Watch the Trump Ukraine scandal come back to roost

[Pete F.]

Last week at his father’s rally in Minnesota, the president’s simple son led a round of “lock him up” chants aimed squarely at Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. It was more than a little ironic given that, on the same morning, two close associates of his father’s personal lawyer were picked up at Dulles International Airport trying to get out of the country with one-way tickets to Vienna. Or the fact that his father’s last personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, is currently serving time. Or the fact that his father’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is also in the big house.

On the one hand, it’s kind of funny that everyone around Donald Trump seems to wind up in jail while he accuses the rest of the world of being corrupt. Like it’s all just some big, strange coincidence.

On the other hand, it’s kind of terrifying that Donald Trump always projects his character problems onto his opponents. And somehow he keeps getting away with it.

The arrest of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman was just the latest case of Rudy Giuliani costing his boss even while working for him pro bono. He’s the most expensive free lawyer in America.

It’s also not helpful that Parnas and Fruman were supposed to join Giuliani in Vienna. After all, the president of the United States is desperate to convince people that he’s not a corrupt, would-be autocrat who deserves to be impeached because he’s flouting the Constitution and abusing his office by colluding with foreign governments. And yet, there’s his private attorney, running off to a secret meeting in another country with two foreign-born “business associates” who have been arrested on charges of funneling foreign money into U.S. elections. Oops.

Other charges against Parnas and Fruman—who again, it bears repeating, are “business associates” of the president’s personal lawyer—include falsifying records and making false statements.

Hours before they were arrested, they had dinner with the president’s free lawyer at the president’s hotel.

But yes, by all means, let’s lock up Joe Biden. That’s the real story here.

Keep believing

[scottw]

What did trump gain in the supposed quid pro quo?

[Pete F.]

The charge that the president asked the government of Ukraine to give him personal political favors is serious. Proving it also requires overcoming presidential stonewalling, building a carefully-constructed case on the model of criminal law, and relying on dozens of Republicans to reverse positions they have already taken publicly.

Cipollone’s or Trump's letter to Congress is a game-changer precisely because it is not about the president’s conduct—which Democrats are always primed to attack and which Republicans are forever willing to excuse. It sweeps away the clutter of Trump’s outsized personality to clarify the constitutional stakes. The letter is not a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional opportunity.

On the basis of Cipollone’s letter alone, the House could immediately debate articles of impeachment rooted in abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. That would clarify the question for Congressional Republicans, which is not whether they are willing to apologize ad infinitum for President Trump personally—they are—but rather whether they are willing to go on record as foregoing their power of oversight of future Democratic administrations. Democrats will eventually occupy the White House and Republicans will eventually control the Congress. Whether that happens in 2021 or beyond is not the point. The survival of congressional oversight is.

The stakes are no less than that. The important fact about the Cipollone letter is not that it concocts legal grounds for resisting the House inquiry but rather that it reserves for presidents the right to judge whether impeachment proceedings are legitimate. Is there a circumstance in which a future president would acknowledge that they are?

That those in power will someday find themselves in opposition—and consequently should make decisions on the integrity of institutions rather than the behavior of individuals—is both one of the most important, and one of the most easily forsaken, tenets of constitutionalism.

Democrats forgot that principle with respect to President Obama’s assertions of unilateral executive authority over domestic issues such as health care and immigration. Yet some of the president’s most shameless apologists have retained a residue of institutional concern. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for example, has defended the legislative filibuster on the grounds that Democrats are using it today, but Republicans may need it tomorrow.

A charge of obstruction of Congress would compel senators like McConnell to weigh the same considerations with respect to Congressional oversight. Is protecting this president today—an individual whose four-year term is a fraction of the Constitution’s centuries—more important than preserving Congressional power for all time? Could, for example, the Benghazi investigation have occurred at all if President Obama had been able to withhold the testimony of Senate-confirmed officials or documentary evidence on the claim that the process was partisan?

That presidents and legislators—especially senators—are chosen on different electoral clocks helps force these considerations. A senator elected alongside President Trump in 2020 will serve two years beyond his term and consequently should consider constitutional issues on a time horizon that exceeds one administration.

Oversight of the administration’s antics in Ukraine can continue, of course. But the obstruction case is ready for trial. The evidence is indisputable, and indisputably clarifying.

What is on trial is not the transient fabulism of Donald Trump but rather the enduring architecture of the Constitution.

Remember which side of this you fell on when the next administration comes along and claims that their powers are unlimited and pushes it further.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The charge that the president asked the government of Ukraine to give him personal political favors is serious. Proving it also requires overcoming presidential stonewalling, building a carefully-constructed case on the model of criminal law, and relying on dozens of Republicans to reverse positions they have already taken publicly.

