US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

No, you don’t give them any ground to argue that their own views/opinions were remotely in mind when you were grading.

Yes.  In all seriousness, anything evaluative is not going to have anything to do with a specific politician, Trump or anyone else.  And, particularly on essay prompts, it's pretty standard to make clear I/we (when I TA'd) have no interest in the students' political opinions.  I've given A's to students I'm sure or pretty sure are avid Trump supporters plenty of times. 

[Raja]

I have a question - if these calls were restricted/ stored in a different place than they usually are - I imagine that's legal, even though it might be outside the norm, as long as there's nothing similar to the Ukraine call or anything that might be deemed shady occurring during said call?

edit: I guess what I'm saying is, restricting access/ storing calls in an alternative location by itself is permissible for the executive, yes?

[ants]

I assume it’s legal. I also it’s  evidence of smoking guns. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

In regards to polling numbers, I like to remind myself that Nixon had an approval rating of around 55-60 percent around the time that Watergate began to really break - and was prior to that one of the most popular presidents, who had won in a landslide reelection victory - and that over time it plummeted to around 24 percent. 

I think that Democrats need to keep on point, keep hammering, use the impeachment process to show how everything that Trump touches is corrupt, and also to show to his base how weak, pathetic, and stupid Trump actually is. 

[Mexal]

2 hours ago, Raja said:

I have a question - if these calls were restricted/ stored in a different place than they usually are - I imagine that's legal, even though it might be outside the norm, as long as there's nothing similar to the Ukraine call or anything that might be deemed shady occurring during said call?

edit: I guess what I'm saying is, restricting access/ storing calls in an alternative location by itself is permissible for the executive, yes?

It’s a violation of an executive order on classification. Not sure how that plays into legality but it’s not allowed.

 

[Martell Spy]

How Mitch McConnell could give impeachment the Merrick Garland treatment
The House is empowered to impeach a president and the Senate is empowered to conduct a trial. But clarity from America’s founders stops there.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/28/mitch-mcconnell-trump-impeachment-007689

Quote

 

It’s on track to be the trial of the century: President Donald Trump fighting to keep his job before a jury of 100 senators.

It also could never happen.

That’s because of a Constitution that designates the Senate with the “sole power to try” an impeachment that comes from the House. But nowhere in America’s founding document is the trial said to be a mandatory act.

Sure, it would be an unprecedented move in U.S. history for Republican leader Mitch McConnell to table Trump impeachment proceedings without allowing any significant debate or a vote to convict a president from his own party, thereby removing him from office. But it’d be well within his power.

Conventional wisdom still says there has to be a Trump trial. McConnell, after all, said in March that the Senate would have “no choice” but to hold one if the House voted for impeachment.

But political conditions can change quickly in the Trump era. And lawmakers from both parties say they wouldn’t be surprised if the Kentucky Republican ultimately made the same calculation he did in 2016 when President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court — only for the Democratic president to see his pick axed by McConnell under the auspices of letting voters decide who should fill the vacancy in the next election.

 

 

[Gaston de Foix]

30 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

How Mitch McConnell could give impeachment the Merrick Garland treatment
The House is empowered to impeach a president and the Senate is empowered to conduct a trial. But clarity from America’s founders stops there.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/28/mitch-mcconnell-trump-impeachment-007689

 

Trump would want a Senate acquittal.  As would Mitch.  

[Gaston de Foix]

3 minutes ago, Triskele said:

While I think that may be true might it not also be the case though that a scenario is on the table where Moscow Mitch would know a conviction was actually on the table and shelf the thing in that scenario?  

If there was evidence that Trump directed Mulvaney to withhold payment of aid to Ukraine because he wanted to see if Zelensky initiated an investigation into the Bidens and delivered the results to Giuliani (and we are very far from obtaining that kind of confirmation), then maybe. 

It would have to be something that divides the moderate Republicans (principally, Susan Collins) and hardcore defenders. 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Triskele said:

While I think that may be true might it not also be the case though that a scenario is on the table where Moscow Mitch would know a conviction was actually on the table and shelf the thing in that scenario?  

I agree with @Gaston de Foix.

If Moscow Mitch sees conviction as likely, or even possible, that means that Trump's approval numbers have tanked badly. And if Trump's numbers are that bad, he'll be desperate to cut Trump's dead weight off from the party ASAP so that Repubs will at least have a snowball's chance in hell of retaining the Presidency and control of the Senate after the 2020 elections. But if ol' Yertle comes out of his shell to check the weather and sees that it's still only partly cloudy, then he will definitely want a public acquittal on record to use to bolster Trump's 2020 messaging.

[Zorral]

13 hours ago, DMC said:

  That's why it gets really sticky once the primary season starts, and really once states provide filing deadlines for their primaries (most states haven't provided that date yet, but for those who have, most are in December or January).  Although, I guess if the GOP unites behind him and he's not tainted as well, Pence could do a write-in campaign or something.  I don't know, like I said, that's hard to game out.

All this is speculation, as you say, of what is probably at this time anyway unlikely to occur, as you also say.

So more speculation ....

But, again, if he did get booted as the nom in chief  -- you know what will get really sticky?  All that campaign money he's been raising since day one (inauguration day).  Look, he wouldn't even pay any legitimate campaign expenses out of the campaign funds he raised for 2016.  "THAT'S MY MONEY!"

~~~~~~~~~~

As for trying to talk to an unpersuadable supporter, I have.  That's when I wrote North Dakota out of my life.  No matter what he does, no matter what proof is provided of what he has done and does, they just squirm, screw up their faces, scratch their ears and go, "... well, I ... don't ... know ...." while refusing to say what their real reasons are: which he has given them the scope to behave as mean to so many as they've always wanted.  For women this includes hating other women who have become successes in their own right -- even when they themselves are very successful -- being racists, and stomping on the unfortunate.  When they had carefully hidden ALL THAT ALL THEIR PREVIOUS LIVES.

~~~~~~~~~~~

What I'm baffled by is that almost all this was known before, particularly how he solicited campaign contributions / bribes from foreign officials and corporate types long before the inauguration, never divesting himself from his properties -- and extorting bribes from all and sundry by advising them to stay in his hotel and other properties -- not showing his tax returns -- we all have known all of it from the git go.  It was in the papers and news shows and on twitter.  Yet, Congress etc. shrugged.

It seems, what it took, was the newly elected young to Congress and the associated progessive Dem primary campaigns?  Is that right?

 

[Ice Queen]

I have a question for the lawyers. Do complaints like the whistleblower's have to be first hand to be REQUIRED reporting? I'm a mandated reporter and I'm required by law to report secondhand--if I see evidence of child abuse, for example, I don't actually have to see someone abuse a child.

Are the legal requirements different for the intelligence community? 

[Gaston de Foix]

13 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

I have a question for the lawyers. Do complaints like the whistleblower's have to be first hand to be REQUIRED reporting? I'm a mandated reporter and I'm required by law to report secondhand--if I see evidence of child abuse, for example, I don't actually have to see someone abuse a child.

Are the legal requirements different for the intelligence community? 

No.  There is a difference between a a complaint and testimony.  The whistleblower identified a potential abuse of power, the basis for which he came to that conclusion, and the individuals who have more direct knowledge of it.  But even that, strictly speaking, is irrelevant because Trump has released the memorandum containing the reconstructed transcript and so certain basic facts are not in dispute.  The interpretation of the facts is in dispute. 

This "hearsay" talking point is one that simply presages an attack by Republicans on the whistleblower's motives and therefore his credibility for compiling this information and reporting it through legal channels.   It picks up a point made, oddly, in the IG Report and the OLC opinion that the whistleblower may have political opinions/views that resulted in the complaint.  Which, even if true, is irrelevant.

But Republicans want polarize this into a R v D thing, or a populist v deep state thing, rather than a sober examination of the appropriateness of what Trump did.  Some, like Kevin McCarthy and Ben Sasse, have acknowledged that what Trump did was wrong. 

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, Zorral said:

But, again, if he did get booted as the nom in chief  -- you know what will get really sticky?  All that campaign money he's been raising since day one (inauguration day).  Look, he wouldn't even pay any legitimate campaign expenses out of the campaign funds he raised for 2016.  "THAT'S MY MONEY!"

Yeah I thought of this too when I was writing that.  Generally, candidates move anything leftover to a PAC or Super PAC if they don't refund to donors.  If the candidate isn't running for another office anytime soon, they usually do refund to donors even if not required.  But c'mon, this is Trump we're talking about.  Here's a good primer on what candidates can and cannot do with leftover money.  Trump had nearly $57 million cash on hand at the end of June, so yeah, he'd have a pretty damn nice nest egg for a Super PAC - not to mention the small army of Super PACs he already has raising money for his campaign.  In terms of how much campaign funds he could potentially direct, he'd finally be as influential as an actual billionaire donor.

Of course, your suggestion he'd figure out a way to funnel some of that money to himself or family is almost certainly accurate.  Especially if the FEC continues to be effectively inoperative.

5 hours ago, Mexal said:

It’s a violation of an executive order on classification. Not sure how that plays into legality but it’s not allowed.

Presidents can rescind any EO they want.  And I really don't see an EO issued by Obama playing any type of role politically.

59 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

If Moscow Mitch sees conviction as likely, or even possible, that means that Trump's approval numbers have tanked badly. And if Trump's numbers are that bad, he'll be desperate to cut Trump's dead weight off from the party ASAP so that Repubs will at least have a snowball's chance in hell of retaining the Presidency and control of the Senate after the 2020 elections.

Yep.  If around 20 GOP Senators are primed to vote to remove their president from office, that means the public overwhelming wants Trump gone, which means it's in McConnell's interest to hold a vote to convict.  So the whole thing's moot.  And the Garland example is an inapt comparison.  The difference in salience between delaying a confirmation of a SCOTUS seat and refusing to vote on articles of impeachment is immeasurable.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

I have a question for the lawyers. Do complaints like the whistleblower's have to be first hand to be REQUIRED reporting? I'm a mandated reporter and I'm required by law to report secondhand--if I see evidence of child abuse, for example, I don't actually have to see someone abuse a child.

Are the legal requirements different for the intelligence community? 

So, the ICWPA is the law that governs whistleblowers in the intelligence community. I don't think there is anything in the law that would constitute something similar to a "mandated reporter" like you have with child abuse or other laws.

The ICWPA, despite its title (Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act), doesn't actually function as a true whistleblower law, as it does not actually contain any protections for intelligence community whistleblowers (they can still legally be retaliated against even if their complaint is valid). 

What it does is standardize the transmission of classified information from the ICIG to Congress. The law states that the ICIG cannot make an "urgent concern" determination based on secondhand information. Republicans are trying to use this to discredit the whistleblower and the ICIG, because the whistleblower in the report states that they didn't witness most of the events described firsthand.

This is typical Republican misdirection. The relevant section of the law says that the ICIG cannot make a determination of "credible urgent concern" based on a complaint comprised entirely of secondhand information. That does not preclude the ICIG, however, from interviewing firsthand sources during their investigation into the credibility of the urgent concern complaint, with the determination based on these sources, rather than on the instigating complaint. This is what has occurred in this instance.

[Kalbear]

So on the GOP primary - that's a very good reason for the dems to act quickly. They can reasonably state that if they complete this by December and the senate votes to indict, the gop has time to replace him. Otherwise they're stuck with him, and the poll numbers may not look good by then. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

So did anybody really doubt we were soon to see the attempted cover-up headlines within days? 

White House restricted Trump call transcripts - US media

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49865774

[Zorral]

 

[Ice Queen]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

So, the ICWPA is the law that governs whistleblowers in the intelligence community. I don't think there is anything in the law that would constitute something similar to a "mandated reporter" like you have with child abuse or other laws.

The ICWPA, despite its title (Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act), doesn't actually function as a true whistleblower law, as it does not actually contain any protections for intelligence community whistleblowers (they can still legally be retaliated against even if their complaint is valid). 

What it does is standardize the transmission of classified information from the ICIG to Congress. The law states that the ICIG cannot make an "urgent concern" determination based on secondhand information. Republicans are trying to use this to discredit the whistleblower and the ICIG, because the whistleblower in the report states that they didn't witness most of the events described firsthand.

This is typical Republican misdirection. The relevant section of the law says that the ICIG cannot make a determination of "credible urgent concern" based on a complaint comprised entirely of secondhand information. That does not preclude the ICIG, however, from interviewing firsthand sources during their investigation into the credibility of the urgent concern complaint, with the determination based on these sources, rather than on the instigating complaint. This is what has occurred in this instance.

Thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for! 

 

[DMC]

23 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Can someone remind me on Trump and Manafort:  did Trump just end up not pardoning him, period? 

He hasn't been pardoned or even commuted.  Yet.

[dornishpen]

4 hours ago, Triskele said:

While I think that may be true might it not also be the case though that a scenario is on the table where Moscow Mitch would know a conviction was actually on the table and shelf the thing in that scenario?  

Mitch is only loyal to himself and his hold on power, I think if he knew there was support for a Trump conviction because enough Republicans turned against him, he would hold a trial, likewise if the trial couldn't get close to 2/3 I think he would hold one to "exonerate" Trump, I think the situation he's most likely to try not to hold a trial is if the result would be 60-something to convict but still below the threshold, because that can't be as easily spun as exoneration and would mean at least 13 Republicans voted to convict.

i read somewhere recently that even though the Constitution doesn't say he's required to hold a trial, but that the Senate rules do and this isn't one of the majority can change it rules, so if that's true he may have to hold a trial even if he doesn't want to.