Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Taylor Trump Quid Pro Quo and Lynching

VOX Read: Top State Department official’s testimony outlining Trump’s Ukraine quid pro quo
This is very bad for President Donald Trump.

FOX: Diplomat Bill Taylor testifies Trump used Ukraine aid, White House meeting as leverage for probes

It seems pretty clear that Trump was trying to use tax dollars and a White House visit for personal gain.  Now the question is if the Trump True Believers care?

 And then Trump says something very stupid and inappropriate.

FOX McConnell chides Trump for calling impeachment inquiry a 'lynching'

I mean the committees are investigating now and Trump will have his time to defend himself once it is determined by the House that there is adequate reason to send it to the Senate.  I am sure that the Black people who were lynched had wished they had a small portion of this due process.

Lynch: "to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal approval or permission"

15 comments:

John said...

It is especially odd how Trump and the GOP complain about a secret process when the Republican committee members are in the hearings. And McCarthy is one of the people in the room.

Intelligence Minority Members

Oversight Members

Foreign Affairs Members

Anonymous said...

It is interesting how Republicans have complained about a lack of transparency when they refuse to honor subpoenas.

--Hiram

John said...

Good point... :-)

When Hillary tried to hide things, they chanted lock her up.

When Trump hides taxes, transcripts, recordings, emails, etc they claim ignorance is good.

Anonymous said...

I just remember those hours and hours Hillary spent testifying before a Republican controlled congressional committee.

--Hiram

John said...

It is amazing how Trump has been allowed to avoid testifying so far.

If he wants to defend himself, let him do it under oath.

John said...

NYT Ukraine knew earlier that Aid was being withheld

Now this is a stealth investigation where the targets and DEMs have no say or presence

John said...

Uninvited Republicans storm hearing

Anonymous said...

"Uninvited Republicans prove they have no respect for the rule of law"

Moose

Anonymous said...

It is amazing how Trump has been allowed to avoid testifying so far.

I thought it was Mueller being appropriately deferential. He didn't want to put the president in a position where he would have to perjure himself. This was not a courtesy Ken Starr who did depose Bill Clinton. I thought Mueller was right on this and Starr wrong. The irony is that it has turned out to be a film noir kind of a deal, reminiscent of "The Postman Always Rings Twice". In the movie, John Garfield skates on the first charge only to be convicted on the second. Trump got away with colluding with the Russians the first time, and he thought he was immune. Instead, he got sloppy.

--Hiram

John said...

Moose,
I agree.

Hiram,
I guess I do not understand why "our public servants" would not be required to explain their actions under oath.

John said...

And if Bill or Trump can not keep their stories straight. Shame on them.

Anonymous said...

I guess I do not understand why "our public servants" would not be required to explain their actions under oath.

Because it undermines their fifth amendment privilege. It has to do with the difference between the law requires, and what everyone thinks. The law provides that no negative inference can be drawn from someone's choice to exercise their fifth amendment right not to self incriminate. But outside a legal context, the one in which we live, the one Trump lives in, we are free to draw any conclusion we like about just about anything and that includes taking the fifth. What I am saying, and believe me, reasonable people differ with me on this, is that asking a person who is a target of a criminal investigation a question which may require a self incriminating response undermines that constitutional right in a way that does not advance the criminal process in an appropriate way. That's at least one reason why targets of criminal investigation are themselves rarely interrogated by grand juries.

Had Mueller questioned the president, the advice the president would have received from his attorney would have been to take the fifth. Mueller would not, therefore received any useful information from Trump, but since the popular understanding that only guilty people take the fifth, he would have undermined Trump's fifth amendment rights. Starr did that to Clinton, but Mueller chose not to do that to Trump, rightly in my view.

--Hiram

John said...

I guess I disagree.

They are public employees and should be made to testify or plead the 5th.

Anonymous said...

Starr thought that, and I think it's a reasonable view. In my opinion, in a criminal prosecution context the fact that they are public employees is irrelevant, at least with respect to constitutional rights. However in processes other than the criminal law context, the situation is different. In a senate impeachment trial where there is no appeal, senators should be free to ask any question they want to, and draw any conclusion from the answers they choose.

Trump apparently takes the view that if a law is not enforceable, he isn't obliged to follow it. To some extent that view can apply in senate proceedings.

--Hiram

John said...

I guess my view is simpler.

They are an employee of us tax payers...

If they don't want to answer questions about what they are doing to earn their money, I think they should be fired and sent packing.

"National security / top secret activities" are different, but this seems like non-top secret stuff.