Cipollone’s or Trump's letter to Congress is a game-changer precisely because it is not about the president’s conduct—which Democrats are always primed to attack and which Republicans are forever willing to excuse. It sweeps away the clutter of Trump’s outsized personality to clarify the constitutional stakes. The letter is not a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional opportunity.

On the basis of Cipollone’s letter alone, the House could immediately debate articles of impeachment rooted in abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. That would clarify the question for Congressional Republicans, which is not whether they are willing to apologize ad infinitum for President Trump personally—they are—but rather whether they are willing to go on record as foregoing their power of oversight of future Democratic administrations. Democrats will eventually occupy the White House and Republicans will eventually control the Congress. Whether that happens in 2021 or beyond is not the point. The survival of congressional oversight is.

The stakes are no less than that. The important fact about the Cipollone letter is not that it concocts legal grounds for resisting the House inquiry but rather that it reserves for presidents the right to judge whether impeachment proceedings are legitimate. Is there a circumstance in which a future president would acknowledge that they are?

That those in power will someday find themselves in opposition—and consequently should make decisions on the integrity of institutions rather than the behavior of individuals—is both one of the most important, and one of the most easily forsaken, tenets of constitutionalism.

Democrats forgot that principle with respect to President Obama’s assertions of unilateral executive authority over domestic issues such as health care and immigration. Yet some of the president’s most shameless apologists have retained a residue of institutional concern. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for example, has defended the legislative filibuster on the grounds that Democrats are using it today, but Republicans may need it tomorrow.

A charge of obstruction of Congress would compel senators like McConnell to weigh the same considerations with respect to Congressional oversight. Is protecting this president today—an individual whose four-year term is a fraction of the Constitution’s centuries—more important than preserving Congressional power for all time? Could, for example, the Benghazi investigation have occurred at all if President Obama had been able to withhold the testimony of Senate-confirmed officials or documentary evidence on the claim that the process was partisan?

That presidents and legislators—especially senators—are chosen on different electoral clocks helps force these considerations. A senator elected alongside President Trump in 2020 will serve two years beyond his term and consequently should consider constitutional issues on a time horizon that exceeds one administration.

Oversight of the administration’s antics in Ukraine can continue, of course. But the obstruction case is ready for trial. The evidence is indisputable, and indisputably clarifying.

What is on trial is not the transient fabulism of Donald Trump but rather the enduring architecture of the Constitution.

Remember which side of this you fell on when the next administration comes along and claims that their powers are unlimited and pushes it further.

Lots of blah blah with no substance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Lots of blah blah with no substance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You obviously have not read the letter and spout off as usual

[Sea Dangles]

I wonder how it will all turn out with all of these alleged misdeeds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

I have to wonder if he and guys like PeteF are seriously out to prove people wrong. And when it fails, they feign shock after all of the proof they have presented. Interesting concept I guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Trump compares the pull out to letting two kids on a play lot fight for a minute until you pull them apart. The man is clearly unfiltered and bonkers, what a “presidential” statement. Hundreds of thousands fleeing, hundreds dead, reported war crimes, our troops near fire, our allies in jeopardy of being destroyed, we are bombing our own installations to avoid others taking them over, but Turkey got what it wanted and we got zip. Trump is a scary guy to have control of our military, go sleep well tonight that your 401k is doing well, while Trump destroys our position as a world leader; but his financial interests in Turkey are secure.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Mr Mulvaney later backtracked on his earlier remarks, saying the media had "decided to misconstrue my comments".

Again we did not hear what was said . even the Tape recording "decided to misconstrue my comments". typical

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Mr Mulvaney later backtracked on his earlier remarks, saying the media had "decided to misconstrue my comments".

Again we did not hear what was said . even the Tape recording "decided to misconstrue my comments". typical

In the words of Pete F. "Diplomacy is always Quid pro quo". Any leverage that Mulvaney referred to was in the vein of Pete's quote. Mulvaney clarified his previous general comment (or "backtracked" as you characterize it) by stating specifically what he meant, leverage in regard to corruption and lack of aid by other countries.

Ukraine President said he didn't know about the money being withheld until after the phone call, so it couldn't have been a quid pro quo.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

In the words of Pete F. "Diplomacy is always Quid pro quo". Any leverage that Mulvaney referred to was in the vein of Pete's quote. Mulvaney clarified his previous general comment (or "backtracked" as you characterize it) by stating specifically what he meant, leverage in regard to corruption and lack of aid by other countries.

Ukraine President said he didn't know about the money being withheld until after the phone call, so it couldn't have been a quid pro quo.

No national leader doesn’t know what is in the USA news regarding politics and his country
It was in the NYT before trump called him
Ukraine doesn’t want to be in the middle of this
Trump last week forced Zelensky’s hand and because Zelensky did not believe the USA had his back he had to fold on Donbas
Win for Putin
Putin’s Puppet is paying for the help in the last election
Zelensky got screwed by Trump
The Kurds are getting cleansed because of Trump
He is the weakest President in the history of the USA
Your hero
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No national leader doesn’t know what is in the USA news regarding politics and his country
It was in the NYT before trump called him
Ukraine doesn’t want to be in the middle of this
Trump last week forced Zelensky’s hand and because Zelensky did not believe the USA had his back he had to fold on Donbas
Win for Putin
Putin’s Puppet is paying for the help in the last election
Zelensky got screwed by Trump
The Kurds are getting cleansed because of Trump
He is the weakest President in the history of the USA
Your hero
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently, Zelensky didn't read the NYT article, or he is a liar. Do you have proof that he is a liar?

[Got Stripers]

Distraction right out of Trumps play book, good boy good boy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Distraction right out of Trumps play book, good boy good boy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're such a genius. It's a wonder that more people don't realize that.

[Pete F.]

To Win Giuliani’s Help, Oligarch’s Allies Pursued Biden Dirt
Associates of a Ukrainian oligarch fighting extradition to the U.S. were working to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden last summer in an effort to get Rudy Giuliani’s help in the oligarch’s legal case, according to three people familiar with the exchanges.

Dmitry Firtash, charged with conspiracy by the U.S. and living in Vienna, shuffled lawyers in July to add Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, vocal supporters of President Donald Trump who had worked with Giuliani. Around that time, some of Firtash’s associates began to use his broad network of Ukraine contacts to get damaging information on Biden, the people said.
It’s all coming out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

DiGenova and Toensing have billed Firtash about $1 million for their work, one of the people said. That includes costs for Lev Parnas, a Giuliani associate, as a translator and important contact, the person said. Parnas was arrested last week along with several associates and accused of conspiring to violate campaign-finance laws.

People working on Firtash’s behalf collected a witness statement from Viktor Shokin, a former Ukrainian prosecutor-general. The statement, dated early September, helped Giuliani renew an assertion that he’d been advancing for months -- that Biden had tried in 2016 to sway Ukrainian politics to help his son. U.S. and Ukrainian officials have disputed Shokin’s account.

Shokin, though, had been promised his statement wouldn’t be made public, according to the people. Giuliani went on to cite it repeatedly, waving it around on cable news as evidence of Biden’s alleged corruption. The Hill and other media outlets provided links to it, with Giuliani later suggesting he had a role in making it public. “This is the affidavit I put out,” he said during a Fox News interview this month.


As a result of the publicity Giuliani generated with Shokin’s statement, two of the people said they believe the odds of the Justice Department dropping the case against Firtash have plummeted, because it would look like a quid pro quo. Others connected to the case agreed.

U.S. lawmakers conducting a presidential impeachment inquiry are bearing down on whether favors were traded for influence. They are examining Giuliani’s efforts to turn up evidence in Ukraine and allegations that the Trump administration withheld crucial aid until the country’s president agreed to investigate the Bidens.
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/a...mpression=true

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

This is more fake news to feed the hungry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

A supposedly corrupt prosecutor, at the behest of a corrupt Biden, was replaced by another corrupt prosecutor who then closed all the investigations into corruption in the Ukraine despite our government's concern about Ukrainian corruption. Sounds like a lot of corruption on all sides of the matter. Sounds like it might be a good thing to investigate what all the corruption was about.

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/201...dealings-2015/

Some excerpts: "I’m going to guess this isn’t what Adam Schiff wanted to come out of his latest “hearing.”
A State Department official named George Kent, who served during the Obama administration as well . . . managed to drop a piece of new information and it had to do with Hunter Biden.

"Namely, that Kent had approached Biden in 2015 about the issues with his son’s dealing and was rebuffed . . . Kent, who testified behind closed doors before committees spearheading the formal House impeachment inquiry, told congressional investigators that he had qualms about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. Remember, Biden has repeatedly claimed that he didn’t know of his son’s dealings. We know he’s lying in regards to ever talking to Hunter about them, but now we know they were also brought to his attention through official channels as well . . . There’s another bit of information in this piece that’s interesting as well . . .

