Showing posts with label Impeachment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Impeachment. Show all posts

Thursday, July 9, 2020

SCOTUS John Roberts Got A Head Boo Boo

I believe John had a visit.

So sad because he lied to god and was mean to my Sweetie.

#maytheheavensfall

Chief Justice Roberts Was Hospitalized Last Month With a Head Injury

A court spokeswoman said the chief justice had fallen while walking for exercise and blamed dehydration.

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sustained a head injury last month that required a night at the hospital, a spokeswoman for the Supreme Court said on Tuesday.

“The chief justice was treated at a local hospital on June 21 for an injury to his forehead sustained in a fall while walking for exercise near his home,” the spokeswoman, Kathleen Arberg, said in a statement.

“The injury required sutures, and out of an abundance of caution, he stayed in the hospital overnight and was discharged the next morning,” Ms. Arberg said. “His doctors ruled out a seizure. They believe the fall was likely due to lightheadedness caused by dehydration.”

The incident was first reported by The Washington Post, which said it had made inquiries after receiving a tip that Chief Justice Roberts had been seen at a Maryland country club bleeding from his head.

Other members of the court, notably Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have volunteered information about health setbacks requiring hospitalization. Chief Justice Roberts did not disclose his fall until The Post asked.

The chief justice has twice had seizures, in 1993 and 2007, but Ms. Arberg’s statement said his latest fall had not been caused by one.

The last seizure happened at the chief justice’s summer home in Maine. At the time, the court described the episode as a “benign idiopathic seizure,” one that could be a sign of epilepsy. The incident was similar to one he experienced 14 years before, the court’s news release at the time said. Idiopathic means that the cause of the seizure remained unknown.

Chief Justice Roberts is 65 and appeared to be in vigorous good health when the court last heard arguments in March.

The chief justice has been busy, as the court has been working to issue major decisions in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. He has emerged this term as the median justice, casting the decisive votes in all of the court’s closely divided decisions, including ones on L.G.B.T.Q. rights, young immigrants known as Dreamers and abortion.

The court is expected to issue its final five decisions of the term in the coming days. They include cases on whether President Trump can block the release of financial records sought by Congress and by New York prosecutors.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

IMPEACHMENT: Final Day - Senators Have Voting Rights



48 to 52 - Not guilty.
Article One.

47 to 53 - Not Guilty.
Article Two.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00033

"Impeach Trump!" Proclaimed Emperor Pence.

Trump acquitted; Romney only Republican to vote guilty

President Donald Trump won impeachment acquittal Wednesday in the U.S. Senate, bringing to a close only the third presidential trial in American history with votes that split the country, tested civic norms and fed the tumultuous 2020 race for the White House.

With Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, senators sworn to do “impartial justice” stood and stated their votes for the roll call – “guilty” or “not guilty” – in a swift tally almost exclusively along party lines. Trump, the chief justice then declared, shall “be, and is hereby, acquitted of the charges.”

The outcome followed months of remarkable impeachment proceedings, from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House to Mitch McConnell’s Senate, reflecting the nation’s unrelenting partisan divide three years into the Trump presidency.

What started as Trump’s request for Ukraine to “do us a favor” spun into a far-reaching, 28,000-page report compiled by House investigators accusing an American president of engaging in shadow diplomacy that threatened U.S. foreign relations for personal, political gain as he pressured the ally to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden ahead of the next election.

No president has ever been removed by the Senate.

A politically emboldened Trump had eagerly predicted vindication, deploying the verdict as a political anthem in his reelection bid. The president claims he did nothing wrong, decrying the “witch hunt” as an extension of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian 2016 campaign interference by those out to get him from the start of his presidency.

Trump’s political campaign tweeted videos, statements and a cartoon dance celebration, while the president himself tweeted that he would speak Thursday from the White House about “our Country’s VICTORY on the Impeachment Hoax.”

However, the Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said there will always be “a giant asterisk next to the president’s acquittal” because of the Senate’s quick trial and Republicans’ unprecedented rejection of witnesses.

A majority of senators expressed unease with Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine that resulted in the two articles of impeachment. But two-thirds of them would have had to vote “guilty” to reach the Constitution’s bar of high crimes and misdemeanors to convict and remove Trump from office. The final tallies in the GOP-held Senate fell far short.

On the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, the vote was 52-48 favoring acquittal. The second, obstruction of Congress, also produced a not guilty verdict, 53-47.

Only one Republican, Mitt Romney of Utah, the party’s defeated 2012 presidential nominee, broke with the GOP.

Romney choked up as he said he drew on his faith and “oath before God” to vote guilty on the first charge, abuse of power. He voted to acquit on the second.

All Democrats found the president guilty on the two charges.

Both Bill Clinton in 1999 and Andrew Johnson in 1868 drew cross-party support when they were left in office after impeachment trials. Richard Nixon resigned rather than face sure impeachment, expecting members of his own party to vote to remove him.

Ahead of Wednesday’s voting, some of the most closely watched senators took to the Senate floor to tell their constituents, and the nation, what they had decided.

Influential GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee worried a guilty verdict would “pour gasoline on the fire” of the nation’s culture wars over Trump and “rip the country apart.’’ He said the House proved its case but it just didn’t rise to the level of impeachment.

Other Republicans siding with Trump said it was time to end what McConnell called the “circus” and move on.

Most Democrats, though, echoed the House managers’ warnings that Trump, if left unchecked, would continue to abuse the power of his office for personal political gain and try to cheat again ahead of the the 2020 election.

Even key Democrats from states where Trump is popular – Doug Jones in Alabama and Joe Manchin in West Virginia – risked backlash and voted to convict.

“Senators are elected to make tough choices,” Jones said.

Several senators trying to win the Democratic Party’s nomination to face Trump – Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar – dashed back from early primary state New Hampshire to vote.

During the nearly three-week trial, House Democrats prosecuting the case argued that Trump abused power like no other president in history when he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, ahead of the 2020 election.

They detailed an extraordinary effort by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani that set off alarms at the highest levels of government. After Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine, the White House temporarily halted U.S. aid to the struggling ally battling hostile Russia at its border. The money was eventually released in September as Congress intervened.

When the House probed Trump’s actions, the president instructed White House aides to defy congressional subpoenas, leading to the obstruction charge.

Questions from the Ukraine matter continue to swirl. House Democrats may yet summon former national security adviser John Bolton to testify about revelations from his forthcoming book that offer a fresh account of Trump’s actions. Other eyewitnesses and documents are almost sure to surface.

In closing arguments for the trial, the lead prosecutor, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., appealed to senators’ sense of decency, insisting “right matters” and “truth matters” and Trump “is not who you are.’’

Schiff told The Associated Press he hoped the votes to convict “will serve as a constraint on the president’s wrongdoing.”

“But we’re going to have to be vigilant,” he said.

Pelosi was initially reluctant to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump when she took control of the House after the 2018 election, warning against a partisan vote.

But a whistleblower complaint of his conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy set off alarms. The president’s call was placed the day after Mueller announced the findings of his Russia probe.

When Trump told Pelosi in September that the call was perfect, she was stunned. Days later, the speaker announced the formal impeachment inquiry.

The result was the quickest, most partisan impeachment in U.S. history, with no Republicans joining the House Democrats to vote for the charges. The Republican Senate kept up the pace with the fastest trial ever, and the first with no witnesses. Seventeen ambassadors, national security officials and others had testified in the House.

Trump’s star attorney Alan Dershowitz made the sweeping, if stunning, assertion that even if the president engaged in the quid pro quo as described, it is not impeachable, because politicians often equate their own political interest with the national interest.

McConnell braced for dissent, but with a 53-47 Republican majority he refuted efforts to prolong the trial with more witnesses, arguing the House should have done a better job.

Roberts, as the rare court of impeachment came to a close, wished senators well in “our common commitment to the Constitution,” and hoped to meet again “under happier circumstances.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: FBI Director Christopher Wray Testimony


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, January 25, 2020

IMPEACHMENT: Senate Trial - Day Four - The Legal Geniuses Cometh

First, this happened....



Then, this happened....



Then, this happened...

https://beverlytran.blogspot.com/search?q=Pat+Cipollone


Then, this happened...


#maytheheavensfall

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, January 23, 2020

IMPEACHMENT: Senate Trial - Day Three - Yamiche Alcindor The Co-Conspirator

First, this happened....

’21 Empty Seats’: More Than One-Third of GOP Senators Reportedly Left Room During Schiff’s Speech


That is why Trump is retwatting those GOP Senators. As a jurist, you cannot just up and walk out during a trial. I do not care what anyone thinks. That is not due process.

That is criminal.

There are reports of 28 who walked out. They disqualified themselves from voting because they were biased.

Why are these GOP Senators ripping on the impeachment trial on twat?

That is biased as a jurist and a blatant violations of orders of the arbitrator, SCOTUS Chief Justice. "Pain of imprisonent".

That is why Trump is retwatting like crazy.

Sergeant at Arms can imprison and stop the impeachment because there will not be a quorum.

Where is the Sergeant at Arms?

Then, this happened...


Then, this happened...


Then, this happened...

I am listening to Hakeem Jeffries.

He was falsely advised.

He has a different subject matter than the rest of those Legal Geniuses.

I say this because he has not been around that long.

I do not believe he knows what Nancy and "The Other Epstein" are doing. Remember, 

Sondland, Vindman and that Hill lie, lie, lie about the 2016 election.

Hakeem is entering the evidence into the record of their lying and Emperor Pence is probably not a happy camper.

The impeachment is not about Trump, but the networks.

He has said nothing about Trump.

He is entering Rudy's phone record with Zelinsky and the White Houses.

This is legally hot.

I smell my Sweetie.....

Oh!!!!!! Volker ond Sondland consulted with Rudy on the draft.

He is entering Rudy's texts.

Rudy never talked to Trump.

There is no record.

It was Zelinsky's aide. Oooooo......

He just dropped Burisma.

You do know no one ever asked Trump if he contacted the FBI, which he did because there is a superseding investigation so we have all the calls, texts, emails.

Hakeem in setting up Trump's defense. This is so hot.

DAMN.....THIS IS STUPID BRILLIANT!!!!!

Zelinsky never got his meeting.

 "The Trump Ukraine Scandal is about weapons". 

Oooooooo......

Nancy and Schiff hate his Hakeem's guts right now, including Romney, and a whole bunch of others, on both sides of the aisle.

They were meeting in the White House to discuss the investigation they were plotting and scheming to set up Trump.

Image may contain: 1 person, text
Yamiche Alcindor
She announced on twat on the death of my Sweetie, and is in constant phone contact with Rudy.

She just dropped that Rudy is the godfather of Lev Parnes' kid.

She said that Rudy has been on the phone all day with her saying that Lev is now lying.

Trump twatted her.

Welcome to Detroit.

#maytheheavensfall

Then this happened....

"Is Sean Hannity a scientologist?" Asks Alec Baldwin.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

IMPEACHMENT: Senate Trial - Day Two

This happened...



This happened...

The origins of the Detroit Land Bank Authority.


Then, this happened...
Then, this happened...

Ken Starr faces renewed scrutiny over Baylor sexual assault scandal 

Then, this happened...

Supreme Court turns away case that could have helped Dems get unredacted Mueller report


A court ruling in an obscure case that threw a roadblock before House Democrats' efforts to obtain secret grand jury information from Robert Mueller's report on the Russia investigation will remain in place, as the Supreme Cot announced Tuesday it will not hear the case.

The case, McKeever v. Barr, has nothing at all to do with Mueller, Russia or President Trump, but rather it involves one man's quest for records related to the 1956 disappearance of Columbia University professor Jesus de Galindez and the secrecy surrounding grand jury testimony.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a court cannot order the release of grand jury information -- which is typically kept secret -- except in specific situations outlined in Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 6(e). Other circuits have ruled differently, stating that courts have an inherent authority to release secret grand jury material.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in a statement Tuesday that an advisory committee for these rules is best-positioned to bring clarity to the issue -- not the court. The committee has in the past appeared to side with those other circuits, he noted.

"Whether district courts retain authority to release grand jury material outside those situations specifically enumerated in the Rules, or in situations like this, is an important question," he wrote. "It is one I think the Rules Committee both can and should revisit."

The ruling means that McKeever will not be able to access the grand jury information related to the Galindez case, which he was after as part of his effort to publish his book, “The Galindez Case,” which was released way back in 2013.

“My book is done. But I wasn’t going to let this part of my efforts go, without finishing the pursuit of my journey,” McKeever said in a 2018 phone interview with Fox News. McKeever says the FBI has tried all along to keep a lid on the details. For decades, he has reviewed records related to the case.

He recalled one “striking moment” from his search in the early '80s: “When I went to the court archives to examine trial records, the clerk asked, ‘why do you want to see these records?’ I said, ‘why are you asking me that?’ The answer was ‘to let the CIA know you want to see these records.’”

“That said to me, keep on going,” McKeever said. Now, however, he appears to be out of options.

The case popped on the radar of those following the Russia probe because of House Democrats' efforts to see the grand jury testimony from Mueller's investigation.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have claimed that the court should release the information because their impeachment inquiry fell under the category of "judicial proceedings." A district court ruling agreed and said the secret material should be released, but the Justice Department is currently challenging the case before the D.C. Circuit.

The DOJ is arguing that the House's impeachment inquiry does not qualify as a judicial proceeding. They also claim that because the House's impeachment inquiry already yielded two articles of impeachment that had nothing to do with Mueller's report, they should not be able to access the grand jury information.

The House Democrats claimed that their investigation remains ongoing and that additional articles of impeachment remain a possibility.

The Supreme Court's decision not to take up McKeever's case does not by itself negatively impact the Democrats' efforts, but if the court had agreed to hear the case and then ruled in McKeever's favor, it would have made their claim for the grand jury material stronger by eliminating the controversy over whether the impeachment inquiry qualifies as a judicial proceeding.

A three-judge panel that included a Trump appointee heard oral arguments in the House Judiciary Committee's case on Jan. 3. The panel appeared divided and did not immediately issue a ruling.

FUN FACT! DETROIT GRAND JURIES ARE STILL UNDER SEAL UNTIL THEY VOTE.

Then, this happened...

Exclusive: Giuliani told U.S. his client deserves leniency for financing Venezuela's opposition - Parnas


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

IMPEACHMENT: Senate Trial - Day One




FUN FACT! TRUMP IS NOT AN ATTORNEY WHICH IS WHY HE HAS WHITE HOUSE LEGAL COUNSEL WHO ADVISES HIM

The Tale Of Pat Cipollone, Laura Ingraham & The Industry Of Trafficking Tiny Humans As Lab Rats - Magnitsky Propaganda



Then, there is that pesky issue with unsealing grand jury material without a court order, but, hey, what do I know?

I know we should subpoena the "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) over there at JonesDay, who are running Trump's campaign....and providing legal advice in the White House to Trump.

Justice Department backed Trump strong-arm of House impeachment probe

The DOJ concluded that Trump was justified in categorically rejecting the House’s demands for information.

The Justice Department secretly blessed President Donald Trump’s decision to stonewall the Democratic-led House over impeachment last year, the president’s legal team disclosed Monday.

The legal brief submitted to the Senate as part of Trump’s defense includes an opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluding that Trump was justified in categorically rejecting the House’s demands for information before lawmakers passed a formal impeachment resolution on Oct. 31.

“We conclude that the House must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House’s sole power of impeachment,” Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel wrote in the detailed legal rationale.

The opinion was officially dated Sunday and released by the Justice Department on its website Monday, timing that appeared to dovetail with a Senate-set noon, holiday deadline for Trump’s first substantive brief in the impeachment trial.

Trump’s lawyers argue that one reason he is not guilty of obstructing congressional inquiries — the thrust of one of the articles of impeachment he faces — is because his instructions to his appointees to defy lawmakers’ subpoenas followed legal advice from DOJ.

“Contrary to the mistaken charge that the President lacked ‘lawful cause or excuse’ to resist House Democrats’ subpoenas, the President acted only after securing advice from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and based on established legal principles or immunities,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone, outside lawyer Jay Sekulow and other attorneys wrote.

The Justice Department’s position paper acknowledges that the White House approached OLC for advice soon after Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly confirmed a Ukraine-related impeachment inquiry on Sept. 23 and House committees began subpoenaing witnesses and documents in late September and October.

The newly disclosed opinion is vague about precisely when OLC was first approached to give its advice on the topic, when the response was rendered or what form that early advice took.

However, the new disclosures about the consultations with Justice could prompt some to reassess the confrontational letter Cipollone sent to the House on Oct. 8. That eight-page missive was roundly denounced by many legal experts, who said it sounded more like a political diatribe from the president than a reasoned legal argument against the House’s impeachment efforts.

“It’s hard to count the number of ways that this letter is, constitutionally and legally, garbage,” conservative attorney and Trump critic George Conway wrote on Twitter at the time. “This letter, in and of itself, is an impeachable offense.”

The historic impeachment trial of President Trump begins in earnest with a contentious vote on the rules that will govern the trial.

“The letter’s constitutional and ‘legal’ arguments are baseless,” former Obama White House counsel Bob Bauer wrote. “It misrepresents the constitutional law and precedent that it is pleading on the president’s behalf. On the merits, it is an exceptionally weak performance.”

In the letter, Cipollone contended the House’s procedure was fatally flawed because it had not been approved by a floor vote. “Your contrived process is unprecedented in the history of the nation, and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding,” the White House counsel wrote.

Despite the intense criticism, even ridicule that Cipollone’s letter received, Engel’s memo — which runs to 37 pages in the version the White House released and 54 in the format issued by DOJ — reaches the same conclusion.

Some of those who skewered Cipollone over the Oct. 8 letter said they would view it as less objectionable if he actually had some opinion from the Justice Department at the time supporting the aggressive positions he staked out.

“The OLC opinion is certainly better argued than the earlier Cipollone letter. It is more sober in tone, and more serious in its analysis,” said Keith Whittington, a Princeton University politics professor who joined in the earlier criticism.

“It is a pity the White House did not produce a document of this sort when it was first responding to the House inquiries. If it had done so, the president might have avoided the second article of impeachment and created a meaningful framework within which the House and White House could have negotiated some level of cooperation — or at least clarified the reasonable obstacles to cooperation,” Whittington added.

Other critics said it was still not clear whether Cipollone knew about Justice’s position before he fired off his combative message to the Hill. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to questions about the timing or form of the advice DOJ lawyers rendered last October.

“It is not apparent there was anything in writing or even that it had been provided as of the time of the Oct. 8 letter,” said former House attorney Michael L. Stern.

However, Whittington and Stern also noted that while Cipollone’s letter included the straightforward claim that the House needed to vote on impeachment before subpoenaing people or demanding documents, the White House counsel also made a variety of other arguments that the House’s process was unconstitutional.

Stern said it appeared Cipollone was actually soft-pedaling the point about the House needing to vote, because it was so “easily cured.” Indeed, the House did just that about three weeks later as it voted almost entirely along party lines, 232-196, to formalize the impeachment inquiry.

Some lawyers said the memo vindicated or at least buttressed Cipollone's position.

"Cipollone’s letter, and the underlying OLC opinion, are entirely correct," said David Rivkin, a Justice Department official during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration's. “While the House eventually complied with its obligations, its initial effort to commence the impeachment inquiry without taking a vote underscores its disregard of the constitutionally-required procedures."

If Cipollone had the Justice Department’s advice before he wrote the Oct. 8 letter, it’s not clear why he didn’t mention that. One possibility is doing so might have caused a clamor for an immediate, formal DOJ opinion in a very fluid situation.

SharePlay Video
Another is that announcing that DOJ was staking out such an arguably extreme position on that point might have undercut the arguments Justice Department lawyers were presenting in various court fights related to demands for Trump’s financial records, grand jury records from the Mueller probe and testimony from former administration officials on various topics.

