HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kentuck » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

kentuck

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 101,951

About Me

This land is your land; This land is my land.

Journal Archives

Rudy's "hand grenade"?

It was former National Security Advisor John Bolton that said Rudy Giuliani was like a "hand grenade".

It has now been reported that Rudy admitted to forcing out Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch in Ukraine, because she was standing in the way of their investigations. Rudy is quoted in the NewYorker.com article: “I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way,” he said. “She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody.”

He accused her of being "corrupt".

I wonder if this is the "hand grenade" that John Bolton was talking about? And now, Rudy is rolling out the "hand grenade" before Bolton has a chance to talk about it?

Perhaps just a coincidence that someone on the House Judiciary said that the investigations and possible witnesses were still proceeding?

This seems to me to be the most stark evidence thus far. The question seems to be: How much did Trump know about it and how much was Rudy on his own? It was a "shadow foreign policy" and very threatening to our national security.

Or as Ambassador Sondland had testified, was it one of those" big things" that Trump cared about more than anything else - things that helped his brand or made him money?

Many Americans thought the FISA program would not end well.

Anytime someone has that type of power over another, at some time or another someone will abuse the system.

Of course, it was expanded as part of our anti-terrorism fight after 9/11. (Actually as 'cos dem' has noted down the page, it was actually begun during the Carter Administration) We wanted to keep track of terrorists calling other terrorists inside our country. To make it sound more palatable, they assured us that a "FISA Court" would oversee all requests to eavesdrop on others phone calls, etc.

When the warnings came in about possible Russia meddling, and suspicious contacts with people within the Trump campaign with Russian officials, some connected to Russian Security, it naturally raised a flag for the FBI. Otherwise they would not have been doing their jobs. That is more or less what the DOJ IG said in his Report.

And he reported on 17 instances where questionable information was used to get a FISA warrant or some other violation.

It's a difficult matter to sort.

(edited to correct when program was begun)

The best strategy for the Democrats during impeachment trial?

First of all, they must remember that this is not a criminal trial - it is a political trial. You win or lose with the politics.

A political argument is strongest when it has the facts on its side. Democrats have the advantage going in.

Secondly, they need to take notes and call the Trump defenders on their conspiracy theories and outright lies. The American people deserve the truth. Democrats should pursue their case with a directed aggressiveness. They should not be deterred by calls for testimony from Hunter Biden or the Whistleblower. They should be persistent in their argument that the Congress was obstructed and was unable to get the witnesses to help clear up the facts in the case. They wanted to hear from Mulvaney, Pompeo. Rick Perry, John Bolton, and several others that had first-hand information that might have cleared Donald Trump of the charges. Congress was refused these witnesses.

Thirdly, they will need to make a strong effort to keep the trial on the right track. Mr Trump has some very serious charges against him. It does not serve the people or the country to discuss other issues unrelated to the charges against Donald Trump. As much as Republicans would like, Hunter Biden has absolutely nothing to do with bribing Ukraine or making demands that Zelensky go on CNN to state that there is an investigation going on against Joe Biden and the origins of the 2016 election,

Also, the Democrats should request the assistance of CJ John Roberts in the determination of relevant and irrelevant witnesses. They should request a cessation of all tweets from Mr Trump during the impeachment trial. He should not be permitted to interfere in the proceeding in such a brazen manner.

The Democrats should recognize that they are in a political battle. They should not hesitate to ask for and to force the Chief Justice to rule on questions that are important for the American people to know. They are fighting a righteous battle for the soul and survival of our democracy. Do not be afraid to step on a few toes.

It's easy to be an armchair quarterback. But, I do believe it is a very important issue.

Should Democrats demand that Donald Trump testify under oath?

Not to send a lawyer, not to send Rudy Giuliani, but to testify under oath in his own impeachment trial?

After all, Bill Clinton had to give blood for his impeachment trial. Why is Donald Trump any different? Just because he doesn't want to?

Some may argue that Democrats need to be more aggressive against Mr Trump. He can sit in the White House and twitter as the rest of the country debates whether or not he is guilty. That shows the world that he considers himself above the law.

Mueller was unable to get him to testify and eventually just gave up. He ended up with a few written questions with a lot of non-answers.

The Democrats could demand this from Donald Trump, just as he demands that the Bidens and the whistleblower testify, that Donald Trump testify in his own defense. They should portray him as a coward, looking to hide behind the skirts of others.

As a side benefit, this could force the hand of the Chief Justice, John Roberts, to state which witnesses he considers relevant and which are irrelevant to the impeachment trial of Donald Trump? This could be cleared up before the trial even begins.

Do you believe the Democrats need to be more aggressive toward the crimes of Donald J Trump? Should they try to put him on the defensive before the trial begins?

Those Mean Ol' Democrats

They are going to impeach Donald Trump because they have hated him since the first day. Now they are taking eight little words in a transcript and building an impeachment case around it. The people are smarter than that. They believe there was corruption with Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Mr Trump had every right to investigate them. It is just a coincidence that Joe Biden was ahead in the polls and was the biggest threat to Donald Trump getting re-elected.

But, that's not why Mr Trump held up the military funds for Ukraine. That's not why he wanted Mr Kelensky to go on CNN and announce an investigation against Joe Biden. Mr Trump is fighting corruption, wherever he finds it. Those mean old Democrats just hate this president.

After three years, all they can find is eight little words from a transcript? The Mueller report was a big dud. Never mind that it was obstructed every inch of the way. That's just the way Donald Trump operates. He fights back. No matter if it is the Justice Department or the FBI. He has never broken a law in his life. He has always been an upstanding, law-abiding citizen and most Americans know that to be the truth.

To accuse him of doing something illegal or shady to help himself is just unconscionable. This president is only concerned about what is best for our country. Those mean old Demcrats are trying to destroy his sterling reputation.

Do you think another "impeachable offense" will happen between now and Election Day?

Will there be another huge bombshell that shows the criminality and cover-up of Donald Trump?

After the Senate acquits him, how long before another scandal hits the news?

If nothing else, Donald Trump is a criminal. It is in his DNA. He cannot stop. He would not stop, even if he could.

So, it's just a matter of time until we are talking about impeachment again. Some people will pretend they never had any idea their president would do such a thing. Some may even feign regret for voting to acquit. Especially if it is just before the election.

How close is America to a dictatorship?

It seems to me that the present occupant of the White House has taken total control of all the Departments of our government, including State, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, OMB, Treasury, etc.

He also has total control of the Senate at this time. He has control of all the Republicans in the House. They have been frantically stacking the courts with their people.

The only part of government that they do not "control" at this time is the Democratic majority of the House of Representatives.

How close are we to total control by a dictator?

Not to be paranoid or unreasonably fearful, but it seems we are getting very near total control by the Chump in the White House?

Six months from now...

The Supreme Court will be readying to rule on whether Trump's taxes from a third Party must be turned over to law officials or an investigative committee of Congress.

The impeachment will be just a memory.

But new facts will arise that implicate Donald Trump in a new scandal. The argument will be, "Well, he has already been impeached... we have no choice but to wait until the election in November". It's a good bet this will probably happen in one form or other?

Republicans will be trying to hold on to their seats as they attempt to explain away the new scandal. They had no idea their President was so entangled in foreign adventures when they chose to acquit back in January, they will say.

By election day, more and more facts will be known. Donald Trump will be unable to hide the fact that he is a common criminal. The "base" will remain solidly behind Mr Trump, regardless of facts or news reports.

It is easy to envision how this might happen?

White House is tightening access to calls with foreign leaders.

Less and less people will know who Trump is talking with or what they are talking about.

So soon after the articles to impeach, he must be anticipating a free ride in the Senate? And he may be right?

The brazen disrespect for our laws and institutions is over-whelming.

There is little doubt but that he will go after any Republican that votes to convict him in the Senate trial. Most of them are scared witless.

Where does it all end?

What happens if fifty-one Senators vote to convict in the Senate??

IF four Republicans voted with the Democrats and Independents, they would have 51 votes to find Donald J Trump guilty.

Of course, the Constitution says that it takes two/thirds vote in the Senate to remove a President.

If only fifty-one Senators vote to convict, the President does not have to be removed. He can stay on as President?

Even if the majority vote to convict, rather than acquit, it is not enough to remove the President?

How could someone stay on as President if a majority of Senators believe him to be guilty?

Am I missing something that is in the Constitution?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »