Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
How's that comparable? The issue is foreign influence in an American election, which is explicitly illegal.
What about your standard, avoid any action that could potentially be perceived as unethical or illegal? Sounds like it’s not so much a standard anymore, at least when applied to the Bidens.
You said it “looks wrong on its face”, that it is not “appropriate”. This is the court of opinion, and given that the standard here is selectively applied, it seems partisan.
I apply the same standard to Hunter: it looks wrong on its face, and he shouldn't have taken the job.
It does raise questions, and its worthy of scrutiny. But it's not probable cause for a criminal investigation. Trump's case is different: it's an abuse of his considerable power (he's arguably the most powerful person on the planet) and contrary to his oath of office to faithfully execute.
On the other hand, I don't see that Joe did anything wrong: he's not responsible for his 40+ year-old son's actions. Nevertheless, it makes sense to question Joe's getting the prosecutor fired in light of his son's job. When I first heard about it, I was concerned, so I looked into it and saw that the context of the action (which I've already described) doesn't seem problematic at all. The only things I've read that try to make a case against Joe for this have ignored that context.
I’m glad we can agree it is deserving of scrutiny. Luckily there was no pressure, nor any call for criminal investigations from the president.
I think where we disagree is whether Trump abused the power of his office. Considering that abuse of power is one of the articles of impeachment hopefully more facts will come to light in the upcoming trial.
I'd prefer him in power for one or two more terms, to let the feminist movement simmer.
Who wants the pro-impeachment side in charge?
That would be a sick joke. We'd all be in danger. I hate corruption.
Trump, is currently performing well. I just know a better personality exists, and a wiser mind.
There is testimony evidence of pressure, and documentary evidence the aid was held up illegally. If the requested investigation was not for criminal purposes, what else could it be other than simply digging up dirt on an opponent? The fact that Trump's position that his call was "perfect" is troubling, because it suggests we can expect more of the same.
Recall that I'm not convinced his action is necessarily worthy of removal from office, but that it was important to send him the message that it's wrong. My hope is that a fair number of Republicans will send him that message - voting to acquit solely because it doesn't rise to the level of "high crime" but noting that he shouldn't have done that.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, it would be great to have more facts. Do you agree it would be good to hear Bolton's testimony?
From the Ukrainian side there is exculpatory evidence that there was no pressure, that hold ups on the American side are routine, and that nothing amounted to any quid pro quo. This is direct evidence considering it involves people on the phone call, the supposed victims. It’s a shame their words were not even considered in the inquiry, but that’s to be expected in such a partisan inquiry.
I actually would like to hear Bolton’s testimony, and also Hunter Biden’s, Lev Parnas’, and the whistleblower’s. Let the chips fall where they may.
https://nyti.ms/37aWw52
This was abundantly documented by trustworthy witness testimony in painstaking detail during the public hearings. Since the first round of hearings, further damning and confirmatory information has come out supporting these claims, including the forensic exposé of the 84 day period in which aid to Ukraine was suspended by presidential fiat.
And what is the defense?
So, it's simply a reiteration of Trump's claim that the whole prosecution is a sham. In reality, the defense case consists of lies, smears and evasions.
It's said to be likely that the thoroughly corrupted Republican senate will vote to acquit anyway, but one can only hope this is not a foregone conclusion.
I have a sinking suspicion the GOP might betray the president. I hope I’m wrong, but you might just get what you desire.
Are you referring to Zelensky' statements? That is something, but it is at odds with testimony by the diplomats. It would be risky for Zelensky to say he felt pressured, and to his benefit to convey to Trump that "he loves your ass". On the other hand, the diplomats took a risk by testifying, and they corroborate one another.
I do not think there was an explicit quid pro quo, but the nature of the relationship (they need our money) creates an implicit one, and makes it all the more inappapropriate.
[Quote]I actually would like to hear Bolton’s testimony, and also Hunter Biden’s, Lev Parnas’, and the whistleblower’s. Let the chips fall where they may.[/quote]
What's the point of testimony by Hunter and the whistleblower?
It is Trump who has betrayed - the oath of office, the Constitution, the standards expected from a public officer.
And the Ukrainian foreign minister. His recent interview pretty much refuted the entire case against Trump. No quid pro quo, no pressure, implicit or otherwise, refutes Sondland, says everything was routine... I wonder if they would be able to testify.
They are the start of this whole mess and would be useful to the defense.
If they did it... why can't I?
If what they did was wrong, then so is what I've done...
He's brilliant at making his own case, that's why everyone responsible for cleaning up his messes wants him to just shut the fuck up.
Now, someone... somewhere... arguing on behalf of the president tell me...
What is the excuse for not investing every bit of the resources necessary to help stop known Russian corruption of American elections?
The Trump administration has done nothing. The Mueller report was a call to subsequent action. It was the first step in the process. It found overwhelming evidence that Russian agents aimed to influence the election and effectively did just that using a variety of different means. It found adequate evidence that members of Trump's campaign were actively, knowingly, seeking to coordinate with foreign entities(current enemies of the state) as a part of that very process. Some members bore the name Trump.
The idea that Trump did not know what his family members knew and/or were doing is strictly unbelievable. Any careful examination of things already known shows otherwise. It's not as if they are long lost relatives...
Either he does not care about known verified corruption at the highest levels, or he's just bullshitting when claiming the motive was to investigate corruption of the Biden family. That investigation has already been closed. The Russian one... not so much.
Yeah, Trump is full of shit.
Treasonous behaviour in many ways. Why not call a spade a spade?
Secret meeting with Putin during an investigation about the possibility of coordination between Trump's campaign members and Russian agents actively seeking to influence the American election by virtue of damaging Trump's political opponent...
What on earth would constitute a clearly established pattern of behaviour of using foreign entities to attack and discredit a political opponent?
What on earth could have been done differently - if it were true - to better satisfy Russian interests while retaining some semblance of plausible deniability? From the change in the GOP platform language at the convention(that came as a surprise to many) through the allowance of Russian forces in the middle east...
Looks like great times for Putin. Add to it his recent actions to remain in power indefinitely...
When a long list of political opponents wind up dead, those standing up for truth, justice, and the American ideal do nothing to glorify and/or excuse it. We certainly do not offer public admiration for anyone so involved, especially while simultaneously denouncing and deriding American public servants. We do not stand and glorify the likes of Putin while knowing of the severity of crimes against humanity due to him.
We - as a candidate fr president - certainly ought not be permitted to be financially tied to Russian banking institutions while presiding over the office of the presidency of the United States of America.
We certainly ought not be allowed to continue on as if there is nothing else to see..
I cannot.
When there is legitimate and/or valid concern involving such deep seated problems, and the proof is the financial record, and the financial record has been kept private, then it becomes impossible to convict a guilty man.
Along with the presumption of innocence comes the possibility for guilt.
Quoting NOS4A2
Asking for an investigation of a political opponent is wrong even if there's no quid pro quo.
The foreign minister's comments suggest Ukraine wasn't aware of Trump conditioning release of aid on the announcement of an investigation, but the case doesn't hinge on that. There is a good bit of evidence that Trump did hold up aid to get an investigation announced, and that still constitutes an inappropriate quid pro quo (something for something). Ukraine was beholding to the US and its President and wanted to please him, and Trump appears to have tried to take advantage of that.
Quoting NOS4A2
That's what I don't understand. They won't refute any of the facts, so how is it useful to the defense? Or are you just saying it's politically useful because it will be an opportunity to play to the base, like when they had Peter Strozk testify?
There ought to be at least a few Republic Senators who would desire Trump's office. Once they realize that attempting to prop up Trump is a hopeless course, all they would need to do is garner some support, and then out with the old, and in with the new.
Oh, I forgot to say, I really like the way that quote looks. Let me try it again
Yes, it's beautiful isn't it?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-martin-luther-king-jr-federal-holiday-2020/
I think every president does it every year to specify the exact day. Trump did it last year. Obama did it before him. Bush also.
Actually the defense is saying the impeachment effort is a "brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election". The articles are "constitutionally invalid, founded on falsehoods" and thus should be rejected.
As always with Trump, he accuses his accusers of the blatant wrongdoing that he himself has committed. That is his ‘defense’.
The charade is not in accordance with constitutional principles because Trump is well within his constitutional powers to do what they claim he did. Not only that but he didn't do what they claimed he did.
"Article 1 Fails because House Democrats have no evidence to support their claims" (The case rests entirely on Sondland's speculations, which he admitted were presumptions)
"Abuse of Power" is a concocted theory that does not rise to the level of "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
It also presents a dangerous precedent, allowing a hostile House to attack almost any presidential action if s/he does them for what they believe are the wrong reasons, expanding impeachment beyond constitutional bounds.
Anyways there is much to go through in their defense.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6662414/Trump-Legal-Team-Impeachment-Trial-Memorandum.pdf
False. Trump has been caught dead to rights, is lying his way out of it, and you promote his lies, because you’re a disinformation agent.
I get it. You've been strung along by democrat lies this entire time. When they said "bribery" or "extortion" you followed along, parroting it willingly and uncritically. When they didn't show in articles of impeachment you sing "abuse of power" at the top of you lungs. You've been duped. You know I know that, you know I can see that, and the best you can do is resort fantasy in an attempt to alleviate the dissonance.
The accepted wisdom is that, as Trump has essentially corrupted the GoP, that he will be acquitted by the Senate, but it will be very interesting to see how this hearing plays out, for example if some new piece of information makes continued defense of Trump impossible on pain of perjury, which is possible. I will check in from time to time over the next few weeks.
Trump will drive a wedge through the country dividing it against itself. What for? To further his ambition.
It makes no sense to think that any more evidence and/or testimony is needed. The obstruction charge has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. No one in their right mind would disagree. Trump has done everything in his power to stop the process.
It was never proven because it was never taken to court. That is where matters of executive privilege vs congressional subpoenas are settled. For instance Bolton said he would take the House to court if they subpoenaed him. The court may or may not have allowed Bolton to testify, but democrats refused to go that route,
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nrsc/status/1219661000556847107?s=21[/tweet]
The Courts interpret the Constitution, they don't make law. SCOTUS' interpretation is binding for matters that come to them. However, Congress is also free to interpret the Constitution - they do this all the time when passing laws. SCOTUS can overrule their interpretation and throw out laws when (and only when) a case comes to them. However, in the case of impeachment - there is no appeal to the Supreme Court, so the Senate could, in theory, interepret the President's blanket rejection of all subpoenas as unconstitutional and remove him from office for that.
Further, it's a reasonable interpretation. There's zero probability SCOTUS would agree that a President has the authority for a blanket rejection of all subpoenas associated with an impeachment inquiry - it would be contrary to US vs Nixon, which was a unanimous SCOTUS decision. In that decision, SCOTUS directly rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."
Slate
Senate could interpret it that way, but they would be stupid to do so, because it would be ruinous to the constitution and any future presidency. It would blur the separation of powers and set up any future presidents (and all past presidents) for impeachment just for asserting executive privilege.
US vs Nixon was regarding a judicial process, not a political one. So though it made a decision on Executive privilege vis-a-vis a federal district court grand jury, it never made a decision on executive privilege vis-a-vis congressional demands.
“The Supreme Court has never addressed executive privilege in the face of a congressional demand for information”.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42670.pdf
So we’re probably treading new ground on the issue here.
This just doesn't carry much weight when viewed in light everyday facts and openly expressed public behaviour.
A court is not necessary to prove that Trump has done and still does everything within his power to stop any and all subsequent investigations into the 2016 election. He continues to make a concerted attempt to distract and derail the processes and the progress being made. He has done and continues to impede any and all investigations into his behaviour.
These are all constitutional processes, clearly demarcated in the US Constitution. He is not allowing the checks and balances to work as the framers intended. He is impeding the only recourse for removing an unwanted president. For some reason, the defense wants to say things like "The Senate is not on trial".
Well...
Not if it's doing it's job and acting impartially to the case, which means not already having made up one's mind before careful examination of all the relevant evidence.
Fer fuck's sake... it's sickening.
:vomit:
That is the former National Security Advisor to the president.
Mitch McConnell cannot argue on procedural grounds in such urgent matters of national security. John Bolton resigned in bewilderment and/or befuddled. John Bolton's testimony must be heard. This is not some civil case where only a handful of people's lives and/or livelihoods are concerned. The prosecution has offered more than enough evidence to show that the defendant did everything in his power to conceal and hide his behaviours, including hiring an outside council to speak on his behalf about the relevant matters. Mr. Guiliani has openly admitted to more than enough behaviour to prove that president Trump was using unofficial means for conducting official business.
Not allowing necessary available relevant testimony is to knowingly conceal evidence. That is not acting impartially towards all the evidence regarding the case at hand. It is for these reasons that we can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. McConnell is in gross dereliction of duty, and needs to be removed from office.
It all reeks of corruption.
What Piffle. The article of impeachment is “obstruction of Congress”, which relates to the impeachment inquiry, not to any investigation regarding 2016, all of which turned up nothing on the president.
Further, house inquiry subpoenas for White House documents were invalid. The House had not specifically authorized the committees to issue subpoenas in furtherance of an inquiry. The subpoenas were issued prior to the full House formally voting to pursue an impeachment inquiry, which is unconstitutional, because the the full House of Representatives—all of them, not just the ones Pelosi chooses—“shall have the sole Power of Impeachment”. The White House Council said if the House had done it properly, that is constitutionally, they were ready to start the accommodation process for documents. Of course they wouldn’t wait to do that.
As for the testimonies of officials, the Whitehouse was acting on the guidance of the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice, not out of its own self-interest.
As for new evidence and testimony, the senate will deliberate on that matter in a week or so after hearing the opening cases. So all this talk about “concealing evidence” is a Democrat lie, and you’re falling for it.
And why don't they have 'the material?' Because Trump has prevented the investigators from receiving it - one of the two things he's being tried for!
For Republicans, the sooner the better the acquittal vote, before Trump incriminates himself even further.
Quoting creativesoul
It's not 'deep' - it's right out there in the open. The Republican defense basically says, he did nothing wrong, even despite the voluminous evidence to the contrary. What it really means is: Trump is above the law. If the Senate acquits, this is what they will be saying. That is why it is a threat to the rule of law.
You're a fountain of misinformation.
There are two articles. The first is abuse of power. The second is obstruction of congress. Trump has shown a pattern of behaviour and openly publicly bragged about impeding the constitutional processes. That pattern goes back to the Mueller investigation.
He is guilty of intent to impede constitutional processes, as the overwhelming amount of evidence shows. He admits and brags about it. Arguing on procedural grounds is to deliberately and knowingly... purposefully conceal easily obtainable new evidence that is clearly relevant to both articles... both cases.
Members of the Senate are not Trump's defense team. That is a problem. McConnell needs removed.
Trump has invoked executive privilege to impede investigations(constitutional processes). Again, the evidence for this is overwhelming, including Trump's own admission.
If it’s misinformation it should be easy to refute. Oddly enough, any valid response to my arguments and/or accurate information is missing in your rebuttal, which is diaper-full of unjust accusations and anti-Trump histrionics.
Again, the Whitehouse doesn’t comply because 1) the subpoenas for documents were invalid, unauthorized and thus unconstitutional, and 2) to ensure testimony does not disclose privileged communications. This was done at the advise of the Office of Legal Council. Unless they can deny the opinion of the OLC (I’ll link them again for you below), based as they are on precedent and the constitution, House Democrats have nothing but their fee-fees and fallacy to run with, because they never settled the dispute in the judiciary when they had the chance. This might work on those prone to fallacy and pathos, but it will not work on sober legal analysis.
If They want to undo the 2016 election, blur the separation of powers, and deny the constitution because the Whitehouse followed the legal counsel of the DOJ, it’s going to be ruinous to any future presidency if they are not censured by the Senate. History will be unkind to this witch-hunt.
https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1236346/download
https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1214996/download
Trump's invoking privilege to justify a blanket stonewalling of Congress is clearly outside the boundaries set by U.S. v Nixon. Therefore Congress would not be making a "ruinous" novel judgment. Nor is it a disastrous precedent to assert Congress will not tolerate a blanket refusal to comply with any all subpoenas.
Is "trolling" a high crime?
Only if you were high at the time.
Someone's been hitting the Hannity a little too hard.
Do you believe that every president that evokes executive privilege against congressional demands—Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Kennedy, for example—should be impeached for doing so?
"Someone's been hitting the Hannity a little too hard." - Don Lemon
A quote without a reference. Typical.
Thanks for the insight, Don. Very astute.
You get what Fox News talking points deserve.
That said, I'm also saying that it isn't really technically necessary, because they are free to interpret the Constitution themselves -and to apply past SCOTUS precedent. In the hypothetical case in which they were to do this, it would serve as a precedent for future Congresses to impeach a President if, and only if, both these elements were present: 1) That President issued a blanket refusal to reject any and all Congressional subpoenas. 2) The subpoenas are associated with investigation of the President's potentially impeachable conduct.
So yes, I think it would be reasonable to impeach any President who exhibited both elements.
A lie.
"What did the report say about obstruction of justice?
The investigation looked into a “variety of actions” that raised obstruction of justice questions – including the president’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey; his effort to get his associates to fire Mueller; and his effort to pressure Jeff Sessions to “unrecuse” himself from the case.
Mueller ultimately didn’t accuse the president of obstruction of justice, he wrote that he couldn’t rule out the possibility and declare that the president is exonerated."
https://time.com/5567077/mueller-report-release/
"Mueller ultimately didn’t accuse the president of obstruction of justice, he wrote that he couldn’t rule out the possibility and declare that the president is exonerated."
Three years of "Russian collusion" and this is the best you guys came up with. Bravo.
What if the impeachment inquiry was unfair and unjust, violating due process and the constitution?
A lie.
"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies during their lengthy investigation."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury
If on the day the Senate returns its verdict, history records the failure to convict the president following a trial without witnesses, that will be the day the rule of law dies in America. The courts will remain open for business. Congress will be in session. Citizens will still be able to vote. And a free press will continue to launch withering attacks on President Trump. But the American people will no longer be living in a constitutional democracy.[/quote]
The Atlantic Monthly.
“ However, Mueller did not allege any crimes directly connecting the two — that is, that Trump advisers criminally conspired with Russian officials to impact the election.
Other reported focuses of Mueller’s investigation — such as potential obstruction of justice by the Trump administration — also did not result in any charges.”
Or nuclear energy for Germans.
Set out all the quotes you like. Close friends and associates Papadopoulos, Manafort, Gates, Cohen and Stone were taken down. I don't doubt the day your divine Trump is no longer hedged by the presidency, he will be too.
Meanwhile your coveted deep-state, the DNC, and the media will receive the two-tiered justice they always have, and life will go on.
Is Fox News a part of the media? Is AM talk radio a part of the media?
Can you provide a lick of evidence to support the claim that the DNC "[has always benefited from a two-tiered justice system]"? Please be specific and provide citations.
P.S.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/479548-fox-leads-ratings-in-day-one-of-impeachment-trial
You're an idiot. There are a whole slew of claims that are known to be false but cannot be falsified. Knowing that allows us to also know that not all false claims can be falsified. Misinformation is not always false or falsifiable. Sometimes it can be true but irrelevant...
In any case... you're an idiot for suggesting that misinformation can be easily refuted.
Focus on the relevant facts.
Yet another prima facie example of misinformation...
The Mueller investigation would not charge anyone with anything. It was not in the purview. They did however find adequate evidence to warrant subsequent measures by the appropriate officials on several fronts, including obstruction by the president as well as cooperation of Trump family members and friends with foreign(enemy) entities for the expressed written purpose of gaining political advantage over a political opponent...
There's that pattern behaviour again...
Yeah. So you can just fuck off.
There is no such thing as an unconstitutional impeachment or trial. The Constitution grants the House and Senate sole powers to impeach and try, respectively. The Constitution sets no rules, so they can do whatever they want.
Complaining about fairness in this process seems similar to complaining that a participant in a street fight isn't following the Marquis of Queensbury rules of boxing. But lets consider it anyway. Is it fair for a President to block access to witnesses and documents by asserting executive privilege (and remember, that's the context we're discussing); it's contrary to the rules for discovery in standard cases. That "unfairness" is balanced against the "unfairness" of Congress' powers.
Besides that, there is no such thing as due process in the grand jury process that leads to an indictment. An impeachment is analogous to an indictment. The President is being granted all traditional due process rights in the Senate Trial, so current Republican complaints about that are unwarranted.
I presented the relevant facts and you evaded them, even now. I’m easily refuting you’re misinformation as we speak.
So touchy, probably because even you know your misinformation is bunk.
The constitution grants the House full power of impeachment, not just select individuals and committees. That’s why the demands for documents were deemed invalid. This is precedent.
The fact that due process does not apply is not a good enough reason to avoid giving due process and applying justice. And in fact further proves the naked partisanship, how this is a ploy to influence the next election, and how the case is already doomed in the senate.
Awww...
...and you're cute too? Make my heart flutter.
That's not me being touchy. That's me being frank.
Now you're mimicking yet another common behavioural pattern of those who offer Trumpian apologetics. The application of a double standard.
The case is "doomed in the [Senate]" because McConnell is happy to subvert his oath to be an impartial juror. He said it himself: "I'm not an impartial juror."
If that does not count as adequate evidence to warrant charges and/or conclude the president is guilty of obstruction of congress, then nothing can.
It is that simple people.
There's another well established and readily verifiable pattern of Trump's behaviour that can be established. Strong arm tactics. Look at the suits he has filed, look at the agreements made, with and against people legally forbidding them to tell the truth.
A notable local reporter did a simple rough financial analysis of the Taj, saying that it is basically doomed to fail; that someone somewhere did not do the math. He did so quite publicly, and was quickly threatening with legal suit if he did not redress, apologize, and rescind... or something along those lines.
That guy was telling the truth.
Really?
:yikes:
No. Surely not.
Was that a "yes" or a "no"?
It’s doomed because the case is wholly inadequate, without evidence, and mostly fabricated by those who know they cannot win in the next election.
Four parts: An opinion, two lies and an opinion.
Fox News is looking for new recruits. Time to cash in on your parrot-mind.
Yes, he said it. That was a video of him saying it. Let me try again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfvle0OdlgM
Give us another CNN and Vox link.
Is it your position that it's fine and dandy for McConnell to set impartiality aside for this trial? Any concerns with the precedent this sets?
Try to respond without resorting to puerile whataboutism.
Wow. Talk about unabashed dereliction of sworn duty...
:confused:
Justice Roberts better do his job here. That juror(Mr. McConnell) must be removed. He ought be compelled to recuse himself, at the very least. Anyone else who so believes that they cannot be an impartial juror. Fer fuck's sake, this is perhaps the most important of all responsibilities bestowed upon the members of the Senate. It is one that only they hold... only they wield... they must be able to honor and execute their responsibilities; their sworn duty.
Cannot take them at the word... can we?
:brow:
Can you explain this better? Are you saying that the House (as an entity) must pass judgement on impeachment, before any request for evidence is valid?
He's repeating the apologists procedural argument.
Isn't it the case, that when the House (as an entity) decided to begin impeachment proceedings, demands for evidence were valid?
I'm telling you they don't care. They have Fox News and Facebook buttressing a rightist simulacra (a la Baudrillard) and they're just fucking going for it: Foisting a universe of alt-facts on the millions of dumbed-down a-historisic gullibles disgracing the Union. All the prep-work is done: The US broadly is dumb as fuck and gullible as fuck and Facebook has asceneded to the simulacric lodelight.
Adam Curtis describes the Russia of the late 20th Century as undergoing a similar devolution in the documentary film Hypernormalisation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fny99f8amM
He... and the defense are trying to import civil rules to this... not civil case.
There is no excuse for failing to honor a subpoena to testify as a witness on these matters of such national importance.
The relevant precedent(regarding the first article) is found during the Nixon administration. Trump has openly admitted to soliciting a foreign government to conduct an investigation on an American citizen, and he did so while refusing to follow the advice of the head of national security counsel. That American citizen just also happens to be a political opponent of Trump. Trump actually hired an outside counsel to publicly speak and/or act on his behalf about Ukrainian matters, long before this became public and people began resigning and whistle-blowing.
Trump got his side of the story out first.
There are several key witnesses all of whom had conversations with Trump and/or each other and all of their stories corroborated. Trump said "No quid pro quo" while continuing to hold back the funds and continuing to make a concerted attempt for Ukraine to do what Trump wanted, which - in and of itself - was for the Ukrainian government to interfere with an American presidential candidates life during election season.
That investigation has been performed and closed by the appropriate American institutions.
By having the full power of impeachment, no other body has Constitutional authority to deem anything that transpires as invalid. You may judge it unfair, but you can't claim it's unconstitutional.
When you say it's "not a good enough reason" - are you again talking about fairness? Fairness and constitutionality are two different things, and it seems to me you resort to Constitutionality when it helps your case (defending Trump's expansive use of executive privilege - clearly going beyond past boundaries, ignoring its unfairness), and then shift over to fairness when Constitutionality doesn't give you what you want. What could be more partisan than that?
I like to think that this very situation will cause change in the right direction...
Unfortunately they can and do... and in doing so convince some who do not know better.
I asked NOS4A2 why the request for documents was deemed invalid.
...to be an impartial juror during an impeachment trial.
That is itself a dereliction of duty. HE ought be removed. He is admittedly unfit - unable - to successfully execute his responsibility in this situation as it is clearly demarcated in the Constitution.
I'm sure the Senate Ethics Committee will get right on that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress
This ain't news, Creative, McConnell himself said on live TV that there is zero chance of Trump being convicted and it's why the accepted wisdom is, no matter how damning the facts, Trump will be acquitted in the Senate. I'm still holding out hope that something so outlandish will surface that it undermines this outcome, but nobody thinks it likely.
Still have not seen the video. If he openly and clearly stated that he could not be an impartial juror in this matter of impeachment, then he has confessed to not being able to perform one of the very specific duties bestowed only upon members of the Senate.
He has admitted to dereliction of duty. Given the historical unprecedented level of importance in these impeachment matters, McConnell ought at least recuse himself and/or resign. He has failed to perform as promised, and openly said that he could not do what the Constitution said he must as a member of the Senate. He said he cannot perform as instructed.
He has no business being a member of the jury of this impeachment trial.
We certainly would not allow a jury member openly professing that their position on the matter is aligned with the defendant's prior to the start of the trial.
If McConnell already believes that the impeachment is a "witch hunt", then he cannot act as an impartial juror. That is the sole responsibility of the Senate that makes it stand apart from all other governmental agencies/institutions.
It should be easy to Google. It was a televised Q and A. It was all over the news in the States.
No need to resign when Fox News has Trump's base calling the impeachment a charade or hoax or (Hannity's favorite) a "Shiff Sham show."
Mitch McConnell needs to recuse himself. He knows that he cannot do both... be and not be an impartial juror during the ongoing impeachment process.
Lindsey Graham said something similar. It's the tack the hardcore Trumpsters are taking. It's a hoax and undeserving of an impartial hearing.
Fox News' destructive influence is precisely why Graham and McConnell are convinced they can get away with this. Fox News defends, even congratulates, their non-impartiality.
Here's an op-ed defending your position. Quotes from McConnell and Graham included
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/479095-senator-jurors-who-may-not-be-impartial-remove-them-for-cause
Are you in the States? It's hard to believe you didn't catch this on the news if you are.
I'll take your word on that...
I've been watching a LOT of Fox News lately. Keeping a finger on the pulse of the nation, sadly.
The pulse of Trump apologists...
:wink:
That has a nice ring to it...
90% support among Republicans. It can't be ignored.
Sounds like a course in a late 21st Century Theology curriculum.
That does not tell me enough to place much value upon it.
The trial ought not only be public... I'd be all in on public mandate to watch the trial...
If House Democrats failed to follow the correct procedures it’s not indicative of a witch-hunt, as NOS4A2 claims. If a criminal wins a legal case because of a procedural error by the prosecution that doesn’t mean they’re innocent or wrongly accused, for example.
