[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #690 Nuances blijven lastig

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 18:19 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
Muh Russia heeft niet veel opgeleverd. Het was grotendeels een grote samenzweringstheorie.
Wat is het argument om niets te doen tegen vermoedelijke inmenging vanuit Oekraïne?

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 18:40 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Wacht even, dus Rusland heeft niets gedaan maar Oekraïne wel ?

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 12:33 schreef speknek het volgende:

[..]

Dit is toch gewoon pure dementie? En de Republikeinen willen een dement persoon op hun ticket voor de komende vier jaar zetten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 18:19 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
Muh Russia heeft niet veel opgeleverd. Het was grotendeels een grote samenzweringstheorie.
Wat is het argument om niets te doen tegen vermoedelijke inmenging vanuit Oekraïne?

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 18:42 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Nog altijd meer dan muh emails, mih Benghazi, muh Uranium one en ga zo maar door.

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 18:52 schreef Kansenjongere het volgende:

[..]

Gaf Fiona Hill niet het antwoord op die vraag tijdens haar hearing toen ze de republikeinen opriep te stoppen met leugens om politiek gewin die enkel Rusland in de kaart spelen?

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 18:58 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Ja en?

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 18:56 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Muh Whataboutism.

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 13:33 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Vind dit trouwens erg bijzonder. Inmiddels is onomstotelijk vastgesteld dat de Russen de Amerikaanse verkiezingen hebben proberen te beïnvloeden (en daar ook deels in zijn geslaagd). Daarnaast is Rusland Oekraïne binnengevallen (zonder dat de grote buurman werd geprovoceerd) en hebben de Ruski's een vliegtuig neergeschoten waar ook Amerikanen in zaten.

En Carlson is 'rooting' voor Poetin? Oke.

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 18:52 schreef Kansenjongere het volgende:

[..]

Gaf Fiona Hill niet het antwoord op die vraag tijdens haar hearing toen ze de republikeinen opriep te stoppen met leugens om politiek gewin die enkel Rusland in de kaart spelen?

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 18:52 schreef Kansenjongere het volgende:

[..]

Gaf Fiona Hill niet het antwoord op die vraag tijdens haar hearing toen ze de republikeinen opriep te stoppen met leugens om politiek gewin die enkel Rusland in de kaart spelen?

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 20:41 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:

[..]

Dat had betrekking tot de DNC hack. Niet tot de black ledger

twitter:

thehill twitterde op dinsdag 26-11-2019 om 19:38:43 #BREAKING: New docs show White House ordered hold on Ukraine aid same day Trump talked with Zelensky https://t.co/0y8P59bFxl https://t.co/HLZGc8p3MH reageer retweet

twitter:

ABCPolitics twitterde op dinsdag 26-11-2019 om 20:53:21 House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler on the Dec. 4 impeachment hearing: "The President has a choice to make: he can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process." https://t.co/joQqKdu9of https://t.co/itjA0Dl55Y reageer retweet

quote:

Should be impeached and removed via
@CNN
polling:

Clinton, 1998:
29% impeach
67% don't impeach

Bush, 2006:
30% impeach
69% don't impeach

Obama, 2014:
29% impeach
70% don't impeach

Trump, 2019:
50% impeach
43% don't impeach

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1199329061539106816

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 23:02 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ook echt 29% voor een Obama impeachment in 2014. Wat heeft Obama gedaan waarom zij dat wilden?! Dat moet haast wel de echte harde ondergrens zijn voor Trumps approval.

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op dinsdag 26-11-2019 om 21:20:52 As #ImpeachmentInquiry moves to Judiciary Committee, time to focus on analysis by former White House Counsel, Neil Eggleston:A powerful mechanism in Judiciary Committee rules for suspending protections for President if he withholds docs and witnesses.https://t.co/lgF4O5yf82 reageer retweet

quote:

The House of Representatives adopted a resolution today to guide their continuing impeachment inquiry. That resolution sets out basic procedures governing, for example, how witnesses will be called and questioned as well as how written materials will be obtained. An important part of that resolution deserves special attention. The provision is not just a significant inclusion but a wise one, as well. It may, at some point in the process, become a game changer.

