Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 08, 2019

The Trump administration directed a top American diplomat involved in its pressure campaign on Ukraine not to appear Tuesday morning for a scheduled deposition with House Democrats conducting an impeachment inquiry, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The muck in the barnyard deepens.

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2019-10-08 08:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"But in making the decision, hours before he was scheduled to sit for a deposition in the basement of the Capitol, the Trump administration appears to be calculating that it is better off risking the House's ire than letting Mr. Sondland show up and set a precedent for cooperation with an inquiry they have strenuously argued is illegitimate."

The Trump administration does not have the right nor the power to determine if the inquiry is legitimate. Mr. Sondland should defy Trump and show up at the hearing, Trump does not have any right to forbid him from doing so. This is how dictators gain power, weak willed people acquiesce to orders that are not lawful.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-08 09:00 AM | Reply

It's safe to assume Trump's conversations with Sondland were not beautiful and perfect

#3 | Posted by anton at 2019-10-08 09:08 AM | Reply

Written Testimony of
Michael J. Gerhardt,
Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Before the House Judiciary Committee on
"Constitutional Processes for Addressing Presidential Misconduct,"

Friday, July 12, 2019

The Constitution nowhere says, much less requires, either chamber of Congress to approve resolutions, of any kind, before the committees of either or both chambers conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, take testimony, and gather evidence. All of these are instrumental to each chamber's performing its constitutional duties.

The constitutional foundation for either chamber, or committees in either chamber, to perform these functions can be traced back to both the British and colonial systems, which were often a model for the framers, and to the enumerated powers of the Congress in Article I, section 5, of the Constitution. This section provides that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." We should be grateful when the Constitution provides a clear answer to a question, and it plainly does so here. Each chamber may establish its own rules of internal governance, which include, among other things, establishing committees, empowering the chairs of those committees with powers such as issuing subpoenas, and establishing procedures to follow in law-making and other legislative functions.

It is important not to confuse the demands of the Constitution with actions undertaken by either chamber pursuant to the delegations set forth in the Constitution. While the Supreme Court has said that committees must have "a legitimate purpose" when seeking
evidence, doing investigations, or issuing subpoenas, it is absurd to think that the Court's, or the Constitution's, directives limit the discretion in each chamber on the needs to investigate, issue subpoenas, or hold witnesses in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with their subpoenas. For example, the House did not approve resolutions to authorize impeachment inquiries in any of the first few impeachments considered by the House.

There has been no tradition, rising to the level of a constitutional command, that requires impeachment resolutions to be approved by the House to authorize this Committee to initiate an impeachment inquiry " or to proceed in any particular way. As long as the Committee functions pursuant to the House rules (and its inherent authority), it is functioning properly.

docs.house.gov

#4 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-08 09:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Nobody is saying that the house committees don't possess the power to issue subpoenas. That is the type of red herring that someone with a weak mind would make. Trump's administration is asserting that the subpoena does not possess the greater power (yet*) than the Executive's power to exert executive privilege. So can we do away with these weak red herrings about Congress having the ability to subpoena, an argument that nobody is making?

*Yet - an actual vote to instigate in impeachment investigation would nullify that claim by the executive, and yet it hasn't been done. Obviously, someone isn't actually interested in the truth coming out.

#5 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 09:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

When did witnesses tampering become a crime?

Sincerely
AVIGDUMB

#6 | Posted by Chieftutmoses at 2019-10-08 09:50 AM | Reply

He really is one of the most unthinking, easily led morons I've come across on this site.

And that's saying a lot.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 10:04 AM | Reply

Can the minority in the House now issue subpeonas?

#8 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-10-08 10:19 AM | Reply

As much so as when the Democrats were in the minority on the committees.

#9 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 10:22 AM | Reply

So, Biden and son can be subpeoned by the minority in the House and they must appear or they are obstructing?

#10 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-10-08 10:28 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

First, the House can't issue subpoena.
Committees do that.

Second, the rules of Committee are:
The full committee may issue a subpoena by vote (majority), or subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) may issue subpoenas. Subcommittees operate on the same principle.

If the votes are there for a minority member's request for a subpoena, then the committee issues the subpoena.

This is the way it's been forever.

#11 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The Transparency of this Administration is Refreshing

---- jeffyj

#12 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-10-08 11:02 AM | Reply

11 - That's the way it's always been in an "impeachment" inquiry?

#13 | Posted by homerj at 2019-10-08 11:04 AM | Reply

So, Biden and son can be subpeoned by the minority in the House and they must appear or they are obstructing?

#10 | POSTED BY PETROUS AT 2019-10-08 10:28 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Provide some rationale for such a move. To do so would simply be harassment of irrelevant people in order to gain political campaign advantages.

#14 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-08 11:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nobody is saying that the house committees don't possess the power to issue subpoenas. That is the type of red herring that someone with a weak mind would make. Trump's administration is asserting that the subpoena does not possess the greater power (yet*) than the Executive's power to exert executive privilege. So can we do away with these weak red herrings about Congress having the ability to subpoena, an argument that nobody is making?

*Yet - an actual vote to instigate in impeachment investigation would nullify that claim by the executive, and yet it hasn't been done. Obviously, someone isn't actually interested in the truth coming out.

#5 | Posted by Avigdore

Of course you want to focus on whether or not this is an official impeachment or not.

Otherwise you'd have to address why the white house is blocking him from testifying. Because the call was so perfect right? Because there's nothing to hide right?

Do you have your excuses ready for AFTER the investigation becomes official? You'll need to move your goal posts again. At that point, why should the white house block people from testifying? Because they will. Do you have your talking points ready?

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-08 11:18 AM | Reply

Otherwise you'd have to address why the white house is blocking him from testifying. Because the call was so perfect right? Because there's nothing to hide right?
Do you have your excuses ready for AFTER the investigation becomes official? You'll need to move your goal posts again. At that point, why should the white house block people from testifying? Because they will. Do you have your talking points ready?
#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-08 11:18 AM

Hmm...gonna cut and paste from another post I just made on this topic:
Do you actually want an honest answer? Because even if he was innocent in this instance, he feels that there is no way that it would be reported fairly or impartially. We can get into a big discussion about whether he's right to feel that way, but I bet that we can both agree that -he- does feel that way.

Now, going in with the presumption that it is going to be reported badly no matter what comes to light, why wouldn't he push to delay this and obstruct as much as legally possible? It gives time for people to forget about it, as history shows that they will, and uses up some of the remaining clock that he has left on the Presidency.
Posted 18 minutes before your post
www.fark.com

#16 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 11:25 AM | Reply

Now, going in with the presumption that it is going to be reported badly no matter what comes to light

#16 | Posted by Avigdore

Now of course we could never presume the truth itself could be bad enough?

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-08 11:29 AM | Reply

"It gives time for people to forget about it, as history shows that they will, and uses up some of the remaining clock that he has left on the Presidency".

Completely, utterly, and unapologetically manipulative.

As Trump's behavior decompensates and becomes more shrill and unglued, Trumpism unmasks itself.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-08 11:31 AM | Reply

Now of course we could never presume the truth itself could be bad enough? - #17 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-08 11:29 AM |
I generally maintain a presumption of innocence until I see evidence of wrongdoing.

Completely, utterly, and unapologetically manipulative.
As Trump's behavior decompensates and becomes more shrill and unglued, Trumpism unmasks itself. - #18 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-08 11:31 AM

Yes, it totally is. Stop pretending that it is a Trumpism though. The last presidency behaved precisely the same way in the Fast and Furious scandal. Impede as much as the law allows has been the name of the game in co-equal branches of government in a competitive democracy since the country was founded.
Some people show their outrage only when the 'other' (D or R) is doing the impeding, some acknowledge the reality for what it is, and some are just clueless and don't see it happening.
Which are you, Zed?

#19 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 11:41 AM | Reply

Because even if he was innocent in this instance, he feels that there is no way that it would be reported fairly or impartially.

#16 | Posted by Avigdore

Ah got it. He has to hide evidence of his innocence because the fake media would lie about it, do I have that right?

How often do you have to see a chiropractor from all the pretzel twisting you have to do to defend this con man?