All the relevant evidence needs to be introduced.
Again, this type of sophistry works well on those already to the ears in anti-Trump hysteria, and possibly a couple senators as well. But in combination with the cries for more evidence and testimony it also suggests the House has no case and I suspect these lies will be deconstructed during the defence.
Yes the power of impeachment extends to the full house, not any one individual house member or committee. Therefore any subpoena issued before the house vote for an impeachment inquiry is invalid. This is one of the many arguments in the White House impeachment memorandum, which deserves a read.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Trial-Memorandum-of-President-Donald-J.-Trump.pdf
That phrase only means that no other entity but the house has the power to impeach, not that the constitution no longer applies to congress. It does not give them the power to ignore constitutional constraints such as the due process clause of the constitution which applies to all of the US government.
Fat chance of that. The defense will willfully eschew direct confrontation with the facts. Expect a cocktail of Kavanoise and whataboutism.
Proving the double standard about withholding aid and stonewalling congress is the easy part. There is video of everyone, both republican and Democrat, saying the exact opposite of what they say now. It will also be easy pointing out Schiff’s lies and sophistry given the documented evidence of them.
Is Pro-Trump sophistry somehow exempt of hysteria?
I’m not sure how sophistry can have hysteria.
A lie.
"Other Trump allies have been parroting this line in recent days. The most obvious problem with this reasoning is that, as others have pointed out, Trump is accused of withholding foreign military aid for corrupt, personal and political purposes. The simple truth is that there aren’t any other examples that match that definition."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/23/trumps-lawyers-dont-understand-how-foreign-aid-works/
A broadbrush lie. Those are fun.
Here you go, padding your thought with the thought of someone else’s, like a good parrot. And cherry picking too.
Can you provide a reference detailing the scope and substance of "Schiff's lies?"
Please provide details and source material to support this accusation.
In intellectual circles, we call it "providing source material." A notion obviously offensive you - and to Trumpsters in general.
“Proving the double standard about withholding aid...is the easy part.”
His question begging, for one.
His lie that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/04/schiffs-false-claim-his-committee-had-not-spoken-whistleblower/
His lies about Parnas
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/schiff-parnas-trump-evidence-101832
His lie about the Trump’s phone call is the obvious one.
Parroting involves repeating transfactual, emotion-laden statements popularized by the mass media - in your case Fox News.
Let me know when you can muster your own thought. I don’t watch Fox News; you do.
I don't believe you.
Can you provide a reference for this assertion?
I don’t care.
Here’s Schiff being duped by Ukrainians into wanting nude pictures of Trump—political dirt.
Yeah, I've seen it. It's troublesome.
It's also whataboutism. A logical fallacy.
It’s not whataboutism to point out Schiff’s hypocrisy.
This impeachment isn't about Schiff. It's about the facts.
Like every politician, Schiff is a hypocrite. So was Obama, the Bushes, the Clintons, and respective meinies. Does that mean Trump is above the law?
Directing your interlocutor from the facts of the case to the personalities presenting the facts is whataboutism par excellence.
"Trump committed act X."
"What about Schiff?"
That’s whataboutism, a logical fallacy.
Schiff is the prosecution and he is lying in order to impeach a president. He lied to Congress with his “parody”. He lied about his ties to the whistleblower. He’s lying that Trump is “corruptly” doing this or that,
I never said that. Another lie. Trump never did what Schiff did.
Schiff is a small part of the prosecution. The evidence was presented by a slue or host of non-Schiffs. Speak to the evidence. Speak to the facts. If you can.
In discussing Trump's impeachment you pointed me to Schiff’s hypocrisy.
That's the same as saying, "What about Schiff?"
Whataboutism. Look it up.
"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. It is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda."
You look it up. I have not charged you with hypocrisy to discredit your position. Another lie.
You either don't understand whataboutism or you're running on emotional fumes.
Instead of addressing the facts of the case (Trump's impeachment) you've accused Schiff of hypocrisy.
That's exactly whataboutism.
It's not. Look it up.
"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I merely showed that Schiff sought Russian political dirt on his opponent. I did so after spending countless pages addressing the case and refuting Schiff’s arguments.
When I presented Schiff’s hypocrisy you said “Like every politician, Schiff is a hypocrite. So was Obama, the Bushes, the Clintons, and respective meinies.”, presumably to discredit my argument.
Is that not whataboutism?
No, it's not. It's anti-whataboutism.
The fact that X, Y and Z are hypocritical has nothing to do with A.
In this case A is the case against Trump.
To avoid whataboutism:
Instead of thinking of the impeachment as a kind of contest between Schiff and Trump, think of it as a contest between Trump and the facts.
Creating fictitious dirt isnt a new activity in American politics. Its just been so long ago that it happened that we're all aghast.
That's the argument. But no evidence points to any mens rea. Given that no public statement of that nature occurred, that no investigations against political opponents were started, that no such "dirt" was produced, that no statement from Trump proves his desires to do this, and that Trump has taken issues with corruption in Ukraine going back to 2017, proving a guilty mind or intent to produce political dirt for the purposes of influencing an election is nearly impossible. Given this, we can say that this assumption is fabricated from thin air.
Not so long ago. Certainly there was a massive amount of anti-Soviet dirt, anti-Islamic dirt, etc. I think it's just something we do. Occasionally, the political climate is such that the perpetrators are held to account.
Simple deduction. Even a fucking retard like me can see it.
There was never any need to lie about the Soviets.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Yet he won't be. How do you explain that?
We'll see.
Political tribalism.
Plenty of lies connected to Vietnam, and the USSR's military capacity.
Really? Could you share your source for that?
Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
The Untold History of the United States.
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/109/1093831/the-untold-history-of-the-united-states/9781529102987.html
Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_(book)
Take a look at the Gulf of Tonkin deception.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
Wiki about the so-called "Missile Gap" deception.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap
There's a lot of this sort of thing. I'm not an expert.
Joe McCarthy, during the Soviet Era...
It’s not exculpatory. All I’m saying is Schiff engaged in the activities he accuses of others.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/false-and-misleading-claims-at-impeachment-trial/
Mueller Report on Collusion, Obstruction
Sekulow also made a misleading claim about special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The Mueller report concluded that “[t]he Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion” in a successful attempt to help elect Trump.
Russia did this through two operations: “a social media campaign that favored … Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton,” and “computer-intrusion operations” that allowed Russia to steal and then release emails and documents that were damaging to the Clinton campaign.
The special counsel’s office also investigated whether Trump or his campaign associates and allies coordinated with Russia on any of this illegal activity. Sekulow said that part of the investigation came up “empty.”
Sekulow, Jan. 21: And then we had the invocation of the ghost of the Mueller report. I know something about that report. It came up empty on the issue of collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction. In fact, the Mueller report — to the contrary of what these managers say today — came to the exact opposite conclusions of what they say.
It’s true that the Mueller report did not conclude that Trump committed a crime by either coordinating with the Russians or obstructing justice, but the investigation did not come up “empty” on either obstruction of justice or collusion.
On obstruction of justice, the Mueller report documented 11 “key events” where the president attempted to influence the investigation.
“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” the report said. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”
The report, however, said there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion on Trump’s conduct.
Factoring into his decision not to weigh in on prosecution, Mueller wrote, was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”
Mueller report: Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
The special counsel’s investigation also “did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.” But it presented evidence of “multiple contacts … between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.”
Those contacts included Donald Trump Jr.’s eagerness to accept “very high level and sensitive information” that promised to “incriminate Hillary” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” as laid out in an email Trump Jr. received from a Russian acquaintance. “[I]f it’s what you say I love it,” responded Trump Jr., who days later attended a meeting expecting to obtain the material from a Russian lawyer who “had previously worked for the Russian government and maintained a relationship with that government throughout this period of time,” the Mueller report said.
Among other incidents, Trump Jr. also made direct contact with WikiLeaks’ Twitter account and Trump confidant Roger Stone exchanged Twitter messages with Guccifer 2.0, which the Mueller report describes as one of two “online personas” used by Russian military intelligence to release hacked Clinton campaign emails to media outlets and WikiLeaks.
“In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russia offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away,” the report said. “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/false-and-misleading-claims-at-impeachment-trial/
White House lawyers distorted the facts on the impeachment process and other issues during the Jan. 21 Senate trial:
White House counsel Pat Cipollone falsely suggested Republicans were barred from the closed-door depositions conducted by the House intelligence committee. But members of three committees — both Democrats and Republicans — participated.
Jay Sekulow, President Donald Trump’s attorney, falsely said, “During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses … the right to access evidence and … the right to have counsel present at hearings.” The committee chair invited Trump and his lawyers to participate, but they declined.
Cipollone claimed Rep. Adam Schiff, the House intelligence committee chairman, “manufactured a false version” of the July 25 phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president and “he didn’t tell” the American people “it was a complete fake.” Schiff indicated he was giving “the essence” of Trump’s remarks and about an hour later said it was “at least part in parody.”
Sekulow said the special counsel’s report on Russian interference during the 2016 election found Trump committed “no obstruction.” That’s not what the report said. While the report “does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” it said, citing “multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence.”
In addition, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said his resolution outlining the impeachment trial procedures “tracks closely” with the rules of trials for other presidents. How closely McConnell’s resolution tracks with the procedures used in the past may be a matter of opinion. However, there are some differences between the rules for Trump’s trial and President Bill Clinton’s.
The lawyers and McConnell made their remarks during the opening comments and debate over the rules for the trial of the president.
I have never said anywhere nor even implied that Schiff’s hypocrisy makes his arguments regarding Trump false or flawed, not have I ever used Schiff’s hypocrisy to evade his arguments in impeachment. Actually the opposite is the case. Further my point about Schiff’s hypocrisy was in the context of describing Schiff’s lying mouth, not to defend Trump or impeachment. So your ignorance around the fallacy is only superseded by your ignorance in general.
That’s the convenience of coming into an argument late or otherwise sniping from the sidelines: you can ask questions that were already asked and answered in the vain hope I that I might reiterate them for you, then feign innocence when I do so. Luckily it is all in the database for everyone to see.
There is no evidence Schiff was on the hunt for nude photos of the president.
As was reported in The Atlantic, Schiff was prank-called in April 2017 by Russian entertainers claiming to being a leading Ukrainian politician. One of the callers suggested he had evidence that the Russians had compromising material on the president in the form of nude photos. Schiff, then the ranking member on the Intel committee, asked for a few details, and says the FBI would be willing to review a recording the caller claimed to have, according to the magazine.
A Schiff spokesman told The Atlantic they did not trust the callers: “Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.”
Alerting and invoking law enforcement hardly suggests that Schiff was seeking nude photos for political use.
OK, here's an analogy then, tell me what's wrong with it. The police show up at your door and ask to search your house for evidence of a crime. You refuse them, and send them away because they have no legal warrant. They return later with a proper warrant, but you refuse again, saying that the warrant is invalid because they came first without a warrant.
They didn’t, though. You have to realize Nos is a disinformation agent, everything he says is a lie. Pointless to argue, though, because Trump will be acquitted and it really will be the end of the Republic.
Irrelevant. Immaterial. Beside the point.
Trump has done everything he believes is in his power to do to influence, diminish, belittle, curtail, impede, and/or otherwise stop any and all investigations that he doesn't like.
Everyday facts show this quite nicely. It is irrefutable. The sheer amount of animosity Trump puts on display during public confrontations serves as more than adequate evidence of Trump's attitude regarding two particular investigations. One was all about Russian interference in the 2016 election which found at least four campaign members were regularly consulting known agents of hostile foreign governments(known Russian operatives/lobbyists/agents/advocates/representatives).
At least one of these campaign members bears the Trump namesake.
Kompromat is Russian for compromising material, and in this case it contained nude photos. He wanted it to go not only to the FBI, but also the intel committee and his staff, where it would be undoubtedly leaked.
But my point is that Schiff isn’t only a liar but a dupe, and those who believe him are also dupes.
He also believed in and defended the dodgy dossier, which was actual political dirt payed for by the DNC and sourced from Russian intelligence.
He also misled the public about the FISA warrants both with his intelligence memo and his lying mouth.
As we now know from the IG report the Nunes memo was proven to be largely correct and the Schiff memo riddled with falsities. How can two people look at the same evidence and come with two, drastically different conclusions?
But at the time Schiff and his media crooks panned the Nunes memo as a a joke and a sham, fake, or that it makes no sense.
And now we get to watch as these same dupes, the same media, follow Schiff’s every breathless word as if he was the pied piper.
Say what you want. I’ll still be here defending you from the snakes, even if you lay with them.
Look to see who Fox news is attacking.
Adam Schiff does not always have to be right in order for Trump to be clearly, undeniably, verifiably, and irrefutably guilty of obstruction.
Attack the guy telling the truth about Donald Trump especially if Donald feels hurt by it. A clear and provable behavioural pattern of the Donald himself.
When you step out of your madness I’ll be here for you.
It’s not analogous, is what’s wrong with it.
It's interesting that the memorandum does not rebut any of the facts of the case, and instead consists of complaints about the process. This particular complaint rests on treating precedents as binding. That's bogus because the House has sole power of impeachment - they set their own rules.
A lie.
Did you even bother to glance at the wiki page on the Nunes memo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo
"It makes five main points. First it alleges that the Steele dossier "formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application." The memo asserted that Christopher Steele was paid $160,000 by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.[27] In fact, Perkins Coie, which represented the DNC and Clinton campaign, had no contact with Steele, and never paid him directly. Instead, they paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, $168,000 of which was paid to Orbis by Fusion GPS and used by them to produce the dossier.[28] The DNC and Clinton campaign disclosed the total amount paid to Perkins Coie on campaign finance reports.[29]
The memo also alleged that information about the payment was not disclosed in the initial October 2016 FISA application or subsequent renewals.[27] However, the FBI's application for a FISA warrant did describe, in a footnote, the origins and political background of the dossier,[30] a fact conceded by Nunes and other Republican leaders on February 5, after the memo's release.[31]
Second, the memo alleges that the FISA application relied "extensively" on a Yahoo! News report from September 2016 by Michael Isikoff, which referenced Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow and used information from Steele.[32] It asserts that the article was "derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News." Isikoff has stated that the information he got from Steele was actually information that the FBI already had. He also described Steele as serious and credible.[32]
Third, the memo accuses Steele of being biased against the candidacy of Donald Trump, stating he was "desperate" and "passionate" that Trump would lose. It goes on to say Bruce Ohr knew about this bias and that it was not reflected in the FISA applications.[27][33] Ohr however did not work on counter intelligence matters and had no role in obtaining the FISA warrants on Page.[34]
The memo's fourth point quotes Bill Priestap saying that the corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" in October 2016 during the FISA application. The memo further alleges that Andrew McCabe testified that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) without the Steele dossier information."[35] Other members of the House Intelligence Committee and sources close to the matter have stated that the Nunes memo "misquoted" and "mischaracterized" McCabe's testimony, which was given in private and has not been made public.[36][37]
The memo also confirms that the spark for the FBI investigation into potential collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians was not the Steele dossier, but rather the comments made by Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, who told an Australian diplomat in May 2016 that the Russians possessed "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of hacked emails.[38] That confirmation contradicts earlier claims by some that the investigation had been triggered by the Steele dossier.[39][40] The memo notes that Papadopoulos is mentioned in the Page FISA application, and says "there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos." It also says the FBI's Russia investigation was opened nearly three months before the FISA surveillance application[27] in late July 2016 by Peter Strzok, who is accused of having "a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton."[27][35]
The memo also shows that the FISA warrant on Page was renewed three times. In each instance, the FBI had to show the signing judge that the warrant had merit.[41][42][43][44] News accounts in 2017 indicated that because of the nature of his ties to Russia, Page had been under FBI scrutiny and had already been the subject of a FISA warrant in 2014, at least two years before the Trump campaign.[45][46]
Finally, the memo asserts that former FBI Director James Comey testified to Congress that the Steele dossier was "salacious and unverified." However, Comey's prepared remarks show that he was referring specifically to "some personally sensitive aspects" of the dossier, not the entire dossier.[47]
On December 9, 2019, Michael E. Horowitz, the Inspector General, released his report stating that the FBI found 17 “basic and fundamental” errors and omissions in its applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court), but did not find political bias during the investigation of Trump and Russia, nor did he find evidence that the FBI attempted to place people inside the Trump campaign or report on the Trump campaign.[107][108][109][110][111] However, in a Senate hearing, Horowitz stated he could not rule out political bias as a possible motivation.[112] The report found that the FBI had a legal "authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication" to ask for court approval to begin surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser."
My bolds.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/13/vindication-nunes-memo/
"Horowitz’s report on the origins of the Russia investigation includes extensive new information about improprieties in Page’s surveillance, while finding the Russia probe as a whole was legitimate and well-founded."
Have you read the Horowitz report?
Wikipedia:
Horowitz Report
Wikipedia
Horowitz Report
Wikipedia
Horowitz Report
Your bolds are fake news—lies—because that phrase applies to Crossfire Hurricane, not the surveillance of carter page. But you would have known that had you read the report instead of Wikipedia.
You're letting your emotions affect your reading comprehension again.
"Sufficient factual predication to ask for a court order."
"The decision to seek to use this highly intrusive
invest igative technique was known and approved at
multiple levels of the Department, including by then
DAG Yates for the initial FISA application and first
renewal, and by t hen Acting Attorney General Boente
and then DAG Rosenstein for the second and third
renewals, respectively. However, as we explain later,
the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to inform
Department officials of significant information that was
available to the team at the time that the FISA
applications were drafted and fi led. Much of that
informat ion was inconsistent with, or undercut, the
assertions contained in the FISA applications that were
used to support probable cause and, in some instances,
resulted in inaccurate information being included in the
applications. [b]While we do not speculate whether
Department officials would have authorized the FBI to
seek to use FISA authority had they been made aware
of all releva nt information[/b], it was clearly the
responsibility of Crossfire Hurricane team members to
advise them of such critical information so that they
could make a fu lly informed decision."
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf
Nothing about Ohr.
Nothing about Isikoff.
(The source of the bolded quote.)
"Horowitz found that the FBI had a legal “authorized purpose” to ask for court approval to begin surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser.
But he also found a total of 17 “basic and fundamental” errors and omissions in its applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) that made the case appear stronger than it was."
During Senate testimony after the report's release, Horowitz attributed the warrant problems to "gross incompetence and negligence" rather than intentional malfeasance or political bias,[3] and stated: "The activities we found don’t vindicate anyone who touched this. The actions of FBI agents were not up to the standards of the FBI."[104] As a result of the findings, Horowitz announced a broader review of the FBI's FISA warrant application process, to study whether problems with the process are systemic.[101]
The report debunked claims, promoted by Trump and his allies, that the Steele dossier had prompted the opening of the Russia investigation, and reiterated that the FBI investigation had in fact started in late July 2016, based on a tip from Australian officials regarding Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.[2] The report also refuted Trump's assertions that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had initiated the investigation; that decision was made by William Priestap, the assistant FBI director for the Counterintelligence Division.[105] The report criticized the FBI, however, for relying on information from the Steele dossier even though one of Steele's sources told the agency that his statements had been mischaracterized or exaggerated.[4][2] The OIG investigation found no support for Trump's claims that President Obama had ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower.[2] The OIG also found no support for Trump's claims that the FBI had implanted a "spy" within his 2016 campaign,[2] finding "no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI's decision" to use informants (known within the FBI as "confidential human sources" or "undercover employees") "to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."[105]
You appear to spend the vast majority of your time here in the thankless job of defending Trump.
On the other hand, he's probably the only one of us making any money. :cry:
TRUMP lawyer PAT CIPOLLONE: “Why would you lock everybody out of it from the president’s side? … It’s evidence they themselves don’t believe in the facts of their case.”
THE FACTS: Trump wasn’t locked out. He rejected an invitation from the House Judiciary Committee to participate in the hearings that ultimately produced the articles of impeachment.
CIPOLLONE: Democrats “hid evidence” from the Senate impeachment trial in their opening arguments.
THE FACTS: This is an iffy definition of hiding something. Cipollone spoke about the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s president, which is at the heart of the impeachment case, and cited certain passages that Democrats did not play up or mention in their prosecution argument.
The rough transcript of that conversation is a matter of public record, having been released by the White House, and is far from hidden.
https://waow.com/2020/01/25/ap-fact-check-trumps-impeachment-defense-and-the-facts/
More to follow.
THE FACTS: This is an odd reading of constitutional history. Removing a duly elected president is exactly the goal of the Constitution’s impeachment clause, not a perversion of it.
https://apnews.com/edc86daef497ec66e87f86ffe5d5b1e4
THE FACTS: That’s false. Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, refused to testify. Democrats wanted him to. But they chose not to pursue a subpoena and risk an extended struggle in court. Bolton has signaled his willingness to testify at the Senate trial if he’s subpoenaed.
THE FACTS: Egregious conduct, yes. But impeachment does not require a crime to have been commited.
The Constitution’s framers had a vigorous and well-documented debate over just that point.
THE FACTS: He omits key context on what Sondland told House investigators.
As one of the officials most deeply involved in trying to get Ukraine to do Trump’s bidding, Sondland testified that there was indeed a quid pro quo in the matter and “everyone was in the loop.” Specifically, Sondland said it was understood that Ukraine’s new president would only get a meeting with Trump in the Oval Office if he publicly pledged to investigate the Bidens and the Democrats.
“Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ Sondland asked in his statement to the House Intelligence Committee. ”As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”
Moreover, on the more serious matter of withholding military aid to Ukraine unless the country investigated Democrats, Sondland testified that a this-for-that explanation was the only one that made sense to him.
Testimony from other officials shored up the picture of a president and his associates systematically trying to get Ukraine to do what Trump wanted during a period when the military assistance approved by Congress was put on hold without explanation.
___
TRUMP: “House Democrats ran a fundamentally flawed and illegitimate process that denied the President every basic right, including the right to have counsel present, the right to cross-examine witnesses.” — response to impeachment charges Saturday.
TRUMP: “‘We demand fairness’ shouts Pelosi and the Do Nothing Democrats, yet the Dems in the House wouldn’t let us have 1 witness, no lawyers or even ask questions.” — tweet on Jan. 13, referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
THE FACTS: Not true. The House Judiciary Committee, which produced the articles of impeachment, invited Trump or his legal team to come. He declined.
Absent White House representation, the hearings proceeded as things in Congress routinely do: Time is split between Democratic and Republican lawmakers to ask questions and engage in the debate. Lawyers for Democrats and Republicans on the committee presented the case for and against the impeachment articles and members questioned witnesses, among them an academic called forward by Republicans.
The first round of hearings was by the House Intelligence Committee and resembled the investigative phase of criminal cases, conducted without the participation of the subject of the investigation. Trump cried foul then at the lack of representation, then rejected representation when the next committee offered it.
Trump Has Made 15,413 False or Misleading Statements Over 1,055 Days
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/16/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/
?? ??.
He seems a bit amateurish for a Russian asset. More like a leisured incel sitting on a trust fund.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/trump-impeachment-trial-live-coverage-president-s-defense-begins-n1122651/ncrd1122861#liveBlogHeader
Fact check: Trump lawyer says Ukraine didn't know about hold on aid
Two claims from Purpura on what and when Ukraine knew about the hold on Congress-approved security assistance — and the Trump administration's apparent reluctance set a date for a White House meeting — are inaccurate, according to publicly available evidence.
"The transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. The paused security assistance funds aren't even mentioned on the call," Purpura said.
Though it was not explicit, Trump did appear to tie the award of aid to Ukraine to Zelenskiy's willingness to cooperating with Trump on investigations he desired into the Bidens and the 2016 election, according to the White House's five-page description of the call, which notes that it is not an exact transcript as Trump and his attorneys have claimed.
Additionally, text messages from former special U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker reveal that top aides to Ukraine's president were aware of those conditions before the call took place.
“heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington,” Volker texted an aide to the Ukrainian president hours before Trump and the Ukrainian president spoke via phone.
"President Zelenskiy and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know — did not even know — the security assistance was paused until the end of August, over a month after the July 25 call," Purpura continued.
While some witnesses said they were not sure when Ukraine first knew of a hold on their military aid, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper testified that the Ukrainians knew of an issue with the assistance on July 25 and were asking questions about it to U.S. counterparts. A former foreign minister in Ukraine also told The New York Times that Ukraine knew of the aid freeze in July.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/world/europe/ukraine-impeachment-military-aid.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/nov-20-impeachment-hearings-live-updates-n1086301/ncrd1087646#liveBlogHeader
Well done.
Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin took aim at House impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries for claiming Trump had a "blanket defiance" to the House's impeachment inquiry that had no legal justification.
Philbin disputed the claim and pointed to an October 18 letter in which the White House said it would not comply with subpoenas issued by House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff — who is also the lead impeachment manager — for documents.
The reason the White House cited for not complying with the subpoenas was that the House had not yet formally launched the impeachment inquiry and therefore was "not authorized to conduct any such inquiry or to subpoena information in furtherance of it."
Fact check: The separation of powers doctrine indicates that even when it's not conducting an impeachment inquiry, Congress has the constitutional power to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Trump has stonewalled Congress at every turn, however, by falsely arguing that he is "absolutely immune" from not just prosecution, but any investigation whatsoever while he's in office.
He also issued a sweeping order directing all executive branch officials and six government agencies not to comply with any requests for documents or witness testimony even after the House formally opened its impeachment inquiry.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-opening-arguments-impeachment-trial-schedule-live-updates-2020-1#deputy-white-house-counsel-patrick-philbin-falsely-claims-trump-had-a-legal-basis-for-refusing-to-comply-with-congressional-subpoenas-2
Although the White House did not flatly assert executive privilege as the reason, it came extremely close, Kitrosser said.
“They are probably trying to have it both ways and trying to avoid the legal and political ramifications of claiming executive privilege while getting the advantage of it,” she said.
Politically, an executive privilege claim could cross a line leading to more support for impeachment. Legally it’s more or less the last attempt a president could make to prevent disclosure of evidence or testimony.
“Democrats are just trying to force anyone, with any remote connection to this issue, to testify without administration lawyers present, and that puts national security at risk and also creates risks for potential witnesses who may unknowingly divulge privileged or classified information,” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said.
Democrats say there’s no basis for ignoring their subpoenas. In a letter Sunday to Blair’s attorney, the three committee chairs leading the impeachment probe said the claims have “no merit.”
“Instead, it is the latest in a long line of baseless procedural challenges to the House of Representatives’ authority to fulfill one of its most solemn responsibilities under the Constitution,” they wrote.
Even if Trump were to overtly claim executive privilege, some experts say there’s no constitutional provision that it would apply to impeachment.
“No communication involving the White House is subject to absolute immunity,” said David Driesen, a Syracuse University law professor who has studied the issue. “No person is immunized from appearing by any claim of privilege known to the law.”
This latest resistance to House subpoenas and testimony fits into the broader White House claim that the entire process is fundamentally unfair. Trump’s lawyers have also made immunity claims in seeking to keep his tax records secret, but a New York court ruled Monday they can be released in a case likely to be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
https://apnews.com/48c57b063e3a4da699cd9a8ee8dbfe91
I’m retired. Money is already earned, friend. Unfortunately that’s something they won’t teach you in certain circles. :wink:
In a recent letter to Democratic leaders, presidential counsel Pat Cipollone said Trump should have the kinds of due process rights typically found in court trials: the right to question witnesses, the right to see evidence, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and so forth. That position has been echoed by numerous Republican lawmakers.
“The president cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the executive branch from their work on behalf of the American people,” Cipollone wrote. “The president has a country to lead.”
However, legal experts note that the Constitution and even prior impeachment proceedings do not lay out a roadmap for those kinds of rights in the initial House inquiry. Instead, that would come in a trial before the Senate, if it gets that far.