For instance, on Oct. 1, Justice Department lawyers filed a brief saying the courts should hold off ruling on a House suit to enforce a subpoena against former White House counsel Don McGahn because efforts at accommodation should be given time to work. However, that position seemed to be undercut by Cipollone’s letter a week later signaling a stiff-arming of Congress. By the end of the month, DOJ gave up on the argument that more time was needed for “accommodation” between the branches.

Just three days after the White House counsel’s caustic letter, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case about a subpoena for Trump’s financial records. That ruling did not center on impeachment, but the dissenting judge on the three-judge panel, Trump appointee Neomi Rao, said she believed the Constitution requires a full vote of the House before going after records directly related to the president.

The Justice Department opinion released Monday includes at least nine citations to Rao’s dissent, although it was not issued by the time of Cipollone’s letter and may not have been available to OLC when it was first approached.

It is not unusual for OLC, whose legal advice is typically the last word within the Executive Branch, to issue informal opinions by phone or email and to follow up weeks or months later with a formal opinion.

“There are a lot of different ways in which OLC gives advice. A very small piece of that is writing formal opinions,” acting OLC chief Karl Thompson said in remarks reported by POLITICO in 2015. “The vast majority of our advice is provided informally — is delivered orally or in emails. That is still authoritative. It is still binding by custom and practice in the executive branch. It’s the official view of the office. People are supposed to and do follow it.”

Some officials said at the time that requests for formal opinions were on the decline because of concerns release of such opinions might be forced under the Freedom of Information Act. However, courts have been less friendly to such efforts in recent years.

Metadata attached to the Justice Department’s version of the opinion appears to link the document to Nate Forrester, an OLC attorney who also worked in that office during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. Forrester also served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and as Alabama solicitor general. A Justice official said Forrester is a career lawyer in charge of preparing OLC’s opinions for formal publication and handled that aspect of the release.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, January 17, 2020

GAO OMB Decision On Withholding Ukraine Security Assistance

This is interesting.

A legal arm of Congress comes out with an opinion to support Congress in support of its congressional Articles of Impeachment.

Very interesting considering the fact that the GAO does not have the greatest history, particularly when we are dealing with children, but, hey, what do I know?

I know I have been on the GAO for more than a hot minute.

I also know that this is quite interesting that the GAO came up with this opinion, without examining any documents or questioning any humans.

This sounds like a CPS recommendation to terminate parental rights case.

You just cannot make this stuff up.

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

The Trump administration’s decision to freeze the release of security assistance to Ukraine violated the law, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a new report.

The independent watchdog said in an opinion issued Thursday that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld the appropriated funds last summer not as a programmatic delay but in order to advance the president’s own agenda.

By doing so, the watchdog concluded, the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The GAO opinion touched on a matter at the center of impeachment proceedings against President Trump: The decision by the White House to withhold nearly $400 million in U.S. aid to Kyiv as it fights off pro-Russian separatists.

Democrats allege Trump dangled the promise of aid and a White House meeting as leverage to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations into a 2020 political rival. They argue the White House then sought to obstruct their impeachment inquiry by blocking the testimony of current and former White House officials, while asserting absolute immunity over their testimony.

The OMB, however, pushed back against the GAO opinion, arguing that the White House office used the “apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law."

Acting OMB Director Russ Vought tweeted that the GAO report "comes from the same people who said we couldn’t keep National Parks open during the shutdown."

Administration officials have argued they were seeking to ensure Ukraine was properly fighting widespread corruption, despite the Pentagon already certifying at the time of the delay that Ukraine had met the requirements set by Congress and after notifying Congress of its intent to release the funds.

A senior administration official on Thursday characterized the GAO report as an “overreach” and blasted the independent watchdog for getting involved “in the media's controversy of the day.”

“In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they'll have to reverse their opinion again," the senior administration official said, pointing to changes to earlier GAO opinions.

Still, the timing of the report’s release could not be more inconvenient for Republicans.

The GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday is expected to set a time for the House impeachment managers — who will be arguing the case on the Senate floor to remove Trump from office — to exhibit the articles of impeachment charging Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors.

The Senate procedure comes one day after the Democratic managers silently marched the two charges — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — over to the upper chamber, setting the stage for the impeachment trial over Trump’s contacts with Ukraine.

Democrats, who have pushed Senate Republicans to allow new witnesses and testimony, are seizing on the GAO report as reinforcing their argument that the president abused his authority for politically motivated purposes.

“This bombshell legal opinion from the independent Government Accountability Office demonstrates, without a doubt, that the Trump Administration illegally withheld security assistance from Ukraine,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who requested the GAO to review the hold, said in a statement. “The GAO’s independent findings reinforce the need for the Senate to obtain all relevant documents and hear from key fact witnesses in order to have a fair trial.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in a statement said the GAO opinion “demonstrates once again that the President violated his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed as he put his personal and political interests above the interests of the nation and its security.”

Pointing to the GAO opinion that federal employees and officials take oaths to protect the law of the land, Schiff said: “Now, the Senate will have the opportunity to act on its oath.”

The GAO report said Trump overstepped his authority. Congress has the power of the purse, the watchdog said, while the president has the power to accept or veto legislation passed by both chambers. But the president does not have the authority to then bend or ignore a law once it is enacted, the report said.

“The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law,” the GAO said. “The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation... Instead, Congress has vested the President with strictly circumscribed authority to impound, or withhold, budget authority only in limited circumstances as expressly provided in the ICA.”

The GAO noted that the White House could have provided a detailed and specific reasoning to justify the withholding under the Impoundment Control Act at the time, but the OMB did not do so.

“Not only did OMB not submit a special message with such a proposal, the footnotes in the apportionment schedules, by their very terms, established dates for the release of amounts withheld,” the GAO wrote.

The only other authority to put a freeze on the aid, the GAO said, is to withhold the funds through a deferral, a decision that would be justified if the administration had recognized “savings or efficiencies that would result from a withholding, or any law specifically authorizing the withholding.”

“In its response to us, OMB described the withholding as necessary to ensure that the funds were not spent ‘in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy,’” the report said. “The ICA does not permit deferrals for policy reasons...OMB’s justification for the withholding falls squarely within the scope of an impermissible policy deferral.”

Mark Sandy, a senior OMB official, told House investigators during a closed-door deposition in late November that Trump's delay rankled agency staffers, leading two employees to resign in part because of their frustration.

“This person expressed to me concerns about actions vis-à-vis the Impoundment Control Act,” Sandy testified, referring to an OMB lawyer who had resigned.

The GAO report comes shortly after the House acquired new evidence from Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who has claimed the president was aware of a scheme to seek the removal of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and to create conditions to push Zelensky to announce investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in order to help Trump’s 2020 reelection chances.

The White House has denied the claims of wrongdoing, attacking the credibility of Parnas, who is under indictment.

Democrats also received ammunition from former national security adviser John Bolton after he said in a statement earlier this month that he would be willing to testify if the GOP-controlled Senate chose to subpoena him for testimony.

It is unclear whether witnesses will be allowed in the trial.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been cold to the idea of calling any witnesses, but Democrats won a near-term victory on Wednesday when the GOP leader agreed to a rules package that leaves open the potential for new witnesses to appear.

Anything less, Democrats have charged, would be a dereliction of the Senate’s duty.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Impeachment Begins

Adjourned until January 21, 2020 at 1:00 p.m.



#maythehravensfall

Chief justice, senators sworn in as Trump impeachment trial begins


WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate began its first procedural steps in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial Thursday, with House impeachment managers formally reading the articles aloud in the chamber and Chief Justice John Roberts swearing-in to preside over the process.

Roberts, who made the short trip across the street from the Supreme Court to the Senate chamber, administered the oath to all 100 senators who will serve as jurors and swear to deliver “impartial justice.”

“Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?” Roberts asked.

  Ad Content by Taboola | 
Sponsored Stories
Wells Fargo Propel® Card
Wells Fargo
|
Sponsored 
Abandoned US Military Base Completely Transformed By Korea
Past Factory
|
Sponsored 
The senators responded from their desks and were then called up to sign the oath book.

Opening arguments were expected to begin Tuesday after the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

Earlier Thursday, the seven-member prosecution team, led by the chairmen of the House impeachment proceedings, Reps. Adam Schiff of the Intelligence Committee and Jerrold Nadler of the Judiciary Committee, walked across the Capitol for a second day.


The seven impeachment managers walk through the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on their way to the U.S. Senate on Jan. 16, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“With the permission of the Senate, I will now read the articles of impeachment,” Schiff said to senators before reading all nine pages.

The Senators are under stricter rules during the impeachment trial than those of a regular Senate session, according to FOX News. Guidelines previously rolled out by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., prohibit talking, standing and even using electronic devices during the impeachment proceedings.

After Roberts and the senators were sworn-in, Trump spoke to members of the press from the Oval Office, with some reporters asking him what he thought of the whole process.

He continued to call it a “hoax.”

On Wednesday, the House approved the prosecution team named by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and voted 228-193, almost entirely along party lines, to send the articles to the Republican-majority Senate for trial.


The seven House impeachment deliver the signed articles of impeachment to the Senate in preparation for the upcoming trial of President Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 15, 2020. (Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Im
Expand
Trump was impeached by the Democratic-led House on Dec. 18 on charges of abuse of power over his pressure on Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden as Trump withheld aid from the country. Trump was also charged with obstructing Congress’ probe.

“This is what an impeachment is about,″ Pelosi said before the vote. “The president violated his oath of office, undermined our national security, jeopardized the integrity of our elections.”

He is the third president to be impeached in U.S. history. The other two were Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson.

RELATED: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doles out impeachment pens, a signing tradition

The seven lawmakers prosecuting the charges are a diverse group with legal, law enforcement and military experience. It also includes Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Sylvia Garcia of Texas, Val Demings of Florida, Jason Crow of Colorado and Zoe Lofgren of California.

McConnell pledged to have the Senate “rise above the petty factionalism” and “factional fervor and serve the long-term, best interests of our nation.'' He called it “a difficult time for our country.”

As McConnell set the rules for the trial, Trump gave mixed messages about whether he prefers a lengthy or swift proceeding, and senators are under pressure with the emerging new evidence to call more witnesses for testimony.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Ken Starr Predicts Impeachment Witnesses Through His Whitewater Powers Of Refusing To #sayhisname

What if Ken Starr is to be a witness in the Senate impeachment trial?

What if Ken Starr becomes indicted by a grand jury?

What if we just sit back, with cocktails & popcorn in in hand and enjoy the falling of the heavens.


#sayhisname

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

U.S. House Votes On Impeachment Articles & Process To Senate

Peter King resigns Committee on Financial Services.

Van Taylor resigns Committees on Homeland Security & Education and Labor.





#maytheheavensfall



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

BREAKING NEWS: Area 1 Security Claims Trump Had Russia Hack Burisma Because The CrowdStrike Psyoptic Did Not Go So Well

It seems those wily "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) over there at Perkins Coie Sucks are at it again!

I guess it would have been awkward to use CrowdStrike, again.

Impeach, I say! 

Dilly, dilly!

And, now, you know why the world was waiting for Nancy Pelosi to send over those Articles of Impeachment.

I guess Oren Falkowitz was a bit squeamish in executing the DNC's latest and greatest plan, but, then again, pending prosecution of war crimes always seems to impede those pesky timelines, but, hey, what do I know?

Area 1 Security
https://www.area1security.com/

Here is a list of the victims of the GRU hack....

Image may contain: text


The DNC said Mueller warned us, but, obviously, no one listened...

Burisma targeted by Russia-linked phishing attack, raising election-meddling fears

It’s unclear if the hackers found any information

A Silicon Valley-based security firm called Area1 says it has found indications that state-sponsored Russian hackers have successfully hacked the Ukranian gas company Burisma, as first reported by the The New York Times. The company has taken on a central role in US politics because of its connection to Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden, whose son Hunter sits on the company’s board.

In July, President Trump asked Ukraine’s government to investigate Burisma to find damaging information on the Biden family, allegedly threatening to withhold military aid to the country if the prime minister did not announce an investigation. That request is at the center of the president’s ongoing impeachment proceedings, and has made Burisma a tempting target for anyone seeking to meddle in US politics.

According to Area1, the security firm that detected the attacks, says they detected phishing emails sent to Burisma employees bearing many of the hallmarks of GRU hacking campaigns. The hackers were apparently successful in getting employee login info they used to gain entry into one of Burisma’s servers, although it is unclear how much information was obtained. If the GRU is in fact involved, it’s possible the group could have been looking for embarrassing information to be released during the 2020 presidential campaign.

THEY REPORTEDLY GAINED ENTRY TO ONE BURISMA SERVER
In hacking Burisma, the Russian hackers could be following a similar playbook as what they reportedly did to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign during the 2016 election. In January 2017, US intelligence officials released a report outlining how that Russian intelligence services successfully hacked the Democratic National Committee and stole information that was slowly and regularly leaked to the public to help the campaign of then-candidate Trump.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/07/oren-falkowitz-area-1-security-hacking-presidential-campaigns/?fbclid=IwAR3nO2WP7xdfTrFr68B7lQsUJqZ6YCx0yBgbmF73tBLq7VRDST9YWFU2QS4

I know we need more LolCow bell.....


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, January 10, 2020

PELOSI, War, Impeachment & Fear

#maytheheavensfall


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Preet Bharara Brutally Castigates Doug Collins

Image result for lol cow
Lol Cow certified
"Preet's letter was moooving."
Oh, Pretty Preet!

This was a brutal castigation of Dougie's breathtaking, lack of legal acumen and non-existent understanding of ethical deontology.

Do not worry, Dougie, for you, too, shall figure it out, sooner than later.

*Routing for you*

#maytheheavensfall

Preet Bharara to Georgia congressman: You've hit a shocking new low

Dear Representative Doug Collins,

You are not my congressman, and while I am ever thankful for that fact, after seeing your performance on Fox News on Wednesday night, I'm not sure you are fit to be anyone's congressman. Specifically, I saw you blithely assert on national television that Democrats "are in love with terrorists. We see that they mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families."

No American is "in love" with terrorists or "mourns" the death of that Iranian general on an airstrip in Baghdad. Many of us do, however, mourn the death of decency, honesty and reason here at home.

I realize that you are a politician and that hyperbolic, hyperpartisan claptrap is the unfortunate fashion of the day. But even allowing for the new normal of nastiness in political rhetoric, your casual slur of countless good Americans hits a new bottom. Americans can, in good faith, differ about the legality or efficacy of killing Soleimani. That doesn't make them unpatriotic or lovers of terrorists. It is hostility to differences of opinion that is un-American.

I understand that politics is a tough racket. I served as a Democratic staffer in the US Senate. I get that terrorism is a threat. I prosecuted terrorists as a United States attorney, working just yards from Ground Zero. I know of the particular evil posed by Qasem Soleimani. My office prosecuted plots orchestrated by him and the Quds Force, including the conspiracy to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States in 2011.

So, I have some idea of what is at stake here when it comes to terrorism. As you well know, Congressman, terrorists do not kill Republicans or Democrats. They kill Americans.

You know what else is true? The prosecutors, law enforcement agents and intelligence officers who keep us safe from terrorism do not do so as Republicans or Democrats. They do so as Americans. The victims of terrorism — and their families — do not grieve as members of a political party. They do so as Americans.

You are not a talk radio host or a carnival barker. You are a pastor, an attorney and a sitting member of Congress. Therefore, the evidence would suggest you should know better. To utter such garbage, which you know to be false and defamatory, goes against all the training and teaching you must have received. But you got your cheap shot across, and perhaps that's all that matters to you.

To be clear, Congressman, I am not making some old and familiar naive call for a return to "civility" in our politics. I don't have much hope for that in the immediate future. I just want people like you to knock off the worst scurrilous nonsense. I'd hope that would be possible for a member of the House who happens to be the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

If we are going to come together, protect the homeland and heal the hearts of people who have suffered the scars of terrorism, we need our leaders to do better than lazy trash talk.

Learn that volume and wisdom are not the same thing.

You were elected to lead. Please give it a try.

Respectfully,

Preet Bharara

 Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Friday, January 3, 2020

Constitutional Crisis Cometh - Court Of Appeals Orals On Why Don McGahn Does Not Have To Tell House Judiciary About The Detroit Land Bank Authority

See, this just sucks.

All the U.S. House Judiciary Committee had to do was to just put in their filings Don McGahn's role in the Michigan Emergency Manager Law, Detroit Bankruptcy, Detroit Grand Bargain and the Detroit Land Bank Authority, but, alas, they did not, and now there is no de novo review on stealin' the children, land and vote.

These interbranch dispute arguments is dumb.

He is how I would approach this tripartite quagmire:
  1. Were you stealin', either, children, land or votes?
  2. If you say, 'no', then you are lying based upon multiple attestation in the public record, under arms of the seals of governance.
  3. That means you breached your duties as officeholder of the children's trust, which means you can be defrocked, to fall from the heavens, to be held to the laws of the land, in the right of the vote of a grand jury..
  4. Ergo, you were lying, and you better not bear false witness in the public record, again, which makes the opportunity of subpoena a right of due process of the public's right to a civil society.
So, instead of listening to the "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending), I shall provide my summation:

They were stealin'.

What if there is a "Whistleblower, protected by the Orders of Highest Authority", who has everything these people are averring about with Judiciary, already in the public record?

This is fun, because you do not need a subpoena if one is indicted, oops, I mean, arrested, but that is a completely different jurisdiction and we know it is only constitutional for feds to trump States rights...in federal grand juries....ooooohhhh....chaos......baby........mmmmmm.........

Everything you wanted to know about Don McGahn.

This is about the Kavanaugh argument on attorney-client privilege in Whitewater in the Vince Foster case, when a client is deceased, like my Sweetie...

This is about the trafficking of tiny humans, which is why you shall hear the battle of Valhala, which shall allow the heavens to fall.

#maytheheavensfall




WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal appellate judges are wrestling with whether courts should be refereeing a dispute between the House of Representatives and the Trump administration over the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn, even in the face of what one judge called the White House’s “broad-scale defiance of congressional investigation.”

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments Friday over the House Judiciary Committee’s effort to compel McGahn’s testimony. The administration appealed after a trial judge rejected its broad claim that close advisers to President Donald Trump have complete immunity from congressional subpoenas for their testimony.

Judge Thomas Griffith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, pressed tough questions on both sides Friday, describing Trump’s directive not to cooperate with congressional investigations as “broad-scale defiance” that is possibly unprecedented in U.S. history. Even so, Griffith wondered whether courts should get in the middle of a political dispute between the other two branches of government, especially when Congress has other powers available, including cutting off appropriations, stopping the confirmation of judges, even impeachment. “That’s what the separation of powers means,” he said.

The committee wants McGahn’s testimony as it examines potential obstruction of justice by Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
The committee wants McGahn’s testimony as it examines potential obstruction of justice by the Republican president during special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. But it has held open the possibility that McGahn’s testimony could be important in impeachment, even though the two articles of impeachment adopted last month by the House focus on Ukraine and events that occurred after McGahn left his White House post.

Even if McGahn eventually shows up at the committee, it’s unclear whether he would have much to say. Trump could assert executive privilege over some matters, though he allowed McGahn to talk extensively to Mueller’s investigators.

“What happens then? You’re back here?” Griffith asked.

The other two judges on the panel are Judith Rogers, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, and Karen Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

Rogers seemed likely to side with the House. Henderson had only a few questions, although she indicated McGahn might have a strong interest in saying little to the committee to protect his conversations with Trump, his former client.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn well before the start this fall of an impeachment inquiry centered on Trump’s request to Ukraine’s president that he investigate Trump’s Democratic rival Joe Biden and Biden’s son as well as an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory alleging Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The Justice Department has asked the appeals court to dismiss the case, saying there’s no reason for judges to become involved in a political dispute.

The department also says the need for resolving the case is less urgent now that the House has moved ahead with impeachment articles even without McGahn’s testimony.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©