Impeachment notes & tidbits

[DitkasSausage]

This entire impeachment is stupid. I am shocked that people think there is any merit to it.

#1. The impeachment isn't even about a crime being actually committed... it is about someone talking about committing a crime and then NOT doing it. Is that illegal? (short answer... no)
#2. Obstruction of congress ISN'T a THING. It is called separation of powers. Congress cannot dictate what every body around them does, and they cannot force an administration into full compliance of every beck and whistle they create. If that WAS the case, then we would NEVER get anything done because in order to stop the POTUS of another party from being able to function, you could just repeatedly subpoena every single member of their administration all the time on frivolous charges. Guess who decides if congress can compel the executive branch to comply??? THE JUDICIAL BRANCH! Who was never contacted to ask about the legality of ANY of their subpoenas. In the past, when congress has called a member of the executive branch to testify, and they claimed executive privilege, congress then asked the courts for their opinion on it. That didn't happen once here. Congress asked, Admin members declined, and congress pulled back their subpoena. Guess what? The White House cannot "fire a member of congress" for the exact same reason... in fact, they cannot even have the DOJ investigate them either without the supreme court getting involved... why? The exact same reason.

So let's assume these are impeachable offenses, and the alternative is true. Here are the results of what congress is claiming. Abuse of Power is now to be considered ANY time a person in government asks for anything ever... even if it is conversational and they don't act on it. Also, congress should be allowed to fire the president single-handedly without any legal reason... just because they don't like him/her.

Those are the rules now.

[CarrollCoRaven]

This entire impeachment is stupid. I am shocked that people think there is any merit to it.

#1. The impeachment isn't even about a crime being actually committed... it is about someone talking about committing a crime and then NOT doing it. Is that illegal? (short answer... no)
#2. Obstruction of congress ISN'T a THING. It is called separation of powers. Congress cannot dictate what every body around them does, and they cannot force an administration into full compliance of every beck and whistle they create. If that WAS the case, then we would NEVER get anything done because in order to stop the POTUS of another party from being able to function, you could just repeatedly subpoena every single member of their administration all the time on frivolous charges. Guess who decides if congress can compel the executive branch to comply??? THE JUDICIAL BRANCH! Who was never contacted to ask about the legality of ANY of their subpoenas. In the past, when congress has called a member of the executive branch to testify, and they claimed executive privilege, congress then asked the courts for their opinion on it. That didn't happen once here. Congress asked, Admin members declined, and congress pulled back their subpoena. Guess what? The White House cannot "fire a member of congress" for the exact same reason... in fact, they cannot even have the DOJ investigate them either without the supreme court getting involved... why? The exact same reason.

So let's assume these are impeachable offenses, and the alternative is true. Here are the results of what congress is claiming. Abuse of Power is now to be considered ANY time a person in government asks for anything ever... even if it is conversational and they don't act on it. Also, congress should be allowed to fire the president single-handedly without any legal reason... just because they don't like him/her.

Those are the rules now.

If someone could be charged for thinking about committing a crime, half of Hollywood would be in jail for wishing harm to the President.

[wickedsolo]

There is a lot wrong here, so I'll do my best. Guliani didn't "link up" with a member of the Russian mob. Lev Parnas tried to. The whole Guliani-Russian mafia was a discredited smear by democrats that came up in 1999 as well when he was running for Mayor. Lev Parnas was an imbecile... it seems to be a trend with NY Attorneys quite frankly... they all think they are Tony Soprano once they get a couple dollars and rep one criminal.

Crowdstrike was a Ukranian company that the DNC turned over the Russian Hack data to INSTEAD of the FBI and CIA who asked for it. So the CIA and FBI told the DNC that their servers were hacked (stemming back to the fact that John Podesta used the word "PASSWORD" as his password and provided it directly to a phishing scam and then DIDN'T CHANGE IT ONCE HE KNEW IT WAS HACKED!). US Intelligence asked the DNC if they could inspect the server since it was hacked by a foreign entity. The DNC said, "Nope... were going to let Crowdstrike investigate it"... which is incredibly odd for a couple reasons: 1. Why the hell wouldn't the DNC let the US intelligence inspect a foreign hack into their systems???!!! and 2. Why the hell didn't the Intelligence community say, "Uh... what the hell are you talking about? NO you will not let some Ukrainian-based IT company inspect it! Instead, the Intel community LET THEM DO THIS SUPER SHADY THING and then everyone has accepted their results. Just remember... every time you say that Russia hacked the DNC server... WE HAVE NO IDEA if that is true... that is what some Ukrainian company is telling us is true. It isn't verified. It isn't disclosed. We have a summary from some offshore IT company. This is another one of those, "This was already debunked" things that was DEFINITELY not debunked.

The fact is... even if Trump had said, "I'm holding the money until we get them to dig up dirt on Biden!" into a microphone... it STILL isn't impeachable. It's not illegal... it happens all the time. Hillary did it. Obama did it. Biden did it. Bush did it. Bill did it. So exactly when did you start caring about current administrations leaning on other countries to provide intel on their opponents? Also... since there is a TON of smoke around Biden and Ukraine, should THAT be investigated, or do you no longer believe it is salacious when Biden does exactly the same thing? Or when Obama did the exact same thing with weapons and Russia and both were directly quoted by microphones and cameras... not just hearsay?

Crowdstrike isn’t a Ukrainian company.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bacchys]

So you're entire argument is based on tinfoil hat conspiracy theories?

Giuliani's association with Dmitro Firtash isn't a conspiracy theory. The Shokin affadavit he's been waving around more than a year was filed on behalf of Firtash in a Vienna court. Giuliani pals Joseph DiGenova and Victoria Toensig took over for Lanny Davis as attorneys for Firtash at the urging of Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman. Parnas and Fruman "hired" Giuliani for legal services for their company, Fraud Guarantee, and Giuliani, DiGenova, and Toensig all hired Parnas and Fruman as part of their legal teams.

[bacchys]

Crowdstrike isn’t a Ukrainian company.

I know. They're an American company. Trump apparently believes they're a Ukrainian company. He also apparently believes the DNC systems had a single server.

https://apnews.com/319a1f4f835a4413b8b2914b977df7ab

[bacchys]

This entire impeachment is stupid. I am shocked that people think there is any merit to it.

#1. The impeachment isn't even about a crime being actually committed... it is about someone talking about committing a crime and then NOT doing it. Is that illegal? (short answer... no)
#2. Obstruction of congress ISN'T a THING. It is called separation of powers. Congress cannot dictate what every body around them does, and they cannot force an administration into full compliance of every beck and whistle they create. If that WAS the case, then we would NEVER get anything done because in order to stop the POTUS of another party from being able to function, you could just repeatedly subpoena every single member of their administration all the time on frivolous charges. Guess who decides if congress can compel the executive branch to comply??? THE JUDICIAL BRANCH! Who was never contacted to ask about the legality of ANY of their subpoenas. In the past, when congress has called a member of the executive branch to testify, and they claimed executive privilege, congress then asked the courts for their opinion on it. That didn't happen once here. Congress asked, Admin members declined, and congress pulled back their subpoena. Guess what? The White House cannot "fire a member of congress" for the exact same reason... in fact, they cannot even have the DOJ investigate them either without the supreme court getting involved... why? The exact same reason.

So let's assume these are impeachable offenses, and the alternative is true. Here are the results of what congress is claiming. Abuse of Power is now to be considered ANY time a person in government asks for anything ever... even if it is conversational and they don't act on it. Also, congress should be allowed to fire the president single-handedly without any legal reason... just because they don't like him/her.

Those are the rules now.

"Article III of impeachment against Richard Nixon, the article was based on the idea that Richard Nixon, as president, failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress" as it was "going through its oversight function," Graham said back in 1998. "The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury."

[wickedsolo]

I know. They're an American company. Trump apparently believes they're a Ukrainian company. He also apparently believes the DNC systems had a single server.

https://apnews.com/319a1f4f835a4413b8b2914b977df7ab

Well - Crowdstrike (like many tech companies) does have a large presence in Eastern Europe because server space is plentiful and cheap. We have servers overseas as well.

So, it’s very likely that the DNC images Crowdstrike analyzed were transferred to secure servers that were physically located in Ukraine.

Also - whether or not it is one server or many servers depends on what the infected/compromised server was used for. It could very well just be 1 server.

I also think you’re reaching in a big way with trying to shame a 70-something year old Trump with not understanding who Crowdstrike is or what a server is. I’ve been involved in congressional testimonies before (Target breach) and I’ve briefed a number of high level members in the US government in the past - including President Obama - and you would be shocked at the number of Congressmen and Women and senior executives in the DOD, DOJ, DHS, etc that know hardly anything about technology outside of how to use a Twitter App. Most of these people don’t actually use email.

True story - former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano doesn’t use email. At all. She has people manage that for her.

So...anyway. I say all that to say that it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that Trump is a dumb dumb when it comes to technology outside of randomazz tweets while he’s taking a shit at 5:00AM and just got done watching re-runs of Hannity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wickedsolo]

I listened to some of Ken Starr today and the beginning of Jay Sekulow. Starr kept insisting the House had abandoned procedure but he never specified what they did differently. He also claimed a due process violation, but only generally. He didn't say what due process right was violated by the House proceedings.

Sekulow began by misrepresenting the facts, a continuation of Saturday's misrepresentation. I wasn't able to hear more than a couple minutes of his argument, however.

The house didn’t use the courts at all and they didn’t allow the minority to call witnesses. There were a lot of procedures they skipped.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bacchys]

There is a lot wrong here, so I'll do my best. Guliani didn't "link up" with a member of the Russian mob. Lev Parnas tried to. The whole Guliani-Russian mafia was a discredited smear by democrats that came up in 1999 as well when he was running for Mayor. Lev Parnas was an imbecile... it seems to be a trend with NY Attorneys quite frankly... they all think they are Tony Soprano once they get a couple dollars and rep one criminal.

Parnas and Fruman worked for Giuliani. They also "hired" Giuliani. He's not a NY attorney, either. He's not even an attorney, and he's from Florida.

Crowdstrike was a Ukranian company that the DNC turned over the Russian Hack data to INSTEAD of the FBI and CIA who asked for it. So the CIA and FBI told the DNC that their servers were hacked (stemming back to the fact that John Podesta used the word "PASSWORD" as his password and provided it directly to a phishing scam and then DIDN'T CHANGE IT ONCE HE KNEW IT WAS HACKED!). US Intelligence asked the DNC if they could inspect the server since it was hacked by a foreign entity. The DNC said, "Nope... were going to let Crowdstrike investigate it"... which is incredibly odd for a couple reasons: 1. Why the hell wouldn't the DNC let the US intelligence inspect a foreign hack into their systems???!!! and 2. Why the hell didn't the Intelligence community say, "Uh... what the hell are you talking about? NO you will not let some Ukrainian-based IT company inspect it! Instead, the Intel community LET THEM DO THIS SUPER SHADY THING and then everyone has accepted their results. Just remember... every time you say that Russia hacked the DNC server... WE HAVE NO IDEA if that is true... that is what some Ukrainian company is telling us is true. It isn't verified. It isn't disclosed. We have a summary from some offshore IT company. This is another one of those, "This was already debunked" things that was DEFINITELY not debunked.

Crowdstrike is an American company. They're chartered in California. The rest of your paragraph here is equally factually challenged. You're repeating idiot propaganda. Crowdstrike is one of the foremost cyber security companies in the world. They're better than the FBI at doing what they did. They took mirror images of the DNC systems and turned copies of those over to the FBI for a parallel investigation. Taking the servers is useless and stupid, and it would have been impossible since the DNC had over 140 physical servers and cloud-based infrastructure. The reason forensic investigators don't "take the server" is because once it's unplugged much of the evidence gets lost. Taking a mirror image of the systems, however, means investigators can look through them for evidence of the hackers without being concerned about accidentally deleting it.

The fact is... even if Trump had said, "I'm holding the money until we get them to dig up dirt on Biden!" into a microphone... it STILL isn't impeachable. It's not illegal... it happens all the time. Hillary did it. Obama did it. Biden did it. Bush did it. Bill did it. So exactly when did you start caring about current administrations leaning on other countries to provide intel on their opponents? Also... since there is a TON of smoke around Biden and Ukraine, should THAT be investigated, or do you no longer believe it is salacious when Biden does exactly the same thing? Or when Obama did the exact same thing with weapons and Russia and both were directly quoted by microphones and cameras... not just hearsay?