“The Constitution says virtually nothing about the procedures the House and Senate are to employ in carrying out their respective impeachment roles,” wrote Georgia State University law professor Neil Kinkopf in recent article.“Indeed, the Constitution is completely silent regarding the procedures in the House.”
Driesen said all of the efforts by the White House to slow down or halt the impeachment inquiry are just that — none have a basis in the law.
“Trump defies the Constitution and tries to distract from that fact by making baseless attacks. This is a good example,” Driesen said.
https://apnews.com/48c57b063e3a4da699cd9a8ee8dbfe91
Instead of vague opining, how about presenting us with a fact?
Did you not watch the defense’s case?
I caught the first lie ("Republicans were locked out...") on the way to work. Noted above in the fact check. I'll catch the rest over the next few days.
Was there something in the defense's case you found especially compelling?
Unfortunately that “fact check” completely mischaracterized Philbin’s argument and left most if it out.
I haven't found a single compelling quote. Not even on foxnews.com.
Do you find anything compelling in the below?
Donald Trump's lawyers defended the president against articles of impeachment Saturday morning arguing it’s the Democrats trying to interfere in elections by seeking to remove Trump from the 2020 ballot for doing “absolutely nothing wrong.”
“For all their talk about election interference, they're here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history,” Cipollone said in his opening remarks to the Senate. “And we can't allow that to happen."
“They're asking you to do something that no Senate has ever done and they're asking you to do it with no evidence. And that's wrong,” Cipollone said.
Sekulow noted the administration has placed holds on aid to a number of countries, including Afghanistan, Lebanon, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The U.S. withheld $300 million in military aid to Pakistan because it wasn't meeting counter-terrorism obligation, he said.
"You didn't hear about any of that from my Democratic colleagues, the House managers," Sekulow charged.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/president-trumps-legal-team-launches-first-day-of-impeachment-defense
Unsupported broadbush opining. Facts, please.
Mike Purpura, deputy counsel to the president, outlined six key facts pertinent to the case. He said each of these facts alone is “enough to sink the Democrats case.”
The transcript (which the White House said is not verbatim) shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything.
Ukrainians have said there was no quid pro quo.
Ukraine did not know security assistance was paused until a month after the 25 July call.
No Ukrainian investigation into Joe Biden took place.
Ukraine received assistance without such an investigation.
Trump has been a bigger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor, Barack Obama.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/jan/25/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-news-today-senate-white-house-defense-live?page=with:block-5e2c60738f08a6950eb48e2e#block-5e2c60738f08a6950eb48e2e
You should watch the entirety of the arguments. But you admitted you haven’t.
Same thing they've been claiming all along.
Not yet.
If you have a compelling fact to present, I'm all ears. I'm a huge fan of facts and my mind can be changed.
Then let me know when you do and we could discuss it. Until then...
None of which is mutually exclusive to demands for quid pro quo. In other words, all of the above could be true and Trump could have engaged in placing the Ukrainian government under duress...
I doubt I'll hear anything Fox News hasn't presented as decimating the Democrats' case.
In the meantime feel free to address the quotes cited above, if you find them compelling.
If you don't find them compelling, we're in agreement.
When you want to try mustering you’re own thoughts on the arguments presented I’ll be here.
This isn't about mustering thoughts. That's called spin.
This is about facts.
That may be accurate. Happily, all but the last of Purpura's six "facts" are false or misleading.
Number six, I'm not sure about.
Many facts were presented. Do you dispute any of them?
Facts cannot be false.
Of course.
Which fact would you like to start with?
I'll start with Purpura's six "facts":
The transcript (which the White House said is not verbatim) shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. (Misleading, especially in the context of ensuing testimony. Noted in my fact check above.)
Ukrainians have said there was no quid pro quo.(Maybe true, but they have every motivation to lie about this. For reasons I would assume are obvious: Self-preservation, in a word.)
Ukraine did not know security assistance was paused until a month after the 25 July call. (False. See Fact Check above.)
No Ukrainian investigation into Joe Biden took place.(Because of the whistleblower. Trump and Co. got caught.)
Ukraine received assistance without such an investigation.(Because of the whistleblower. Trump and Co. got caught.)
Trump has been a bigger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor, Barack Obama.(Irrelevant.)
Here's a fact:
Immediately after winning the republican nomination, someone in the Trump campaign changed the republican national platform to no longer arm the rebels at the time(fighting against Russian influence in Ukraine).
Conveniently forgotten in today's narrative.
Obama supported anti-Russian rebels as a means to deliberately stop the spread of Russian controlled territory in the area. Trump... well look what's happened since Trump has been in office.
Then where in the transcript did he condition security assistance or a meeting on anything? Testimony from the only people who spoke to Trump proves the opposite.
Presumption and mind-reading. Both the president’s and Ukrainian’s words tell the opposite story.
Testimony from Volker, Morrison, Kent and Taylor say otherwise. All four testified that it was only after an August 29th Politico article (which was forwarded by the Ukrainians with their concerns) that they knew about it. During July there was numerous meetings between Ukrainian and American officials, and during exactly zero of those meetings was the topic of frozen aid brought up. The fact check isn’t a fact check at all. You’re being misled.
Speculation and conspiracy theorizing.
Except in the context of the House’s claims to the opposite, it is completely relevant.
So much for facts.
I'm not going to try to convince you. See my fact check, above. Make up your own mind.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
Again, I won't try to convince you.
Trump is a well-documented liar. You don't seem to care. That's on you. Ukraine had every motivation to lie and no motivation to tell the truth.
History is the tale of politicians telling lies.
Because your claims are unconvincing.
Reference please.
So much for facts.
Rather, psychology 101.
The positive claims and the House's claims to the contrary are both irrelevant.
Purpura‘s arguments lay it all out, and includes videos of each of those men saying so. But you would have known that had you watched it.
Spin and nonsense 101.
I can see I've brought a fact to a feeling fight.
Enjoy your feelings about Trump. But maybe do some research into Trump's personality and history.
Getting caught has the power to change behavior. Basic psychology. Obvious to anyone who isn't blindy in support of Trump. Especially considering his well-documented history of false and misleading statements.
You’re being misled to believe piffle, friend. Go watch the arguments and try coming to your own conclusions.
So-and-so say it's so. So-and-so say it's not. So it's arguable. But you've made up your mind. Because you're a fanatic and have an emotional weakness for Trump. You're infatuated, in a word.
Unsupported and vague opining. Emotional content without a factual support.
Who says it’s not? Because they address that as well. Of course you’d have known this had you watched the arguments.
What do you have to say about Trump's well-documented history of false and misleading statements? Do you trust Trump?
It's above, in my fact check.
Your fact check is wrong.
Vague, unsupported opining.
You are unable to even name the persons who said otherwise. Give it a shot.
If you had read my fact check, above, you would know. Go ahead and give it a read.
I already did, hence my rebuttal. I just want to see if you know your own “fact checks”.
Too vague to be considered a rebuttal. Your rebuttal doesn't address the specific facts in my fact check. To continue the discussion, please address the specific facts in my fact check.
Also: Again: What do you have to say about Trump's well-documented history of false and misleading statements? Do you trust Trump?
You don’t even know your own “fact checks”. Sorry, pal, but this isn’t going to work.
We have concerted efforts and attempts to fulfill Constitutional obligations by members of the House Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. The House found that the defense aimed to thwart ongoing investigations into presidential behaviours that piqued attentive concern.
This is a behavioural pattern. Why on earth is the president so adamant about _________?
The Russian invetsigation(in Comeys mind). The Ukrainian investigation into the Bidens being directly linked by virtue of simultaneuosly discussing the two in terms of "doing what's best", or "doing what's right", when both amount to doing what the president wants(in Bolton's mind) in return for releasing the previously appropriated but subsequently withheld funds? Why else are those two disparate subject matters entwined?
Bolton could not make sense of it. Trump hired outside council regarding it.
Questionable behaviours. More than one white house staff and/or former appointee will readily verify this. Comey was the first to be flabbergasted. He's not alone.
This serves as more than adequate warrant for further pursuing the investigation There were people ordered to not testify. The refusal to testify was part of the white house narrative. It was a broad-based discussion.
Bolton was one.
This witness has already publicly expressed his willingness to publicly testify regarding the Ukrainian matters. Much is already public.
The first article is a shiny object.
One can be completely innocent of misappropriation of funds and guilty of obstructing the investigation.
The sheer amount of available evidence to prove that Trump is guilty of obstruction includes a well documented pattern of his behaviour. That is a lifelong pattern to put an end to anything he does not like... especially if it is about him... or effects/affects him... or he perceives the situation as such...
K. Have a good one.
Right. He's been liar and a bully for a long, long time.
Never knew Biden was still in government. The investigation into the Bidens is already complete.
It's a distraction. A shiny object.
Obstruction.
They're asking us to accept that Donald J. Trump is some kind of anti-corruption crusader. Laughable.
Unless the corruption involves an investigation he does not agree with. Then... he does everything in his power to thwart, corrupt, belittle, devalue, dismiss, and/or otherwise negatively influence those particular investigations. He has even asked those in charge to make them go away.
The slogan "drain the swamp" convinces only those who do not consider all the relevant facts brought into evidence.
Ray Charles could see that.
If that does not count nothing will.
I see, it's a matter of "national security". I guess the president's allowed to do anything when national security is at risk.
As usual. That's how Palpatine rebranded the Republic the First Galactic Empire.
That's an interesting way to frame it considering Bolton's concerns were that president Trump's behaviour were exactly that(putting national security at risk).
A misleading statement.
More accurately put: "As soon as the hold on military aid was made public via the Politico article, the Ukrainians asked about it."
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/472780-former-ukraine-official-says-country-knew-of-military-aid-freeze-in
A former deputy foreign minister said in a new interview that Ukraine was aware of a U.S. freeze in military aid as early as July, marking the first public acknowledgement from an official in Kyiv that the country knew about President Trump’s move to withhold the assistance.
“We had this information. It was definitely mentioned there were some issues,” Olena Zerkal told The New York Times in a report published Tuesday.
House investigators are probing allegations that Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid in an effort to persuade Ukraine to announce politically beneficial investigations. Trump and Republican lawmakers have questioned the accusations, claiming that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky couldn’t have felt pressured because he wasn’t aware of a freeze in security aid.
Zerkal’s account is matched by Laura Cooper, a U.S. deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia and Ukraine who testified before the House Intelligence Committee in November. In her testimony, Cooper said that her staff received emails on July 25 in which the State Department said the Ukrainian Embassy and House Foreign Affairs Committee were “asking about security assistance.”
July 25 is the same day that Trump asked Zelensky to do him a "favor" and investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, who is running for president, and a conspiracy theory related to the 2016 election.
Zerkal told the Times that she became aware of the hold in military aid on July 30 after reading a diplomatic cable from Ukrainian officials in Washington. The cable described the freeze on aid and asked for a meeting with a senior aide to Zelensky to address it. Zerkal said she could not confirm the exact date of when the cable was sent.
She noted that the Ukrainian presidential administration was also a recipient of the message.
She also added that Zelensky's administration tried to prevent any potentially harmful information from surfacing as the impeachment inquiry intensified. Zerkal told the Times that the Ukrainian government blocked her from taking a trip to Washington in October out of concern that she might discuss issues related to the impeachment hearings.
“They worried about this,” she said. “They said, ‘This is not the time for you to travel to D.C.’”
Zerkal resigned from her position last week in a protest against Ukraine's back channel diplomacy with the Trump administration and Russia, the Times reported.
Her account — as well as Cooper's — indicates that senior Ukrainian officials were aware of a hold in military aid as some of Trump's aides pushed Zelensky's administration to make a public announcement about investigations into Trump's political rivals.
Zelensky has insisted that he faced no pressure from Trump in his talks with the White House this summer. He told Time magazine on Monday that he never talked to the president "from the position of quid pro quo.”
But he also made critical remarks about the freeze in aid, stating, “We’re at war."
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.
“We had this information. It was definitely mentioned there were some issues,” Olena Zerkal told The New York Times in a report published Tuesday.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/472780-former-ukraine-official-says-country-knew-of-military-aid-freeze-in
For Republicans, muddy waters are a perfect excuse to shut the whole thing down.
Trump and GOP killed an energy anti-corruption rule for no good reason, advocates say
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/14/trump-and-gop-killed-energy-corruption-rule-for-no-good-reason-advocates-say.html
---------------------------------
[Trump has] been hunting for ways to cripple the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.In 2012, for instance, he gave an extended CNBC interview ranting that the FCPA is a “horrible law” and that “the world is laughing at us” for enforcing it.
The FCPA, passed after Watergate, was a trailblazing law. It said that bribes were illegal not only when paid to U.S. officials, but also when paid to foreign ones. That is, people or entities that operate in the United States (whether or not they’re American) can be held criminally liable here if they grease palms in, say, China.
“Every other country goes into these places, and they do what they have to do,” he complained. If American companies don’t offer bribes, too, he said, “you’ll do business nowhere.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-says-he-hates-corruption-but-he-wants-to-make-bribery-easier-worldwide/2020/01/20/d6d6a652-3bcd-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html
------------------------------------
Since Trump's inauguration, the federal government has actually rolled back rules aimed at preventing bribery and other corrupt practices.
So they point to two decisions made early on after Trump took office that they say really set the tone. The Securities and Exchange Commission had issued a rule that would've required oil and gas companies to disclose any payments they made to governments around the world. The rule was really aimed at preventing bribery, which is an issue for oil and gas companies who may be working in countries where oversight isn't that tight. But big oil companies were not a fan of this regulation, and Trump signed a law rescinding the rule. He argued that these rules were burdensome and might hurt businesses.
After that rule was rescinded, the Trump administration followed that up by pulling the U.S. out of this international effort to set a global standard for transparency in oil and gas resource management. This is known as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.
This is really the place where there has been a lot of criticism for Trump from these advocates. They argue that Trump's decision to not divest from his own businesses and put them in a blind trust has sent a message to countries that they don't have to worry about these corruption issues or these conflicts. They also say that Trump has mostly spoken out against corruption when it comes to adversaries like Venezuela or political adversaries and not with countries that have serious corruption issues, like Russia or Saudi Arabia.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/768373873/a-look-at-president-trumps-anti-corruption-record
----------------------------------------------------
Firing of Marie Yovanovitch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Yovanovitch#Anti-corruption_work_and_other_activities
Yovanovitch was respected within the national security community for her efforts to encourage Ukraine to tackle corruption,[27] and during her tenure had sought to strengthen the Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Bureau, which had been created to bolster efforts to fight corruption in Ukraine; these efforts earned Yovanovitch some enemies within the country.[28] In a March 2019 speech to the Ukraine Crisis Media Center,Yovanovitch said that the Ukrainian government was not making sufficient progress to combat corruption, saying: "It is increasingly clear that Ukraine's once-in-a-generation opportunity for change has not yet resulted in the anti-corruption or rule of law reforms that Ukrainians expect or deserve."[29] On April 1, 2019 Yovanovitch spoke at an anti-corruption conference where she thanked Ukrainians for their courage and commitment to end corruption.[30]
In a letter, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said continuing the inquiry without a vote would render the process "devoid of any merit or legitimacy."
While the House voted to launch a formal impeachment inquiry in the case of both Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, Democrats say the Constitution does not require any such vote to conduct an inquiry. Furthermore, recent changes to subpoena powers mean the Democratic-majority House committees leading the inquiry already have that tool at their disposal.
Location of the hearings
Rep. Jim Jordan criticized the secretive nature of the hearings, telling Fox News's Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith that "it's all being done in the basement of the Capitol where no one in the country can see."
The hearings are taking place in the SCIF, a secure space on Capitol Hill often used for classified briefings, which is located in the basement of the Congressional Visitor's Center. The SCIF is where the House Intelligence Committee — which is leading the impeachment investigation — conducts its work. It's the same space where the Republican-led Intelligence Committee conducted interviews for the Russia investigation in the last Congress.
Although normally committee hearings must be open, members can vote to close the hearing under specific circumstances. According to House rules, a hearing should be closed if the "disclosure" of the witnesses would defame or incriminate someone, endanger national security, compromise sensitive law enforcement info, or violate a House rule.
Investigations into Nixon and Clinton also both featured closed door depositions before public hearings. Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has said the committees will hold public hearings after the initial round of closed-door interviews.
Schiff told reporters it was important the hearings were closed so as to prevent witnesses from overhearing and influencing each others' testimony, similar to the rationale used in criminal investigations.
Selective leaks
President Trump has also criticized the Democrats' impeachment hearings for "selective leaks," writing on Twitter that they were "allowing no transparency."
It's not true that there has been "no transparency." The names of scheduled and subpoenaed witnesses are public. Additionally, the opening statements of several witnesses have been made available after their testimony.
Schiff has said he plans to release transcripts but has not specified when.
However, it is true that some information has been leaked, but both Republicans and Democrats have a long history of leaking information when convenient, as well as ridiculing leakers when the info is inconvenient. And some of the leaks, such as opening statements, have come from the witnesses themselves, including one that was issued as a press release.
Barring lawyers
On Fox, Jordan claimed, "In the interviews, no White House lawyers can be there, no agency lawyers can be there."
It's true that White House lawyers are not participating, but barring them is not surprising nor unusual for hearings of this nature.
To justify his decision, Schiff has said he is conducting these preliminary hearings like grand jury testimony. And Republicans will have their chance to allow White House lawyers to participate should the impeachment inquiry go to trial in the Senate.
However, to Jordan's point, for the closed-door sessions during the Nixon impeachment investigation, the President's lawyer was allowed to participate and cross-examine witnesses.
Hearing procedure
On October 16, McCarthy accused the Democrats of preventing Republicans from cross-examining witnesses during these hearings.
Schiff said this is inaccurate, and that he has been conscientious about "giving the GOP members every opportunity to ask questions."
McCarthy's fellow Republican Rep. Mark Meadows told The Washington Post that each side alternates asking questions in set time blocks and that there has been no limit provided for the number of questions each side can ask the witnesses.
Normal procedure dictates that the chair of the committee gets the first statement, then the ranking member or another member of the minority, followed by the witnesses opening statement.
Thus far, staff attorneys for both parties have led the majority of the questioning, with members adding in their own questions, too. Lawmakers and aides have told CNN the Democrats and Republicans have traded off hourlong and 45-minute rounds until all of their questions have been exhausted, meaning both sides have equal time.
Republicans calling witnesses
Jordan told Fox News the Republicans "can't get the witnesses we want to call."
This is because the House Republicans are in the minority and as such, they do not have subpoena power.
In both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, language in the resolution granted the minority party this power, but with a caveat: subpoenas were voted upon by the committee, which meant the majority, in theory, had the power to block subpoenas proposed by the minority.
Even in the Clinton investigation, witnesses for the defense were not called until several weeks of hearings had already been completed.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/politics/impeachment-republican-complaints-fact-check/index.html
I wonder how Republicans will justify not calling witnesses now.
I can't get to the article. Would you be willing to paste it here?
Here's an article from the Hill on Bolton's book:
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/480014-bolton-book-alleges-trump-tied-ukraine-aid-freeze-to-biden
[i]WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.
The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.
Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.
Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair. The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.[/i]
The NYT publishes rumor as written by a go-to journalist for the DNC. Consider me shocked.
Be careful. They say this is based on multiple sources, and Bolton's attorney has essentially acknowledged it.
As I often say when debating Christians: faith is an obstacle to truth.
No wagers from me. What I would question is the editorializing and lack of direct quotes of the manuscript itself. It takes faith to trust in a 3rd-hand account of someone’s book.
I love when you guys pat each other on the back. Very cute.
No props for Relativist? He’s the only one making coherent arguments. If you need someone to copy and paste articles you can find that on Twitter.
A lie.
Did you even so much as glance at the articles?
Statement from Bolton's lawyer:
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1221606673447575552/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1221606673447575552&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fpolicy%2Fnational-security%2F480014-bolton-book-alleges-trump-tied-ukraine-aid-freeze-to-biden
Again: We don't need arguments. We need facts. We need documents and witnesses.
But, sure, if you like:
Awesome work, Relativist! Thanks for helping us show Nosferatu what a toady-hoodwinkee [sic] he is!
:party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap:
:party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap:
Also, thanks for pasting the article.
Yep.
A weeping woman in the shadow of the cross of the crucified Trump.
:smile: I've been learning a lot.
"I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. [followed by repetitions of the Republican defense]"
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221663763138588672?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
If he wasn't the least credible human being on the face of the earth, this tweet would still be pathetic.
Then you must be in support of inviting witnesses - Bolton and Mulvaney, for starters - to testify. Do you support the call for witnesses?
I second that...
Thanks to for taking the time...
The defense is diversion/distraction and amounts to throwing as much shit as possible against the American media wall and running with what sticks...
I do, yes. I don’t trust the GOP and do not understand why the McConnell does not want witnesses. A long senate trial effectively removes Warren, Klobechar and Sanders from the campaign trail.
Good to know.
So I'll ask you again: What do you have to say about Trump's well-documented history of making false and misleading statements?
Do you trust Trump?
I don’t trust politicians as a matter of principle. As long as what Trump says is interesting and hilarious I’m fine with it. So no I do not trust Trump but I do like what he says.
Well. That tells us a lot about you as a person.
What does it tell you about me as a person?
So you find nothing at all objectionable in his habit of making false and misleading statements?
Quite a bit. But I've insulted you enough. I'll keep it to myself.
One thing I will mention: It means you value hilarity over veracity. That's just childish.
I prefer the little falsities and misleading statements to the Big Lie of public relations politics. I like to know what my leaders are thinking, whether true or false.
I’m not insulted at all. I love hearing people try to psychoanalyze others from afar. They insult themselves.
That's laughably understated.
Quoting NOS4A2
Trump is the King of PR. He might as well have studied with Bernays.
You don't seem to know what this word means.
The words people say certainly tell us something about the people who say them. Do you dispute this fact?
I do not dispute that.
Still waiting for an answer to this one...
No, not really. Again I don’t look to politicians for truth. In fact I think it would be idiotic and naive to do so. What I want is leadership and results.
Spoken from a pedestal of privilege. Trump's lies damage lives.
"Even more alarmingly, there is a clear correlation between Trump campaign events and incidents of prejudiced violence....The association between Trump and hate crimes is not limited to the election itself. Another study, based on data collected by the Anti-Defamation League, shows that counties that hosted a Trump campaign rally in 2016 saw hate crime rates more than double compared to similar counties that did not host a rally."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/08/14/trump-and-racism-what-do-the-data-say/
"Brookings states that its staff "represent diverse points of view" and describes itself as non-partisan,[2][15] and various media outlets have alternately described Brookings as "conservative",[16] "centrist"[17] or "liberal".[18] An academic analysis of Congressional records from 1993 to 2002 found that Brookings was referred to by conservative politicians almost as frequently as liberal politicians, earning a score of 53 on a 1–100 scale with 100 representing the most liberal score."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution
Trumps words damage lives. That’s not the first stupid thing I’ve heard today, but pretty close.
The first stupid thing was doubtless the first thing you said this morning. :lol:
Anyway, apparently research from the Brookings Institute isn't enough to temper your Trump-infatuation.
And it's clear you refuse to submit to reason. You reject any fact you don't like, and that without support, or a reference or a reason.
In short, you're simply not worth talking to. But I'll continue to point out your lies, when I see them, when I have time.
I'll leave you with the etymology of "infatuate."
1530s, "turn (something) to foolishness, frustrate by making foolish," from Latin infatuatus, past participle of infatuare "make a fool of," from in- "in" (from PIE root *en "in") + fatuus "foolish" (see fatuous). Specific sense of "inspire (in someone) a foolish passion beyond control of reason" is from 1620s.
And, again:
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
Unknown
A question that has been on my mind the past few months is: when does one become aware that an Orwellian takeover is under way in one's country. It seems to me that we are at a point that American politics is veering towards this trajectory. Perhaps it has been for some time...
Trump’s words are so powerful he can manipulate matter. You believe in sorcery, friend.
I don't think we'll really know if we've taken the Orwellian turn until after the 2020, and if Trump wins, after the 2024 election.
Alarmism hits me out of the blue sometimes. But with all the lies on the left and the right, it's impossible to see through the fog.
Gray matter, absolutely.
The debate will continue after you've addressed the research from the Brookings Institute, referenced above.
What’s to debate? Correlation does not imply causation.
Always a convenient end-stop slogan for the infatuated.
What? No article to tell you how to respond?
No need to respond further. If you're content with your slogan re the rise in hate crimes in the United States, you obviously don't care about the victims of hate crimes.
I know what I need to know about you, Nosferatu.
Just when it's the democrat politicians lying, it's an outrage and shows their twisted ways... :wink:
Hah. To be fair lying in congressional hearings and senate trials is a big deal.
Kenneth Starr of Clinton impeachment fame begins first.
The Brookings Institute cited causal evidence as well. Time for you to irrationally dismiss it. In fact, the Brookings Institute predicted your dismissal:
"However, there is also causal evidence to point to. In experiments, being exposed to Trump’s rhetoric actually increases expressions of prejudice. In a 2017 survey, researchers randomly exposed some respondents to racist comments by the president, such as:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems… They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Other respondents were exposed to a statement by Hillary Clinton condemning prejudiced Trump supporters. Later in the study, the respondents were asked their opinion of various groups, including Mexican people, black people, and young people. Those who had read Trump’s words were more likely to write derogatory things not only about Mexican people, but also about other groups as well. By contrast, those who were exposed to Clinton’s words were less likely to express offensive views towards Muslims. Words do matter, and data prove it.
Unfortunately, there is little reason to expect this research to have much impact on public attitudes..."
http://www.ashford.zone/images/2018/09/followtheracist_v2.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/08/14/trump-and-racism-what-do-the-data-say/
At least the last presidential impeachment had the added bonus of sordid details and sexual deviancy.
I expect politicians to spin facts to make events seem less or more favorable to therm.
But -- Call me naive but I expect politicians to avoid telling factually verifiable lies on a daily basis.
The term “lies” implies an intention to deceive. But given that knowledge of those intentions are completely absent from our knowledge, the use of the term “lies” is itself a mistruth or falsity. Add on that the claim that the “lie” is “factually verifiable”, implying you do know the intention as a matter of fact, we have two mistruths and falsities in your use of the phrase “factually verifiable lies”.
I could be equally as critical of you as Trump’s critics are of his bluster, hyperbole and falsities, but then again I don’t really care to hold others to inhuman standards.
A ridiculous statement.
By this definition, a statement can be a lie only when the liar has confessed to lying.
Ridiculous.
Another test at times is what a reasonable person is expected to know. Stupidity is not a defence either.
As such what Trump thought and said isn't always relevant to the law.
Funny you should mention that, because some Republican Senators have argued that Trump's (stupid) belief in the Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory constitutes justifiable reason for him to ask Ukraine to investigate it.
Perhaps Trump doesn't remember telling Bolton he was tying release of the funds to the Biden investigation, so he's' not lying. That's certainly an example where it doesn't matter.
He does seem to have a poor memory, since he doesn't remember meeting Lev Parnas. It's interesting that he decided to fire Marie Yovanovitch simply after hearing Parnas (the guy he doesn't know) tell him she'd been bad-mouthing him.
That’s a blatant mischaracterization of what I said. But I wouldn’t accuse you of lying for doing so. Sure, you could be lying, acting in bad faith and harbor malicious intent for your sophistry, but for all I know you might have misread or simply do not understand the premise. This is because only you know your motives, only you know whether you are intending to deceive others, and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt rather than resort to pretending that I can be sure of your motives.
“We’re going to have some new stuff coming out every day. That doesn’t really change anything,” said Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).
Odd. It contradicts what Trump's defense has stated explicity. It doesn't change anything for those who already believed Trump was guilty, but it forces Trump defenders to come up with another excuse.
Barrasso, the No. 3 Senate Republican, had a similar response. “I think there’s going to be something new coming out every day,” Barrasso said told reporters. “New information, old information told in a different way, to inflame emotions and influence the outcome.”
Isn't that the job of a prosecutor - to infuence the outcome of a trial?
But in the same press conference, Barrasso seemed to undercut his own argument: “To me the facts of the case remain the same. There is nothing new here to what the House managers have been saying.”
Right - it's consistent with, and adds support for, the charges brought by the House.
And they took a blood example from Bill Clinton.
Clinton was extremely angry about this "encroachment of his personal privacy" that Kenn Star's team did. Actually I liked the fact that the sitting US president's personal privacy was enchroached by the Republicans. Funny.
(Last time around...)
I agree with Clinton on this one. His personal sex life should not have been aired in public. Privacy is important, even for the most public of figures.
The idea that Trump should remember every conversation and every name with everyone he meets is a little silly. Maybe you can remember every name and every conversation you had wit people in 2018, but I wager Trump has had many more conversations and with many more people than you have. Yovanovitch was fired over a year after the Parnas conversation. During this time many allegations against Yovanovitch, whether true or false, were raised by former Ukrainian prosecutors.
Opining with no explanation or support.
Me:
You:
Merriam-Webster:
lie noun (2)
\ ?l? \
Definition of lie (Entry 4 of 6)
1a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
He told a lie to avoid punishment.
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer
the lies we tell ourselves to feel better
historical records containing numerous lies
2 : something that misleads or deceives
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie
Quoting NOS4A2
Parnas isn't just anybody. Still, it's certainly possible Trump doesn't remember meeting him, but it's also possible he is lying about it. In support of this being a lie: he's met Parnas at least 11 times; Parnas had a give and take with Trump about Ukraine (it's wasn't merely a photo op); sinceTrump was asking him questions he had to have some expectation that he could answer; Parna's claim about Yovanovitch was sufficient to induce Trump to say "get rid of her."
In support of it being the truth: Trump's word. I know you don't care about the number of untruths that come out of the guy, but surely you realize that it has an impact on his credibility. This certainly doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying, but Trump looks bad either way. Why would he take a stranger's claim about Yovanovitch seriously?
That’s fair. Trump could definitely be lying. But given that she wasn’t fired for over a year later until after allegations from Ukrainian prosecutors, it appears he didn’t take it serious at all.
He took it seriously enough to react as he did ("get rid of her"). That doesn't seem like a reasonable reaction to a comment made by a casual acquaintance.
I’m not convinced. The context, the joking and laughter about her comments, suggests to me he was largely kidding around and playing it up for those he was having dinner with.
When it suits your lights it's fine to speculate about intention.
Check your bias.
Like I predicted: extended whataboutism.
I’m clearly speculating and not pretending otherwise.
Your speculation is modeled on a biased framework.
It’s a shame I don’t respect your opinions. I suspect them.
factcheck.org
President Donald Trump once again twisted the facts to claim that Joe Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold “billions of dollars to Ukraine” unless it removed the prosecutor general who “was prosecuting” Biden’s son, Hunter.
“Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing,” Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine’s then-prosecutor general, told Bloomberg News. Lutsenko, who resigned in August, said a corruption investigation into leaders of Ukrainian gas companies concerned a potential money-laundering transaction that had occurred before Hunter Biden joined the board.
Trump said Biden threatened to withhold U.S. assistance to Ukraine unless it fired Shokin, which is true, but then implied without proof that it was done to protect Hunter Biden from prosecution.
But the U.S. was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin.
In February 2016, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde threatened to withhold $40 billion unless Ukraine undertook “a substantial new effort” to fight corruption after the country’s economic minister and his team resigned to protest government corruption. That same month, a “reform-minded deputy prosecutor resigned, complaining that his efforts to address government corruption had been consistently stymied by his own prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,” according to a Jan. 3, 2017, Congressional Research Services report.
Shokin remained in power after Yanukovych’s ouster, but he failed “to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption,” according to testimony John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush, gave in March 2016 to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office,” Herbst testified. “U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place.”
In early 2016, Deputy General Prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko resigned in protest of corruption within Shokin’s office. In a televised statement, Kasko said: “Today, the General Prosecutor’s office is a brake on the reform of criminal justice, a hotbed of corruption, an instrument of political pressure, one of the key obstacles to the arrival of foreign investment in Ukraine.”
In reporting on Kasko’s resignation, Reuters noted that Ukraine’s “failure to tackle endemic corruption” threatened the IMF’s $40 billion aid program for Ukraine. At the time, the IMF put a hold on $1.7 billion in aid that had been due to be released to Ukraine four months earlier.
“After President Poroshenko complained that Shokin was taking too long to clean up corruption even within the PGO itself, he asked for Shokin’s resignation,” the CRS report said. Shokin submitted his resignation in February 2016 and was removed a month later.
However, there is no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation or that his father pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin on his behalf.
In May, Lutsenko, then-Ukraine’s prosecutor general, told Bloomberg News: “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing.”
Lutsenko told Bloomberg that the prosecutor general’s office in 2014 — before Shokin took office — opened a corruption investigation against Zlochevsky and numerous others. He said the probe’s focus was Serghi Kurchenko, who owned a number of gas companies, and a transaction that occurred in November 2013, months before Biden joined Burisma.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/
Snopes.com
"[Joe] Biden was representing the official position of the U.S. government, a position that was also supported by other Western governments and many in Ukraine, who accused Shokin of being soft on corruption.
In a Fox News interview on May 19, Trump claimed [Shokin] the former Ukrainian prosecutor “was after” Joe Biden’s son and that was why the former vice president demanded he be fired. There is no evidence of this."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukraine/
Does a C-SPAN Video Show Joe Biden ‘Confessing to Bribery’?
One example of [whataboutism] was a video clip posted to C-SPAN’s website on Sept. 21, 2019 under the title “Joe Biden Confesses to Bribery.” The video was accompanied by a caption reading “Former Vice President Joe Biden confesses to being in charge of Ukraine for the Obama Administration, and withholding $1 billion in loan guarantees from the USA to force Ukraine to fire prosecutor who was looking into the company that Hunter Biden was receiving $83,000+ PER MONTH from”
The user-created clip fostered a false impression by pairing a misleading caption with an excerpt from a much longer video with no context. (The video carries a statement from C-SPAN noting that “This clip, title, and description were not created by C-SPAN.”)
The video clip was taken from a portion of a talk Biden gave in January 2018 at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting in Washington, D.C., which was held in conjunction with the publication of the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. Biden had co-authored an article for that month’s issue with former White House official Michael Carpenter, titled “How to Stand Up to the Kremlin: Defending Democracy Against Its Enemies.”
In the excerpted portion of the clip, Biden was discussing his efforts on behalf of the Obama administration to pressure Ukraine into to prosecuting corruption and firing Viktor Shokin, an ineffective prosecutor. That effort by Biden has been used by Trump supporters to argue, inaccurately, that Biden single-handedly had Shokin fired because Shokin was investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian group of energy exploration and production companies of which Biden’s son Hunter was a board member.
However, Shokin was not fired for investigating Burisma, but for his failure to pursue corruption investigations — including investigations connected to Burisma.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukraine/
Moreover, among the reasons the U.S. and others sought Shokin’s ouster was his failure to assist with or pursue an investigation of Burisma Holdings’ owner:
Hunter Biden joined [Burisma’s] board in April 2014, two months after U.K. authorities requested information from Ukraine as part of a probe against [Burisma Holdings owner Mykola] Zlochevsky related to money laundering allegations. Zlochevsky had been minister of environmental protection under then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia in February 2014 after mass protests.
After the U.K. request, Ukrainian prosecutors opened their own case, accusing Zlochevsky of embezzling public funds. Burisma and Zlochevsky have denied the allegations.
The case against Zlochevsky and his Burisma Holdings was assigned to Shokin, then a deputy prosecutor. But Shokin and others weren’t pursuing it, according to the internal reports from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office reviewed by Bloomberg.
In a December 2014 letter, U.S. officials warned Ukrainian prosecutors of negative consequences for Ukraine over its failure to assist the U.K., which had seized Zlochevsky’s assets, according to the documents.
Shokin took no action to pursue cases against Zlochevsky throughout 2015, said [Vitaliy] Kasko, who was Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation and helping in asset-recovery investigations. Kasko said he had urged Shokin to pursue the investigations.
“There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko said in an interview. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”
Politifact
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/may/07/viral-image/fact-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/
Key takeaways
• Hunter Biden did hold a directorship for a Ukrainian gas company while his father was vice president. Experts agree that Hunter Biden's acceptance of the position created a conflict of interest for his father.
• Vice President Joe Biden did urge Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, with the threat of withholding U.S. aid. But that was the position of the wider U.S. government, as well as other international institutions.
• We found no evidence to support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind, as the message suggests. It's not even clear that the company was actively under investigation or that a change in prosecutors benefited it.
There’s a strong case that Hunter Biden’s position with the company had nothing to do with Biden’s position on Shokin’s ouster. That’s because Western leaders and institutions were largely united in seeking Shokin’s removal, arguing that he was not pursuing corruption cases aggressively.
For instance, in early 2016, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde said that "it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue" unless corruption prosecutions accelerate.
Steven Pifer is a career foreign service officer who was ambassador to Ukraine under President Bill Clinton and deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs under President George W. Bush. Pifer told PolitiFact that "virtually everyone" he knew in the U.S. government and virtually all non-governmental experts on Ukraine "felt that Shokin was not doing his job and should be fired. As far as I can recall, they all concurred with the vice president telling Poroshenko that the U.S. government would not extend the $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine until Shokin was removed from office."
Trump’s personal lawyer continues: House managers claim Biden story is “debunked”, “discredited”, even though the issue has never been investigated.
Other than quoting people saying it looked bad, what else did she have? What's the damning evidence you're referring to?
OK, you're correct - I do not know what's going on in his mind. I'll rephrase.
Trump makes factually incorrect statements on pretty much a daily basis. I.e., the words coming out of his mouth - or his tweets - do not correspond to reality.
I can think of at least 3 possible explanations. Maybe you have a 4th (or 5th)
1) He is lying
2) He believes what he is saying
3) He is just making stuff up off the top of his head and doesn't think about it afterwards
4) ???
It's possible that it's some combination of the above.
In either case, I think this behavior is unacceptable for any human being - let alone the POTUS. Maybe you're OK with this, and maybe I'm stupid & naive, but I expect better.
No matter what?
Good thing you aren't making any important decisions around here.
:smirk:
I think Trump is guilty.
Professor Dershowitz would surely testify that the founding fathers were very careful about what counted as justificatory ground for congress to impeachment a duly elected president. Mr. Dershowitz would surely agree that the framers of the constitution did decide, after careful debate - much of which Mr. Dershowitz spoke about earlier - to include the ability for Congress to impeach a president under certain conditions.
These conditions are vague, as they are meant to be. However, I think the professor would readily agree that the framers did not intend for the president to be able to invoke executive privilege as a means to impede an impeachment proceeding already in progress.
I'm sure the professor would also readily explicate upon the differences between other president's invoking it and this one.
As if it's not just been done. None of the other presidents invoked it as a means to block testimony into an investigation of their own impeachable behaviour - as determined by congress.
It's the eeriest thing to hear the Trump defense assert that abuse of power is too vague a notion to be impeachable. Mark Levin, on Fox New's Hannity, compared it to pornography - "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." (Thereafter he referred to the House managers as "pornographers.")
To their lights, guilty or not, Trump can't be impeached for abuse of power. In part an attempt to diminish Bolton's first-hand accusations. (They actually mentioned Bolton's name. That was unexpected.)
I accept that. That’s at least fair. But I have to ask, how many truths has he spoken?
Either way, this is the politics of words. Anyone can talk. Any trained actor can read a script or recite a list of facts. But I think we’re done hiring people who can only talk and sing lullabies to their electorate. Those days are over.
Don’t take my word for it.
There was no pressure according to Ukrainian president and other officials.
Begging the question. Unless you can point to some other reason, the mere accusation of Schiff’s that Trump pressured Zelensky is all you have.
If I threaten to punch you in the face if you don't do x. And you call my bluff by doing x and I don't punch you, I still did threaten you. What you do or say about the matter is irrelevant.
Retreat into your equations all you want. You’re assuming Trump pressured Zelensky without being able to prove it. All parties involved say there was no pressure.
"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!"
You just assume that Trump pressured Zelensky. All parties involved say the opposite. So why do you believe Trump pressured Zelensky? Is there any evidence? Or are you question begging?
Quoting NOS4A2
Also, that's the wrong question as I just explained.
That’s false. You’ve begged the question in all of your false analogies. Not only that but the argument that Trump pressured Zelensky is entirely relevant. In fact it’s one of the premises of the House managers.
By the way you’re right I don’t know fallacies, apparently. I didn’t mean begging the question. I meant presumption of guilt.
EDIT: @Hanover, maybe you can shed some more light on this - even though, in the end, legal/criminal standards don't apply to an impeachment proceeding. But let's pretend that those standards will inform Senate members.
Yeah, I imagine they would come out and say: "Yeah sure, the sitting US President Trump, who will likely be President at least for one year if not longer, pressured us".
Trump wouldn't mind that, or what?
Then why is it irrelevant if the argument is central to their entire case?
You presumed guilt here:"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!". Your use of the word “criminal” presumes both a crime has been committed and that Trump has committed it. Both are untrue.
The House’s entire case is premised on their imagination. That’s why it’s falling apart.
What argument? The argument that the Ukrainians didn't feel pressured or that Trump didn't intend to pressure them ? If that is indeed central to their case it simply illustrates their lack of confidence in winning the argument they should win. If they want Trump to be acquitted they should prove that executive privilige extends so far that Trump can withhold money in return for favours.
Quoting NOS4A2
No, I was illustrating a point by making an argument ab adsurdum. If Trump's denials were relevant to ascertain his guilt, as you argue, the same should hold true for criminals. It clearly isn't so his denials are irrelevant and so is your argument.
No, the argument that Trump pressured Zelenski is central to the House manager’s case.Curious, but are you aware of the details of the case at all?
If someone says you robbed a bank but the banks says they were neither robbed and you didn’t rob them, how could that be irrelevant?
I’ll give you a quick rundown because I see some confusion there.
According to the constitution, one can be impeached for committing “treason, bribery, and other high-crimes and misdemeanors”. Of course interpretation of that varies.
There are two “articles of impeachment”, or in other words, Trump is being accused of committing two “high-crimes and misdemeanours” according to the House. The two articles are “Abuse of Power” and “obstruction of Congress”, neither of which are crimes.
Trump allegedly abused his power by pressuring Zelensky to investigate Biden for the purposes of helping him in the 2020 election (this isn’t the exact language they use). Trump’s defense is that there was no pressure, that there was no investigation, that his inquiring into the Bidens had to do with corruption and not for the purpose of political dirt for the 2020 election.
Trump allegedly obstructed congress by denying congressional subpoenas for testimony. Trump’s defense for this is “executive privilege”, that he has the right as president to deny subpoenas for reasons of national security and the separation of powers. These issues are usually settled in the courts. The White House denied subpoenas because the Office of Legal counsel told them to. The office of legal counsel is a group of lawyers at the department of justice (which is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States, and so on).
You conveniently omitted the part where a public announcement was made that you were about to rob a bank.
There's a whole lot of testimony from many witnesses. I won't say eye-witness testimony, but ear-witness testimony, because the trial concerns words. When multiple witnesses say that you did what you claim not to have done, this is evidence that you are lying. Lying is consistent with Trump's past behaviour. Put two and two together, and who do you believe, the witnesses or the liar?
Quoting NOS4A2
Do you understand the meaning of "misdemeanour"? There's a reason why "misdemeanour" is included with "high crimes". That is so that it does not require "high crimes" for an impeachment.
.
It's a level of intent that's preferable to arguing that strict liability or negligence should apply in this case. So it makes sense to try to prove it but it isn't necessary to the case at hand.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's not the he-said-she-said as you imagine it is. The first problem with your analogy is that robbing a bank requires a different level of intent than abuse of power (if I were to liken the latter to malfeasance in office). The second is that someone caught Trump in the act of abusing his power; so it would be a better analogy if you'd written: Someone sees you rob a bank and presses the alarm and you stop robbing it because you hear the alarm. The bank says no money is missing.
Are you suggesting an unsuccessful bank robbery shouldn't be punished?
Quoting NOS4A2
This should be fun.
Quoting NOS4A2
You think "high-crimes and misdemeanours" refers to the things found in a penal code? :rofl:
Carry on...
Quoting NOS4A2
Irrelevant for the reasons I already explained earlier today. Whether a threat works or not or whether the victim felt threatened or not, doesn't mean you can conclude Trump didn't threaten to withhold payment which threat he could only issue based on the power as president, e.g. an abuse of the power vested in his office since threatening people isn't acceptable. Even if it was for the right reasons, he would still be guilty of an abuse of power but possibly excused if it served a higher purpose.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, and?
Obstruction of Congress is a crime.
18 U.S. Code §?1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
And despite the title of article 1, the actual act described by it is a violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as determined by the Government Accountability Office.
Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees Is a crime.
Is that supposed to be a joke? It doesn't matter how they title the articles. What matters is whether or not the acts described in the articles are criminal acts. The acts described in the first article violate the Impoundment Control Act and the acts described in the second article violate 18 U.S. Code §?1505.
I saw you saying “ If they want Trump to be acquitted they should prove that executive privilige extends so far that Trump can withhold money in return for favours.”
Executive privilege pertains to confidential communications. I thought I’d give you a brief rundown because it does not seem you know what you’re talking about here.
No it’s not, because they did not accuse Trump of this crime.
Thanks, there was indeed a mixup there. The translation to Dutch would suggest it's about the scope of powers vested in an office and not narrowly defined as it is under US law.
EDIT: so to rephrase what I think is the main issue here is whether Trump's executive powers extend so far that he could withhold payment or not. If not, it's prima facie an abuse of power and it becomes a question of fact whether he indeed said what is claimed by several witnesses.
So I accuse you of cutting someone's head off but don't accuse you of committing the crime of murder, and so therefore the thing I accuse you of isn't a crime? That's ridiculous.
All you have to do is show me where they mention this crime in their impeachment report. They do mention it, by the way, but not against Trump.
The Impoundment Control Act violation, described in Article 1. Abuse of Power:
The 18 U.S. Code §?1505 violations, described in Article 2. Obstruction of Congress:
Ok, I get it now. My point is the burden of proof is on the House managers (they are like prosecutors) to prove that Trump “pressured” Zelensky.
The president can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. That’s in his power. He is just not allowed to do so for political gain, which is entirely unproven. But they cannot even prove that he was “pressured” to do investigations.
Where did you hide all the witness testimony that he did?
The articles of impeachment for Trump are “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”, not “violating the ICA” and “Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees”. The articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton were actual laws: “perjury” and “obstruction of justice”, as comparison.
I refer you again to these:
The Supreme Court has judged that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" should be interpreted in accordance with what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of another such phrase:
That term was borrowed from the English that has used it since 1386. It describes offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates,threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, etc.
So, no, he can't pressure and threaten whoever he wants.
I don't know if anyone has kept a running count of what percentage of his statements are true vs. untrue. Regardless of what the precise percentage is - Trump has made so many untruthful statements that at this point you have to assume that any statement he makes is untrue until it can be independently verified - preferably by 2 sources.
We must ask ourselves...
What sense does that make?
Then, invoking executive privilege as a means for impeding the impeachment proceedings looking into it.
No way.
Nearly a month before the July call, Ukranian officials expressed concern about the aid holdup and what to do about Giuliani, so a link was suspected by Ukraine.
(source).
Multiple witnesses testified there was an"irregular" channel to Ukraine in which Giuliani played a central role, and Rudy publicly acknowledged he was pursuing information about the Bidens and the DNC server.
Bill Taylor's testimony stated that Ambassador Sondland told Zelensky he needed to announce the investigation. Zelensky resisted, saying he didn't want to be used as a pawn in a US reelection campaign. Zelensky followed Sondland's advice on the phone call. So it was established that Ukraine was concerned about getting the aid, were concerned about Rudy' activities - recognizing it was political, they received confirmation from Sondland, Zelensky told Trump exactly what he wanted to hear, and he even scheduled an interview on CNN. After the scandal broke, Zelensky cancelled the interview and publicly expressed that he was tired of hearing about Burisma - which adds credence to the inference that he had just been telling Trump what he wanted to hear - and the only plausible explanation is that he thought it necessary.
Ukraine has publicly stated they want good relations with both Republicans and Democrats. If they were to acknowledge the pressure, it would hurt them with Republicans. It would also look bad within Ukraine, implying they were letting themselves be used for US political purposes - a bad image for someone elected for being anti-corruption.
You meant White House. I agree, it's an awkward attempt to deny the obvious what Trump has done, but who cares.
The Republicans will not do anything whatever the evidence would be. That's the reality.
So you're interpretation is that Trump was just kidding about dumping Yovanovitch, and it's a mere coincidence that he eventually did so.
This much is clear: there was a smear campaign against her by corrupt former officials in Ukraine, and Trump eventually gave them what they wanted. Further, Parnas was a part of it - at least in terms of being a conduit for the smearing - certainly thru Rudy and at least possibly directly to Trump, even if you aren't convinced of the latter. My point is that you're rationalizing Trump's behavior, and this rationalization depends on assuming a series of coincidences. Examined individually , each coincidence is plausible. But multiple ones are not.
In the US we have the first amendment, which gives us quite a bit of room to speak freely. As a matter of law, unless the threat is a "true threat", that is unless he said it with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death, there is no problem. So yes, he can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. He just cannot threaten someone for money or personal gain (extortion).
Either way there is zero evidence he threatened or pressured anyone. Unless proven or there is sufficient evidence, one cannot say the president threatened or pressured anyone, or that he did so for personal gain.
It wasn't Trump who violated either of those laws. Like I said, the only citation to §1505 in the House Impeachment Report refers to the State Department, not the President. It was the OMB, not the president, that may have violated the Impound Control Act. It has to be the president who commits a high-crime or misdemeanor.
That's my speculation, yes.
Public records and testimony state that there was indeed a smear campaign. According to these same public records and testimony it was started a full year after the Trump/Parnas convo. So I think any sort connection made between the two is specious at best, conspiracy theory at worst.
No, I meant the House, so we disagree. It's obvious what Trump has done, and none of it rises to high crimes and misdemeanors. In fact I think he was doing his job.
The first amendment protection is only afforded to citizens acting in a private capacity. When acting as President that protection doesn't apply and he can be punished for it if the Senate were so inclined. Just as civil servants can be fired or disciplined for speech.
Quoting NOS4A2
What's "high crime or misdemeanor" according to you?
The fact that Parnas was passing along the spurious information about Yovanovotch tells us the smear campaign was already in progress. How else can you explain Parnas' statements about her?
The first amendment protects every citizen, even government officials. The only reason a civil servant can be fired or disciplined is if his speech violates his job duties, as it is with any job.
Something that rises to the level of treason or bribery. "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"
No you're right. I was specifically speaking of the smear campaign involving Giuliani. I imagine smear campaigns against American diplomats is par for the course in Ukraine.
Right. So he cannot just threaten anyone.
Quoting NOS4A2
That's conveniently vague and also wrong. Nothing about that sentence suggests anything about the severity of high crimes and misdemeanors. The penal code contains murder and other crimes and misdemeanours. Are they all as severe as murder?
I gave you a list of British precedents on which the discussion of the founding fathers were based. That discussion is relatively well documented as well.
Who's going to fire him?
"Use of the word “other” to link “high crimes and misdemeanors” with “treason” and “bribery” is arguably indicative of the types and seriousness of conduct encompassed by “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, the word “high” apparently carried with it a restrictive meaning."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses
Trump releases long-awaited Middle-East peace plan
Trump releases long-awaited Middle-East peace plan
Impeachment?
Quoting NOS4A2
The word "high" refers to the fact these are crimes only elected officials can commit or that can only be committed against elected officials instead by or against the common man. Misdemeanours are by definition lesser crimes than felonies. So no, you cannot argue that because of the word "other", misdemeanor now means felony because bribery and treason are felonies.
The lawyer from cornell coming up with that argument is clearly a retard.
The articles accuse that he did. I’ll quote them again:
This article accuses Trump of withholding aid with a corrupt motive, which is a violation of the ICA.
This article accuses Trump of directing others to defy lawful subpoenas, which is a violation of 18 U.S. Code §?1505.
I'm not a lawyer so I'll just defer to Judge Ken Starr.
Deferring to the defense? A stark confession of bias.
I hope they never call you for jury duty.
You wouldn't listen to the defense attorney's arguments because he from the defense? Wow.
A stark confession of bias. Let's hope they never call you for jury duty.
A lie.
Defer is different from listen.
(P.S. A rhetorical question designed to furtively assert what it purports to question can indeed be a lie.)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/gop-senators-meet-discuss-calling-witnesses-trump-trial-n1124691
Why on earth has he remained acting as the member of a jury during an impeachment proceeding when he himself has publicly admitted that he is incapable of executing his official duty... his sworn oath?
:angry:
That is one of the key responsibilities given to the Senate that is part of the separation of powers...
No one else has that. All Senate members are bound by that.
What's good for the chieftain is good for the tribe.
The fact-checking was fun and illuminating, but the inevitability of a breezy acquittal has drawn the old boredom near. A tribalized nothing-burger Presidential impeachment - that's something new for the People to digest.
Meanwhile, the Senate and the Executive are well-situated to steal - or (at worst) overrule the results of - the next election. And possibly the next one. And the next one. And the next one.
Not sure what options are available to him here... Have you looked into it?
...and yet still act as a member of that jury, despite not meeting the qualification.
Unless the tribe dethrones the chieftain.
It is in the best interest of the administration of Ukraine to remain silent on this issue, and the US has no judicial power over potential witnesses. I think NOS4A2 has made at least one unfounded claim about what the administrators of Ukraine have said. Such claims of silent witnesses making statements, would be made in an effort to support Trump in the eye of the American public. But he seems to have no American witnesses to support his apparent lies.
And/or the Dershowitz defense that this does not constitute a "high crime". I've always felt this was the backstop that Republicans could use, but would only use as a last resort. Reaching that point, and having some Republicans admit Trump did the deed- and that it was wrong, was as much as anyone could realistically hope for.
I’ve always said that Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden’s possible corruption and Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election was certainly not impeachable, and even a good thing, required by the office. Had they made this case since the beginning they wouldn’t have to argue for this or that interpretation of the constitution.
Yes, I know you've said that, but you're wrong. In no sense was this "required", and it was clearly wrong because it did real damage to Ukraine. We could debate just how bad the damage, but there's zero evidence it was helpful to anyone in Ukraine or the U.S.. It's also further exposed Trump's low moral character.
Interpretation of the Constitution was inevitable, and always will be in an impeachment. There is no Constitutional bright line, and I think reasonable people could reach different conclusions about that. Not that I think everyone in Congress is being reasonable. The facts have been against Trump from the beginning, and most Republicans have turned a blind eye to that from the beginning.
https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-threat-john-bolton-book-publication-2020-1
The White House sent a letter to John Bolton's attorney saying that his upcoming book "appears to contain significant amounts of classified information," some of which is at the "TOP SECRET level."
I say it’s “required” because the president has a duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. So it is clearly right that he make sure government officials weren’t engaging in corruption.
The only “real damage to Ukraine” is the mess Trump’s accusers have brought upon them. For instance they are weary of investigating Burisma because they do not want to be accused of influencing America politics by helping Trump or damaging Biden. These accusers have effectively damaged US/Ukraine relations.
The facts have been against the accusers from the beginning. The facts favor Trump. No investigations. No public statements. No quid pro quo. Aid was released on time. Ukrainians say they were not pressured and were unaware of pause.
Two unsupported opinions, one Trumpster slogan and one lie.
Faithful execution requires being consistent with due process and equal protection. Criminal investigations are predicated on there being crimes to investigate. There is no evidence of a US law being broken (and only US law is pertinent) and the Ukranian prosecutor said he's aware of no Ukranian laws being broken. This leaves only two possible reasons to investigate: a fishing expedition to see if some crime can be pinned to him, or simply an effort to dig up dirt. Fishing expeditions are unconstitutional and dirt digging is an abuse of power.
Quoting NOS4A2
Had this not come to light, Trump would have induced Zelensky to engage in a corrupt act: announcing a Biden investigation solely to please his benefactor. This would be apparent upon announcement, and it would have been politically damaging for the anti-corruption Zelensky to be exposed. Trump's failure to publicly support Zelensky also hurt his standing in his discussions with Putin.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're parrotting Republican talking points and emulating their ignoring of evidence. I've addressed all those with you before, and yet you repeat your statements without rebutting what I said.
Stopping a crime in progress does not exonerate the criminal. A quid pro quo was established, and Bolton will likely add credence. There were indeed Ukranians who expressed concerns, and it's obvious why Zelensky would refrain from stating it.
So the defense has moved from "no quid pro quo" to "quid pro quo to help his re-election, but that's OK."
:roll:
That’s not the case because there are conflict of interest statutes on the books, violations of which are criminal offences. As I’ve said before, investigations into various Trump administration employees resulted in resignations despite here being no evidence of a crime being committed. To say those investigations were not warranted because there is no evidence laws are being broken is absurd.
They aren’t just Republican talking points, but facts. A quid pro quo was not established and you’re basing your own presumption on someone else’s presumption. It’s not obvious why Zelensky would refrain from stating it because you aren’t a mind reader. So to levy the same accusation, you’re just repeating House talking points.
Schrödinger's quid pro quo... Trump both extorted and did not extort Ukraine for help in the election, and only once we get access to documents and first hand witnesses, it's impossible to anticipate into which state the constitution will collapse into.
Quoting NOS4A2
Executive branch employees are required to agree to a stringent ethics policy, which includes addressing cases where there's merely the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. This gives the government the right to look into these matters without there being probable cause to investigate a crime. The ethics policy is not applicable to asking Ukraine to investigate a non-government employee.
BTW, ethics regulations require all employees to recuse themselves from participating in an official matter if their impartiality would be questioned. This supports my assertion that Trump's action looks wrong on its face.
Quoting NOS4A2
They are partial facts that ignore extremely relevant context:
[Quote]No investigations. No public statements. Aid was released on time. [/quote]- This was the reprise from virtually every Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, and all these ignore the damning context: there was no investigation, no public statement, and the aid was released ONLY AFTER the whistleblower complaint was made. Trump still did the misdeed.
[Quote] No quid pro quo. [/quote]- Testimony shows there was a quid pro quo:
Gordon Sondland tells House impeachment panel ‘we all understood’ there was a quid pro quo
We also know that OMB held up aid without valid reason, in violation of the Impoundment act. Related to this is that Trump's post hoc claims about "pausing" the aid because of corruption concerns or concerns about what other nations were giving are not reflected in the documentation, and there is no other evidence that these were established priorities.
What about Bolton's alleged claims? You said you'd like him to testify, and it seems he'll testify there was a linkage.
[Quote]Ukrainians say they were not pressured and were unaware of pause. [/quote]
False.
Ukrainians Contacted U.S. Officials in May About Aid Fears
Trump pressure weeks before July call: reports
Jon Stewart said something like that when Trump was first elected, not re: fox news, but rather talk radio. He said there was an accumulated effect of years of it.
I guess he meant people like Rush Limbaugh.
I stand corrected. His minor children benefitting from his position would present a legal a conflict of interest, but his elder son benefitting from his position doesn’t. Quite odd, but you’re right.
Except in the case of Biden’s son. As we now know according to Vindman’s, Jeniffer Williams’ and George Kent’s testimony, questions of Biden’s conflict of interest were a concern, but these same stringent ethics policies didn’t apply. They were legal, as you’ve shown, but they didn’t pass the appearance test apparently.
Sondland was wrong, as his own testimony shows. They did not all “understand” there was a quid pro quo. Sondland only presumed it.
Everytime The GAO says the administration violated the Impoundment act, the administration says it disagrees, as did the Obama administration, the Bush administration, and so on. They have no binding power over the Whitehouse and the world goes on. The aid was sent nonetheless.
But there is evidence of Trump’s motives here. An article compelled Trump to put hold on the aid according to released emails. The first indication of the White House taking a focused interest in military aid to Ukraine was a July 19th email with the article attached, “The President has asked about this”. Laura Cooper of the Pentagon testified she received 3 questions from the president about Ukraine aid around that same time, and the questions were about which American companies were making the weapons, what are other countries paying, and where is the money coming from. There’s the burden sharing question.
As for corruption, Trump’s concerns about Ukraine corruption were well testified to by at least Sondland, Volker and Yovanovitch. “ It was a generic, as I think I testified to Chairman Schiff, it was a generic corruption, oligarchs, just bad stuff going on in Ukraine”, as Sondland said in his testimony.
I’d need to read the manuscript or hear a testimony.
When I say “ Ukrainians say they were not pressured”, I mean by Trump on the phone call, not that they “felt pressure” about concerns of Giuliani in May 7th meeting. If you don’t remember, Trump is being impeached for his phone call.
That was a horrific argument. Very disappointed with the old civil libertarian on that one. The press will chew it up.
Quoting NOS4A2
The regulation calls for ethics investigators examining such situations on a case by case basis:
"For situations that involve appearances of conflicts, provides that the circumstances be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts."
The relevant facts do not demonstrate a conflict of interest.
This proves Trump was NOT doing his duty to call for the investigation, as you claimed; he was doing wrong.
Quoting NOS4A2
He assumed it because he could see no other explanation, and he kept the State department and NSC apprised. " The State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine affairs, and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing." Sondland also testified he told Pence that he believed there to be a tie. Why did no one correct him, if his assumption was wrong? Why has Trump blocked all testimony and documents? If these were exculpatory, why not release them?
Also recall that Mulvaney admited a quid pro quo in his famous "get over it" press conference. He only specifically attached the investigation into the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, not the Bidens, but it seems clear that Bolton can connect the final dots. Trump's defense is to claim he's lying.
With these facts in mind, I see no rational basis for claiming it likely there was no quid pro quo.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're missing the relevance: the excuses that were used to hold up aid were contrived and do not reflect Trump's post hoc rationalizations (general corruption concerns and aid from Europe).
Quoting NOS4A2
You're assuming a motive based on questions Trump asked. No one involved, including Cooper, has testified that this was the reason for holding back aid.Quoting NOS4A2
Do you agree that Bolton's testimony could potentially establish Trump's guilt? We have a right to know what Bolton has to say. This is particularly important in light of the Republican claim that removal is inappropriate this close to an election. Sure- let the voters decide, but give them the complete information needed for ab informed decision.
Yes. Fox News is at the core of the alt-fact simulacrum. The chancel of the echo chamber.
The problem with an "anything goes" societal ethics is that anything stays.
You're not the boss of me.
:wink:
He was corrected by Trump himself.
Mulvaney clarified that he was not in fact speaking about a quid pro quo, claiming the media misconstrued his statements. Of course no one includes the clarification in impeachment because that would be telling both sides of the story.
Mark Sandy of the OMB testified that Duffey "attributed the hold to the President's concern about other countries not contributing money to Ukraine" in "early September". He does not recall the exact date. The reasons that were given to the OMB match up to the initial questions on Ukraine aid. It matches up with the transcript and Trump's complaints about EU not doing enough. It matches up to Sandy and his NSD staff receiving a number of email requests from Duffey, at Robert Blair’s prompting, asking for data about the contributions of other countries to Ukraine. The aid was released after the questions were answered, after the data was given. Add on top of that Trump's general aversion to foreign aid and the previous times aid was held back. There is no evidence the OMB sent the aid because of a whistleblower complaint.
I'd like to see what Bolton has to say, yes. But I do not think it will establish guilt because, as we know, there is no crime. It could establish that the administration was lying or Bolton is lying.
Here’s Bolton talking about the call in earlier interview.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1222655839573565440?s=21[/tweet]
Trump's beautiful wall! It fell down!
Wind is part of the Democratic conspiracy. Damn Californian wind.
A newly built chunk of Trump's new border wall blew over in the wind and landed in Mexico
The innocent politics he does, has been good. He has been criminal on occasions, but shouldn't the people he's working good for, pardon him?
What will you do?
Impechment of Trump, to elect anew potentially more corrupt president. Be careful then.
You think Hillary wouldn't have comitted a crime? Are some candidates policy worse than that crime?
What do you think of the latest candidates? Trump is a lot different than most politicians, there's a bit of right in there.
In my opinion you're lucky for Trump and you wanna keep it like Trump.
Yes, agreed. I can't think of any reason why a country wouldn't want a criminal for President, especially when he's working so good for the rich Republican senators that can pardon him.
I agree. On occasions!
Putin has also done great things. No, really, I'm serious. The fall of the average life expectancy of Russian males has been stopped and is rising under his term in power. That's really a great thing.
So let's forget he instigated three wars, one inside of Russia and two with Russia's neighbours. But he doesn't have anything against my country, so should I be all smiles? I guess so.
Trump is onto something good. Big change now would be X to V.
Who cares about his image? If there was another like Trump, but better, sure it's good to vote against. I know there is. But not in the line-up.
And do notice many of Trump's policies ARE THE SAME as with (ghasp!) Obama!
For example, Obama didn't like European members of NATO spending so little on defence. So does Trump, yet Trump has gotten them to do something about it.
Whites non existent.
It is deemed so, you can be pointed out.
You're playing the partisan game, ignoring everything that was said on the call with Sondland, other than Trump stating "no quid pro quo. Trump said those words, then outlined what he wanted -which constituted a quid pro quo. This article summarizes the context.
Quoting NOS4A2
His words were clear:
[I]Reporter: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?
Mick Mulvaney: (21:34)
The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.
Reporter (M): (21:42)
Withholding the funding?
Mick Mulvaney: (21:43)]Yeah. Which ultimately then flowed. ...
Reporter (M): (22:25)
But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into into the Democratic server happened as well.
Mick Mulvaney: (22:35)
We do that all the time with foreign policy. ...[/i]
While it's true Mulvaney tried to deny saying what he said, his motivation for doing so is obvious. This his statements aren't dispositive, it's suggestive coming from the man who is both head of OMB and acting chief of staff.
Quoting NOS4A2
The whistleblower complaint had been made before this alleged motivation was given to him. There's no evidence this concern was raised prior to that - Sandy had tried to find out the cause of the hold in July, and Duffy didn't have an answer.
Quoting NOS4A2
If Bolton's testimony is consistent with reporting from the leaked manuscript, it will show that Trump's guilty of wrongdoing. It's another matter as to whether of not that wrongdoing constitutes a crime or whether or not it is adequate reason to remove him from office. My complaint with you is that you refuse to acknowledge that the evidence shows it likely Trump engaged in wrongdoing.
Bolton lying? Who has better credibility - Bolton (particularly if testifying under oath) or Trump, who has uttered thousands of falsehoods since taking office. John Kelly, who knows them both, believes Bolton. Testimony has already established that Bolton strongly disagreed at the time with what was going on - terming it a "drug deal", whereas the President has taken extreme measures to avoid letting the facts get out.
That’s the problem with contextomy because all one has to do is look at what was left out to see the truth of the matter, and to notice the bad faith intentions of those who took it out of context. Much of that press conference was spent explaining why the aid was held up.
We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for what was it? The Northern triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration.
Clearly by “We do that all the time” he was speaking about holding up aid for reasons of foreign policy. Why did they hold up aid according to Mulvaney in the same press conference?
[i] Reporter (F): (25:44)
And you’re drawing the distinction. You’re saying that it would be wrong to hold up money for the Bidens?
Mick Mulvaney: (25:46)
There were three factors. Again, I was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. Okay. Three issues for that. The corruption in the country, whether or not other countries were participating in the support of the Ukraine, and whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department Of Justice. That’s completely legitimate. Yes, sir.[/i]
On investigating the Bidens
[i] [i] Reporter (F): (25:30)
No. No. On the call the president did ask about investigating the Bidens. Are you saying that the money that was held up, that that had nothing to do with the Bidens?
Mick Mulvaney: (25:40)
No. The money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden. There’s no question. That was the point I made to you.[/i][/i]
It’s clear how was quoted out of context, and the intentions for doing that are obvious.
A rooster crows before sunrise therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise. The timing of these events is not enough to establish a connection. In terms of likelihood, it is more likely that the bipartisan demands of Congress to release the funds was a contributing factor. Not only that but the explicit reasons given by all those involved suggests otherwise, that the Whitehouse wanted to know about burden-sharing. Is this so out of the realm of possibility and invalid that the mere accusation and presumption of some nefarious scheme suffices to impeach a sitting president? Who has the burden of proof here? How is this not a conspiracy theory?
In my defense no evidence shows trump was engaged in wrong doing, and evidence shows the opposite: good-doing. In fact I don’t think he did enough. I truly believe this, because why the hell are we sending hundreds of million in aid to Ukraine? This behavior is exactly why I want him as president. I want someone to question the useless spending of money. I want to know someone is making sure that the weapons are being made by American companies. I want to know if our allies are helping. I want to know that we are not just handing tax-payer dollars to a corrupt s-hole. As an added bonus I get to see career bureaucrats, globalists and technocrats watch their failures get defunded, go down the tubes along with their jobs, especially scum like Bolton.
Trump appointed "scum" to the office of National Security Advisor. What does that tell us about Trump?
Trump serves to those that give him campaign donations!
It was the idea of the same guy that purposed to Trump that moving the Embassy to Jerusalem would be a great idea (which Trump obediently did). But hey! He gave Trump over 80 million campaign donations!
Give money to Trump, Trump does what you want. :blush:
Glad to be such an inspiration...
:wink:
Everyone from Clinton to Bush to Obama promised to move the embassy only to break their promises. Not Trump. He finally moved the embassy after senate reaffirmed the Jerusalem Embassy Act. :up: :ok:
And all those Presidents understood that it was a good carrot to use with Israel to get them to seriously negotiate with the Palestinians. They understood that the move (without any agreement or solution in the conflict) would appear to put the US squarely on the side of Israel (hence basically given an OK for Israeli annexation done in the Six Day War).
Of course there isn't much credibility in the argument that the US is a neutral party in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
But here Trump wasn't actually appeasing Israel (with the Embassy move). He was first and foremost appeasing one of his most important campaign financiers.
One wonders what the US is the leader of today. It isn't the West because that implies a respect for the rule of law.
What happens if it's 50/50? Does Roberts break the tie?
He wasn't charged with obstructing the Mueller investigation. The Articles of Impeachment charged him with obstructing Congress during the impeachment proceeding when he refused to honor subpoenas. There are methods of enforcing subpoenas, which first require that Congress first find him in contempt of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress They never did that, and it's hasn't been done since the 1930s. The point being, he didn't commit any crime and Congress never made an effort to enforce its own subpoena, but instead just decided to try to throw him out of office because they think he's disgusting and they want to damage his ability to get re-elected.
Quoting Benkei
The rule of law requires (1) there actually be a law that is broken (the prohibition against ex post facto laws) and (2) that an accused not be required to participate in any way in the investigation against him (the right to remain silent).
If the US doesn't lead in anything, then why all the academic interest in the goings on in Washington?
I think he said he wouldn't do that. There aren't going to be any witnesses. The theater is going to come to a close, but everyone knew how this movie ended anyway, regardless of what plot twists might have happened along the way.
I want my money back. :roll:
The movie is never better than the book. Close this chapter, put it on the shelf and wait for the next one.
"Another turning point, a fork stuck in the road, time grabs you by the wrist, directs you where to go..."
Good Riddance
The Republican platform is in having limited confidence in the government. I think there's a case to be made that American ideology is founded in distrust of government. The idea that the government can be relied upon to cure all or even most societal ills is liberalism at its worst.
The statement issued Thursday by the Carter Center in Atlanta describes Trump’s offer as "fragmented statehood” which leaves Palestinians “without control of their borders ... and undercuts prospects for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”
https://www.ajc.com/news/former-president-carter-blasts-trump-mideast-peace-plan/u0Dpy6ph9m9roRb4p6mHgL/
True. But the revolution was fueled by a breakdown in trust in the righteousness of the British government. See Patrick Henry's words about how it happened.
There's a naive belief embedded in American culture that good should prevail.
Take your lawyer goggles off for a second and look at it with that naivety.
Hanover,
I don't believe your telling the truth there. The Mueller report found numerous instances of obstruction, he just punted the ball to Congress on that. If you need to be refreshed, I'll be happy to post a fact-check.
And you are only partially correct on the subpoena thing. Congress is still pursuing one that Trump probably will take to the supreme court. Accordingly, they figured it would be a waste of time to pursue any more in that way since Trump will block all the requests thru the court system/supreme court, which in turn will take up to a year or so to adjudicate. And that's what Trump prefers anyway.
And as far as 'crime' goes. Impeachment is not a civil law process, it's a constitutional one. And therefore abuse of power is an interpretation from the constitution.
All that, (and other things that have transpired thus far) my question is, do you think he's hiding something?
Your quotes do not dispute what I asserted, which is that there was a tie to investigating the Democratic server. I agree this should not be conflated with a tie to investigating Biden, although Trump himself made that tie on his call with Zelensky.
Quoting NOS4A2
I didn't say it "established" a connection, but it circumstantially contributes to there being one, and it eradicates its exculpatory value.
Quoting NOS4A2
There isn't a shred of evidence that Trump was doing good. You have ignored the fact there was no identified crime to be investigated (Ukraine had previously announced that it was aware of no crimes having been violated), anti-corruption benchmarks had already been met, he wanted a PERSON investigated (violating due process and a failure to adhere to faithfully execute the law), and such an investigation would clearly benefit Trump politically. Even had there been a crime to investigate, the political benefit constituted a conflict of interest (contrary to the ethics standards of the federal government) that could and should have been addressed by personally recusing himself from involvement and letting the departments of State and Justice deal with it.
Quoting NOS4A2
You can't be that ignorant. Ukraine is an ally, a weak one, and they are at active war with Russia. We have a long term commitment to assist them, and even if Trump disagreed with it - he was legally bound to provide the aid. If he was uncomfortable with it, he was at liberty to work with Congress at changing this.
This is timely.
In contrast with Trump legal team, Justice Department lawyer says House can impeach over defied subpoenas
[quote=Hanover]The rule of law requires (1) there actually be a law that is broken (the prohibition against ex post facto laws) ...[/quote]
Your link does contain a section on statutory proceedings, stating that contempt of congress is a crime, referencing Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure which in turn references (among others) 18 U.S.C. §1505 (obstruction of committee proceedings).
Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says
Of course you can. You can impeach over anything. That has been proven. Quoting Michael
There was never a citation of contempt issued by Congress. He wasn't in contempt of Congress.
My point was that the articles of impeachment under which Trump stands trial before the Senate relate only to obstruction of the Ukrainian investigation and not of the issues in the Mueller report. The Mueller report was inconclusive as to whether a crime had been committed, but even had it specifically and correctly stated he committed a crime, it would be irrelevant because this impeachment has nothing to do with that.
Quoting 3017amen
I understand what is is, but the reference was whether the US was showing itself as a nation that honored the rule of law, and I believe it does if it interprets the Constitution in a way that requires an actual law be violated in order for there to be removal from office.Quoting 3017amen
No. I think we all know very clearly what happened in the phone call.
This has to do with believing that the highest determinant of truth in a democracy is the direct voice of the people and the refusal to over-rule the outcome of an election on vague references to abuse and obstruction.
I don't think so. Lauding the will of the people never stopped an Adolph Hitler from launching a holocaust. I think that's mainly because the mob is a bloodthirsty beast when it's frustrated and hurt.
Realizing that, the framers let the Constitution provide the means to remove the asshole before it gets too far.
Not that either of us really cares...
The American experience has been that the democracy has been the great protector of the people. Take civil rights, for example. It was the democracy that elected Lincoln, that took up arms for the cause, that passed Constitutional Amendments by super-majorities, and that passed civil rights legislation. The Courts reliance upon the Constitution (in particular the 14th Amendment) to protect minorities is a reliance upon law passed by the super-majorities. The idea that the Courts save us is false. We save ourselves, and I'm thankful for a Constitution that keeps this angry group of Democrats from undoing the will of the people.
Why were the slaves freed? The people demanded it.
Hanover,
I find that odd. If you don't think he's hiding anything, then why resist witnesses, subpoenas, intimidating Gov employees, witnesses and senators, hiring attorney's (Giuliani) and nefarious associates (just like he did in the Mueller case where at least 6 people from his campaign plead guilty/in jail) instead of letting gov. agencies investigate Barisma, on and on.
Any clues there? Using logic, is it reasonable to assume he's guilty? I'm a bit confused. Please share your detailed thoughts if you could.
As far as the phone call, he asked for a favor, no?
Lincoln used the Constitutional War Power of the President to free the slaves. That was clearly not what War Power was meant for (to make a decision that was not arrived at democratically), and so Lincoln became a temporary dictator in that case. And it's just bizarre that you would lay that out as an example of the benefits of democracy.
But I've argued history with you before and it sucks. Let's stop.
Anyway, I do understand the temptation to shove the reality of the present situation down the throats of people who growl and snarl like their opinions are supposed to mean something to somebody. But there's another part of me that understands why doing that is a really bad idea. I hope you gather the same wisdom from somewhere.
The statute I referred to was obstruction of committee proceedings and the second impeachment article is obstruction of Congress.
Yeah, it would be outrageous for the trial to be influenced by facts.
Trump in 2016: "I love Wikileaks!". I know, that's different; the Wikileaks info was a product of Russia's efforts to help him.
In a criminal trial, a prosecutor would be derelict if he failed to obtain every significant bit of evidence possible. On the other hand, the only credible reason I've seen to reject the seeking of more evidence is the one Lamar Alexander provided: Trump is obviously guilty, so it's not needed.
Last ditch effort to have a fair trial with witnesses.
He and Dershowitz should team up. The Blunder Twins.
I think it is the same 'tactical admission' of precluding witnesses!
LOL
Conversely, the idea that those with power will not abuse it is conservatism at its worst.
Quoting Hanover
Perhaps you should be thankful for the Republican senators who betray their oaths of impartial justice and choose loyalty to their party over loyalty to the American people.
Ha, yeah wasn't Dershowitz the guy who represented Jeffery Epstein, OJ Simpson, and other nefarious individuals? LOL
FYI- if you do the research, you'll see Dershowitz typically represents people who commit sex crimes. It almost begs the question why? He's done it for years with little success. Maybe he's got some sort of axe to grind...
...and does 'the will of the people', include Republicans who condone cheating? Yikes!
Christianity Today final saw the light!
LOL
He didn't free the slaves, else the 13th Amendment would have been superfluous. He proclaimed those slaves in the regions still in rebellion and outside his jurisdiction free, which was entirely a political act and of no legal consequence. Every slave within Union territory remained a slave and he had no ability to enforce his proclamation upon the Southern states. The Proclamation's primary purpose was not to free anyone, but to re-cast the war as one to end slavery (as opposed to simply keep the Union intact) so as to eliminate European alliances with the South, as European powers at this point were extremely opposed to slavery.
What Lincoln did, though, was to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to allow the imprisonment of dissenters and strip them of their legal rights, a clear cause for impeachment, as the right to suspend habeas corpus was only a Congressional power to exercise.
.
Are we now arguing that certain criminals are not entitled to representation and those who choose to represent them are of low moral character? And even should your argument be correct, which it is not, how would that ad hom affect the accuracy of Dershowitz' Constitutional analysis that the allegations against Trump, even if true, do not constitute offenses worthy of warranting removal from office?
He's the one who argued that it's OK for Trump to leverage military aid to help his reelection.
If you were a lawyer, would you have represented OJ and Epstein?
f you don't think he's hiding anything, then why resist witnesses, subpoenas, intimidating Gov employees, witnesses and senators, hiring attorney's (Giuliani) and nefarious associates (just like he did in the Mueller case where at least 6 people from his campaign plead guilty/in jail) instead of letting gov. agencies investigate Barisma, on and on.
Any clues there? Using logic, is it reasonable to assume he's guilty? I'm a bit confused. Please share your detailed thoughts if you could.
As far as the phone call, he asked for a favor, no?
Oh, yeah, Thanks. I think he was the guy who flip-flopped on his interpretation of 'abuse of power' during the Clinton era(?)
Trump defense lawyers arguing that a senate trial is no place for witnesses and documents is a perspicuous admission that they believe Trump is guilty.
Yep, it's obvious common sense stuff. The Republicans are like Ostrich's; they've buried their heads in the sand only to complain it's too dark!
LOL
All the seats for southern congressmen and senators were vacant when the 13th Amendment was passed. The Reconstruction Act required the South to ratify the 14th Amendment.
Are you sure this is where you want to celebrate democracy? 'Cause there are much better examples. Try the Voter Rights Act.
I know.
Quoting Hanover
One does well to take note of the elephant rampaging in the porcelain shop.
Bonus question : how come the president changed his mind about witnesses didn't he want to see witnesses? Or was he lying again...
LOL
Yes, but the testimony of first-hand witnesses may have won a portion of the hearts and minds.
This isn't exclusively about the present engagement. This is about precedent.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480912-rubio-impeachable-actions-dont-necessarily-mean-a-president-should-be-removed
The Third Musketeer has joined showing that the Democrats were right and that the Republicans are partisan hacks who will say and do anything to protect their own.
Unwavering support for the POTUS from the GOP is what Trump supporters like.
Who cares about things like truth and following the rules? Politics is all lies and cheating, you know...
Though this may be painfully obvious I am willing to go out on a limb and predict the following:
1 . Over seventy percent of Americans wanted witnesses.
2. The president lied about actually wanting witnesses.
3. There is no question that more evidence will be forthcoming that will corroborate allegations.
Consequently, much like in the OJ trial, not only will you see private corporations breaking ties with the Trump brand, you will see public displays of outrage including a proliferation of crowd booing at certain public events.
Good luck Dumper Trumpers!
LOL
This could be costly for some Republican senator’s in their elections.
Yep they're taking the risk of weighing the differences between POTUS' criticism, vs their constituents criticism. It appears they're choosing the lesser of two evils. However that could backfire of course.
I would not want to be in the shoes of Republicans who will have to answer to their moderate base. Further, at the end of the day you may see swing States indeed moving to the left much like the last midterms did... .
It's really a lose-lose for them.
Good luck dumper trumper's!!
Don't worry Tim, the real truth will show itself and become abundantly clear. They will not acquiesce to impeachment but they will certainly acquiesce to wrongdoing. You'll see this on Monday.
... Long live the Republican party.
Many of whom feel the president did something wrong, just not cause for removal from office.
It begs many questions one of which is how do you provide a deterrent to that abuse of power (?)
I am not sure it decreases my confidence in the government. Maybe I am niave in thought or my hopeless romantic belief in the good in others is misleading me because I am pretty confident that if we were ever to be without a working government our collective desire to thrive would guide us until we created a new form of governing.
I guess what I am trying to say is that "we" are the government so if "it" appears to be changing, it is actually a reflection of the changes happening or not happening in you, me, Hanover and.... the slice of society we are supporting each day.
Holy shit. You're right.
"We" aren't the government. "They" are the government.
During this show trial Trump was able to continue working, for instance killing a top-ranking Iranian terrorist, presenting an ambitious Middle East peace plan, signing into law massive trade deals. The anti-Trumpists, on the other hand, have given us division, a distracted house and senate, and a massive waste of time and money. How much of this failure can the anti-Trump mind withstand before it cracks?
A lie.
Quoting NOS4A2
A lie.
Quoting NOS4A2
A joke.
Quoting NOS4A2
A lie.
An investigation that accurately identifies a serious wrongdoing is not a "witch hunt." The irony is that the wrongdoing consisted of Trump asking Ukraine to conduct a witch-hunt of a political rival.
One of the rationale Republicans have claimed for acquitting him was that the American people in the next election, not the Senate, should decide whether or not Trump should stay in office. Clearly, we need as much information as possible to judge him fairly. The impeachment and trial contributed to this body of information, and rational, open-minded person who considers all this information would surely agree that Trump's actions were wrong.
This dude doesn't just love licking the boot, he enjoys eating the whole damn thing
Yeah, I just don’t understand how his actions can be misconstrued as “wrong-doing”. At best they can accuse him of thought-crimes, which in my mind is wrong. At best they can waste tax-payer dollars on political charades, false investigations and almost hollow out constitutional processes for their own political ends. That to me is wrong-doing.
Trump is going to be acquitted because Republicans won't remove a Republican president. That's " hollow[ing] out constitutional processes for their own political ends."
When your perspective is whatever is good for Trump is the correct thing, as yours is, it's easy to understand this statement. And since Trump is the saviour of the people, the second coming of Christ Himself, we might have to agree with you NOS4A2.
I don’t see how any of that is true and simply repeating the accusation does not suffice for me. The burden of proof still lays at the feet of the accusers and they could not prove it.
The evidence was presented in the Senate. We even had Dershowitz, Rubio, and Alexander accept that he's guilty. They just tried to rationalize a reason not to convict him for it. And there's more available testimony and evidence from people like Parnas and Bolton and the Republicans know this which is why they voted not to have more witnesses. They're aware that it'll be devastating to Trump's defence so they need to protect him from it.
And I don't know how you can claim that there's no evidence that Trump obstructed Congress. It is a fact that the House subpoenaed testimony and evidence and it's a fact that Trump didn't comply.
The evidence was presented in the senate and failed to establish any wrong doing, let alone anything impeachable. It’s funny that people might say Trump’s wrong doing is established by evidence, but then go on saying we don’t have all the evidence, such as more testimony and documents.
It is a fact that the administration was following advice from DOJ legal counsel and that many of the subpoena’s were invalid. Correspondence proves that the Whitehouse was ready to cooperate as soon as the House’s subpoenas were valid. So no, Trump did not obstruct Congress. Congress instructed itself.
Which is bullshit. The best you can argue is that Trump shouldn't be convicted because he acted on bad legal advice.
The best you can argue is that the Trump administration stonewalled Congress. That’s why we have the judiciary settle these kinds of disputes, separation of powers and all that. But the House inquiry team failed to do that.
A lawyer with the Office of Management and Budget wrote to the court that 24 emails between June and September 2019 -- including an internal discussion among DOD officials called "POTUS follow-up" on June 24 -- should stay confidential because the emails describe "communications by either the President, the Vice President, or the President's immediate advisors regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine."
Then you haven't made an effort to understand what I've told you.
Or both.
That remains to be seen. I see it more as “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. One of these days a real wolf will come along and, given your track record, no one will heed your cries. You’ve taken the Chicken Little approach and you would destroy the very republic to convince us the sky is falling.
A judge who allows a juror to remain despite that juror's public admission that he cannot execute that sworn duty.
Members of the Senate have all taken a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and execute the powers and responsibilities bestowed upon them by it. Acting as an impartial jurors during presidential impeachment proceedings is one exclusive responsibility given to only members of the Senate.
What needs to happen next is an exodus of recusals.
It's disgraceful.
:worry:
Shameless and without integrity.
Three democratic candidates, all of whom are Trump’s opponents in the 2020 election, are in the senate voting on his impeachment. So much for impartial jurors.
When an overwhelming majority of the people want the same thing, and those in charge of representing them do not, well...
The Senate majority are not doing their job.
What does the evidence warrant regardless of who the defendant is?
That's impartiality in a nutshell.
They are doing their job, because the majority of the Senate are Republicans.
And because the vast majority of Republicans choose to favor Trump and/or don't think there's nothing wrong, why wouldn't they do what they do? The line "yeah, this might be impeachable, but..." uttered by some sounds very logical and actually quite honest.
They have an election to win. They won't win it if Trump would be convicted. When Trump is acquitted it strengthens the idea of Teflon-Don and how awesome he is and utterly whimsical the Democrats are. After all, Republicans don't like Democrats (and vice versa).
Once Trump joked: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,". If he'd really do that, which he likely wouldn't (let's make that clear), Republicans would genuinely believe that he was attacked by this person and had to defend himself and all of the so-called witnesses saying it wasn't self defence are part of an utterly nasty conspiracy against Trump. That the incident was an elaborately staged by the Dems with the help of the Deep State. And surely one of the witnesses was a Democrat (we are talking about NYC) and had voted for Hillary, clear proof of the conspiracy!!! Besides, Trump used a gun to defend himself! How better can he show that he's genuinely for the 2nd Amendment! He's a hero.
The Republicans would look how their voters views fall on this matter and then decide what to do. You might think that the absurd story above is an exaggeration. It partly isn't. It's not actually even about Trump. It's about the polarization of Americans to two camps who cannot get along. It's a political system hijacked by two political parties instilling this polarization to prevent the people from falling off to support either one or the another. You have to understand the logic when people vote for a candidate "to shake things up".
Have a happy election.
Folly-fueled simulation has eclipsed the trite simplicity of 'not getting along'.
The two camps inhabit two distinct simulacra (a la Baudrillard) buttressed by Facebook fact- and alt-fact-bubble algorithms.
And it's not going away.
When Occupy Wall Street / Tea Party were still hype, I remember putting this below on the forum and started to talk about the similarities of the two and how there could be a middle ground.
But no. Hardly any response to this. The other side was totally clueless, a joke. And annoying. That was the bottom line.
So I guess we may see fist fights on the street with two groups of people, which are both against corruption in the political system. Somehow I have this feeling that there's one side for whom that might be a favorable option. Divide et Impera.
They seem to have us figured out.
No, they are not.
Their job - as clearly demarcated in the Constitution - is to act as impartial jurors in a presidential impeachment proceeding(the trial)...
That is their only job in this matter. McConnell publicly announced that he could not be an impartial juror in this proceeding. That is to publicly pronounce dereliction of sworn duty.
Disgraceful. That is itself grounds for impeachment.
That Justice Roberts has not recalled that juror, that McConnell has not recused, all of this and more is utterly disgraceful.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
By virtue of having "sole power", the Senate makes its own rules. Nowhere does it say how the trial must be conducted, and it doesn't even say it must be fair, that the jurors must be impartial, nor that they can't be bribed or threatened.
In short, the Constitution is flawed: impeachment and removal is, for all practical purposes, impossible.
.
"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 senators.
Senators: "I do."
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1217888634902319104?lang=en
Well, Clinton was impeached on 11 grounds, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, and abuse of power. With the obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50, but nowhere near the 2/3 majority. And btw, no Democrats senators did vote for convicting Clinton, although 5 democratic House members were in favor of impeaching Clinton.
Rather, it can't deal with a President and Senate majority that, to all intents and purposes, ignores the Constitution and flouts the law, which is what has happened. Impeachment is eminently possible, if the political will and commitment to principle exists, but in this case, it doesn't.
Were it not for Trump's incompetence and inability to string together a coherent thought, there would be a large risk of him going after his perceived accusers. But maybe all it will result in is a string of defamatory Twitter posts, which is pretty well business as usual for this White House.
They didn't do anything unconstitutional; that was the point I made earlier. They violated the oath they took, but the oath isn't enforceable. Senators have carte blanche to judge guilt and to judge whether or not the crime is a "high crime or misdemeanor", and this implies there is always sufficient wiggle room to acquit. They will nearly universally use this wiggle room to acquit when it's a President of their own party. Unless the opposition party has close to a 2/3 majority (which is hard to forsee ever happening), there will not be a removal.
I'm not familiar enough with the Clinton case to comment. My comments on Senatorial duty apply... always.
Impeachment is the tool of enforcement.
You do realize that most of(nearly all) the framers were against political factions(parties)... right?
So, to point out partisan politics implying that it is not unconstitutional is well...
Just plain wrong.
"Trump is going to sign an executive order moving the state boundaries so Kansas City ends up in Kansas and therefore making his tweet correct."
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-kansas-city-chiefs-kansas-missouri-2020-2
It’s odd that the epicenter of so many conspiracy theories spouts a conspiracy theory of his own. Given Zuckerberg’s commitment to free speech, it is no strange wonder Soros has it in for him, but Soros’ propaganda isn’t so much a matter of principle as it is the typical anti-Trump politics.
If one's principles are contrary to Trump's behaviour and policies then being principled and being anti-Trump aren't mutually exclusive.
I'd like to think that if Facebook were promoting Nazi or Ku Klux Klan nonsense then my objection would be principled and not just a political disagreement.
Edit: Although it's not simply about being opposed to Trump but being opposed to Facebook allowing "deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and tak[ing] no responsibility for them." Given Trump's constant attacks on "fake news" and threatening/punishing news organizations, I would have thought he'd agree with Soros on this one.
Why not? Malfeasance of office comes to mind.
So...you envision the House impeaching approximately 50 Senators, and then each of these would be tried in the Senate...and these Senators would then vote to remove themselves.
It's not about my imaginings. It's about the way it's supposed to work. Not all Senators are failing to perform sworn duty.
I never said nor implied they were mutually exclusive. Unless that principle is censorship, fear and politics is guiding Soros’ thinking.
But despite Soros’ claim, it isn’t Facebook posting misinformation and other claptrap. They are just a platform.
According to one of their lawyers, they're a publisher.
Should then Facebook be looking at what is published on it's site? Yes, but the guidelines ought to be totally clear to everyone and come from the government itself and defined that illegal activity isn't tolerated. Upholding laws on what is defined criminal doesn't infringe on the freedom of speech. It shows utter weakness of the state that the service provider is then let to handle the problem itself.
Now you get the worst of both Worlds. Facebook gets public condemnation and populists demand intervention and the Internet companies are in a scramble to do something and usually make many stupid decisions. What is defined to be acceptable is left to a lousy algorithm or the whims of some clueless worker. And if one wants to start a propaganda campaign, attack others and do whatever, anything goes.
Quoting NOS4A2The company posts few if anything. Yet it cannot control shrewd manipulation. Many times it likely doesn't know what is written in other languages that English.
Agreed. It should be up to the governments to enforce their laws. The regulations set forth by governments making Facebook liable for what people post on their platform is an abridgement of free speech in my opinion.
But it isn’t just populists demanding intervention into platforms like Facebook. Germany’s Network Enforcement Act is already law and parties like the AfD have used their censorship as a springboard for their political platforms.
The simple guideline would be that the majority of the people have a basic understanding of when something becomes so harmful and against the rules that it would be considered illegal, a crime. Being annoying (or stupid) isn't a crime. It's the agitators that makes these issues problematic.
Anyway, we ought to have this thing called a representative Parliamentary system to decide these issues where to draw the lines. The solution isn't simply to ask a private enterprise to figure it out (usually by hiring some consultant) and threaten with break up.
They could have this agreement not to um,...ah, F***, who am I kidding.
Yes.
Using hired people and bots to paint your competitor to be this filthy child molesting serial killer who kicks small pet animals works so well.
I'm surprised you'd even watch, since you don't care what he says. Perhaps you're turning over a new leaf, in which case you should be interested in fact checking his show, and his presidency.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trumps-claims-in-his-state-of-union-address
MANUFACTURING
TRUMP: “We are restoring our nation’s manufacturing might, even though predictions were that this could never be done. After losing 60,000 factories under the previous two administrations, America has now gained 12,000 new factories under my administration.”
THE FACTS: Not quite.
Manufacturing has slumped in the past year, after having advanced in the prior two years. The president’s tariffs regime and slower growth worldwide hurt the sector in ways that suggest that Trump’s policies robbed it of some of its previous strength.
Factory output fell 1.3% over the past 12 months, according to the Federal Reserve. Manufacturing job gains went from more than 260,000 at the end of 2018 to a paltry 46,000 for the 12 months ended in December, according to the Labor Department. Manufacturers lost jobs last year in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — the older industrial states where Trump had promised a renaissance.
JOBS and ECONOMY
TRUMP: “In eight years under the last administration, over 300,000 working-age people dropped out of the workforce. In just three years of my Administration, 3.5 million working-age people have joined the workforce.”
THE FACTS: Trump is being misleading with numbers to tarnish his predecessor’s record. It’s not clear what he means by “working-age.” But the total size of the U.S. labor force shows that the president is just wrong.
During the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency, the labor force rose by 5.06 million, according to the Labor Department. The improvement reflected a rebounding economy from the Great Recession and population growth.
As the unemployment rate has fallen, more people are finding it attractive to work and joining the labor force. This has enabled the labor force to climb by an impressive 4.86 million in just three years under Trump.
___
TRUMP: “From the instant I took office, I moved rapidly to revive the U.S. economy — slashing a record number of job killing-regulations, enacting historic and record-setting tax cuts, and fighting for fair and reciprocal trade agreements.
THE FACTS: The U.S. economy indeed is healthy, but it’s had plenty of hiccups during the Trump administration.
Trump never quite managed to achieve the liftoff he promised during the 2016 election. Instead, gains have largely followed along the same lines of an expansion that started more than a decade ago under Obama.
Total economic growth last year was 2.3%. That is roughly in line with the average gains achieved after the Great Recession — and a far cry from growth of as much 3%, 4% or more that Trump told voters he could deliver.
The tax cuts did temporarily boost growth in 2018 as deficit spending increased. But the administration claimed its tax plan would increase business investment in way that could fuel lasting growth. For the past three quarters, business investment has instead declined.
It’s too soon to judge the impact of the updated trade agreement with Mexico and Canada as well as the pact with China. But Trump premised his economic policy on wiping out the trade gap. Instead, the trade deficit has worsened under Trump.
OIL AND GAS
TRUMP: “Thanks to our bold regulatory reduction campaign, the United States has become the number one producer of oil and natural gas, anywhere in the world, by far.”
THE FACTS: Trump is taking credit for a U.S. oil and gas production boom that started under Obama. The U.S. Energy Information Administration says the U.S. has been the world’s top natural gas producer since 2009, top petroleum hydrocarbon producer since 2013, and top crude oil producer since 2018.
That’s owing to a U.S. shale boom that has driven production up since 2011, not to deregulation or any other new effort by the Trump administration.
HEALTH CARE
TRUMP: “We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions.”
THE FACTS: That’s a promise, not a guarantee.
The Trump administration is backing a lawsuit by conservative-led states that would overturn the entire Affordable Care Act, including its guarantees that people cannot be turned down or charged more for health insurance because of preexisting medical problems.
Trump and congressional Republicans have vowed they will protect people with preexisting conditions, but they have not specified how they would do that.
Estimates of how many people could potentially be affected if “Obamacare’s” protections for preexisting conditions are eliminated range from about 54 million working-age adults, in a study last year from the Kaiser Family Foundation, to as many as 133 million people in a 2017 government study that also included children.
Imagine going through life running to a fact-check site to let some journalist tell you what to think. You’d have to have some neurosis for that.
I watch for the spectacle. I really enjoyed when he promoted the Tuskegee airmain to general, or when the soldier surprised his wife and kids after a long tour, for instance. I also liked watching nervous Nancy get the snub. Quite a sight.
This makes no sense. If someone claims to have done something I might not want to just take them at their word – and I can't just clairvoyantly assess the truth of their claim – and so instead I look to see if anyone who has (more) knowledge of the matter can confirm or deny their claims.
One can easily go look at the data himself. One reason one might want to go to a journalist is to have his biases confirmed.
There's a lot of things to cover. Finding the raw data for each claim could take a long time – if indeed it's something that can be found with Google (or that I know how to find with Google). It's perfectly rational to refer to someone else who's done the heavy lifting to save me time.
It's much easier to ask my science teacher about some science question than to search through academic journals.
Yep, don't forget to add that all administration's either benefit or suffer from the previous administration's economic policies, etc.. Much like the sports metaphor, the new coach inherits a winning or losing team.
So in the case of the economy, Trump lucked-out with an already growing economy... . He'll take credit by his version of fake news to feed his huge narcissistic ego.
After all, he said he was the king of debt, and has filed bankruptcy at least twice...I worry he's gonna explode the deficit and cause another George Bush Jr. crash.
I’d understand asking a journalist questions about journalism, sure. But running to them for fact-checks has become the sine qua non for anti-Trumpism. It’s the get-out-of-thinking free card.
I'm afraid it's the opposite. He can't be trusted and so we are all having to fact-check the dude.
People ask journalists about current affairs, including what politicians and the government are doing. That's their job; to report the news. It isn't to teach journalism.
I'm interested to know where you get your "data" on current events if not from a journalist.
I prefer to know the truth, and there's no better way than to see what both sides have to say. During Obama's presidency, I'd often listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, and even Levin. I wouldn't accept what they say verbatim, but they occasionally had a valid criticism. (I realize this isn't quite the same thing, since none of these guys are journalists).
You seem content to accept whatever Trump says, which seems pretty crazy to me.
Nervous? Is that what they call open displays of defiance in the Trump hivemind?
I love the political theater of it. This is history. It’s enjoyable to me. I simply do not watch presidents or politicians for facts and data and technocratic piffle. I can go find that on my own. I find no offense in hyperbole, or gaffes, or misstatements because humans are not infallible angels. Washington is Hollywood for ugly people and I’m watching for the spectacle.
I thought it was a great speech and it was a huge political win for Trump. To watch Pelosi tear up the speech afterword was amazing.
Hah. Is that what they are spinning it as?
The hivemind characterizes it as a "tantrum."
Because - as an accomplished liar - you have an affinity for the art of the lie.
She probably should have shoved it up his ass. Although she would have needed to remove an army of sycophants to make space for it. :lol:
Funny how when Trump does some like that it's just "Trump being Trump," tearing down the shackles of political correctness or whatever, but when anyone else does it it's a pearl-clutching disgrace!
It was hysterical, whatever it was. It proves to me the saltiness and hatred of the anti-Trump faction. I hate to accuse others of being “triggered”, but Pelosi’s very public display was the epitome of it. Now the only platform the DNC has is Anti-Trumpism, which is little more than hatred and paranoia. When Trump continues to win and keeps dunking on them they’ll have nothing left.
I thought it was funny too.
Speaking of high emotions, Mitt chooses to honor his oath of impartial justice. It does my heart good.
Trump is triggered, hateful, and hysterical every single day and you love it so much you've made the interior of his colon your permanent home. So, it's a puzzle why you would criticize Pelosi. Though actually not since your criticism is just more of the same partisan garbage you've been filling this thread with since you got here. (And I don't even like Pelosi btw).
Yep Mitt was very inspirational and has certainly gained my respect (and other's) for his courage.
Dumpertrumper's narcissism will cause incessant criticism of Mitt, to the extent it will only serve as confirming evidence of his abusive personal interest.
Atlantic Monthly
Arguably, what we've just witnessed was not an impeachment, but the coronation of the Caeser, above all law and all accounting. (But of course, all of this is just hysterical fear mongering, according to our resident disinformation agent.)_
This is a silly thing to say and false and possibly a lie.
Quoting NOS4A2
This "spectacle" that you so enjoy seems very much like a football game, for which you are rooting for your team. When team Trump says or does something rude or obnoxious, he's "fighting back". When the other team responds in kind, it's something bad ("salty", "hatred").
Trump has dragged the game into the gutter. Sure, people hate him - he gives them many good reasons to do so (would you like a list?) I contrast this with the hatred many Republicans have toward people like Pelosi and Schiff - it's rooted entirely in political disagreement.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Actually it’s true, it’s all they have left. What you’re witnessing is the self destruction of the Democrats.
Investigating corruption. What a joke. Suddenly Trump, the most corrupt in history, is interested in corruption? Please.
That doesn’t mean there’s no corruption, does it? See the blindness.
True. :shade:
History never looks kindly on the inquisitors, Tim. This is because persecution is unjust and cruel. That this mostly reactionary persecution has failed at every moment is eye opening, not only because of the resilience of the persecuted but also because of the unmitigated folly of his persecutors.
In the meantime, Trump is at his highest job approval rating and there is record-high optimism in personal finances. while Congress abused the system to furtively seek dirt on their president, he was giving us USMCA and massive Chinese trade deals.
What disagreement? I mean, when's the last time there was any policy discussion where you could have meaningful disagreement?
Somehow it doesn't have the same gravitas. How Ironic that Spartacus dies the same day that the senate falls from grace.
W H O P E E ! ! !
Highest approval ratings of sitting US Presidents:
G.W.Bush 90%
G.H.W.Bush 89%
Truman 87%
JFK 83%
F.D. Roosevelt 83%
Johnson 79%
Eisenhower 77%
Carter 74%
Clinton 73%
Reagan 71%
Ford 70%
Obama 69%
Nixon 66%
TRUMP 49%! :starstruck:
Oh you have to pop the champagne for this one, NOS4A2. I can see how you with your fellow Americans are cherishing this moment of coming together, holding hands and singing Kumbayah on this moment of true national unity in the approval of the sitting US President.
It's all so evident even from this small forum for Philosophy.
True. I was trying to convey that many people demonize vocal members of the alternative party, solely because they belong to, and advocate for, that alternative party. It's shallow and chauvinistic.
Consider Pelosi. She's a smart, effective politician. No scandals. And yet, many Republicans demonize her.
The point was to show that impeachment didn’t work, that he’s getting his best job approval rating, not to say he had the best job approval rating of all time. He’s on track to win again. That means you’re on track to lose. But I wouldn’t expect you to properly represent my arguments, ssu.
His best job approval rating means jack shit.
So do your opinions, but you don’t see me complaining.
The only way you can continue on believing your own nonsense is to misrepresent your opponents arguments, essentially creating a cocoon of fantasy to protect you from the real world.
It is definitely something to celebrate. Trump’s approval rating is going up despite being impeached. It didn’t even slow him down, and he was able to pass massive trade deals while your legislators legislated nothing.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1225174713992990721?s=21[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1225203837226700800?s=21[/tweet]
Love it,
Wrong! It was a bipartisan bill brought to his desk for signature.
Oh, quick question NOS: You're a Dumpertrumper and want to get your take on this. He's scheduled to make an announcement today on the controversial acquittal. Why can't he publicly articulate more important/normal things like other controversial political policies and legislation... ? Is he that narcissistic where he consistently shows his need to make himself feel or look good? I mean, he does this all the time...at the veterans hospital where instead of consoling veteran's he talks about crowd size, etc...
Bonus question: was Mitt Romney wrong?
Did you listen to his State of the Union? Or do you just let the anti-Trump media pick and choose what parts they think you should hear? If you don’t need a curator his speeches are public record and available to anyone.
Mitt Romney was wrong, yes.
Yes I did. Are you not able to answer the question? LOL
And thanks...why was he wrong?
Boner question: why did 75% of the general public want witnesses?
Romney was wrong because he falsely believed Trump did something wrong and, in a fit of pious sanctimony, betrayed his president.
Would you want another President to do what your Dumpertrumper did?
Oh, and why did 75% of the general public want witnesses? Are they wrong too?
I would want any president to look into corruption, especially when the tax-payer is giving millions in weaponry and aid.
No, the public was not wrong to want witnesses in my opinion. I too wanted witnesses.
Thanks, that made me laugh. The one conservative senator who appears to have upheld conservative values is a fake and a traitor.
So did Romney. ( You're not too consistent there LOL.)
Quoting NOS4A2
Yep so would I. Why didn't he go through the Government agencies to investigate and/or hired a personal attorney along with the nefarious bedfellows who where found guilty of campaign violations?
Yes, the Mormon neoconservative. What’s funny is, when hawks like Bolton and Romney virtue-signal their anti-Trumpism you guys lay out the red carpet for them. Odd bedfellows indeed.
Guiliani was investigating on his own accord in his capacity as a defense attorney, not at the direction of the president.
I can respect anyone who honors their sworn oaths. I could even respect you for honoring whatever contractual agreement you may have made to troll Americans online.
That's not what Sondland and Taylor said. And speaking of lying, was Dumpertrumper lying again when he said he didn't know Parnus, or was the audio tape fake? LOL
Did Mitt use his conscience in voting for impeachment? Please elaborate if you can...or maybe start a new thread and discuss the merits of consciousnessness/conscience and what that means to people LOL.
Boner question: how do you sleep at night LOL
Yeah you guys welcomed all the nevertrump neoconservatives and neoliberals with open arms. Odd bedfellows.
They were wrong. Giuliani started his investigation in Nov. 2018, months before Biden announced his candidacy. The whole impeachment was a hoax and you fell for it. How do you live that down?
If I was to speculate I would argue Mitt was bitter Trump didn’t let him be Secretary of State.
No boner questions, please.
Falsely believed?
You should at least pretend to exercise objectivity. I gave you good reasons to support the judgment that Trump did wrong, reasons which you could not refute. Regardless of your personal judgment that Trump did "good" (setting aside your poor defense of that judgment), you should at least try to understand that reasonable people could indeed judge that Trump did wrong, and give Romney the benefit of the doubt that his judgment was sincere. For that matter, there were other Republicans who agreed with Romney that Trump did something wrong, they just didn't consider it a "high crime" sufficient for removal.
It's pretty revealing that you refer to "betraying" the President: loyalty to country OUGHT to come before loyalty to party, and loyalty to a person should come dead last. I Romney's case, I take him at his word that HIS first loyalty is to his God, and therefore felt bound by the oath he took. Contrast that "piousness" to Trump's comments at today's prayer breakfast.
I disagree, I do not think you gave good reasons, and in fact gave specious reasons as to why he engaged in wrong-doing. Worse, like the House managers, it was all premised on fantasy and presumption.
I am giving Romney the benefit of the doubt. That does not excuse him or others for justifying and engaging in a sham, unjust political process against a duly elected president.
It was only until Dumpertrumper found out that Biden was leading in the polls when he decided to withhold funds from Ukraine.
Do you have a conscience?
I didn’t believe you were Russian troll before but given how long you’ve been doing this and your unwavering consistency I can only conclude that you’re either being paid or are batshit cray cray. You don’t seem crazy though. Your responses feel purposeful and strategic.
You identified no errors in reasoning nor false assumptions that I'd made. On the other hand, you didn't understand federal government ethics standards and how Trump's behavior violated them. Your judgment seemed rooted in bias against Biden and in favor of Trump, whatever he might do.
Quoting NOS4A2
Claiming Romney displayed "pious sanctimony" does not sound like giving him the benefit of the doubt. Romney knew his vote would hurt him politically, and yet he cast it - that's an act of courage that you should applaud, even if you disagree with his judgment.
You wouldn’t be the first.
Like I said, your entire argument was premised on the fantasies of the House and the admitted presumptions of one testimony. You didn’t show Trump’s behavior violated “government ethics standards”. You showed how Biden violated them.
Where was your benefit of the doubt regarding the presumption of innocence? Nowhere to be seen. Double standards are to be expected with someone named “relativist”, but this is hilarious.
You can praise people for doing the right thing even if they've also done wrong things. Just because they're "the opposition" in most cases doesn't mean we have to spin everything they ever do as bad.
That's what Fox News is for.
I’m glad there’s an opposing view from the majority but it would be better if it felt like it was coming from someone who was actually invested and not just going through the tedious motions.
My point is they are not being praised for doing the right thing, but for promoting a certain political worldview. At this point it wouldn't matter who voted against Trump, they would be welcomed with open arms.
If you need my life story, job details and marital status you can inquire in private.
They are. Having witnesses would have been the right thing. Removing Trump from office would have been the right thing. Informing the public of Trump's wrongdoing would have been the right thing.
Yes, because removing Trump would have been the right thing.
There was 17 witnesses. Removing Trump would have been the wrong thing. Making up stories about wrong-doing is the wrong thing.
Like I said, promoting a certain worldview, one that has already been roundly rejected.
You're the only one uncritically promoting a turd. You forget most of us aren't US citizens and therefore aren't beholden to the "fake news media" Trump decries. It's quite clear what just happened in the US and it's quite clear Trump is a corrupt piece of shit. Your refusal to submit to reason or facts would be funny if it didn't reflect the deep partisanship afflicting the US.
New PBS Frontline documentary on political tribalism in the United States.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/americas-great-divide-from-obama-to-trump/
Awww. How dare he went against Trump. How dare he!!!
Quoting praxis
If upholding past Republican values means going against Trump, that is simply sacrilege!
Quoting NOS4A2
..of the other party you don't support, I know. Many Americans are like that.
The thing is that the divide will get even more deep.
Eh. If US was attacked, we'd all fall in like we've always been best friends willing to die for whatever. In the meantime, it looks like we're about to kill each other (or at least refuse to shake one another's hands).
Labeling the House's inferences "fantasies" demonstrates your pre-judgment. There was much more than one bit of testimony, so you obviously just didn't pay attention. Lack of attention also explains why you didn't pick up on there being an appearance of conflict of interest by Trump on his Zelensky call, and this would call for a closer look at the surrounding facts. Instead of being forthcoming with those facts, he stonewalled the collection of facts. Contrast this with Biden, which I acknowledge has the appearance of conflict, but a closer look at the facts does not support it. And with Trump, it's more than a conflict of interest - he was violating his oath of office and due process by asking for an INDIVIDUAL to be investigated; due process directs investigation of crimes, not fishing expeditions of people. You ignore all this, because you like the spectacle of political dirt digging, and seem to have a quasi-religious faith in Trump's virtues.
Maybe you believe that you’re conducting some sort of social science study? as misguided as that would be.
The blindness? There's corruption everywhere. If you truly believe Trump is interested in investigating corruption, you're completely blind. He was looking for dirt on an opponent. Period.
Is Hunter Biden corrupt? I'm sure of it. But that wasn't my point. See the blindness.
*happy thoughts*
Romney is wrong for the same reason the impeachment brigade is wrong. It’s as simple as that really. It’s hatred and envy.
I’ve read every testimony except for the one the house hid. And simply repeating the accusations of the House without any reference to the defense does not convince me.
Of course you're not convinced. Faith is never defeated with facts.
We previously discussed the evidence you considered exculpatory, and I showed how it's consistent with Trump's guilt and therefore not exculpatory.
NO - wait. That was Clinton.
It seems like everything is just hatred and envy for you. That's the point. Trump supporters yell "Trump derangement syndrome!" for any and every critical view "hurled" (by their view) against their cherished POTUS. It's all one huge conspiracy.
But I get. A lot of Americans are this way. If one would have dared to criticize Obama's War-on-Terror tactics and dared to point out it was quite the same as Bush had it, there would be many Americans coming to the defence their beloved President. They would just blame the Republicans or simply ignore the facts. Many of those complaining how the War-on-Terror approaches go against what the US stands for where quite silent when Obama took office, even if much didn't change.
The incapability of any kind of objective criticism of the President or the party you actually support and/or have voted comes I guess from the vitriolic hatred of the opposing party.
It's happening everywhere, there is a great documentary on the BBC at the moment, where Ed Balls, a well respected politician, travels around Europe talking to populists. In every country the message is the same. The established party's have taken their eye off the ball and large parts of the population feel left behind. So a populist party comes along and promises to put right their grievances. To make their country great again. Millions of people then vote for them, not thinking about what is really going on. That an opportunist, or an extreme right, or left party is saying whatever is required to win their vote, simply to get into power. Once they get into power, the promises are discarded and they follow their own agenda. Usually they will throw some scraps of short term prosperity to the masses by cutting taxes, or protectionism. Or fuel nationalism by blaming someone over there for their troubles, or divide the nation against itself, to create chaos, or blind partisanship.
In every case it results in political and national division making the world a more unstable and dangerous place.
And when the shit hits the fan, whose fault is it? It's them over there, those corrupt politicians, or those people who don't love their country.
These populist leaders should show more respect for the people and their nations and rule with responsibility, integrity, seeking cohesion between groups, rather than division. Their irresponsibility could cause a fall of civilisation and mass suffering.
And what is really to blame, bankers playing Russian ruollete with sub prime mortgages. Maybe the populists should be putting the bankers in jail.
I wonder why. In the lead up to Trump’s presidency the political class promised us the next Hitler, recessions, race wars, mushroom clouds, Russian tanks rolling down our streets. Anyone who voted opposite to them are racist, know-nothing xenophobes. So where was your “objective criticism” then?
It all turned out to be the live-action roleplaying of globalists and their priggish EU allies, the last-ditch efforts to maintain power as they watch their bloated bureaucratic enterprises sink beneath their own hubris. They would undo democracy itself to live out these fantasies, to continue pretending they are the resistance to some growing evil.
As is predictable “objective criticism” is reserved for the opponent only. Zero praise, zero optimism. zero acknowledgement of anything beneficial will come from you, because it would contradict the world-view so many have bought into and invested in.
Besides, any “objective criticism” is immediately overshadowed by thought policing, political correctness, identity politics and wild conspiracy theories. A lot of euros are like this, it turns out, seemingly emulating their American counterparts.
That's all nonsense, what has happened is some stagnation and austerity following the sub-prime mortgage crash, coming on top of the economic consequences of globalisation. People feeling the pain of the stagnation, are vulnerable to the false promises of opportunists and populists, to restore life to how it was before. It's happening all around the world, but the promises are hollow.
The political class? What does that mean?
At any rate there's no doubt American politics has been ushered into a dizzying anti-intellectualist new age by Trump's alt-fact-loving cultists.
It's funny to see right wingers play victim, like Trump did again. It's pc in reverse but with the effect of doing what they claim pc did (while in fact pc created the space for the ridiculed and discriminated to find their voice).
Every time someone critises Trump? They're all haters, witch hunters, liars, etc. That's just another way of saying that people who disagree with Trump's policies or deem him unfit for office should shut up : that is exactly what right wimgers' gripe about pc is about. Meanwhile, right wing memes and thoughts in fact get more air time than any other segment of the political compass because they whine "I'm not heard, I'm not heard" and the media actually takes it seriously.
The right's entire whining about pc is just that, an incessant, petulant wail of a child that has been heard but deemed not to offer anything worthwhile. We can all ignore the fascism and populism as serious thought and the discussion for people still in full command of reason should be a strategic one : how to offer a viable alternative that actually creates a better world and get people to vote for it.
No US President is innocent of lying. But Tump's lies are in a league of their own.
The Power Lie: He knows he's lying and we know he's lying and he knows we know he's lying.
The inauguration-crowd-size lie set the tone. It said: Deny the evidence of your eyes. Trump will tell you what's true.
That's something new in US political folly.
The erection of an alt-fact simulacrum is something new.
Russian tanks rolling down your streets? Seriously, NOS4A2? Russian tanks?
Please give the reference to Russian tanks rolling down your streets. Just for starters.
No, this is just of the example of the hype up vitriolic fervor typical to the 2016 election and the utter incapability of seeing things from another viewpoint. Oh, how badly Trump is been treated? Ok, how about then Hillary Clinton? Or Bill Clinton before? Remember an impeachment? How long did those hearings for Benghazi go on? How long did those investigations about the emails go on? What was that chant again the Trump crowd was so eager to chant? And of course, that the FBI gave the Trump the October surprise by opening the investigations again hardly matters, because they did their job of which they are supposed to do, check if foreign intelligence services are active on US soil. (You see, the FBI really goes quite impartially against both sides of the political spectrum: far right militias, far left organizations, radical green movements etc.)
Quoting NOS4A2
Then you simply don't actually read what I write.
I've always said that Trump made great choices by picking up non-political US generals into key positions at first (Mattis as Secretary for Defence, Kelly as Secretary of Homeland Security, McMaster as National Security Advisor). That really took the "Foreign Policy blob" politicians, especially the neocons, out of the loop for a while. Of course now they are all out. I've never though Trump would start any serious conflict. Men with missions start wars. Trump's not that kind of person, who has a deep conviction about himself and what he wants to be done. And the best argument I've heard by a Trump supporter say (that I have to agree with): with Trump in power, the media will be a ferocious attack dog constantly looking for misuse of power by him (as it should), while with a Hillary administration the mainstream media would be a lap dog of Hillary. And of course with Hillary Clinton administration, the Republicans would have lost their marbles totally. Fist fights in the House or Senate would be close.
Wouldn't be actually the first time in US history, actually.
Here's a chapter from "Drunk History":
Oh yeah, and then you got a civil war...
This is the effect of populism. Populism that can emerge both from the right and left.
You see, you can criticize the EU, where it's going and yet keep the discussion civilized like with the lines of Margaret Thatcher. (Of course, then you might not be noticed.) The UK never got into a leadership position in the EU and obviously did feel sidelined by the Franco-German axis, hence there are many reasons for UK not having been fine and dandy with the EEC/EU.
Yet then you can go with the populist rhetoric of the elites being against the ordinary people, their evil intensions, spread fear about open borders, all the conspiracies etc. The thing is, the polarization, us to them, then does have consequences. Shouldn't be hard to figure out that with the juxtaposition you will alienate others. And populists are just fine with that.
And really notice that it isn't confined to the right. Leftists can be also very populist, especially in their hatred for the rich.
Can you support that opinion with a fact?
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
No I could not, but time will tell.
There's facts, and then there's how to use facts, source of the facts being damned, at least as far as partisan politics go.
Sadly most discussions about this subject (saying nothing about "Trump one way or another) seem like they're predicated on basic ignorance of what "facts" are, or how facts are used in anything resembling a consistent and objective setting, such as a trial or a court of law, or anything resembling non-sensationalist journalism and the ignorance it's predicated on an marketed to to begin with; often the word "fact" is just falsely conflated with the word "true", when in reality, facts are just isolated pieces of information, which could be combined in a virtually infinite number of ways to create, establish, or advocate any theory, premise or conclusion, regardless of the ultimate merits thereof are.
Much as how most if not all mass media is more or less predicated merely on regurgitating a set opinion or piece of bite sized information, usually substantiated by confirmation bias to support a presupposed conclusion for any number of reasons, many of them more emotional than rational or logical to begin with.
One of my very favourite aphorisms comes from an American politician of an earlier generation, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said:
Appeals Court Tosses Democrats’ Emoluments Lawsuit Against Trump
WSJ
You’re Fired
Either another witch hunt is gone, or the constitution has yet again been subverted by partisan whim.
I guess we will never know either way...
The media in the United States has proven Chomsky's Propaganda Model to be accurate. I think people have noticed this, and unless one prefers to be informed from within this bubble, a vast majority of people aren't buying it.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Edges Down to 41%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx
Here's the highlights of your link:
13% trust the media "a great deal," and 28% "a fair amount"
69% of Democrats, 15% of Republicans, 36% of independents trust media.
Conservatives have been bashing media for years, and THAT propaganda has been effective for them, within their clique.
A healthy skepticism of reporting is a good thing, but it becomes irrational when it's used as an excuse to dismiss the inconvenient news that exposes things you don't like. Trump has exacerbated this to the extreme, labelling all negative reporting as "fake". Many of his lemming followers emulate this. In a sense, this has been a brilliant propoganda tool for Trump, but it means they're being played in the worst way.
Remember when Trump said Comey lied about Trump asking for his personal loyalty? Since then, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated how right Comey was.
In 2017 there was a sharp 21 point rise in Democratic confidence in the media. That’s quite the drastic change, especially after a long period of decline, so the self-aggrandizing of the media’s must have been an effective propaganda tool. I wonder if the new found credulity had anything to do with it’s opposition to Trump?
It is by now routine for mass media defenders, especially the media themselves, to tell us that we dismiss news that exposes things we do not like. That must be projection, because, according to the Knight Foundation, when asked in their own words why they distrust the media “Americans’ responses largely center on matters of accuracy or bias”.
Let the tweet wars begin.
Let's go through Trumps tweets and comment on those tweets and then comment on the comment tweets and...
Nice map, actually!
Trump's use of the Stalinist epithet, "enemy of the people" to describe the media is undeniably polarizing - so to whatever degree there is increased irrational credulity on the left, it's a product of Trump's rhetoric. Nevertheless, who's being more irrationally incredulous: those who refuse to see or acknowledge Trump's daily litany of untruths, or those who call him out?
Edit: but I think I understand. If it’s not seen here others will start a new one. Still what’s the point?
Less a traitor to truth than the dupe of a potent simulacrum. Lazy-hearted fucks are often duped by a heartless strongarm. Their sickness of heart is mirrored in the potentate they choose to glorify and the simulacrum they choose to inhabit.
(Simulacrum a la Baudrillard in Simulacra and Simulation)
Well, you got me clicking the article. So hope The Hill is happy.
Poll: New Hampshire Democrats would prefer an extinction-causing meteor over Trump reelection
First woman to run a winning election campaign. You’re more of a George Conway.
As 180proof described in the other thread on the road to 2020, it's a choice between gonorrhoea or syphilis. Also, I've read the NYT for years and it has been downhill since it stopped being the International Herald Tribune.
You can add Ireland and most of Western Europe to that.
It appears that the DOJ is finally vetting the info he has gathered. Giuliani has claimed that he possesses a smoking gun in regards to the Bidens, and indeed many Democrats, including evidence of bribery and money laundering.
Until now the DOJ and State dept wouldn’t touch it. But, though Barr has stressed that any info from Ukraine cannot be trusted at face value, the DOJ has set up an “intake process” through which the info can be scrutinized. FBI Deputy-Director Bowdich also confirmed he has received the evidence.
It’s either going to be proven to be propaganda and Rudy fell for it, or its going to get really messy for the previous administration. If the documented evidence is true, hopefully we can expect some much-needed justice and perp-walks.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/rudygiuliani/status/1227052624781959168?s=21[/tweet]
Except Giuliani and Trump have never been convicted or even charged with corruption, even after years of investigations. Giuliani brought down the Mafia.
I hope that’s sarcasm.
It has the potential to become the biggest corruption and political scandal American history.
I guess we’ll find out, because if Giuliani’s documented evidence and testimony is true, it will prove your impeachment to be a red-herring, and worse, a cover-up.
You have been wrong about everything, Tim. And all of what you say is without irony. One day the fever will break and I’ll be one of the first to welcome you back.
Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me.
Yes, the President complains that one of his previous associates is being treated too harshly after being found guilty of witness tampering, obstruction, and false statements in relation to an investigation into the President's campaign, and then hours later the Department of Justice decides to reverse its sentencing suggestion from the previous day - and that's justice. And it's even more just because the reversal triggered the resignation of four prosecutors, at least two of whom are apparently Obama stooges.
And the real corruption is that Hunter Biden was offered a highly paid job whilst his father was Vice President because Giuliani says so.
Gotcha.
But honestly, your positions are laughable. I don't know what would be worse; if you actually believed the things you say or if this is all gaslighting.
According to the DOJ it had no contact with the White House, and that the decision to change the sentencing recommendation was made before the Trump tweet. So, once again, you’re dealing in conspiracy theory when there are countless other reasons why such a change was made. One valid reason is excessive sentencing for what amounts to process crimes. The DOJ agreed Stone should pay for his crimes, only that such an excessive sentence wasn’t warranted. They rescinded the recommendation and deferred the sentencing to the judge of the case.
So if that position is laughable, what of the position of your conspiracy theory? It’s not me doing the “gas-lighting”.
What makes this true? The media?
What makes it false?
That’s your white privilege talking.
I did not.
You have an awful habit of reminding us you’re a lawyer. What corruption has trump committed?
I was just bored and felt like typing something. You are indefeasible. Go on reading your rebuttals.
I'm not wasting time with a bad faith actor like you. Trump is corrupt because he obstructed justice where it concerned the Russian meddling in the 2016 election multiple times as Mueller reported and he unlawfully and inappropriately pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. That the Republican majority considers power more important than doing their constitutional job means Trump is in similar company. That you're such a partisan hack that you don't see it is testimony to the pathetic state of political discourse in the USA.
I wouldn’t trust a lawyer who simply repeats unproven conspiracy theories, that’s for sure. “Inappropriate” and “unlawful”—your opinions are as lacking as the brain matter they’re founded on. It appears you swallow more American discourse than I do.
Your only defence is that the populism and egotistical property tycoon antics employed by the President to play the crowd are not contravening the law. And yet you imply that he is squeaky clean and respects his office. Where is your criticism of his disrespect of office?
NOS4A2 is discredited as an impartial commentator here. He/she has gone around the block a number of times now, simply trotting out the same tired responses. If there is difficulty in defending Trump, just pull out a divide and rule trope and then anything your opponent says is smeared as jealous partisan scheming. It's right out of the Trump, "how to get into power using populism to play the media" playbook.
The fact that it is diminishes the office of the President of the United States, or deflates the integrity of the country on the world stage is not mentioned, it's an inconvenient truth.
“Disrespect of office”? These types of glittering generalities have the effect of sounding meaningful but are empty on any closer examination. Is it because he served McDonalds in the State dining room? Is this what you mean?
This is it? This is the level of debate?
Read what exactly? I’ll read it.
U.S. ready to sign peace deal if Taliban abide by promise to reduce violence
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-ready-sign-peace-deal-if-taliban-abides-promise-n1135406
This isn't a debate. It's an attempt to get a handle on Nosferatu's propaganda.
I remain unconvinced by your specious and spurious reasoning. It’s as simple as that. You know that but you fear being exposed as a dupe.
You have offered zero arguments and in lieu of them can only repeat, like a parrot, unproven accusations. All this from someone who in theory should believe in the presumption of innocence. I take it your morals are as fickle as your principles.
Is that all you've got to say?
He's a laughing stock around the world, I wonder why.
They explain their sentencing suggestion as per the official guidelines here (pages 16-18).
They determined an offence level of 29, which for someone with a Criminal History category of I (the lowest), suggests 97-108 months.
14 base level for obstruction + 8 for threats to cause injury/property damage + 3 for substantial interference in investigation + 2 for extensive in scope, planning, or preparation + 2 for further obstruction/violating court order after initial indictment.
Perhaps you could point out where they have incorrectly followed the guidelines?
If your issue is with the guidelines themselves then you should take it up with the United States Sentencing Commission, and not accuse the prosecutors of being "Obama stooges" who are being unjust in their recommendation.
If the DOJ are reversing their decision despite the guidelines then it suggests that they're being favourable to Stone because he's Trump's buddy, either because Trump asked or because Barr is a bootlicker. Either way it's corruption, not justice.
Yo Dumpertrumper,
Help me with this. The GOP is blocking legislation relative to foreign election interference. For instance, there is a Bill being blocked, sponsored by Democrats Warner/Blumenthal, that proposes/requires campaign's to report offers of foreign assistance, including donations or coordination, to the FEC and the FBI.
Does the GOP not want foreign interference? Can you correct me on that?
...yeah, I'm wondering if Dumpertrumper and Barr secretly bump-their-ugly's behind closed doors. Call me naïve, but I can't figure it out.. , are they in cahoots with one another ?
This is yet another case of the Administration taking actions that appear wrong on its face. As with the others, there's no direct evidence of Trump personally taking action for Stone. This is all that Trump apologists need to excuse Trump from wrongdoing. Their biggest errors are in failing to see the pattern (because each case is considered independently, and dismissed as a non-issue), and applying a double standard (e.g. consider their assumptions of guilt for Biden and Clinton).
BTW, I have one additional fact to add to your excellent analysis: I heard a former federal prosecutor state that in a high profile case, like Stone's, the sentencing recommendation would have had to be reviewed and approved high up the chain of command - likely up to the FBI director. This makes the overruling of it seem that much more anomalous.
In the revised recommendation, here, the DOJ states that “the Sentencing Guidelines enhancements in this case—while perhaps technically applicable— more than double the defendant’s total offense level and, as a result, disproportionately escalate the defendant’s sentencing exposure to an offense level of 29, which typically applies in cases involving violent offenses, such as armed robbery, not obstruction cases.”
The sentencing guidelines are but one of several factors when considering a sentence. This is a matter of law (18 U.S. Code §?3553 ). According to the Supreme Court:
They must also consider, among other things, the “nature and circumstances of the offense,” the “need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” and “the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.”
They then go on to mention a few facts that should be considered, but which are absent in the original.
First, the most serious enhancement of threats has been disputed by the supposed victim, who never felt threatened.
Two, the obstruction enhancement “overlaps to a degree with the offense conduct in this case. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent the defendant’s obstructive conduct actually prejudiced the government at trial”.
Three, “ the Court must “avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).” They then go on to list several cases that constitute only a fraction of Stone’s penalty.
Four, the defendant’s age, health, and prior criminal history should be considered. Stones sentence has been typically reserved for criminal gangsters and drug dealers threatening witnesses with rape and murder.
So unless you have a problem with the law and the Supreme Court, maybe you should remind your prosecutors that precedent and law are binding and that guidelines are just that: guidelines.
The senator Blackburn’s claim is that it takes power from the states to govern their own elections and give it to the federal government. She further claims the Democrats knew this and knew the GOP would block it, thereby giving them campaign fodder.
How should the Dumpertrumper administration care to resolve it?
Presumably the missing qualification here is "the typical sentences imposed in obstruction cases that do not include the eight-level enhancement for threatening a witness with physical injury". But comparing cases that don't include such threats with a case that does include such threats to argue that the latter shouldn't include the enhancements specifically designed for it is pretty ridiculous.
So by their own admission, even if the victim didn't feel threatened it doesn't undermine the applicability of the enhancement. It may have relevance when the judge makes her decision, but it was entirely appropriate for prosecutors to apply it in their recommendation given that the threats were made.
In fact see United States v. Plumley, holding that § 2J1.2(b) "does not impose an additional `seriousness' requirement beyond the fact of a violent threat".
As best as I understand it the Supreme Court made a ruling on whether or not a court is allowed to impose a sentence that falls outside the guidelines. But the issue here is on whether or not prosecutors were right to recommend a sentence that falls within the guidelines. So this seems irrelevant.
This does have merit given that the guidelines state "If the defendant is convicted of an offense covered by §2J1.1 (Contempt), §2J1.2 (Obstruction of Justice), §2J1.3 (Perjury or Subornation of Perjury; Bribery of Witness), §2J1.5 (Failure to Appear by Material Witness), §2J1.6 (Failure to Appear by Defendant), §2J1.9 (Payment to Witness), §2X3.1 (Accessory After the Fact), or §2X4.1 (Misprision of Felony), this adjustment is not to be applied to the offense level for that offense except if a significant further obstruction occurred during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the obstruction offense itself."
The prior filing that mentions these cases explicitly explains why these sentences were much less than what is being recommended for Stone.
They may have a point re. Stone's age and health, but the mention of a criminal history is fallacious given that the recommended sentence is the recommended sentence for someone in category I (little to no criminal history). First time offences can warrant 87 to 108 months - if the offence level is 29, which was determined to be the case here. They're trying to compare it to a lower offence level with a higher criminal history category, which is a misleading comparison.
What bill are you referring to? The SHIELD act doesn't affect how elections are run; it just requires candidates to report any contacts made by foreign governments, and extends rules that apply to radio and TV commercials to online ads. The ostensible reason for blocking it was that it infringes free speech, and I don't see how that makes any sense.
I don’t want you to think you’ve wasted time typing all that out, so thx for the reasonable response. I read all of it. I appreciate you considering both sides and respect your opinion of what is “appropriate” and what is “ridiculous”. We’ll see if the judge agrees or disagrees.
But how we get from here to the DOJ being favorable to Trump’s buddy for corrupt reasons is beyond me.
I’m only relaying Blackburn’s statements. I would just stress that the suggestion that they are blocking it to allow foreign interference is without merit.
OK, then Blackburn's statements seem disingenuous.
They're blocking it because it would look critical of Trump, and the net result is that it DOES enable future interactions like the infamous Trump Tower meeting.
I see no evidence for that conclusion.
I see no evidence that Senators are blocking it “because it would look critical of Trump”, nor that “the net result is that it DOES enable future interactions”.
Quoting NOS4A2
It sounds like you accept the fact that Republican Senators sometimes avoid saying things that are critical of Trump, you just don't see any evidence of it in this case.
No evidence? Consider the sort of information available to us for making any of our political judgment: past behavior is a large part of it. Consider some hypothetical bill that will limit access to abortions. We have no evidence of how Ted Cruz will vote for any specific bill, but his past record gives us a reasonable basis for believing he will support the bill.
Republican Senators have frequently refrained from criticizing Trump, and Trump has given them good reason to do so: there's a good chance Trump will attack them (look at Mitt Romney). True, we have no evidence that this is a factor here, but it's as reasonable to assume this as it is to consider past voting records.
Regarding the "net result" - OF COURSE it's the net result, because it's the status quo.
Right, “patterns” as you keep saying. There is also a continuous pattern of a particularly insidious form of appealing to motives, especially when it comes to Trump.
For me, if the motive cannot be proven to exist, or that this unproven motive played any factor in any action, it becomes really hard to believe. This is because Anti-Trumpists in particular have fallen afoul of the fundamental attribution error time and time again. The idea that Trump is fuelled by some defect in his personality or inner state while neglecting to consider more situational factors leads them astray every time, including in the impeachment charade. That’s why I am suspicious of these claims because rarely are they used to discern truth more than they are used to attack the target.
Prove? You set the bar impossibly high, and you aren't consistent with where you set it.
This is of course, a common affliction regardless of one's ideology. Sure, some Trump bashers make premature judgments, just like Trump minions did when shouting "lock her up". I try to avoid it. It's part of trying to be objective. Another part is to try and apply consistent principles. You should try to do these things, particularly if you're engaging in discussions with people with different political views.
Dumpertrumper,
If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?
Prove or otherwise admit that you have imagined it all. Admit you’re speculating. Admit you’ve invented it. Admit that you have no proof. It is a part of trying to be objective.
That’s a loaded question, Shillery.
NOS4A2,
NOS4A2 is just trolling. He/she waits for posters to comment on the issues and then hits back with spin from the Republican propaganda playbook. There is no engagement on issues outside of this propaganda bubble in which the two sides are portrayed as locking horns. When outsiders point these things out, there is no response.
The whole playbook is based on Machiavellian divide and rule principles. The office of the president is treated with contempt, in plain sight.
You do realize this is a philosophy forum, don't you? I take epistemology pretty seriously. I admit I can't prove all my political beliefs; no one can. You are naive if you think you can prove your political beliefs, or most of your other beliefs. Inability to prove a belief doesn't imply it's invented. Rather, we ought to strive for justification for our beliefs, not proof. Sometimes, the justification is relatively weak - that's a consequence of the sort of information we have available to us. With politics, we have a choice of working with such weakly justified beliefs or abstaining from participation.
Consider the proposition:
S: some Republican Senators are blocking passage of the SHIELD act because they wish to avoid appearing to Trump as being critical of his behavior.
Anyone who thinks such a bill is important can and perhaps should form an opinion about why it's been blocked. This implies judging whether or not S is true or false. Proof is not available, all we can do is form an opinion (which is a belief) based on what seems the best explanation for it, while remaining open to revising that opinion as additional information becomes available. You don't believe proposition S is true. That could me you believe it false, or it could just mean that it's not sufficiently significant to require you to form an opinion. But I wonder if you might just be unjustifiably believing your favorite politicians actions are virtuous unless and until it is proven to you that they are not. That's certainly what it sounds like.
The only standards Punshhh has are double standards. He sees opposing opinions as so foreign that he simply refuses to believe people will disagree with him He reserves this species of criticism for those who don’t read the Guardian, but will refuse to abide by his own standards and says nothing about those who serve to confirm his biases.
