Top Diplomat 2 Ukraine texts- 'Crazy to withhold aid for pol campaign'

dandyfopp

'Crazy to withhold security assistance' to Ukraine for political campaign: Top US diplomat

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-diplomat-ukraine-crazy-withhold-security-sasistance-political/story?id=66039011&fbclid=IwAR2eTOuX8EwcSK2cHm3KtVwKQ3eWRZMdIHlLAqGoqB8ekYaq4rkQDAplsII&fbclid=IwAR0rGgTW0ZCyteNHzC50VLfPqI6VJJocjvNkk3Gap6UcCyaf6aT0sQxTYhY



In newly disclosed text messages shared with Congress, the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine at the time writes to a group of other American diplomats that "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Add Impeachment Inquiry as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Impeachment Inquiry news, video, and analysis from ABC News.Impeachment InquiryAdd Interest

The exchange, provided by former U.S Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker as part of his closed-door deposition before multiple House committees Thursday, shows what appears to be encrypted text messages he exchanged with two other American diplomats in September regarding aid money President Donald Trump ordered to be held back from Ukraine.


In the exchange, obtained by ABC News, the concerns are expressed by Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine. Gordon Sondland, the United States Ambassador to the European Union, responds to Taylor, saying, "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."


Sondland then suggests to the group take the conversations off line, typing “I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.” It’s unclear if the conversation continues, based on the material obtained by ABC News.


Sondland, a hotelier and Republican megadonor, contributed over $1 million to the president’s inaugural committee before eventually being nominated and confirmed to the top role as the United States representative to the European Union.


Taylor is a career foreign service officer who has served as the top diplomat in Kyiv since May, when Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was recalled by the administration. Yovanovitch had been smeared by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani for months as blocking Ukrainian investigations into corruption -- an allegation the State Department at the time called an "outright fabrication" that "does not correspond to reality."


But Trump referred to Yovanovitch as "bad news" in his controversial July 25 call with Ukraine’s President Zelenskiy.


The texts came just days before the White House released the military assistance to Ukraine -- almost $400 million from the State Department and Pentagon meant to boost Ukraine as a U.S. partner against Russian aggression.



Sondland has been the U.S. envoy to the European Union since July 2018. He has assisted Giuliani's effort to contact Ukrainian officials about an investigation, according to Giuliani, who says he briefed Sondland and Volker after his meetings.


Asked for comment, a spokesman for Sondland told ABC News, “We are referring all inquiries on this topic to the White House.”


Volker resigned last Friday as the special envoy for Ukraine. The State Department has confirmed that Volker put Giuliani in touch with Zelenskiy's aides at their request.

SaveComment104Like1
Comments (104)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dandyfopp

Quid Pro Quo.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Dandy, what is your impression of that document?


I’m not sure but—- It looks to me that Volker had a clue but arranged the visits anyways. I’m not sure what he could have done otherwise in the job he was in. It sounds as if the one names Bill Taylor knew it was really wrong and was hoping they could carry it off but he quit.

My impression is Volker is coming clean to save himself. The truth will set him free.

Not sure what to think about Volker.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

[9/1/19, 12:08:57 PM] Bill Taylor: Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?
[9/1/19 12:42:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Call me

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

He sounds like the one who had the morals in the issue.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dandyfopp

I agree Kathy.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

I do commend Volker for coming forward. It is what many more need to do to clear this up. His conscience kicked in a little late but at least he is wise enough to cooperate and save his reputation.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Trump has no humane concerns when it comes to getting what he wants. He has told us in so many ways, from treatment of immigrants to the murder of Khashoggi. He has never put people before his politics or financial gain.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

9-1-19 Taylor: Are you now saying security assistance and WH meetings are conditioned on investigations?

9-1-19 Sondland: call me.

Apparently Sondland thought having a text record of what what they were saying would not be a good idea.

But, I think Taylor was trying to get a record of at least some of this on text and Sondland was trying to not have it on record.

9-9-19 Taylor (to Sondland) As I said in the phone I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

The next from back Sondland is longer. Admonished for not using the "new" reason for withholding aid and to call, not text. But read for yourself, at dandy's op

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

My guess is these two are soon going to be guests on Capitol Hill.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dandyfopp

Extortion works.

