The GOP Position: We Have a King
Radley Balko (yes, that Radley Balko) makes a great point:
The GOP position:
— Presidents can only be impeached for indictable crimes
— But DOJ can’t investigate possible presidential crimes
— Neither can state or local officials
— If Congress tries to investigate, presidents can mass refuse all subpoenas for witnesses and documents— Radley Balko (@radleybalko) January 29, 2020
In short, the GOP truly is that the President is above the law. That he is a king.
Reports tonight are that the GOP believes it has the votes to prevent any witnesses from testifying and to acquit Trump posthaste.
I tuned in to this impeachment for five minutes tonight — five!— and I was instantly enraged. The contempt that the GOP senators have for a very well reasoned and indeed devastating impeachment case makes me wild with anger.
I am seriously considering voting for whoever the Democrat is in the general election. Even if it’s Elizabeth Warren. Even if it’s Bernie Sanders. (But I hope it’s Joe Biden, and I will vote for him in the California primary.)
I am deeply frightened and repelled by the extent of the powers that the GOP wants to grant to a U.S. president. And I am beyond frightened and repelled by the nature of the person to whom they want to grant those powers. In 2016, I had the impression that, as bad as he is, the structure of our government and Constitution might serve to rein him in, if he tried to do anything truly awful.
I no longer have any such faith. The only option is to throw him out of office. Him and every single person in elected office in Washington D.C. who supports him.
I want the GOP (electorally) burned to the ground. And I’m spitting mad — mad enough that I am seriously considering casting my first (albeit totally meaningless and ineffective!) vote for a Democrat for president.
What other choice do I have?
UPDATE: In the clear light of the morning, my immediate anger has … not passed, exactly, but its hard edges have softened a bit. For now. The sickening thought of an entire federal government run by one party, the way my state is, is unbearable. I am politically more at a loss than ever.
I still might vote for a Democrat but as much as I despise what these Senators are doing, I want Republicans to stay in control of at least the Senate, to minimize the damage. I still can’t bear the thought of four more years of Trump. It’s just too dangerous.
“ I want the GOP (electorally) burned to the ground.”
ok so not only will vote Democrat you want a socialist in office with no GOP opposition, full socialized healthcare, a VAT, ban fracking, abortion up until 3 hours after birth, forced unionization, and no borders. Nice principled positions. I mean do you really believe the party of lying Adam Schiff and Pelosi wouldn’t use any argument to keep “their guy” in if he was impeached? Smh if you want to vote Democrat no one can stop you, if you want to think the GOP should all be voted out go ahead….but I mean you really are just any other left wing person at this point, regardless of what reasoning you have (looks like just general rage).
Roger (900fb5) — 1/29/2020 @ 10:01 pmYou have the choice of not being so mad and thinking every Trump motive is horrible, he’s a monster, he’s a liar every sentence, he’s not going to end the republic anymore than Obama did. That would be option one. If you said stuff like this in court you’d have to recuse yourself.
Roger (900fb5) — 1/29/2020 @ 10:04 pm1 & 2. So which sock puppet are you now?
Gryph (08c844) — 1/29/2020 @ 10:10 pmIt’s cute that you Trump humpers think your vote matters. Wrong, but cute.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/29/2020 @ 10:11 pmWhat? I was just listing the consequences of having no GOP and a Democrat like Sanders as president. That’s what would happen. Does voicing that make me a sock puppet?
Roger (900fb5) — 1/29/2020 @ 10:12 pm5. I don’t think you get where I’m coming from: It doesn’t matter. Your vote doesn’t matter. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Dems and Republicans. Your. Vote. Doesn’t. Matter.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/29/2020 @ 10:21 pmIt’s not as dire as you suggest, even as a never Trumper, Pat. In the United States, a democratic republic, we have what are called elections, every four years—no kings.
Brent (6b5301) — 1/29/2020 @ 10:27 pm5. I don’t think you get where I’m coming from: It doesn’t matter. Your vote doesn’t matter. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Dems and Republicans. Your. Vote. Doesn’t. Matter.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/29/2020 @ 10:21 pm
Cool story. You must be an Alex Jones humper
Roger (900fb5) — 1/29/2020 @ 10:59 pm@1 All that “Oh, the Dems will do these really extreme things” is fear mongering silliness and you have to know that. The Ds are just as beholden to the electorate as the Rs and I’m sure they remember the hit they took to get Obamacare passed.
I am a moderate unaffiliated voter.
I am not a social conservative. I’m more socially conservative than most liberals, but the R party is so demanding of socially conservative orthodoxy at this point, that I definitely stand left of almost all of them.
I am more fiscally conservative than not and, honestly, at this point my read is that in this moment the Dems are more fiscally conservative than the Rs. Yeah, the Ds want to pay for a lot of stuff, but most of them at least have a (sometimes ugly) plan to pay for it. The Rs want the stuff without paying for it. Or want to pay for it with magicbux.
Trump is a terrible person and a terrible President and a terrible criminal who picks terrible people for his administration, fires anyone who turns out to be even marginally competent, and expects everyone to cover up for him. And they do.
The R party has become too dogmatic for me in this cycle. “All regulation is bad” it isn’t, some is, but some is good and necessary. “All environmental laws are bad” they aren’t. Some are, but some are good and necessary.
I’m sorry, but at the moment the Rs have nothing in the works that speaks to me. I’ll be voting D maybe even for Bernie (please not Bernie). And it isn’t OMG yur a lib, it’s that the Rs aren’t providing a platform or even candidates that work for me. I want some sanity and maybe I won’t get it from the Dems, but I for sure am not getting it from the Rs.
Nic (896fdf) — 1/29/2020 @ 11:16 pm“ @1 All that “Oh, the Dems will do these really extreme things” is fear mongering silliness and you have to know that. The Ds are just as beholden to the electorate as the Rs and I’m sure they remember the hit they took to get Obamacare passed.”
What? They saw Obamacare pass and lost the next election and what did they do? They now want single payer, reparations, no border at all, and argue for abortion after birth on camera. You are delusional if you think they will moderate. It’s a race to the left so bad Nancy Pelosi is to the right of a lot of their presidential candidates. What planet are you living on?
Roger (900fb5) — 1/29/2020 @ 11:23 pmWon’t vote for Trump. The few Democrats I could maybe have voted for are already out (Bullock) or won’t win the nomination (Delaney, Gabbard).
Who are the Libertarians putting up this year? It’s that person, or a blank ballot.
Demosthenes (7fae81) — 1/29/2020 @ 11:30 pm@10 I’m living on a planet where presidential candidates always (except Trump) moderate for the general and are more moderate as president (except Trump) than they were as a primary candidate as well.
I’m living on a planet where I know what I’m currently getting from the Rs is unacceptable. Maybe what I get from the Ds will be too, but there’s a chance it will be less unacceptable than what I’m currently getting, which I know is not true for a second Trump administration, which I suspect would only be more and more unacceptable to me.
Nic (896fdf) — 1/29/2020 @ 11:32 pmThis is the result (and long-standing intention) of the so-called “two-party system” — the authoritarian ratchet keeps turning, the Constitution recedes ever-farther into the distance in the rearview mirror, the Dems shout “Forward!” and the Republicans shout “Slow down slightly!”
The Dems say, “If you don’t vote for us, we’ll never get to the goal.” The Republicans say, “If you don’t vote for us, the Democrats will take you to the goal too quickly.”
No one questions the goal itself — not really, not on principle, not with any sort of backbone that would hold up under the least public pressure or (even more importantly) under the relentless establishment intimidation to conform to the bipartisan agenda, i.e., the inside politics agenda of taking more money, debt be damned; making the people more beholden to the government for basic needs and “services”; and palliating the disaffected with various promises to “protect them” and “take care of them.”
The ship is sinking. Trump is just the latest hole, albeit probably the biggest one to date. (And yes, the last one was the biggest one to date before this one.)
A pox on both their houses, which are really the same house anyway.
Daren Jonescu (2f5857) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:05 amSo, the transition to a Democrat partisan completes. CA is not a healthy place to live. Resistance is apparently futile. Glad I left.
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:08 am@14 It isn’t California that is the problem. It’s that the Republican national party doesn’t care. Want to close military bases? California. Want to eliminate tax deductions? Take the ones CA voters use. Want to remove state autonomy on any issue? Start with California. Want to make an example of a state on any given issue? California. California only votes blue, right? Well the Rs have sure done their best to guarantee that.
Nic (896fdf) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:20 amThe national Republican party has consistently been orphaning Republican California voters year on year, for decades. Maybe if they hadn’t, CA would be more balanced.
Nic (896fdf) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:23 amYou have summed up my own thoughts perfectly.
And depressingly.
Dave (1bb933) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:23 amPatterico,
You are blaming Trump and the GOP for a wild assertion of Alan Dershowitz, a man increasingly missing cards from his deck. Oddly, he is a partisan Democrat. He too will probably vote for Biden. If he can remember where his polling place is.
That most of the GOP found the claim ludicrous does not seem to have entered into your thinking — which is what that partisan Democrat remark was about because ONLY a partisan Democrat would be as fast and loose with the facts.
This from the Washington Post:
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:24 amIf we’re gonna have a monarchy, couldn’t we get Liz to take us back?
She’s such a sweet lady.
With a darling family.
Dave (1bb933) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:26 amIn short, the GOP truly is that the President is above the law. That he is a king.
Bollocks.
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:27 am@15:
It is living in CA, and listening to the non-stop sound of one hand clapping that is the problem. A one-party state with no diversity of views on TV, newspapers or in the public square. I lived there for the first 64 years of my life and it’s gone from bad to worse to terrible to hideous. Eventually I said, what am I doing living in a house with a 6-figure equity that I can’t eat, just to live among the smug.
Yeah, Trump is a jerk and a fool and an all-around assh0le, yet I don’t see Governor Newsom or his crowd to be any improvement. At least Trump isn’t trying to control me.
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:36 amAgain, what part of this sounds like agreement?
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:39 amI guess I’m spitting mad, too, about the libel up top.
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:40 am“In 2016, I [Patterico] had the impression that, as bad as he is, the structure of our government and Constitution might serve to rein him in, if he tried to do anything truly awful.”
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. The tools are there but useless if not used.
There’s a common thread w/Trump 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-mattresses-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 family, educators, wives, mistresses, business colleagues, Wall Street financiers or a porn star spanking him w/a copy of Forbes didn’t have the patience or resolve 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 90’s from the truly valid efforts to go after the GOP’s Nixon in the 70’s.
Still, the U.S. is pretty damned resilient. Our institutions will weather Trump Times just fine. But this is certainly another pair-of-deuces-win for adversaries; it isn’t a good look for an America trying to peddle the strengths of the U.S. system and values to other nations overseas. Expect China’s Xi Jinping to grin… as Putin smiles.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:52 amI want the GOP (electorally) burned to the ground. And I’m spitting mad — mad enough that I am seriously considering casting my first (albeit totally meaningless and ineffective!) vote for a Democrat for president. What other choice do I have?
OTOH, P, you said this just the other day: “There are plenty of reasons to vote for him [Trump] that are arguably sensible: judges, immigration, taxes, and regulation come to mind. Anyone who recognizes that he is dishonest, ignorant, impulsive, narcissistic, and so forth, but supports him anyway as a better alternative to the Dems … that’s not someone I am going to mock or condemn.”
Because, you know, “Just because I disagree with a policy doesn’t mean it’s not “arguably” sensible to support it.” 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:09 am@18. Kevin, remember that time Alan Dershowitz tried to argue with Indiana Jones? 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:16 amQui tacet consentire videtur
How many of them leapt to their feet to challenge him, as they should have?
Dave (1bb933) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:43 amThe GOP Position: We Have a King
History rhymes: “The Imperial Presidency”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Presidency
‘Imperial Presidency is a term applied to the modern presidency of the United States. It became popular in the 1960s and served as the title of a 1973 book by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who wrote The Imperial Presidency to address two concerns: that the presidency was uncontrollable and that it had exceeded its constitutional limits…
The presidencies of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were particularly described as surrounded by “courts” in which junior staffers acted occasionally in contravention of Executive Orders or Acts of Congress. Schlesinger pointed out activities of some Nixon staffers during the Watergate affair as an example. Under Reagan (1981–1989), the role of Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, USMC, in the facilitation of funding to the Contras in Nicaragua, in explicit contravention of a congressional ban, was highlighted as an example of the ability to act by a “junior courtier” based on his position as a member of a large White House staff. Howard Baker, who served as Reagan’s final Chief of Staff, was critical of the growth, complexity, and apparent unanswerability of the presidential “court”…
Historian Zachary Karabell argued that executive power grew further in the 21st century, due in part to congressional inaction.’
The piece goes on but isn’t too long. It’s an interesting perspective over time. It is really up to Congress to exercise some coequal branch muscle. It did in 1974.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 2:02 am“I no longer have any such faith. The only option is to throw him out of office. Him and every single person in elected office in Washington D.C. who supports him.” Patterico
Exactly how I feel. I hope and pray that Bernie doesn’t prevent that from happening. But after yesterday, even Bernie is starting to look acceptable.
noel (4d3313) — 1/30/2020 @ 3:41 amThis question for the White House Counsel is from noel from the state of Reality….
“So you think that this President can get away with anything as long as he believes it’s in the interest of his re-election and thus in the interest of the Country? What dictator whispered that in your ear?”
noel (4d3313) — 1/30/2020 @ 3:48 am“So you think that this President can get away with anything as long as he believes it’s in the interest of his re-election and thus in the interest of the Country?”
Yeah, how exactly was that argument resonating with the Mike Lee’s, Ben Sasse’s, Ted Cruz’s, and Rand Paul’s? I hear Patterico’s exasperation….I’m not quite at the point where I can vote for someone with as bad of ideas as Bernie or Warren…..but the whole lack of seriousness by the GOP…..is disturbing….even unsettling. Not even reasoned talk of censure…..and this lack of candor about material witnesses. Just stop lying to me. Hearing from Bolton doesn’t mean we have to complete Trump’s goal of sliming the Bidens by insinuation. But if there are in fact not four Republicans who want to ask some serious questions of at least Bolton….I can’t see how they would provide effective oversight of a second Trump term. This is the audition they are failing.
Yes, we can’t have one-party rule….but if Corey Gardner et al are just going to enable a President to use a foreign government and congressionally-approved aid to try to gain political advantage……and not say a meaningful objection in public……what’s the point?! Yeah I don’t want single payer….or massively subsidized college tuition……but show me some spine in repudiating bad behavior….or else it does in fact need to be burned down…..and policy losses recovered at a later point when the party has a stronger edifice….
AJ_Liberty (165d19) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:24 amThe checks and balances should be working, not only those in the Constitution, but the ones that spring up in every administration; from career employees, who provide the necessary inertia to prevent the worst power grabs. So far, the worst has been averted.
How many individuals have directly or indirectly thwarted Trump’s inclinations? Without the human element, I would agree that Trump, and possibly other POTUS, would be a great danger to the Country. But as things are, He is only an immediate, kinetic*, threat to those who oppose his agenda, even as scattershot it may be in some instances, and non-existent in others.
Patterico, I have given serious thought to your persuasive argument about Trump being a danger as POTUS, and I agree with it with only one reservation. I believe the greatest danger is kept well in-check by, and evidenced in, all the opposition (even within his own admin)brought to bear against Trump. That should be heartening to you, and other clear-minded citizens. If Trump’s impeachment does not result in his removal, as ugly as it will be, it will be the fruit of the corruption that power has brought to both parties.
I can see the failure to remove Trump from office as the moment, to which history will point, when two branches of government gave in to partisan madness. Conversely, Trump’s removal will be the textbook example, in our memory, of when throwing the baby out with the bath was agreed upon.
Not unlike you, my friend, I seethe against both Major Parties. But to me there is still some daylight between the two, even if that difference is, for now, only politically expedient. When that difference disappears, you will find me, in line, to help form a third party. No doubt I will see you there to greet me.
*as opposed to the potential threat he poses to the entire country.
felipe (023cc9) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:41 amoops!
felipe (023cc9) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:44 am@ AJ_Liberty, #31:
See, but here’s the thing. They won’t be. Most of what we lose now, we probably lose for all time. Once statism and socialism start to creep into a republic, even if the forms of government stay, the substance is gone. And it won’t come back, because the substance comes from the people…and we have a people these days with an appalling lack of substance. But they have the ultimate power. They always have. And whether they know what they’re voting for or not, they’ll eventually get everything they voted for. Every last thing.
None of this is an argument to vote for Trump. Or for Biden, or Warren, or Sanders. That’s just saying which way you want the giant to lurch as it falls.
I am beginning to realize, with benefit of hindsight, that our last best chance to rein in this mess might have been 2004. Republicans in control of Congress and the Presidency. Housing bubble not yet burst. That was the time to rein in spending, deflate the bubble as best we could (because there were some in government who knew it was coming even then), keep taxes stable, eliminate our deficit, and pay down our debt. But we didn’t. And that chance will never come again. Right now, our economy is fairly strong to all appearances, but we continue to throw money around like a sailor just back from a year-long voyage and walking through the brothel door, instead of taking even a single step to right our ship.
The fortunate will be abroad, or above, when the reckoning starts. Which means I’ll probably be right here.
Demosthenes (7fae81) — 1/30/2020 @ 5:03 amI’m a Republican in WA State, where Trump lost by 16 in 2016, so it’s not that different from California. The other choice is a protest vote, either a non-nutty third party candidate (which is why I hope Amash throws his hat in) or write in a better Republican.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/30/2020 @ 5:23 amThe only viable Democrats I’ll remotely consider–very remotely–are Bloomberg or a Biden-Klobuchar ticket, but there’s no way in hell that I’ll pull the lever for Sanders, Warren or Buttigieg.
BTW, it’s hard to take seriously the hyperbole that a vote for any Democrat is a vote for socialism or a socialist state. We have divided government and a system of checks and balances for a reason.
I’m totally with you about Trump, for whom I would never consider voting. He has so compromised the office he holds that I could never forgive myself if I voted for him. But Bernie?!?! I fail to see how Bernie could be trusted any more than Trump. And his policy ideas are sheer lunacy. I could persuade myself to vote for a moderate Democrat (Klobuchar, Yang, perhaps even Biden though I’ve never liked the guy), but if the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Bernie, I’ll just sit this one out. Emperor Trump, or Bernie-style Venezuela. Scylla or Charybdis.
Roger (7efba0) — 1/30/2020 @ 5:24 am36. You’re absolutely right, Roger. They all suck. Embrace the suck.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:23 amPatterico
How hard was it to type that? I mean, in many way’s he’s your philosophical opposite.
I’m only partly joking. I’ve been reading you for a while and one of the most consistent themes of your writing and positions is adherence to the rule of law, as written and as understood by precedent. This is coupled with a deference to the agents of the state.
Balko is much more focused on just outcomes and is highly skeptical of agents of the state.
If you believe that rule of law and adherence to constitutional principles are of primary importance Trump and the current GOP are pronounced failures. This is even more pronounced because the political accomplishments of Trump administration are so meager and symbolic.
Your position is analogous to that of the White Nationalists & Populists (e.g. RCocean) who felt that the previous GOP administrations were failures because they didn’t advance an agenda that demanded respect for white, working class men. In both cases a person who has a strong principled position is calling for the electoral wipeout of the leaders of their party as punishment for their failure to advance key goals. In your case that goal is the rule of law. In their case it was loyalty and respect for God, King and Country, with any ambiguous parts of that being defined around traditionally white and Christian understandings of those concepts.
A key difference is that adherence to rule of law and constitutional principles has brought us to an incredibly free and rich society. We haven’t seen authoritarian nationalism at the federal level in the US, but where we have seen it in the world the results are poverty, oppression and misery exceeded only by communist states.
Time123 (14b920) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:40 am38. We haven’t? Do you really believe we’re still adhering to the constitution as our founders intended? :-O (Pro tip: We’re not)
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:41 amI want the GOP (electorally) burned to the ground. And I’m spitting mad
That leaves the Dems running the White House, Senate and House. What could go wrong?
Mattsky (24a470) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:53 amThe prospect appears horrifying, Mattsky. I just think another four years of Trump seems even more so. I am beside myself.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:55 am@Patterico
In short. No.
That’s an absurd hyperbolic position.
I’ll address Balko’s points individually:
What’s outrageous about this? There’s a high bar to impeach the President for a reason. It must be clear and must have strong political bi-partisan support to use this political nuclear tool. Easiest path is to point to an act that violates a statutory crime AND that it meets the ‘Other Crimes and Misdemeanor’ criterion. (which are crimes that are like Treason or Bribery).
When impeachment articles are arguably nebulous (as it the case today), but sounds great, however it still makes it easier for the opposition to argue against the articles.
Numerous administration’s Office of Legal Counsel has argued this position. This isn’t solely a GOP position.
Frankly, it’s weird that you’re advocating the DOJ, who is subordinate to the President, to independently investigate their boss. The DOJ is *not* some quasi-independent entity. It is under the executive branch with the President at the top. Congress *does* have oversight due to the fact that they created the DOJ department. But, oversight is an exercise of power between an Article I branch to the Article II branch, and any disputes are usually negotiated or taken to Article III branch for adjudication.
This is an extension of the unitary executive theory that every administration, regardless of party, has operated. Even the founding founders articulated this in the Constitution and oodles of publications which states that “the executive power” of the United States is vested only in the President.
Once President complete their term, there’s nothing stopping the DOJ from indicting former presidents.
Again, numerous administration Office of Legal counsel has argued this position, so it’s not unique to the GOP. It’s worth noting that Presidents *can* be taken to civil courts (ala, Bill Clinton).
Here’s what is driving me nuts about this argument. You are flat out refusing to acknowledge Trump’s defense arguments. Which NONE have been taken to court (except for McGhan currently being litigated). The main thrust of this initial refusal of all the subpoenas/documents request was because the subpoenas were improperly issued. Those were issued before the House passed the impeachment resolution 660 and they weren’t reissued afterwards. Additionally, you are refusing to acknowledge historical precedent that even with properly issued impeachment subpoenas, Presidents still can claim immunity and that the proper recourse is to either negotiate a narrow request to satisfy congressional subpoenas or it can be adjudicated in the courts.
whembly (fd57f6) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:57 amI can’t agree to make a king out of a guy who makes his decisions watching cable news. Who is corrupt and alienated every friend we have on earth while praising every murderer. I want a president who is on the side of law enforcement, instead of a criminal who bashed law enforcement because he is worried about his crimes being exposed. And I can’t tolerate a party that supports all this in lock-step.
At the same time I am personally experiencing the consequences of single-party rule in my state and it’s terrifying. They are trying to free the murderers. In many cases they are succeeding. They are trying to undo my life’s work. They are insane.
I don’t know what to do but Trump scares me too much. Gavin Newsom has no nukes. Trump does. He has to get out. Almost nothing is more important.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:00 amwhembly,
If tomorrow Trunp called Putin and asked him to hack all the Democrat candidates and in return he would stop enforcing the Magnitsky Act, what do you think would happen?
Nothing. The GOP would support him. There is no mechanism to remove him. Other than an election in which he employed Putin to help him.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:04 amTONS of things will go wrong.
Here are the options.
Option 1: Dems get 2-4 years of federal power checked only by the Filibuster and their more conservative members.
Option 2: Trump get’s 4 more years to establish precedent expanding executive power.
I my top 3 goals are Limited government, fiscal discipline and rule of law. My least bad choice is Option 1.
I see no reasonable chance of getting to make a good choice.
Time123 (457a1d) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:06 amPatterico with Trump we have the House and media keeping him in check. With the Dems running the White House, Senate and House there is nothing to keep them in check. I understand you wanting to burn down the GOP but I think you’ll end up burning down a lot more.
Mattsky (24a470) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:08 am”What other choice do I have?”
Vote, and accept the outcome of a vote. (That latter seems to be really hard.)
The alternative is a monarchy… you know, Kings and stuff.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:09 amThe problem with this is that under your interpretation there’s no mechanism to hold a president accountable for crimes and abuses of power.
Time123 (457a1d) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:10 amAlso, IANAL but from what I’ve read the founders considered “Abuse of power” to be an impeachable offense.
Time123 (457a1d) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:12 am— Sen. Dianne Feinstein. (Yes I know she was forced to recant.)
But I am shocked that I actually agree with something she said.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:13 amImpeachment is not a “nuclear tool.” The perception of it as such is another in a long line of civic education failures.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:13 amThe problem with this is that under your interpretation there’s no mechanism to hold a president accountable for crimes and abuses of power.
That is patently false. For crimes, he can be indicted and tried when he leaves office. For abuses of power, there are plenty of Congressional powers that can be used to curb the president. They just don’t have the will to use them.
The problem here is that, unlike a criminal case, you cannot calibrate the punishment. Removal from office is the equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case. That is, IMO, not warranted here. In a criminal case, you can give someone two years in jail or three years of probation.
And let’s not forget in this very case, the president WAS investigated by the House, he turned over some evidence, they subpoenaed other evidence, and then they dropped it in a rush to get it done early for political purposes. Had they pressed and waited for a month, they could have had Bolton’s and Mulvaney’s testimony (for what they are worth). They made a political calculation not to go there. And now they really think the other house of Congress that is controlled by the president’s party is going to do their work?
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:18 am52. Removal from office = the death penalty? What are they teaching kids in public schools these days? Removal from office is the least punishment that most of the 545 deserve for the mal- and misfeasance.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:20 amPatterico (115b1f) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:00 am
You’ve got an issue with D’s
and your solution is
From the outside, it seems like burning the GOP to the ground in CA is part of the problem you are describing. How would extending that to the federal level help?
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:21 am54. As someone who lives in flyover country, I can tell you that at best the GOP is worthless, and at worst they are dangerous. So at worst burning it down would do nothing, at best it would get rid of many Republican bad actors.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:23 am@53
Why don’t you use your brain a bit. The president was duly elected in 2016, and will face another election in 2020. Removing him is an extreme action that should be reserved for extreme cases, which is what the Constitution contemplates.
The point is, that in a proceeding like this one, it is all or nothing. You cannot remove him for a week. The choice is the most extreme sanction or nothing. That is the analogy here.
Pelosi had it right originally. They should have censured him. After some painful public hearings. That would have been more Constitutionally correct and, frankly, better for them politically. Don’t kid yourself, this whole impeachment fiasco is going to help him get re-elected.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:26 amUPDATE: In the clear light of the morning, my immediate anger has … not passed, exactly, but its hard edges have softened a bit. For now. The sickening thought of an entire federal government run by one party, the way my state is, is unbearable. I am politically more at a loss than ever.
I still might vote for a Democrat but as much as I despise what these Senators are doing, I want Republicans to stay in control of at least the Senate, to minimize the damage. I still can’t bear the thought of four more years of Trump. It’s just too dangerous.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:27 amThey have elections in Russia, too. Putin does great in them!
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:29 amI’m not aware of any example of where this has happened. Additionally there are good reasons not to do this.
Time123 (14b920) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:31 amHow? How are they keeping him in check? They aren’t. That’s what this whole farce is proving.
Yeah, see my update. As much as I despise these GOP senators I want them to stay in control, now that my initial flash of anger has cooled a bit.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:31 amThey have elections in Russia, too. Putin does great in them!
Yes, our situation is the same. I mean, in the last federal elections (the midterms in 2018, I mean), the president’s party won 95% of the vote and controls Congress.
And Trump is a shoe-in in the next election, he does not even have to bother campaigning.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:32 amThat’s the whole problem. A theoretical curb that men are unwilling to use is worthless.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:32 amGryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:23 am
CA is a real-world counterexample. Are you thinking that they just didn’t do it right and it would work out differently in flyover land?
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:36 amI am happy to see a lot of people noting that there is a difference between GOP and DEM. I understand Patterico’s position and don’t begrudge him his disdain and desire to “burn it to the ground”. It is possible we may come to that (a la tree of liberty must be watered), but we are not there yet. I still think it is for more beneficial for the rule of law to vote GOP for president every year. While Trump is not being restrained enough, he has more restraints than you will ever get from a Dem presidency because every major institution in America will oppose a Rep and protect a Dem. Every single major institution. Our divided government, unfortunately, is not in the parties.
For comparison let’s look at what Trump is about to get away with. He will be getting away with thinking about investigating a potential opponent for what has the appearance of corruption. He didn’t actually do the crime, just toyed with it. On the other hand we had a party that used other government resources to falsify information and then worked to suborn the FISA courts to be able to spy on a presidential candidate and other Americans and eventually to convict a person by threatening his children.
Tell me, which is the greater abuse of power? On the one hand you have someone being run through the ringer for what he did and getting at least politically and publicly damaged, even if he doesn’t quite get impeached. On the other hand you have almost no one even talking about the latter much less holding house and senate hearings to convict true criminal and abuse of power.
And thus, because you find that the party in which you hoped had at least a modicum of respect for the rule of law turns out to be as political as the party that doesn’t you want to punish the former and reward the latter. I tell you, if Trump were a Dem, I bet we wouldn’t even have heard about the allegation that he considered smearing a potential rival. There would not have been a whistleblower in the first place.
Our only hope for putting the brakes on the complete takeover of America by the state is to dig in our heals and not vote for any statists, moderate or not. There are limits, and I can see why you might think Trump is the “limit”, but you have to look at the alternatives, and it sucks Scylla and Charybdis, indeed.
The Republicans will hasten the takeover by the state by 25% per year and be heavily scrutinized by the other institutions. Democrats will hasten the takeover by the state by 95% per year and will be barely scrutinized.
WaBlogLog (c0df72) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:38 amI think using military aid to force a foreign government into announcing an investigation of a political rival is extreme.
I don’t think this is ‘normal’ politics. I don’t think this is analogous to getting a photo op for your kids with the Queen or putting in a good word for a friend or relative. I think this is every bit as, if not more, serious as the IRS targeting Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny and audits. That’s the closest recent analogy I can find. I think this one is worse because
1. Citizens have rights in an IRS audit.
2. Those audits were no publicized and in this case there was a clear plan to have an investigation in Ukraine announced.
3. The house wasn’t able to find evidence of Obama’s involvement. Trump has publicly admitted his involvement.
That said, if that house had passed articles of impeachment against Obama based on what was known at the time it would been OK by me.
Use YOUR brain, how opaque would this scheme be if it were executed by a competent administration? No blatant asks by the president, No drunken personal lawyers, no thumb headed henchmen.
If the senate wants to vote that: “He did it. It was wrong. We’re going to censure him, remove him from office, and he’s agreed to waive privilege in some areas to increase oversight.” I could get behind that.
But ignoring the evidence in such a blatant way isn’t OK.
Time123 (14b920) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:42 am“I want a president who is on the side of law enforcement, instead of a criminal who bashed law enforcement because he is worried about his crimes being exposed.”
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:00 am
The IG report must’ve left a mark.
For now, I’ll settle for law enforcers being on the side of law enforcement.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:45 am“ Before the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump was gaveled into session, Chief Justice John Roberts presided over a swearing-in ceremony where all 100 senators pledged to be impartial jurors. The liberal media zeroed in on that pledge and decried Senate Republicans who seemed to be siding with the President.
But a Media Research Center study of broadcast evening news coverage of the opening arguments of both sides, found ABC, CBS, and NBC did not live up to the standard they demanded of Republicans. They gave Democrats double the airtime and showered their arguments with mostly praise, while expressing only criticism of the President’s legal team.
Between Wednesday, January 22, when Democratic House impeachment managers launched their opening arguments, and Tuesday, January 28, when the President’s defense team rested, evening newscast reporters and anchors made a total of 34 evaluative statements about the merits and effectiveness of both sides.
Democratic impeachment managers received a total of 21 evaluative statements from ABC, CBS, and NBC journalists. Of that total, 95 percent of those (20) touted their efforts and presentations, which means only one of their evaluative comments were negative. ABC’s World News Tonight had eight positive comments, CBS Evening News had five, and NBC Nightly News seven. NBC had the lone negative comment.”
Crazy times.
Almost understandable how seemingly rational folks are embracing the crazy.
harkin (d6cfee) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:46 am_
You mean the IG report that said CH was properly predicated and found no evidence of political consideration in opening it? That IG report? Of is this another reading comprehension fail on your part?
Time123 (457a1d) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:52 amThat still leaves the possibility that Congress can prove a crime without using subpoena power.
Incidentally, these arguments aren’t really accepted, although a President could, if he relied on that, an stop DOJ from investigating himself. All the other propositions require some other people to agree.
There are ways even around the claim that that DOJ can’t investigate the president, like the confirmation power of the Senate, and fear of public opinion (which is connected to a threat of impeachment, because Congress doesn’t have to agree that refusing to let himself be investigated was not an impeachable offense.)
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:54 am63. I’m thinking there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major political parties. You’re welcome to try to convince me otherwise; single-party Republican control of my state legislature hasn’t been working out so great here.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:54 am#44
Nice hypothetical.
Let’s game this out:
Is it a Treason? No.
Is it Bribery? I think a case could be made depending on hard evidence, not what you *think* happened.
Is it Other High Crimes and Misdemeanor? Meaning, is it a crime this is like Treason or Bribery? Maybe, again depends on the hard evidence. Maybe it’d fall under some Conspiracy to commit fraud. I don’t know.
I could see a Nixon scenario where the President’s party would inform the President that removal is likely and that resignation would be on the table. Frankly, due to the Nixon precedent…I don’t believe we’d ever see a presidential removal by the Senate.
I get you’ve got a hate hard-on towards Trump. The US will survive Trump… the GOP will survive Trump.
Just like the US survived Obama…and the Democrats are no worst for wear and survived his tenures. I’d even argue that Obama and his policies were far more destructive than Trump’s so far.
whembly (fd57f6) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:56 amsept 9. IG tells congress there’s a credible and urgent WB complaint
sept 10. Bolten quits / is fired.
Sept 11. Aid is released.
Looks like trump was thinking about it and toying with it right up until the point where he found out he was going to get caught.
Time123 (14b920) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:57 am#48
Impeachment is not the ONLY mechanism to hold a president accountable.
whembly (fd57f6) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:58 am#51
O.o
Overturning an election is not a “nuclear tool”??
Please elaborate why you think this is an indication of civic education failures.
whembly (fd57f6) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:00 am@71
Whembly, if the president refused to their Job. If they spent all of their time at Camp David getting drunk and throwing wild parties. Not a lot of time, literally all of it. Never came to work. Didn’t do *anything* and just said, accurately, “It’s in my power to decide how to do my job.” Could the house impeach them?
Time123 (14b920) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:00 am@73, what are the other methods to hold the president accountable?
Time123 (14b920) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:01 amThe simple fact of the matter is that the parties are too strong, and the way to make them weaker is to unreform campaign finance.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:01 am#53
It is a political death penalty.
How’s this for education: The founding founders expressly REJECTED the premise that maladministration is an impeachable offense, as they’ve noted the chaos it caused in Britian.
whembly (fd57f6) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:02 am74. It’s not the end of the world. It’s serious and it’s difficult to do by-design, sure, but impeachment does not constitute (or even necessarily denote) a constitutional crisis. It’s simply a way for Congressweasels to assert that they believe the president is unfit to hold power.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:03 amTime123 (14b920) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:57 am
This same sort of analysis is what’s being alleged here:
I’m not trying to argue the underlying claims in either position. But either both are Underpants Gnome arguments are neither of them are.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:03 amSomebody he appointed would actually be running most of the government.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:03 am78. Indeed the founding fathers did reject the concept of maladministration, but that’s one of two articles the House filed (and I think by far the weaker one, but I digress). There are numerous reasons I believe Donald J. Trump is unfit to hold office, and most of them have absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:05 amThe first presidential election I was eligible to vote in was in 1980. I voted for Ronald Reagan, because he was anti-communist and had a sunny optimism about America. In 1984, he launched his re-election campaign with a speech in Austin, on Auditorium Shores. I attended. It was a huge crowd, and the security was unbelievable–gates with metal detectors, wand sweeps and pat downs after. I had a pocket watch and chain on my Levi’s, and I had to take it off, open it and show it to a Secret Service agent, to prove it was a watch and not an explosive device. Incredible, but President Reagan had been shot by a lunatic, and I understood. That was the most extensive security check I’ve ever been through. The TSA has nothing on these guys. I was just a college student who wanted to hear the president speak, but I along with everyone else supposedly was scrutinized like terrorist assassins. You couldn’t get to Auditorium Shores without going through intense security. I was worth it though, because Reagan gave a magnificent speech.
Later that year, William F. Buckley came and filmed an episode of Firing Line at the University of Texas. Of course, I sat in the audience for that. My father had bought me a subscription to the National Review, because he thought it would protect me from the liberal horde in Austin, and I read it weekly. I had to use a dictionary to read Buckley. I also watched Firing Line regularly, so I wasn’t about to pass up the chance to actually sit in the audience for a show. It was hilarious! Anne Richards, future governor, was on the panel, and she kept going on and on about bilingual education. Buckley said, “That’s rather contumacious of you.” She said, “I don’t know what that means.” He said, “Would you like it in Spanish?” Ha, Ha, Ha, masterful. I met him after the show, shook his hand and got his autograph for my father.
Those were the days. When the Republican party was conservative-libertarian. It is not anymore. Now it’s the party of a monarchy, an Imperial President indeed.
Are there no lengths to which these Republicans will not go to defend, excuse or explain away Trump’s obvious corruption, serial high crimes and misdemeanors? I think not.
Thus, I will not be voting for any Republican in the next election. They’re all in thrall to Trump.
I will not ever vote for a Democrat on a national ticket. I’ll just vote Libertarian. Always have.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:07 amTime123 (14b920) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:00 am
Other than the location how is this functionally different from the JFK administration?
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:07 am“So, the transition to a Democrat partisan completes.”
– Kevin M
Oh brother. This from the guy who banged the Binary Choice Drum longest and hardest – “you have to choose one or the other! I just chose the lesser of two evils!”
How in the world do you reconcile that long-held and loudly stated position with what you’ve just said? Did voting for Trump make you a “Trump partisan”? You have vociferously denied that characterization and rejected that label.
Leviticus (efada1) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:13 amTime123 (457a1d) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:52 am
LOL. Because if it’s “properly predicated” and opened without “political considerations”, it’s free reign from then on.
A nanosecond defined: The time between Barr or an underling texting “F Biden” or “We’ll stop him” and #NeverTrump alleging a slam dunk crime and demanding an IC to hunt it down.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:13 am@75
The house can make a case for anything.
Maybe they put in the Article that the President is NOT adhering to the “taking care” clause of the Constitution that can be supported by the “and Other High Crimes and Misdemeanor”. They have to make that case.
It’s up to Senate to adjudication whether or not it’s an impeachable offense.
whembly (fd57f6) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:18 am#76
Congress literally has the power of the purse. They can starve out the POTUS’ desired policies. They can force POTUS to come to the table and negotiate on their terms.
Congress can Censure the president, which would be politically embarrassing.
Congress can force the POTUS to appoint political positions that are not in the same vein as “I’m Obama’s wing man” Holder.
Congress is NOT powerless to hold presidents accountable.
whembly (fd57f6) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:21 am88. THey are doing none of those things. A method of holding the president accountable means nothing if it will not be used.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:21 am72. Time123 (14b920) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:57 am
That Trump was “caught” becase of the whistleblower complaint and that he released the aid because of thw whistleblower report is a lie, and Adam schiff knows it is a lie.
He was caught because of leaks. Initially like when 4 different people contacted the House Foreign Affairs Committee on July 18, nothing happened. But then eventually came the August 28 Politico stor, which was made worse by Gordon Sondland deciding to use the aid freeze as a lever for getting the investgations Giuliani wanted (he first floated this asa trial balloon among any U.S. officials he came in contact with like senator Ron Johnson, and on;y approached the Ukrainians with the idea of this qid oro qup around September 5 – his claim thhat he broached that in Warsaw on Sept 1 has been denied by Andriy Yermak)
Various members of Congress began arguing with him (before it had only been his National Security Adviser, John Bolton, his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, his Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, and the Acting Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor. Trump wa snot moved by their combined opposition on August 30)
John Bolton quite possibly may have resigned over this issue. We don’t know yet, but Trump and Bolton know if that’s the case, and there seem to be some hints by Trump that that was the case.
Congressional committees were gearing up for hearings and/or investigations and Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee was only one of them.
Finally, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) asking Trump to lift the hold, either on Septemeber 10 or September 11, was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:23 am@82
Then engage the political process.
Vote against Trump and other Trump-supporting candidates.
Donate to his opponents.
Convince your colleagues, write a book, anything within the political realms.
Dislike for a President doesn’t mean that impeachment/removal is the proper tool.
whembly (fd57f6) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:23 amIn the clear light of the morning, my immediate anger has … not passed, exactly, but its hard edges have softened a bit.
I wish you wouldn’t hang around with those no-account Libertarian kids, Patterico, they only seem to upset you. You don’t need some apologist for the dope racket to tell you what the GOP stands for. Not you, of all people. And that’s all that was — Bradley Balko ascribing views to the GOP that the GOP does not necessarily hold, and certainly has not put in practice.
nk (1d9030) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:24 am#89 88.
Then isn’t that an indication that Trump’s actions doesn’t warrant that kind of drastic effort?
Or, maybe it’s because the DC bubble doesn’t want to rock the “let’s get along approach” too much…
Just because Congress isn’t using that tool doesn’t mean it’s not there.
whembly (fd57f6) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:26 am“It’s up to Senate to adjudication whether or not it’s an impeachable offense.”
– whembly
You mean “indictable crime,” per your earlier statement. So if the President were to order the homes of every member of the opposition party raided and searched on suspicion that every member of the opposition was a foreign agent or something, nothing impeachable there – an abuse of power perhaps, but not an “indictable crime.”
Leviticus (efada1) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:27 am“I am seriously considering voting for whoever the Democrat is in the general election.”
This might just push California blue.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:28 am91. But “dislike should not mean impeachment” does absolutely nothing to address my reasons for the dislike. I don’t know well Donald J. Trump well enough to dislike him as a person; I find him to be an absolutely execrable human being on the basis of his eminent domain abuses alone. No one who attempted to do what he did to Vera Coking and Michael Forbes should be allowed anywhere near the reins of power.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:29 am93. Wow…keep it up. And when the alligator attacks, hope he’ll eat you last.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:30 amI used to think Pat’s anger was a little overwrought. Now I’m beginning to understand where it’s coming from.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:31 amViolation of civil rights is a federal crime. Browse around 18 USC 241 et seq.
nk (1d9030) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:32 am@94
No. I literally mean it’s up to the Senate to determine if the act is impeachment and worthy of removal.
My earlier post is that it would be easier to build a STRONG impeachment case if such acts is also an indictable crime. The House should want to make the Senate’s job easier… I mean, that’s common sense.
Definitely an abuse of power and it would be up to the House to make the case. If they could find indictable crime(s), then it would be stronger. Without it, they’ll need to make the case to convince the Senate and by extension the public.
whembly (fd57f6) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:34 amThis is what you get with a narcissist like Trump. I don’t envy the GOP Senators. There were a dozen ways for Trump to make this go away with a short apology or something. The GOP senate becomes like Kelly and Mattis, trying to make the best of a hopeless situation.
This quote from Burt Reynolds who was a team owner in the USFL where Trump was another owner.
“It was real close, but I voted for Trump,” Reynolds told the former NBC anchor. “I thought that he would grow with the job and get better. And I pray that I’m right. He’s done a couple of good things and he’s done a couple of bad things. We have to get rid of the bad things … he has to realize it’s not about ego.”
dirtyjobsguy (96cdc8) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:35 am@97
Keep what up?
whembly (fd57f6) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:35 am65. Time123 (14b920) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:42 am
That didn’t happen at least Trump didn’t do this, but more important, the House managers keep on saying it was a sham investigation, and they wanted to “smear” Biden (using the unimpeachable reputation of integrity of the Ukrainian government to do so I suppose.)
Adam Schiff says: How can you know that it was sham investigations that were wanted? Answer: Because the quid pro quo was that the aid would be released if an investigation was merely announced. (like as if would have wanted them to wait longer.)
But when asked a legal question, he argues that asking for an investigation of a political opponent means the president should be removed from office, whether the investigation has any merit or not.
Then they go back to always calling the investigations sham.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:37 amHave any of the Trump defenders who keep shouting “elections! elections!” done anything to persuade state GOP officials that they should not be cancelling elections this year in order to protect Donald Trump?
Radegunda (0e8745) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:39 amExcellent point, Radegunda. Even elections are expendable in Trump’s GOP.
DRJ (15874d) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:43 am101. dirtyjobsguy (96cdc8) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:35 am
Not a mere apology.
He wuld have had to say “I blundered.” “I made a mistake in judgment” “This was my mistake” “I listened to what Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban were saying about Ukraine” “I relied too much on what Rudolph Guliani was reporting to me.” “Some of what I believed I now think is Russian propaganda” “I will correct this mistake.” “I learned something.”
It doesn’t even have to be the full truth.
The GOP senate becomes like Kelly and Mattis, trying to make the best of a hopeless situation.
This quote from Burt Reynolds who was a team owner in the USFL where Trump was another owner.
“It was real close, but I voted for Trump,” Reynolds told the former NBC anchor. “I thought that he would grow with the job and get better. And I pray that I’m right. He’s done a couple of good things and he’s done a couple of bad things. We have to get rid of the bad things … he has to realize it’s not about ego.”
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:44 am@ 104 — “cancelling elections”
you mean cancelling primaries and caucuses for the GOP nomination? Those are internal party matters, and frankly are a waste of time anyway with an incumbent. While I would prefer they happen anyway, the notion that the GOP is “cancelling elections’ is hysterical hyperbole.
The incumbent will be renominated by his own party, as has happened every single time the incumbent ran for re-election since Washington.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:46 am106. Did Burt Reynolds honestly think that anything about Trump could ever be about anything BUT Trump? Anything except ego? Trump is a classic narcissist of the kind we haven’t often had occupying the Oval Office.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:46 am“I had not familiarized myself with the details of U.S. policy toward Ukraine and I put everything on hold last spring because I wan;’t sure it was in the best interests of the United States.”
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:47 am107. And he won’t get my vote in 2020, either. So there is that.
Gryph (08c844) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:47 amWhembly @88, those are all fair points. Any reason that Senate can’t use some of those as stick in the impeachment proceeding as a punishment short of removal? I think Clinton ended up censured and had his law licence revoked. Both more symbolic than anything…
Time123 (14b920) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:50 amored Lawyer (998177) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:46 am
Although Taft got a serious challenge in 1912 – but there was no way to win – and Truman ran into some difficulty in 1948 and in 1952, and LBJ in 1968 – although both may not have run for re-election anyway. Ford in 1976 and Carter in 1980 got very serious challenges, and Ford maybe barely got the nomination. Grant also wanted to run for a third term in 1876.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:52 amOh, so a few party elites are supposed to make the choice, and the actual party members don’t get a say in who should be their candidate on the ballot?
Let’s just end the whole practice of primaries and caucuses then, and let a few party leaders decide!
BTW, presidents are elected to 4-year terms, not 8-year terms.
Radegunda (0e8745) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:53 amSammy, we disagree on what conclusion is supported by the facts available so far.
Time123 (457a1d) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:54 amLeviticus (efada1) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:27 am
Without the required pre-conditions, and it sounds like this is your hypo, this would be a 4th amendment issue. Do you have any examples of someone actually saying that POTUS can do something like that and not be subject to impeachment? And I don’t mean 6 steps of Kevin Bacon this implies that implies this other thing. Every example of this that I’ve seen is a strawman created by exaggerating one situation after the next.
There are two aspects of this that are getting ridiculous. The first is that this Ukraine deal is the worse thing a president can do. Treason > being bribed > abuse of power. Schiff’s comment highlights the theater this has become. Second, that if we don’t impeach for this we’re agreeing to not impeach for anything, queue the ridiculous examples of possible outcomes. That’s a false choice.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:54 amat 106 the end is a leftover quote from 101. 109 is a continuation of what I finished with in 106 (things Trump might have said that might have made the impeachment go away that is, and made it more like Iran contra.)
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:56 am“Excellent point, Radegunda. Even elections are expendable in Trump’s GOP.”
DRJ (15874d) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:43 am
Example #27641 of how Trump critics are exactly what they accuse Trump of being.
Bush Jr. 2004 primary:
Several states and territories canceled their respective Republican primaries altogether, citing Bush being the only candidate to qualify on their respective ballot, including Connecticut, Florida, Mississippi, New York, Puerto Rico, and South Dakota.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries?wprov=sfti1
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:56 am#107 —
Radegunda (0e8745) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:58 amThe people who insist that it’s wrong to impeach a president so close to an upcoming election — that the voters should be able to decide if the president is too corrupt — should be especially adamant about letting GOP voters have another choice of candidate. But those people appear to be all on the side of not letting GOP voters have a choice.
@111
Sure. More likely after the impeachment proceeded is completed though (as the Senate’s business is essentially halted during the proceeding).
When I mean “Congress”, I’m saying whomever controls the House and the Senate can independently “be the stick” towards a wayward POTUS.
whembly (fd57f6) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:00 amOh, so a few party elites are supposed to make the choice, and the actual party members don’t get a say in who should be their candidate on the ballot?
Which is actually the way it worked until about the 1950s.
BTW, presidents are elected to 4-year terms, not 8-year terms.
Which is why there is going to be an election in November 2020, and the incumbent is going to be opposed by someone from the opposite party, who will have funding in the 100s of millions of dollars, the backing of a major party machine, and the bias of most of the media.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:00 amRadegunda (0e8745) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:53 am
The R’s could always follow the D’s and pretend to have primaries then use super delegates to do whatever the party officials want.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:02 am,
Which isn’t the same as preemptively saying: “We’re not going to let anyone try to get on the ballot.”
In what way does my comment show me to be a pathological narcissist and colossal braggart and chronic liar with no moral compass aside from self-interest, and with a vindictive hostility to anyone who doesn’t praise me?
Radegunda (0e8745) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:03 amWhich doesn’t explain why the same people who say that elections are the only appropriate remedy for a corrupt or mentally impaired president are just fine with making sure that he’s the only option on the ballot for people who are ideologically opposed to the other party.
If it should all come down to elections and only elections, and letting voters choose, then it’s hypocritical to say that voters’ options should be deliberating and unnecessarily restricted.
And everyone knows it’s all about protecting Donald Trump.
Radegunda (0e8745) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:13 amdirtyjobsguy (96cdc8) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:35 am
This Lucy with the football game has played out, especially for Trump. The D’s started his term saying they were going to impeach and it was just a matter of time until it happened. This is like the argument that if we got rid of Trump we’d still have Pence so no big deal and it might actually be better.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:14 amThe D’s started his term saying they were going to impeach.
That’s not really true. Some of them did, some didn’t. Pelosi resisted it until Trump gave her no choice.
JRH (52aed3) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:16 am“ Violation of civil rights is a federal crime. Browse around 18 USC 241 et seq.”
– nk
Right, which is why every cop who searches a house on false pretenses goes to jail.
“Oh sorry you can’t see my probable cause documents, it’s a matter of national security.”
Leviticus (efada1) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:18 amRadegunda (0e8745) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:03 am
That’s a lot to ask of a single comment.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:21 am72. Time123 (14b920) — 1/30/2020 @ 7:57 am
Looks like trump was thinking about it and toying with it right up until the point where he found out he was going to get caught.
Doesn’t that suggest that the system was working? Trump wanted to do something found out that he can’t do it, proceeds by not doing it.
If I understand correctly, Trump’s crime is wanting to do something. The whistleblower was not a witness. The Ambassador did not hear trump say he wanted quid pro quo, just assumed that was the deal. The transcript does not show quid pro quo. The Ukraine President says he was not pressured and there was no quid pro quo. The funds were released before the statutory date required. There was no announcement of an investigation.
So he contemplated the abuse of power but did not consummate it. IANAL, so I need to ask them that is, is contemplating a crime a crime or does one actually have to do the act before you can be charged with it?
People may disagree on some of the details but as I understand it, there is sufficient doubt to vote to acquit without having to endure charges of being Trump’s bitch.
WaBlogLog (c0df72) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:29 am“Oh sorry you can’t see my probable cause documents, it’s a matter of national security.”
Leviticus (efada1) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:18 am
Sounds like the answer Carter Page got. But that was totally legit, so… Trump.
Munroe (dd4ac5) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:29 amLeviticus (efada1) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:18 am
Yep, your hypo sounds less extreme and more realistic by the post. I’m a little curious why you’re going this route though and not working from a more plausible hypo like a POTUS using fake information from a Russian source to get FISA warrants on the opposition party.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:30 amRight, which is why every cop who searches a house on false pretenses goes to jail.
It happens occasionally.
nk (1d9030) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:41 amThis seems pretty goofy. We have Bolton, an extremely well trusted man, clearly wanting to tell us what really happened, and the Senate running the trial refusing to listen to that critical information. On top, the Senate majority leader openly boasted he is working as Trump’s legal defense team. So there is ample basis to say the GOP has been “Trump’s bitch” to use your words. There hasn’t been a real and honest pursuit of the truth in this matter, because republicans are afraid of the president.
In fact, this problem highlights how important it is that Trump be removed.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:46 am128. WaBlogLog (c0df72) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:29 am
Hoped
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html
Let’s hope it works More:
S stands for Secretary (Pompeo) Lisa Kenna is the Executive Secretary of the United States Department of State.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:46 amI don’t get this mindset. You must burn down your house to save it?
Some just want to watch the world burn. I’d rather prevent giving the communists the opportunity to do just that.
No thanks.
NJRob (4d595c) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:47 amLOL the hysterical ‘whatabouts’ from you guys these days. Not even trying to string an argument together. Just throwing everything at the wall.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:49 am“I’m a little curious why you’re going this route though and not working from a more plausible hypo like a POTUS using fake information from a Russian source to get FISA warrants on the opposition party.”
– frosty
Do you believe that is an impeachable offense? A High Crime and/or Misdemeanor? How about you state your position on the matter, so we can discuss it?
Leviticus (efada1) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:56 amIt’s not my house. You’ve made that clear. Trump and his troll army have effed up the GOP beyond all repair. You can see this clearly on foreign policy and spending. It’s a joke.
You guys were warned you were giving the hard left a golden opportunity in 2016. You laughed and insisted Trump would be so successful and all these promises he made. Now that they’ve all been broken you just ignore the promises, or say they were too hard, and it’s unfair, bla bla bla.
It’s not the conservative’s fault that Trump isn’t conservative, or that his polls are so grim that Sanders actually has a shot. That’s amazing, and it’s terrible, but what’s coming is 100% on Trump supporters. You guys got the path you wanted. We all knew it was leading here.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:59 amThe wuid pro quo of meeting for investigations was cooked up by Sondland and Mulvaney, according to Bolton. To make the accusation, you have to exonerate Trump from that. The quid pro quo of military aid for investigations or announcements of investigations, ws thought up by Gordon Sondland, according to Bil aylor’s memory pf what Sondland told him in a telephone call on September 1 I think. Sondland said he was realizing that he made a mistake in linking a meeting to investigations, but in reality, everything was linked to investigations.
The only reason I can think of for people missing this is that they don;t want to beleive the Trump administration was that dysfuntional.
Although you can argue he’s just saying that. But in reality he was pressured – NOT to launch investigations that would impact Democrats.
By Ambassador Taylor (who cautioned him about the need for bipartisan support in Congress) and by some Democrats, notably Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) in a meeting in Kiev together with Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on Sept. 5.
He was also pressured by Sondland and maybe Volker the other way – but this was in September or before the July 25 call.
Zelensky’s denial of pressure refers to the telephone call with Trump itself. He also wants to say that Ukraine is not so easily pushed around.
Except that dreamed up by Sondland. He did keep other people in the State Department informed, including Mike Pompeo, who was doing the best he could to deal with Donald Trump as president, and this was not a hill to die on.
Yes and no.
It almost happened, and would have happened in a CNN interview of president Zelensky by Fareed Zakaria on Septemeber 13, if Trump had not released the hold two days before.
ad then there’s the question what was he asking for (looking into garbled facts) and would Ukraine have done anything dishonest.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:03 amQuestions and answers to resume:
Chief Justice Roberts has introduced the Senate chaplain.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:06 amDustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:46 am
Bolton is on record saying he’d lie for national security reasons, that he thinks this is an important skill, and that it’s a skill he thinks he has. He has also said he thinks he has the ability to spin without technically lying.
Bolton is a shrewd political ideologue who will say and do anything he thinks is required to further his agenda. Making him into a saint now that he might have something against Trump just makes this look more like Kavanaugh.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:16 amOh, we know that do we? Maybe we should have someone actually ask Bolton, the human man Bolton, not the figment Bolton. He’s said he’d be happy to, and if he says what you think he’d say, Trump’s not only home free on impeachment, he’s exonerated. Where’s the risk?
Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:19 am“I’m a little curious why you’re going this route though and not working from a more plausible hypo like a POTUS using fake information from a Russian source to get FISA warrants on the opposition party.”
– frosty
Nobody is going to pin that on Obama. Obama knew how to use cutouts. He’s from Chicago.
This moron is from New York. He committed the crime himself, in front of witnesses some of who were snitches. And had it transcribed! Adam Schiff is basically incompetent as a prosecutor, but bluffing Trump into
nk (1d9030) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:20 amreleasingrevealing the Read-The-Transcript early on was practically genius.These guys insisting we’re nevertrumpers are now hit hard that we’re not going to vote for Trump?
Maybe instead of insisting Trump is above the law, via a variety of reasons, including ‘BOOOSH!’ and ‘No collusion!’, you should have been asking Trump to do the right thing. He thought he could shoot someone on 5th avenue in broad daylight. (AKA Trump thinks his supporters are little bitches who would support anything he does).
Unfortunately, that corruption is now closely tied with immigration law. Good job guys.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:25 amBorn a poinsettia
nk (1d9030) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:27 amMoved on to dementia
King Trump!
Yes Frosty, insert the talking point like you were told to. Good boy.
Bolton is as loyal a patriot as there ever was, even if you don’t agree with his hawk mentality. Obviously lying for national security is something that happens if necessary. Lying to cover up corruption… not something Bolton was willing to do.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:27 am132 Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:46 am
This seems pretty goofy. We have Bolton, an extremely well trusted man, clearly wanting to tell us what really happened…
Granted Bolton may have inculpatory evidence. It is also possible he will confirm just what I suggested, namely that Trump wanted to, said he wanted to, asked people how it could be done, and then did not do it. This is part of the reason for executive privilege. A president should be able to talk to his advisers about any and all options, but should only be judged on the actual actions taken. It is likely that Bolton won’t be able to prove quid pro quo, because there was no quid pro quo. He can only damage the president by revealing confidential discussions and adding his own interpretation of what he thought the President was thinking. Trump is known to throw out extreme negotiation positions so he has something to walk back from, so Bolton can probably only tell us what Trump offered up, not what his desired end-game might have been.
The damage to having Bolton testify is not limited to whether it can prove or disprove the House case, there are a number of ancillary damages that can occur that might not have any bearing on the case. Senators must also judge the risks of those things in comparison to the potential benefit of Bolton’s testimony. There is also the political calculus. The Dems probably want the Pubs to have to make the vote so they can use it diminish their re-election chances. They had an opportunity to depose Bolton and did not make the attempt (Some say they would not have been able to, the fact they did not try suggests that it was political gamesmanship and not truth they were angling for.)
There hasn’t been a real and honest pursuit of the truth in this matter, because republicans are afraid of the president.
Every politician has to weigh dozens of conflicting issues when making any decision. One includes the likelihood of their continued career. I suggest they are less afraid of Trump and more afraid of Trump humpers. Which choice will result in their ability to continue being a senator? I have said before, being a politician requires compromises to one’s values all the time. there is far more going on here than just the issue on the table.
WaBlogLog (c0df72) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:30 amLeviticus (efada1) — 1/30/2020 @ 9:56 am
A POTUS using fake information from a Russian source (it being Russian, or foreign, isn’t required) to get FISA warrants on the opposition party is an impeachable offense.
I wouldn’t put it into the current definition of High Crime and/or Misdemeanor that we’ve been debating since it is a crime you can name, it’s probably several if you break it down. I wouldn’t write the article of impeachment as Abuse of Power or some other umbrella term, even though it is an abuse of power.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:31 amHas megalomania
Married to Melania
?
Loved by rump rodentia
nk (1d9030) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:31 amDemonstrates dyslexia
?
The United States of America is not your house? Good to know you’ve decided you have no skin in the game.
NJRob (4d595c) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:31 amIf this is right, it would actually be remarkable and funny Imagine all this fighting for witnesses, and they exonerate Trump!
Of course, we actually know beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty, so this simply isn’t going to happen, but it’s a very amusing thought.
Either way, it is an injustice to not hear what these witnesses have to say. There are so many of them. Let both sides ask them whatever they want. Let the ‘witnesses drag out the trial’ as one GOP sychophant said this morning.
That is indeed the problem. What’s the point of supporting people who hate their country so much they actually think this way?
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:33 amOh if you don’t vote for Trump you aren’t an American now. LOL OK buddy.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:34 amDustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:27 am
Is something Bolton has admitted to being willing to do if it falls into the “if necessary” part of:
Do you really want to open this door:
Glasshouses and pots would counsel otherwise.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:39 amImposing a career fraud, someone who brags about sexual assaults, someone who brags his supporters are such weaklings they would stick with him if he shot someone in broad daylight…
That’s where this crisis came from. That’s the reason those families in Iran are dead now. That’s the reason China and North Korea and Russia are bolder than they’ve been in decades. That’s the reason the debt is bursting at the seams. That’s the reason bernie has a shot.
Supporting even more, now that we know the GOP won’t even hear witnesses who want to testify about corruption? That would be even worse for the country.
A few years of Bernie would be a disaster, no doubt, but we are already in a disaster. Bernie is not very good at making deals and I imagine he would govern by EOs. That gives the GOP a chance to recover its soul, though I prefer a new political party emerge, spend 20 years fighting the corrupt GOP, and then pick up a lot of moderate democrats.
The people who think two gay dudes should have the right to a closet full of guns and if they have to balance their budget the government better do it too. The people who think government isn’t the answer to any of our problems. People who see someone who doesn’t agree with them and enjoy that instead of hating it. You know, normal people. Or perhaps, this being the internet, a lot of folks reading this comment do not actually know.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:42 amSF: The wuid pro quo of meeting for investigations was cooked up by Sondland and Mulvaney, according to Bolton.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:19 am
is then-deputy, Fiona Hill testufied that when she told him about Sondland telling two Ukrainians visiting the White House on July 10, that a meeting at the White House was tied to nvestigations, John Boton told her to tell John Eisenberg, the top lawyer for the Naiooal Security Council that he was not part f any drug deal with Mulvaney and Sondland were cooking up.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fiona-hill-transcript-read-full-text-of-trump-impeachment-inquiry-testimony-by-presidents-former-russia-adviser
You maybe might find it here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/434065486/Fiona-Hill-testimony
But I don’t think this transcript is easy to read and search through so I really shold search for another.
It would help, yes of course.
I’m pretty sure that’s what Bolton would say especially because the leak speaks only of what Trump said in August, and only spoke of maintaining or continuing the hold. In such political leaks, it’s important what they don’t say
Trump doesn’t know what Bolton would say, and the leak makes it sound like he’d say things against Trump, and there;s another thing – what he has to say may exonerate him from charge of linking the aid to investigations but it won’t make Trump look good.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:42 am153. Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:42 am
If this was so predictable, why didn’t anyone else predict the Iranian military would, or could, shoot down a civilian airliner?
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:45 amI never reflexively quote talking points. Trump himself and Fox News and all the little racist blogs all went with that “oh Bolton would lie for national security and therefore Game over!!!!”
A profoundly dishonest argument. Bolton’s a very trusted straight shooting guy. Trump selected him a decade after that ‘gotcha’ and for good reason.
These twistings of reality that make no sense, but are breathlessly and urgently repeated by 100 zealots… they only serve as a tell of who is a hack.
I don’t take my ideology from anybody. But your ‘you did it not me’ argument is, of course, the very first reflex of the hack.
Hack.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:48 am150 Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:33 am
Of course, we actually know beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty, so this simply isn’t going to happen, but it’s a very amusing thought.
We do not. You might be convinced, but I am not, nor are others. There is plenty of cause for reasonable doubt.
Either way, it is an injustice to not hear what these witnesses have to say. There are so many of them. Let both sides ask them whatever they want. Let the ‘witnesses drag out the trial’ as one GOP sychophant said this morning.
If only life were so black and white. I don’t hate your idealism, I long for it to be achievable. I just don’t think it is possible. I think many of you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the [not as bad as the alternative], but I don’t disrespect you for it, though I think you are in error. First, the defense is allowed to use any legal means necessary in the defense of their client. Ask our host, rarely is a trial a perfectly clean and “all truth aired” event. Witnesses lie, evidence is corrupted, some elements are simply unprovable. The benefit to a court case, however, is that you can generally keep the witnesses on topic. In the congress, lots of things will get said that would be objected to and sustained in a court. And even if they were sustained, the damage still gets accomplished. The American public won’t “disregard that remark.” If we could trust the system to be very disciplined maybe it could be fairly tried. I think that is impossible. Add that to the fact that you would expect your side to fight by Queensbury rules while the other side uses MMA. It would be a disaster. Look at Kavanaugh and don’t think for a minute that the Dems won’t do the same playbook again.
What’s the point of supporting people who hate their country so much they actually think this way?
Maybe they love their country enough to know that unilateral seppuku won’t work. All the people with integrity lost their elections.
WaBlogLog (c0df72) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:54 amI beg your pardon?
You did not know that if you commit war that it could lead to civilian casualties?
Well let me share that with you: if you commit war there are always civilian casualties.
That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to go to war. It does mean you should be serious about it, have a plan, and accept responsibility for what happens (civilian casualties, by the way, are what happens).
Iran is a very violent government. Their responses have given dozens of our soldiers traumatic brain injuries, and Trump minimized it because he didn’t really seriously want to go to war with Iran. He wanted to pretend to be tough, just enough to get the headlines to change from the email reveal on his impeachment (which was devastating). He did something similar by warning Russia he was going to bomb a Syrian airfield. It was BS, intended only to manipulate the media.
Who is responsible for Trump’s choices?
If Trump had a real strategy for Iran, instead of this three years of talking tough on twitter and three years of acting weak in reality, and one day of bombing our ally’s airport, that would be different. I’d love for Trump to be successful in engaging Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China, but he simply has not been in any respect successful. Now that Salami guy’s buddy is doing Salami’s job. That’s nice and all but Trump’s gamble killed an awful lot of innocent people.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:54 amI know you’re right because you said it in bold, but I’d really really know you were right if you also said this in all capital letters.
I agree voting for Trump is a disgraceful act, kinda like republican seppuku.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:55 amBold was a mistake. I missed a / mark and the bold should have ended with We.
WaBlogLog (c0df72) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:58 amIf you could read instead of giving constant straw men that would be appreciated. Thanks.
NJRob (4d595c) — 1/30/2020 @ 11:01 am159 Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:55 am
I agree voting for Trump is a disgraceful act, kinda like republican seppuku.
The alternative being let HRC win, thus strangling oneself with a bedsheet in a jail cell rather than a knife to the gut.
there were no pure choices.
WaBlogLog (c0df72) — 1/30/2020 @ 11:01 amA worthy question.
NJRob (4d595c) — 1/30/2020 @ 11:32 amOh I was actually illustrating how absurd your strawman was, but you know that.
Thanks for sharing your support for literacy, but why did you vote for Trump if you’re sincere about it? He’s really dumb you know.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 11:35 amWaBlogLog (c0df72) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:58 am
It seemed fair to assume that. A number of us have done that with italic and especially the quote. I’ve been on my phone a few times and hit send in the middle of a slashed up copy and paste.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 11:48 amOf course, we actually know beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty
Either way, it is an injustice to not hear what these witnesses have to say.
If we all “know” that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then there is no reason to hear from more witnesses.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 1/30/2020 @ 11:50 amAny defenders here of the Dershowitz argument that it was appropriate for Trump to do whatever he thought would help his own reelection because he sincerely believed his own reelection would be in the national interest?
Radegunda (0e8745) — 1/30/2020 @ 11:52 amAnd by defending the argument, I mean: Would you defend the same argument if it concerned, say, Barack Obama, or anyone not-Trump?
Let’s hear all available evidence, and follow the truth, no matter what. This is something any excited lawyer would readily embrace. Let’s just go for truth for truth’s sake.
Finding any way to twist any comment to say ‘ok let’s shut down the trial without earnestly doing the trial because the trial is run by the conspirators’ is evil. It’s disgracing our nation even more than Trump being president disgraces our nation.
But of course, we’ve known Trump is corrupt since he shouted on TV for Russia to help him release those classified emails. Those pretending they don’t know are pretending.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 11:56 amDustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 10:48 am
The next sentence
Is a talking point. Then
is another talking point. And that’s just one comment. Talking points make up a lot of your comments when you aren’t using insults.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:00 pmPatterico comforts Patterico:
“There are plenty of reasons to vote for him [Trump] that are arguably sensible: judges, immigration, taxes, and regulation come to mind. Anyone who recognizes that he is dishonest, ignorant, impulsive, narcissistic, and so forth, but supports him anyway as a better alternative to the Dems … that’s not someone I am going to mock or condemn.”
[Because, you know,] “Just because I disagree with a policy doesn’t mean it’s not “arguably” sensible to support it.” 😉
Going to war with yourself is not healthy, P.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:13 pmAgain, a short history lesson for those that continuously build a false straw man of what a “High Crime and Misdemeanor” is. At no point in the history of America, did mean an actual crime, sure crimes can be High Crimes, but all High Crimes are not crimes in the barbershop version of what “crime” means.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:14 pmRadegunda (0e8745) — 1/30/2020 @ 11:52 am
I wouldn’t defend whatever, meaning anything, but I don’t think everything is impeachable. The open-ended argument that anything he does to try to influence the 2020 election is impeachable is just as ridiculous. Both of those are extreme positions. There is a middle ground of non-impeachable election influencing things.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:19 pmCol. Klink,
Time123 (797615) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:19 pmGood summary. Thank you for putting it up. Even for those who might disagree with it, i think it shows that the definition you’re using is well grounded in history. It is by the way one that i agree with.
@172, I agree, ‘whatever’ is not a valid grounds for impeachment. Abuse of power is.
Using the power of the presidency to launch an investigation not based on evidence would be an abuse.
Lesser offices have actual laws that prohibit this and policies to try and prevent it and make clear when an investigation is warranted. Because of that damage done to people reputation investigative agencies aren’t supposed to say they’re investigating until they plan to indict.
The fact that this president tried to use a foreign government to accomplish this done makes it worse.
Time123 (797615) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:25 pmDustin, FWIW I’ve found frosty to be honestly presenting his POV. I disagree with him a lot but I don’t think he’s presenting ‘talking point’ that he’s parroting insincerely or with a lack of understanding.
That doesn’t mean I think he’s right here.
Time123 (797615) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:28 pmA worthy question.
A totally irrelevant question. Unless either of the two lured Trump into demanding Ukraine investigate Biden.
The whole Whistleblower Angle is silly. It amounts to saying that if Gangster A tips the police off to the possibility that Gangster B is planning to commit a specific crime, the fact that A and B belong to competing gangs totally invalidates the subsequent police investigation, and in fact is a clear indication of B’s innocence.
kishnevi (0c10d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:29 pmre you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.
Maybe the 2nd time he presented the question he could have phrased that one line:
…had a close relationship with He-who-must-not-be-named *cough* Voldemort *cough* while at…
WaBlogLog (c0df72) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:32 pmThat already is the argument by the left and NeverTrump. “Trump is a Putin stooge. Trump is trying to destroy the Constitution. Trump wants to be king.”
They already used the American government and foreign agents to illegally surveil Trump and anyone who they believed could be used to take down Trump. You think they won’t do it again?
NJRob (4d595c) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:32 pm@83. See #28. The Reagan tenure was imperial, entertaining and glitzy. Sound familar?! Quite a court full of jesters around him, too: Nancy, Sinatra, Heston, Stewart, etc., etc., etc., and other lesser clowns w/more mischievous motives and intent.
America’s good FDR teamed w/Russia’s bad Stalin to extinguish ugly Nazi Germany’s Hitler. lay your cards right and driving the snakes out Ireland [or the GOP] can earn you a sainthood– and a holiday.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:34 pmDersh wasn’t really making a point about where the middle ground is. He was arguing that Trump’s identification of the “national interest” with his own personal interest is a reasonable defense of what he does to advance his interest.
It’s unlikely that any Trump defender would buy that argument if applied to any Dem.
Radegunda (0e8745) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:36 pmIt is tiresome reading a tweet from Trump knowing I’ll see some idea repeated ad nauseum. Though I agree that Frosty is not a Munroe type of commenter, the argument that Bolton is just a straight unpatriotic lying liar reminds me a lot of the lyin’ Ted BS. It’s worse than projection.
Trump embraced Bolton for his savvy at national security, then uses that same savvy to smear the guy, simply because Bolton asked for permission to print a book about misconduct.
It’s this effort to find any way to make this OK for the GOP that is giving the cowardly senators the idea that there’s no gain in pursuing the truth, and great harm in it. This is deeply wrong.
They should put him on the stand to testify. And he should sue Rand Paul for his conspiracy with a few others to dox a whistleblower. A lot of people say ‘so what?’ but I think a court of law should answer that question.
Another guy who should testify: Nunes.
In fact, these proceedings are a joke if Biden doesn’t testify. Trump should at least be asked to testify though I don’t think he should be required to.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:37 pmThey already used the American government and foreign agents to illegally surveil Trump and anyone who they believed could be used to take down Trump. You think they won’t do it again?
So you’re saying that they did the same thing as Trump, but with a higher degree of competence.
kishnevi (0c10d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:38 pmThe GOP can hold or cancel any primary elections it wants, but I think it only canceled primary ekections in the past when its incumbent President was the only person to qualify by the deadline. Canceling those primary elections was fiscally prudent (something for which the GOP used to be known and admired). Canceling primary elections before the qualification deadline (as some GOP state groups have done this year) in order to protect an incumbent President from announced challengers is not admirable.
DRJ (15874d) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:39 pmkishnevi (0c10d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:29 pm
Gangsters don’t stand for election. The voters, either directly or through their representatives in an impeachment proceeding, should expect to have access to information that sheds light on the motivations and biases of those involved. Whether that is relevant or not is for them to decide.
Munroe (dd4ac5) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:44 pmDCSCA, you might have got gruff for saying that Trump is the Frankenstein of the Reaganite mad scientists. That might be a factual statement about the current heads of DOD and State – both are members of the West Point Class of 86. A 1986 graduate of West Point would have been vetted from the summer of 1981 through H.S. graduation in spring of 82…wouldnt they have been the first of the favors granted to loyal Reagan-era republican partisans (yes, the House had a majority, but some would have rolled over for the new administration).
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:48 pmshould expect to have access to information that sheds light on the motivations and biases of those involved.
That makes sense only if you think that only people sympathetic to Trump should be allowed to investigate his actions.
On any other theory, the Whistleblower is totally irrelavant.
kishnevi (0c10d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:50 pm“Even if it’s Bernie Sanders. ”
If you loved Trump tariffs and dictator-placating I got some good news for ya.
JRH (14e837) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:52 pmDustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:37 pm
The problem is this is not the argument I was making. I’m saying that Bolton himself has said that he’s a straight lying liar because of his patriotism. That is not a misrepresentation of what he said. His comments reminded me of Oliver North.
This, however, is a misrepresentation. He’s not being smeared because he asked permission to print a book.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:08 pmHow many of them leapt to their feet to challenge him, as they should have?
Yeah, Roberts would have really allowed that.
Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:10 pm@185. If they could, 58,000 dead would tell you West Point can turn out some deviously effective liars; see William Westmorland for details. Quite a few traitors to the United States of America, too: see Pickett, Longstreet, J.E.B. Stewart and Robert E. Lee, among others, for details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Confederate_States_Army_officers_educated_at_the_United_States_Military_Academy
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:16 pmI think it depends on ‘contemplate’ and if you take real actions to carry it out.
Like if your wife see you ‘contemplating’ the waitress .
If you get her number it’s something else .
I think in this case
+ holding up the aid,
+ sending his personal attorney to push for an investigation,
+ asking for the investigation directly,
+ his agents (sondland) working with Z to get make an announcement on CNN
+ Calling the whole thing off 2 days after the IG alerts Congress i
that’s about your wife catching you and the waitress walking into the hotel room with a bottle of wine and box of rubbers.
Sure you can tell her “Nothing actually happened” but you’re still getting divorced.
(Change gender’s / jobs as appropriate. trying to colorful not sexist / crude)
Time123 (f5cf77) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:17 pmThe
GOPBalkoDershowitz position:— Presidents can only be impeached for indictable crimes [wrong]
— But DOJ can’t investigate possible presidential crimes [but an independent prosecutor can]
— Neither can state or local officials [probably not, for much the same reason court officers can’t be sued]
— If Congress tries to investigate, presidents can mass refuse all subpoenas for witnesses and documents [if magic words allowed breaching of privilege, there is no privilege. The trial is another matter]
To reiterate, this is the brainstorm of ONE Democrat law professor with delusions of continued relevance.
Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:19 pmThat’s the whole problem. A theoretical curb that men are unwilling to use is worthless.
Then what? Sure, elections. That was one of the reasons some of the Founders opposed the idea of Impeachment, and why the President’s term is only 4 years (there was some doubt in Philadelphia whether impeachment was an effective tool due to political loyalties and connections).
Franklin suggested that impeachment was a better tool than the next worst (assassination).
Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:23 pmOne question asked and not answered:
Giuliani says he was working for free?
Who was paying his expenses?
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:23 pmSchiff is kind of misdescribing the July 25 conversation. He said Zelensky said we are only friends here and Trump asked him to meet Giuliani. Zelensky was the first one who mentioned Giuliani (because Sondand had been talking to him)
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:26 pmIt really isn’t that the DOJ CAN’T investigate presidential crimes, but that when they tried it, it didn’t work as the DOJ is a tool of the administration. The FBI did “the most thorough investigation in their history” of Watergate and found no culpability in the White House. Then they appointed Cox.
Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:27 pmThis bit of history could all come down to the vote of one, retiring Southern Senator from Tennessee who is a best bud of McConnell:
To “Lame-ar”; or not to “Lame-ar”; that is the question, Alexander.
Go historically McCain or go home in shame.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:29 pmSchiff just made an offer:
Let’s cabin the depositions to one week. Says that during the Clinton impeachment the Senate went
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:29 pmabout its regular business during the taking of depositions. They don’t have to finish it before the Sate of the Union message.
Radegunda (0e8745) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:36 pm
I haven’t paid attention to Dershowitz. Not going to defend him. I would have been more persuaded by a wet beak argument, i.e. having good relations with Ukraine while at the same time telling them we wanted them to crack down on corruption is a good thing so what if we wet our beaks with something that blows back on Biden.
Joking. It’s just jokes or maybe …
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:31 pmThe House says is is continuing its investigation/
Bolton might be subpoeaned.
And Lindsay Graham has said in the past that he might be willing to have his committee hear from Giuliani.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:33 pmKlink, 171:
Finally someone else who’s willing to dig into the Notes. I agree with all of that.
A particular and obvious situation: Treason is narrowly defined in the Constitution, yet there is a wider definition of false dealing that would be impeachable in a president. Say, for example, a President pulled missiles out of Poland after Putin asked him to, even though it harmed our treaty partners.
Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:33 pmTrump is not a king. “You can’t handle the truth!” col. nathan jessup. You never trumpers don’t have the votes in the senate to convict trump! That doesn’t make him a king it makes you look like the impotent never trumper establishment republicans that you are. If you don’t like are republican form of government move to china.
asset (35be52) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:34 pmAnd that’s all that was — Bradley Balko ascribing views to the GOP that the GOP does not necessarily hold, and certainly has not put in practice.
Next we’ll be hearing of the joys of jury nullification.
Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:34 pmI don’t know what to do but Trump scares me too much. Gavin Newsom has no nukes. Trump does. He has to get out. Almost nothing is more important.
I am beyond willing to replace Trump with ANY other Republican. Even Kasich or Santorum. But not with just any Democrat and not with ANY Democrat without the GOP holding the Senate — which would not happen if the Dems take the WH, too many GOP Senators up for re-election.
Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:38 pmTime123 (f5cf77) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:17 pm
That gets cause and effect wrong.
Rudy brought the allegations to Trump and had to lobby him to fire the ambassador.
Happened, but Trump was the opposite of micromanaging that.
That was hardly the only pressure he was getting from Congress. Trump aaid Ohio Senator Rob Portman got him to lift the hold.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:39 pmNow a question about two people hired. Schiff calls it smears. (that he hired someone the day after the call)
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:39 pmAs for Trump with nukes, he’s not used them against NK, when he maybe should have.
Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:39 pmDustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 12:37 pm
I know I’m calling down fire from above but sometimes there is a kernel of corn in those tweets. It wasn’t that long ago that Schiff was trash-talking Bolton. But the magic fairy came along and sprinkled some dust on Bolton and now Schiff is singing his praises.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:41 pmhttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/portman-s-role-disputed-ukraine-narrative-sets-him-apart-other-n1126211
https://twitter.com/senrobportman/status/1172209348011057153
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:44 pmTrump counsel says earlier Schiff said he offered that he could get any witnesses he wants. You can’t get depositions done in a week.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:46 pmSammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:23 pm
I’d like to know the answer to that question too.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:49 pmI can empathize with this situation even though I’m not in it. The knee jerk response is to drop the federalism card and tell someone to vote with their feet. I’ve responded with that when I was a lot younger and actually had feet instead of roots.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:56 pmEverbody loves the system as it is. Obama was way more autocratic than Trump can even dream of.
So all the whiners here, waling about “The King”, love the King as long has he plays for their team. So stop with the hyperbole. Want a remedy? I mean are you willing to embrace the remedy?
The constitution. Federalism. The form of govt that we had until FDR embraced the axiom, “Never let a disaster go to waste.” And all the top down solutions got stopped by SCOTUS, because the Constitution doesn’t allow the federal govt the power to engage in the proposed solution. But slowly, SCOTUS judges wavered, slowly allowing the federal govt powers, not enumerated in the constitution.
That was bad enough, but then Congress discovered if they delegated their constitutional powers to the executive, congress person could hide from making hard votes, shoving them off on the executive.
Return the power to the People, or the States. Strip power from DC, and all of a sudden, The King starves.
See? You really aren’t interested in too much power resting in the Oval Office. The remedy is too scary.
iowan2 (1c4a14) — 1/30/2020 @ 2:13 pmiowan2 (1c4a14) — 1/30/2020 @ 2:13 pm
— sarc on
This is how we got slavery and women not being able to vote and slavery what with letting all the states do different things. Pretty soon some bunch of rubes would do something in another state that would be awful and we can’t have that. Do you want to bring back slavery?
— sarc off
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 2:21 pmTen potential issues of obstruction of justice in the Mueller Report. A White House that refuses all witnesses and documents in the impeachment and trial. Obstruct, hide and confuse.
When the White House Counsel is done blowing smoke, it might be wise to remember those basics.
noel (4d3313) — 1/30/2020 @ 2:41 pmOh hey, more nationalist BS.
Is this a theme on one of y’all’s Trump fan blogs today? That’s not a good sign.
Really think about why the Chinese form of government is bad. Then read Patterico’s post one more time. Big brain time.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 3:12 pmLamar alexander just asked a question on his behalf and Se Cruz and Daines.
Compare the partisanship of Nixon Clinton and Trump impeachment.
Zoe Lofgren: With Nixon started put partisan and became less Railsback who just passed away loved ixon/ Clintoon started partisan and stayed so. Problem was personal conduct.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 3:23 pm216. Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 3:12 pm
It;s atyranny, bt you can add that they censor not only criticism of the government, but accidents information about natural disasters, accidents, and diseases.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 3:25 pmI am politically more at a loss than ever.
This is how I felt in the 90s when the GOP looked like it was becoming a Religious party, with a side dish of Pat Buchanan. SO I hung out in the Libertarians for a while. Eventually I decided that the LP was only successful at electing Democrats, and really just wanted to engage in purity pissing matches.
That era passed and this one will, too. The problem with a broad-based party is they let all kinds of undesirables in and sometimes they get control. The free market conservatives have ahd quite a run, but it’s really no surprise that they overstayed their welcome.
It’s really too bad that the messenger had to be this guy.
Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 3:34 pmAny defenders here of the Dershowitz argument that it was appropriate for Trump to do whatever he thought would help his own reelection because he sincerely believed his own reelection would be in the national interest?
Not that I’ve seen, which makes the idea that it’s the “GOP position” a pretty lame strawman.
(and where was Dershowitz during Watergate?)
Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 3:39 pm211. SF: Who was paying [Giuliani’s] expenses?
frosty (f27e97) — 1/30/2020 @ 1:49 pm
I think the answer it could be Lev PArnass and Igor Fruman who hired him on arious pretexts to do some what looked like unrelated work, and whoever paid his expenses was getting the money from Ukraianian oligarchs, who in turn were getting the money from Russian intelligence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/us/politics/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-associates.html
Also in that article:
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 3:40 pm”Really think about why the Chinese form of government is bad.”
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 3:12 pm
Because the Chinese electorate is “terrible” and they elect bad leaders? Am I close?
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/30/2020 @ 3:42 pmAaron Maté
harkin (d6cfee) — 1/30/2020 @ 3:57 pm@aaronjmate
·
Asked whether, under the Dems’ impeachment standard, the Clinton campaign’s solicitation of the Steele dossier would be considered foreign interference, illegal, or impeachable, @RepJeffries says no — because the Steele dossier “was purchased.”
_
@220. The Dersh Show was-a-tweetin’-and-a-twitchin’-and-explainin’ all over the media universe today– even to static security cameras in the Miami airport… to anything with a lens.
His best line- ‘I wasn’t there [at the trial] today because of the difficulty of getting flights to Miami because of the Super Bowl.’ No pals w/private planes or charters, eh? Didn’t Epstei have access to a jet or two?
Go Greyhound, Alan: “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:03 pmYou missed the quid for quo, where is the I’ll pull the missiles out, if you announce that you’ve been paying Mitt Romney for the last 20 years.
All of these straw men being painted, miss out on the actual problem. You stop your scenario before it’s done. That’s disingenuous, at a minimum.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:08 pmNot close, Munroe 222. Here is how the last election in China worked:
DRJ (15874d) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:11 pmWhen voters from certain regions don’t like the Party’s choice, the Party takes away their delegates/choices to protect the President:
Good thing this never happens in our Parties, right?
DRJ (15874d) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:15 pm220
I’ll take a stab.
I’ve watched Dersh’s speech here and I think folks are taking his quote out of context. What I took away is that an action taken in the public interest cannot be the basis of impeachment just because that action is also helpful to a POTUS’ re-election prospects.
The full context of that part of his speech is that every politicians, including presidents, do lawful acts that also benefits them politically.
It’s not a blanket statement that POTUS can do whatever he wants as long as he believes it helps him politically.
whembly (51f28e) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:16 pmNo. But you’ve never written a single serious comment so I guess what you really mean is that you are a victim because people are critical of you for supporting an abuse of our nation’s values and laws. Trump fans and thin skin. Name a more iconic duo.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:19 pm“Good thing this never happens in our Parties, right?”
DRJ (15874d) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:15 pm
Really?
You really want me to waste my time showing how infantile this comparison is?
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:23 pmwhembly (51f28e) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:16 pm
He said that, and that was the main thrust of his answer, but he also said the other thing, which is crazy, because he added that a president might view his own re-election as in the public interest – and don’t all politicians do?
I think he was also distinguishing between three kinds of benefits:
1) The public interest
2) His political interest
AND
3_ pecuniary interest, like business deals.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:24 pm…and he defends himself here:
whembly (51f28e) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:25 pmhttps://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/480720-dershowitz-i-never-said-president-could-do-anything-to-get-reelected
It’s fascinating that Trump and Epstein’s pals all seem to swim together. Almost like they have to for some unknown reason. Even Trump often acts like someone is forcing him to apply Russian foreign policy dreams. Alan Derschowitz is not the worst example. Trump’s fawning over Hillary and Epstein aren’t bad examples either.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:31 pmColonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:08 pm
That kind of thing would be useless.
Much better is saying you hired an excellent British spy with Russian sources who told you that Russia has been paying Donald Trump for five years or ten years – and maybe 30 years even back even in the days when it was the Soviet Union?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/19/trump-first-moscow-trip-215842
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:31 pmTrump is a coward for abandoning Northern Syria.
