Friday, October 18, 2019

THREAT OF COUP TO REMOVE THE SWAMP KEEPER - ADMIRAL McRAVEN SAYS TRUMP MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY


Admiral McRaven in NYT: Remove Trump from Office ‘The Sooner, the Better’

Admiral William McRaven (J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)
J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press
3:02

Retired Admiral William McRaven has published an op-ed in Friday’s New York Times titled, “Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President,” urging that Trump be removed from office — “the sooner, the better.”

McRaven’s op-ed gives a military imprimatur to what President Donald Trump has already likened to a “coup,” as Democrats attempt to impeach him with barely a year to go before the next presidential election.

As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the....

93K people are talking about this


....People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!

62.1K people are talking about this

The admiral, well-respected for his role in overseeing the operation to kill Al Qaeda terrorist Osama bin Laden in 2011, argues that senior military leaders have lost confidence in the president and feel he is a threat to the nation.
“As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg,” McRaven recalled, “one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, ‘I don’t like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!’”
McRaven does not argue that President Trump has done anything wrong in particular, but that he has no respect for America’s values. These values, McRaven declares, involve a commitment to “help the weak and stand up against oppression and injustice” around the world.
“[W]hat will happen to the Kurds, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Syrians, the Rohingyas, the South Sudanese and the millions of people under the boot of tyranny or left abandoned by their failing states?” McRaven asks, without explicitly calling for military intervention in any of the regions mentioned.
His criticism goes beyond that voiced in a Washington Post op-ed last year, in which he merely promised “criticism” of the president in the wake of the removal of former CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance.
The admiral is unwilling to wait for the 2020 presidential election to see a change of power. He declares (emphasis added): “[I]t is time for a new person in the Oval Office — Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better. The fate of our Republic depends upon it.”
Moreover, McRaven makes no reference to voting, or elections — or even impeachment.
Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice bars “contemptuous words against the President,” and applies to retired members of the armed forces entitled to pay.
Read McRaven’s full op-ed here.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

BULLSHIT! TRUMP AND HIS PARASITE CHILDREN HAVE SCREWED EVERY CONTRACTOR AND PERSON THEY’VE DONE BUSINESS WITH FROM DAY ONE!


Eric Trump on paying contractors: We pay ‘people when they do great jobs’



The Trump Organization has been criticized for stiffing contractors. Contractors have filed hundreds of complaints, which date back to the 1980s, alleging that the real estate company did not pay them.
“We believe in paying people when they do great jobs. And we get people paid incredibly quickly. And we pay contractors,” said Eric Trump, executive vice president of The Trump Organization at Yahoo Finance’s All Market Summit, adding that the organization only refuses to pay contractors who fail to complete a job.
“Yeah, well, they [the unpaid contractors] didn't finish a job. And they didn't do a good job. And they flaked out. And they were two months behind schedule. And so you had to let go of them. And you had to bring somebody else in to do the job that they otherwise would have. And it's called the real world,” he said, referring to the allegations. “People like to take cheap shots at us.”
Eric Trump’s defense echoes his father’s status quo response.
During the 2016 presidential debate, President Donald Trump said something very similar. “Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work,” he said in response to nonpayment accusations.


Eric Trump also noted to Yahoo Finance that The Trump Organization has developed institutional knowledge about getting the best deals with contractors. “In New York, we know what contractors are going to be incredible, what contractors are going to — I won't use a word, but — take advantage of you,” he said. “And, you know, you have that institutional knowledge. You know your way around. You know the language. You know the laws. You know how things are built. You know what kind of foundations work in the ground.”

 