^^


Ukraine to Review Criminal Case of Firm Linked to Biden’s Son

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/world/europe/ukraine-biden-burisma.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share



1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Let's hear everything Volker said yesterday! Dems can release the transcripts. Transparency is a wonderful thing.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dandyfopp

It sure is.

Can't get much more transparent than Donnie on the South Lawn asking China to collude while dangling tariff talks.



7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Not to worry the Republicans will provide their version of what they heard.....if they lie Schiff will release what he can . My understanding is anything that is discovered that would constitute an impeachable offense has to go to Nadler and the Judiciary Committee. How the communication process to the public will be handled, I haven't heard.

So far all I've heard the Republicans say was that the Dems didn't get anything that will help them with impeachment. Guess they were out for a bathroom break when these texts were shared. To be honest though , that was last night , I haven't been listening this AM.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

I’m remembering Repubs yesterday and their statements to the press that Volker wasn’t saying anything harmful to trump. What scared liars they are. They lied to our faces for one more half day of “winning”. Disgusting.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Chase, no need at all for Republicans or Democrats to provide "their" version. Let's all see the real version. A version by one party or the other could potentially lead to something like we recently saw from Schiff. Any watching for themselves can observe through a political lens (or not) if they so choose, but transparency will be good for all, including what happened when any GOP members were "out for a bathroom break".

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Schiff will release what he can"

Goodness yes, as Schiff has most certainly demonstrated his ethical motives:)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Agrreed......he has.

My point is I don't know how much he can release vs Nadker but he will release what he can because the Dems have made it clear that they need to get the public onside.

Mind you Trump seems to be doing the job for them.......pro impeachment inquiry numbers had been growing....but haven't checked lately. Trump's rant yesterday asking for China to investigate some imaginary wrong doing by Biden ought to convert a few more.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Yes, those numbers have been growing. There were quite a number of reluctant Dems for some time. Now, nearly all are in agreement and the numbers have gone up considerably.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

I believe that they have been a jump in Independents as well. I also saw an interesting poll I referenced here recently and 17% of younger Republicans also favour the hearings

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaux

Ann

Let's hear everything Volker said yesterday! Dems can release the transcripts. Transparency is a wonderful thing.

Did you come out in support of Trump releasing his phone call to Zelensky in its entirety?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dandyfopp
Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

no need at all for Republicans or Democrats to provide "their" version. Let's all see the real version.

How wonderful it would have been if Nunes had taken this route when he headed the committee!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dandyfopp

Nope. How would that benefit Donnie?


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

^^^ That photo is a great example of the phrase "short-fingered vulgarian."

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

https://twitter.com/i/status/1177024162126336002

#penceknew

Video of Trump admitting Pense is involved.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl(9b)

Yes. Misery loves company.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Trump is mostly opaque (tax returns?) so don't understand the expectation for all things Dem majority hearings info.

(Where's the grand jury results vis a vis McCabe?)

Nunes won't give a straight answer. Graham flips. Trump refuses to answer questions. Then, what happened to all the inauguration funds? (To which Amb Sondland gave $$$.)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Andie



Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Margaux, I would completely support the release of the phone call IF we can also release some of Obama's (or some from his administration) phone calls with Russia (and other countries) that may potentially pertain to work being done by Horowitz and Durham. Even more importantly and directly pertinent to Ukraine, Biden's phone calls with Ukraine. I absolutely do not support "new rules" or "new procedures" for this president. Trump must be granted the same rights/privileges/privacy as each of his predecessors has been. Different levels of scrutiny of Democrats vs Republicans is completely unacceptable. Investigate/scrutinize all or none. Same exact standard.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

There isn’t an impeachment inquiry about Obama. Huge, glaring difference you’re overlooking. But I bet Obama’s calls are dull as can be.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Obama is not suspected of a crime. The CIA already had asked Barr to look into Ukraine and he shut it down. You can’t just decide you want to investigate Obama because Trump is committing crimes.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Yeah, there wasn't an impeachment inquiry about Obama. Republicans made that mistake once!

Right now, there isn't an impeachment inquiry about Trump either, but I think that's unstoppable at this point. But, Nancy will either need to take a vote to start an inquiry or take it to court to see if she can do it without a vote. She might be able to, but the courts will have to weigh in on her no-vote-inquiry technique she's chosen to protect her moderate Dems and deny the ability to subpoena to the minority. We'll see what she decides.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspat(aka)

No requirement in the Constitution, Ann. Maybe the same sort of Constitutional ambiguity that allowed Mitch McConnell to ignore Merrick Garland's nomination for the Supreme Court way back when:


"There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a full House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry," Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Newsweek. "That has been done before, but it is not a constitutional requirement. President Trump is wrong in saying that it is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry without a floor vote."


Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states: "The House of Representatives shall [choose] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." The ambiguous language offers the chamber discretion as to how it conducts impeachment proceedings.source

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (still misses Sophie)(8a)

“Right now, there isn't an impeachment inquiry about Trump either”

not true.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

The impeachment inquiry is in the investigation phase.

This is a process that is spelled out in the United States Constitution — it requires a majority vote of the House to impeach followed by a two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict and remove — but there aren’t a lot of details provided as to exactly how it needs to work or what constitutes an impeachable offense. Unlike in the criminal code, there are no elaborate rules of procedure or vast set of detailed statutes and case law to guide impeachment. It’s fundamentally a political process built on the fly by political actors and only rarely used over the course of American history.....

..... Once House lawmakers’ investigation is complete — we don’t yet know when that will be — they can decide whether or not to recommend articles of impeachment, or charges to be specifically brought against the president. The House Judiciary Committee would vote on these charges and then advance them to a vote by the full House. The House then decides if it officially wants to charge the president on these counts, a move that requires a simple majority to pass.


https://www.vox.com/2019/9/25/20882860/house-democrats-impeachment-inquiry-donald-trump-nancy-pelosi







1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

No impeachment inquiry......HOOT! Must have heard Pirro or Tucker say so.

I think Trump supporters would be well advised to worry more about putting Republicans on the record for an impeacment inquiry. The Dems have all clearly stated their positions...Repubs are crickets.

Forcing Republicans to vote could prove politically fatal for Republicans in moderate / swing districts as well as those with a conscience who may vote to support the inquiry.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"No requirement in the Constitution, Ann."

Got it. And, no precedent for it either, but little precedent at all, because impeachment was meant to be a serious thing, not a readily/easily tossed out political game based on nervousness about an election. But, with that said, America is watching. One thing she's talked about for a long time is that she wouldn't move forward unless the support for impeachment was there. Sure, she's likely got votes in the House (but she doesn't want those vulnerable moderates on record), but other than nearly every Dem, I don't think she's capturing America and she'll never get the Senate. Then, add to that not following the typical process (for obvious and "sad" reasons), it is so apparent how very political it all is. We have before us an extremely questionable reason (most everyone is still trying to identify the supposed crime), an equally questionable and hurried process, an obviously nervous about the election political game, a party that has clearly been solely and laser focused on the attempted destruction of the president which has turned into the boy who cried wolf look - it's just an all around pathetic and desperate look for America to be viewing. Honestly, after being furious earlier in the week, I'm almost growing a little bored with it. I continue to think it was the stupidest political move (and that's clearly all it is - a political tactic) I've witnessed in my lifetime.

Also, her unwillingness to hold the vote is simply a really bad look for her, for Dems, and for the eventual buy in from others besides Dems. Everyone knows why she doesn't want to hold a vote, but only Dems support the highly political reasons for that ploy.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"This is a process that is spelled out in the United States Constitution — it requires a majority vote of the House to impeach followed by a two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict and remove — but there aren’t a lot of details provided as to exactly how it needs to work or what constitutes an impeachable offense. Unlike in the criminal code, there are no elaborate rules of procedure or vast set of detailed statutes and case law to guide impeachment. It’s fundamentally a political process built on the fly by political actors and only rarely used over the course of American history....."

Exactly my point. Which is also exactly how and why her unique method (unique but with crystal clear reasoning - and not good or ethical reasoning) should be taken to court and hashed out. There are no elaborate rules which makes it easy for her to do what she has chosen, but conversely, makes it easy to challenge the lack of formality she has chosen. I think she'll win but I could certainly envision a ruling admonishing her method and making it look as "small" as it is.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Yet Trump's "unique method" is unassailable in the view of some Trump loyalists.

The president is not above Congress.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

This seems to be the heart of the opinion item. In my opinion, it doesn't say much.

A House vote on the inquiry would help guide Americans as they shape their own views. And for those who’ll dislike whatever the House decides to do, a legitimizing vote now would make the outcome easier to accept.



Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

In reality, no matter what Pelosi or the Dems do or don’t do, the Reps will be critical. Some defend Trump no matter what he does as we have seen many reasons to impeach him already.

He is becoming more blatant and willing to break Constitutional laws on National tv then gaslight the public to try and convince them he is doing it for their good. That must be the Crawford mentality.



Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

State dept officials used WhatsApp to communicate rather than official State Dept channels. When it was Hillary and her aides they called “Lock her up”.

Time to hold Pompeo responsible.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"The president is not above Congress."

Yes, and the president and GOP will fight for due process. In Trump's opinion, the GOP's opinion, and, certainly, in mine as well, there is a Dem effort to forego and prevent due process. I think voters will have an opinion on that.

Nancy has a choice. She can (very easily) take the traditional path and hold a vote or she can proceed as she has begun and hope voters see that choice as reasonable. I think the political game she is playing and the ploy she has chosen is clearly evident to all.

Even spending just an hour watching MSNBC yesterday showed me that hosts on both left and right leaning media are consistently asking their guests, "Why doesn't Pelosi just hold a vote.". The answer from the Dem guest typically discusses how she doesn't have to, but the guests never answer the question of why she chooses not to. Now everyone knows why, but I think the repeated question represents a way for the host to gently or firmly point out it's a bad (or maybe a weak) look.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU9999

Looks to me like Taylor was trying to leave evidence of what was going on.

Is it possible he is the 2nd whistleblower there have been rumors about? I don't understand why he stayed in the position and put himself in jeopardy if he knew what was going on. He's not a Trump sycophant like Sonderland and the rest of them. Perhaps to blow the whistle? I dunno. Maybe wishful thinking.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU9999

This nonsense about Pelosi holding a vote is a failed attempt at distraction. She knows what she's doing and she'll hold a vote when she thinks it's the right time.

Those interested in knowing if the POTUS has abused his power are more interested in the facts and not when a vote will be held.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Marco Rubio says the Ukraine thing was just to rile up the press, just a joke, ha ha funny. A new excuse for Trump? Rubio doesn't even believe his own lie.

Brian Tyler Cohen's comments are great plus additional video to remind us of Trump's lies, I mean his "jokes".

https://youtu.be/d1q2vQX5hOg

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Rubio is afraid of Trump. He just tries to lay low so he won’t attack him. I have no respect for those types of politicians. They are more interested in themselves than their constituents.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU9999

Marco Rubio says the Ukraine thing was just to rile up the press, just a joke, ha ha funny.

Excuse #6243435 for Trump's stupid/insulting/impeachable comments/actions. He was just joking! Did Rubio get it from some HT posters, or did they get it from Rubio? Or maybe Fox started that one.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
whynottryit

Would someone kindly show me the due process clause as it pertains to impeachment?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
whynottryit

Exactly my point. Which is also exactly how and why her unique method (unique but with crystal clear reasoning - and not good or ethical reasoning) should be taken to court and hashed out. There are no elaborate rules which makes it easy for her to do what she has chosen, but conversely, makes it easy to challenge the lack of formality she has chosen. I think she'll win but I could certainly envision a ruling admonishing her method and making it look as "small" as it is.

------------

Did I read this right? You think she would win but you want the expense, time and resources wasted just to see her look "small"? Well, that seems a bit "small" to me. SMH

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Pelosi will never be able to satisfy any trump supporters if they are determined to defend him at the cost of our Democracy. She is the targeted enemy they can blame for Trump’s misbehavior.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Poor trump. He has stomped on every tradition and formality imaginable and done his best to embarrass us. But he and his supporters want to to worry this vote thing like a dog with a big meaty bone. It’s ridiculous. It won’t make any difference.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Did I read this right? You think she would win but you want the expense, time and resources wasted just to see her look "small"? Well, that seems a bit "small" to me. SMH"

Well, no. I think what she is doing (the entire impeachment plan) is a waste of everyone's time, a waste of huge resources and this whole thing is a political game on the Dem's and Nancy's part. Then, on top of that, she's chosen a method that is unprecedented and prevents the minority party from being able to question witnesses, issue subpoenas, etc. It's wrong on every level, IMO, and I think the president and GOP should do everything they can to both expose and to argue these points. Unfortunately, there isn't a well defined impeachment process, so the process has developed through time. This is the first time her ploy has been attempted, so I think it very important, for now and continuing forward, that this be reviewed, challenged, and potentially changed. If we have reached a point where the very serious and costly (costly in several ways!) process of impeachment can just happen because a group doesn't like a president, we're in a bad place. We need to correct that and maybe the courts can help force the repair. I hope so!


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

As far as winning in court or not, I suppose that will depend on how broad a look the courts would take. If they considered just a small(ish) issue like subpoena power, she'd likely win. But, maybe that wouldn't be the extent of a case to be considered. We'll see what the president's legal team brings forth as their objections. They could considerably more far reaching.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Trump is extorting other countries inviting them to interfere in our Democracy for his own political gain and that’s Okay? Whoa. That really not understandable at all.

People around him say that is WH policy. That is mobster policy.

btw, he blamed Rick Perry today. He really is an angry toddler.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
whynottryit

First, impeachment proceedings do not begin simply "because a group doesn't like a president." Article II, Sec. 4 of the Constitution states: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” No President has ever been faced with impeachment because he was unpopular. While they may have been concurrently disliked, they actually were guilty of the charges brought against them.

Second, yes. The Speaker has chosen a method of announcing the inquiry unprecedented in the 3 other proceedings prior to this one. However, this method was well within the rights of her position and an opposing vote brought by Rep. McCarthy was voted down indicating she had the support necessary regardless of what her predecessors had done.

Third, there seems to be dispute about whether minority members of the 3 various investigating committees are allowed to ask questions, etc. Rep. Jim Jordan has said they are not while others have contradicted his claim. I have not heard any word from the witnesses regarding that allegation yet. However, that would be highly unlikely and easily remedied.

As to the "courts forc[ing] a repair," until the Senate convicts and determines that the President is to be removed from office would there be even the possibility of a court ruling. Literally interpreted, the Senate has complete jurisdiction and there is no appeal to the courts. More liberally interpreted, appeal would only occur or be accepted if there had been some malfeasance during the trial (Senate) phase.

I have referenced several sources for this post and all are readily available if you need to fact check my information. The two primary sources are:

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

and

https://www.lawfareblog.com/premature-primer-how-do-impeachment-proceedings-actually-work


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
batyabeth

"impeachment can just happen because a group doesn't like a president"

no, as just above, this isn't about liking or not liking. It's about proven criminal activity. Pouting and saying, "it's because you don't like me!" has nothing to do with it, the pres has been caught red-handed committing crimes. Wake up and smell the coffee, Ann. This is about the law, not liking.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/


Here is a link to unbiased news sources. Some here should make use of it.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maddie260

Pelosi can do it her way. Kind of like McConnell choosing to do it his way and not have a vote on Merrick Garland. It's suddenly not fair? Tough!!!!!

Edited for clarity.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Whynot, I'm not talking about a court ruling at a Senate conviction stage (as, IMO, the Senate will never convict in this process of Nancy's silly game). I'm talking about court battles over the White House ignoring requests already or soon to be made - based on their position that an impeachment inquiry isn't even actually underway.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
whynottryit

That you think the WH position is relevant is baffling.

Excerpt:

The power of Congress to investigate and obtain information is very broad. While there is no express provision in the Constitution that addresses the investigative power, the Supreme Court has firmly established that such power is essential to the legislative function as to be implied from the general vesting of legislative powers in Congress.

How a particular committee decides to issue a subpoena is specific to each committee. Most committees of the House and Senate have included in their rules one or more provisions on committees’ and subcommittees’ power to authorize subpoenas by majority vote. Most House committee rules delegate to the committee chair the power to authorize subpoenas, and many of these rules require the chair to consult or notify the committee’s ranking minority member. Once authorized, a subpoena must be signed and delivered to the person named in it. Delivery of the subpoena to the person named in it means the person has been officially “served.”

The courts have long reaffirmed Congress’s constitutional authority to issue and enforce subpoenas. As the Congressional Research Service explained in 2017:

Congress has three formal methods by which it can combat non-compliance with a duly issued subpoena. Each of these methods invokes the authority of a separate branch of government. First, the long dormant inherent contempt power permits Congress to rely on its own constitutional authority to detain and imprison a contemnor until the individual complies with congressional demands. Second, the criminal contempt statute permits Congress to certify a contempt citation to the executive branch for the criminal prosecution of the contemnor. Finally, Congress may rely on the judicial branch to enforce a congressional subpoena. Under this procedure, Congress may seek a civil judgment from a federal court declaring that the individual in question is legally obligated to comply with the congressional subpoena.

Either house of Congress can vote to hold in contempt a witness who refuses to provide testimony or produce requested documents pursuant to a congressionally authorized subpoena. As set out in 2 U.S.C. § 194, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia has the “duty [] to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” Contempt of Congress, which is a federal misdemeanor, is punishable by a maximum $100,000 fine and a maximum one-year sentence in federal prison. But if the executive branch is not inclined to prosecute a contemnor (the contemnor is a person or entity who is guilty of contempt before a judicial or legislative body), Congress will have a difficult time implementing such a penalty. Congress can also file a lawsuit asking a judge to order the witness to provide the information, raising the additional possibility of imprisonment for contempt of court.


https://www.lawfareblog.com/congressional-subpoena-power-and-executive-privilege-coming-showdown-between-branches

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Sondland set to testify this morning cancelled 2 hours before. State department refuses to let him testify. Can we say obstruction.

Sondland, a political appointee of trump administration who donated 1 million to Trump's election campaign.

More information:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/4/20899096/ron-johnson-trump-sondland-ukraine-aid

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Sondland wants to testify. Why was he even involved in Ukraine? I think he was put in because of his political inexperience and trusting Trump.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

More GOP are disagreeing with Trump. Many more may see him as dangerous to America’s security since Syria. I wouldn’t count on the senate supporting him.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Sondland has handed over his personal devices to the State Department who is refusing to give them to Congress. Evidently, there are texts and conversations on them relevant to the Ukraine issue. Using personal devices is a nono , right Trump supporters?

Also interesting is that Sondland's lawyer says he is very disappointed and wants to testify.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Pat Robertson has even spoken out against Trump/Turkey. And they practically thought he was the second coming. The start of rapture which they have been praying for. Oh how far they have fallen.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

I wonder if all this stonewalling will backfire on Trump. If Sondland has nothing to hide isn't it better to get his story out there so the public has concrete info that is favourable to Trump?

He may need to rethink his genius strategy . According to a new Washington Post poll just out it doesn't look like his current one is working. The rise is Republican support should be worrisome.

_______________________


A new poll out Tuesday from the Washington Post and the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University shows dramatic shifts in support of the impeachment process, with 58 percent of the country now saying they support the impeachment inquiry and nearly half—49 percent—saying they support removing Trump from office.

The level of support for the impeachment process predictably differs along party lines, but none of the recent indicators are good for the president. “Since a July poll by The Post and ABC, there has been movement toward an impeachment inquiry among all three groups, with support for the inquiry rising by 25 points among Democrats, 21 points among Republicans and 20 points among independents,” the Post notes. Trump’s Ukraine phone call—which occurred in July but wasn’t reported on until September—has clearly altered Americans’ perspective on impeachment. It’s unclear how much Trump’s unhinged, all-caps response to growing impeachment pressure has changed opinions in the moderate corner of his own party as well as among independents.

Growing Democratic supportor impeachment was perhaps expected, but Republican support for the process—if not yet for the removal of the president—even if at comparatively low levels, could be extremely dangerous for Trump and his presidency. From the Post:

More than 8 in 10 Democrats endorse the inquiry and nearly 8 in 10 favor a vote to recommend that Trump be removed from office. Among Republicans, roughly 7 in 10 do not support the inquiry but almost 3 in 10 do, and almost one-fifth of Republicans say they favor a vote recommending his removal. Among the critical voting bloc of independents, support for the impeachment inquiry hits 57 percent, with 49 percent saying the House should vote to remove Trump from office.

If those GOP numbers hold or continue to slide, Trump could be in serious trouble. The Republican Party has acquiesced almost across the board under Trump’s leadership, such that there’s been a substantial political cost to disagreeing with the White House or being seen as not sufficiently supportive of Trump. If support for impeachment erodes that cost, you could see more Republicans in Congress defying the president and coming out in support of the impeachment process. Of course, if the past three years are any indication, you could also very much not see that happen.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Using personal devices is a nono , right Trump supporters?"

Apparently not, right previous Director of the FBI:)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

But, then again, Sondland is not Hillary Clinton (part of the protected elite).

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

Trump says he'd love for Sondland to testify, but ....

Keep talking, fool. Trump doesn't nothing but hurt himself in obstructing this investigation.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"More than 8 in 10 Democrats endorse the inquiry and nearly 8 in 10 favor a vote to recommend that Trump be removed from office. Among Republicans, roughly 7 in 10 do not support the inquiry but almost 3 in 10 do, and almost one-fifth of Republicans say they favor a vote recommending his removal. Among the critical voting bloc of independents, support for the impeachment inquiry hits 57 percent, with 49 percent saying the House should vote to remove Trump from office."

Careful how you interpret this part. I'd most definitely be in the "one-fifth"! Those of us who think this is the stupidist political move in decades want votes to take place - an inquiry vote and impeachment votes!


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Andie

All to cover up a "Perfect" phone call.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Chase, this poll was taken by the House GOP's campaign arm, so discount it if you choose, but the detailed battleground district info in it (if accurate) paints a very interesting scenario.


https://thehill.com/homenews/house/464751-house-gop-touts-poll-showing-impeachment-advantage-for-republicans

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Actually Andie, IMO, this entire Pelosi scam is over a quite ordinary phone call that doesn't begin to reach the same universe as an impeachable offense. She jumped too early and now she's in too far and in quite a predicament IMO.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Ann, that poll doesn't surprise me at all. However, the increase in Republican support for impeachment does.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspat(aka)

^^^Keep on dreaming, Ann! :-)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

I find it amazing that anyone can look at that call and think that the President of the United States asking a foreign government to investigate his political foe is OK ......but apparently many do.

I wouldn't agree, but I would find an argument that Trump was wrong but not impeachable more understandable. However, to say there is nothing wrong with that request boggles my mind.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Chase, many people (guests on both left and right media) think it was poor judgment, but very, very few think it even approaches an impeachable offense. That's Nancy's issue. She's in too deep to comfortably climb out. She jumped in too soon and was caught off guard when she saw the transcript. But, because she had jumped the gun, the entire thing had grown too big to control before she knew it. Now, it's seen as the political stunt it is. The desperation just got too great when the Mueller witch hunt didn't work and the Kavanaugh set up failed. Now, she'll be walking right into the release of the upcoming investigations with a third messed up political stunt (probably initiated because of nervousness over the upcoming investigative reports). She's backed herself into a corner IMO.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Chase, they were texting on WhatsApp which supposedly is untraceable. They weren’t using approve State servers, so there was intent to keep their texts secret.

Sondland will testify. He wants to and they are obstructing him. He wants to preserve his business and reputation.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

"Many" people may be saying it was wrong on TV but not Trump supporters. Quite the opposite.

As far as Nancy goes, I think she did what she felt she had to do based on her view, along with many, many others, that Trump violated his oath of office .

I believe her to be a patriot who believes the offense committed on the call, along with other things in the complaint , is an impeachable offense. She is one smart cookie, this is not her first rodeo, she didn' t jump the gun.....Nancy doesn' t roll that way.

As for most seeing this as a political stunt......that's not what the polls show .

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

I find it amazing that anyone can look at that call and think that the
President of the United States asking a foreign government to
investigate his political foe is OK ......but apparently many do.

Good, now were talking about Obama's crimes like we should be. What about the DNC? Was it okay when they did it?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

I believe her to be a patriot who believes the offense committed on the
call, along with other things in the complaint , is an impeachable
offense. She is one smart cookie

lol! She's crazy and trying to save her rear.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I don't think she needed to save her rear three weeks ago, but I sure thinks she needs to now.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Ann, I totally disagree with you....she knows what she is doing. She has to look at things through a much larger lens than others. I trust her political instincts and experience. I never used to like her but I've completely changed my opinion of her.

I don't see getting votes recorded as mattering all that much.......the voters in those districts already know their representative's position and they will let their voices be heard.

What a vote might do however is force some Republicabs to find their conscience.

ETA ..the polls are moving her way. Not sure what facts support any opinion that she needs to save her rear.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Andie

Ann, fortunately, your opinion doesn't mean a thing.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

but very, very few think it even approaches an impeachable offense.

Not true.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Anyone able to explain what this statement /query from Ann means? Ref former FBI?

Something about using personal devices.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Andie

New polling out today shows that 28% of Republicans now SUPPORT the impeachment inquiry. 18% even back removing Trump from office.

source


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Chase brought up the discussion of polls earlier today. I just heard on MSNBC that a brand new Quinnipiac poll was released today, which asked about impeachment. Little change from last week to this week.

"After another week with impeachment in the news, registered voters nationwide are still divided on
impeaching and removing President Trump from office, with 45 percent saying he should be impeached and
removed and 49 percent opposing the idea, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national
poll released today. This compares to last week's poll, in which voters were evenly split on impeaching and
removing the president 47 - 47 percent. In a poll released on September 25, before any major news about
impeachment, voters were clearly against impeachment 37 - 57 percent."

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Haven't looked deep into that poll but I did find the overall approval rating of Trump to be interesting.....40%

Since Ann predicted the last Harris poll was just the beginning of a rise in Trump's approval it's been a steady down......except of course for Rasmussen .....which at 45 is even down for them.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Since Ann predicted the last Harris poll was just the beginning of a rise in Trump's approval it's been a steady down......except of course for Rasmussen .....which at 45 is even down for them."

I did? My prediction quote please? I very well might have "predicted" but just checking in case you are Schiffing.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Here is my quote:

"A new Harvard Harris poll out takes Trump to his highest level of 2019 in that poll. It's just one poll, but I won't be surprised if it becomes a trend, as the post impeachment announcement polls begin. We'll see."

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

" I won't be surprised if it becomes a trend"

As I said......thank you

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

That's what you said?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Since Ann predicted the last Harris poll was just the beginning of a rise in Trump's approval it's been a steady down......except of course for Rasmussen .....which at 45 is even down for them."

From CNN today:

"Despite an onslaught of negative headlines, Trump's approval rating has remained steady. In the NBC/WSJ poll, Trump's approval holds at 43%, the exact same as it was in August. In the Quinnipiac poll, 40% of voters approve of the job he's doing as president, the same as it was in mid-September, pre-inquiry."

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Sad thing is this snippet of a call to Ukraine, what Trump proclaim was a perfect call, the bits of text messages from Volker, and WB statements are just a very small tip of the iceberg. What's under the waterline must be really bad.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

The other 20 min they probably destroyed by now. Barr is busy trying to discredit Mueller. How much more corruption can the GOP do if they have 4 more years?

Over 50% in most polls support the impeachment Inquiry.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl(9b)

Here are some emails that were just released that confirm the cover up. Diplomats were told to act like the delay in funds to Ukraine was an administrative thing. Diplomats urged to play down the Fund's Release - Nothing to see here!

Save