Notifications
Clear all

[Closed] The Unraveling -- Donald Trump  

Page 86 / 166
  RSS

(@lenor)
Estimable Member Registered
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 202
11/08/2019 11:08 am  

@triciact

Part of the problem is that there is no Sergeant of Arms to arrest these cowards. Trump got rid of him. I heard this on CNN. Second, if you stick by t**** he will just pardon you, and the democrats know this. My belief is that all these cowards will pay the piper once Trump is gone. 


Lilinoe, Unk p, Jessi1978 and 1 people liked
(@deetoo)
Noble Member Registered
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1109
11/08/2019 1:15 pm  

@lenor,

Not sure what CNN is reporting.  Did this just happen?   The Sergeant at Arms, Michael Stenger, is still actively listed under the government website:  https://www.senate.gov/reference/common/person/stenger_michael_c.htm

This is part of what it says on the U.S. Senate official site:

"The title is now “sergeant at arms and doorkeeper,” and the sergeant at arms now serves the Senate as its chief law enforcement officer, protocol officer, and executive officer.

Elected by the senators, each sergeant at arms serves from Congress to Congress until a successor is chosen. Since this is an elected position, the majority party in the Senate selects the sergeant at arms, but once elected, sergeants at arms serve all members of the Senate."


(@laura-f)
Noble Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 1203
11/08/2019 1:53 pm  

The justification the Dems are offering for NOT prosecuting subpoena violations is that they are adding each no-show or refusal to the list of acts of obstruction of justice by Trumpito. They are trying to avoid the optics of jailing people because they know it will further alienate "the base".


Lilinoe, deetoo, Lenor and 2 people liked
(@triciact)
Prominent Member Registered
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 795
11/08/2019 2:15 pm  

@laura-f

Thanks for the info but my opinion is that doesn't make sense. It just gives them all more ammunition to keep not showing up for subpoenas and a lack of rule of law. Mango's base is in his court whether they jail folks or not. It's like a kid who you threaten to punish but you never do...the child becomes a nightmare.


Lilinoe, Unk p, deetoo and 1 people liked
(@laura-f)
Noble Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 1203
11/08/2019 2:35 pm  

@TriciaCT - I agree completely, I think they should throw them all in jail. It would fall to Pelosi to order that, though, and I don't think she would. As for the sargent-at-arms, while it is his duty, if the post is empty any Capitol Police can follow the orders of the Speaker, as far as I know.


Lilinoe, Unk p, deetoo and 2 people liked
 lynn
(@lynnventura)
Reputable Member Registered
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 377
11/08/2019 4:49 pm  

If someone refused to honor a congressional subpoena the normal thing is to refer the violation to the Dept. of Justice, which means AG Barr would basically do nothing. The other option is to ask a judge to order the recipient of the subpoena to comply, and if he/she doesn't, the judge can find the person in contempt and throw them in jail until they decide to show up. But going to court takes time and the administration would fight it for purposes of delay. Hence Schiff's plan to deal with the no-shows as establishing additional counts of obstruction. It's the best he can do.


Lilinoe, BlueBelle, CDeanne and 4 people liked
(@lenor)
Estimable Member Registered
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 202
11/08/2019 5:03 pm  

@deetoo

My apologies, I checked and you are correct. But I did hear a guest on CNN talking about arresting the no shows and he said something to the effect about t**** doing away with the SAA.  Unless he said that T***** would like to get rid of him. In addition to the election and alienating the base, I do believe that they know he will just pardon them and undermine the justice.  I believe there was a prediction that all the bad actors will eventually be arrested. With Nixon, some of the people involved were sent to prison years later. I only listen to CNN andMSNBC and NPR.


Lilinoe and deetoo liked
(@jessi1978)
Reputable Member Registered
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 485
11/08/2019 5:04 pm  

It’s getting interesting. Remember Mulvaney little hissy fit where he admitted it was a quid pro quo and who cares it happens all the time. Well it’s just go hot form him. 

(CNN) - Two White House officials told lawmakers the "blatant" push for politically motivated investigations from President Donald Trump left "no ambiguity" what the Ukrainians needed to do to secure a highly sought meeting — and the effort was coordinated by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, according to deposition transcripts released Friday.

 

The testimony of National Security Council Ukraine expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill provides new details on the discussions inside the White House ahead of the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksy, in which Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and Burisma, he Ukrainian natural gas company that hired Hunter Biden. The officials say they were told that effort was directed by Mulvaney, putting the Ukraine scandal squarely into the office of the President's top aide.

Vindman and Hill testified that US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Ukrainian officials in meetings on July 10 they would have to open an investigation to secure the White House meeting. Sondland told them he was acting at the direction of Mulvaney, who on Friday defied a congressional subpoena and did not appear for a deposition.

"Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations," Hill testified.

Vindman said he was first aware of the hold on Ukraine aid by July 3, and later learned that it came from Mulvaney's office. He said that when the Ukrainians learned the aid had been held up, he they asked whether it was true and "what do we need to do?"

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/08/politics/transcripts-released-fiona-hill-alexander-vindman/index.html?ofs=fbia


(@mas1581)
Reputable Member Registered
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 379
11/08/2019 6:29 pm  

The sargeant at arms can detain those in contempt of congress, but then any charges have to be filed by the DOJ. Barr is obviously not going to do anything and all that will accomplish at this point is to give the GOP more to go off of. Woth the entire justice department acting as the personal Trump police, the only real move they have is to go on as they are, keep forcing story changes by the GOP, and then file contempt charges once the DOJ is working properly again. 

On the bright side, Donald "They need to have public testimony" Trump is now screaming that that the have no business making it public so progress is being made. The truly scary part is CNN interviewed cultists, I mean DT supporters, yesterday and asked if Trump shot someone in the street would they still vote for him. The response was "well it depends why he shot them" 


Lilinoe, KB, TriciaCT and 4 people liked
(@deetoo)
Noble Member Registered
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1109
11/08/2019 6:32 pm  

@lenor, I generally listen to the same media outlets as you, but if they start playing any audio or videos of Twitler speaking, it gets turned off.   It's an assault on my senses.  I also read the Washington Post.  It's so hard to keep track of what's happening, because T's gotten away with so much.  He should have been thrown out two years ago.  I heard a Washington Post journalist mention how hard they work to get their stories correct, and how exhausting it all is.  

What astounds me is this allegiance so many of these clowns -- Mulvaney, Rudy, the Rs in Congress, and the like -- have to T.  I mean, their stupidity and arrogance blows my mind.  Twitler uses and abuses people.   So it's got to come down to $$$.  And T. will throw anyone under the bus -- probably even his own kids -- if he needs to save his own butt.  T. just said that he "barely knew" Sondland.  A few days ago the Ghouliani associate who was involved in the campaign to pressure Ukraine into aiding T's political campaign, Lev Parnas, decided to talk with congressional impeachment investigators after becoming angry that T. denied knowing him.  I'd heard that the WH/Congressional Rs are looking for a fall guy, and they're zeroing in on Mulvaney, Ghouliani or Sondland.

And SOMEBODY needs to explain to me what in the hell is up with Lindsay G.


Anita, Lilinoe, KB and 5 people liked
(@elaineg)
Estimable Member Registered
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 228
11/08/2019 7:03 pm  

@deetoo

Lindsay G. is up for reelection.  They said on the news that J. Bolton is hinting for immunity, and he 'has a story to tell'. I too can't listen to trump.  I know I've been gripy, but I'm just so worried about this whole thing. Sorry.


Lilinoe, TriciaCT, Lenor and 2 people liked
(@mas1581)
Reputable Member Registered
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 379
11/08/2019 7:33 pm  

@elaineg

If Bolton wants immunity then his testimony will sink Trump to a point they have no choice but to remove him. He only asks for immunity if he, himself, acted to cover it up because they dont want him-they only want Trump/Pence and their remajning loyalists here. If Bolton specifically helped the coverup, he knows everything and his illegal actions can be proven to confirm his story. 

If all this is true, the WH is shitting their pants and trying their damnedest to shut Bolton up. They can only smear him to a point and Trump cant distance himself from it like it trying to now.


Baba, Jessi1978, KB and 3 people liked
 PamP
(@pamp)
Trusted Member Registered
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 73
11/09/2019 11:11 am  

@sdj

Under Florida bankruptcy law a primary domicile is exempt from bankruptcy seizure. Right there is the problem he missed - Mar-A-Lago is a functioning business and may be subject to seizure. He and his lawyers are definitely not the brightest lights on the fairy light string.


TriciaCT, KB, Lenor and 2 people liked
 PamP
(@pamp)
Trusted Member Registered
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 73
11/09/2019 11:13 am  

@triciact

When your enemy is sinking, don't throw them a life preserver. It's frustrating, but they're letting the GOP and Trump sink themselves. 


TriciaCT and Lenor liked
 PamP
(@pamp)
Trusted Member Registered
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 73
11/09/2019 11:23 am  

@triciact

There's a small "jail" that holds one person. It's basically a room with a bed and bath in the basement of the House. There literally would be no room for the multiples of people that would be needed to be held. Remember - these are NOT criminal hearings - they are Congressional malpractice and misbehavior hearings that do have punishments attached that fall under the purview of the Legislative Branch, although afterward criminal charges may be warranted. Those crimes would be tried in the criminal justice system, which falls under the Executive Branch.


TriciaCT, Lilinoe, Lenor and 1 people liked
(@laura-f)
Noble Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 1203
11/09/2019 12:07 pm  

The criminal justice system falls under the executive branch??? I don't think so...

There are three branches, each to serve as a check against the other two. The judicial branch is not under control of the executive, although I will concede that Twitler et al want everyone to think that.


Lenor liked
(@mas1581)
Reputable Member Registered
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 379
11/09/2019 1:27 pm  

@laura-f

Actually it does partly. The judges are obviously under the juducial system, however, police and prosecuters are executive branch. The ability to arrest, detain, investigate, and file charges falls solely under the executive branch. The judiciary's only job is to interpret the laws created by legislative. 


Lilinoe and Lenor liked
(@lovendures)
Noble Member Registered
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1386
11/09/2019 2:20 pm  

In my humble non-psychic opinion, I believe there will be new laws created over the next... say10 years, which will rectify some of the gaping holes discovered during this dark time.  

One of the first ones will be a requirement to show tax returns.  It will be interesting to see if the next group in charge will be willing to create rules that benefit the country, not simply the party in charge.


Lilinoe, BlueBelle, TriciaCT and 5 people liked
(@yofisofi)
Eminent Member Registered
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 46
11/09/2019 7:27 pm  

@lovendures

I also think there needs to be a law requiring all presidential candidates to be vetted by congress for security clearance prior to entering the race, or at least prior to inauguration. It is a huge national security breach to have a president who is a compromised asset to some foreign power. Everyone else in government has to have a security clearance -- why should the president be an exception? 


RosieHeart, Laura F., Lilinoe and 7 people liked
(@triciact)
Prominent Member Registered
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 795

Lilinoe, deetoo, BlueBelle and 1 people liked
Page 86 / 166
Share: