[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #683: Laughable defenses

quote:

Op donderdag 14 november 2019 21:54 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
En holy fuckballs wat is dit?

Senate Confirms Wildly Problematic Trump Court Pick Steven Menashi
https://www.huffpost.com/(...)9beae4b00b9293bff09a
[..]

Only the best people, my hairy ass

quote:

Op vrijdag 15 november 2019 00:15 schreef Harlon het volgende:

[..]

Dit is allemaal leuk en aardig, maar da's de CNN versie van het verhaal. Voor democraten was dit uiteraard overduidelijk dat Trump schuldig was. Voor republikeinen was het niet bepaald het geval. Ik zie niet hoe de getuigenverslagen van vandaag daar ook maar enige verandering in hebben gemaakt

quote:

Op vrijdag 15 november 2019 00:22 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Is er voor jou überhaupt iets gebeurd wat niet had moeten gebeuren?

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op vrijdag 15-11-2019 om 00:45:12 Breaking via WaPo: A longtime career employee at the Office of Management and Budget is expected to break ranks and testify in the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry, potentially filling in important details on the hold-up of military aid to Ukraine. https://t.co/9jvPlOMWB8 reageer retweet

quote:

A longtime career employee at the White House Office of Management and Budget is expected to break ranks and testify Saturday in the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry, potentially filling in important details on the hold-up of military aid to Ukraine.

Mark Sandy would be the first OMB employee to testify in the inquiry, after OMB acting director Russell T. Vought and two other political appointees at the agency defied congressional subpoenas to appear. The White House has called the impeachment inquiry unconstitutional and ordered administration officials not to participate.

But unlike these other OMB officials, Sandy is a career employee, not one appointed by the president. He has worked at the agency off and on for over a decade, under presidents of both parties, climbing the ranks into his current role as deputy associate director for national security programs.

"If he is subpoenaed, he will appear," Sandy's lawyer, Barbara "Biz" Van Gelder said Thursday evening.

Sandy is expected to testify during a closed-door deposition, which is not open to the public. Typically, witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have been served with subpoenas immediately before their depositions are scheduled to begin, an approach Democrats say is designed to give them cover against an administration that has ordered officials not to comply with the inquiry.

Van Gelder declined further comment.

Until now, OMB has served as a bulwark for President Trump against the impeachment inquiry, since top officials have refused to testify. A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing inquiry, discounted the importance of Sandy's testimony, and criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) for calling him to testify.

"Democrats are going to be sorely disappointed when their latest false narrative isn't confirmed, " the official said. "With nothing to show after three years trying to impeach the President, Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Schiff have resorted to threatening dedicated civil servants with subpoenas and depositions without the ability to even have agency counsel present."

Sandy could provide insight into the process by which some $400 million in military and security aid to Ukraine was held up over the summer. He was among the career staffers who raised questions about the hold-up on the aid, people familiar with the matter said, and his role gave him responsibility for signing the documents required to hold it up. The people spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the internal deliberations.

Sandy's signature appears on at least one of these so-called apportionment letters in July that prevented the money from going to Ukraine. But after that, the process for approving or denying such funds was taken over by a political appointee at OMB, Mike Duffey, who defied a congressional subpoena to testify earlier this month. They money had already been approved by Congress.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op vrijdag 15-11-2019 om 01:50:04 Bloomberg: Rudy Giuliani is being investigated by federal prosecutors for possible campaign finance violations and a failure to register as a foreign agent as part of an active investigation into his financial dealings, according to three U.S. officials.https://t.co/9LZdGbJiu2 reageer retweet

quote:

The Justice Department inspector general’s office has told witnesses who are set to review draft sections of its long-awaited report on the FBI investigation of President Trump’s 2016 campaign that they will not be allowed to submit written feedback — one in a series of unusual restrictions that some fear could make the final document less accurate, people familiar with the matter said.

As is the case in most inspector general probes, witnesses are being invited to review draft sections of the report and offer comments and corrections, the people said. But — unlike most cases — they are being told those comments must be conveyed only verbally, the people said.

Even though Attorney General William P. Barr and other officials have been working in recent weeks to determine what should be redacted from the report as classified or private information, people familiar with the process said that the entire draft document is marked “Top Secret,” so anyone who discusses its contents outside a secure government room could be committing a crime.

Witnesses, they said, are being asked to review their sections in a secure area, after signing nondisclosure agreements, according to people familiar with the matter. The witnesses have also been told they will not be allowed to remove any notes they make about the document, the people said.

The moves have left some witnesses concerned that their objections might not be recorded precisely and incorporated into the inspector general’s findings, the people said. The witnesses, they said, are also concerned that the process gives the inspector general complete control in characterizing any comments witnesses make — and leaves witnesses with no ability to create a paper trail that might help them show their words were captured inaccurately.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the political and legal sensitivity of the matter. A spokeswoman for the inspector general declined to comment.

The inspector general is aiming to complete the witness reviews by Nov. 21, although release of the report may wait until after the Thanksgiving holiday, these people said.

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.

twitter:

DevlinBarrett twitterde op vrijdag 15-11-2019 om 04:16:52 Guess what! The IG now says witnesses will, in fact, be allowed to submit written comments, after witnesses were told they could not. Horowitz's office is calling it a "clarification" of their intent. reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 15 november 2019 00:15 schreef Harlon het volgende:

[..]

Dit is allemaal leuk en aardig, maar da's de CNN versie van het verhaal. Voor democraten was dit uiteraard overduidelijk dat Trump schuldig was. Voor republikeinen was het niet bepaald het geval. Ik zie niet hoe de getuigenverslagen van vandaag daar ook maar enige verandering in hebben gemaakt

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op vrijdag 15-11-2019 om 03:15:35 JUST IN: Trump moves to force dismissal of lawsuit brought by Bolton aide seekign to determine whether to testify in House impeachment proceedings. https://t.co/EwDDTqjsLf reageer retweet

twitter:

joshgerstein twitterde op vrijdag 15-11-2019 om 01:56:29 Judge lashes out at prosecutors for failing to fish or cut bait on McCabe prosecution: 'Not hard' decision except 'maybe politically' https://t.co/im4iU4OsYs reageer retweet

twitter:

dandrezner twitterde op vrijdag 15-11-2019 om 03:51:34 “Military officials have told CNN they are distressed about the request and that they have been concerned the President's foreign policy decision making could increasingly be shaped by his concerns about the 2020 election campaign or impeachment pressure.” https://t.co/WTyzllqqaH reageer retweet

quote:

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper landed in South Korea on Thursday to navigate renewed threats from an "enraged" North Korea and newly heightened strain in the alliance with Seoul that congressional aides, lawmakers and Korea experts say has been caused by President Donald Trump.

Trump is demanding that South Korea pay roughly 500% more in 2020 to cover the cost of keeping US troops on the peninsula, a congressional aide and an administration official confirmed to CNN.

The price hike has frustrated Pentagon officials and deeply concerned Republican and Democratic lawmakers, according to military officials and congressional aides. It has angered and unnerved Seoul, where leaders are questioning US commitment to their alliance and wondering whether Trump will pull US forces if they don't pay up.

"Nothing says I love you like a shakedown," said Vipin Narang, an associate professor at MIT who follows the Korean peninsula, summarizing South Korean uncertainty about the US.

[..]

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op donderdag 14-11-2019 om 18:54:23 My personal experience with Trump's dishonesty escalation: in 2017, I could fact check all of his false claims for the week in a few hours on Sunday. In 2018, it started taking almost all of Sunday and some additional time. Now it requires two people. https://t.co/4IMyQJ6NSU reageer retweet

quote:

The senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller promoted racist fears of demographic replacement of white people by non-whites, disseminated conspiracy theories positing a United Nations-inspired plan to colonize America, and implied a Mark Zuckerberg-sponsored bipartisan organization was promoting illegal voting, according to emails provided exclusively to the Guardian.

Like other emails revealed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) this week, the messages were sent in an effort to shape Breitbart News coverage with conspiratorial, white nationalist-influenced ideas during the Trump campaign.

The emails were part of a correspondence with Katie McHugh, then a writer for the far-right website Breitbart. According to the SPLC, 80% of the emails in their 900-email correspondence were tightly focused on issues of race and immigration.

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 donderdag 14 november 2019 17:22 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:

[..]

U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister
[..]

https://www.reuters.com/a(...)nister-idUSKBN1XO1HK

quote:

Op donderdag 14 november 2019 17:25 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Oh ja, Sondland.

Sondland verklaarde dat er in zijn ogen sprake was van quid pro quo. Zelfde geldt voor Vindman.

Verder weet ik niet hoeveel waarde je moet hechten aan de verklaring van die minister. Wellicht zat hij niet in 'de loop' of liegt hij omdat zijn regering Trump te vriend wil houden.

quote:

Op donderdag 14 november 2019 19:40 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:

[..]

Waar haal je deze onzin toch vandaan ?

Sondland heeft verklaard dat hij geen enkel idee had waarom de steun was stopgezet. Hij wist niks van een link tussen de steun en een onderzoek. Die link legde hij pas nadat Taylor hem een bericht stuurde met die beschuldiging, Taylor had daar geen eerste hand informatie van maar zijn bron was een artikel in politico. Buiten het bericht van Taylor is dat nergens ter sprake gekomen. Tevens verklaard Sondland dat hij geen idee heeft of Zelensky wist dat de steun stopggezet was.

[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]

en

[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

In an addendum he submitted to the committees dated Monday, Sondland said the testimony of other witnesses, including Volker and Bill Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, refreshed his memory that foreign aid was withheld.

quote:

Op vrijdag 15 november 2019 06:25 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

JasonSCampbell twitterde op vrijdag 15-11-2019 om 04:11:25 Laura Ingraham: "Attempted bribery isn't in the Constitution" https://t.co/uGtsDyc8a7 reageer retweet

Dit is bezopen. Poging tot omkoping valt gewoon onder omkoping. Net zo hard strafbaar.

Dat Fox op dag twee van de hearings met dit soort nonsens moet aankomen geeft Krugman gewoon gelijk. De Trumpisten hebben geen verdediging. Niks. Nada. Niemendal. Ze hebben bullshit.

twitter:

JoyceWhiteVance twitterde op vrijdag 15-11-2019 om 05:04:34 Actually, it is. You see, the federal bribery statute, 18 USC 201, defines bribery to include attempted bribery. It's enough to "seek" a bribe - you don't actually have to pull your illegal scheme off. https://t.co/Q6KynEOQIF reageer retweet

quote:

There was a bleak symmetry to the momentous events of this week.

On Wednesday, during the first day of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump, Bill Taylor and George Kent, two State Department officials of impeccable credentials, explained how the president used foreign aid and the promise of a White House meeting to try to extort a vulnerable ally for help with his re-election.

Withholding security assistance from Ukraine “for no good reason other than help with a political campaign made no sense,” said Taylor, America’s top diplomat in that country. “It was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. It was illogical. It could not be explained. It was crazy.” The hearing made it clear that Trump subverted foreign policy in order to cheat in the 2020 campaign.

Wednesday was also the day of closing arguments in the trial of Roger Stone, the longtime Trump associate charged with making false statements to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction of justice in Congress’s investigation into Russian election interference.

During the trial, the former Trump campaign chief executive Steve Bannon testified that he regarded Stone as the campaign’s “access point” to WikiLeaks, which published thousands of Democratic National Committee emails that were hacked by Russia. The Former Trump campaign staffer Rick Gates testified that Trump spoke directly to Stone about WikiLeaks’ plans. Trump, in written testimony to the special counsel Robert Mueller, said he remembered no such conversation. Stone seems to have exaggerated his WikiLeaks’ connections, but the trial made it clear that the Trump campaign tried hard to take advantage of Russian cybercrimes in the 2016 election, and that Trump lied about it.

After the impeachment hearing, some in the media appeared to yawn. Two Reuters reporters pronounced the proceedings “consequential, but dull,” writing, “Unlike the best reality TV shows — not to mention the Trump presidency itself — fireworks and explosive moments were scarce.” An NBC News analysis concluded that the hearing “felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.”

It’s certainly true that there were few new revelations on Wednesday, since transcripts of the witnesses’ closed-door testimony had already been released. But if the facts at hand have not shaken the country to its core, that’s not the fault of Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. The responsibility lies with us all for letting this lawless, kleptocratic presidency become normalized.

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:

Intrepid Republican sleuths finally found the Deep State operatives who have been working to bring down President Donald Trump by creating the appearance of an improper, politically motivated quid pro quo in his dealings with Ukraine. Those operatives are a rogue U.S. ambassador and a lawyer operating in the shadows entirely outside the normal workings of government.

I can even tell you their names: Gordon Sondland and Rudy Giuliani.

This, at least, is the upshot of the defense House Republicans seem to be offering at the public impeachment hearings:

Republicans would portray figures like Mr. Giuliani as working in his own interests, not at Mr. Trump’s behest; and…they would argue that Mr. Sondland, a political megadonor with little diplomatic experience, was a braggart who exaggerated his relationship with Mr. Trump and essentially freelanced on his behalf.

See what I mean? It’s the Deep State in action, operating to promote their own nefarious interests rather than working on behalf of the president.

Except, of course, that if this is anyone’s Deep State, it’s Donald Trump’s Deep State.

How did Republicans paint themselves into this corner? They did it because every other defense of Trump is faltering.

The process arguments, sterling examples of Barone’s Law to begin with, have been failing. Republicans can’t impugn the motives of the original whistleblower, because there is now so much evidence from others that the original tip-off is irrelevant. The whole talking point about “secret” testimony is also obsolete, now that transcripts of all the sessions are being released.

More to the point, the substance of the hearings has already validated all of the key claims against Trump. They have shown that the Ukrainians were aware that the administration was holding up aid at the behest of the White House.

The timing of the communications about the issue, which have not previously been reported, shows that Ukraine was aware the White House was holding up the funds weeks earlier than US and Ukrainian officials had acknowledged. And it means that the Ukrainian government was aware of the freeze during most of the period in August when Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and two American diplomats were pressing President Volodymyr Zelenskiy of Ukraine to make a public commitment to the investigations being sought by Trump.

But the big blow to Trump’s defenders came when U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland realized that he was on the hook for perjury—having denied things multiple other witnesses had testified to—so he “revised” his testimony to admit that he had expressed a clear quid pro quo to Ukrainian officials, demanding political favors for Trump in return for aid.

This was such a blow that Lindsey Graham ended up speculating that Sondland (whom he keeps calling “Sunderland”) is now in cahoots with “Democratic operatives.”

So the new defense of Trump is that he has totally lost control, and his handpicked representatives, Sondland and Giuliani, have been running America’s Ukraine policy without either his knowledge or permission.

You can see why Republicans had to go this direction. To admit that Trump knew any of what was going on in his own administration is to admit that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Better just to conclude that he is completely incompetent and has no idea what’s going on.

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.