Impeachment Monday

[pixy0stix]

(gif of Trump being Hulk punched)

[pixy0stix]

I think this was posted before, but the Kremlin is panicking that their convos with Trump will be released - www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-kremlin/kremlin-says-disclosure-of-trump-putin-phone-calls-would-need-russian-consent-idUSKBN1WF1ET

[secretlyevil]

pixy0stix, I am probably laughing way too hard at your gif. One of the many benefits of WFH.

[secretlyevil]

Over the weekend, I heard the conspiracy theory that the impeachment was in order to keep 45's supporters fired up so his re-election was assured. My response was...less than kind.

The first sentence of the ^^^^ article is hilarious in the not funny way.

[winecat]

Someone on CBS this morning said that the Dems don't have proof of the "quo" part of quid pro quo. That's not actually known by the general public, correct? There's the confidential attachment in the whistleblower's report to start, right?

[basilosaurus]

Sept 30, 2019 9:22:11 GMT -5 winecat said:

Someone on CBS this morning said that the Dems don't have proof of the "quo" part of quid pro quo. That's not actually known by the general public, correct? There's the confidential attachment in the whistleblower's report to start, right?

I doubt the general public knows the meaning of the latin. This is the public that (kinda) elected a con man reality tv guy.

[isabel]

Sept 30, 2019 9:22:11 GMT -5 winecat said:

Someone on CBS this morning said that the Dems don't have proof of the "quo" part of quid pro quo. That's not actually known by the general public, correct? There's the confidential attachment in the whistleblower's report to start, right?

Maybe I'm one who doesn't understand what quid pro quo means, but I thought we did. Ukraine wants money for military spending. Trump suspended the money we were supposed to give them in order to ask Zelensky for a "favor." So, in essence, the "something for something" was "I'll give you military spending money if you'll investigate the Biden's for me."

[jamaicam]

I'm not sure if this has been shared before, but it made me laugh this weekend... 



(And I don't talk a lot on this topic as I don't fully understand the US system and how it works, but thanks to all of you ladies, I know a lot more than I did before!) 

[kilgrave]

Sept 30, 2019 9:28:34 GMT -5 isabel said:

Sept 30, 2019 9:22:11 GMT -5 winecat said:

Someone on CBS this morning said that the Dems don't have proof of the "quo" part of quid pro quo. That's not actually known by the general public, correct? There's the confidential attachment in the whistleblower's report to start, right?

Maybe I'm one who doesn't understand what quid pro quo means, but I thought we did. Ukraine wants money for military spending. Trump suspended the money we were supposed to give them in order to ask Zelensky for a "favor." So, in essence, the "something for something" was "I'll give you military spending money if you'll investigate the Biden's for me."

It's a mashup of people feeling that the actual words "quid quo pro" should be used, or that one word in the rough transcript isn't enough. The presence of the word "though" in Trump's reply to Zelensky's statement that they want to buy javelins from the U.S. points to quid pro quo.

[pixy0stix]

Flake tells GOP: Trump 'does not deserve reelection' - thehill.com/homenews/senate/463629-flake-urges-gop-to-not-support-trumps-reelection-amid-impeachment-fight

Former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) is urging Republican lawmakers to not support President Trump's 2020 reelection campaign amid an impeachment inquiry fueled by Trump's actions toward Ukraine.

Op Ed - www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-flake-fellow-republicans-theres-still-time-to-save-your-souls/2019/09/30/ade876f6-e2d3-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html

[isabel]

Sept 30, 2019 9:33:24 GMT -5 kilgrave said:

Sept 30, 2019 9:28:34 GMT -5 isabel said:

Maybe I'm one who doesn't understand what quid pro quo means, but I thought we did. Ukraine wants money for military spending. Trump suspended the money we were supposed to give them in order to ask Zelensky for a "favor." So, in essence, the "something for something" was "I'll give you military spending money if you'll investigate the Biden's for me."

It's a mashup of people feeling that the actual words "quid quo pro" should be used, or that one word in the rough transcript isn't enough. The presence of the word "though" in Trump's reply to Zelensky's statement that they want to buy javelins from the U.S. points to quid pro quo.

Well, whether it's provable/proven is definitely another matter.

But the entire basis of the impeachment inquiry is this theory.

I think if you believe a crime has to be explicit, then, yeah, that's probably not enough. But, if you believe crimes can be implicit, it feels to me like there's plenty there to work with.

[isabel]

Flake annoys me too much to care what he says, even if it is in support of removing Trump.

[MrsAxilla]

Sept 30, 2019 9:28:34 GMT -5 isabel said:

Sept 30, 2019 9:22:11 GMT -5 winecat said:

Someone on CBS this morning said that the Dems don't have proof of the "quo" part of quid pro quo. That's not actually known by the general public, correct? There's the confidential attachment in the whistleblower's report to start, right?

Maybe I'm one who doesn't understand what quid pro quo means, but I thought we did. Ukraine wants money for military spending. Trump suspended the money we were supposed to give them in order to ask Zelensky for a "favor." So, in essence, the "something for something" was "I'll give you military spending money if you'll investigate the Biden's for me."

Nope, you got it exactly right. Or even more directly, “you want Javelin missiles? Okay, I need a favor, though.”

[scout8]

I still don't understand why quid pro quo is even necessary. He is the President and he is asking the leader of a foreign country to investigate a political opponent. Even if he didn't ask for something in return (which I am 100% sure he did), this is wrong! He's using his position to get something. I feel like this focus on quid pro quo is the GOP taking control of the argument.

[calamity]

Based on my idiot coworkers ranting this morning, Fox is spewing that the "IG" report will release Trump of any wrong doing, and that it's really the 'Dems' that are guilty here and pointing the finger at Trump (I'm guessing because of Hillary's emails?)

I couldn't quite follow him (because he's an idiot) before I just told him to get out of my cube.

[scout8]

Sept 30, 2019 9:38:44 GMT -5 isabel said:

Flake annoys me too much to care what he says, even if it is in support of removing Trump.

Yeah, but we are starting to see cracks in their defenses and that makes me so happy!

[secretlyevil]

Senate report: all 50 states were targeted by Russian interference ahead of 2016 elections

www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-report-all-50-states-were-targeted-by-russian-interference-ahead-of-2016-elections?fbclid=IwAR10h5QXWl6VenVmnTGjS91iFOURx7mEtCkoJB3QtX9tcWkIFH1b81tgmeM

“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday blocked a House-passed bill that would authorize $775 million to beef up state election systems. GOP leaders made the case that the Trump administration has already made great strides in protecting the vote and they say no more funding is needed.”

[isabel]

Sept 30, 2019 9:41:42 GMT -5 scout8 said:

I still don't understand why quid pro quo is even necessary. He is the President and he is asking the leader of a foreign country to investigate a political opponent. Even if he didn't ask for something in return (which I am 100% sure he did), this is wrong! He's using his position to get something. I feel like this focus on quid pro quo is the GOP taking control of the argument.

I agree. Asking a foreign leader to investigate an issue that is of direct relevance to a campaign is illegal. Full stop. He didn't need to provide anything in return to make it so.

[AAM2012]

Sept 30, 2019 9:08:08 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I think this was posted before, but the Kremlin is panicking that their convos with Trump will be released - www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-kremlin/kremlin-says-disclosure-of-trump-putin-phone-calls-would-need-russian-consent-idUSKBN1WF1ET

Please Russia, we ask so kindly to give us permission to release the corruption transcripts.

[basilosaurus]

Sept 30, 2019 9:41:42 GMT -5 scout8 said:

I still don't understand why quid pro quo is even necessary. He is the President and he is asking the leader of a foreign country to investigate a political opponent. Even if he didn't ask for something in return (which I am 100% sure he did), this is wrong! He's using his position to get something. I feel like this focus on quid pro quo is the GOP taking control of the argument.

This is the entire point. He doesn't have to ask for anything in return. That he asked at all is the problem.

But, then, he's committed treason since day 1. What separates this other than GOP CYA? They're seeing the writing on the wall for 2020. 

[mbcdefg]

Rep. Mac Thornberry becomes sixth Texas Republican in House to announce retirement ahead of 2020 election

www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/09/30/rep-mac-thornberry-becomes-sixth-texas-republican-in-house-to-announce-retirement-ahead-of-2020-election/

[isabel]

Sept 30, 2019 9:58:43 GMT -5 mbcdefg said:

Rep. Mac Thornberry becomes sixth Texas Republican in House to announce retirement ahead of 2020 election

www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/09/30/rep-mac-thornberry-becomes-sixth-texas-republican-in-house-to-announce-retirement-ahead-of-2020-election/

(gif of dominos falling)

[msmerymac]

Is what Trump did treason by definition? I don't want to concentrate too hard on it, but I don't think going after "treason" would be fruitful because it seems like a high bar to clear. I'm just wondering if you can argue it is, legally and constitutionally. He wasn't giving comfort to our enemies per se - not in this instance.

[msmerymac]

Sept 30, 2019 9:41:42 GMT -5 scout8 said:

I still don't understand why quid pro quo is even necessary. He is the President and he is asking the leader of a foreign country to investigate a political opponent. Even if he didn't ask for something in return (which I am 100% sure he did), this is wrong! He's using his position to get something. I feel like this focus on quid pro quo is the GOP taking control of the argument.

Ashton Kutcher apparently met with the president of the Ukraine recently, and has publicly said that if Trump offered a quid pro quo, he should be impeached. And if not, he should still be impeached based on the fact that he asked a foreign government to interfere in an election!

[basilosaurus]

Violating the constitution is definitionally treason. Which, again, from day 1. It's 100% treason to ask for foreign interference in an election. I may only have a l&0 degree, but it doesn't take a (stable) genius brain to see the obvious. What it takes for the public to think is worthy of attention is another matter.

[bowies]

There’s a lot of assumptions being made that the only proof that exists is the whistleblower’s report and the Ukrainian transcript that was released. There were other conversations between the Ukrainian president and Trump. There are more countries than Ukraine.

But I stand with what everyone else is saying - asking a country that straddles the line between ally and threat to interfere in our democracy IS the scandal. That alone is worthy of impeachment. Fuck the quid pro quo argument. Don’t even entertain that higher bar to clear.

[carmenere]

Sept 30, 2019 9:50:59 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Sept 30, 2019 9:41:42 GMT -5 scout8 said:

I still don't understand why quid pro quo is even necessary. He is the President and he is asking the leader of a foreign country to investigate a political opponent. Even if he didn't ask for something in return (which I am 100% sure he did), this is wrong! He's using his position to get something. I feel like this focus on quid pro quo is the GOP taking control of the argument.

This is the entire point. He doesn't have to ask for anything in return. That he asked at all is the problem.

But, then, he's committed treason since day 1. What separates this other than GOP CYA? They're seeing the writing on the wall for 2020. 

No quid pro quo is the new NO COLLUSION.

Despite all evidence that Russian interfered to help Trump win the election, they built the narrative that everything was fine because NO COLLUSION.

So even though asking a personal/political favor from a foreign leader is a gross abuse of power in and of itself, they’re spinning the story that if there’s no explicit quid pro quo then there’s nothing wrong.

[GilliC]

ETA - re: violating the Constitution...
Technically, and splitting hairs, does it actually violate any part of the Constitution?

With the Trump Tower meeting, I recall a discussion about whether it violated the emoluments clause. However, the conclusion seemed to be that the value of the opposition research would likely be below whatever limit was considered problematic (and the value of potential dirt could not be determined anyway).

I assume both cases would be considered violation of the FEC regulations that forbid any campaign contributions from foreign nationals.* And hopefully it also lands under some kind of federal espionage and foreign influence umbrella.

And impeachment encompasses "high crimes and misdemeanors," which seems to offer a lot more flexibility than just direct violation of the Constitution.

Also ETA - Regardless of the technicalities, it's still a disgrace and I can't believe anyone is okay with it!


*I'm very familiar with this one, since any local fundraising for Democrats Abroad has to explicitly come from US citizens. And the Clinton campaign actually refunded my (completely legal) donations as some kind of disappointingly over-precautionary measure.

[bowies]

Also - classifying info at a higher level than it deserves with the express purpose of hiding it is also worthy of hearings because it’s, at minimum, an abuse of power.

I want those Russia transcripts. We established that Schiff can access them, right? That would certainly explain Trump’s new Enemy #1.

[carmenere]

Sept 30, 2019 10:43:11 GMT -5 GilliC said:

ETA - re: violating the Constitution...
Technically, and splitting hairs, does it actually violate any part of the Constitution?

With the Trump Tower meeting, I recall a discussion about whether it violated the emoluments clause. However, the conclusion seemed to be that the value of the opposition research would likely be below whatever limit was considered problematic (and the value of potential dirt could not be determined anyway).

I assume both cases would be considered violation of the FEC regulations that forbid any campaign contributions from foreign nationals.* And hopefully it also lands under some kind of federal espionage and foreign influence umbrella.

And impeachment encompasses "high crimes and misdemeanors," which seems to offer a lot more flexibility than just direct violation of the Constitution.

Also ETA - Regardless of the technicalities, it's still a disgrace and I can't believe anyone is okay with it!


*I'm very familiar with this one, since any local fundraising for Democrats Abroad has to explicitly come from US citizens. And the Clinton campaign actually refunded my (completely legal) donations as some kind of disappointingly over-precautionary measure.

The Trump Tower meeting was before the election so the Emoluments clause doesn’t apply. Campaign dirt from a foreign country would have been an FEC violation, and knowingly dealing with an unregistered foreign agent may also be a FARA violation (not sure about that). Plus it’s all kinds of shady and hypocritical.

Now, campaign dirt provided to Trump as the sitting president is definitely an emolument. Whether it falls above the threshold I don’t know. It’s also an FEC violation.