"Kent testified that while Shokin faced accusations of corruption, his replacement, Lutsenko, did too and that both ex-prosecutors were godfathers to former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s children. However, according to sources, Kent said that while the United States pushed hard for Shokin to be fired, no one ever pushed for Lutsenko to be fired. There’s another bit of information in this piece that’s interesting as well. Lutsenko ended up closing the cases into Burisma and other corruption within Ukraine. Coincidentally, I’m sure, the Obama administration had no problem keeping him on the job despite his checkered history and the fact that he just happened to be helping out Joe Biden and his son in the process."

[Pete F.]

Was that leaked?

[Pete F.]

Plenty of spin going on about that from both sides, it will be hard to discern the truth for a while.

Trump is trying very hard to make this investigation about someone else.

It's not.

It's about the lies and obstruction.

[Got Stripers]

Let’s get a full list of corrupt governments that the US has been leery of making deals with, it’s dozens and likely dozens more, it doesn’t change the fact that ironically this one might be willing to provide dirt (real or not) on the Bidens AND military aid already allocated was being held up in order for Trump to PERSONALLY gain an edge in an up coming election. Two wrongs don’t make it right, spin baby spin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Funny those trashing biden for getting 50 k a month seem to only like success when its achieved by people with R next to their names.. we all know the people whom i speak . BUT they easily dismiss all of the a trump children and their business dealing or that thier name alone has open doors for them. But but Bidens son oh how corrupt..

Typical Republican hypocrites.....

Only in their world everything is the same
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

so Wayne, if Baron Trump gets a job with a big Ukrainian company next week it won't be a problem for you? Baron is probably twice as qualified as Hunter Biden was and doesn't have all of the baggage

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

so Wayne, if Baron Trump gets a job with a big Ukrainian company next week it won't be a problem for you? Baron is probably twice as qualified as Hunter Biden was and doesn't have all of the baggage

Only in your world everything is the same..

PS BARRON RECENTLY RECEIVED A HORSE NAMED VICTORIA FROM THE MONGOLIAN GOVERNMENT.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Only in your world everything is the same..

PS BARRON RECENTLY RECEIVED A HORSE NAMED VICTORIA FROM THE MONGOLIAN GOVERNMENT.

good grief....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mongolian President Battulga Khaltmaa will visit the White House on Wednesday, seeking help from President Donald Trump on trade and military deals - and possibly a name for the horse his government has symbolically gifted to Trump’s 13-year-old son, Barron.


The vast northern nation locked between Russia and China is known for its ancient breed of tough, tiny horses ridden by Genghis Khan and other warlords - and often gives horses to visiting dignitaries.

The horse is unlikely to make the long trip to the United States, a senior U.S. administration official told reporters, though Mongolian officials are eager that it be given a name. Other U.S. dignitaries to receive a symbolic horse in the past include former Vice President Joe Biden, and former defense secretaries Chuck Hagel and Donald Rumsfeld.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

good grief....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mongolian President Battulga Khaltmaa will visit the White House on Wednesday, seeking help from President Donald Trump on trade and military deals - and possibly a name for the horse his government has symbolically gifted to Trump’s 13-year-old son, Barron.


The vast northern nation locked between Russia and China is known for its ancient breed of tough, tiny horses ridden by Genghis Khan and other warlords - and often gives horses to visiting dignitaries.

The horse is unlikely to make the long trip to the United States, a senior U.S. administration official told reporters, though Mongolian officials are eager that it be given a name. Other U.S. dignitaries to receive a symbolic horse in the past include former Vice President Joe Biden, and former defense secretaries Chuck Hagel and Donald Rumsfeld.

You brought him up not me..

A symbolic horse to the 13 year old son of a POTUS who loves being stroked.. no way they are trying to seek Trumps Favor ...

Yes they gave it him for exactly the same reason as thoses other pepole you listed... LOL

Ps seems we symbolicly pulled out of Syria to bring Troops home.. To bad they went to Iraq instead ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Thank you for sharing PeteF. This may seem enlightening to you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Thank you for sharing PeteF. This may seem enlightening to you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Trump watched his advisory panel this am

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump· 2h
Neither he (Taylor) or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo.” Congressman John Ratcliffe @foxandfriends Where is the Whistleblower? The Do Nothing Dems case is DEAD!

Here's the foolish thing about this line of defense (obfuscation would be more accurate)...the money was held up. If they didn't want something from Ukraine, and Ukraine didn't know the money was being held up, what was the point in holding up the money (which was legally dubious at best).

[Pete F.]

Game over
The problem was not a bureaucratic glitch, the Ukrainians were told then. To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the interviews and records.
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 United States 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 Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and two American diplomats were pressing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to make a public commitment to the investigations being sought by Mr. Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device