It was illegal. They didn't all do it, either. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

[bacchys]

Here's the law authorizing appropriations for loan guarantees:

§8903. Provision of costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine
(a) In general
From the unobligated balance of amounts appropriated or otherwise made available under the heading "economic support fund" under the heading "Funds Appropriated to the President" in title III of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014 (division K of Public Law 113–76) [128 Stat. 479] and in Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for preceding fiscal years (other than amounts designated pursuant to section 901(b)(2)(A) of title 2), amounts shall be made available for the costs (as defined in section 661a of title 2) of loan guarantees for Ukraine that are hereby authorized to be provided under this chapter.
(b) Inapplicability of certain limitations
Amounts made available for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be considered "assistance" for the purpose of provisions of law limiting assistance to Ukraine.
( Pub. L. 113–95, §4, Apr. 3, 2014, 128 Stat. 1090 .)

Whereas the $400 million in aid was identified by Congress and authorized appropriation in that amount, the loan guarantees were to be identified by the President and applied as available and necessary by him. So it was fully within his authority to threaten to withhold the loan guarantees, which, because of Ukraine's circumstances at the time, meant they wouldn't get the loans from the IMF.

SEC. 9013. For the ‘‘Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative’’, $250,000,000 is hereby appropriated, to remain available until September 30, 2019: Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance, including training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine, and for replacement of any weapons or articles provided to the Government of Ukraine from the inventory of the United States: Provided further, That of the amounts made available in this section, $50,000,000 shall be available only for lethal assistance described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1250(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114– 92; 129 Stat. 1068): Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not less than 15 days prior to obligating funds provided under this heading, notify the congressional defense committees in writing of the details of any such obligation: Provided further, That the United States may accept equipment procured using funds provided under this heading in this or prior Acts that was transferred to the security forces of Ukraine and returned by such forces to the United States: Provided further, That equipment procured using funds provided under this heading in this or prior Acts, and not yet transferred to the military or National Security Forces of Ukraine or returned by such forces to the United States, may be treated as stocks of the Department of Defense upon written notification to the congressional defense committees: Provided further, That amounts made available by this section are designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

Contrast that with the above law authorizing the loan guarantees. There's a set amount and conditions, including when it has to be disbursed. The loan guarantee provision gives the President a lot more flexibility. There's no set amount and no time limit.

[wickedsolo]

Crowdstrike is an American company. They're chartered in California. The rest of your paragraph here is equally factually challenged. You're repeating idiot propaganda. Crowdstrike is one of the foremost cyber security companies in the world. They're better than the FBI at doing what they did. They took mirror images of the DNC systems and turned copies of those over to the FBI for a parallel investigation. Taking the servers is useless and stupid, and it would have been impossible since the DNC had over 140 physical servers and cloud-based infrastructure. The reason forensic investigators don't "take the server" is because once it's unplugged much of the evidence gets lost. Taking a mirror image of the systems, however, means investigators can look through them for evidence of the hackers without being concerned about accidentally deleting it.
.

That’s not true either. Even if the server was disconnected, there would likely be enough post-compromise artifacts to analyze and make a determination of their nature and how they got there. Especially with a group like APT28 (Fancy Bear), who uses custom malware and specific domain registration methods for C2 infrastructure.

The only way evidence would be removed is if somebody completely re-imaged or wiped the server after the fact.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bacchys]

That’s not true either. Even if the server was disconnected, there would likely be enough post-compromise artifacts to analyze and make a determination of their nature and how they got there. Especially with a group like APT28 (Fancy Bear), who uses custom malware and specific domain registration methods for C2 infrastructure.

The only way evidence would be removed is if somebody completely re-imaged or wiped the server after the fact.

Rebooting a computer- and a server is a computer- rewrites a lot of things. That's why rebooting a computer fixes a lot of problems.

In short, the entire Crowdstrike-Ukraine conspiracy theory is not only wildly wrong, it's stupid.