The House Resolution incorporates by reference procedures adopted by the Judiciary Committee that will be entered into the Congressional Record. Those procedures are contained in an accompanying document, which has this key language:

“Should the President unlawfully refuse to make witnesses available for testimony to, or to produce documents requested by, the investigative committees . . . in furtherance of the investigations described in the first section of [this resolution], the chair shall have the discretion to impose appropriate remedies, including by denying specific requests by the President or his counsel under these procedures to call or question witnesses.”

This is, in effect, a discretionary measure that would keep President Donald Trump’s lawyers from participating in the impeachment process if the Trump White House continues to refuse to produce documents and bar witnesses from testifying. The provision is smart, important, and possibly even alters the current balance of power between Congress and the White House. This provision recognizes that the White House should not be permitted to participate in the process only on its own terms. If the White House wants to participate in full, then it has an obligation to respond to legitimate requests for witnesses and documents from the House.

To understand the value of this provision, it is important to recognize the limitations and drawbacks of the other responses that the House has available to it, at least in theory, to address noncompliance by the Trump White House in the face of the impeachment inquiry. What are those other options?

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:

rgoodlaw twitterde op dinsdag 26-11-2019 om 23:16:25 Here's a copy of Judiciary Committee letter to the White House. Note it also includes as an an appendix the procedures in my prior tweet.https://t.co/I9NBEhSLj7 reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 november 2019 19:28 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Verder lezen en kijken, het was 'uiteraard een grapje'.

twitter:

NikkiMcR twitterde op dinsdag 26-11-2019 om 03:24:25 After having clearly been tipped off that his comment is recieving backlash, Tucker ends the show with an “of course i’m joking” https://t.co/narVvRsqfq reageer retweet

twitter:

AndrewDesiderio twitterde op dinsdag 26-11-2019 om 22:52:36 JUST IN: The final deposition transcripts are here.Mark Sandy: https://t.co/t424cZpww6Philip Reeker: https://t.co/IXmE0SQHat reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op woensdag 27-11-2019 om 00:25:00 Mark #Sandy deposition reveals attorney at OMB resigned due in part to concern that hold on Ukraine aid violated Impoundment Act.Makes complete sense.The attorney was correct.Read former OMB official @SamBerger_DC’s analysis from this afternoon:https://t.co/9WGWB0VYna reageer retweet

quote:

As the House impeachment inquiry continues to uncover substantial evidence of Trump’s abuses of power, one thing has become clear: President Donald Trump illegally withheld military aid to Ukraine.

No one from the Trump administration has been able to point to any legal authority that allowed Trump to withhold the funding for the length of time and in the manner that he did. Even Trump’s defenders in the House, who have speciously claimed that the president had reasons for holding the aid other than pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rivals, have not provided justifications that are legal. Instead, they’ve offered justifications that are more politically palatable. Moreover, Trump’s own White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was told that his actions were illegal, and appears to have tacitly acknowledged that fact, but continued to hold up the funding anyway.

The illegality of the funding hold is important to the impeachment inquiry, as it adds further weight to the case that Trump abused his authority as president to pressure Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 U.S. election.

It shows that the Trump White House created an irregular budgetary process to match its irregular foreign policy process with respect to Ukraine. The illegality of the hold also undermines the claim that Trump was concerned about Ukrainian corruption, since he was willing to break U.S. law to keep the money frozen. Finally, it shows that it was not policy or legal concerns that led to the money being released, but rather the fear of getting caught.

While this violation of budgetary laws is not the most significant attack on the rule of law related to Trump’s Ukrainian extortion campaign, it is an important part of the broader case for impeachment.

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 27 november 2019 00:25 schreef AnneX het volgende:
“ There it is ... the “it wasn’t me” defense.

Trump Denies Sending Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine for Biden Probe”

https://mobile.twitter.com/bradmossesq/status/1199466688019881985
en
https://www.bloomberg.com(...)tter_impression=true

Welterusten.

Nabrander: “ Bring the "insurance" cause Giuliani just got Michael Cohen'd..”
https://mobile.twitter.com/olganyc1211/status/1199468511602585605

Ow, écht...de een is nog beter dan de vorige...
Allemaal standup comedians, die amerikanen.
“ Let’s all just recognize the reality:
@:realDonaldTrump
barely knows
@:RudyGiuliani
and would not be able to distinguish him from a coffee boy. I mean, there are so many lawyers around, how is the president supposed to recognize each and every one of them, right?”...

https://mobile.twitter.com/bradmossesq/status/1199470762563973120