Lulz, in the future, @WhiteHouse might not agree with this tweet of theirs. I wonder if future @WhiteHouse will delete past tweets the account holder no longer believes in, or respond to the contrary to tweets of the past they want to correct?
John Roberts Has More Power Than Mitch McConnell Would Like You to Think. But Will He Use It? https://time.com/5768467/john-roberts-mitch-mcconnell-witnesses/
It's great to hear a conservative who can acknowledge the obvious truth. But of course, one must go on to ask him, if what Trump did in Ukraine was outrageous, that the Crowdstrike theory is nutty, that character in office, rule of law, and cooperation between branches of government are all important -- then how can you still support Trump in 2020? The reason Republicans can't start down this road is that they know that if they acknowledge the problem they can't logically deny the solution.
Don't know what to even say, I mean the corruption is so rampant I think that's the least of their problems.
just trying to make a tweeter joke about how that account might disagree with its previous account holders in the future. In the future, @WhiteHouse could argue with its past tweets.
I won't put this in the disinformation (propaganda) thread because it will upset @jiggyfly . https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/479109-end-the-impeachment-shutdown excerpt: The first count of the two articles of impeachment against President Trump accuses the president of abuse of power by withholding aid in an attempt to force Ukraine to look into possible corruption on the part of Joe and Hunter Biden. He is called corrupt in motive for asking for an investigation of potential corruption over questions that had been raised in the New York Times, Politico, The New Yorker and other media outlets. Bringing this up on a call to the president of Ukraine was probably a boneheaded thing to do, but not an impeachable one. Aid was not actually held up. No investigation was ordered. The president of Ukraine and other Ukrainian officials deny that any pressure was applied to them. Trump’s overall policy was, in fact, far more helpful to the Ukrainians than President Obama’s policies that denied them much aid for weapons. There was and is no urgent threat to the national security of the United States. There is definitely something about all this that the American public doesn’t like, that reasonable people can judge as wrong, but that is quite different than removing a president from office through a process designed to use impeachment as a political vehicle. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was not a truth-seeker — he is on tape soliciting naked pictures of Trump, and he repeatedly exaggerated evidence against Trump over the last three years. He was simply a weapon jamming through impeachment and ignoring fair procedure or legal process. The last few days in the media have underscored this bias with the release of material from Lev Parnas, who — like Christopher Steele and his dossier before him, or like Michael Avenatti, now out on bail — is a questionable character with obviously wild claims for which he has no proof, including claims against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr, whom Parnas has never met. It was a political dirty trick to release his information and him on the eve of the Senate impeachment trial, and this act alone would have gotten any real prosecutor’s case thrown out. The second article of impeachment — obstruction of the House by the assertion of executive privilege — is, in my view, wholly without merit. Despite endless allegations of lawlessness, this administration has implemented every court ruling it has lost without exception. Asserting executive privilege is not the same as paying hush money or suborning perjury, as was alleged in the Clinton and Nixon impeachment efforts. President Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, frequently asserted privilege in response to investigations and Holder was even held in contempt of Congress, a resolution he promptly ignored. This article should be immediately dismissed, as there is really no factual basis for it at all, especially since the House deliberately avoided allowing the president to adjudicate the claims in court by failing to subpoena witnesses or withdrawing subpoenas from witnesses who challenged them in court. more at the link
The article is idiotic. There is zero evidence that Hunter or Joe have done anything corrupt. It is also wrong because Aid was held up. It wasn't permanently withdrawn but it absolutely was held up. The Schiff tape incident mentioned is not him soliciting naked pics of Trump. It is him being offered that by comedians. Schiff actually reported the incident to proper authorities. The article is also wrong to point out Obama's policy as being more harmful to the Ukrainians than Trump's. The author's excuse of investigating corruption shouldn't be called corrupt could be used here. Obama along with other allies was pushing the Ukrainians to weed out the corruption which was done long before Hunter ever held his director's job in Ukraine. This article is worse than most of the piss-poor articles you so frequently post. I'm honestly, disappointed any media outlet would allow crap like this to be published. It is certainly little more than propaganda by Trump supporters. So it might actually fit in the propaganda thread.
here, I'm sure you'll like this one better https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/the-senate-impeachment-dance.php The Senate impeachment dance by Paul Mirengoff Posted on January 22, 2020 by Paul Mirengoff The impeachment of President Trump has never been about actually removing him from office. The Democrats has always known they would fall 15 to 20 Senate votes short of accomplishing that. The impeachment is, and always has been, about the 2020 election. Thus, there is now precedent for impeaching a president to gain advantage in an upcoming election. This won’t be the last time it happens. The Democrats hoped through impeachment to gain an advantage in both the presidential and Senate elections. They knew that impeachment might cost them some House seats, but believed that they hold a big enough advantage in the House to retain control in any case. So far, impeachment has not moved the needle on President Trump. The Senate trial could change this, but isn’t likely to. Thus, what the two parties are now mainly playing for is control of the Senate. And control of the Senate comes down to a few key races in states like Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Georgia, and North Carolina. Few, if any, Republican incumbents from these states can vote to convict President Trump (and, I assume, few, if any, want to). Such a vote would enrage the Republican base, thus ensuring defeat. However, these incumbents don’t want to be accused by the Democrats of having supported an unfair Senate trial — one in which Democrats weren’t given an adequate chance to present their case. That’s why, for example, Mitch McConnell didn’t have the votes to dismiss the case at the outset — the appropriate result because even if all the facts the Democrats allege are true (and many of them are), they don’t state a case for impeachment under the standard of the Constitution. It’s also why at least some of the Republicans from the challenging states may want to have witnesses testify. The more the Democrats have a chance to put on a full case, the harder it will be to accuse these Senators of supporting a sham trial. Protecting endangered incumbents is clearly in Mitch McConnell’s interest. McConnell also wants to protect Trump from political damage, though. When it comes to witnesses, there may be a tension between these too interests. If witnesses aren’t called, incumbent GOP Senators might suffer political damage. If witnesses are called, Trump might take a hit, depending on what the witnesses say and whether more than a few undecided Americans care. In the case of at least one witness, John Bolton, no one seems to know what he will say. One way out might be for the Senate to vote against witness testimony with a few of the endangered incumbents voting with the Democrats. But there are two potential problems. First, members of the Republican base might not forgive even a vote to hear from witnesses. Second, there may be enough endangered Republicans (plus Mitt Romney and all of the Democrats) to prevent McConnell from prevailing on a vote as to whether to hear testimony. Thus, we might end up having a few witnesses testify. In this scenario, presumably, McConnell would orchestrate a deal whereby the defense also puts on witnesses, perhaps including Hunter and/or Joe Biden. This is not an optimal outcome. As things stand now, Trump almost certainly will suffer little, if any, political damage from the impeachment process. That’s also the most likely outcome even with witnesses, but live testimony adds uncertainty and thus increases the likelihood of political damage to the president. I’d love to see the Senate dispatch this case without hearing from witnesses, but this might not be in the cards. As a final note, let’s ridicule the breathless reporting from the mainstream media about McConnell backing down in the face of a “budding revolt” in his ranks (as a headline in the Washington Post’s paper edition put it). McConnell’s main interest is the same as those (other than Mitt Romney) who supposedly are rebelling — to enable vulnerable members of his caucus to get through the trial without harming their reelection prospects. There is no cause for these members to rebel, and likely no budding revolt. Allahpundit explains this. The Democrats haven’t accomplished much with their impeachment gambit, but they have placed McConnell and a few members of his caucus in a tight spot. I think McConnell can navigate his way out, but we’ll see.
Beyond Dan Pfeiffer's point... I think ted cruz's tweet is ridiculous. First, even if trump was motivated by a desire to stop corruption (yea, I know, laughable, but stay with me), why didn't trump mention corruption in his phone calls with the ukraine. Second, if trump was combating corruption, why didn't he involve the CIA, the FBI, the state department? Instead,, why did he have his personal lawyer and his personal lawyer's corrupt contacts in the ukraine leading this effort?
not sure HE does but he meant his targets of criticism do. [EDIT: just my guess. it's actually not completely clear]
Something about his tweet made me think he did, but a longer review of his twitter history tells me you're probably right.
OMB documents re: trump's holding ukraine aid over zelensky's head released... heavily redacted, but give more ammo to Democrat position that more evidence needs to be considered... and why mulvaney and members of his staff need to testify. White House budget office was closely involved in Ukraine hold, new documents show https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-...kraine-hold-new-documents-show-204144816.html
