Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

«‹›322 »

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Dapper_Swindler posted:

its like i feel like the GOP is hosed either way. eithr they throw trump under the bus for the country and some lose the primaries or they gently caress everyone over and transparently let him walk and aquite, than they get crushed in 2020.

I wish that I could have your optimism. I think Congressional Republicans are going to stick with Trump no matter what and rely upon, among other things, unprecedented amounts of SuperPAC money, their in-built advantages of the electoral college and state-level gerrymandering, and a potentially unpopular Democratic candidate to try holding in 2020. The fact that our president openly and proudly commits crimes in broad daylight is 100% cool with his supporters, in fact it's probably a plus for them. The GOP doesn't have to hold all houses of government or even win any, all that's needed to stop a progressive Democratic agenda is for them to fight close enough to make passing legislation extremely difficult. The overwhelming amounts of dark money that flowed into RNC congressional races in the month before the 2016 election should be the precedent for what their strategy will be here. As much as I'd like to believe that Trump will get annihilated in 2020 there's too much time between now and next November for the American public to even remember the specifics of impeachment. Much like the same way Trump killed DACA, or the Paris climate accords, or implemented travel bans on Muslim nations, or defended nazi rallies, or fired the FBI Director, or tried to ban transgender people from joining the military, or promoted a rapist to the Supreme Court. Fifty years or so ago when this administration began those actions might have caused a stir, but if you were to poll Republicans about all those things now they would say "actually I'm 100% okay with nazis." Such as it will be re: impeachment one year from now.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 15:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 10:01

theflyingorc: Jun 28, 2008; ANY GOOD OPINIONS THIS POSTER CLAIMS TO HAVE ARE JUST PROOF THAT BULLYING WORKS; Young Orc

FizFashizzle posted:

Nunes is only on intelligence for some reason.

For irony

# ? Nov 24, 2019 15:49

Zotix: Aug 14, 2011

His point still holds true. Dems "okay you got me, I'll resign on Tuesday". Republicans go "gently caress you.". They defend each other in the face of overwhelming evidence and very rarely resign. At what point do the Democrats say enough is enough. You obviously aren't changing the Republican party, and the Dems just are fine with rolling over.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 15:58

Chilichimp: Oct 24, 2006; TIE Adv xWampa

It wamp, and it stomp; Grimey Drawer

WoodrowSkillson posted:

Katie Hill is a piece of poo poo who was using her position to exploit people. The revenge porn is loving gross as a concept but her lovely behavior is the root cause.

Darko posted:

Hill lost her seat because she pulled a Bill Clinton, etc. by abusing her authority by having sex with an underling; she just attempted to shift the narrative in what was essentially her resignation speech and a lot of people fall for the spin or just didn't care about what she did because they still don't see a problem with it. As mentioned, King was basically rendered completely ineffective. Your point is correct, but those are bad examples.

She hired a person she was in a relationship with to work on her campaign staff. The photos were of the two of them during a poly amorous relationship with her now ex-husband. It wasn't "an affair".

The story was sold by her estranged ex-husband to Red State, but more specifically to two writers at Red State who were campaign workers for the congressman she defeated in 2018, and who is running for the seat again in 2020.

It's not ~good~ to be "sleeping with a campaign staffer", but it's not illegal or even a congressional ethics violation, and also not what she was doing.

She hired a person she was in a relationship with to work on her campaign staff... something almost every congressman in America does when hiring their spouse.

She didn't quit because of "the scandal". She quit because of the revenge porn.

Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Nov 24, 2019

# ? Nov 24, 2019 16:01

Koalas March: May 21, 2007

Zotix posted:

His point still holds true. Dems "okay you got me, I'll resign on Tuesday". Republicans go "gently caress you.". They defend each other in the face of overwhelming evidence and very rarely resign. At what point do the Democrats say enough is enough. You obviously aren't changing the Republican party, and the Dems just are fine with rolling over.

I think it depends on if you favor ethics over winning, and/or the ends justifying the means

# ? Nov 24, 2019 16:22

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Chilichimp posted:

She hired a person she was in a relationship with to work on her campaign staff. The photos were of the two of them during a poly amorous relationship with her now ex-husband. It wasn't "an affair".

The story was sold by her estranged ex-husband to Red State, but more specifically to two writers at Red State who were campaign workers for the congressman she defeated in 2018, and who is running for the seat again in 2020.

It's not ~good~ to be "sleeping with a campaign staffer", but it's not illegal or even a congressional ethics violation, and also not what she was doing.

She hired a person she was in a relationship with to work on her campaign staff... something almost every congressman in America does when hiring their spouse.

She didn't quit because of "the scandal". She quit because of the revenge porn.

yeah fyi this particular story is a very, very common and horrible one for young lesbians.

fall for older woman in position of power who uses you basically as a sex toy for her and her husband, split second husband starts feeling weird about it the whole thing collapses in hatred and recriminations and your sole remaining use is as blackmail reservoir for the divorce.

it is, in fact, not good to be loving someone ten years younger than you who works for you. i would go as far as to say it is bad.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 16:42

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

yeah fyi this particular story is a very, very common and horrible one for young lesbians.

fall for older woman in position of power who uses you basically as a sex toy for her and her husband, split second husband starts feeling weird about it the whole thing collapses in hatred and recriminations and your sole remaining use is as blackmail reservoir for the divorce.

it is, in fact, not good to be loving someone ten years younger than you who works for you. i would go as far as to say it is bad.

Is there some evidence of wrongdoing or are we just supposed to assume every poly relationship is predatory?

# ? Nov 24, 2019 17:08

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

Chilichimp posted:

katie hill

Papercut posted:

we just supposed to assume every poly relationship is predatory?

this is a thread about the impeachment investigation, not USPOL, kindly take any arguments about katie hill or the Ethics Of Polygamy elsewhere

# ? Nov 24, 2019 17:09

Chilichimp: Oct 24, 2006; TIE Adv xWampa

It wamp, and it stomp; Grimey Drawer

eke out posted:

this is a thread about the impeachment investigation, not USPOL, kindly take any arguments about katie hill or the Ethics Of Polygamy elsewhere

Yeah, I'm super not the poster who started this, so, please also issue call-outs to the posters who started the derail.

edit: but yeah I'll drop it, thank you.

Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Nov 24, 2019

# ? Nov 24, 2019 17:14

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

exquisite tea posted:

I wish that I could have your optimism. I think Congressional Republicans are going to stick with Trump no matter what and rely upon, among other things, unprecedented amounts of SuperPAC money, their in-built advantages of the electoral college and state-level gerrymandering, and a potentially unpopular Democratic candidate to try holding in 2020. The fact that our president openly and proudly commits crimes in broad daylight is 100% cool with his supporters, in fact it's probably a plus for them. The GOP doesn't have to hold all houses of government or even win any, all that's needed to stop a progressive Democratic agenda is for them to fight close enough to make passing legislation extremely difficult. The overwhelming amounts of dark money that flowed into RNC congressional races in the month before the 2016 election should be the precedent for what their strategy will be here. As much as I'd like to believe that Trump will get annihilated in 2020 there's too much time between now and next November for the American public to even remember the specifics of impeachment. Much like the same way Trump killed DACA, or the Paris climate accords, or implemented travel bans on Muslim nations, or defended nazi rallies, or fired the FBI Director, or tried to ban transgender people from joining the military, or promoted a rapist to the Supreme Court. Fifty years or so ago when this administration began those actions might have caused a stir, but if you were to poll Republicans about all those things now they would say "actually I'm 100% okay with nazis." Such as it will be re: impeachment one year from now.

i dont think the GOP will vanish or the dems will get magically better(they can but thats a different thread) i am just saying in the short term the GOP is between a rock and hard place and the Hardline chuds, the ones that cheer for every awful act are a minority and one they can solely rely on for a 2020 win. also all trump does is gently caress up and act like dumb prick, he has never done any good or noble actions and won't do any to win more people outside the chud sphere.

I don't know why both USpol and now this thread go into deep states of melancholy at the drop of hat.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 17:15

Chilichimp: Oct 24, 2006; TIE Adv xWampa

It wamp, and it stomp; Grimey Drawer

Dapper_Swindler posted:

i dont think the GOP will vanish or the dems will get magically better(they can but thats a different thread) i am just saying in the short term the GOP is between a rock and hard place and the Hardline chuds, the ones that cheer for every awful act are a minority and one they can solely rely on for a 2020 win. also all trump does is gently caress up and act like dumb prick, he has never done any good or noble actions and won't do any to win more people outside the chud sphere.