I’m not talking about “political beliefs”. I’m talking about appeals to motives and your fundamental attribution error. It’s bad faith and it’s unjust. They explicitly stated why they blocked the bills. I’m not saying you have to believe them and I take no issue with speculating. But if you’re not going to consider their arguments and instead invent imaginary motives in their stead, while using those imaginary motives to accuse them of invented crimes, you are being unfair. That’s all I’m saying.
Oh certainly. If we take his ogling of underage girls in his pageants into account, as well as his general mysogyny and "grab them by the pussy" then that's pretty obvious.
“ Epstein was once reportedly a regular at the resort, although he was never a member. Trump later banned Epstein from the property, allegedly due to a sexual assault on a girl there, according to previously disclosed court records.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/09/epstein-mar-a-lago-trump-1456221
“Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey. You can’t do that at my resorts. That’s why we all pay to have our sex parties with children at your place... you know, so we can keep it on the down low.” -Trump
What about those that were actually accused by the victims, for instance Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, a Maine Democrat, or Bill Richardson, a former Democrat governor of New Mexico?
If that’s true, then they’re children fuckers, too. The child fucking is bipartisan.
They should be prosecuted along with Trump, an admitted “pussy” grabber.
He admitted no such thing.
I guess it was a “deepfake”.
No, the audio is clear as day. Saying you can do anything does not mean that I have done it. Simple English.
If I were above the law like Trump thinks he is, I would shoot him on Fifth Avenue.
Man, I’m so proud to be an American under Mein Fuhrer Trump.
I’m not surprised. It seems like your one fantasy away from doing something foolish,
I’m a very stable genius.
So I should believe you. As an outsider, I can see where the populism has been employed.
You didn't answer my question about the integrity of the office of the President?
There's no such animal as a stable genius. A genius is the epitome of instability. Trump is either speaking alternative facts, or highly unstable. Although one can probably speak alternative facts while being highly unstable.
P.s. I like deepfake, I'll add that to my vocabulary.
I’m probably crazier than Trump; but unlike him I did well in school, and I’m capable of learning new things.
Yeah, deepfakes are going to make it difficult to know the difference between truth and fiction.
Dumpertrumper,
If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?
What sophistry.
Now we know where you hang your hat.
Indeed. There's an irony here. With all due respect, I'm starting to think that NOS4A2 is a pussy too!
For some reason he's hiding from a lot of our questions to him! LOL
Yo NOS4A2,
Are you thin-skinned like your boss daddy Dumpertrumper?
FYI-In this forum, you won't be able to hide. It's not rigged like the way you prefer other things. Let's test your logic please:
If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?
tick tock tick tock
LOL
Speaking of simple logic, I'm on a roll, so here's a bonus question. I want to test your consistency.
In the other thread "Do the ends Justify the Means" You said, and I quote:
"The ends could justify the means but only if the means are just. If the means are just so are the ends."
What if the means are unjust? How does that square with your support of the Dumpertrumper?
You've got two questions, and counting, that you need to reconcile!
LOL
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/13/trump-roger-stone-trial-jury
Lol
And “rigged” is the wrong word unless the prosecution intentionally put them on the jury, hiding their political beliefs. As far as I’m aware juries are selected at random with the prosecution and defence both having the opportunity to ask them questions and ask for them to be dismissed if they show bias.
But what exactly do you want in a jury? Only those with no political opinions? I doubt there are many.
Besides, it was Stone on trial, not Trump. Did the foreman show strong anti-Stone bias? And is there reason to believe that the evidence was insufficient and that the jury knowingly gave the wrong verdict?
Some semblance of impartiality would be nice. Even the appearance of bias can be ruinous to the entire justice system. Of course that’s a lot to ask, especially in Washington.
Unless you have reason to believe that the case was weak and that the foreman improperly pressured the other jurors to convict then this accusation of the trial being “rigged” is pro-Trump hysteria.
Yeah the problem occurred somewhere in the voir dire. Whether it was the fault of his own attorneys or someone else is unclear.
You wouldn’t object to the jury foreman being a former Republican congressional candidate, and MAGA-hat wearing activist who tweets out pro-Trump posts every day?
If they were the lone hold-out in the face of what the other jurors (including other Trump supporters) claimed was overwhelming evidence - as was the case with Manafort - then I would.
Then you’re a more trustworthy man than me, that’s for sure.
Interestingly enough, the judge denied Stone’s demand for a new trial because of a biased juror just under 24 hours ago. apparently the juror was IRS. But now there is this immediately after that decision.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-12/roger-stone-s-request-for-new-trial-denied-by-judge
Dumpertrumper,
Would the appearance of bias in an Impeachment trial be ruinous to the constitutional system?
That's question #3. (I'll check in daily and repost my questions in case you forget to answer them LOL.)
Thanks for the questions, Shillary. I hope you check in every day.
It sure is funny to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel to try to reach Trump’s tiny penis to your mouth.
Awesome! Would you mind if I check-in more than several times, just as a sort of friendly courtesy?
I'm sorry, I realize those questions are a little incriminating to you, but I wouldn't want to you to loose sight of them. Especially if it will give you the chance to exonerate yourself sort-a-speak. Otherwise, is there a better approach in helping you to answer those?
I hope you won't get too frustrated. It's OK to be wrong, don't be afraid of yourself!
I'll repost them later today if that's ok.
I love politics, and this aspect of politics is of particular interest to me. I enjoy the dialectic. I admit that I find it strange that an opposing opinion is met with such hostility, especially from those who claim to enjoy philosophy, but then again so much the better. Also, it helps get through an otherwise boring work day.
Awesome! Would you mind if I check-in more than several times, just as a sort of friendly courtesy?
I'm sorry, I realize those questions are a little incriminating to you, but I wouldn't want to you to loose sight of them. Especially if it will give you the chance to exonerate yourself sort-a-speak. Otherwise, is there a better approach in helping you to answer those?
I hope you won't get too frustrated. It's OK to be wrong, don't be afraid of yourself!
I'll repost them later today if that's ok.
You don’t need my permission, friend. You do you,
Okay. I just want you to know that I don’t hate Trump supporters. I just hate Trump.
That's fair and I appreciate that. The going rate was me being accused of being a troll or Russian bot, so this is a breath of fresh air. Thank you.
You're just providing good practice.
:wink:
What is your take on the Trump defense teams use of the idea that the framers warned against partisan impeachments, and then pointed out that Trump's impeachment seemed to be exactly what they were warning about?
You're a Democrat? I've never liked either party and will remain an independant, though I do favor the Republicans more and more these days. But I'm with you: I hate the people on TV. I hate fox news as much as I hate CNN. I would also include in that celebrities and those who give each other golden statues at award shows.
I think they're right. I don't think someone should be impeached because of partisan differences. I think the bar should be set much higher for impeachment, especially when it comes to democratically-elected officials. What do you think?
...great! I'm going to add some from my other thread, so if you don't mind there might be a total of 20 questions or so. Is that alright?
Again it's not meant to embarrass you, but only to demonstrate where you're likely inconsistent in your reasoning.
In the meantime if you want to try to tackle those four questions I'd greatly appreciate it! If not that's okay, I'll add them to the running list.
I’ve always voted Democratic. I guess that makes me a Democrat. However, I would have been happy under Eisenhower, I think. George H.W. Bush wasn’t bad for a Reaganomics-type president. Obama was a disappointment for me, but I do believe that his and George W. Bush’s policies got us out of the Global Financial Crisis, even though Clinton and Bush, Jr. paved the way into it.
I can totally understand how Trump got elected. I just don’t see any policies of his that I like (to put it mildly).
You've only offered me loaded questions. If you could correct that I would be happy to answer them. Is that ok?
I do not think that impeachment based upon "partisan differences" is what the framers were warning about. To quite the contrary, they were warning about what could happen when and if political parties were established.
It was a warning against the establishment of political parties altogether.
To be clear. The framers were putting forth an unacceptable consequence of forming political parties(factions) themselves. It was a warning not just about some unacceptable kind of one-sided 'partisan' impeachment process, but rather it was a warning about the results of forming political parties altogether.
The prosecution failed to seize on that.
So... I would not call that defense "right" by any reasonable standard of understanding. Misleading is a better description.
What's a loaded question?
I don't blame you. I voted twice for Obama and now sort of regret it, though I still like him. I can't stand the Bush dynasty nor its legacy, however.
For me at least, Trump represents a rebuke to the Ivy-League style of politics. I'm done with talkers and the public/private, public relations form of politics, where they promise us one thing and we end up with another. I'm not sure if I would like Trump as a person given that I haven't spent any time with him, but so far I'm with him on policy and general philosophy (if you could call it that). Mostly I just want to see him serve out his terms so we can judge the results.
You could be right as far as I know. I can't say I've read up on it that much, but I am aware of Hamilton's distaste for parties and factions, though Franklin I think disagreed. I could be wrong.
I dunno. I thought Hamilton was a Federalist. Quick search showed that Adams was the only Federalist. So... I need to research that prior to assenting to much else.
:brow:
What's your take on the votes that Bernie would take from Trump, if Sanders is awarded the nomination?
And that’s exactly why I understand how Trump got elected. I voted for Sanders then Hillary in 2016. I’m sure the Republican House and Senate in 2017 would have impeached her for something (her emails maybe?) We live in an age where government can’t do anything without the presidency and both chambers solidly in one party.
I disagree with Trump’s proposed budget, the new tax code, the right-wing judges, the environmental deregulation, the immigration policies, and just about everything else he’s done. He really is far right wing on a lot of issues. He is for better trade deals, however, so we will see what he gets done there.
That's just not true, unless 'better' means continued harm against American workers.
He wants better deals for our exporters. I didn’t say he actually accomplished anything yet.
Sanders poses the biggest threat to Trump, in my opinion. I actually want Sanders to win the primary because I hate the establishment, the DNC, and their tools in the media. But I think there is still massive anti-socialist sentiment in the United States, that the Democrats would lose many voters and go to Trump. Either way it would be an interesting election.
During national debates, the misconception of negativity towards Bernie due to 'socialism' would be rendered null and void to anyone who is reasonable enough to recognize the deep seated 'socialist' institutions that have always been a part of America.
See I think he's more left-wing than the typical Republican. Either way, he's certainly an aberration from the party's standards.
Perhaps. Profit as the motive. The bigger problems with the trade deals are shown by the financial harm they've caused to the American workers, as well as all the issues revolving around inferior quality products... which an entire thread could be based upon.
Which socialist institutions?
Post office. Public education. Fire department. Police department. Department of interior. Land and natural resources. All infrastructure. FDA. EPA. Etc.
Wait...how are those socialist?
They place what's best for the overall community(the public at large) at the forefront.
I can't agree with that. Public education, post offices, fire departments, infrastructure, etc were not invented by any socialist.
Invented by any socialist?
As if the only thing that counts as socialist is that which is invented by some socialist?
That's part of the problem with the term being bandied about. It's hollow. People do not know what sort of socialism is already deeply embedded in America.
It's kind of sad really. The amount of available literature from the founding fathers, the framers of the constitution, and the revolutionary thinkers of the time is overwhelmingly against capitalism and capitalists.
Sad, because people just don't know. A careful perusing through the literature will quickly confirm that all they warned about has actually happened... and yet... "socialism" is bad, and "capitalism" and capitalists are currently held to be admired and defended.
Those who started this country vehemently disagreed.
You just claimed that institutions are socialist when they "place what's best for the overall community at the forefront". Sorry friend, but that's ridiculous.
That's the driving force, one of the underlying principles guiding policy decisions for democratic socialism. If you disagree, then do not call them socialists... they won't mind.
Don’t take his word for it. Google what conservative scholars think about Social Security and Medicare, as examples. Google “tax is theft” while you’re at it.
User fees.
If the United States already has “socialist institutions”, I guess we don’t need democratic socialists to run things.
Quoting NOS4A2
"There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
From the Brookings Institution
Competing definitions of socialism
The growing popularity of socialism reflects a change in its image. Viewed in the past under the dark shadow of the Soviet system, it is now seen in light of the achievements of social democratic governments in Scandinavia and elsewhere in Europe.
In 2018, the Public Religion Research Institute offered respondents two definitions of socialism. One described it as “a system of government that provides citizens with health insurance, retirement support, and access to free higher education.” The other characterized it as “a system where the government controls key parts of the economy, such as utilities, transportation and communications industries.” The first definition effectively refers to the Scandinavian model—and the ideas popularized by Sanders. Most proponents of social democracy see it as a way of smoothing capitalism’s rough edges, making it more humane, egalitarian, and protective, rather than replacing the market outright. The second definition corresponds to the classic understanding of socialism that dominated public consciousness after World War II, when the challenge from the Soviet Union was at its peak.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/05/13/socialism-a-short-primer/
I’m well aware of American rhetoric around what “socialism” means. Bernie sanders himself once said Denmark was socialist. But Denmark is a market economy.
Exactly.
:rofl:
How does “social ownership” fit into your definition? Will you say that me paying taxes means I own the post-office?
You have use of public education, the fire department, police, public roads, postal service, Medicaid, Medicare, social security. Etc.
:brow:
Cannot wait for the national debates between Bernie and Trump.
Because I pay for their service, not because I own them.
Social ownership is any of various forms of ownership of the means of production in socialist economic systems, encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity,[1] common ownership and collective ownership.[2]
Historically social ownership implied that capital and factor markets would cease to exist under the assumption that market exchanges within the production process would be made redundant if capital goods were owned by a single entity or network of entities representing society,[3] but the articulation of models of market socialism where factor markets are utilized for allocating capital goods between socially owned enterprises broadened the definition to include autonomous entities within a market economy. Social ownership of the means of production is the common defining characteristic of all the various forms of socialism.[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership
What do you think ownership means?
Which public entities, lands and institutions do you own?
All of them.
I dare you to say that to the police officer the next time you get pulled over.
Did you so much as glance at the wiki on social ownership?
It doesn't mean the public owns the police either.
I read your quotes, yes. Are you also going to claim that you own the police, fire departments, public parks and the military?
I'm not disputing that at all.
I wouldn't disagree with that.
He's a self-described socialist, has backed the Socialist Worker's party, has applauded bread lines, etc. So though I agree his policies may not be technically socialist he has certainly promoted socialism and has referred to himself as one. I'll take him at his word, but you're right.
Quoting NOS4A2
No, I mean the entire wiki article, and maybe twice or three times. You might even have to do a little research beyond the wiki to understand how the word "ownership" is being used.
Quoting NOS4A2
I already told you you're not worth talking to. But I don't mind referring you to educational materials.
To help you sound less like...
Quoting creativesoul
That closes the debate. You've won! :lol:
Thanks :ok: .
Ok, take a deep breath. Before I present my questions, here's my premise. I will prove, by way of the simple questions that are forthcoming, that your reasoning ( treating like cases likely, and different cases differently) is highly suspect and fundamentally flawed.
Now, taking it a step further and I suggest you put your big-boy pants on here, I will demonstrate that individuals like yourself, who have right-wing extremist views (and you are welcome to prove me wrong there) are not only dangerous to our democracy, but lack the common sense required to fully grasp what it means to have a good conscience, accountability, impartial ideology, and objective views and principles necessary to prosecute public policy.
So, basically, just like your Dumpertrumper behaves, I will spare the euphemisms and political correctness to directly attack you whenever the opportunity presents itself. For example, you seemingly are evading some of the preliminary questions already, and as such, you will get no hall pass from me. Not only will you be required to answer them, you will be required to have thick-skin. And by the same token, you are free to attack me in whatever method that suits you. You are even welcome to submit personal attacks if that makes you feel good, just like your boss does. Are you brave enough to take the challenge?
How dramatic. I can't wait.
Excellent , we will start with the questions you are avoiding...be back shortly..
Barr blasts Trump's tweets on Stone case: 'Impossible for me to do my job': ABC News Exclusive
In an exclusive interview, Attorney General Bill Barr told ABC News on Thursday that President Donald Trump "has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case” but should stop tweeting about the Justice Department because his tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.”
That's a valid complaint by Barr. The timing of Trump's tweet, though it agrees with Barr's assessment about the Stone case, has a tendency to fuel conspiracy theories among the Twitterati.
This is round 1 of 2. Round 2 will contain about 10 questions from my Impeachment thread.
1. If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?
2. In the other thread "Do the ends Justify the Means" You said, and I quote:
"The ends could justify the means but only if the means are just. If the means are just so are the ends."
What if the means are unjust? How does that square with your support of the Dumpertrumper?
3. You said: "Even the appearance of bias can be ruinous to the entire justice system". Would the appearance of bias in an Impeachment trial be ruinous to the constitutional system?
4. You said: "It looks like the trial against Stone is rigged. The jury foreman is an anti-Trump democratic candidate and Russia truther". Question to you from Mike: If they were Trump supporting Republican,
would it have been rigged in Stones favor?.
I have never supported POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes. The question is loaded because it assumes, without evidence, that POTUS was influencing DOJ.
If the means were unjust I wouldn't support it.
It would and it was.
It would, yes. Do you think it would not be?
Absolutely agree: Smokescreen. Ball and cups game.
Let's parse these questions very carefully one at a time. What did you mean from your quote above?
Then we will get to Dumpertrumper's tweets that influenced public policy (the second part of question #1).
I don't think Trump will debate. He can't possibly look competent. He might just say they are rigged and be done with it.
I think Dumpertrumper met his match with Bloomberg, as well. Interesting irony there for sure...
(This might read a little better.) Let's parse these questions very carefully one at a time. What did you mean from your quote above?
Quoting NOS4A2
Then we will get to Dumpertrumper's tweets that influenced public policy (the second part of your above answer to question #1).
Again your assumption that Trump’s tweet somehow influenced Barr’s decision is just that, an assumption, and one that isn’t backed by any evidence save for fantasy. Carry on with your analysis.
Don't Mind if I do. We will get to that shortly. Let's get to your own statement credibility issues first, where you seem to be evading the question.
You said: "Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me."
— NOS4A2
Explain what you meant by that?
I believe it is unjust to punish someone in a manner not appropriate to their crime.
You're evading the question again. In your words, why was it justice that they left the DOJ?
I was speaking about DOJ’s decision to change its recommendation.
You are evading the question once again. We already know that their job as prosecutors is to recommend sentencing. Again, why was it justice they left the DOJ?
Again, I was speaking about the recommendation of the DOJ for a lesser sentence. Someone linked to an article saying it was corruption. I said it sounded it justice. If you don’t want to know what I meant, why ask?
A conpiracy theory is:
"[I]a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators"[/i] source
Trump's tweet doesn't suggest a conspiracy. Rather, it suggests he's interfering in the criminal justice process. And it IS an inappropriate interference- that's an unequivocal fact - and it's a clear counterexample to your claim that Trumps words don't matter.
Did the tweet have an effect? It's possible. Trump's behavior casts suspicion - that's the consequence of doing something inappropriate.
You're dancing. I know the article that was linked and I read it. Let's examine your reasoning:
a. If they weren't there, then would Justice have been better served ? Why or why not?
He criticized inappropriate action by Trump. That was the correct thing to do. Contrast this with the typical things we hear: telling us how wonderful it is that he hear exactly what the President thinks.
.
First, it is not inappropriate to call foul on injustice. In fact I think it is quite appropriate. Either way, how does a tweet have any bearing on a trial? If it does interfere that is a problem with the justice system, not the person who tweeted.
I’d hope that their political affiliations did not come into play, that’s for sure. If there is a conflict of interest then it puts doubt on the whole process of justice.
Ah, so you disagree with Barr.
Our justice system is based on the premise of impartiality in its application. In his position as President, anything he says can potentially have an influence. So it is unequivocally wrong, and your inability to admit this suggests you truly think the man can do no wrong.
It's the power of the tweet. So much plausible deniability in obstruction-by-tweet.
Barr has to keep the DOJ together after four prosecutors resigned from the Roger Stone case and one altogether quit.
“Mr. President, you can’t go tweeting out our friends and enemies list otherwise I won’t be able to keep prosecutors on staff. This won’t work if you telegraph our plans to the world. I will go on TV to try to recover whatever credibility I might still have, but you’ve got to keep quiet!” -AG Barr (mutters under his breath, “What a fucking moron!”)
Don't kid yourself in him suddenly growing a moral backbone.
I'm not. But I think it appropriate to identify behavior that is at least superficially good. I think one's credibility is damaged when one finds fault with everything the "opposition" does, just as credibility is damaged when one refuses to see fault in anything your side does (like NOS4A2 does).
That's very possible, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.
I'm reminded of Michael Cohen's description of the way Trump let you know he'd like you to buy him some tie he'd seen. Trump would never directly ask for the tie, he'd just talk about how nice the ties is, and how good he thinks he'd look in it.
My niece is an FBI agent. She doesn't talk to me directly about anything, but my sister (her mom) has told me that she perceives a huge morale problem in the FBI (she said something like, "who would like to be referred to as 'scum'?). I expect the problem pervades the entire justice department. Regardless of whatever else is going on, it is appropriate for the head of the Justice Dept to at least give lip service to the ideals they are pledged to. It's better than being called "scum".
My take: I use my real name and make no qualms about how I feel about the President on this forum. I think the career bureaucrats need to buck up and not be so sensitive and blow the whistle on any and every abuse of power by the President. I’m not afraid of retaliation because I know I’m right. When you are on the side of right, then there is no need for fear, unless you’re a coward.
I know your niece and her colleagues can be brave, too, for the sake of the country. Send her flowers with a note.
It really is remarkable how rightwing voters, and people who just listen to the media, don't know what socialism is, or how it benefits them. It's just a dirty word for them.
It's even worse here in the UK, with the drip feed of rightwing ideology in the popular press. Most people, except university educated politics aware folk, equate socialism with Communism and would go for a privelidged rightwing populist loon every time. The fact that he will just make many of them poorer and poorer with less and less rights and greater social division, is just more socialist(communist) propaganda.
I agree it’s probably not helpful for the DOJ to receive so much scrutiny, but I’m not aware that he said anything about speaking out against an injustice. According to Barr’s re-recommendation we are in agreement about the unjust recommendation. Add on top of that the biased jury foreman who was only discovered after the conviction, we are long past the mere appearance of bias.
No, I just don’t understand how a tweet, whether it be from a president or celebrity or politician—anyone—can have an influence on a trial. I’m trying to understand a causal chain where that could be the case. Does the tweet enter into the evidence? Does the tweet stew in the head of the judge or jury so much that it changes their partiality? I just cannot see it. So no, to remain silent on matters of injustice is unequivocally right.
We could easily look at an exhaustive list of socialist states and cross-reference it with various indexes of quality of life, freedom, human rights records etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
From that link:
It's not particularly a reliable measure.
Quoting Punshhh
What do you understand socialism to be? Is it just things like higher taxes on businesses, single-payer healthcare, regulated economy, welfare? Or is it comprehensive nationalisation? I think it's too vague to simply assert that "socialism is good" or "socialism is bad".
This just in: Jury members not allowed to have opinions or political leanings. US justice system collapses. "All trials ever have been rigged", says official.
Why is it not a particularly reliable measure?
This just in: fair trials are for suckers. Bring back the Kangaroo court.
Equality itself is a goal of social justice that is regularly ignored by other political theories where socialism considers there's a role for the government. Most obvious where it concerns equality of opportunity. That equality can be promoted by several means, access to healthcare, access to education, access to loans (Fannie Mae for instance) and even means (progressive taxation and subsidies). These have been the result of socialist ideals. Nowadays though, we need to prove the business case that a healthy and educated citizenry is good for the economy, which is a degradation of socialst ideals because it reduces people to a means for the economy.
We've just had a jobless recovery: yes, a lot of people are employed but labour share of GDP and resultant wealth is steadily declining so we see the next inequality that leads to social injustice - that between the owners of capital and labourers. We can only expect that this will be exacerbated with the further development of robotics replacing more complex labour (like writing contracts, eek!). See for instance: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/a-new-look-at-the-declining-labor-share-of-income-in-the-united-states
Because it says that it includes countries that don't have socialist economies/governments and excludes countries that do.
Trump contradicts past denials, admits sending Giuliani to Ukraine
So we've established that:
1. Giuliani is a liar, as he claimed it was the State Department, not Trump, who sent him to Ukraine
2. Trump is a liar, as he claimed he didn't send Giuliani to Ukraine
3. Trump might be in trouble, as per your own words above
And you wonder why we don't trust what Trump and Giuliani say about what did or didn't happen re. the Ukraine affair. They're liars, and they're lying to hide something, else why lie?
This is bad enough on its own. The President is openly saying that he trusts his personal attorney more than the country's own intelligence agencies.
Here's some potential effects:
-prosecutors wishing to curry favor might give him what he wants
-prosecutors might feel undercut and harden their position against Stone
-the judge may be influenced, either for or against
-the attorney general might feel prompted to review the sentencing recommendation. How often does THIS happen? He obviously can't do that in every case, so this is uneven justice.
- The attorney general might consciously or unconsciously apply more leniency that he would otherwise.
-per Barr: it makes it difficult for him to do his job
-it might have a negative effect on the people working in the justice dept if they perceive this as pressure to go soft on a friend.
"If there is a conflict of interest then it puts doubt on the whole process of justice."
Dumpertrumper,
Wow, we have a way to go, but that's okay. I will demonstrate that your character is in question and like Trump, what you say is highly suspect. For instance, we haven't even answered question #1 and already I see discrepancies/contradictions in your reasoning. Are you being truthful to yourself and other's here? Is this the way most of your base thinks? LOL.
Okay, so here's what we have thus far. Help me understand which interpretation best describes your attack (in quotes) on the prosecutors:
1. What does it mean when someone say's, "Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me".
a. They were partisan Obama hacks and assumed to be biased, and now that they're gone it is likely fair/impartial justice will be served.
b. If there is a conflict of interest then it puts doubt on the whole process of justice.
c. I’d hope that their political affiliations did not come into play, that’s for sure.
Only one answer is correct. Which answer more closely describes your quoted attack on the prosecutors?
The answer you give will provide us a little insight into your character and honesty and/or lack thereof. LOL
Excellent point! For those who haven't googled the phrase: this.
In Trump's case, I see only two possiblities: 1) he wants to influence the outcome 2) he's extremely stupid.
Either of these possibilities show that he's unfit for the job.
Great! Just the remedy we need for the current state of unsustainable deficits. By sheer coincidence, this is planned for September, 2 months before the election.
Yep... can't wait till the Dumpertrumper debates...I'm sure someone like Bloomberg will expose Trump's record of loan defaults viz our national debt. It's really scary. I remember when he campaigned and said he was the king of debt. What happened to the fiscal hawks of old/GOP party ?
And good job of speaking the truth y'all... !!
That’s a complete lie, and you’re falling for it. He admitted no such thing.
All of these effects are caused by personal motivations, desires and feelings. If a judge or attorney or attorney general are influenced by a tweet they are in the wrong job.
I’ve answered all your questions, so let’s hear your analysis.
You must also believe juries should never be sequestered, since if they're doing their jobs, they will not be influenced.
You have a naive view of influence. It's not limited to conscious choices and perceived motivation.
Yep, agree with your initial thoughts there! Because Dumpertrumper lacks the discipline and temperament necessary in communicating sensitive subject matter, I agree he'll make and ass out of himself. Which all of that goes back to why his lawyers were not wanting him to testify in the Mueller case, as well as Barr admonishing him for his rampant tweets.
Speaking of that, what is your take on Barr's comments on Dumpertrumper's tweets ? Do you think there is an ulterior motive of sorts?
He admitted to sending Giuliani to Ukraine to conduct his investigation, whereas previously both he and Giuliani denied it.
Whether or not that particular article frames it as an attempt to "find damaging information about his political opponents" isn't the issue here.
Trump admitted to send to Ukraine. Here's the audio: https://www.spreaker.com/user/9809239/roadkill-potus
It starts at 21:43.