Patterico's Pontifications

1/23/2020

You Don’t Have to Agree with Everything Adam Schiff Has Ever Said…

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:34 pm



…to see that he is dead right here.

I thihnk it is an absolutely fantastic and moving summation. It crushes me to think of people I used to respect, like Senator Mike Lee and Senator Ben Sasse, sitting there listening to Schiff, knowing that every word he says is true, and knowing that they’re going to vote as if it’s all false.

I thought long and hard tonight about whether I still think of men like Mike Lee and Ben Sasse as good men. I have read more than one book by each man. As long as I have heard of them, I have thought of them as good men — among the few good men in Washington. Yet I believe with every fiber of my being that — unlike many of the duller and more partisan swamp creatures in Washington — the two of them know better. They know perfectly well who Donald Trump is. They know what he did was not just wrong but part of a pattern in which he elevates his own personal interests above those of the country. And yet they will support him. They are the best hope for people who still believe there are people capable of standing up for what’s right. And yet, they are going to let those hopeful people down. They are going to cravenly support a man they know does not belong in the Oval Office. A man they know has committed impeachable offenses who should be removed. And they’ll do it to save their political hides. They’ll do it out of fear, of some tweets.

I have tried to be less judgmental of my fellow man. I have. If men this good — or who at least seemed to be this good — act this way, maybe it’s not their fault. Maybe it’s the system. Maybe it’s wrong to judge them.

I can’t see it. I can’t help myself. I can’t approve of it. I can’t.

There comes a time for a man to stand up. If they don’t stand up, all their past words are just that: words. What good are they?

Garry Kasparov explains the stakes:

This is how a system dies. Truly listen to what Schiff says here. If right doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter how good the Constitution is. It doesn’t matter how smart the Founders were. It doesn’t matter how good the past words of Mike Lee or Ben Sasse were.

They had their chance to stand up when it mattered, and unless I am misreading the situation badly, they are not going to do so. They are culpable. The part of me that says not to judge them … I can’t listen to it. It may be a lack of maturity on my part, but that’s who I am, at least at this point in my life. I can’t forgive them.

It’s very, very sad to me.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

227 Responses to “You Don’t Have to Agree with Everything Adam Schiff Has Ever Said…”

  1. Cue comments from people who haven’t watched the video…

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Every word he said was true?

    steveg (354706)

  3. Someday you will find out Amash has clay feet.
    You have my email…

    steveg (354706)

  4. Harvey,

    I’m banning you. Respectfully!

    Patterico (df6fc2)

  5. Every word he said was true?

    Did you watch it? What was false?

    Patterico (df6fc2)

  6. ”The ruler is above the law.“

    Says someone who cannot cite the law that was broken.

    Trump chose Rudy over an intelligence and law enforcement community that had him tinkling on a bed in Moscow, that filed bogus surveillance warrants, that routinely leaked his conversations with foreign leaders, that tweeted “Viva le Resistance” and illegally altered a surveillance application. And, he’s the danger to the republic.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  7. laughable bull schiff

    mg (8cbc69)

  8. Patterico, I wish I could say that I think Schiff’s speech will matter, but I can’t believe that it will. There are people even here who have either twisted themselves inside out to convince themselves that even though everything we’ve heard is true, Trump didn’t know about it, people who would rather have a dangerous criminal who gives the right judges than risk getting someone who doesn’t believe they way they do, even though they know he’s a dangerous criminal, and people for whom it doesn’t matter because he is mad at the same people they are mad at. And people who believe that the Dems have been just as bad, even though there isn’t any evidence of that, so keeping Trump is OK. A Dem is a Dem, so they can’t be right.

    Just because you dislike someone doesn’t mean they are wrong. Schiff isn’t wrong.

    And I think something happens when honest people go to Washington. I truly believe that many of them go with the best of intentions. I believe that many of them serve with the best of intentions. But all of them have to compromise sometimes and I think they lose sight of when a compromise is something that is practical vs when it is a betrayal of who they are. A lot of times they will say “I have to make this compromise with the party so that I can stay and be here when the vote is important, so I can be here to make the hard vote when the time comes.” But I think they can lose sight of when they need to stand up. When is the “hard vote” that is so important? The one that will get them primaried? I don’t think they recognize it. I think they make so many compromises that they never recognize the “hard vote” they need to take. I think it just becomes one more compromise among many.

    Nic (896fdf)

  9. cry me a fricking river

    mg (8cbc69)

  10. Mr.Ed/bull schiff/2020

    mg (8cbc69)

  11. @10 I see you have brought an excess of eloquence this evening.

    Nic (896fdf)

  12. Right ceases to matter when the power to decide right is taken from the electorate, and Schiff makes the case for taking that power away, based on the quaint notion that Trump puts his interests above the country’s, and Schiff doesn’t — the past three plus years of nonsense Schiff and his fans have put the country through for personal gain notwithstanding.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  13. Every word was not true

    steveg (354706)

  14. Munroe says right doesn’t matter because popular election.*

    What a disturbing concept. No Republican, including whatever Munroe’s handle was a few years ago, thought right and wrong wouldn’t matter for Obama if he were impeached.

    And of course the stream of squirrel attacks on whomever isn’t Trump.

    * Hillary won the votes anyway.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  15. What was false, steveg?

    I notice you didn’t answer my question about whether you watched it.

    Patterico (df6fc2)

  16. “Munroe says right doesn’t matter because popular election.”
    Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/23/2020 @ 11:01 pm

    It remains to be seen, Dustin, whether you are capable of responding to a point without wildly misrepresenting it.

    You, Schiff, or whoever don’t possess a monopoly on discerning right. Otherwise, we wouldn’t need elections to resolve disagreements about what is right or wrong in the political realm. What is your substitute?

    As for the popular vote, read the Constitution.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  17. @17 Do you believe that impeachment is ever appropriate?

    Nic (896fdf)

  18. ”Do you believe that impeachment is ever appropriate?”
    Nic (896fdf) — 1/23/2020 @ 11:16 pm

    Yes, I think I’ve answered this close to 11 billion times.

    When there is an overwhelming consensus that the president needs to be removed and is a danger, we shouldn’t wait for the next election, and impeachment is the remedy. That isn’t even close to the case here.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  19. @ In this extremely partisan age, do you think it’s ever possible that there would be overwhelming consensus, no matter what the President did? Or would it always just be “My guy, no matter what?” What could Trump have done that would have made you say, “Yeah, he needs to be impeached?”

    Nic (896fdf)

  20. It seems you believe “The rule of law” has been, without fail, en force until this very moment.

    The rule of law has been gone for as long as Lincoln, probably longer.

    Rule of law, my big fat angloass. We are in a war with those who, in your own words, “Will take my money and tell me how to live”, at least in phase one. Donald Trump will not take my money and, his impetuous mouthfarts and tweets notwihstanding, will not tell me how to live. Yes, he’ll spend, as will every other chicknsh*t future president who hasn’t the cajones to face down the patchwork quilt of “But my Federal feeding is the true and righteous confiscation of the public wealth.”

    Not even Reagan had the guts or the plan to say ENOUGH. Talked a good game, settled for less than his famous half a loaf. Trough feeding will only end when all those who feed, especially the “conservative” feeders, finally own their glutonnous ways and repent.

    If those you thought “Good men” vote in a way that renders them, in your view, lesser than “Good men”, they will have stood against worse than your Boogeyman. That doesn’t mean they endorse, or condone, or can even stomach the cretin Trump. It means they know full well what lies ahead if they do anything other than you require.

    Matador (0284e8)

  21. “Good men” -and women- feed the hungry in soup kitchens every day. Lee, Sasse, and yes, Schiff, are first and foremost, politicians. The goal is to survive and be re-elected. Schiff is good on TeeVee; he’ll likely make a Senate run in the years ahead when Feinstein retires. But in the age of soundbites, his lofty words are buried amidst the hours and hours of paint-drying, grass-growing static.

    Trump is merely a means to an end for Sasse, Lee — even Tedtoo and the Schiff team. You can’t be a player if you’re out of the game. Ask Jeff Flake.

    But the Americans driving nails and school buses in the real world know how bogus this ‘rule of law’ thing has been for years– they’re the ones who pay the traffic tickets. Felicity Huffman did more time than Trump ever will– or Nixon ever did.

    The Founders weren’t as smart as the mythmakers would like us to believe, either. They had their shares of swings and misses; the Constitution was their second try– w/t Bill of Rights tacked on; see the Articles of Confederation for details. Wouldn’t look to Kasparov as a North Star through stormy times, either. Look to yourself.

    Nearly every president has done something that could be pegged as impeachable. [Hell, Nixon should have been impeached just for the high crime of mixing cottage cheese with ketchup.] This country survived a Civil War, a Great Depression, two world wars and eight years of The Reagan Show. It’ll survive eight years of Reality TeeVee Trump– and out-live Vladimir Putin; likely much to the surprise of one Garry Kasparov.

    _____

    7 Surprising Statistics About Twitter in America

    http://www.convinceandconvert.com/social-media-strategy/7-surprising-statistics-about-twitter-in-america/

    Interesting: Known by 87%, just 7% of Americans use Twitter.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  22. It crushes me to think of people I used to respect, like Senator Mike Lee and Senator Ben Sasse, sitting there listening to Schiff, knowing that every word he says is true, and knowing that they’re going to vote as if it’s all false.

    Remember your Tom Lehrer: “Allegiance ruled by expedience.”

    We all get crushed; will never forget the letdown decades ago when first reading Operation Paperclip files and discovering Von Braun truly was a card-carrying, sauerkraut Nazi.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  23. I have watched the video closely. And there are many things that are absolutely true, because these things can be said about all of us. Precisely because these true things can be said about any one of us, the immediate reaction can be one of rejection. Rejection of the truth can be for many reasons, the foremost of which is loss.

    We, as a country, have lost faith in much of our Government. This includes, but is not limited to elected officials, appointed officials, hired underlings, lobbyists, hangers on and so forth. But that is not all. We have lost faith in the electorate, in constituencies; in each other.

    Loss leads to grief. So cue the stages of grief:
    Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

    Let me tell you something important. When one has lost faith, going through these five stages does not culminate in peace. It culminates in anything but peace. But you still have some say about the condition in which it culminates.

    But some of the things which Adam says is not true. His conclusions are not true. One, in particular, is that because Trump chose Rudy over the Intelligence community, that Trump is a danger to this country, and that makes him the villain. Not so. It makes him monumentally foolish. But it is not, in the end, the fool who is dangerous, but the one who controls the fool. The fool is the fall guy. So who (or what) controls Trump? Rudy? The deep state? Is Trump in control of himself?

    Leaving aside the answer to the question of who or what controls Trump (or any POTUS) does anyone think that removing the fall guy will exact justice for the country? Is this even the right question?

    felipe (023cc9)

  24. But some of the things which Adam says is [are]not true.

    Stupid brain!

    felipe (023cc9)

  25. @24

    does anyone think that removing the fall guy will exact justice for the country?

    Impeachment is not about justice… it is about removing an executive that has not faithfully executed his duty to the constitution.

    Is Trump in control of himself?

    Short answer: No.
    Long answer: Hell no.
    The man has absolutely NO self control. Which, given his position of power, does make him dangerous. A dangerous fool, but dangerous nonetheless.

    Glenn Wyant (a56320)

  26. So what if in 5 years President AOC decides to use her personal lawyer to gab with the President of Venezuela or Sec Castro of Cuba about investigating, say, Rep Dan Crenshaw. Or, maybe she wants several Red State governers investigated. What if there’s a certain Ambassador she doesn’t like, who might “go through some things” before being recalled for no reason. I mean, it doesn’t take a genius to see this is abuse of power and bad precedent. It’s like no one can see beyond the next 1-5 years.

    JRH (e25db5)

  27. You know, I used to respect you. For your work in the DA’s office. Through the whole Kimberlin saga. Hell, I even donated to Hoge when I was on the brink of bankruptcy because I thought the cause was just.

    But you have lost it. Because your hatred of Trump eclipses your common sense.

    You have devolved to LGF (whatever his name was) territory. You are just as bad as the CHILDREN who cannot accept the results of an election because “Orange Man Bad”.

    I am sorry that you feel Trump’s mere existence fills you with so much hate that you turn a bind eye to the bad faith dealings of the Democrat party who believe that every Republican running for president is “worse than Hitler” until the next Republican candidate comes along.

    Hope the Kool-Aid is to your liking.

    Darth Chocolate (0615d0)

  28. How about a post on the first president to march for life?

    mg (8cbc69)

  29. Impeachment is not about justice… Glenn Wyant (a56320) — 1/24/2020 @ 2:49 am

    I completely agree, especially as concerns this Impeachment. But if this is not about justice, then it cannot be about what is right, either. Truth and righteousness go together, and when balanced against mercy, produce justice.

    felipe (023cc9)

  30. Adam Schiff, used his power as the Chair of the Intelligence committee, actively covered up the corruption of the DoJ and FBI in seeking warrants in the FISA court to survail the Trump campaign, Transition, and early Presidency.

    The DoJ has admitted the last two applications to the FISA court to survail Carter Page, were unlawfully predicated.

    Think about the chair of the Intelligence Committee, actively covering up known abuse of the govt spying on American Citizens…in a Presidential election campaign.

    Devin Nunes exposed this corruption, and wrote a report and made it public. Schiff, immediately wrote a report using exactly the same information, only with exactly the opposite conclusion. An intentional cover up.

    Yep, that Schiff guy is grand!

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  31. mg (8cbc69) — 1/24/2020 @ 3:33 am

    This is big news, mg. I expect most coverage will mention the impeachment, and all attendees will be guilty by association. I am pro-life. If Trumps efforts prove to be only politically expedient, all, still, will enjoy the fruits of his labor (pun intended).

    felipe (023cc9)

  32. Felipe – I believe marching for life is as conservative an effort as one can make.

    mg (8cbc69)

  33. I agree, mg.

    felipe (023cc9)

  34. @26. What or who exercises power over President Trump? I see nothing that can be leveraged to control his actions. In DC, the control is exerted by dangling/removing power and money. Neither of those can be used to leverage the Presidents positions.
    President Trump will be out of office in just 5 years. He goes back to whence he came. Whether his time in office will have started to shift the culture of DC is yet to be determined.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  35. I am confused as to why the Democrat-controlled House did not do whatever might have been needed to present a stronger case against Trump to the Republican-controlled Senate.

    Best I can tell, they have been trying to do that in some fashion or other for over three years.

    jim2 (a5dc71)

  36. I watched a few minutes of the video. It was pointless to watch more than that. Adam Schiff has no credibility with me. He reminds me of Michael Avenatti.

    If in the end there are witnesses, the Trump defense team should call Schiff as their first witness. Make him testify, in detail, under penalties of perjury and contempt of Senate (which Barr would be happy to take to a jury), about his interactions with the whistleblower and the drafting of the whistleblower complaint, to begin with. Then move on to his siultaneous role as evidence technician, prosecutor, and presiding judge picking and choosing which evidence will be admitted and which will be excluded, during the impeachment process in the House.

    This could have been a good impeachment. A credible impeachment that might have persuaded even Trumpablicans in the Senate, notwithstanding the McConnell fix. Trump is guilty. But guilty people can be railroaded too. Schiff has made it look like Trump has been railroaded, and in many ways he has in fact been railroaded.

    nk (1d9030)

  37. I’d break it into 3 parts. The first part goes by very quickly. We should just agree he’s guilty because there really isn’t any doubt since he’s “capable” of doing the things he’s charged with. I think that last bit is telling. He doesn’t summarize how they’ve proved the charges, they’re just assumed true, and the issue even shifts to whether he’s capable of doing what he’s charged with. Sorry, but Shift has a pattern of his own for dishonesty. If credibility matters Shift was a bad choice for this role. I’m not persuaded by “so he’s guilty”.

    The second part seems to be a disinformation play against any incriminating evidence we might get from Burisma or China. This seems like an odd thing to have here. I’m guessing some D’s, Biden specifically, has more skeletons we haven’t seen yet.

    The last part is just mom and apple pie. I believe good people are needed or the constitution becomes meaningless. This process and Shift in particular are good examples of that. The devil can quote scripture and a corrupt politician can wrap himself in the flag. I’d be more moved in this case if I thought Shift believed a single word. Actually, he might “believe” it but only to the degree it can be used to accomplish his goals.

    frosty (f27e97)

  38. It’s hard to say who has contributed more to turning the impeachment process into a dirty thing. The Democrats with the way they conducted the House process, McConnell and his Trumpablicans who announced in advance that the fix is in, or Trump’s arrogance that he doesn’t have to treat it seriously because he has a Republican Senate. But turned into a dirty thing it has been.

    nk (1d9030)

  39. Oh, yeah, one more thing. It did not help that it’s obvious in the video that Schiff wants to use up all his allotted “airtime” but only has half the material which he delivers like molasses trickling on a cold day.

    nk (1d9030)

  40. I have always believed that Adam Smith’s theory of the invisible hand applied to the political as well as economics. That politicians, pursuing their individual agendas and vanities, in the collective, will tend to get to the right place, because the people ultimately want their country to prosper and to preserve individual rights. And I believe, just like in economics, there are market failures, where, for good and proper reasons, the invisible hand does not work out.

    We are in one of those situations now. Not because politicians, as a class, are any worse than they have been through history. But because the system has evolved in a way that requires Republican politicians to satisfy the Republican media ecosystem, or else. Trump knows how to do that. He takes those deeply symbolic actions that are relatively easy, and thrills Hannity, Limbaugh, Carlson, et al. And doesn’t bother with the hard governance stuff that brings him no credit.

    The question always is — can you be reelected in the general by just satisfying Tucker Carlson? We will see.

    A final point. A sticking point for me is that Trump was willing to sic the unreliable processes of a historically corrupt government on an American citizen just to get himself reelected. That goes to his fitness as a leader of all Americans. It also reflects my overriding problem with Trump. He is not a guardian of American liberties. He would, in fact, like to do away with a lot of them, at least when they are inconvenient for him.

    Unfortunately, this is not the case Schiff really brought. Instead, the theory was that Trump was again trying to steal an election. I usually think of stealing an election in terms of hacking into a states electoral system, and changing some votes. Not trying to get dirt on a candidate.

    DCSCA notes that America can survive another 5 years of Trump. Sure, it will. But he will have changed quite a lot and weakened a lot of institutions in that time, and executives with better motives and little consideration of consequences will use and abuse his precedents. Removal of Trump has the possibility of reversing some of that, and maybe showing the GOP still cares about all of the Bill of Rights, instead of just the Second Amendment.

    Rome wasn’t built in a day. It also didn’t decline in a day. Trump is a process of rot. He won’t directly cause our collapse, and that collapse may happen after we here are long dead. But, boy howdy, he will be one of the reasons it happens if he gets his full two terms.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  41. Thank you, Patterico.

    john (cd2753)

  42. This is why I supported Trump’s impeachment, so that every member of Congress is forever on record about this president. There’s a good article in The Dispatch about why “good men” like Sasse and Mike Lee are going to vote for acquittal. By keeping their heads down, they won’t be the Charles Percy of the GOP, and it does expose the suckiness of our political system.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  43. The elephant in the room is that Trump was *never* fit for office. His arrogance in dealing with Ukraine is the merest reflection of the arrogance we saw in his dealings with Vera Coking and Michael Forbes. I’m lukewarm on the idea of removing him from office because I think he is the president America richly deserves. Warts and all.

    Gryph (08c844)

  44. Donald Trump will not take my money and, his impetuous mouthfarts and tweets notwihstanding, will not tell me how to live.

    Trump is taking your money in the form of tariffs, which is him telling you how to live by what goods you should buy.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  45. Meanwhile……

    “ The ethical advisory arm of the federal judiciary is quietly circulating a draft rule that would ban judges and their clerks from belonging to the Federalist Society, an organization aimed at fostering an originalist interpretation of the Constitution at law schools and through forums and debates across the country.

    Impeachment is just another chapter in this story folks.

    harkin (d6cfee)

  46. I am confused as to why the Democrat-controlled House did not do whatever might have been needed to present a stronger case against Trump to the Republican-controlled Senate.

    Let me see if I can clear up the confusion. The president obstructed their inquiries at every turn. Doing “whatever might have been needed” would have required fighting a months-long court battle that could have lasted past the election. They got the matter to the Senate, which is 1) where the “trial” takes place, 2) a location where the Chief Justice of the United States stands ready to make rulings, and 3) where the obstruction is more visible. Under the circumstances, I think they did well.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  47. This could have been a good impeachment. A credible impeachment that might have persuaded even Trumpablicans in the Senate, notwithstanding the McConnell fix. Trump is guilty. But guilty people can be railroaded too. Schiff has made it look like Trump has been railroaded, and in many ways he has in fact been railroaded.

    nk, I love you man, but this opinion strikes me as totally unconvincing. How can a guy be “railroaded” by Schiff when 1) Schiff has zero control over the process at the trial, 2) the process at the trial is totally controlled by the allegedly railroaded guy, and 3) the allegedly railroaded guy is trying as hard as he can to keep all evidence from coming out.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  48. You know, I used to respect you. For your work in the DA’s office. Through the whole Kimberlin saga. Hell, I even donated to Hoge when I was on the brink of bankruptcy because I thought the cause was just.

    But you have lost it. Because your hatred of Trump eclipses your common sense.

    You have devolved to LGF (whatever his name was) territory. You are just as bad as the CHILDREN who cannot accept the results of an election because “Orange Man Bad”.

    I am sorry that you feel Trump’s mere existence fills you with so much hate that you turn a bind eye to the bad faith dealings of the Democrat party who believe that every Republican running for president is “worse than Hitler” until the next Republican candidate comes along.

    Hope the Kool-Aid is to your liking.

    The banning of you is to my liking.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  49. But some of the things which Adam says is not true. His conclusions are not true. One, in particular, is that because Trump chose Rudy over the Intelligence community, that Trump is a danger to this country, and that makes him the villain. Not so. It makes him monumentally foolish. But it is not, in the end, the fool who is dangerous, but the one who controls the fool. The fool is the fall guy. So who (or what) controls Trump? Rudy? The deep state? Is Trump in control of himself?

    felipe, you’re one of my favorite commenters, but I have to push back here. Trump is the guy who was elected. He’s the guy in the office. He’s the guy who gives the orders. If Rudy becomes inconvenient for him, he can toss Rudy aside. Yes, Trump is a fool. Yes, every evil world leader plays him like a fiddle because as long as they stroke his ego they can do any evil thing they like without consequence, and they know this and use it and laugh at him behind his back. But that makes *him* dangerous, in my view. Very dangerous. Having a fool in the Oval Office is dangerous.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  50. How about a post on the first president to march for life?

    Here’s my reaction to that:

    Yup.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  51. I’m surprised Schiff didn’t use his allotted time to savage the Nunes memo again.

    Munroe (7b400a)

  52. 53. Trump may be dangerous, but he’s not dumb. He needs pro-life votes and he’ll get them.

    Gryph (08c844)

  53. Umpteen years of Democrats sitting on their asses not saying a peep when “their people” have done blatantly wrong has taught everyone that is the way the game is played.

    Ralph ‘Blackface’ Northam
    Barrack ‘No Controversies’ Obama
    Eric ‘Held in Contempt of Congress’ Holder
    Loretta ‘Let’s Talk Grandbabies’ Lynch
    Justin ‘Sexual Assault’ Fairfax

    …and their umpteen years of ridiculous accusations that are shot-down by witnesses explicitly identified by said Democrats.

    …or time, after time, after time their statements are proven absolutely false – Schiff’s made-up ‘transcript’ of Trump’s call anyone? – and people still wonder why some are suspicious?

    …or Star Chamber antics where no one can honestly say all relevant evidence is made available since no one outside their cabal knows what the evidence might be.

    They act in a way that no rational, reasonable person can not have questions based solely on their conduct, then are pissed when rational, reasonable people question their conduct.

    Maybe if they hadn’t been telling the world that they intended to impeach Trump from virtually the instant he was declared the winner in the election, there might be some interest in what they had ot say now.

    …but keep pushing, they might be sincere eventually. Just don’t hold your breath.

    MJN1957 (6f981a)

  54. “ I’m surprised Schiff didn’t use his allotted time to savage the Nunes memo again.”

    👍🏻

    harkin (d6cfee)

  55. How can a guy be “railroaded” by Schiff when 1) Schiff has zero control over the process at the trial, 2) the process at the trial is totally controlled by the allegedly railroaded guy, and 3) the allegedly railroaded guy is trying as hard as he can to keep all evidence from coming out.

    I was talking about the House impeachment process, and you are right about the Senate trial process.

    Yes, McConnell can put in any evidence the Trump defense team wants. They don’t even need to call Schiff, like I said above. They can call the whistleblower and ask him most of the same questions, as well as who his “reliable informants” were, and unravel as much of that string as they like.

    But they’ll just go with the fix, I’m afraid.

    nk (1d9030)

  56. Republicans are supposed to be the adults who care about reason, values and the Constitution . There is no reason to vote GOP if they willingly give that up, as they clearly are.

    DRJ (15874d)

  57. 56. Donald Trump was Dems’ BFF until he ran as a Republican to take full advantage of the electorate’s distaste for Barack Obama.

    Gryph (08c844)

  58. 59. Have you been living under a rock for the last 25 years? What on Earth made you think the GOP was *ever* worthy of your vote?

    Gryph (08c844)

  59. I didn’t watch the video because I’ve ALREADY seen Schiff make his case, and read the articles of impeachment. They got passed a month a go. Which brings up the point, if Trump’s conduct was so dire, why did Pelosi hold on to the articles of impeachment and play games?

    When Pelosi and Schiff play games and are unable to get one R to vote for impeachment, it makes me think this is NOT a serious Constitutional crisis about abuse of power, but a political hit job.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  60. “ Republicans are supposed to be the adults who care about reason, values and the Constitution . There is no reason to vote GOP if they willingly give that up, as they clearly are.”

    Are you saying vote Democrat only or just don’t vote GOP?

    harkin (d6cfee)

  61. You can throw in Schumer’s conduct and loud mouthed abuse of anyone who didn’t’ support his 10 or 20 or 50 amendments to THE RULES. You don’t act that way, when you have a serious impeachment. Nor do you act like a child like Nadler did and draw a rebuke from Justice Roberts.

    You can throw in the fact, that every Democrat Senator votes in lockstep on every issue. All of them except perhaps the guy from WV will vote to convict, and they were going to do that before Pelosi even drew up the articles of impeachment! This whole thing is a partisan shampeachment.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  62. +++++++++

    I am confused as to why the Democrat-controlled House did not do whatever might have been needed to present a stronger case against Trump to the Republican-controlled Senate.

    ++

    Let me see if I can clear up the confusion. The president obstructed their inquiries at every turn. Doing “whatever might have been needed” would have required fighting a months-long court battle that could have lasted past the election. They got the matter to the Senate, which is 1) where the “trial” takes place, 2) a location where the Chief Justice of the United States stands ready to make rulings, and 3) where the obstruction is more visible. Under the circumstances, I think they did well.

    ++
    ++++++++++

    The Democrats spent over two years pushing the silly Russia biz. This same Schiff claimed to have proof (based on his inside knowledge), but he was apparently not telling the truth then. The attempts to go the old obstruction of justice route never got traction, best I can tell, because Trump kept giving them documents but refusing potential entrapment interviews (a la Flynn).

    With all that (including Schiff’s recent transcript invention) wolf-wolf, I believe the Democrats have raised their own burden of proof to a point that they have not met.

    jim2 (a5dc71)

  63. ”Republicans are supposed to be the adults who care about reason, values and the Constitution .”
    DRJ (15874d) — 1/24/2020 @ 7:50 am

    The adults are easily identified as those who’ve been pouting and stammering nonstop for three plus years about an election that didn’t go their way.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  64. 62. The Serious Constitutional Crisis (TM) was how a guy like Trump could get elected in the first place.

    Gryph (08c844)

  65. The GOP will always have Mittens and Pierre Delecto. That’s two rays of hope right there.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  66. Schiff has been caught lying before and leaking material he wasn’t supposed to leak. He’s run his committee in a completely partisan fashion and has run roughshod over the R members, most of whom despise him. He and Nadler are partisan hacks. If this was a serious impeachment, neither would be on the Impeachment Team in the Senate. No R Senator is going to give more weight to the House’s case because Adam Schiff and Jerry nadler are presenting it.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  67. Y’all ready for the Sanders Presidency? A coalition is emerging of podcast bros, minorities, and pee-oed soccer moms who don’t like pu$$y grabbing. 2020 should be interesting.

    JRH (e25db5)

  68. How about a post on the first president to march for life?

    mg (8cbc69) — 1/24/2020 @ 3:33 am

    These squirrel arguments are annoying. Why would Trump being a pro-lifer have anything to do with his obvious corruption when it comes to elections? They are related for only one reason: he’s on your side, and therefore you should support him when he makes bad moves, like cheering your football team when they have a bad season, out of loyalty. But Trump has hosted Planned Parenthood fundraisers, when he was in need of loyalty from New York democrats as a real estate developer. There’s no real reason to trust Trump’s leadership on these issues. Trump treats women terribly, and there’s no better way to see that than to read Ivana’s divorce filing, or observe how he’s paying prostitutes while one of his wives (this one the pornographer) is raising his infant baby.

    This is not a guy that’s going to sit at the right hand of The Lord, unless he seeks redemption. His marching for life is mercenary and cheapens the values of that movement.

    In a few years, as the GOP simply cannot shake its failure today, and its association with corruption, and its poor family values, this transaction isn’t even going to work out. But there’s something more important: simply doing the right thing.

    I think Patterico’s post gets to the heart of the issue. Imagine the immense privilege of being able to tell your own political party to stuff it, and you will hold its president accountable for flagrant corruption! Imagine how great it would be! And to not do so, because you really like your office. That’s a life defining mistake.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  69. Y’all ready for the Sanders Presidency? A coalition is emerging of podcast bros, minorities, and pee-oed soccer moms who don’t like pu$$y grabbing. 2020 should be interesting.

    JRH (e25db5) — 1/24/2020 @ 8:46 am

    I would hope that if Sanders were president he would have to work within the law. By having to rely on the legislative process, I don’t think he would be able to damage our way of life as radically as some might think. The real fear of a socialist is often how they infringe on civil rights, such as free speech, and we have a long tradition of presidents respecting criticism and speech.

    Oh wait never mind.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  70. heh. Yeah I agree We’d pretty much be looking at 4 years of Gridlock. The only danger is if he decides unparalleled exec power lets him declare a healthcare emergency to implement medicare for all. But I don’t think he’d do that.

    JRH (e25db5)

  71. How do the people defending Trump on this site defend the refusal to allow witnesses at a trial?

    Maybe Munroe, rcocean, or iowan2 can give a principled defense of the Republicans refusing to allow witnesses at a trial.

    We can use an example, like Mick Mulvaney or John Bolton.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  72. +++++++++++
    How do the people defending Trump on this site defend the refusal to allow witnesses at a trial?

    Maybe Munroe, rcocean, or iowan2 can give a principled defense of the Republicans refusing to allow witnesses at a trial.
    ++++++++++

    Could the Democrats have called lots of witnesses in the House?

    jim2 (a5dc71)

  73. A Bernie/Michelle Obama ticket would destroy.

    JRH (e25db5)

  74. “Could the Democrats have called lots of witnesses in the House?”

    – jim2

    We can use an example, like Mick Mulvaney or John Bolton.

    Want to try again?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  75. heh. Yeah I agree We’d pretty much be looking at 4 years of Gridlock. The only danger is if he decides unparalleled exec power lets him declare a healthcare emergency to implement medicare for all. But I don’t think he’d do that.

    JRH (e25db5) — 1/24/2020 @ 8:54 am

    I genuinely wonder. See, Trump fans might not realize this, but the most passionate and effective critics of a socialist abusing his authority under the constitution are going to be the same people who were respecting the same laws today.

    Frog memes and making fun of Sanders for some sexual joke about his manhood or his age or weight… that’s only going to play into his hands.

    Sanders is a true believer. He will gladly sacrifice his political future for something long lasting and drastic, and he won’t mind abusing executive authority. He’s wrong, fundamentally, about the relationship between a person and government, but he could do some really damaging things, thanks in some part to how Bush, then Obama, and of course Trump, have corroded the separation of powers and the budget.

    i don’t think Sanders is going to be president (Thanks to the democratic primary process) but if he is, I can see him signing EOs banning the enforcement of student loan agreements or something similarly disruptive and goofy.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  76. Could the Democrats have called lots of witnesses in the House?

    jim2 (a5dc71) — 1/24/2020 @ 8:59 am

    I seem to recall republicans demanding the impeachment stop being a show and get on to the Senate, but at any rate, lots of serious crimes are proven to the point of indictment in the grand jury, but additional witnesses are used at trial. It’s a common trope on TV. It runs counter to civil rights, in my opinion, for the prosecution not to just give its whole strategy to the defense as early as possible. So I agree with you in principle that anything the democrats wanted to say should have been shared. But didn’t Trump make it very difficult for the democrats to gain access to information? I believe Trump bragged about that yesterday.

    At any rate, the impeachment happened. Why would the Senate, if having a fair trial seeking the truth, not just all the obvious witnesses and let the chips fall where they may? We all know why.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  77. @79 He’s going to win Iowa and NH. (I think). After that I don’t know what happens, but I think we’re going to see how fragile Biden is, and how unfit to take on Trump. Warren is holding out for a Hillary endorsement. Who knows what the DNC will do. But man I am sensing a Bernie groundswell.

    JRH (e25db5)

  78. If anything annoys me more than Trump it’s an electorate which wants the most miserable opponent for their preferred candidate possible so their preferred candidate will have a better chance of beating him, instead of a decent candidate whom they could live with as a consolation prize.

    If I were voting in the Democratic primary, I wouldn’t vote for the Commies and goofballs. I’d vote for … for … for … ok, ok, never mind!

    nk (1d9030)

  79. “How do the people defending Trump on this site defend the refusal to allow witnesses at a trial?”
    Leviticus (efada1) — 1/24/2020 @ 8:54 am

    1) Trump is afforded the same rights as any defendant with Article II powers, and 2) the Senate makes the rules. The House had their chance to set an example.

    Munroe (7b400a)

  80. Are you saying vote Democrat only or just don’t vote GOP?

    harkin (d6cfee) — 1/24/2020 @ 8:15 am

    I am saying there is no difference between the parties because they only care about getting more power and money for themselves. The only reason to vote is if I want one party to have power to use for its own benefit, or if I believe a specific candidate in any party has merit.

    I don’t want either party to have power just for the sake of having power, and the national politicians I thought had merit lack the courage to stand up for anything but their own self-interest. Why vote for people/parties that consistently put their interests ahead of everyone else’s?

    DRJ (15874d)

  81. I know the Senate makes the rules, thanks – I’m asking if anyone can defend the rules the Senate has made in this instance.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  82. Leviticus (efada1) — 1/24/2020 @ 9:28 am

    Now do the rest of my comment.

    Munroe (7b400a)

  83. @74

    I don’t consider myself a Trump defender (I have posted some very negative things about him here), but the simple answer, to me (can’t speak for the Senators) is that Bolton and Mulvaney are not going to tell me anything I don’t know. Trump did it. He is guilty. Of petty corruption in his office. To me that is not enough to remove him from office. Certainly not after the corruption we have seen on the other side.

    And since “rule of law” is mentioned, one of the most basic aspects of rule of law is that the same standards apply to everyone. If a black man gets years in jail for what a white man gets a small fine, that ain’t rule of law. It isn’t. And if a black jury lets him off because they know that, then boo hoo. Have an honest system first.

    Hillary Clinton got off a serious federal crime because she was the leading candidate of the Democratic party establishment for 2016, and there was no way she was going to be indicted. That was more “rigging” of the 2016 election than the penny ante strong arming that Trump and his cronies (talking about you Giuiliani) engaged in.

    Suppose Barack Obama had done the same thing Trump did. There would have been no impeachment, no investigation, no talk on the MSM, at most some talk on right wing blogs. We all know it, because the other scandals in the “scandal free” administration were dealt with that way.

    Cardozo once argued against the exclusionary rule that “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.”

    Here it is no blunder. We have a system where one side is judged by a different standard than the other. It is deliberately set up that way. My vote is no, and nothing John Bolton (bless his heart) will tell me is going to dissuade me from that.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  84. I don’t view this as petty, Bored Lawyer, because he used his office to further his re-election instead instead of doing his job of furthering America’s national security interests. In addition, this involves foreign policy, not domestic policy. Congress and the courts might be able to reverse an abuse of domestic policy but there is very little that can be done except impeachment to remedy foreign policy corruption.

    As for double standards, I agree the Democratic leaders should be accountable. Trump was elected in part because he promised to hold them accountable, something he never tried to do. He wants us to believe their actions mean he gets to act the same way. That is institutionalized corruption.

    DRJ (15874d)

  85. Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2020 @ 7:30 am

    You are right to push back. I was quite generous in my statement about trump and I do not deny that.. You also state your case in a persuasive manner, and I always appreciate your candor.

    felipe (cfae78)

  86. Bernie (and to a lesser extent, Biden) are “gateway” candidates in that they may very well “_ _ _” during their first term. Thus the VP choice with such old heads at the top might really be the main factor in a lot of voter’s decision-making.

    And nk, that’s the only way I’ve been voting since my year #18 (1991-1992).

    But do keep on keeping on, Patterico. It is much appreciated.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  87. His arrogance in dealing with Ukraine is the merest reflection of the arrogance we saw in his dealings with Vera Coking and Michael Forbes

    In addition to arrogance, there’s his narcissistic pathology, which makes him incapable of acknowledging (or realizing) that anything he does or says could ever be wrong. Whatever is done by Donald J. Trump must be good by definition.

    His defenders don’t see the problem with giving the highest power in the land to someone with such a solipsistic moral compass. Instead, they tend to echo his Trump-centric view of right and wrong.

    Radegunda (39c35f)

  88. Curious. Has anyone here ever been in charge of an organization of even modest size (say 100 people or so) where the people in that organization have conflicting goals, values, or priorities? Something with a budget of at least tens of thousands of dollars? I mean specifically executive. The guy at the top, not some sub-organization. A mayor, president, or such, not a councilman or treasurer or board member. Ever been the ONE guy at the top responsible for all that goes on below?

    PTw (894877)

  89. nk, that’s a good point. It would be a good idea to vote for whichever Democrat I dislike least in the primary. I recall Rush’s operation chaos as a profoundly unpatriotic thing to do.

    Trump was elected in part because he promised to hold them accountable, something he never tried to do. He wants us to believe their actions mean he gets to act the same way. That is institutionalized corruption.

    DRJ (15874d) — 1/24/2020 @ 9:51 am

    We went from Lock her Up and Drain the Swamp to a nonstop defense of Trump’s conduct of ‘what about this time the democrats did that bad thing.’

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  90. The case for impeachment is this:

    “This man defaces the Oval Office.”

    But that’s not the charge they brought.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  91. “ I am saying there is no difference between the parties because they only care about getting more power and money for themselves.”

    While I think in some respects this is true I still believe one party is more serious and honest about preserving individual liberty, maintaining our basic system of governance (not looking to gut the Constitution) and not blaming capitalism and white men for every problem on the planet.

    “ Why vote for people/parties that consistently put their interests ahead of everyone else’s?”

    So you’ll no longer vote either GOP or Democratic, is that what you’re saying?
    Not trying to be obtuse, just confirming.
    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  92. Appalled (1a17de) — 1/24/2020 @ 6:41 am

    A sticking point for me is that Trump was willing to sic the unreliable processes of a historically corrupt government on an American citizen just to get himself reelected.

    The Ukrainian government he asked to look into Biden (ad other things) actually wasn’t corrupt.

    But Trump thought it was!

    THAT’S WHY HE WITHHELD THE AID.

    What can be said in his defense?

    A. This was the litmus test, in Trump’s eyes, of whether or not they were corrupt. That is, an honest Ukrainian government would look into whatever any people in Ukraine did in 2016, and also into Biden and Burisma.

    Trump actually seems to have thought so.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  93. Hypothesis: Trump thought that all the corrupt people in Ukraine were in league with the Democrats.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  94. 86 – Bored Lawyer

    Bravo, you said what many think while they go about their normal lives and yet are still portrayed as ignorant white supremacists with Trump as their god getting ready for Armageddon.

    harkin (d6cfee)

  95. That is a bad thing for America, harkin. I want to fix it. Trump and his strongest supporters apparently want to profit from it.

    Are you fine with that? Is the GOP equivalent of Jane Fonda- or Greta Thunberg-style protesters/venters all America can hope for?

    DRJ (15874d)

  96. Ever been the ONE guy at the top responsible for all that goes on below?

    PTw (894877) — 1/24/2020 @ 10:05 am

    Let’s ask Rex Tillerson about Trump’s decision-making and management style.

    DRJ (15874d)

  97. Mr. Trump on Wednesday dismissed concussion symptoms felt by the troops as “not very serious,” even as the Pentagon acknowledged that a number of American service members were being studied for possible traumatic brain injury caused by the attack.

    “I heard they had headaches,” Mr. Trump told a news conference in Davos, Switzerland. “I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries I have seen.”

    Maybe we can add a 3rd article for impeachment, Extreme Douchebaggery. That’s perfectly constitutional, and this one ticks me off more than his normal douchebaggery on display in Ukraine.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (48e13d)

  98. Ever been the ONE guy at the top responsible for all that goes on below?

    You mean take responsibility for the actions of the organization you lead. Heaven forbid that being a thing.

    “The buck stops here” is a phrase that was popularized by U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who kept a sign with that phrase on his desk in the Oval Office. The phrase refers to the notion that the President has to make the decisions and accept the ultimate responsibility for those decisions.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (48e13d)

  99. Let’s ask Rex Tillerson about Trump’s decision-making and management style.

    I’ll take that as a no from DRJ then? Not sure how to process that unless you are, like happened recently here, inferring a good bit. And even then, what does my question have to do with Rex Tillerson or his feelings? For that matter what does my question have to do with Trump’s anything?

    PTw (894877)

  100. “That is a bad thing for America, harkin. I want to fix it. Trump and his strongest supporters apparently want to profit from it. Are you fine with that?”

    What is the bad thing?

    Fine w Trump? No. That is why I did not vote for him. I have no problem with people who did tho. I also do not have any problem with people who resist the Impeachment nonsense. They’ve seen this cavalcade of double standards for years. Trump and the American people keeping Hillary out of the White House seems to be the crime of the century to some.

    And you still didn’t confirm about voting Democratic.

    harkin (e3b71e)

  101. Hypothesis: Trump thought that all the corrupt people in Ukraine were in league with the Democrats.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/24/2020 @ 10:24 am

    He’s sending Rudy Freaking Giuliani and a horde of corrupt slimeballs all through eastern europe and Russia, and begging Putin to help him win for years, and he soberly assessed that a complete examination of the situation, an honest bit of draining the swamp, would solely land on Team D.

    Or he was asking for a favor, something to benefit himself, after a lifetime of such favors and corruption.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  102. “I heard they had headaches,” Mr. Trump told a news conference in Davos, Switzerland. “I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries I have seen.”

    Klink, good quote.

    I guess Trump can’t just say “I was wrong.”

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  103. DRJ (15874d) — 1/24/2020 @ 9:51 am

    I don’t view this as petty, Bored Lawyer, because he used his office to further his re-election instead of doing his job of furthering America’s national security interests.

    This isn’t any different from what Shiff, Nancy, or any number of other pols are doing. And they are also influencing foreign affairs. Ukraine is making decisions based on how it will impact bipartisan support in Congress and that’s just one example. From what we’ve seen of Shiff/Nancy/etc the verbal expressions of high minded ideals are just propaganda. In most cases, we are just talking about a difference of degree but in some, it’s not even that.

    Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
    Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

    frosty (f27e97)

  104. Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/24/2020 @ 10:20 am

    A. This was the litmus test, in Trump’s eyes, of whether or not they were corrupt. That is, an honest Ukrainian government would look into whatever any people in Ukraine did in 2016, and also into Biden and Burisma.

    This is my view in spades. An honest Ukrainian government would do more than write this off. At least a semi-corrupt government would go through the motions and have their FBI director prosecutor declare that there was no intent to commit any crime. In fact, anyone truly seeking a better understanding of whats going on would look past what everyone is saying and pay attention to what people are doing, i.e. the end result of whatever Biden did, or didn’t do, was to get the Burisma case closed.

    frosty (f27e97)

  105. felipe (023cc9) — 1/24/2020 @ 1:57 am

    But it is not, in the end, the fool who is dangerous, but the one who controls the fool. The fool is the fall guy. So who (or what) controls Trump? Rudy? The deep state?

    In the case of Ukraine, it was almost certainly Vladimir Putin, who was manipulating Rudy as well, but he was not able to manipulate Donald Trump too much. What he accomplished in the end was to prevent the United States from committing money for military and other aid…for 84 days.

    That’s because there’s a lot of other people in the United States government, including members of Congress.

    Putin’s big victory in getting Donald Trump to do something in Russia’s interest lasted less than three months, and wasn’t even all that important, because it effected only future commitments.

    I think Trump is manipulated more on the matter of immigration. Partially by telling him it’s in his political self-interest. And I think Putin’s involved in that, too. (he doesn’t want the U.S to accept refugees, who might make Americans more familiar with what’s going on in countries Russia is interfering in)
    Is Trump in control of himself?

    Leaving aside the answer to the question of who or what controls Trump (or any POTUS) does anyone think that removing the fall guy will exact justice for the country? Is this even the right question?

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  106. Putin’s big victory in getting Donald Trump to do something in Russia’s interest lasted less than three months, and wasn’t even all that important, because it effected only future commitments.

    That this is an asterisk vs an exclamation point is disheartening. Vlad is a mortal enemy to the west!! And much to Trump’s dismay, we are still fundamentally the most important dog in the west, not just biggest.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (48e13d)

  107. 104. Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/24/2020 @ 11:10 am

    He’s sending Rudy Freaking Giuliani and a horde of corrupt slimeballs all through eastern europe and Russia,

    No, Trump didn’t send Rudy. Rudy sent himself. And he didn’t go to Russia. Rudy thinks Russia is bad.

    Vladimir Putin funneled money through corrupt Ukrainians who are allied with Russia (but I repeat myself) who in turn sent money to two ex-Soviet Americans, who in turn gave money o all sorts of Republican causes until they got close to someone who was close to President Trump, namely Rudy Giuliani – and to make themselves even closer, hired him for some legal work.

    They then introduced him to Ukrainian sources (at first saying it would help Giuliani to defend Trump in the Mueller investigation) in order to get Trump to do things that would help the cause of Russia and corruption.

    The first thing they succeeded in doing was to get the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine fired. Rudy had to lobby Trump to do that. Trump didn’t tell Rudy to make a case against the Ambassador.

    Later, they tried to reduce U.S. support for Ukraine.

    The 2016 and Biden stories were only to pique Rudy (and Trump’s) interest.

    and begging Putin to help him win for years,

    Donald Trump is not such a fool that he could think that Vladimir Putin could help him win an American election.

    and he soberly assessed that a complete examination of the situation, an honest bit of draining the swamp, would solely land on Team D.

    Or he was asking for a favor, something to benefit himself, after a lifetime of such favors and corruption.

    I think Rudy was possibly being told that corrupt Ukrainians dominated Ukraine’s government, and that they were working with the Democrats – and also thought that that these corrupt Ukrainians were against Russia. (when actually the real corrupt Ukrainians were close to Russia)

    It’s the missing link. Maybe we’ll find that out if Rudy tells enough.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  108. Let’s ask Rex Tillerson about Trump’s decision-making and management style.

    Yes. Start with asking T-Rex him why on Earth he’d leave the top gig running Exxon-Mobil– literally a virtual global nation state in itself, to work for Trump… because his wife said he should do it?!?!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  109. No, Trump didn’t send Rudy. Rudy sent himself. And he didn’t go to Russia. Rudy thinks Russia is bad.

    We have different levels of trust for the things Rudy/Manafort/etc and Trump tell us.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  110. Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/24/2020 @ 12:01 pm

    Are you sure it’s different levels and not just selective confirmation bias? I still amazed that anyone admits to trusting anything any politician “says”. Watch what they do and what results.

    Believing what people say or judging their intentions is why socialists are still taken seriously and allowed to wander around in public.

    frosty (f27e97)

  111. PTw,

    DRJ’s response to you was brilliant.

    Patterico (df6fc2)

  112. PTw,

    Have *you* ever been in charge of an organization as big as Exxon?

    Patterico (df6fc2)

  113. A recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman — two former business associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who have since been indicted in New York.

    The recording appears to contradict statements by Trump and support the narrative that has been offered by Parnas during broadcast interviews in recent days. Sources familiar with the recording said the recording was made during an intimate April 30, 2018, dinner at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

    Trump has said repeatedly he does not know Parnas, a Soviet-born American who has emerged as a wild card in Trump’s impeachment trial, especially in the days since Trump was impeached.

    “Get rid of her!” is what the voice that appears to be Trump’s is heard saying. “Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it.”

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/recording-appears-capture-trump-private-dinner-ukraine-ambassador/story?id=68506437

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  114. Are you sure it’s different levels and not just selective confirmation bias?

    yes

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  115. A. This was the litmus test, in Trump’s eyes, of whether or not they were corrupt. That is, an honest Ukrainian government would look into whatever any people in Ukraine did in 2016, and also into Biden and Burisma.

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/24/2020 @ 11:36 am

    This is my view in spades. An honest Ukrainian government would do more than write this off.

    The problems for Zelensky is that Trump had a lot of his facts wrong – and he didn’t sound like someone who would take too well, being told that he had his facts garbled.

    Zelensky was quite willing to investigate Burisma, without the false theory that Biden boasted of firing the prosecutor to stop an investigation. but he was deterred by fear of the Democrats.

    Trump mentions Biden and Zelensky counters with Burisma and also tells Trump that if he has information they’ll be glad to take it:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

    The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

    Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it [lost words here but Alexander Vindman says that Trump here mentioned the recording of the Jan 23 2018 speech] … It sounds horrible to me. [what Biden said in the recording. Trump didn’t notice that Biden never said he got that prosecutor fired to dtop an investigation ]

    President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start, as a new prosecutor, in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned [i.e. Burisma] in this issue. [Next Zelensky assures Trump that he’s not doing this because of pressure but because he wants to, which means of course he won’t back off] The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the [sic – the word “the” here does not belong and is not good English] honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country

    Zelensky tosses the ball back to Trump about Biden firing the prosecutor.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  116. frosty:

    i.e. the end result of whatever Biden did, or didn’t do, was to get the Burisma case closed.

    It could be said that a lot of people were fooled.

    If you really wanted to make a case against Biden, you could say that Biden was falsely taking credit for firing a prosecutor he hadn’t wanted fired.

    But all this was probably almost honest graft: Just let the people in control of Burisma argue to other Ukrainians that the company had paid off the government of the United States. People might not notice that it was only the son of the vice president who they had on their payroll. And that that’s not a very logical way to bribe Obama.

    Still, Hunter Biden would have a stake in current management retaining control of Burisma.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  117. 116. One big question is: Why would Parnas secretly record that? (to pass along to Russian intelligence?)

    Now someone should examine the difference between what Trump wantd todo and what Pompeo did.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  118. How does this mean Trump would know Parnas? Trump didn’t know the identities of all the people in the room.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  119. PTw (894877) — 1/24/2020 @ 10:05 am

    My guess is no. You’re referring to first-hand experience which is very rare. A basic understanding of organizational psychology isn’t very common in general either. Same with meta-analysis of leadership within different hierarchies.

    frosty (f27e97)

  120. 111. DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2020 @ 12:01 pm

    Yes. Start with asking T-Rex him why on Earth he’d leave the top gig running Exxon-Mobil– literally a virtual global nation state in itself, to work for Trump… because his wife said he should do it?!?!

    Rex Tillerson was going to retire in a few months anyway. In March 2017 when he reached 65, the company’s mandatory retirement age for his position. He just advanced his retirement a=date slightly.

    It was maybe time for public service.

    And there’s even a tax advantage in leaving for government service. (assuming that he wss interested in selling his stock in the first place)

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/rex-tillersons-tax-deal-may-have-made-year-in-trumps-orbit-worth-it.html

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/13/17114558/rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-tax

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  121. 90. Radegunda (39c35f) — 1/24/2020 @ 10:04 am

    which makes him incapable of acknowledging (or realizing) that anything he does or says could ever be wrong.

    I think he may realize that, but he can’t say that.

    Neither, apparently can any other Republican politcian.

    It was part of Clinton’s defense that he did wrong things. Not so Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  122. Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/24/2020 @ 12:21 pm

    If you really wanted to make a case against Biden

    I’m not so much trying to make a case against Biden as I am trying to make the case that at a high level there isn’t much difference between what Biden is accused of and what Trump is accused of. Both are accused of using their office to influence a foreign government for personal gain.

    But what Biden is accused of is presumed ok and there’s no need to investigate it while what Trump did is impeachable. This runs the risk of being labeled whataboutism, I’ve given up on that word since the definition seems to depend on the context. I’m not saying either is ok but the people telling me one is ok and the other isn’t are also saying things about consistency, etc.

    frosty (f27e97)

  123. frosty (f27e97) — 1/24/2020 @ 12:47 pm

    I’m not so much trying to make a case against Biden as I am trying to make the case that at a high level there isn’t much difference between what Biden is accused of and what Trump is accused of. Both are accused of using their office to influence a foreign government for personal gain.

    But the Democrats say ther’s no reason to suppose Biden did that, because the prosecutor he supposedly got fired wasn’t going after the company paying his son gobs of money. And that furthermore the whole United States government, and others too, wanted that prosecutor gone.

    But what Biden is accused of is presumed ok and there’s no need to investigate it

    No need to investigate it because it’s obviously false – a “smear.”

    while what Trump did is impeachable.

    And not official policy, or he’d have made it that.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  124. @43. DCSCA notes that America can survive another 5 years of Trump. Sure, it will. But he will have changed quite a lot and weakened a lot of institutions in that time, and executives with better motives and little consideration of consequences will use and abuse his precedents. Removal of Trump has the possibility of reversing some of that, and maybe showing the GOP still cares about all of the Bill of Rights, instead of just the Second Amendment.

    They seem to care enough to load up the nation with GOP judges. McConnell’s actions and tenure [not to mention the overlooked antics of Newtie and his Blowfish] should have taught you by now that all the GOP only cares about is clinging to power. Politics is the art of compromise… saying ‘no’ to everything during Obama’s time was not compromise. A lot of these so-called ‘institutions’ have been long overdue for some shaking up and the 20th century-post WW2-Cold War-era deadwood cleared out.

    Helsinki. That was the day Congress blew their opportunity to discipline this bad boy by establishing some guard rails and initiating censure proceedings against him. But no. Both parties in Congress had other self-interested priorities instead.

    There’s a common thread w/this guy though his whole life: from an unruly childhood into his military school days, through three trophy wives and multiple tawdry affairs; his Roy-Cohn–to-the-matresses-win-at-any-cost-attitude; busted business deals, bankruptcies, bullying NYC mayors, stiffing contractors, abusing network TeeVee execs–even his eating habits. The dude is a catch-me if-you-can-contrarian who rebels at everything; he’s a guy who has never been properly disciplined. If educators, wives, mistresses, business colleagues and Wall Street finaniers didn’t have the patience to corral him, Congresscritters sure as hell won’t. The cache of ‘impeachment’ has been cheapened and weaponized- and you can thank GOP Gingrich for accelerating that decline in the ’90s from the truly valid efforts to go after the GOP’s Nixon in the ’70s. The U.S. is pretty damned resilient. It’s institutions will weather Trump Times just fine.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  125. Schiff is arguing that Trump needs to be removed because he is dangerous, and he’s dangerous because he chose to believe Rudy Giuliani.

    He’s charging Trump here with being a fool.

    But that’s a policy consideration, not an ethical consideration. Believing one person over another is not a matter of ethics. It’s a matter of judgement. Maladministration.

    No I would support that if the maladministration was bad enough. Even though that is not strictly in accord with the constitution. But it isn’t.

    It would help, though, if Trump admitted he made a mistake.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  126. PTw,

    DRJ’s response to you was brilliant.

    Patterico (df6fc2) — 1/24/2020 @ 12:15 pm

    PTw,

    Have *you* ever been in charge of an organization as big as Exxon?

    Patterico (df6fc2) — 1/24/2020 @ 12:17 pm

    Why do you pretend to know what/where/why I was asking this question without having the common decency to either answer it or at the very least pause to consider that just perhaps, just maybe, I might have something to say that is worthy of discussion? You have no idea, apparently, what I’m trying to get at.

    PTw (894877)

  127. I think Schiff loses on this argument, too.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  128. My guess is no. You’re referring to first-hand experience which is very rare. A basic understanding of organizational psychology isn’t very common in general either. Same with meta-analysis of leadership within different hierarchies.

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/24/2020 @ 12:27 pm

    Rare but not that rare. Plenty of people, and in an august group such as this one, lawyers, people of (apparently) some substance and education, there’s no one here that has been mayor of even a small town or president of their home owners’ association or run a small business of say several dozen people or been president of their kid’s little league? I’m not saying for decades, just for a couple years. Perhaps I over estimated this space.

    PTw (894877)

  129. Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/24/2020 @ 12:55 pm

    Which is exactly why I keep focusing on the result. Before this the case was inactive and after this, it was closed. For a situation where you wanted to remove the first guy because he didn’t want to investigate corruption, it seems odd that removing him got it closed, i.e. no investigation of corruption is guaranteed. A suspicious person might think the first guy was trying to use the threat of reopening the case to his advantage so he got booted to close out that little problem.

    Now, you could argue that the investigation itself was corrupt. That it was a shakedown. And I think some people have argued that. But that blanket doesn’t cover enough to keep everything warm. Burisma had known issues so it’s possible for Shokin to be corrupt and need to be removed and Burisma to still need to be investigated.

    I think it’s telling that Biden said: “And they put in place someone who was solid at the time”. He didn’t say honest, not corrupt, etc. Obviously we can debate what he meant but a “solid” guy is also how you’d describe a dependable guy, a guy that does what he’s agreed to, a guy that stays bought. And “solid at the time” is how you’d describe someone who you thought was bought but wasn’t.

    frosty (f27e97)

  130. @123. The point was, Sammy, his rationale for going to work for anybdy, let alone POTUS Putz. He know the dude’s record and he’s got third and fourth tiered nitwits an neocons around him.

    See para 3 in #127. You’re a New Yorker– you know what the deal is w/Trump. Nobody has ever had the time or patience to discipline him. He shudda had the crap kicked out of him by big brother Fred when he was 7 for stealing cookies! Now, at his age, it’s too late.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  131. Max Boot
    @MaxBoot

    Nixon was guilty of abusing his authority, but he didn’t subordinate foreign policy to personal interests. Other presidents – from Jackson’s Trail Of Tears to FDRs internment of Japanese-Americans – trampled our values but they always had a public purpose.
    __ _

    TDS is not pretty.
    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  132. BDS made sense as a concept. Such a nice guy, being accused of planning 9/11 by crazy people who were literally deranged. Of course the kind of BDS sufferers was Donald Trump, claiming Bush was the worst president in American history and insisting Hillary Clinton was the best Secretary of State he’d ever seen.

    TDS… it’s just ripping off an acronym. Trump critics just say Trump did the stuff he brags about doing, 90% of the time, the other 10% making morality claims.

    I can’t see how someone can be critical of derangement at a president and still support Trump though. It seems to me to be a position lacking self awareness.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  133. They are now presenting the case for Article II (obstruction of the investigation or of oversight)

    They may leave some tme for the presidents lawyers.

    The Saturday session will start at 10 am (the Supreme Court does not hold oral arguments on Saturdays)

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  134. frosty (f27e97) — 1/24/2020 @ 1:29 pm

    Burisma had known issues so it’s possible for Shokin to be corrupt and need to be removed and Burisma to still need to be investigated.

    That’s in fact the conventional wisdom, except tat they out saying shokin ad no intention of investigating Burisma. Shokin later claiimed that the U.S> Ambassador shut it down,because he supposedly said they had to tread carefully – I forgot the words. Later he said that Porosehnko told him he was being fored because of Biden.

    I think it’s telling that Biden said: “And they put in place someone who was solid at the time”.

    Because by January 23, 2018 Lutsenko didn’t have a sterling reputaton. Solid here means can’t be pushed off his course. Biden is not telling the CFR that Lutsenko would stay bought.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  135. PTw,

    I am not comfortable with people asking for personal or business information online. I hope you did not realize that, in asking for information about our real lives, it would be intrusive or personal. I trust you have a point in mind and I encourage you to make your point now.

    FWIW my general answer to your question is Yes, I have that experience, except I was not the sole owner of the business. But IMO our backgrounds shouldn’t matter. What matters is whether our comments have substance and are logical.

    DRJ (15874d)

  136. 111. Because ExxonMobil has mandatory retirement at 65 and Tillerson turned 65 in March 2017.

    DRJ (15874d)

  137. @139. That really doesn’t mean anything in Corporate America; he can be a salaried advisor to the BOD; my own grandfather garnered a similar set-up post ” mandatory retirement” w/PNB in Pgh., to maintain business and state contacts–and to keep busy. Tillerson’s decision to work for Trump in the first place is the question. His history was well known and he’d just come off a campaign laced w/rancor. His wife’s prodding aside, a SoS who was the top Exxon exec would be sweet set-up to grease doors– for Exxon.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  138. 74.How do the people defending Trump on this site defend the refusal to allow witnesses at a trial?

    Maybe Munroe, rcocean, or iowan2 can give a principled defense of the Republicans refusing to allow witnesses at a trial.

    We can use an example, like Mick Mulvaney or John Bolton.
    Why Senators don’t want witnesses? They take the House Managers at their word. They have a clear cut case based on all the evidence they found in the House Impeachment Inquiry. Democrat Impeachment Managers presenting to the Senate, have repeated at least 100 times the evidence is massive, indisputable, and the evidence proves their case beyond any doubt.
    The more salient question is why didn’t the House subpoena the witnesses they wanted? Because they never did issue any subpoenas. Only requests, except for Charles Kupperman. When Kupperman asked a judge who controlled his actions, the President, or the House committee. The house folded, revoked the subpoena, and promised not to issue another one for Kupperman if the Judge would not offer an opinion.

    The reason the House committee pulled the one Subpoena, and issued no others, is because the House never delegated their constitutional power to launch an impeachment investigation. (Notice the House never use the word “investigation” always “inquiry”.
    Article I, Sec.2 of The constitution gives the House, soul power to investigate and impeach the President. To trigger that power, and separate it from Article I, Sec 1 power of oversight, the House must vote to launch the impeachment power, and to delegate that power to the commitee(s) of their choosing. That vote signals to an article III judge what constitutional standard would be used to settle disputes between, the equal in power, Executive and Legislative branches. Without the vote of the full House delegating their constitutional power, standing committees are limited to their Article I Sec 1 powers.
    .
    So why does the President refuse to honor the request of a house committee? Just like I refuse a cop the request to look in the trunk of my car. Just like I use the IRS code to reduce the amount if income tax I submit.
    The President of the United States has executive privilege. It allows the President to have private frank conversations with his advisor, without prying eyes poking into his business. Think, spouse, priest, or doctor. The President is not subservient to Congress. They are equal and power. Disputes as to that power? Seek judicial review.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  139. Other companies may waver but ExxonMobil seems strict about mandatory retirement for bona fide executives.

    DRJ (15874d)

  140. @142. My family experience w/big oil firms at that corporate level tells me if they needed his experience, expertise and contacts worldwide in a consultancy or however they’d establish it, they’d tap it one way or another. Particularly at his level. It’s just how it is- good or bad.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  141. PTw (894877) — 1/24/2020 @ 10:57 am

    DRJ’s point went sailing over you, apparently.

    I agree with DRJ, about the impropriety of your question. I feel that it is an invasion of privacy to ask such a question. But, if one has paid close attention over the years, it is obvious that some of the commenters, past and present, fit the bill. I did not expect any of them to respond to your question, nor should you.

    felipe (023cc9)

  142. Why Senators don’t want witnesses? They take the House Managers at their word.

    Amazing.

    So why does the President refuse to honor the request of a house committee? Just like I refuse a cop the request to look in the trunk of my car.

    Except the president has accountability to the House, as the courts have always said.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  143. Other than DRJ, of course.

    felipe (023cc9)

  144. Just remember, this attitude about accountability will be relied on if Bernie’s the next president. They are rubbing their hands together with glee at the great progress they can bring us. What did Team R get that’s so valuable from giving up so much on government accountability in the long term?

    Team R pays for something that only benefited Trump.

    At a certain point, there’s no use even caring about principles when partisans are so obnoxiously in the tank. I guess we’re already there.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  145. ”Just remember, this attitude about accountability will be relied on if Bernie’s the next president.“
    Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/24/2020 @ 3:05 pm

    Yes, we’ll all remember that the executive branch telling Congress to pound sand started with Trump, just like he was the first president to tell a fib and the first president to use foreign aid as leverage.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  146. 103.

    And you still didn’t confirm about voting Democratic.

    harkin (e3b71e) — 1/24/2020 @ 11:10 am

    How is who I might vote for or whether I vote relevant to this discussion (except that some people seemingly want to know personal information about others)?

    DRJ (15874d)

  147. They are culpable. The part of me that says not to judge them … I can’t listen to it. It may be a lack of maturity on my part, but that’s who I am, at least at this point in my life. I can’t forgive them.

    If inability to forgive is a moral failure (more on that in a second), at least you’re struggling with it. IMO that alone is commendable.

    Generally I’m all in for forgiveness, but there’s a complicating factor here. When somebody accepts responsibility for an act of bad behavior, it’s on me if I can’t forive them. But not only aren’t Lee, Sasse, et al contrite, their craven hypocrisy is ongoing. If forgiving a past act isn’t to become a free pass to continue behaving badly, each new second requires another act of forgiveness. I’m no expert in these matters, but somehow that doesn’t sound right.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  148. Why do you pretend to know what/where/why I was asking this question without having the common decency to either answer it or at the very least pause to consider that just perhaps, just maybe, I might have something to say that is worthy of discussion? You have no idea, apparently, what I’m trying to get at.

    I think I do, but please get on with the point.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  149. Schiff is knocking it out of the park right now, as we speak.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  150. “ How is who I might vote for or whether I vote relevant to this discussion (except that some people seemingly want to know personal information about others)?”

    You made it relevant at comment 59 when you implied you were no longer voting for the GOP:

    There is no reason to vote GOP if they willingly give that up, as they clearly are.”

    Since you already seemed to be declaring ‘personal information’, it was just a follow-up to judge consistency.

    If this bothers you please disregard.
    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  151. harkin,

    I am no longer voting for any GOP politician who voted against impeachment or who votes against removal in the Senate. Or who denounces this impeachment in the future. This is a make or break for me. Which pretty much means I am no longer voting for the GOP.

    Is that what you wanted to hear? I just said it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  152. ”Schiff is knocking it out of the park right now, as we speak.”
    Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2020 @ 5:26 pm

    I guess he finally snagged those nude pics of Trump.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  153. @152. Yes– been watching all day… but he’s pitching at the end of painfully endless hours of droning from a team w/several not-ready-for-prime-time players.

    This is why Trump’s team loaded up w/TeeVee savvy legal eagles. They’ll play to the television audience- not to the restless, half-asleep, half-interested audience of 100; particularly the 53 partisans in the Senate majority- who’ve already made up their minds, regardless of that silly oath stuff.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  154. Schiff has been getting some laughs, too.

    Like when he talked about having mocked Trump, despite the fact that Trump mocks people all the time.

    I forget the second time.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  155. Yes, we’ll all remember that the executive branch telling Congress to pound sand started with Trump, just like he was the first president to tell a fib and the first president to use foreign aid as leverage

    Hugh Hewitt was on Meet the Press Sunday. He said, among other things, that he hoped some Democratic Senators voted to acquit on the second article for the sake of future Presidents.

    I suppose Mr. Hewitt is no longer a conservative, because if he were a conservative he would have said he hopes every Senator would vote to convict for the sake of Congress as an institution. Hewitt is effectively saying it’s fine for the President to do what he wants and that Congress can do nothing about it. I’d say the complete opposite is true. We need a Presidency so hamstrung and hemmed in by Congress that the person in the Oval Office can’t take a coffe break unless Congress approves.

    Kishnevi (2f404f)

  156. ”Schiff is knocking it out of the park right now, as we speak.”
    Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2020 @ 5:26 pm

    And the Fonz is catching some serious air on water skis right now, as we speak.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  157. Hugh Hewitt was on Meet the Press Sunday.

    ROFLMAOPIP. Hewitt was the ass who tried to host an event last July at the Nixon library promoting The Big Dick’s contribution to Apollo 11– which he had zilch to do with and was responsible for killing the Apollo program’s last three lunar flights. He’s just another conservative pundit on the outs, three cards from the bottom of the deck.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  158. lurker (d8c5bc) — 1/24/2020 @ 4:23 pm

    There is also a practical side to the inability to forgive. Holding on to it is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to get sick. I know it’s a cliche but what I would describe as unforgiveness is only hurting you.

    Forgiveness isn’t the same as not holding someone accountable, i.e. giving them a free pass. Those are two very different things. Unforgiveness is holding on to the emotion and letting it control you, and don’t be mistaken it will control you. Forgiveness doesn’t have anything to do with the other person changing in any way.

    What Patterico, and you, are doing is confusing forgiveness with accountability.

    Whether unforgiveness is a moral failure is a different issue. I wouldn’t describe it in those terms but I know many people do.

    frosty (f27e97)

  159. “We should always forgive our enemies, but not before they are hanged.”

    Finished snickering or sneering? Yes? Ok, then! The word you should have noted is “our”, not “hanged”. We have an obligation to forgive “our” enemies, but who are we to forgive our neighbors’ enemies … our country’s enemies? We do not have the right, we do no have the power, to do that.

    nk (1d9030)

  160. The President of the United States has executive privilege. It allows the President to have private frank conversations with his advisor, without prying eyes poking into his business. Think, spouse, priest, or doctor. The President is not subservient to Congress. They are equal and power. Disputes as to that power? Seek judicial review.

    Iowan, POTUS is our salaried employee. So is everyone that works in the Executive Branch. The President is supposed to be subservient to us. Those conversations are not his business. They are our business. That means he has no right, no power, to keep back any information from us. Executive privilege is one of those bogus doctrines that needs to be purged from our system.

    In private employment an employee who told his employer he couldn’t give him job related information would soon be looking for a different job. No difference here.

    Kishnevi (2f404f)

  161. And the Fonz is catching some serious air on water skis right now, as we speak.

    Happy Days was on for seven more years after that season.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  162. @163 I think the spirit of executive privilege is not necessarily bad. It’s meant to be in place so that people can give the President advice without fear of repercussions. And presidents need people who will give them their best advice regardless of how that advice might sound to someone outside the conversation. However, it isn’t being used in that way at this time. I think it should be more limited than what we are seeing in this current expansion of powers.

    Nic (896fdf)

  163. @164. A Senate term is six; Schiff is auditioning for that role when Feinstein retires.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  164. Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2020 @ 5:55 pm

    Yea, but was it really as good a show? Star Trek II is absolutely the best in the classic franchise and they didn’t recover from IV.

    frosty (f27e97)

  165. Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2020 @ 5:55 pm

    Same with Who. Does anyone watch the shows after Tom Baker? Some of the stuff they did with Davison and Colin Baker are just bad. It kept going for a while too but they eventually had to let it sit on a shelf for the better part of 10 years before they could reboot it.

    frosty (f27e97)

  166. 145. You have to accept the fact, that the House intell committee, wrote up 2 articles of impeachment and the House voted to transfer those articles to the Senate. Democrats have created this. House Democrats have declared all the investigative work that needed to be done to write those articles of impeachment was done. More than enough evidence was gathered to Impeach and remove the President.
    Republicans are taking the Democrats at their word.
    IF, a big if, more witnesses were needed, Democrats should have asked for those witnesses. I’m not talking about subpoenas, just a request. No request was made to get turned down. But, they also never issued a subpoena. Because without a vote of the full house, to delegate the constitutional power to issue a subpoena to the Judicial committee, any subpoena would be rejected by an article III judge for lack of standing.
    I have no idea why the House refused to conduct the vote of the full house so power could be delegated to the proper committee.
    The answer is simple. Trump is no more danger to the Republic that the local dog catcher. If he were that dangerous Democrats would have taken the job serious and followed the Constitution. But removing the President was always a lost cause. No crime, nothing that warrants impeachment. But a media event to attempt to smear the President? Now that’s a plan. Attempting to force Senators into a corner in order to dirty them up for there elections? Thats a plan?
    Don’t blame Republican Senators, for all the aberrant actions of the Democrat House.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  167. Star Trek II is absolutely the best in the classic franchise and they didn’t recover from IV

    I would say III is the best, but both II and III were at about the same high level. IV was at least watchable, which can’t be said of V. The synopsis of VI sounds vaguely familiar, as if I have seen it, but I don’t remember ever actually watching it. Probably turned off by V.

    Kishnevi (2f404f)

  168. House Democrats have declared all the investigative work that needed to be done to write those articles of impeachment was done.

    No they didn’t.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  169. 163. Iowan, POTUS is our salaried employee. So is everyone that works in the Executive Branch. The President is supposed to be subservient to us

    Your right. And the people should not have their power denied them by Democrats. Impeachment is designed to remove a person when the next election is too far off. Too far off for the people to hold that person to account. Democrats are supplanting the power of the people, with there own desires, in an effort to gain political advantage. That should bother a lot of people

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  170. Necessary = Sufficient in Trumpkin BizarroWorld.

    Leviticus (7fcc89)

  171. Same with Who. Does anyone watch the shows after Tom Baker? Some of the stuff they did with Davison and Colin Baker are just bad. It kept going for a while too but they eventually had to let it sit on a shelf for the better part of 10 years before they could reboot it.

    Davison was actually a better Doctor. It probably helped that some of the best screenwriting for the show dates from his era. And he had the benefit of a better Master.

    Kishnevi (2f404f)

  172. Your right. And the people should not have their power denied them by Democrats. Impeachment is designed to remove a person when the next election is too far off. Too far off for the people to hold that person to account. Democrats are supplanting the power of the people, with there own desires, in an effort to gain political advantage. That should bother a lot of people

    Impeachment has nothing to do with election dates. That idea is just another fake idea from Team Trump.

    Republicans are proving themselves to be political hacks who are eager to defend abuses of power and corruption. That should bother a lot of people even more.

    Kishnevi (2f404f)

  173. 171. Of course they did. They stopped their inquiry, wrote the articles of impeachment, the full house voted to send them to the Senate, and have just spent 24 hours saying the evidence is clear, uncontested, and overwhelming.
    If the work of gathering evidence was not done, the inquiry would still be going on, and the articles of impeachment would not have been written.
    If the committee wanted testimony, it would have helped to issue a subpoena. But you’re a smart lawyer. You know the committee never got the power to issue impeachment subpoena delegated to them by the House.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  174. I read somewhere that the House of Representatives is elected by the people, in a direct election, and only elected, not appointed by a state governor or legislature, but I can’t remember exactly where I read that. It’s not Article Eleven, though, I’m sure of that.

    nk (1d9030)

  175. 175. Impeachment has nothing to do with election dates. That idea is just another fake idea from Team Trump.

    Nothing to do with the upcoming re-election of the President?

    Exactly why did Democrats not get the testimony they say they now need? Time, according to you is not a construct. So why?

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  176. Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2020 @ 6:21 pm

    This is the difference between what’s said and what’s done. They may have said they wanted more witnesses but they didn’t do much about it. It doesn’t help when Shiff and others continue saying the evidence is obvious.

    frosty (f27e97)

  177. Expect Trump’s TeeVee savvy legal team to play to the television audience w/canned soundbites and turn this into a free-air-time 2020 re-election campaign event.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  178. I am no longer voting for any GOP politician who voted against impeachment or who votes against removal in the Senate. Or who denounces this impeachment in the future. This is a make or break for me. Which pretty much means I am no longer voting for the GOP.

    Ditto.

    Dave (1bb933)

  179. Your right. And the people should not have their power denied them by Democrats. Impeachment is designed to remove a person when the next election is too far off.

    Ya brain broke. This is quite possibly the dumbest thing you’ve said, and that is saying a lot.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (48e13d)

  180. “ Happy Days was on for seven more years after that season.”

    Irony meter shattered.

    harkin (d6cfee)

  181. They should have rotated it a bit and caught a more Blake’s 7 vibe. That would be a nice nod to our brexit friends.

    frosty (f27e97)

  182. “I am no longer voting for any GOP politician who voted against impeachment or who votes against removal in the Senate. Or who denounces this impeachment in the future. This is a make or break for me. Which pretty much means I am no longer voting for the GOP.

    Is that what you wanted to hear? I just said it.”

    My question was not directed to you but if you say so it’s fine by me.

    I have not voted for a GOP nominee for president since the 80s. Not due to a specific perceived betrayal but because I refuse to vote for anyone I deem unfit for office. I have not voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter in 76.

    harkin (d6cfee)


  183. CNN
    @CNN
    ·
    “He is a dictator. This must not stand, and that is … another reason he must be removed from office.” House manager Jerry Nadler closed out his remarks this afternoon with some of the most fiery language that’s been heard so far directed at Pres. Trump.
    __ _

    Chad Felix Greene
    @chadfelixg
    ·
    If he was a dictator you wouldn’t be on TV pounding the table. 🙄

    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  184. MY issue was with the word “every”.
    I don’t have to watch it to know that every word was not true. He used a few thousand words.
    The use of “every” displayed your bias. Its almost impossible for every word out of thousands to be true, especially for schiff. But if you click your heels three times in special ruby slippers Schiff is an honest genius.

    steveg (354706)

  185. @183. No Bones about it; ’tis the Real McCoy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  186. Happy Days was on for seven more years after that season.”

    They only quit after the Fonz started to collect Social Security

    rcocean (1a839e)

  187. I predict Patterico will be able to support the following GOP Senators in the future:

    Susan Collins
    Lisa Murkey (AK-RINO)
    Mittens

    Further, one old Bull who’s going to retire (like Lamar) and ONE “Moderate” up for re-reelection like Gardner. However, these R’s won’t vote for BOTH articles but only ONE. This will prove how “Thoughtful” and “above partisan politics” they are. Romney is probably scheming right now, figuring out the right Combo of votes and justifications so that he can get maximum TV face-time.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  188. BTW, if you go back and look at the 1998 verdict, you’ll see that even back then, the D’s were Robots voting in lockstep behind their leader. All 45 D’s voted Not guilty on both counts.

    5 R’s voted not Guilty on Article I – Slate Gordon, Warner, Thompson, Shelby, and Ted Stevens – but Guilty on Article II. Obviously trying to have it both ways and appear “Thoughtful”. Of course, Warner constantly went Maverick and voted against R Judicial Nominees. He also married to Liz Taylor, so he probably thought the Lewinsky thing was normal behavior. Shelby was a D who changed Parties to stay in office. Gordon was a pompous bore, and Thompson also had Hollywood connections and values.

    5 R’s voted Not guilty on both counts. 3 later became D’s – Jeffords, Chaffee, and Arlen Spector. Collins in still with us, and Snowe retired in 2006. Interestingly, of the 5 – four were from New England.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  189. Just had a thought: Is the fix really in? Could it be that McConnell only said that to keep Trump from nuking Denmark before the Pentagon could put fail-safes in place?

    Could we, might we, is it possible, that we might, just might, get those 20 little votes?

    nk (1d9030)

  190. If Schiff is your guy, you fact check him before saying “every word is true”

    steveg (354706)

  191. If we nuke Denmark can we keep Greenland?

    steveg (354706)

  192. Maybe we can nuke them and then outsource PR to the Iranians?
    Our in house PR is weak minded

    steveg (354706)

  193. “Could we, might we, is it possible, that we might, just might, get those 20 little votes?”
    nk (1d9030) — 1/24/2020 @ 8:40 pm

    Mittens and Pierre Delecto. There’s two already.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  194. That would be an interesting legal question, Munroe. If Trump is removed, would John Barron, John Miller, David Dennison, and Carolin Gallego go with him, or would they each need to be impeached too?

    nk (1d9030)

  195. @191 The interesting thing about Lisa Murkowsky is that she is beholden mostly to herself. She’s proven the hard way that she can get elected while the party structure works against her. I would think that would be an example of the apex of political success since her constituents obviously judged that she was precisely representing her district, regardless of party.

    Nic (896fdf)

  196. If Schiff is your guy, you fact check him before saying “every word is true”

    Still waiting for specifics on what is false.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  197. Schiff is another example of #NeverTrump doing exactly what they condemn Trump of.

    Schiff touted the Steele dossier (and Steele himself), showed zero interest in its nefarious use as part of his oversight role, and attacked those (Nunes) who spoke the truth. The dossier, based on foreign sources, was part of a failed effort to influence the election. He cited and touted claims in the dossier that were obviously false. Schiff comically also allowed himself to get pranked by Ukrainians offering nude pics of Trump.

    No, you don’t have to agree with everything Schiff has said — nor does anyone have to agree with everything Trump has said to concur with him that Schiff is a rank hypocrite and reprobate with zero credibility. Nor is Schiff partially redeemed by pursuing policies that move the country in the right direction — in fact, just the opposite.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  198. Munroe, seeing you judge someone’s credibility based on past acts and statements in hilarious. Are you completely un-moored from the concept of principle? Do you view your hypocrisy as an ends to means? Or is there some other thread that guides your thinking that just isn’t clear?

    Time123 (14b920)

  199. Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2020 @ 10:04 pm

    When you say true and false are we talking in the actual factual sense or more that it’s correct and you agree with it? A lot of what he says is opinion, speculation, or otherwise subjective so I wouldn’t say something like that is true or false in the actual factual sense even if I agreed with it.

    frosty (97040b)

  200. ”Munroe, seeing you judge someone’s credibility based on past acts and statements in hilarious.“
    Time123 (14b920) — 1/25/2020 @ 4:37 am

    You’re new here, aren’t you?

    Such judgments, and hypocrisy, are the basis of literally every other #NeverTrump comment left here.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  201. So you’re saying it’s a reading comprehension thing? That makes a lot of sense actually.

    Time123 (284a51)

  202. Well, here’s hoping you get that taken care of.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  203. the thing about jumping the shark is it’s wholly subjective – and can reference distinct audience subgroups or even individuals

    a show can jump the shark with it’s gen z audience by mocking wokeness for example, or with a single viewer who’s just more sensitive to a jarring note cause of individual circumstance

    happyfeet (8bfc47)

  204. 145. iowan2 (9c8856) — 1/24/2020 @ 6:16 pm

    . You have to accept the fact, that the House intell committee, wrote up 2 articles of impeachment

    It may seem that way, but actually the House Judiciary Committee wrote them up, and they wrte therm up in sch a way so they would pass on the floor of the House.

    The HPSCI did all the investigations, and in neither committee were the Republicans allowed to call their own witnesses although the rules of the House say they have aright to one day of hearings when they request one.

    No request was made to get turned down.

    They made a request of John Bolton but they refused to subpoena him and they withdrew their subpoenas of Charles Kupperman to prevent it from getting tested in court. Neither of those two (and some others) would testify would testify without a subpoena.

    Now this was the Intelligence committee.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  205. 141.

    The more salient question is why didn’t the House subpoena the witnesses they wanted? Because they never did issue any subpoenas. Only requests, except for Charles Kupperman.

    That’s not correct. Several government employees who testified only testified after they got subpoenas. Kupperman and Mulvaney did not. I think Schiff didn’t want to hear from Bolton because Bolton could ruin his story.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  206. They also subpoenaed lots of documents, and the State Department and the Pentagon and others gorread ti supply them, when Trump issued this order not to comply with any subpoena.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  207. 192. rcocean (1a839e) — 1/24/2020 @ 8:19 pm

    . Shelby was a D who changed Parties to stay in office.

    He was elected in 1986, and re-elected in 1992, and changd parties after the 1994 election when the Republicans gained control of both Houses. They had controlled the senate from 1980 to 1986 but the last time they had control of the House, since the Great Depression was 1952-54 and before that 1946-48.

    Slade Gorton (with a T) was originally elected in 1980, lost in 1986 and was elected again, to the other Senate seat in 1988. He was re-elected in 1994 and defeated in 2000. By Maria Cantwell after a recount.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  208. Susan Collins
    Lisa Murkey (AK-RINO) (sic: Mukowski)
    Mittens

    These are people who might vote for witnesses, bit are unlikely to vote for conviction. So far there are not four Republican votes for more evidence.

    Schiff and the leading Democrats don’t want a trade of witnesses.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  209. “He withheld the money,
    he withheld the meeting,
    he used it to coerce Ukraine to do these political investigations,
    he covered it up,
    he obstructed us,
    he’s trying to obstruct you,
    and he’s violated the Constitution.”

    A. False. Every cent was paid out before the Congressionaly-mandated deadline.

    B. Irrelevant. Not a crime. Pre-Requisites for meetings are demanded ALL THE TIME, which is why candidates are often asked in debates whether they’ll meet with certain leaders without pre-requisites.

    C. False. The money was paid without the investigations initiated.

    D. False. He released the transcript of the call. The exact opposite of covering it up.

    E. Irrelevant. As has been done by at least 43 other presidents, (can’t comment on William Henry Harrison), Congressional requests are rejected by the Executive Branch ALL THE TIME. The appropriate remedy is the Judiciary, not impeachment.

    F. False & Supposition. The Senate has thus far not asked for any such documents. Trump can’t obstruct what they don’t request.

    G. False. Neither ‘Abuse of Power’ nor ‘Obstruction of Congress’ are found anywhere within the text of the Constitution.

    SaveFarris (6139a3)

  210. A) The day after he was busted. Failure to accomplish your crime isn’t the same as not a crime.

    B) Relevant. See A.

    C) Wrong, whistleblower forced the release, then congress investigated. See A.

    D) Good point, he released the evidence of his wrongdoing. Just because you don’t care that it’s wrongdoing, that…is irrelevant. See A.

    E) Relevant, especially when there is wrongdoing and a cover up, a la Clinton, Nixon. See A.

    F) Neither is bribery, murder, jaywalking…

    So you’ve pointed out 6 things that are universally wrong. In fact, Trump’s own defense council’s arguments do not make those, Trump doesn’t make those, in point of fact, Trump has admitted to it, on video from the driveway of the White House. Now, if you don’t think the wrongdoing is not sufficient to convict, that is an argument that you may have, but your made up “facts” are not.

    F) Wrong, see article 2 of impeachment, as well as subpoenas. Not many of them, only takes up 300 pages.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (dcbd22)

  211. Plus there’s the small detail that impeachment is not a criminal process. Congress has impeached people for being a drunk. It’s a political argument, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” isn’t some nebulous term.

    Let’s go to the replay…

    A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

    The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

    This has been a standard defined thing in English law since the 12th century. Before the constitution was written, the colonies were using it.

    Americans of the founding generation were familiar with the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” not merely because they were close students of the parliamentary history of the mother country, but also because both the American colonies and the early state governments had conducted impeachments of their own. For example, in 1774, just before the American Revolution, the Massachusetts colonial assembly impeached Chief Justice Peter Oliver for “certain High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” His offense? The decidedly noncriminal act of agreeing to accept a royal salary rather than the stipend appropriated by the Massachusetts legislature. The Oliver impeachment was a cause célèbre in both England and the colonies. John Adams is often credited with the idea of impeaching the judge. Among those voting to impeach Oliver were Sam Adams and John Hancock, as well as Nathaniel Gorham, who in 1787 was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and chaired its early deliberations.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (dcbd22)

  212. “Failure to accomplish your crime isn’t the same as not a crime.”

    So John Hinkley should be tried for the murder of Reagan, right?
    Jared Lee Loughner should be tried for the murder of Gabby Giffords?

    Not committing the crime is not committing the crime. You want to charge him with ATTEMPTED whatever, fine. But Patterico’s test was whether it was true or not and it was most definitely false that Trump withheld the payment.

    “whistleblower forced the release, then congress investigated.”

    So you admit Trump released info. Thanks for agreeing there was no cover-up.

    I may be lax on my Constitutional scholarship, but last I checked, the text of the House’s 2nd Article of Impeachment is not contained within the Constitution. Surely, you can cite your source, preferably with a link from the National Archives website.

    Thanks in advance.

    SaveFarris (6139a3)

  213. I know this is pedantic, arguing with someone who is specifically, intentionally, with malice of forethought, misrepresenting reality.

    The crime is…Attempted Murder, one of the 13 things Hinckley was tried for and found not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect. Now, you could be arguing that Trump is mentally incompetent to be found guilty of a crime. I’d be happy to have that argument, of course that would bring up some other inconvenient things.

    Loughner was convicted of 19 counts of murder and attempted murder, guess who one of the attempted murder charges were for?

    If you’re going to make an argument, at least put some basic effort into it. You’re examples make the exact opposite point of what you think they are.

    When you get busted and then release the details, does that mean the thing that was happening the second before being busted is retconned into not having happened?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (dcbd22)

  214. This lady should never have even been charged, she was busted before hand.

    A Chicago woman has been charged for attempting to hire someone to murder another woman whom she apparently blamed for the breakup of her previous relationship, prosecutors said.

    Lissette Ortiz, 54, is facing a felony charge of soliciting murder and, if convicted, could spend 20 to 40 years behind bars. A judge ordered she be held without bond during her first court appearance Sunday.

    Ortiz was in a romantic relationship with an individual, identified in court documents only as “witness 1,” until this summer. After the relationship ended, Ortiz apparently believed her former lover had started seeing another woman and felt that person was responsible for the breakup. Ortiz then allegedly sought to have this woman kidnapped and killed prior to Thanksgiving so that the victim could not celebrate the holiday in the Chicago home that Ortiz once shared with her ex-partner, according to court documents filed Sunday by the Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney’s Office.

    The Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender, which is representing Ortiz, declined to comment to ABC News on Monday.

    Ortiz, who told the man she planned on fleeing to Puerto Rico after the kidnapping, offered him either $5,000 to abduct the woman or $500 and a television to introduce her to someone who would do the job, according to court documents.

    The man immediately contacted the Chicago Police Department and alerted them of Ortiz’s plan. He later told Ortiz that he had found a guy to do the job. But unbeknownst to Ortiz, that guy was an undercover cop, prosecutors said.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (dcbd22)

  215. Schiff didn’t say “Trump attempted to withhold payment.” Schiff said “Trump withheld the payment.”

    Schiff’s allegation is factually incorrect. Which was Patterico’s question.

    SaveFarris (6139a3)

  216. Trump did withhold payment, as the OMB and DoD have confirmed, specifically until Ukraine announced an investigation into Biden. It was released the day after the Trump admin was informed that an investigation was being instigated.

    Again, you may wish it wasn’t true, you may believe that he shouldn’t be convicted of impeachment, but those are different things.

    Congress can impeach him, or any other impeachable office, for being fat and stupid, he’s definitely both of those, but they didn’t.

    You should probably confine your arguments to why this doesn’t rise to the level of conviction, not that reality didn’t happen.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (dcbd22)

  217. Delayed != Withheld

    Words mean things.

    SaveFarris (6139a3)

  218. Delayed != Withheld

    Words mean things.

    Huh, I mean who knew…everyone.

    Words, like corruptly, and when malfeasance made public, and crime…

    All things Trump.

    Dumb, willful blindness, excuses…things you are saying

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  219. So why don’t the citizens of the United States make the determination of whether the Presidents actions reach the level of removal from office?
    280 days. Just a few days more than 9 months. The nation is split about 60/40. 40% saying the President should be removed. Senators should not substitute their opinion for the will of the people.

    iowan2 (1c4a14)

  220. Actually, it’s split, as of yesterday, it’s slightly more than half of Americans think he should be removed. There’s probably a reason that you flipped reality on it’s head. Fully 79% say witness should be called.

    Two things can be true at once, should vote to impeach, and if not, voters choose not to bring him back. Congress has constitutional duties, impeachment doesn’t have a “future election qualifier” next to it.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  221. The Senate can, and should, disqualify him from any future office under the United States.

    Bill Barr’s DOJ will not indict him for his bribery, treason, and his other crimes and misdemeanors, but the statute of limitations is five years and the next DOJ might.

    But I suspect, and have suspected for a long time, that the Democrats are not playing to win the impeachment. They’re playing to lose it. They desperately want Trump to be the GOP nominee in November. He’s the only one any of their goofballs has a chance against. This make-believe is to soften up Trump, dirty-up the GOP as a whole, fire up the Democrat voters and donors, and maybe get them a few Senate seats, with or without the Presidency, in November.

    nk (1d9030)

  222. @224, So lay out the evidence, vote on if he did it or not (hint: he did it) and censure him without removal from office.

    Time123 (441f53)

  223. Here is where you can get transcripts (automated and somewhat inaccurate – I saw Zelinsky spelled Solinsky in one) with links to video available here:

    https://www.rev.com/blog/transcript-tag/trump-impeachment-hearing-transcripts

    What’s more, this company will do transcripts of important events for free on request. It’s apromotion for their transcript services. Probably on;y when there are no copyright issues involved.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  224. 221. Colonel Klink (Ret) (dcbd22) — 1/26/2020 @ 2:26 pm

    Trump did withhold payment, as the OMB and DoD have confirmed, specifically until Ukraine announced an investigation into Biden.

    He specifically did not do that.

    The New York Times is now reporting that John Bolton says he did in his book. Like so many other things, like with the case of supposedly telling Lev parnassd t get rid of the ambassador, firing the ambassador, this is probably of what he does does say.

    What we know is this:

    After President Zelensky’s aide, Andrey Yermak, texted Ambassador Volker a news story entitled, “Trump Holds Up Ukraine Military Aid Meant to Confront Russia” saying they needed to talk, Ambassador to the European Unin ZGordon Sondland became aware that Ukraine knew of the hold, which he had never mentioned to them before. At that point Gordon Sondland egan telling other people in the U.S. government, that the aid was, or should be, a quid pro quo to restore the funding. And he probably did this to make sure he had the backing of colleagues and superiors, or at least did not get overruled, before approaching the Ukraianains with this idea.

    Acting and former Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor was one of those people who got told this. John Bolton was visiting Liev at this time, and he told Bill Tayklor to wrote a (rare) first person cable to the State Department protesting against this. This cable explicitly assumed there was this quid pro quo for the aid and called it crazy to do that. (the exact text of this cable is one of the most important items that Schiff would lke the senate to get)

    While he didn’t get feedback, and we don’t have sworn testimony or public statements as to that, we can safely assume from other sources that on August 30, 2019, National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper held a meeting in the Oval Office with with President Donald Trump at which they argued that the hold on the aid should be lifted. In the course of which Secretary of state Mike Pompeo read out loud from the cable sent by Bill Taylor which described the condtions Sondland was imposing as “a political errand” Trump was not moved.

    Does this mean that Trump agreed to to have such a quid pro quo at that point? Trump may have said there was no legitimate reason for Ukraine not to investigate what Biden did, and not doing so would be a sign of protecting corruption, but he probably also indicated that that would not be a sufficient condition to lift the hold.

    The hold was not lifted until September 11 after there began an uproar in Congress (which was not solely caused by Adam Schiff) bit Trump was already telling senator Ron Johnson on August 31 that he [he said they] was reviewing it now (no formal review took place) and that the Senator would likely be happy with his decision.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.1241 secs.