I don't know why both USpol and now this thread go into deep states of melancholy at the drop of hat.

:nothingmatters: has been a problem since the Trump Threads of Yore.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 17:18

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

this piece is a pretty good timeline of the Black Ledger story from Sergei Leshchenko

https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1198611480557563905

# ? Nov 24, 2019 17:26

DarkHorse: Dec 13, 2006; Vroom vroom, BEEP BEEP!; Nap Ghost

Chilichimp posted:

:nothingmatters: has been a problem since the Trump Threads of Yore.

It's the combined PTSD of election night 2016 and the long, slow burn of watching Trump and McConnell destroy our institutions without repercussion for the past three years

# ? Nov 24, 2019 17:27

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

Dapper_Swindler posted:

I don't know why both USpol and now this thread go into deep states of melancholy at the drop of hat.

The knowledge that slightly less than half of the dicks that dragged themselves to vote in 2016 saw a racist, doddering old sack of new money poo poo that wrapped himself in gold foil and empty promises and thought "yep, that's the guy!" is pretty depressing

# ? Nov 24, 2019 17:27

oxsnard: Oct 8, 2003

FilthyImp posted:

The knowledge that slightly less than half of the dicks that dragged themselves to vote in 2016 saw a racist, doddering old sack of new money poo poo that wrapped himself in gold foil and empty promises and thought "yep, that's the guy!" is pretty depressing

Yes, and that's where I was for a long time. On the plus side, only 60% of the voting age population showed up to vote. Add the fact that at least a certain percentage of voters are generally clueless or vote the way they do for very dumb reasons. This means that the truly aware Trump die harders are a small minority of the us population, probably less than 20%

I've found it's helpful to look at it with this perspective to avoid feeling utter desperation. Hope is the best motivator for political action going forward

# ? Nov 24, 2019 17:37

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Chilichimp posted:

:nothingmatters: has been a problem since the Trump Threads of Yore.

sure but i don't get it. if we had multiple red waves than i would get it and i get that 2020 will still be fight but jesus, some of this nothing matters poo poo is dumb and weird as hell.

FilthyImp posted:

The knowledge that slightly less than half of the dicks that dragged themselves to vote in 2016 saw a racist, doddering old sack of new money poo poo that wrapped himself in gold foil and empty promises and thought "yep, that's the guy!" is pretty depressing

and some of them probably hate him now, not for reasons we would agree with, but possibly enough that they will stay home. alot of those photos from his rallies show half empty stadiums with bored or sleeping chuds because trump doesnt get them upped anymore. he is just crying and bitching about the same 10 topics and than he blue balls them every time.

DarkHorse posted:

It's the combined PTSD of election night 2016 and the long, slow burn of watching Trump and McConnell destroy our institutions without repercussion for the past three years

well make 2020 their repercussion than. these fuckers lost the house, make them lose everything else.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 17:38

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Dapper_Swindler posted:

i dont think the GOP will vanish or the dems will get magically better(they can but thats a different thread) i am just saying in the short term the GOP is between a rock and hard place and the Hardline chuds, the ones that cheer for every awful act are a minority and one they can solely rely on for a 2020 win. also all trump does is gently caress up and act like dumb prick, he has never done any good or noble actions and won't do any to win more people outside the chud sphere.

I don't know why both USpol and now this thread go into deep states of melancholy at the drop of hat.

I don't want my skepticism to be misrepresented as Nothing Matters nihilism. I do think it's possible for things to get better, at least at the local level, and some regional progress has already been made. But I also think repeatedly hoping against hope that some new revelation will finally be the thing that sinks Trump's chances for re-election is naive if not somewhat ignorant to the deeper political underpinnings that got him elected in the first place. Trump voters know he's corrupt, they know he's a racist and a compulsive liar and all the bad things people say about him. They just don't give a poo poo. The best thing you can hope for is that enough of his base will sit out 2020 either out of disenchantment or embarrassment, but if 2018 and 2019's recent elections were anything to go by, he seems to draw out the opposition AND the base.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 17:50

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1198652289738838016

# ? Nov 24, 2019 18:24

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

exquisite tea posted:

I don't want my skepticism to be misrepresented as Nothing Matters nihilism. I do think it's possible for things to get better, at least at the local level, and some regional progress has already been made. But I also think repeatedly hoping against hope that some new revelation will finally be the thing that sinks Trump's chances for re-election is naive if not somewhat ignorant to the deeper political underpinnings that got him elected in the first place. Trump voters know he's corrupt, they know he's a racist and a compulsive liar and all the bad things people say about him. They just don't give a poo poo. The best thing you can hope for is that enough of his base will sit out 2020 either out of disenchantment or embarrassment, but if 2018 and 2019's recent elections were anything to go by, he seems to draw out the opposition AND the base.

sorry, i wasn't trying to imply you were nothing matters, i more mean in general, also i dont think some new leak will destroy him, its more i think its just more and more nails in the coffin that don't help him any, their is no magic bullet and at the end of the day, trump is a symptom.

eke out posted:

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1198652289738838016

nice. he is smart enough to know he is in deeper poo poo out and out denying it than just not answering.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 18:30

Angry_Ed: Mar 30, 2010; Grimey Drawer

(Crossposting from USPOL because Natasha Bertrand's tweet on the same subject seems to have vanished)

marshmonkey posted:

https://twitter.com/CatieEdmondson/status/1198629628035899392

The movie that Devin Nunes thinks he's in sounds like a real trip.

Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Nov 24, 2019

# ? Nov 24, 2019 18:33

Mind_Taker: May 7, 2007

eke out posted:

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1198652289738838016

Already deleted. What did this say?

# ? Nov 24, 2019 18:48

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

Mind_Taker posted:

Already deleted. What did this say?

just noting that he refuses to deny it actually happened

# ? Nov 24, 2019 18:53

ManBoyChef: Aug 1, 2019; Deadbeat Dad

Chilichimp posted:

:nothingmatters: has been a problem since the Trump Threads of Yore.

This is very true. Its very hard to have hope when the last few decades have been just so crappy. I think the biggest :nothingmatters: aspect is that even if we get a progressive into the presidency we have to worry not only about the GOP fighting them every step of the way but also the democrats making it harder.

Just look at how Pelosi has handled all the information that points towards impeachment. She pretty much had to be dragged into kicking and screaming. She is still trying to give trump a legislative win even as I write this.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 18:54

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

ManBoyChef posted:

This is very true. Its very hard to have hope when the last few decades have been just so crappy. I think the biggest :nothingmatters: aspect is that even if we get a progressive into the presidency we have to worry not only about the GOP fighting them every step of the way but also the democrats making it harder.

Just look at how Pelosi has handled all the information that points towards impeachment. She pretty much had to be dragged into kicking and screaming. She is still trying to give trump a legislative win even as I write this.

What you're describing is not "nothing matters." It's politics. That's the way things always work and always have worked.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 19:01

vincentpricesboner: Sep 3, 2006; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

How long has rudy giuliani had brainworms? Is this just a few years or right after he left office in NYC?

# ? Nov 24, 2019 19:06

Failed Imagineer: Sep 22, 2018

ManBoyChef posted:

Just look at how Pelosi has handled all the information that points towards impeachment. She pretty much had to be dragged into kicking and screaming. She is still trying to give trump a legislative win even as I write this.

Tbf, how could anyone have known that Trump would not "self-impeach"?

# ? Nov 24, 2019 19:11

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Schiff Doesn�t Rule Out More Hearings But Says Evidence To Impeach Is �Overwhelming�

quote:

House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) indicated that the case to impeach President Donald Trump is already strong enough to the point where additional hearings may not be necessary on Sunday.

�Are there going to be any more hearings, any more witnesses, or are you done?� asked CNN�s �State of the Union� host Jake Tapper.

�We don�t foreclose the possibility of more depositions, more hearings,� Schiff replied. �We are in the process of getting more documents all the time. So that investigative work is going to go on.�

But impeachment investigators aren�t going to let Trump and other administration officials hold up the process with their refusal to testify, the Democratic lawmaker added.

�We�re not willing to go down that road,� he continued. �And what�s more, the evidence is already overwhelming.�

Last week saw the conclusion of all the public testimonies of witnesses who have cooperated with the investigation. The hearings, particularly that of Ambassador Gordon Sondland, confirmed there was a quid pro quo between Trump and Ukraine when Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid while asking the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation into Joe Biden.

�It�s really not contested what the President did,� Schiff said.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 19:20

oxsnard: Oct 8, 2003

quote:

Top Republicans � and even some Democrats and members of the media � now believe Democrats may pull back on officially impeaching the president, particularly as polls haven�t borne out a clear advantage for Democratic candidates.

After two weeks of impeachment hearings, which yielded little in the way of evidence that the president most definitely offered Ukraine a �quid pro quo� agreement trading an increase in foreign aid for an investigation into �corruption� involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is left with a choice: call off the impeachment and look weak or keep going and risk failure at the ballot box.

Multiple polls taken last week reveal that the impeachment hearings are having their most marked effect on independents, who are supporting the impeachment in ever-declining numbers, leaving moderate Democrats at risk of losing their seats and Democratic presidential contenders at a loss going into 2020.

The Hill reports Sunday that �public opposition to impeachment has some Republicans � voicing skepticism that Speaker Nancy Pelosi will go through with a vote on impeachment.�

Even President Donald Trump expressed skepticism, telling Fox News late last week that he doesn�t expect to face any true impeachment trial.

�I think it�s very hard for them to impeach you when they have absolutely nothing,� he said.

Pelosi hasn�t guaranteed a vote, but not taking one will put her in hot water with progressives and activist voters, who have been waiting since January 20 of 2017 to impeach Trump. She also runs the risk of handing Trump a major victory in his battles against a �witch hunt� right before he hits the campaign trail.

But polls show voters aren�t enthusiastic about impeachment, and a subsequent multi-state media push from Republicans ripping vulnerable Democrats for supporting Pelosi�s crusade has those same moderate Democrats reportedly begging the Speaker to halt the process.

Worse still, the media is now fretting that the impeachment hearings weren�t the slam dunk Democrats are saying they were and it will cost them support.

The New York Times reports that the hearings lacked the damning evidence Democrats like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) promised, partly because the White House pushed back on Schiff�s claims and released primary sources to refuse Schiff�s version of events, and partly because, the Times says, the hearings featured no witnesses with first-hand accounts of the president�s malfeasance.

Lawmakers haven�t interviewed Rudy Giuliani, the president�s lawyer, even though he emerged as a key figure in inking any supposed deal with Ukrainian legislators. They haven�t interviewed Vice President Mike Pence or former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, both of whom were mentioned in testimony. They haven�t interviewed former White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney or even former senior White House official John Bolton.

They also haven�t interviewed the whistleblower.

�Democrats have opted for expeditious over comprehensive,� the Times says, sadly, �electing to complete their investigation even without filling in major gaps in the story.�

The Dems� strategy in clipping testimony is, of course, carefully crafted to prevent the White House from mounting any kind of defense and to keep Republicans from cross-examining important witnesses.

If impeachment goes forward, the White House will be able to put on any witnesses they choose in a Senate trial, and that defense will be well-timed for the president, who will be on the campaign trail just as the trial is kicking off.

For now, Dems are staying the course, the Hill says.

�The hearings were nearly flawless and extremely damning for the president,� one Democrat aide told the Hill. �While no decision has been made to proceed with impeachment, the key facts are uncontested and not proceeding at this stage will be called a �total exoneration� by the president.�

From the Daily Wire (i'm not linking because gently caress them and their ads)

# ? Nov 24, 2019 19:31

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

oxsnard posted:

From the Daily Wire (i'm not linking because gently caress them and their ads)

whistle past the graveyard

1. (idiomatic, US) To attempt to stay cheerful in a dire situation; to proceed with a task, ignoring an upcoming hazard, hoping for a good outcome.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 19:57

ewiley: Jul 9, 2003; More trash for the trash fire

oxsnard posted:

From the Daily Wire (i'm not linking because gently caress them and their ads)

quote:

They also haven�t interviewed the whistleblower.

See this right here tips their hand that this article is full of poo poo and Republican talking points. They do not need to interview the whistleblower when they have multiple corroborations of the sequence of events and allegations that the whistleblower brought up. Nobody interviewed Deep Throat and yet Nixon was going to be impeached.

e: not to mention the reason that Congress hasn't interviewed Giuliani which is that the Whitehouse would stonewall the gently caress out of it.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 20:15

actionjackson: Jan 12, 2003

why the hell is MSNBC saying Schiff and Swalwell aren't sure there is enough evidence to impeach yet

# ? Nov 24, 2019 20:16

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

actionjackson posted:

why the hell is MSNBC saying Schiff and Swalwell aren't sure there is enough evidence to impeach yet

that's almost literally the opposite of what he said in interviews today

the only thing that even comes close is he said he wanted to finish his investigation and talk to colleagues and constituents before committing to vote for impeachment -- which is something no reasonable person would ever believe means anything but "I think I should look like I'm not rushing to judgment"

# ? Nov 24, 2019 20:26

oxsnard: Oct 8, 2003

https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/727604522156228608?s=20

# ? Nov 24, 2019 20:44

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

This just popped up at WaPo:

White House review turns up emails showing extensive effort to justify Trump�s decision to block Ukraine military aid

quote:

A confidential White House review of President Trump�s decision to place a hold on military aid to Ukraine has turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over whether the delay was legal, according to three people familiar with the records.

The research by the White House Counsel�s Office, which was triggered by a congressional impeachment inquiry announced in September, includes early August email exchanges between acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and White House budget officials seeking to provide an explanation for withholding the funds after President Trump had already ordered a hold in mid-July on the nearly $400 million in security assistance, according to the three people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.

One person briefed on the records examination said White House lawyers are expressing concern that the review has turned up some unflattering exchanges and facts that could at a minimum embarrass the president. It�s unclear if the Mulvaney discussions or other records pose any legal problems for Trump in the impeachment inquiry, but some fear they could pose political problems if revealed publicly.

People familiar with the Office of Budget and Management�s handling of the holdup in aid acknowledged the internal discussions going on during August, but characterized the conversations as calm, routine and focused on the legal question of how to comply with the congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, which requires the executive branch to spend congressionally appropriated funds unless Congress agrees they can be rescinded.

�There was a legal consensus at every step of the way that the money could be withheld to conduct the policy review,� said OMB spokeswoman Rachel K. Semmel. �OMB works closely with agencies on executing the budget. Routine practices and procedures were followed, not scrambling.�

The hold on the military aid is at the heart of House Democrats� investigation into whether the president should be removed from office for allegedly trying to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rivals in exchange for the U.S. support that President Volodymyr Zelensky desperately wanted in the face of Russian military aggression.

In the early August email exchanges, Mulvaney asked acting Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought for an update on the legal rationale for withholding the aid and how much longer it could be delayed. Trump had made the decision the prior month without an assessment of the reasoning or legal justification, according to two White House officials. Emails show Vought and OMB staffers arguing that withholding aid was legal, while officials at the National Security Council and State Department protested. OMB lawyers said that it was legal to withhold the aid, as long as they deemed it a �temporary� hold, according to people familiar with the review.

A senior budget lawyer crafted a memo on July 25 that defended the hold for at least a short period of time, an administration official said.

Mulvaney�s request for information came days after the White House Counsel�s Office was put on notice that an anonymous CIA official had made a complaint to the agency�s general counsel about Trump�s July 25 call to Zelensky during which he requested Ukraine investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, as well as an unfounded theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

This official would later file a whistleblower complaint with the intelligence community�s inspector general, which ignited the impeachment push when its existence became public.

The White House released the funds to Ukraine on Sept. 11. The timing has drawn scrutiny because it came two days after the House announced it was launching an inquiry into the whistleblower complaint, which raised concerns about the call and whether the president was using his public office for personal political gain.

Trump has acknowledged ordering the hold on military aid and also pressing Ukraine�s president to investigate his potential Democratic presidential opponent, Joe Biden, but said the release of the funds was not conditioned on Ukraine launching any investigations.

The office of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone oversaw the records review. The White House press office and the White House Counsel�s Office did not respond to requests for comment. Mulvaney�s lawyer, Robert Driscoll, declined to comment.

The document research has only exacerbated growing tension between Cipollone and Mulvaney and their offices, with Cipollone tightly controlling access to his findings, and Mulvaney�s aides complaining Cipollone isn�t briefing other White House officials or sharing important material they need to respond to public inquiries, according to people familiar with their relationship.

Mulvaney is a critical player in the Ukraine saga, as he has acknowledged that he asked OMB to block the release of congressionally-approved aid to Ukraine � at the president�s request � in early to mid-July of 2019.

The emails revealed by White House lawyers include some in which Mulvaney urges Vought to immediately focus on Ukraine�s aid package, making clear it was a top priority for the administration.

The legal office launched this fact-finding review of internal records in a protective mode, both to determine what the records might reveal about internal administration conversations and also to help the White House produce a timeline for defending Trump�s decision and his public comments. Along with examining documents, the review has also involved interviewing some key White House officials involved in handling Ukraine aid and dealing with complaints and concerns in the aftermath of the call between Trump and Zelensky.

Cipollone�s office has focused closely on correspondence that could be subject to public records requests, those which involve discussions between staff at the White House and at other agencies. Internal White House records are not subject to federal public records law but messages that include officials at federal agencies are.

Also included in the review are email conversations between OMB and State Department officials and others discussing why the White House was holding up nearly $400 million in military aid and whether the hold might violate the law, one person said. In December 2018, months before the Ukraine issue surfaced as a top priority for the president, the Government Accountability Office had warned OMB it was not following the law in how it chose to disburse and withhold congressionally-approved funds.

Cipollone has told House impeachment investigators that the White House will not cooperate in with the inquiry in any way, including by greenlighting witnesses or turning over documents.

While some officials from the departments of State and Defense have testified publicly about their concerns over whether the administration was seeking to leverage the aid and a White House visit for the political investigations, only one OMB official has appeared before the congressional committees.

Mark Sandy, a career OMB official, has testified that the decision to delay aid to Ukraine was highly unusual, and senior political appointees in his office wanted to be involved in reviewing the aid package. Sandy testified that he had never in his career seen a senior political OMB official assume control of a portfolio in such a fashion, according to the people familiar with his testimony.

Sandy told impeachment investigators he had questions about whether it was legal to withhold aid Congress had expressly authorized to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, but OMB lawyers told him it was fine as long as they called it a �temporary� hold, according to a person familiar with Sandy�s account. Sandy, the deputy associate director for national security programs at OMB, signed formal letters to freeze the funds, but top political appointees were unable to provide him with an explanation for the delay.

Trump has continued to describe that impeachment investigation as a �hoax� and maintain that he did nothing wrong.

�This is a continuation of the witch hunt which has gone on from before I got elected,� he told Fox News Friday.

Quoted in full because gently caress WaPo's paywall.

# ? Nov 24, 2019 21:29

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1198736632331022336

# ? Nov 25, 2019 00:05

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

eke out posted:

https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1198736632331022336

I'm hoping Parnas doesn't wind up doing the Flynn dance because I'm really enjoying this subplot.

# ? Nov 25, 2019 00:12

SchrodingersCat: Aug 23, 2011

ewiley posted:

.

e: not to mention the reason that Congress hasn't interviewed Giuliani which is that the Whitehouse would stonewall the gently caress out of it.

They also don't need Giuliani since Parnas is going to give them enough anyway. I think he is going to be the key in all this. I suspect that anything they could get from Giuliani, they can get from Parnas.

I wouldn't be surprised if Parnas is also giving them stuff on Nunes. I don't think Swalwell would have gone after him so publically unless they had more information than had been shown. I think that was a major shot across the bow.

I hope they all loving hang.

SchrodingersCat fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Nov 25, 2019

# ? Nov 25, 2019 00:46

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

So, what is the wildest, most damning thing that could reasonably be on these tapes?

# ? Nov 25, 2019 00:47

canepazzo: May 29, 2006

Charlz Guybon posted:

So, what is the wildest, most damning thing that could reasonably be on these tapes?

# ? Nov 25, 2019 00:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 10:01

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

Charlz Guybon posted:

So, what is the wildest, most damning thing that could reasonably be on these tapes?

Trump, Giuliani, and parnas discussing how to set up a trump tower Moscow deal with Putin if they can gently caress over Ukraine enough by cutting military funding.

I mean, that's MOST DAMAGING POSSIBLE, not saying it's likely.

# ? Nov 25, 2019 00:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

«‹›322 »