Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Mitt makes his move

Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Jan 28, 2020.

  1. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator

    Apr 8, 2007
    Romney has been open to having witnesses in the Senate trial. With the Bolton news, he may have a better chance.

    Mitt makes his move
     
  2. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    6,841
    2,139
    1,123
    Nov 25, 2017
    If you had to wager, do you think the GOP will agree to witnesses? Their entire GOP approach has been to bury facts.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. LouisvilleGator

    LouisvilleGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,212
    383
    328
    Oct 16, 2012
    Even Romney won’t agree to Bolton testifying unless Biden is called.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  4. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    943
    227
    363
    Jun 14, 2014
    There's several ways this could all go.

    The GOP right now is being very non-committal, saying they want to review the manuscript and go through the question-asking process in the trial. That signals that they aren't sure which way the wind is blowing. Their hope that by the time the Q&A session is over, the public will have moved on from the surprise of the Bolton news and will have retrenched in their respective camps (similar to the momentary shock of Sondland's testimony revealing that there was a quid pro quo regarding the White House meeting). If that's the case I think the GOP just moves forward with an acquittal, claiming that they don't need to call Bolton because (1) they already have the substance of what he will say from the manuscript, (2) it's clear he's lying because he hates the president and wants a book deal, and (3) even assuming what he says is true, the demand was never communicated to Zelensky and aid was released without an announcement, so there was no quid pro quo.

    On the other hand, if the public pressure for Bolton's testimony remains into next week, I think the plan will shift. The Senate will vote for Bolton's testimony, but Trump will block by filing a lawsuit claiming executive privilege. The GOP Senators will then essentially say "We tried. The president has the right to have his assertion of executive privilege heard by the Court, but we can't wait 9-12 months for the question to be resolved by the Courts." They will then adopt the 3 arguments above and move to acquit.

    I think it's very unlikely that the GOP ever allows Bolton to testify. He's just too damaging and too much of a wild card.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator

    Apr 8, 2007
    No I don't think they will. Even Trump's lawyers didn't really address the charges. It was just "yeah, but Biden. ... Yeah, but Obama."
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    943
    227
    363
    Jun 14, 2014
    Another possibility is that the Republicans try to drag out the issue by trying to horse trade witnesses, e.g., Biden for Bolton. However, I don't think they take that risk. Once they float any trade, there's a possibility the Democrats accept and that could be a worst-case scenario. If Bolton testifies, that's already bad. If Biden gets up there, shows he has nothing to hide, and details the truth behind Shokin's removal, it could be devastating. Not only would it undermine one of the Republicans key defenses, but it would also stand in stark contrast to the president cowardly refusing to explain himself.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator

    Apr 8, 2007
    Then again:
    LIVEBLOG: Trump's Team Concludes Opening Statements Defending The President

    Then again ....
    Republicans signal renewed confidence they'll avoid witness fight
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    7,557
    322
    288
    Apr 9, 2007
    The latest rumor I saw floated was Bolton testimony for Hunter Biden testimony. Joe Biden testifying would hurt the Rs, but Hunter is more of a wildcard.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  9. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator

    Apr 8, 2007
    Sort of "OK, we'll let you question a witness who can shed light on the charges involved as long as you let us question a witness who has nothing to do the charges."
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    7,620
    522
    243
    Apr 3, 2007
  11. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    943
    227
    363
    Jun 14, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    7,620
    522
    243
    Apr 3, 2007
    I will also note that this development seems to support the wisdom of holding the articles, at least for now, with an assist from Lev Parnas and John Bolton, though both issues "ripened" late in January, so same difference
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    943
    227
    363
    Jun 14, 2014
    Just imagine all the filth that will spill if Trump loses in the fall and rats scurry to abandon ship.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    7,656
    499
    943
    Apr 8, 2007
    The Republicans are the majority party in the Senate. They can subpoena either or both of the Bidens anytime they want. I suspect that they consider Joe and Hunter more valuable as potential witnesses than as actual witnesses. If either or both should testify it could end up as being a case of being careful what you wish for.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  15. RD_gator

    RD_gator GC Hall of Fame

    2,228
    422
    338
    Jul 20, 2007
    Here is a summary of some of the witnesses in question:



     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    6,841
    2,139
    1,123
    Nov 25, 2017
    Here you go again.

    Meanwhile, here are the contemporaneous 2016 facts. Not made up. what happened. In real time.

    Again. Real history. From 2016. Please post facts and links refuting this. Best that it be from 2016 contemporaneous with events.

    These are contemporaneous stories on the firing of Shokin. Not reinventions of history.

    These are stories from 2016.

    What Will Ukraine Do Without Uncle Joe?

    Public dissatisfaction was growing in late 2015 with Poroshenko’s choice for general prosecutor: Viktor Shokin, a veteran of Ukrainian politics and a close associate of the president. Shokin fumbled the corruption case of a former Yanukovych crony and let him flee the country.

    The position of general prosecutor, who is appointed by the president, enjoys outsized importance in Ukraine and is often used to exert pressure on rivals and cut deals for political and commercial gains. The Maidan revolution was supposed to bring an end to this type of horse-trading, but Shokin served as a reminder that little had changed. He reinforced that perception by hindering an investigation into two high-ranking state prosecutors arrested on corruption charges and after Economy Minister Aivaras Abromavicius cited him by name before quitting in protest over the delayed reforms.

    Dismayed by Poroshenko’s backtracking, the White House withheld $1 billion in loan guarantees until Shokin was fired. Biden delivered that message directly to Poroshenko over the phone.

    “It’s hard to root out corruption in your system if the equivalent of the attorney general is not only corrupt but has a bunch of corrupt cronies in other positions and is actively thwarting investigations of oligarchs and government officials,” the senior U.S. administration official said. “Removing Shokin was a necessary — if not wholly sufficient — factor in continuing Ukraine on the reform path.
    How Ukraine's old guard killed the prosecution reform -- EUROMAIDAN PRESS

    After the Euromaidan revolution, the two new Prosecutor Generals appointed by President Poroshenko did little to fulfill the high hopes of Ukrainians for positive change in the country. Neither Vitaliy Yarema nor Viktor Shokin carried out an honest investigation of the killing of the Euromaidan protesters. Both of them featured in corruption scandals. After many months of public pressure, Shokin was finally fired on 29 March 2016. But in his reign he managed to crush the promising shoots of renewal and reform.
    How Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Sabotaged the Reform Process - Atlantic Council


    Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s prosecutor general, was upbeat in his New Year’s message to colleagues. While “2015 was a difficult and responsible year for us all,” he wrote, we “carried out unprecedented reform and overhaul of the prosecutor’s system, bringing it closer to European standards.” Almost twenty years after Ukraine promised to reform its prosecutor’s office as a condition to joining the Council of Europe, it still has a long way to go. The reforms that have been made were disturbingly cosmetic. Shokin sabotaged the latest round of reform, which resulted in the status quo being reinstated under the guise of a new competitive system.

    Under former President Viktor Yanukovych, the prosecutor’s office was seriously compromised. As a result, public faith in law enforcement remains critically low. Post-Maidan expectations of real reform received a setback when President Petro Poroshenko appointed Shokin, who is widely viewed as part of the old guard. That concern has proven justified.

    Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance

    The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power.

    As the problems festered, Kiev drew increasingly sharp criticism from Western diplomats and leaders. In a visit in December, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said corruption was eating Ukraine “like a cancer.” Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, which props up Ukraine financially, said last month that progress was so slow in fighting corruption that “it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue.”

    In one high-profile example, known in Ukraine as the case of the “diamond prosecutors,” troves of diamonds, cash and other valuables were found in the homes of two of Mr. Shokin’s subordinates, suggesting that they had been taking bribes.

    But the case became bogged down, with no reasons given. When a department in Mr. Shokin’s office tried to bring it to trial, the prosecutors were fired or resigned. The perpetrators seemed destined to get off with claims that the stones were not worth very much.

    EU hails sacking of Ukraine’s prosecutor Viktor Shokin

    The European Union has welcomed the dismissal of Ukraine’s scandal-ridden prosecutor general and called for a crackdown on corruption, even as the country’s political crisis deepened over efforts to form a new ruling coalition and appoint a new prime minister.

    Ukraine’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to fire Viktor Shokin, ridding the beleaguered prosecutor’s office of a figure who is accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures and stymying moves to root out graft.

    “This decision creates an opportunity to make a fresh start in the prosecutor general’s office. I hope that the new prosecutor general will ensure that [his] office . . . becomes independent from political influence and pressure and enjoys public trust,” said Jan Tombinski, the EU’s envoy to Ukraine.

    “There is still a lack of tangible results of investigations into serious cases . . . as well as investigations of high-level officials within the prosecutor general’s office,” he added.

    Biden made Ukraine fire top prosecutor investigating son’s firm – report

    IC Whistleblower files complaint about Trump's promise to foreign leader
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. vaxcardinal

    vaxcardinal GC Hall of Fame

    5,281
    327
    363
    Apr 8, 2007
    This will all be wrapped up in time for Trumps victory speech...I mean state of the union address
     
  18. Tjgators

    Tjgators VIP Member Premium Member

    3,532
    310
    233
    Apr 3, 2007
    No that was supposed to happen in the House. Mittens is a clown.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    6,841
    2,139
    1,123
    Nov 25, 2017
    And, your constitutional source for this opinion is?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    1,815
    138
    393
    Nov 3, 2013