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-08 12:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

House Democrats to subpoena EU ambassador blocked from Ukraine testimony
www.axios.com

...The chairs of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees announced Tuesday that they intend to subpoena U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, who was blocked by the Trump administration from testifying in their Ukraine investigation.

The big picture: The chairs said in a statement that the State Department's decision to stop Sondland from testifying will be considered evidence of obstruction in their impeachment inquiry....



#21 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-08 12:20 PM | Reply

Three Chairs Issue Statement on White House Blocking Ambassador Sondland Testimony and Documents
foreignaffairs.house.gov

..."The House of Representatives is engaged in an impeachment inquiry to determine whether the President violated his oath of office and endangered our national security by pressing Ukraine to launch sham investigations to assist his personal and political interests rather than the interests of the American people. Today, the White House has once again attempted to impede and obstruct the impeachment inquiry.

"This morning, we learned from Ambassador Sondland's personal attorneys that the State Department left a voicemail last night at 12:30 a.m. informing them that the Trump Administration would not allow the Ambassador to appear today as part of the House's impeachment inquiry.

"In addition, Ambassador Sondland's attorneys have informed us that the Ambassador has recovered communications from his personal devices that the Committees requested prior to his interview today. He has turned them over to the State Department, however, and the State Department is withholding them from the Committees, in defiance of our subpoena to Secretary Pompeo.

"These actions appear to be part of the White House's effort to obstruct the impeachment inquiry and to cover up President Trump's misconduct from Congress and the American people. Ambassador Sondland's testimony and documents are vital, and that is precisely why the Administration is now blocking his testimony and withholding his documents.

"We consider this interference to be obstruction of the impeachment inquiry. ...



#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-08 12:22 PM | Reply

#22 Add it to the list. It might matter if it ever comes to a vote.

How often do you have to see a chiropractor from all the pretzel twisting you have to do to defend this con man? - #20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-08 12:09 PM
I suppose it's just the sign of a more capable mind being able to view things from multiple persepectives, even those I disagree with. I object to it, as I did when Obama's DoJ did it. However, I acknowledge that it is the reality of how things are done. The reason you are so incapable of understanding, is it the inability to recognize reality or is it the lack of ability to see things from more than the most simple, spoon-fed perspective?

#23 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 12:30 PM | Reply

Huh, this doesn't seem guilty at all.

#24 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2019-10-08 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


Which are you, Zed?

#19 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10

The one that realizes that you step on scorpions, not elevate them to power.

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-08 12:45 PM | Reply

I suppose it's just the sign of a more capable mind being able to view things from multiple persepectives

#23 | Posted by Avigdore at

Or just the behavior of a man who realizes his life is a comedy, not a tragedy.

#26 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-08 12:46 PM | Reply

"We consider this interference to be obstruction of the impeachment inquiry. ...
#22 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Someone better be going to jail.

#27 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-08 12:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Someone better be going to jail.

#27 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2019-10-08 12:46 PM

Not going to happen until the Impeachment Inquiry subpoenas have the force and effect of a criminal subpoena, which at this point they don't, for all the reasons previously stated.

#28 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-10-08 12:50 PM | Reply

Not going to happen until the Impeachment Inquiry subpoenas have the force and effect of a criminal subpoena, which at this point they don't, for all the reasons previously stated.
#28 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

*Yet - an actual vote to instigate in impeachment investigation would nullify that claim by the executive, and yet it hasn't been done. Obviously, someone isn't actually interested in the truth coming out.
#5 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

This is going to happen. Legitimate impeachment will not keep the Trump administration from stone walling. And when that happens, "SOMEONE BETTER BE GOING TO JAIL."

#29 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-08 12:55 PM | Reply

Here is the reason that Trump will not allow Sondland to testify:

[9/9/19, 12:47:11AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

[9/9/19, 5:19:35AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text. If you still have concerns, I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.
In between 12:47am and 5:19am Sondland has already admitted that he spoke directly to President Trump about the subject of this text exchange.

Trump today is insinuating that the 5:19 message makes clear that he had no intentions of withholding the security money as a quid pro quo without revealing his own direct hand in communicating the message Trump wanted to memorialize in the text chain without leaving his own fingerprints.

The admonition to "stop the back and forth by text" can be viewed as an attempt to keep any further written memorialization of this conversation from being documented, which to many is a further example of consciousness of guilt over Taylor's repeated accusations.

#30 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-08 12:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The administration has calculated that more Republicans will stick by Trump for actively obstructing this investigation than if they heard what Sondland has to say. Same goes for anyone else they "order" not to testify.

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 01:00 PM | Reply

Declining an invitation to testify is not obstructing.
Let the committee issue a subpoena.
Let the executive exert executive privilege - still not obstructing.
Let the committee make their case to the court that executive privilege (can we just call that EP?) doesn't take precedence over their subpoena.
All good.

#32 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 01:07 PM | Reply

SHOCK POLL: 3 in 10 REPUBLICANS support impeachment push...

The Red Tide is coming into shore.

#33 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-08 01:11 PM | Reply

#32 Uh huh.

And it was a "perfect call," right?

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 01:12 PM | Reply

(U)nilateral subpoena power was relatively rare for House committee chairs. But between the 113th and 114th Congresses, the number of chairs given this power by their committees doubled"and the judiciary committee was among them. The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that "a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman ... following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member."

And while Chairman Jerrold Nadler indicated in January 2019 that he would hold votes on any subpoenas to which Ranking Member Doug Collins objected, the rules do not specifically require that he do so. The need to seek full House authorization for expanded subpoena powers as part of an impeachment inquiry, then, is not as pressing as it was in 1974 or 1998.

Chairman Nadler already has the same power that necessitated congressional votes in 74 and 98 because the House changed its rules and delegated this authority inherently.

Continuing to foist this argument is being done in bad faith and in marked ignorance of the rules in place governing THIS impeachment inquiry, not those that preceded it. The rules have changed, but those throwing smoke still throw smoke.

#35 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-08 01:15 PM | Reply

And it was a "perfect call," right? #34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 01:12 PM |
Already addressed in #16.

(Not aimed at just you, Joe): Am I the only one who reads a topic from the beginning instead of jumping in the middle?

#36 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 01:16 PM | Reply

I suppose it's just the sign of a more capable mind being able to view things from multiple persepectives, even those I disagree with. I object to it, as I did when Obama's DoJ did it. However, I acknowledge that it is the reality of how things are done. The reason you are so incapable of understanding, is it the inability to recognize reality or is it the lack of ability to see things from more than the most simple, spoon-fed perspective?

#23 | Posted by Avigdore

Saying "he can't come tell the truth because the media will lie about him" isn't a "perspective" of a "more capable mind". It's a conspiracy theory puked out by a moron with undying loyalty to a con man.

The con man spoon feeds you the perspective that the media is your enemy and you buy it, no matter how many proven lies the con man tells. Remember when he said he never paid stormy daniels? Remember when he said he had no business deals in russia? Remember when he said he'd release his taxes? Remember when he said he wouldnt benefit from the tax cuts? Remember when he said he'd drain the swamp, before filling his white house with lobbyists and bankers? Remember when he said he wouldnt play any golf as president, before setting the record for most golf played every by a president?

This is the guy you're going to bat for. The guy who says he trusts putin over our own military intelligence. The guy who says he's going after corruption but has never cared about any corruption that he can't tie to his opponents. He tells you to trust HIM and not the media. And what do you say? "Duuuuuuhhhh ok boss!"

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-08 01:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

I get the game Trump is playing. Innocent or guilty I can't blame him. He is however his own worst enemy.

I am waiting for someone to go nuclear and eliminate things like Executive Privilege. It is not in the constitution or codified in law. That will create a true sheet show for time eternal. The problem is this particular president is so far out of the norms on behavior and statesmanship that I see it as a real possibility.

The thing here is Trump openly and freely admitted to his wrong doing and then publicly did the same thing just a few days later with China. Russia helped out, why wouldn't China?

All that said, if the white house tells them not to testify - are they free to do so under their own free will or are they legally muted? That is one thing I do not know.

#38 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-10-08 01:22 PM | Reply

This is the guy you're going to bat for. The guy who says he trusts putin over our own military intelligence. The guy who says he's going after corruption but has never cared about any corruption that he can't tie to his opponents. He tells you to trust HIM and not the media. And what do you say? "Duuuuuuhhhh ok boss!"
#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-08 01:20 PM

*sigh* Having to explain it to you makes #23 even more obvious, btw.
I haven't claimed that the media will lie about it. I explained that regardless of my feeling or yours on the subject, -trump- feels that way. (We can get into a big discussion about whether he's right to feel that way, but I bet that we can both agree that -he- does feel that way.). Since I believe that Trump feels that way, then rational behavior would be to delay as far as legally possible...as he is doing.

I'm not going to bat for any person. I am acknowledging the reality of the situation which is that declining an invitation, whoever offered it - whoever declined it, isn't obstruction.

You can go on and on and on about how many lies Trump tells, how morally repugnant he is, how devoid of character and destructive to the reputation of America he is...and I'll agree with almost all of it, most likely. Absolutely none of that changes how I'm going to recognize reality and facts. Will it make you feel better for me to say 'that imbecile Trump didn't ask Ukraine to open an investigation into Biden'? 'That pathetic Trump is engaged in the same type of delay campaign that every Presidential administration has'?

My opinion of the man does not change the fact that I can still rationally and dispassionately measure his behavior, the legality or illegality of it -based on actual evidence-, and point out where people feel the need to embellish.

#39 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 01:32 PM | Reply

Already addressed in #16.

If his testimony was behind closed doors there would be limited reporting on the substance. If his testimony was public everyone could watch the recording and decide for themselves what the import is. Fact remains, if this were a "perfect call" Trump would want Somdland to tell everyone how perfect it was.

Am I the only one who reads a topic from the beginning instead of jumping in the middle?

Possibly, but we don't all have cushy federal jobs where we get paid taxpayer dollars to sit online defending our boss all day.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Absolutely none of that changes how I'm going to recognize reality and facts.

#39 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 01:32 PM | Reply

Well, if you ARE actually willing to recognize what a sub-standard person Trump is and what a wreck he is as president, then you MAY be willing to face reality and facts.

One of those facts would be that sub-standard people who are really bad at their jobs don't need to be president.

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-08 01:43 PM | Reply

My opinion of the man does not change the fact that I can still rationally and dispassionately measure his behavior, the legality or illegality of it -based on actual evidence-, and point out where people feel the need to embellish.

#39 | Posted by Avigdore a

Saying "he can't testify because the fake media will lie about him" isn't a rational excuse, it's a nutjob conspiracy trump cult excuse.

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-08 01:44 PM | Reply

Fact remains, if this were a "perfect call" Trump would want Somdland to tell everyone how perfect it was. - #40 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 01:34 PM
The fact remains that Trump is aware that this is going to come out eventually and has the two pronged ability to poke the House in the eye and buy himself another couple of weeks of inaction to allow American memory loss to propagate.

Possibly, but we don't all have cushy federal jobs where we get paid taxpayer dollars to sit online defending our boss all day. - #40 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 01:34 PM
It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.

#43 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 01:47 PM | Reply

Trump is aware that this is going to come out eventually and has the two pronged ability to poke the House in the eye and buy himself another couple of weeks of inaction to allow American memory loss to propagate.

So long as you agree the motive isn't to let Americans and Congress know the full extent of what happened in a timely and appropriate manner and is instead to obfuscate and pray nobody cares about how big a -------- your boss is.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 01:54 PM | Reply

people who are really bad at their jobs don't need to be president. - #41 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-08 01:43 PM |
Need has not ever once even come close to entering into the discussion. He was elected President. The United States of America chose him. Continuing to hide your eyes, stomp your feet, hold your breath until you turn blue in the face, nothing is going to change that. Wishing and vocally calling for impeachment from the day he was elected didn't help your cause, either. It painted all future actions with the tinge of sour grapes and desperation. Here we are.

Saying "he can't testify because the fake media will lie about him" isn't a rational excuse, it's a nutjob conspiracy trump cult excuse. - #42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-08 01:44 PM
You're right, only a complete moron would say that. ctrl+f
Which is why I didn't do it. You really need to learn to read.
If you really need me to explain it to you for a third time, let me know.

#45 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So long as you agree the motive isn't to let Americans and Congress know the full extent of what happened in a timely and appropriate manner and is instead to obfuscate and pray nobody cares about how big a -------- your boss is. - #44 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 01:54 PM
Are you really asking me if I agree with what I posted 3 hours ago about our President?

#46 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 01:57 PM | Reply

No.

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 02:00 PM | Reply

BTW, as i suspected:

"Sondland spoke to the president by phone on September 9th before responding to the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine's texts about it being 'crazy' to link Ukraine assistance to help with a political campaign"

and

Fmr. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland, and diplomat Bill Taylor "used the encrypted messaging app WhatsApp to communicate with each other about Ukraine."

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 02:05 PM | Reply

Saying "he can't testify because the fake media will lie about him" isn't a rational excuse, it's a nutjob conspiracy trump cult excuse. - #42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-08 01:44 PM
You're right, only a complete moron would say that. ctrl+f

#45 | Posted by Avigdore

I guess that makes you a complete moron:

Because even if he was innocent in this instance, he feels that there is no way that it would be reported fairly or impartially.

#16 | Posted by Avigdore

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-08 02:30 PM | Reply

"Possibly, but we don't all have cushy federal jobs where we get paid taxpayer dollars to sit online defending our boss all day.

#40 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-10-08 01:34 PM "

Tell us, counselor, how many clients are you billing $500/hr while you are on the DR all day?

#50 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-08 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh look, another guy i pay to post all day.

Go away. That's an order!

#51 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 02:48 PM | Reply

#49

While avigdore is using a whole lot of obfuscation and mealy mouthed words he very carefully did not say he thinks the press will lie about it.

He did say that Trump thinks that and that thinking that makes you a moron so using Boolean logic he called Trump a moron.

Be careful with that avigdore I have a friend who used clever ways to call his boss a moron several times, eventually the boss caught on and manufactured an excuse to fire him.

#52 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-10-08 02:59 PM | Reply

Syntax is the last refuge of the scammers

We dont have to abide by the rules for insurance companies we are an HMO
We can interrogate him for however long we want. suspects have rights he isnt a suspect hes a person of interest,

#53 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-08 03:12 PM | Reply

#30 | Posted by tonyroma

Conducted over WhatsApp by two high level government employees. Not secure.

#54 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-08 05:32 PM | Reply

Article III, section 2, of the Constitution distributes the federal judicial power between the Supreme Court's appellate and original jurisdiction, providing that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in "all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls," and in cases to which a state is a party.

Following Trump's refusal to allow Sondland to testify, the House could go directly to the SC over Trump's refusal to comply with House subpoenas, as they did during the Nixon hearings.

#55 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-09 01:11 PM | Reply

Article III, section 2, of the Constitution distributes the federal judicial power between the Supreme Court's appellate and original jurisdiction, providing that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in "all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls," and in cases to which a state is a party.

Following Trump's refusal to allow Sondland to testify, the House could go directly to the SC over Trump's refusal to comply with House subpoenas, as they did during the Nixon hearings.

#56 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-10 12:47 AM | Reply

Following Trump's refusal to allow Sondland to testify, the House could go directly to the SC over Trump's refusal to comply with House subpoenas, as they did during the Nixon hearings.

Wrong. The case reached the Court via normal certiorari albeit on an expedited basis.

The President appealed [the District Court's order] to the Court of Appeals. We granted both the United States' petition for certiorari before judgment (No. 7 1766), [n1] and also the President's cross-petition for certiorari [p687] before judgment (No. 73-1834) ...
www.law.cornell.edu

You, and everyone else who has not, really should read the case. It's going to come up a lot in the next few months.

Here you will find an explanation of the jurisdictional clause you cited. It doesn't apply. www.law.cornell.edu

#57 | Posted by et_al at 2019-10-10 01:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

en.wikipedia.org

Reading at least the wiki summary there seems to be significant differences in the mindset of the judiciary and electorate compared to Nixon's time.

The electorate was sane enough to cause backlash, something that is, at best, sluggish today.

The judiciary objective enough to unanimously rule in the spirit of the Constitution, something I don't have much faith will happen today.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-10 02:03 AM | Reply

#58

That was an entirely different public atmosphere. You should have been there. It was great. Then the boomer's got jobs and families. Sigh.

Perhaps, I have a little more faith in the judiciary than you.

#59 | Posted by et_al at 2019-10-10 02:25 AM | Reply

Perhaps, I have a little more faith in the judiciary than you.

#59 | Posted by et_al

well, you are a little pot committed lol

But yes, I suspect you're right.

I became politically aware during the Clinton years and politically attentive during the Bush years. Just in time to see the national politics jump off the cliff.

So naturally I expect a race to the bottom.

My razor thin faith is in Roberts continuing his desire to maintain the integrity of SCOTUS. Maybe then we'll get a 5-4 or, at best, a 6-3 decision in favor of rule of law, rationality and the actual spirit of our Founding Father's ideas as to how this country should be governed.

#60 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-10 03:35 AM | Reply

Side note- typing out "the Clinton years" made me suddenly feel old.

I can't imagine how the rest of you old fogies feel LOL.

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-10 03:38 AM | Reply

#57 | Posted by et_al

Thanks. I definitely will.

I'm not an attorney, but the law fascinates me. Especially at this level in these times.

#62 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-10 03:49 AM | Reply

I can't imagine how the rest of you old fogies feel LOL.

POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-10-10 03:38 AM | REPLY

Chronologically I'm 47

Mentally I'm in my teens AGAIN.

Physically I'm 95 years old.

#63 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-10-10 03:50 AM | Reply

Also, since I didn't spell it out clearly in #60, I seem to see the judiciary following the national politics over the cliff.

One would expect it to lag behind politics given the slower turnover of SC justices over the years of increasingly partisan Congressional politics but I think we're getting there.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-10 03:53 AM | Reply

Chronologically I'm 47

Mentally I'm in my teens AGAIN.

Physically I'm 95 years old.

#63 | Posted by LauraMohr

----. My sincerest apologies LOL

To be a teen mentally but physically not a teen sounds like hell to me.

#65 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-10 03:55 AM | Reply

... I seem to see the judiciary following the national politics over the cliff.

I don't.

One would expect it to lag behind politics ...

Generally, I think it does.

#66 | Posted by et_al at 2019-10-10 04:01 AM | Reply

PS Et_AL

In your opinion, could it be used in this case? I posted that after reading a lengthy article by a now retired attorney who spent most of his lengthy career in the federal court system and argued many cases in front of the SC. He suggested Article III Section 2 could possibly be used by the House - because of Sondland - to go straight to the SC as the 'original jurisdiction:

If I were advising Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats right now, I would tell them that I wanted to file a motion in the U.S. Supreme Court for leave to file a declaratory judgment action to resolve the case or controversy that has arisen between two co-equal branches of the Federal Government over the right and power of the House to compel the testimony of an Ambassador, relevant to an impeachment investigation, when that power is arrayed against a claimed right of the President to conceal the evidence.
I remember the Watergate era pretty well, though not every bit of minutia. I was a paperboy who read it cover to cover every day. Probably where I became a news junkie. Been so all the way up until today.

#67 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-10 04:07 AM | Reply

You don't see the contradiction between those two statements in the context of my posts?

I will, however, grant that you obviously have a greater knowledge of the status of the judiciary a la the political cliff.

Decisions seem to fall along partisan lines more often as of late, with 5-4 decisions being the norm, at least in my non-professional perspective.

#68 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-10 04:07 AM | Reply

"Mentally I'm in my teens AGAIN.

#63 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR "

It shows.

#69 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-10 04:27 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

----. My sincerest apologies LOL
To be a teen mentally but physically not a teen sounds like hell to me.

POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-10-10 03:55 AM | REPLY

It's what happens when you start cross sex hormone therapy. You literally beginning a second puberty. It sucks but it is what it is.

#70 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-10-10 04:28 AM | Reply

The Trump administration directed a top American diplomat involved in its pressure campaign on Ukraine not to appear

Well that is because he has nothing to hide.

#71 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-10 07:07 AM | Reply

"It's what happens when you start cross sex hormone therapy. "

I was told never to cross the sex beams. It could create a hole in the fabric of the space time continuum.

#72 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-10-10 12:02 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort