Poll

Where do you currently stand on the impeachment/removal from office of President Trump?

Against impeachment, and furthermore this is a witch hunt.
6 (11.5%)
Against impeachment, evidence evidence of wrongdoing is lacking
2 (3.8%)
Against impeachment, the wrongdoing is not worthy of impeachment
1 (1.9%)
For impeachment, but against removal (a rebuke of the presdients actions)
3 (5.8%)
For impeachment, for removal
36 (69.2%)
I can't decide. I will wait and see as inquiry proceeds.
4 (7.7%)
I haven't followed this closely enough to have an opinion.
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 52

Author Topic: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, hearings underway)  (Read 55797 times)

nickagneta, slamtheking, Ogaju, blink, W8ting2McHale, Amonkey, Vermont Green, No Nickname (+ 1 Hidden) and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1185 on: October 16, 2019, 10:55:33 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4235
  • Tommy Points: 707
So let's see if I have this right. All of the following have decided to ignore subpoenas from Congress:

The White House
The Office of the Vice President
The Office of the Secretary of State
The Department of State
The Department of Defense
The Office of Management and Budget
Rudy Guiliani

Anyone else?

Someone correct me if I am wrong but this is unprecedented in the history of this nation, right? It used to be that a subpoena had to be obeyed or you were arrested or had some sort of legal problems. Now, not so much.

The across the board decision to ignore subpoenas is going to absolutely destroy this country's checks and balances system if the precedent is set that ignoring subpoenas from Congress is okay without any consequences.

Most recent administrations have ignored / fought Congressional subpoenas under grounds of Executive Privilege.  Ultimately, courts sided with Congress in each case, I believe.  The strategy, though, isn't necessarily about winning, but about delaying.

Here's a pretty comprehensive, solid look at the recent history and some of the issues involved:

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45653.html
Yeah, that is a huge amount of legalese I won't be reading but by perusing I saw it mentioned only 4 instances since 2008. We are now seeing one instance per day. As I said, this is pretty unprecedented.

And yes, it is a delaying action.

Question so I don't have to read that article: Can Congress package all these cases of ignoring subpoenas into one case and bring it directly to the Supreme Court to expedite everything? I thought I read Congress went directly to the SC against Nixon.
taking it a step further, suppose it gets expedited to the SC and they surprisingly rule against Trump despite the political leanings on the court (Reps are supposed to be real sticklers for the exact wording of the Constitution but mostly when it suits them--and this situation is when the Constitution wouldn't favor them), what happens if Trump and his minions ignore that ruling as well and refuse to comply?  DOJ is in Trump's pocket so they likely won't do anything.  What can be done to Trump in that situation?  I suspect nothing but would appreciate anyone telling me I'm wrong on that.

In theory, the House Sgt at Arms would be authorized to start arresting folks.

But if it comes to that (where Trump hypothetically continues to defy Congressional oversight and authority even in the face of a SCOTUS ruling), we would be in a very, very dangerous place.
in theory.  what happens if Sarge goes to make an arrest and POTUS orders the Secret Service to block the arrests?  I could seriously see things getting to that point.

They (the Secret Service agents) would have to step aside or they would be following illegal orders.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1186 on: October 17, 2019, 10:39:29 AM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38597
  • Tommy Points: 6242
From Sondland's opening statement:

"Based on the President's direction, we were faced with a choice: We could abandon the goal of a White House meeting for President Zelensky, which we all believed was crucial to strengthening U.S.-Ukrainian ties and furthering long-held U.S. foreign policy goals in the region; or we could do as President Trump directed and talk to Mr. Giuliani to address the President's concerns,"

"We chose the latter path, which seemed to all of us -- Secretary (Rick) Perry, Ambassador (Kurt) Volker, and myself -- to be the better alternative. But I did not understand, until much later, that Mr. Giuliani's agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the President's 2020 reelection campaign."

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1187 on: October 17, 2019, 10:55:42 AM »

Online keevsnick

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2437
  • Tommy Points: 233
From Sondland's opening statement:

"Based on the President's direction, we were faced with a choice: We could abandon the goal of a White House meeting for President Zelensky, which we all believed was crucial to strengthening U.S.-Ukrainian ties and furthering long-held U.S. foreign policy goals in the region; or we could do as President Trump directed and talk to Mr. Giuliani to address the President's concerns,"

"We chose the latter path, which seemed to all of us -- Secretary (Rick) Perry, Ambassador (Kurt) Volker, and myself -- to be the better alternative. But I did not understand, until much later, that Mr. Giuliani's agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the President's 2020 reelection campaign."

The walls are closing in.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1188 on: October 17, 2019, 12:36:42 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15041
  • Tommy Points: 1630
From Sondland's opening statement:

"Based on the President's direction, we were faced with a choice: We could abandon the goal of a White House meeting for President Zelensky, which we all believed was crucial to strengthening U.S.-Ukrainian ties and furthering long-held U.S. foreign policy goals in the region; or we could do as President Trump directed and talk to Mr. Giuliani to address the President's concerns,"

"We chose the latter path, which seemed to all of us -- Secretary (Rick) Perry, Ambassador (Kurt) Volker, and myself -- to be the better alternative. But I did not understand, until much later, that Mr. Giuliani's agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the President's 2020 reelection campaign."

The walls are closing in.

Where/when is the tipping point — the point where loyalists start peeling away.   I keep expecting it to be “the next thing” and then the next thing happens and nothing changes.   It’s getting close isn’t it?

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1189 on: October 17, 2019, 12:52:30 PM »

Online slamtheking

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21523
  • Tommy Points: 9176
From Sondland's opening statement:

"Based on the President's direction, we were faced with a choice: We could abandon the goal of a White House meeting for President Zelensky, which we all believed was crucial to strengthening U.S.-Ukrainian ties and furthering long-held U.S. foreign policy goals in the region; or we could do as President Trump directed and talk to Mr. Giuliani to address the President's concerns,"

"We chose the latter path, which seemed to all of us -- Secretary (Rick) Perry, Ambassador (Kurt) Volker, and myself -- to be the better alternative. But I did not understand, until much later, that Mr. Giuliani's agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the President's 2020 reelection campaign."

The walls are closing in.

Where/when is the tipping point — the point where loyalists start peeling away.   I keep expecting it to be “the next thing” and then the next thing happens and nothing changes.   It’s getting close isn’t it?
I don't think there's a tipping point where he loses the support of his core.  he could do what he literally bragged about -- shooting someone in the middle of the street -- and get away with it.  Likely to the cheers of his core

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1190 on: October 17, 2019, 01:26:16 PM »

Online arctic 3.0

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2410
  • Tommy Points: 386
So let's see if I have this right. All of the following have decided to ignore subpoenas from Congress:

The White House
The Office of the Vice President
The Office of the Secretary of State
The Department of State
The Department of Defense
The Office of Management and Budget
Rudy Guiliani

Anyone else?

Someone correct me if I am wrong but this is unprecedented in the history of this nation, right? It used to be that a subpoena had to be obeyed or you were arrested or had some sort of legal problems. Now, not so much.

The across the board decision to ignore subpoenas is going to absolutely destroy this country's checks and balances system if the precedent is set that ignoring subpoenas from Congress is okay without any consequences.

Most recent administrations have ignored / fought Congressional subpoenas under grounds of Executive Privilege.  Ultimately, courts sided with Congress in each case, I believe.  The strategy, though, isn't necessarily about winning, but about delaying.

Here's a pretty comprehensive, solid look at the recent history and some of the issues involved:

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45653.html
Yeah, that is a huge amount of legalese I won't be reading but by perusing I saw it mentioned only 4 instances since 2008. We are now seeing one instance per day. As I said, this is pretty unprecedented.

And yes, it is a delaying action.

Question so I don't have to read that article: Can Congress package all these cases of ignoring subpoenas into one case and bring it directly to the Supreme Court to expedite everything? I thought I read Congress went directly to the SC against Nixon.
taking it a step further, suppose it gets expedited to the SC and they surprisingly rule against Trump despite the political leanings on the court (Reps are supposed to be real sticklers for the exact wording of the Constitution but mostly when it suits them--and this situation is when the Constitution wouldn't favor them), what happens if Trump and his minions ignore that ruling as well and refuse to comply?  DOJ is in Trump's pocket so they likely won't do anything.  What can be done to Trump in that situation?  I suspect nothing but would appreciate anyone telling me I'm wrong on that.

This is why voting for a criminal con man, in order to insure conservative control of the judiciary, was a bad idea.

Frankly makes me question the judgement of people who thought that was a good idea.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1191 on: October 17, 2019, 01:42:42 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9417
  • Tommy Points: 1135
  • Feed me pills and happy meals
So let's see if I have this right. All of the following have decided to ignore subpoenas from Congress:

The White House
The Office of the Vice President
The Office of the Secretary of State
The Department of State
The Department of Defense
The Office of Management and Budget
Rudy Guiliani

Anyone else?

Someone correct me if I am wrong but this is unprecedented in the history of this nation, right? It used to be that a subpoena had to be obeyed or you were arrested or had some sort of legal problems. Now, not so much.

The across the board decision to ignore subpoenas is going to absolutely destroy this country's checks and balances system if the precedent is set that ignoring subpoenas from Congress is okay without any consequences.

Most recent administrations have ignored / fought Congressional subpoenas under grounds of Executive Privilege.  Ultimately, courts sided with Congress in each case, I believe.  The strategy, though, isn't necessarily about winning, but about delaying.

Here's a pretty comprehensive, solid look at the recent history and some of the issues involved:

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45653.html
Yeah, that is a huge amount of legalese I won't be reading but by perusing I saw it mentioned only 4 instances since 2008. We are now seeing one instance per day. As I said, this is pretty unprecedented.

And yes, it is a delaying action.

Question so I don't have to read that article: Can Congress package all these cases of ignoring subpoenas into one case and bring it directly to the Supreme Court to expedite everything? I thought I read Congress went directly to the SC against Nixon.
taking it a step further, suppose it gets expedited to the SC and they surprisingly rule against Trump despite the political leanings on the court (Reps are supposed to be real sticklers for the exact wording of the Constitution but mostly when it suits them--and this situation is when the Constitution wouldn't favor them), what happens if Trump and his minions ignore that ruling as well and refuse to comply?  DOJ is in Trump's pocket so they likely won't do anything.  What can be done to Trump in that situation?  I suspect nothing but would appreciate anyone telling me I'm wrong on that.

This is why voting for a criminal con man, in order to insure conservative control of the judiciary, was a bad idea.

Frankly makes me question the judgement of people who thought that was a good idea.

And still think it is a good idea. Like, I completely disagreed with their assessment at the time, but understood why they did it. Now that they were able to get two judges in such a short period of time, I wish they would just do the right thing...but, nope.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1192 on: October 17, 2019, 01:48:08 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4235
  • Tommy Points: 707
Oh, sure.   Why not pile it on deep?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-has-awarded-next-years-g-7-summit-of-world-leaders-to-his-miami-area-resort-the-white-house-said/2019/10/17/221b32d6-ef52-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html

Basically, this is the President awarding a massive government contract to his own business.  One that will pump probably millions into what was a recently struggling resort.  Given everything else, why not?   Who says, "No"?
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1193 on: October 17, 2019, 02:47:35 PM »

Online Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4624
  • Tommy Points: 385
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney speaks:

Quote
“The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate,” Mulvaney told reporters at the White House Thursday.

Mulvaney denied, however, that investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden were factored into considerations about releasing military aid to Ukraine.

When asked if what he described was a quid pro quo -- withheld funding unless there was an investigation into the Democratic National Committee server -- Mulvaney responded, "We do that all the time with foreign policy."

“I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy… that’s going to happen. Elections have consequences,” Mulvaney said.

So he is basically saying, you elected Trump so you should have expected anything he now does.  Get over it.

They have now fully admitted that they withheld the military aid in order to get a commitment to investigate 2016 (because the Russians really didn't interfere with the election) and to investigate Joe Biden.  But it is OK because this happens all the time.

I am not "over it".

And while I am at it, I am going to book the G7 at my resort and I don't care.  My base will still support me (essentially giving middle finger to the emoluments clause).

I think Trump believes Impeachment will help him in 2020.  He knows the Senate will not convict.  All we will hear is witch hunt and totally exonerated. 
« Last Edit: October 17, 2019, 03:03:34 PM by Vermont Green »

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1194 on: October 17, 2019, 03:38:04 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4235
  • Tommy Points: 707
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney speaks:

Quote
“The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate,” Mulvaney told reporters at the White House Thursday.

Mulvaney denied, however, that investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden were factored into considerations about releasing military aid to Ukraine.

When asked if what he described was a quid pro quo -- withheld funding unless there was an investigation into the Democratic National Committee server -- Mulvaney responded, "We do that all the time with foreign policy."

“I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy… that’s going to happen. Elections have consequences,” Mulvaney said.

So he is basically saying, you elected Trump so you should have expected anything he now does.  Get over it.

They have now fully admitted that they withheld the military aid in order to get a commitment to investigate 2016 (because the Russians really didn't interfere with the election) and to investigate Joe Biden.  But it is OK because this happens all the time.

I am not "over it".

And while I am at it, I am going to book the G7 at my resort and I don't care.  My base will still support me (essentially giving middle finger to the emoluments clause).

I think Trump believes Impeachment will help him in 2020.  He knows the Senate will not convict.  All we will hear is witch hunt and totally exonerated.

A link for this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trumps-envoy-tells-congress-the-president-outsourced-ukraine-policy-to-giuliani/2019/10/17/484b30d0-f0ee-11e9-b648-76bcf86eb67e_story.html

Quote
Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told reporters Thursday that President Trump blocked nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine in part to force the government in Kyiv to investigate his political rivals, a startling acknowledgment after the president’s repeated denials of a quid pro quo.
Mulvaney defended the maneuver as “absolutely appropriate.”
“Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that’s it, that’s why we held up the money,” Mulvaney said, referring to a conspiracy theory that a hacked Democratic National Committee computer server was taken to Ukraine in 2016 to hide evidence that Kyiv, not Moscow, interfered in the last U.S. presidential election.

Folks, we officially have a rogue administration that simply feels unconstrained by law and will do as it pleases.  If you don't like it, you just need to, "get over it".
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1195 on: October 17, 2019, 04:00:40 PM »

Online Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4624
  • Tommy Points: 385
Quote
...referring to a conspiracy theory that a hacked Democratic National Committee computer server was taken to Ukraine in 2016 to hide evidence that Kyiv, not Moscow, interfered in the last U.S. presidential election.

I don't get what this would prove.  Who cares if it was Russia or Ukraine hacked the DNC?  And how does that have anything to do with the coordinated Russian "bot" attack on social media in order to help Trump get elected?  Not only is this a blatant abuse of power but it is also just plain dumb.

Oh, right, I forgot that Putin told Trump he didn't do it (strongly denied I think were his exact words).

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1196 on: October 17, 2019, 04:01:58 PM »

Online blink

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9632
  • Tommy Points: 628
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney speaks:

Quote
“The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate,” Mulvaney told reporters at the White House Thursday.

Mulvaney denied, however, that investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden were factored into considerations about releasing military aid to Ukraine.

When asked if what he described was a quid pro quo -- withheld funding unless there was an investigation into the Democratic National Committee server -- Mulvaney responded, "We do that all the time with foreign policy."

“I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy… that’s going to happen. Elections have consequences,” Mulvaney said.

So he is basically saying, you elected Trump so you should have expected anything he now does.  Get over it.

They have now fully admitted that they withheld the military aid in order to get a commitment to investigate 2016 (because the Russians really didn't interfere with the election) and to investigate Joe Biden.  But it is OK because this happens all the time.

I am not "over it".

And while I am at it, I am going to book the G7 at my resort and I don't care.  My base will still support me (essentially giving middle finger to the emoluments clause).

I think Trump believes Impeachment will help him in 2020.  He knows the Senate will not convict.  All we will hear is witch hunt and totally exonerated.

Completely shocking that they just come out and admited it.   Doesn't Mulvaney know that he can go to jail for his part in this?

Well at least we are going to see how many completely complicit and corrupt republican sentors we have.
A lot of them have been saying 'it wasn't a quid pro quo' with their fingers in their ears.  What do all those republicans say now?  Do they just parrot Mulvaney? 

There was reporting that the Presidents legal team was in shock.  Well yeah that would probably be the response when the president's chief of staff just admits to the whole

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1197 on: October 17, 2019, 04:13:37 PM »

Online heyvik

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1498
  • Tommy Points: 59
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney speaks:

Quote
“The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate,” Mulvaney told reporters at the White House Thursday.

Mulvaney denied, however, that investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden were factored into considerations about releasing military aid to Ukraine.

When asked if what he described was a quid pro quo -- withheld funding unless there was an investigation into the Democratic National Committee server -- Mulvaney responded, "We do that all the time with foreign policy."

“I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy… that’s going to happen. Elections have consequences,” Mulvaney said.

So he is basically saying, you elected Trump so you should have expected anything he now does.  Get over it.

They have now fully admitted that they withheld the military aid in order to get a commitment to investigate 2016 (because the Russians really didn't interfere with the election) and to investigate Joe Biden.  But it is OK because this happens all the time.

I am not "over it".

And while I am at it, I am going to book the G7 at my resort and I don't care.  My base will still support me (essentially giving middle finger to the emoluments clause).

I think Trump believes Impeachment will help him in 2020.  He knows the Senate will not convict.  All we will hear is witch hunt and totally exonerated.

Completely shocking that they just come out and admited it.   Doesn't Mulvaney know that he can go to jail for his part in this?

Well at least we are going to see how many completely complicit and corrupt republican sentors we have.
A lot of them have been saying 'it wasn't a quid pro quo' with their fingers in their ears.  What do all those republicans say now?  Do they just parrot Mulvaney? 

There was reporting that the Presidents legal team was in shock.  Well yeah that would probably be the response when the president's chief of staff just admits to the whole

Just curious, how can he go to jail for this? He didn't testify before Congress did he? He may be one that's gets blamed for 'alternative facts'.

The DOJ was confused - Barr's DOJ was confused - https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/doj-utterly-confused-and-angry-at-mulvaney-for-his-comments-about-suspending-ukraine-aid-fox-news/?fbclid=IwAR3CMXIFbXIkHvBJ4To4wCmaKkN7uEoF3qqd86UNngAfwzZLjRdJDlUrY40

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1198 on: October 17, 2019, 04:20:02 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38597
  • Tommy Points: 6242
This has to be Trump's idea. Admit a quid pro quo but make it on asking a legal favor, which is to assist in the ongoing American DOJ investigation of the original FISA warrant.

So technically he was legally leveraging getting assistance on that investigation.

It's all crap, but it does seem to have Guiliani/Trump all over it. Clearly, his impeachment legal team had nothing to do with this. Guiliani and Trump's strategy has always been to admit stuff after convincing the base that you didn't do it.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing)
« Reply #1199 on: October 17, 2019, 04:21:44 PM »

Online blink

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9632
  • Tommy Points: 628
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney speaks:

Quote
“The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate,” Mulvaney told reporters at the White House Thursday.

Mulvaney denied, however, that investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden were factored into considerations about releasing military aid to Ukraine.

When asked if what he described was a quid pro quo -- withheld funding unless there was an investigation into the Democratic National Committee server -- Mulvaney responded, "We do that all the time with foreign policy."

“I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy… that’s going to happen. Elections have consequences,” Mulvaney said.

So he is basically saying, you elected Trump so you should have expected anything he now does.  Get over it.

They have now fully admitted that they withheld the military aid in order to get a commitment to investigate 2016 (because the Russians really didn't interfere with the election) and to investigate Joe Biden.  But it is OK because this happens all the time.

I am not "over it".

And while I am at it, I am going to book the G7 at my resort and I don't care.  My base will still support me (essentially giving middle finger to the emoluments clause).

I think Trump believes Impeachment will help him in 2020.  He knows the Senate will not convict.  All we will hear is witch hunt and totally exonerated.

Completely shocking that they just come out and admited it.   Doesn't Mulvaney know that he can go to jail for his part in this?

Well at least we are going to see how many completely complicit and corrupt republican sentors we have.
A lot of them have been saying 'it wasn't a quid pro quo' with their fingers in their ears.  What do all those republicans say now?  Do they just parrot Mulvaney? 

There was reporting that the Presidents legal team was in shock.  Well yeah that would probably be the response when the president's chief of staff just admits to the whole

Just curious, how can he go to jail for this? He didn't testify before Congress did he? He may be one that's gets blamed for 'alternative facts'.

The DOJ was confused - Barr's DOJ was confused - https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/doj-utterly-confused-and-angry-at-mulvaney-for-his-comments-about-suspending-ukraine-aid-fox-news/?fbclid=IwAR3CMXIFbXIkHvBJ4To4wCmaKkN7uEoF3qqd86UNngAfwzZLjRdJDlUrY40

There have been numerous reports that have said that Mulvaney has been deeply involved in the holding back of the distribution of the military aid to Ukraine.  He specifically was the one that put the hold on the aid.  Trump, Rudy G, and Mulvaney are all central to the whole issue.  If what Mulvaney basically admitted to is true, couldn't he be part of a campaign finance crime - federal bribery?

I don't see how Mulvaney isn't pulled in to testify now.  I mean the white house may stall and resist him testifying, but you can't say what Mulvaney said and expect there to not be any consequences. 


"Trump's legal team was baffled by ... Mulvaney's performance today in the briefing room.

'It was not helpful,' the source said.
...
Justice officials were confused and angry at the White House comments."

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-10-17-2019/h_0bf3618006fb900832cbde4acb505e4c
« Last Edit: October 17, 2019, 04:30:41 PM by blink »