A Blockade Against Impeachment Is Crumbling as Witnesses Agree to Talk


Michael D. Shear and Nicholas Fandos
,WASHINGTON — The White House’s trenchant declaration to House impeachment investigators last week was unequivocal: No more witnesses or documents for a “totally compromised kangaroo court.”
But just a week later, it has become clear that President Donald Trump’s attempts to stonewall the Democrat-led inquiry that has imperiled his presidency and ensnared much of his inner circle are crumbling.
One by one, a parade of Trump administration career diplomats and senior officials has offered a cascade of revelations. Those accounts have corroborated and expanded upon key aspects of the whistleblower complaint that spawned the impeachment inquiry into whether the president abused his power to enlist Ukraine to help him in the 2020 presidential election.
The latest disclosures came Wednesday, when a former top aide to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo offered an inside account of what he said was a demoralized State Department, where career diplomats were sidelined and others apparently were pressed to use their posts “to advance domestic political objectives.” In six hours of voluntary testimony, the former aide, Michael McKinley, told impeachment investigators that he quit his post as Pompeo’s senior adviser amid mounting frustrations over the Trump administration’s treatment of diplomats and its failure to support them in the face of the impeachment inquiry, according to a copy of his opening remarks.
On Thursday, Democrats are set to hear from Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, a central figure in the president’s pressure campaign on Ukraine. He is expected to testify that he learned that Trump did not intend to invite President Volodymyr Zelenskiy of Ukraine to a meeting in the Oval Office until Zelenskiy pledged to open an investigation that could benefit Trump’s political fortunes — bolstering a central allegation in the inquiry that the president steered foreign policy for political gain.
And Democratic lawmakers have directed William B. Taylor Jr., one of the top American diplomats in Ukraine, to appear before their committees next Tuesday, according to an official familiar with the investigation. Text messages produced as part of the inquiry suggest that Taylor was deeply uneasy about what he saw as an effort by Trump aides to use a $391 million package of security assistance as leverage over Ukraine for political favors, calling the notion “crazy.”
All three are examples of what can happen when Congress secures cooperation from government witnesses in a rapidly moving investigation aimed at the president.
The White House has had more success blocking the release of documents tied to the case. But the president and his lawyers had hoped to use the power of his office to muzzle current and former diplomats and White House aides, arguing in presidential tweets and a lengthy letter to Democratic lawmakers Oct. 8 that their subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable.
“President Trump cannot permit his administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances,” wrote Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel.
And yet the president has been unable to prevent it.
Just since Trump declared war on the impeachment effort, three current and former senior State Department officials and a former top White House aide have testified for nearly 36 total hours, delivering to lawmakers a consistent narrative of how they were effectively pushed aside by allies of the president operating outside America’s usual foreign policy channels.
“It’s partly because this shadow foreign policy that the president was running was so deeply offensive to people in his own administration who took pride in overseeing a professionally run and arguably exemplary policy in support of Ukraine,” said Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., a former State Department official involved in the inquiry. Referring to Trump’s personal lawyer, he added, “And then to see the official policy undermined by this clownishly corrupt effort led by Rudy Giuliani on behalf of the president was just more than many people apparently could bear.”
Republicans who control the Senate view the fast-building case as serious enough to begin preparing for the trial in their chamber that would follow impeachment by the House. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, briefed fellow lawmakers over lunch Wednesday about how a trial would work, expressing his hope of conducting it speedily and completing it by the end of the year, people familiar with his remarks said.
Facing accusations of secrecy from Republicans, Rep Adam B. Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the Intelligence Committee, informed colleagues Wednesday that he planned to open the inquiry to the public soon. He wrote that he planned to release transcripts of all the interviews as the investigation proceeded and pledged to soon hold public hearings “so that the full Congress and the American people can hear their testimony firsthand.”
For Trump, who is famous for demanding fierce loyalty from those around him, the daily — or even hourly — crush of damaging headlines is an infuriating departure from previous successes in controlling disclosures to Congress from people in his orbit.
During the congressional investigation into Russia’s election meddling, Trump blocked a deposition of Donald F. McGahn II, his former White House counsel, and dramatically limited testimony from some of his closest aides, including Hope Hicks, the former White House communications director, and Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager.
But this is different. Many administration officials targeted for depositions by Democrats are diplomatic veterans who have expressed anger and frustration about what they described as the hijacking of U.S. foreign policy. They have no particular loyalty to Trump nor are they subject to the same presidential powers to block them from testifying.
So they have turned up at the secure suite of the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill, disappearing behind doors with a red “RESTRICTED AREA” sign to tell their stories.
Under alternating hourlong question-and-answer sessions by Democratic and Republican staff lawyers, Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, said she had been ousted at Trump’s direction on the basis of “unfounded and false claims.” Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council aide, said John R. Bolton, then the national security adviser, was so alarmed by the activities of Giuliani, Sondland and others that he instructed her to alert White House lawyers. She said she reported Sondland to intelligence officials as a possible national security risk as well.
The decision by Yovanovitch, Hill and others to testify is a demonstration of the limits of presidential power and the legal constraints Trump is under as he and his lawyers try to devise a strategy for keeping him in office.
Although the White House has struggled to keep former officials from agreeing to testify, Trump has more leverage with current administration employees, who may fear for their jobs if they defy the blockade. But it is not clear what the political repercussions would be if the president retaliated against them in the middle of a political scandal.
McKinley told investigators Wednesday that State Department officials were discouraging people from testifying and were not supporting diplomats who had received subpoenas and requests to appear before the House, according to a person familiar with his testimony.
Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill expressed frustration this week about the depositions, saying White House lawyers should be present and accusing Democrats of selectively leaking from the testimony. Others were simply baffled by the cooperation of the witnesses.
“I really don’t understand it,” said Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, a member of the Intelligence Committee. “I can’t wrap my head around why some and why not others.”
Veterans of past legal struggles between the White House and Congress said Trump was confronting the reality that he had limited ability to force former or even current government employees to ignore a legally binding subpoena. It is even difficult — though not impossible — to shield top White House aides from appearing, they said.
“Particularly if there’s a subpoena, everybody has to appear or risk being held in contempt,” said W. Neil Eggleston, who served as President Barack Obama’s White House counsel. “It is just not easy to simply refuse to appear.”
Eggleston said that defying a subpoena was sometimes possible for high-profile figures but was especially difficult for functionaries and other career employees.
Trump’s lawyers have had more success in blocking access to emails, text messages, memos and other documents in the government’s possession.
The administration has rejected Democratic subpoenas or requests for documents at the Office of Management and Budget, the State Department, the Defense Department and the office of Vice President Mike Pence. Giuliani has also said he will ignore a subpoena for his records, citing the White House’s stance.
Democrats have said the refusal to hand over documents will be considered obstruction of Congress and may be added to the impeachment charges brought against the president.
The White House has also attempted to limit the questions witnesses can answer.
In the case of Hill, White House lawyers conceded early Monday that they could not stop her from arriving on Capitol Hill for a deposition by the committee later that day, but they demanded that she refrain from speaking about classified material, conversations with the president and other matters.
Even that proved difficult to enforce, as Hill vividly described a dramatic confrontation inside the White House between Bolton and Sondland.
Schiff, the Intelligence Committee chairman, said Tuesday that the sessions with witnesses have been fruitful despite the efforts to block them.
“It’s a way of trying to chill them from cooperating,” Schiff said. “It’s not working, but I think that’s the goal.
“It goes to show the legally insupportable position of the White House,” he added.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

No comments: