Friday, January 17, 2020

USA: The Great Impeachment - Stage I-III and House Tactics

The key tactics have changed as things have proceeded through three stages in the House.

Stage I: Intelligence Committee investigation
  • At the start the process was kept within one Democrat-controlled House committee - Intelligence -  where tight control could be applied over questions by GOP members, witnesses introduced by them, or any evidence that would exculpate Trump.
  • An endless stream of leaks was supplied from the transcripts of witness interviews, taken out of context of course to appear as damning of Trump as possible.
  • The leaks were fed to the Democratic Operatives With Bylines that is 95% anti-Trump. They're eager to publish anything leaked, no matter how out of context.
  • The idea was to dominate successive news cycles. When the full context was revealed showing the original headline as over-egged crap it didn't matter, since there was always another in the pipeline.
The initial impeachment investigation proceeded without a House vote authorising it, and was conducted entirely within the Intelligence Committee headed by Adam Schiff. This was a "closed-door" process, even though there was no classified information involved: more charades. Schiff was the same partisan hack who had pushed the Russia Collusion story hard for two years with endless tales of the "solid evidence" he'd seen that would bury Trump by the end of the investigation - all of this breathlessly repeated by the MSM.

Even after that embarrassment, he kicked off his Committee's work by making a dick of himself all over again in reading out the Ukraine phone call transcript with phony phrases he'd made up. Even then it was a clear sign of the thin nature of the charges: had there actually been anything really bad in the transcript Schiff would not have needed to provide his "parody".

"He's guilty. You can see it on his smug little face! Guilty I say. Guilty, guilty......"


Stage II: House Authorised Investigations

The closed-door charade could not continue forever and a full House investigation had to happen eventually for Impeachment to proceed. But when the vote was held it was another embarrassment as bi-partisanship turned up on the GOP side, with two Democrats voting against it. The Democrats still had the majority of course so the ride continued.

The tactics here were as follows:
  • Get multiple committees investigating everything about Trump, from breaches of the Emoluments Clause to Trump's tax returns to god knows what else.
  • Nail every bullshit "impeachment" idea you can so that it does not get regurgitated later in 2020 by a Democrat base enraged that the GOP Senate threw it out.
  • Get new witnesses who provide damning testimony in public.
  • Get legal experts to explain to the public why impeachment is needed and how it's all above board.
  • Produce a damning report that would persuade the House to vote for actual impeachment.
But after more huffing and puffing it turned out that the other committees also had little to go on and in the end it all went back to Intelligence, only now with public testimony from the witnesses.

Things continued to not go as planned for the Democrats, as I discussed here - and they've only gotten worse since then. One of the most embarrassing was the vanishing "whistle blower" himself, after weeks of Schiff claiming that he would testify. Schiff then made a big deal about how he had to be protected - except that there is protective legislation and a clear definition within US government departments for genuine whistle blowers, which he was not. People in D.C. soon found out who he was anyway,  a CIA staffer who had not been on the phone call, and who had been coordinating with Schiff's staff, which Schiff naturally lied about it before being caught out. The whistle blower's usefulness over - in fact he's now counterproductive - we're supposed to forget he ever existed. Of course at a Senate trial he will be forced to testify.

The Justice Committee would normally have got the job and been expected to carry the investigative load right from the start, given its role in the House and as it has in past impeachment efforts. The reason it didn't this time is due to its leader, Ralph "Jabba-The-Hutt" Nadler.

I want to eat Han Solo, NOW!
His previous handling of the Mueller hearings following the Russia-Collusion report had not gone well and was regarded as a black eye by fellow Democrats. There had also been other missteps by Nadler and he was regarded as a less sharp-elbowed partisan than Schiff.

But just as importantly his Justice Committee would have had to follow its own precedents with the impeachment rules of the past. The Intelligence Committee was bound by no such thing and could break new ground - such as continuing to screw due process, questions and witness admission in favour of the Democrats.

Even so, under GOP questioning it turned out that the witnesses could only testify to what they'd heard at 2nd, 3rd and even 4th hand, and what they believed was heavying of the new Ukrainian government. It turned out the whistle blowers testimony was the same so was not missed, The one guy who did ask Trump about all this, Sondman, was told in no uncertain terms by the President that there was to be no "quid pro quo", a phrase that was soon dropped anyway in favour of the meatier term "bribery", thanks to those well-known sources of legal expertise, Democrat focus groups.


There was also an attempt at argument-from-authority as several witnesses, all presented as patriotic, dedicated, impartial, non-partisan, career folk - none more so than the cringe-worthy Lieutenant Vindman - claimed that Trump was upsetting the "established policy" for Ukraine set by the whole "U.S. government policy community".

The fuck? Aside from such a nonsense term, Vindman and others did not seem to recognise that they're small cogs in the system and at the end of the day it is the President who sets foreign policy and fires people who don't comply. The joke here, as with the aid itself, is that Trump appears to have followed the advice of this community on Ukraine anyway - despite his thirty years of instinctively despising US foreign aid to "shit hole countries". And that includes the lethal military aid that President Obama refused to send, fearing an escalation of violence with the guy he wanted to show flexibility with: Putin.


Stage III: The Justice Committee and Articles of Impeachment

In the end the only report was from Intelligence, who wrapped it up in as neat a partisan bow as they could and sent it to the Justice Committee for official turd polishing, as it is they who must codify the actual Articles of Impeachment to be sent to the Senate for the trial. More witnesses were expected in Justice Hearings but the only thing that happened was inviting four respected legal scholars to testify to the public about the legal aspects of impeachment.

That didn't go well either. Three of the experts revealed degrees of Trump obsession and loathing that seemed strange for such supposedly academically detached people. One in particular talked of how she moves to walk on the other side of the street from a Trump building and told a scripted joke aimed at Trump that foolishly involved his son, Barron - the result being that her arguments were forgotten before the end of the day. The public were certainly left wondering what's being taught at US law schools nowadays. The one who did stand out, Jonathan Turley, notably did so because he put forward arguments the Trump haters did not want to hear. Even though he was also adamantly against Trump that didn't stop his Leftist "friends" turning on him, as he later wrote.

Professor Jonathan Turley
Turley pointed out that impeachment articles based on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice (all criminal charges) would be weak to non-existent. He felt that only two charges could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and even there he felt that the record was incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate, pointing out that this was the fastest impeachment in US history and therefore would result in very weak articles.

Worse, he upbraided them specifically on the notion of abuse of power:
"If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of [Trump] going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power".  
You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing. We have a third branch that deals with conflicts at the other two branches. What comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy.
This last point was about the Democrats anger at Trump refusing to allow current and former senior members of his Administration to testify to the committees in the public stage. As past Presidents have done he claimed executive privilege and told Congress to go to court on the matter. After more drum beating about these witnesses and the terrible insider things they would reveal about the Ukraine, the Democrats simply quit, not even bothering to pursue court actions. Why?

"Aim high, and you won't shoot your foot off."

The reason goes back to one of Nancy's balancing acts between having an impeachment and not screwing with the Democrat primary season. The former demands time and in-depth investigation: the latter demands that things be wrapped up as soon as possible. They are mutually exclusive and so the Democrats decided to not only not go to court to force these witnesses to testify but to then craft Trump's refusal into an article of impeachment itself: Obstruction of Congress.

That's too cynically cute by half, and will be treated so by the Senate.

50 comments:

Judge Holden said...

Do you have to shower after debasing yourself writing such long-winded, obsequious slime? Truth just isn't for you these days is it?

Tom Hunter said...

Do you have to shower...

Of course....

.... in the tears of the Left!

😀😂

alloytoo said...

Shouldn't the articles really read:

1. Hillary didn't win.
2. Trump will probably be re-elected.

Judge Holden said...

Meh, whatever, Tommy. You’ve shown your true character and it’s vicious, dishonest and unprincipled. You’re too scared to address the facts, so it’s all smears, snark and lies. What’s truly funny is that you’re acting this way to defend Donald Trump. Bwhahahahahaha! What a loser.

Anonymous said...

Once upon a time this was a centre right Kiwi blog. now it is straight out of Breibart. WTF happened.

Anyone who believes Judge Holden is real is is a prawn short of a barbie.

Mick

Anonymous said...

@Mick

You got that right mate, the hits on this blog a few months ago were about 88,000 per 30 days now it's less than the Timaru city council bus time table gets .

Message to whoever the fuck Tom is WE do not give a shit about the US problems. we are not your fucking colony.

Dave Richardson



Adolf Fiinkensein said...

D R

Speak for yourself. I enjoy and value TH's posts on US politics.

Rusty Arrow said...

sad POS, aren't you Adolf? Not much joy left in your life if Cunter is what you "value".

Rusty Arrow said...



I JUST GOT IMPEACHED FOR MAKING A PERFECT PHONE CALL!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 16, 2020

Judge Holden said...

A perfect phone call where he tried to force a foreign leader to investigate one of his political opponents and then a chain of behaviour where he unequivocally help up Congressionally approved defence aid to Ukraine until they complied. When it was clear he was busted he sent a text to Sondland in a feeble attempt to cover his arse. This indicates even he knew he fucked up and was trying to cover his tracks. Tommy sees nothing wrong in any of this.

Tom Hunter said...

...where he tried to force a foreign leader to investigate one of his political opponents...
Naturally you can show the language and words in the transcript where this happens and argue how.

Admittedly I'm being a little unfair to Sludgy because to date nobody has, which is why the assertion is simply constantly repeated.

....until they complied
Even if you could argue that Trump demanded compliance and linked it to a threat to hold back aid - and nobody has been able to actually present any evidence of that - the fact remains that Ukraine did not "comply" and the aid was sent anyhow, which is another blow to the claim.

Tommy sees nothing wrong in any of this.

It's called begging the question and it's Sludgy's most frequently used approach.

Not a surprise: when challenged to argue about the Trans issues the other day, Sludgy ran away after the usual barrage of assertions.

Judge Holden said...

The aid was released when Trump realised he had been busted. This in itself demonstrates a reptilian understanding that what he was doing was wrong and that his claimed concern about corruption in Ukraine was a lie (not to mention his view that corruption is actually something American firms should be allowed to engage in overseas).

It’s not a transcript and even so there is direct reference to investigating the Bidens in it. Sondland knew what his riding instructions were, and Bolton and Mulvaney also knew, which is why they have been forbidden to testify. I mean if their testimony would clear Trump he’s want it heard right?

Tommy sees nothing wrong in any of this.

Tom Hunter said...

Message to whoever the fuck Tom is WE do not give a shit about the US problems.

Really? Because I would not have thought so based on the relentless drumbeat of news about the USA and Trump that I hear on the car radio and which friends tell me is a staple of TV news in NZ.

Plus all the frequent pieces on those topics on blogsites such as Kiwiblog, Trotter's Bowalley Road, The Standard, and countless others.

That's not a surprise: like it or not the USA is a big part of our world, the US President is a big part of that, and this particular President is yuuugggeee, judging by the obsession the Left have with him worldwide.

What you're really objecting to is that my take on the USA and Trump is the opposite of the rest of the news coverage of those topics in NZ, which is almost entirely negative almost all the time. You're comfortable with that and are irritated by having your cozy assumptions and lazy assertions challenged.

gravedodger said...

When Jonathan Turley one of the four carefully selected anti Trump Ivory Tower people as the only witnesses to Nadler's House Judiciary committee hearings ended by opining what the Democrats were attempting was at least as worthy of impeachment if not graver, one might be excused for thinking they maybe should just shut the f#@k up.

Noooo Nancy possibly enduring a mental decline similar to crazy Joe's, ploughed on with missionary zeal creating a spectacle of dramatic over kill in a procession from her citadel to the Senate with the now clearly deficient "Articles".
That bit of "Theatre" will be the only part of the circus to endure and while all of the Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi idiocy will slide back into their swamp.

Great short summation Tom, of what may well be seen by historians as the major blunder that could well see the implosion of the longest enduring party in the US. A Party born out of support for Slavery and endemic Southern Racism yet no one ever mentions that embarrassing fact. That declining coalition replaced by academics and welfare groups.
Once the stupidity of Sanders emboldened by Warren and the Squad splits the Democrats, it will challenge The Edsel as an epic flop.

Many thought the republican Party would be in that arena with conservative Christians , Tea partyists, and so called red neck rightists, but Trump has shown how a coalition of the various can come together and thrive
When did Congressional Republicans ever show such unity?

Snowflake said...

I love the way you think it’s negative news coverage when journalists record things Trump says and then write them down or show them on TV. I guess that could be negative if he keeps lying or saying stupid things, but according to you lot he’s the Second Coming of God, so that can’t be the case can it?

Judge Holden said...

A bit rich for Gravetodger to be accusing others of mental decline. Just saying.

Tom Hunter said...

The aid was released when Trump realised he had been busted.
Another mere assertion that has not been proven because there is no proof of it, only arguments about timelines and dates that nobody has been able to connect to actual evidence.

Arguments are not evidence.

It’s not a transcript...
We've had this argument before. Seventeen people listening in on the call and taking notes which are then compared produces a transcript, which is why all such past records have been called transcripts by previous Administrations and why even anti-Trump media sites like MSNBC and the rest of the world call it a transcript.

It's a transcript.

... and even so there is direct reference to investigating the Bidens in it
There's a direct reference to the firing of a Ukrainian prosecuter who was supposedly investigating Little Crackpipe Biden's cozy directors arrangement but nowhere has anybody shown where in the call Trump says or even implies that aid will be withheld until the Ukranians do an investigation, not even of the Crowdstrike servers.

There are certainly assumptions that the threat is implied, in the manner of some Mafia conversation, which fits the assumptions about Trump's character.

But assumptions is all they are. There are no words, let alone sentences that establish such a link. Which is why the Ukranian President has repeatedly said he heard no such threat and why no investigations of Crowdstrike and the Biden's were done by the Ukranians.

Judge Holden said...

The subsequent revelations indicate the assumptions are true.

I suppose it was just a coincidence that Trump released the funding when he found out he had been busted. What anti-corruption activity occurred which convinced him it was all good to go?

Mulvaney admitted publicly the true reasons for withholding the funding, which is why Trump won’t let him or Bolton testify. Surely they can clear all this up. Why won’t he let that happen? Sondland was also acting on the understanding that Trump was withholding the funding until an investigation was announced. Where did he get that from?

It’s not a transcript it says so on the front.

There’s direct reference to investigating the Biden’s in the call summary. Zelensky is petrified of Trump, that’s why he’s playing the game he’s playing. All pretty simple. Like you.

Tom Hunter said...

Mulvaney admitted publicly the true reasons for withholding the funding
Shifting the goalposts to yet another person, and that is merely another broad assertion that the likes of you hope will stick via simple and endless repetition.

Why won’t he let that happen?
The usual cry of a Stalinist Star Chamber fan. Trump, like all other Presidents before him, will protect privileged conversations since that is the only way a President can be sure of receiving unvarnished advice and ideas. That's why Nixon fought against the release of the Pentagon Papers, even though from a partisan perspective they were entirely damaging of the two previous Democrat Administrations, ending before he became President. So it was with Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II and Obama.

Where did [Sondland] get that from?
Like you. From his feelings, which he already admitted was not backed up by any evidence. Same with the other "witnesses".

It’s not a transcript it says so on the front.
As do others from times past and present. They're still referred to as transcripts - except by people desperate to imply that key piece of evidence has been excised. And before anybody says Hansard

Hansard is not a word-for-word transcript of debates in Parliament. Its terms of reference are those set by a House of Commons select committee in 1893, as being a report which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes (including grammatical mistakes) corrected, but which, on the other hand, leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument.

Tom Hunter said...

Great short summation Tom,...
Well I don't know about short but thanks anyway Gravedodger.

I've got one more OP coming about the final stages of getting this to the Senate and then will leave the issue for a week or so before tackling the arguments, even though they will be the same ones already heard. I don't want to let Sludgy drag me further into his swamp in advance of that.

Judge Holden said...

You’re gaslighting is extraordinary, Tommy. Mulvaney admitted in a press conference that what Trump did in demanding an investigation before he released the funds was just the way things work. There is actual video tape of him doing this.

Sondland apparently just dreamed up the whole thing out of thin air - he felt that Trump wanted Biden investigated as a condition of the aid based on nothing? That’s remarkable especially given that the only thing holding the aid up was Trump’s long-standing concern about corruption. He should have just said that.

GIven that Mulvaney and Bolton can clear Trump you would think that his concern for precedent is a little overblown no? He doesn’t care about advice and the matter here can be cleared up very simply without compromising his no doubt genuine concern about receiving “ideas”.

It’s not a transcript. It says so on the front. I would like to see the transcript to see if Trump really said “do US a favour”, as that apparently is a key part of his defence, ludicrous as that is..

Anyway, this is all perfectly normal behaviour for a President , right Tommy? You’re struggling manfully here but your reliance on gaslighting, lying, dissembling and nit-picking I only gets you so far. You need some facts to fall ytour way. Good luck with that.

RosscoWlg said...

Thanks Tom I enjoy US politics but not to the degree of you conoseours so great to hear your summary and explanations.

Of course good to read the dissenting views as well...wink wink, except SnottieFlake who doesn't seem able to assemble anything let alone a opinion that contains logic.

Look forward to the coming posts.

gravedodger said...

My mental ability Holden is irrelevant.
I am not aspiring to be Potus or wanting the sheeple to think I can run the House of Representatives.
I am not alone in questioning Bidens and Pelosi's acumen.

Last Warning Holden if you wish to continue misspelling my Nom d plume I will join Adolf and just delete your comments unread, your call.

Anonymous said...

In hoc signo vinces said...



The documents contain a letter from Giuliani to Zelensky, dated May 10, in which Giuliani requests a meeting. The New York Times had just reported that Giuliani was set to undertake his pressure campaign.

In the letter, Giuliani explicitly states that he was representing Trump “as a private citizen, not as the president of the United States,” and also that Giuliani was carrying out this mission with Trump’s “knowledge and consent.”

That confirms in Giuliani’s own words that his scheme was geared toward satisfying Trump’s personal interests, even as Giuliani was in effect carrying out U.S. foreign relations with an ally. Our national interests were subverted to Trump’s own, at Trump’s explicit direction.

One of Trump’s main defenses is that, in pressing Ukraine to announce an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden — and another that would absolve Russia of 2016 electoral sabotage — he was merely acting as a responsible leader. Yes, Trump froze hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid while demanding these investigations, but only because he reasonably wanted Ukraine to clean up “corruption”!

That has always been obvious nonsense, but the letter forcefully underscores the point: Trump’s defenders cannot explain why, if he was merely acting in the national interest throughout, he needed his private attorney to orchestrate the whole scheme, all to his private benefit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/15/four-big-takeaways-explosive-lev-parnas-documents/

January 17, 2020 at 1:46 PM

Tom Hunter said...

EXPLOSIVE Parnas documents and yada, yada, yada

God these people never learn. Over the last three years the WaPo and NYT have had more EXPLOSIVE revelations about Trump than someone suffering from Dehli Belly. And yet the noobs never stop salivating when the same MSM rings the same bell with more "sources" - and in an "opinion" column no less. Well, as the saying goes, everybody's got an opinion.

How explosive can it be when Giuliani was entirely open about it to the NYT back in May:

Giuliani said he plans to travel to Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in the coming days and wants to meet with the nation’s president-elect to urge him to pursue inquiries that allies of the White House contend could yield new information about two matters of intense interest to Mr. Trump.

One is the origin of the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The other is the involvement of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son in a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch.


And this is before we get ye olde conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow, whom lefty Matt Tabbi at Rolling Stone took to the woodhsed after the release of the IG report showed that she'd basically become the Alex Jones of MSNBC with her constant hammering of the Steele Dossier.

Of course she'd be the one Parnas would run to with his tales. As one summary put it:

these guys managed to ingratiate themselves with Giuliani and Trump by telling them what they wanted to hear, that there was some sort of secret evidence about Biden corruption in Ukraine, and that only they knew how to get it revealed

And now he's telling Maddow and the Democrats exactly what they want to hear. Seems to be a pattern. As Vadym Prystaiko, Foreign Minister of Ukraine said:

"Frankly, I have not spoken with [Lev Parnas], and again, frankly, I don’t trust any word he is now saying."

Not the WaPo though: they'll swallow any story as long as it appears to damage Trump, even if it's a guy charged with channeling illegal donations to Hillary Clinton - and that's just one of his conflicts of interest, not to mention that his claims contradict many of the facts that the DOJ has laid out in their charges against him.

Anonymous said...

@ TH

Supposition and speculation not to mention wishful thinking. Now how about shutting up for a while and let the trial take place. It will be watched very carefully by the worlds jurists and if there is anything untoward or dodgy about evidence we will all know.

I do have a horrible feeling that if your boy is not acquitted you will shouting foul.

Anonymous said...

The above Oddball is not the real one, simply an impersonater.

Oddball

Anonymous said...

Have we reached the end of the line when Oddball talks to himself.

Mick

Tom Hunter said...

I do have a horrible feeling that if your boy is not acquitted you will shouting foul.
Meh! Political leaders come and go, though I admit that Trump has actually been more effective in some important areas than most and certainly more than I expected of an ex-Democrat.

I think you're projecting because of the way the Left usually worship their Great Leaders.

In any case it's not a matter of being acquitted, since this is not a normal legal case, but to be impeached (rather than "convicted") will require 2/3 of the 100 seat Senate - 67 seats/votes. The Democrats have 47 so they need twenty Republicans.

There is simply no way- and there never was any way - that twenty Republican Senators, many of them from solid GOP states, are going to cut their own throats to just to satisify the unhinged extreme Left of the Democrat Party or power mongers like Pelosi - especially knowing the othes sides partisanship is the same and that there is no good will or genuine "somber" concern about the law on the Democrat side. The whole thing is a charade and all the insiders know it.

Tom Hunter said...

@Mick

We appear to have some idiot running around these comment sections trying to take on the names of Oddball, Andrei and even Judge Holden and Egbutt. While our blog is not sophisticated enough to prevent this the authors can at least delete them, which is what we're doing. Tiresome but that's the Internet for you.

Judge Holden said...

Except the whole thing is not a charade, unless of course you buy into the whole Steve Bannon deep state thing, which of course you don’t do you? Or maybe you do, you are that weird. You do ascribe to his approach of flooding the zone with shit though. It’s basically the most effective weapon you have, hence the gaslighting, lying and dissembling.

I like the way you’re now arguing that Parnas is unreliable. Trump and his batty lawyer get involved with a guy who (like most people in Trump’s orbit) is dodgy and it’s because of his dodginess that when he gets caught he can’t be trusted. A standard play for this guy, see Michael Cohen.

Tom Hunter said...

I like the way you’re now arguing that Parnas is unreliable

Thanks, since that puts me in the same corner as the NYT and other MSM places that he shopped his story to before landing with MSNBC's leading conspiracy theorist, Rachel Maddow. The others were not willing to touch the guy with a bargepole but were more than happy to let Maddow take the lead so they could then comment on it.

It also puts me on the same side as the legal office of the SDNY, who have taken no notice of his stories as he tries to avoid prison.

Still, I can see why Parnas is trying implicate Barr as well, since his (meaning Trump's) DOJ is also prosecuting Parnas. Getting both out of the way might help Mr Parnas.

Glad to see you remember Mr Cohen since he was also guaranteed to DESTROY Trump with his inside information - before face-splatting like all the others.

Oh - and Micahel "The Beast" Avannati just got arrested the other day as well. You remember him too right? 400+ appearances on CNN/MSNBC in the space of year? The man who would take down Trump because he knew how to fight dirty, said all the usual idiots.

You never learn.

Tom Hunter said...

And on that note it seems that even moderate Republican Senators have figured out Schumer and Pelosi's 2020 election-winning sham, witness Susan Collins comments after the House Intelligence Committee (Schiff again) dropped these documents from Lev Parnas - the day before senators were sworn in as jurors:

"I wonder why the House did not put that into the record and it's only now being revealed."

That's a very good question!

The answer is that the Democrats are going to run this as they ran the Kavanaugh process; leaks of information at key stages in the process, such as just before various votes on witnesses and the like.

"I don't think Chuck Schumer is very interested in my opinion...
...
"I don't think he's really very interested in doing anything but trying to defeat me by telling lies to the people of Maine. And you can quote me on that."


Exactamundo. This is all about the Democrats winning the Senate and Presidency in 2020 and holding the House. Nothing more or less.

Judge Holden said...

Ah yeah, you'll remember that Cohen paid off a porn star and a stripper to keep quiet about Trump rooting them while his wife was pregnant so the American people didn't find out about it before the election. This was illegal. Remember that? Trump even had to be guilted into repaying Cohen and then called one of the women he rooted "horse face".
This is your guy! What a star!

Tom Hunter said...

This was illegal.

It was? Well they should add to the articles of impeachment then, since it goes directly to the 2016 campaign and violations thereof.

Oh wait! That was simply another "argument" about how such payments could be considered as campaign contributions and....

Yeah - vanished without a trace.

...so the American people didn't find out about it before the election.
I always find this argument funny for two reasons.

First, that it comes from people who love every sexual perversion known to man if they think it's against right-wing conservatives, the sort who chuckled about Clinton's you should put ice on that lip aside.

Second because it imagines some strange world in which American voters, after three decades of tabloid coverage of Trump, were not aware that he was a serial rooter, or that knowing such would affect their vote any more than GOP claims about Clinton in the 90's affected his voters.

Nice try at guilting and shaming but it won't work any better now. For a start you need to have people more pure and less two-faced on such issues than "Judge Holden" or your average Democrat.

Judge Holden said...

Well if the American people wouldn’t have been concerned about Trump rooting a porn star and a stripper while his wife was pregnant why did he feel he needed to break the law to cover it up? Remember this was just after his boast about sexually assaulting women was revealed. This is your guy!

As for Suns Collins she’s trying to figure out the best way to save her own skin. This will result in her going full Trump, as she has no principles. Big deal.

Tom Hunter said...

...why did he feel he needed to break the law...

You just can't help yourself with this mode of "argument" can you? Just endlessly repeat the assertion as if it's a proven fact and hope that people are too bored or too tired to dig into your nonsense.

If such payments broke the law, and broke it in any serious way, the House Democrats, if not the DOJ, would have gone after it. They haven't because there's no law breaking in fact there - only endlessly repeated accusations of an un-prosecuted, not to mention un-convicted "crime".

You're not fooling anybody with this endless list of such accusations.

As far as his reason for the payments is concerned, it had everything to do with not getting into his third divorce. He has a history of such payments and more that are not known about - and again, millions of his voters knew that.

This is your guy!
Since you're apparently unable to break free from your guilting and shaming routine about Trump I would point out that several months ago when the Democrats latest dream girl, AOC, implied that Nancy Pelosi was a racist, it was Trump who publically said that after knowing her for forty years in the Democrat circles in which they ran he was sure that Pelosi was not a racist.

It's for sure that Pelosi will never do the same for Trump, classy as it would be to do so.

Judge Holden said...

Cohen pleaded guilty and he was acting on Trump’s instructions. Trump broke the law too when he conspired to make the payments to the porn star and the stripper to buy their silence about him rooting them while his wife was pregnant. Remember he did this to hide it from the American people just before the 2016 election, as his attitude to sexual assault had been revealed. Nonsense about the payments being to keep it from Melania are an ex-post rationalisation made up by his batty lawyer.

There are stupid DoJ guidelines which prevent a sitting President from being indicted, but that does not mean he didn’t break the law. He did. No amount of assertions from you about how he hasn’t done anything wrong changes that. You’re not fooling anyone. This is your guy!

Tom Hunter said...

Most of Cohen's guilty plea was around tax evasion. His one guilty plea around campaign violations was that he'd paid an amount that exceeded the limits - which happens a lot in US politics and is only rarely prosecuted. And he never named Trump, which you would think he would have if he had the evidence to plea bargain.

In any case that plea was extended by the likes of you into an argument which hinges on the idea that such payoffs could be considered to be "in-kind" campaign contributions by Trump. That's an interesting legal argument but not one that anybody felt could be made into a prosecution - which is why not even the Mueller investigation would touch it, despite all the heavy breathing at the time of Cohen's plea.

Like I said - it vanished. No amount of assertions from you will change the fact that your argument never even amounted to a prosecution, let alone a conviction.

Try again. I'm sure you have a billion other similar accusations.

Tom Hunter said...

This is your guy!

And this. Again. A million times on this blog.

Gosh, if only Trump wan't my guy I could return to a world where the likes of Sludgy are not endlessly damning me as evil incarnte.

Oh wait....

Judge Holden said...

It vanished because of the DOJ guidelines, not because Trump didn’t break the law. He and Cohen did. Cohen pleaded guilty to it. Remember what this was about also. Trump rooted a porn star (whom he later referred to on Twitter as “horse face”) and a stripper while his wife was pregnant. He then paid the women off just before the 2016 election in order to prevent the American people from finding out just after his admission to sexual assault became public. In a sense the law breaking is second order to this cover up. You can squawk all you want about Americans not caring, but Trump clearly did not think that was the case.

This is a single example of Trumpian malfeasance. You are right, there are many many others. You don’t need a degree from Trump University to know that. This is your guy!

Tom Hunter said...

The Mueller investigation was not bound by DOJ guidlelines and could have fed this into the mix to produce articles of impeachment, which was the expectation of the Democrats.

That failed because the argument was too weak to make. Still, weak arguments appeal to weak minds, which is why you'll just jeep repeating the assertion.

...not because Trump didn’t break the law. He and Cohen did.
Prove it!

Oh right. You can't and have not and will not.

I realise that in the Stalinist world in which you exist your accusations, and those of others like you, are the writ of god. Fortunately out in the real world you actually have to prove things by taking prosecutions - or at least article of impeachment of such criminality - and getting a conviction.

You have not and will not, even after Trump leaves office, at which point you'll lose interest in the "pursuit of justice" on this matter (actual justice that is, not Sludgy "up against the wall" justice).

Judge Holden said...

Cohen admitted to breaking the law and pleaded guilty. Trump is on tape conspiring with Cohen about the matter he broke the law on. Mueller was bound by DOJ guidelines, so you are gaslighting again. Why do you feel you need to do this?

Stalinist blahblahblah. Boooring. As I said Trump’s law breaking is secondary to what he was breaking the law over. He was covering up the fact that he rooted a porn star (“horse-face”) and a stripper while his wife was pregnant. This is your guy, remember. And as you rightly point out, it’s one small example of his malfeasance. There are literally hundreds of others. He’s who you choose to get into bed with? Classy, Tommy, classy.

Tom Hunter said...

Cohen admitted to exceeding the limits of campaign contributions, which is pretty stupid.

By contrast the argument you're making is that payoffs of Trump mistresses count as "in-kind" campaign contributions, which is a weak, legal argument that has not been pursued even by Mueller and the Democrats via impeachment articles that are not affected by DOJ guidelines about not prosecuting a President.

Just as an aside, Bill Clinton was disbarred for comitting perjury and suborning witnesses to perjure themselves - which was in his impeachment articles - but only after he left office. That did not prevent him being charged with such as impeachment, which from his perspective was much more serious than being disbarred in private life.

Trump is on tape conspiring with Cohen about the matter he broke the law on.
He is? Wow! That's a slam dunk case then. Cohen should have applied for immunity with Mueller, who provided that cover for other such witnesses, such as in the Manafort prosecutions.

And Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, certainly made big claims about all the nefarious stuff he knew about Trump and the Russians as Trump personal lawyer.

Even more reason for a plea-bargain at minimum, especially when faced with 3-5 years in jail. That's quite an incentive to turn.

Except of course Cohen did no such thing. Not with any prosecuters and not even with Mueller.

Because he had no such evidence, and the prosecuters and Mueller knew that.

Just go on repeating yourself Sludgy! It's what you're good at.

Judge Holden said...

What drugs are you on? Why is a plea bargain necessary? Cohen's cooperation isn't required. Anyway the illegality of Trump's conduct is secondary to what he was covering up, which is pretty tawdry for someone you've tied yourself to. And as you say, it's just one small example among many. Unless you think he's just a stand up guy? Is that what you're running with now?

Tom Hunter said...

Cohen's cooperation isn't required.
You're implying that the authorities can simply get all the information they need without Cohen's assistance. Actually, in order to unearth all this shattering information about Trump, it is, especially testimony. You think Cohen would just give it all up while he sits in jail?

But even if I took your implication seriously, the question would remain as to why nobody, especially Mueller or the Democrats, has not got hold of those Gold Standard tapes of Trump and Cohen arranging criminal behaviour, plus all the other "evidence", and bounced them in front of the House, Senate and the American people?

The obvious answer is that there was no such evidence in the first place. Just the same assertions you're repeating over and over and over again here.

Anyway the illegality of Trump's conduct is secondary to what he was covering up...
Dude. I need to see a clean White Flag from you, not your adult diapers.

You know, a year or so ago it would have been a much tougher argument for me to make, given the accusations then flying around. Even I thought that having a personal lawyer in the bag would be a problem for Trump. But time has now supplied the answer that it never was a problem.

Unless you think he's just a stand up guy? Is that what you're running with now?
And still with the guilting and shaming. You really have nothing at all.

Judge Holden said...

It’s right that you should feel ashamed, Tommy. Anyone with even a half functioning conscience would be. Are you saying you’re proud to be a die-hard Trump defender using gaslighting, lying and smears? Perhaps you are, but a normal person would at least squirm a little.

Tom Hunter said...

I realise that you're quite disconnected from reality but guilting and shaming your opponents has now failed in three major votes: Brexit, Trump and the most recent British election.

Perhaps you should be more like Jacinda, who makes people feel al sunny and good about themselves.

But that would require a major reversal of your character.

Judge Holden said...

You're not the man on the Clapham Omnibus, Tommy, you're a hard right extremist. You live in an alternate reality and are impervious to logic. Anyway you're clearly proud of the role you've taken on as liar in the defence of the Second Coming of God, so it's good to know where you sit there.

Tom Hunter said...

As I said in an earlier comment:

We appear to have some idiot running around these comment sections trying to take on the names of Oddball, Andrei and even Judge Holden and Egbutt. While our blog is not sophisticated enough to prevent this the authors can at least delete them, which is what we're doing. Tiresome but that's the Internet for you