflicted wound

Analysis by Jonathan Turley, legal scholar

The letter rightfully raises concerns over the lack of a House vote and the secrecy of proceedings. The Democrats have limited Republicans in their effort to question witnesses and secure material. However, that is not a legitimate basis for refusing to co-operate or supply clearly material evidence.

The letter emphasises a lack of due process in the proceedings. Yet the constitution does not expressly require anything other than a vote of the House on impeachment itself and a majority threshold for any referral of the matter to the Senate for trial.

This is a constitutional function of the highest order for Congress. There is a legitimate basis for congressional investigation under both its oversight and impeachment authority. If proven, these allegations of self-dealing could be a basis for articles of impeachment. A president cannot simply pick up his marbles and leave the game because he does not like the other players. A refusal to co-operate with a constitutionally mandated process can itself be an abuse of power.

The letter is another avoidable self-inflicted wound by a White House that seems intent on counter-punching itself into an impeachment. There are defences here as well as viable privilege arguments. This letter however is eviscerating those defences with a reckless abandon.

Jonathan is professor of constitutional law at George Washington University

quote:

Op donderdag 10 oktober 2019 00:34 schreef skysherrif het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 22:02 schreef Lord-Ronddraai het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat hij het gewoon laat bij een mooi plekje voor zo'n resort van hem in Istanboel ofzo.

quote:

The president's decision to remove troops from Northern Syria has put renewed focus on his relationship with Turkish President Erdogan.


Trump has appeared to side with Erdogan at times throughout his presidency. For example, when Republican senators sought to punish Turkey this summer for its purchase of a Russian missile defense system by pushing the president to impose congressionally mandated sanctions, Trump invited them to a White House meeting to ask for "flexibility" in dealing with the issue. Those sanctions have not been implemented.

And the fact that Trump made his decision to pull the U.S. troops out of Syria shortly after the phone call with Erdogan has raised alarm bells from policymakers, as well as government ethics watchdog groups who have long seen Trump’s extensive business interests as a potential area for conflicts of interest.

“It’s absolutely staggering” that Trump made a decision that “has put us on the brink of causing genocide in Syria,” said Wendy Sherman, an undersecretary at the State Department during the Obama administration. The decision underscores the “impulsiveness” and “the transactional, quid pro quo-ness of the president,” she said.

That “transactional” charge is based on the Trump family’s multitude of continuing business entities and interests, all separated from the president — at least on paper — by the trust that now controls them. But the president is the beneficiary of that trust and two of his children have roles in it.

"It always is a concern that those business ties, at the very least, color his judgment," Sherman said, "and at the very worst are the reasons for his judgment."

Trump and his family have long had business ties in and with Turkey, the most visible example being the Trump Towers Istanbul, which licenses the Trump name. The Trump Organization describes the buildings on its website as “a landmark in the historic city of Istanbul” and it is the organization’s first and only office and residential tower in Europe, with offices, apartments and upscale shops. The Washington Post has reported that the organization was paid up to $10 million to put the Trump name on the two buildings.

Erdogan attended the opening ceremony of the office and residential towers in 2012 and Ivanka Trump tweeted a message thanking him for attending, although a photo of Erdogan at the ribbon cutting has been removed from his Facebook page.

According to a review of Trump family social media posts, Ivanka Trump made business trips to Turkey in 2009, 2010 and 2012.

In 2015, Trump acknowledged having a potential “conflict” when it came to issues involving Turkey.

“I have a little conflict of interest because I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump said in 2015. “It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers — two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it’s two,” Trump said in an interview with Stephen Bannon, then chairman of Breitbart News.

twitter:

TheRickWilson twitterde op donderdag 10-10-2019 om 00:05:22 There's a certain segment of the Trump right that's almost gleeful about the coming slaughter of the Kurds.These are people that cannot be redeemed. reageer retweet

quote:

President Donald Trump pressed then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to help persuade the Justice Department to drop a criminal case against an Iranian-Turkish gold trader who was a client of Rudy Giuliani, according to three people familiar with the 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.

Tillerson refused, arguing it would constitute interference in an ongoing investigation of the trader, Reza Zarrab, according to the people. They said other participants in the Oval Office were shocked by the request.

Tillerson immediately repeated his objections to then-Chief of Staff John Kelly in a hallway conversation just outside the Oval Office, emphasizing that the request would be illegal. Neither episode has been previously reported, and all of the people spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the conversations.

The White House declined to comment. Kelly and Tillerson declined to comment via representatives. Another person familiar with the matter said the Justice Department never considered dropping the criminal case.

Zarrab was being prosecuted in federal court in New York at the time on charges of evading U.S. sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program. He had hired former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Giuliani, who has said he reached out repeatedly to U.S. officials to seek a diplomatic solution for his client outside the courts.

The president’s request to Tillerson -- which included asking him to speak with Giuliani -- bears the hallmarks of Trump’s governing style, defined by his willingness to sweep aside the customary procedures and constraints of government to pursue matters outside normal channels. Tillerson’s objection came to light as Trump’s dealings with foreign leaders face intense scrutiny following the July 25 call with Ukraine’s president that has sparked an impeachment inquiry in the House.

The episode is also likely to fuel long-standing concerns from some of Trump’s critics about his policies toward Turkey and his relationship with its authoritarian president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Zarrab’s release was a high priority for Erdogan until the gold trader agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in New York.

It isn’t clear whether Trump considered his request for Tillerson to intervene to be improper or was just testing the bounds of what he could do as president on an issue that could provide diplomatic benefits while also helping Giuliani, a longtime supporter. The Oval Office meeting occurred in the second half of 2017 and Giuliani wasn’t the president’s personal lawyer at the time, as he is now.

‘Prisoner Swap’
In a phone interview this month, Giuliani initially denied that he ever raised Zarrab’s case with Trump but later said he might have done so. He said he’d been speaking with U.S. officials as part of his effort to arrange a swap of Zarrab for Andrew Brunson, an American pastor jailed in Turkey who was later released in 2018.

“Suppose I did talk to Trump about it -- so what? I was a private lawyer at the time,” Giuliani said. “Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe at some point I dropped his name in a conversation. Or maybe one of his people talked to him about it because I was trying to do a prisoner swap.”

Giuliani said he discussed the Zarrab case with State Department officials and disclosed that two years ago, although he declined to say if he ever spoke directly to Tillerson about the case, saying “you have no right to know that.”

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 21:39 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Naar 40-80% tillen?

twitter:

Politics_Polls twitterde op donderdag 10-10-2019 om 07:37:49 Do you think President Trump should be impeached and removed from office?Impeached and removed 51%Impeached, not removed 4%Not impeached at all 40% @foxnewspoll 10/6-8https://t.co/kClHEPrcqT https://t.co/hZAHXpRYDb reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 10 oktober 2019 08:13 schreef trein2000 het volgende:
Dames en heren, De Koerden hielpen niet in Normandië. Aldus de president van de verenigde staten.