“Crazy” Trump wants to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan
Trump is too chummy with N.Korea
Trump is appeasing Putin, the world’s most evil man!
Trump doesn’t want of fight over Crimea.
trump refuses to cross the Chi-coms over HK.
But what i really fear, is Trump starting a nuclear war.
rcocean (1a839e) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:34 pmWe need Bernie or Biden to restore order to America. Nobody respects the Constitution more than those two! Or has a finer character. Looking back, we can see that conservatism reached its peak with Obama. Son of Reagan.
/sarcasm off/
rcocean (1a839e) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:37 pmI’m looking forward to National Review and the Bulwark’s joint issue “The conservative case for Bernie Sanders” in August 2020.
rcocean (1a839e) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:39 pmAnyway, it looks like Vladimir Putin invested a lot of time and money trying to get Russian disinformation into the White House where it could affect policy, and all he got out of it was a pause in U.S. aid commitments to Ukraine for about 84 days that did affect anything on the
ground.
Democrats are not interest in this theory, because that’s not equal to orange man bad
And in the meantime with this Putin succeeded in strengthening almost unanimous bipartisan support for military aid to Ukraine.
With the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, of course: (or her voters at least)
https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/tulsi-gabbard/policies/foreign-policy/ukraine
Tuylso Gabbard has supported sanctions on Russia for its intervention in Ukraine.
But she’s against regime change or a cold war with Iran and Venezuela:
https://www.tulsi2020.com/splash/war
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:41 pmYes.
DRJ (15874d) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:52 pm“Yes.”
DRJ (15874d) — 1/30/2020 @ 4:52 pm
Sure thing.
Some people here left the GOP, and AFAIK none lost their livelihoods over it. You can also vote with your feet and leave one party blue (or red) states without first getting government/party approval.
I would say these are two not insignificant differences. In fact, quite major. But, I’m open to being convinced otherwise.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/30/2020 @ 5:02 pm“Hero or goat” time approaches:
Retiring Senator Lamar Alexander (R. TN) to announce tonight after Senate trial Q&A ends how he will vote on allowing witnesses.
Place your bets, kids…
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 5:12 pmalso in america “chow” is a homophone and in china it is a synonym
nk (1d9030) — 1/30/2020 @ 5:15 pmIn other words, which type of neckbeards will power the mainstream comeback of flannel back to its early grunge glory?
urbanleftbehind (680ad3) — 1/30/2020 @ 5:24 pmSchiff/Schumer pitch week long Depo-Deal.
Remember what Trump said, Lamar: “Swing for the fences!”
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 5:27 pmAny defenders here of the Dershowitz argument that it was appropriate for Trump to do whatever he thought would help his own reelection because he sincerely believed his own reelection would be in the national interest?
That is not Dershowitz position. As usual, you trusted Schiff, fool.
The position is, If there is a constitutionally grounded power exercised by the President, but, it may be construed it would benefit his electoral odds, the action cannot be considered impeachable. It basically says mind reading as a tool of impeachment is bad.
iowan2 (1c4a14) — 1/30/2020 @ 5:50 pmDersh’s argument basically means: If the president is a pathological narcissist who can’t distinguish self-interest from the national interest or moral good, then he can do whatever he wants.
Or as Trump said: “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”
Radegunda (0e8745) — 1/30/2020 @ 5:51 pm“instantly enraged”, “wild with anger”, ” seriously considering voting for whoever the Democrat is in the general election. Even if it’s Elizabeth Warren. Even if it’s Bernie Sanders”, “deeply frightened and repelled by the extent of the powers that the GOP wants to grant to a U.S. president”, “beyond frightened and repelled by the nature of the person to whom they want to grant those powers”, “I want the GOP (electorally) burned to the ground”, “spitting mad”
Sounds like you were so mad you couldn’t even think straight.
“UPDATE: In the clear light of the morning, my immediate anger has … not passed, exactly, but its hard edges have softened a bit.”
So after you settled down a bit you realized you might have been just a tad too upset and perhaps your words were a little stronger than you meant them to be. You know, there’s a term for the situation some people get into where they become so enraged by Trump that they can’t think straight, where Trump drives them so nuts that they become temporarily bereft of their reasoning powers. I won’t use that particular term here, not just because its overuse has rendered the term nearly meaningless, but because the term was invented and trademarked by Donald Trump and he gets $5 every time someone uses the term. Trump also laughs and laughs and laughs when he sees anyone sputtering in rage over something he’s said or done because there’s another term for this sort of reaction – it’s called “feeding the trolls”.
Trump is a troll, a man with the mentality of an eight-year old who demands to be the center of attention and if he can’t get good attention he’ll settle for negative, pleased with himself for thinking up “clever” nicknames for people he doesn’t like, rude, crude, uncouth, fat-headed, ignorant, ego-maniacal, a compulsive liar, braggart, conman, you name it – an utterly horrible, horrible, human being. He did, however, attend the Right To Life march, something no other Republican president has done, and he treats his political opponents with just about the exact sort of respect and decorum and couth they deserve. And whatever you think of his personality, what is it exactly about his job performance that makes him uniquely terrible? What exactly has Trump done as President that could possibly make you prefer a socialist, someone who flat promises to “fundamentally change” the nature of what America is all about, who hates capitalism and individualism and pretty much everything we stand for and has enthusiastic followers who apparently all hate the United States just as much as they do?
Look at Ty Cobb, OJ Simpson, Roman Polanski or Harvey Weinstein – all horrible, horrible people. Do we judge their work by that standard? Can we admit that horrible people are nevertheless capable of being less than horrible at their jobs? Can we admit that, while we might disagree with the choices someone might make in the performance of their job, it’s their prerogative to make those choices and they’re not beyond the realm of acceptable choices? Heck, I thought Obama did a lot of stupid things, even some criminal things, and yet I never went ballistic over them, I just shrugged and figured, well, that’s what you get when you elect politicians to political offices. They’re all crooks and liars and really not very nice people to some extent or another, they’re not anybody you should ever admire or emulate. I really don’t see how Trump is somehow magnitudes of horribleness beyond any of the rest of them.
Jerryskids (702a61) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:08 pm@246
No, Dersh did not say that. I’d watch his speech on the floor and then read his rebuttal here:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/480720-dershowitz-i-never-said-president-could-do-anything-to-get-reelected
Other example of a statement taken out of context. He was answering a question from a reporter on whether or not he could fire Mueller. (he can).
whembly (c30c83) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:09 pmYes, his moment in the spotlight. Finally, Lamar will have the world at his feet, listening to his pearls of wisdom. Unlike those times he ran for President – and lost.
rcocean (1a839e) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:15 pmFive minute break – the last.
There are two mor reports of conversations in the leaks about the Bolton book – with Barr and with Mlvaney – both denied. Mabe the leakers are getting braver.
About the cntradictory arguments that Schiff said happened: Trump lawyer says he was srprised a DOJ lawer woud say that and he didnt. It was not a straight answer to Q if no remedy in court then what? He didn’t cite impeachment immediately. Said the argument that Cong subpoenas on executive branch are non justiciable is what they always argue in court but since the House says they can go to court they should.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:23 pmI’ve watched Dersh’s speech here and I think folks are taking his quote out of context.
Yes, particularly Balko and apparently Patterico. My response was to “Is there anyone who thinks that actions in Trump’s interest are therefore legal?” And I think most of us would care to argue about something else.
Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:27 pmYou missed the quid for quo, where is the I’ll pull the missiles out, if you announce that you’ve been paying Mitt Romney for the last 20 years.
Why does personal gain make “giving the enemy aid and comfort” WORSE? Is it better if he just wants Putin to succeed?
Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:30 pmOne thing: I don’t think Trump made the decision to keep the hold on the aid secret. That was ulvaney, because he hoped to get it reversed.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:32 pm* Mulvaney. Trump probably had suddenly became aware of the aid on June 18, 2019. Mulvaney tried for a month to not even to tell other people in the U/ ,S. government that there was a generalized hold on aid to Ukraine. To keep it held he had to have OMB tell people on July 18. Off camera.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:36 pm252. Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:30 pm
Personal gain means there was a corrupt motive, and that’s ethically worse. Without that, it may be categorized merely as poor judgement. And maladministration is not supposed to be grounds for impeachment.
Of course there can be other forms of perceived personal gain than cash or cash equivalents. And if the maladministration s bad enough and the president won’t correct it, I’d do that there too.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:42 pmIn other words, which type of neckbeards will power the mainstream comeback of flannel back to its early grunge glory?
Checkered flannel shirts were hijacked by lesbians a long time ago, urbanleftbehind. And now they’re gong after light blue button-down Oxford-weave shirts, and I still have two in Sunday shape, one unworn at all.
nk (1d9030) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:43 pmTrue the Ukrainians found out about the freeze in aid. But they didn’t let the Americans knew that they knew.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:44 pmRe; Schiff’s chronology:
Schiff doesn’t have the chronology right.
Sondland telling Ukraine of alink between military aid and investigations on Sept 1 in Warsaw is an error on Sondland’s part. Yermak says that’s not true. Sondland didn’t actually tell the Ukrainians until Sept 7.
Trump was not “caught” after that. It was already out. And the whistleblower did not allege a connection between the military aid and investigations. He did allege a connection between a White House visit and even a phone call > and Zelesnsky being willing to “play ball” in the period leading up to the July 25 phone call.
I think he implies that afterwards, some people in the State Department (among whom he mistakenly includes Sondland and Volker) tried to get Zelensky to ignore Giuliani = backtrack on his agreement (reading between the lines of the whistleblower complaint.)
Noe this is obvious.
How come nobody studies the sources?
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/30/2020 @ 6:58 pmI think when the Bulwark Boys and Dispatch Never Trumpers saw Trump was going to nominated, the reasonable thing to do, was to look at their conservative principles and see whether Hillary or Trump was going to do a better job of implementing them. And since Hillary, was and is, a leftist that means Trump would’ve been better. And then they should have written columns about how they disagree with Trump on this or that, but ultimately he’s the lesser of two evils, and as “Life Long Republicans” the Party needed to be kept together to combat the Left.
Instead, they wanted Trump and R’s to be destroyed in 2016 (both Bartlett and Stephens of the WSJ actually said this) to “teach the populists a lesson”. Now, 3 years later and they’re still hating Trump and the R’s that support him. Most have left the R party, but sill call themselves “Conservatives”. Its hard to see what they’re accomplishing.
I know people who read Patterico, I don’t know anyone who reads NR, Dispatch, or the Bulwark, except for laughs. Why read Jonah Goldberg hating Trump when you can read the NYT Op-ed page? You get the same slop from every liberal newspaper.
rcocean (1a839e) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:06 pmMutton to see here: Alexander gets the goat. Comrade Lamar says ‘nyet’ to witnesses.
Another GOP senator misses the brass ring and condemn himself to die in historic obscurity on a government pension.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:11 pm@249. See #261; seems it has ended up very much like his runs; a trip to Nowhereburg, Tennessee.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:14 pmBTW, could some explain why Rick Wilson is constantly in the news and on TV? He’s left the R party, and for years was labeled a “R Strategist” – although who thought that, and what exactly he accomplished is never detailed. He basically just gets book deals and TV spots to attack Trump while pretending to be – in some vague way- Center/right. I listen to him, including his attacks on Trump supporters as “Rubes”, and i just no clue why he isn’t considered a liberal. Its an old story, some southern rube goes to NYC and becomes more elite then the elitists.
rcocean (1a839e) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:15 pmI missed this gem… Imma look for the vid:
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
whembly (c30c83) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:20 pmI read Lamar’s twitter response, and its actually pretty good. Laying out the case that we don’t need more witnesses to prove what Schiff alleges. He takes “the high road” but basically says its a shampeachment that never should have been brought, and the trial should be brought to a close.
rcocean (1a839e) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:21 pmLooks like Mittens and the RINO sisters will lose this one. I know Mittens will be crushed. But he can still vote to remove Trump and bask in the WaPo approval.
rcocean (1a839e) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:23 pmHey kid you gotta know the righta peoples. Iffa you know the righta peoples everythinga comeuppa roses. — Vito “Cool Lips” Chericola, Chicago’s Mafia Boss (fictional)
nk (1d9030) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:26 pmUnless you’re Ukrainian, no one really cares if Trump delayed aid or not. In fact, most Americans would vote to stop all Foreign aid. Yet, that’s why Trump is supposed to be removed from office. Aid to Ukraine, our noble allies, was DELAYED. OMG. Katie bar the door. This was never going to fly and that every D will vote to impeach, just shows the D’s have no soul or conscious. Note that they all voted to acquit in 1998. Just like most liberals they live by the party line – robots.
rcocean (1a839e) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:28 pmManu Raju
@mkraju
·
NEWS: Lamar Alexander a ‘no’ on witnesses and documents, meaning there are 50 votes against moving ahead – and likely meaning the end of the impeachment trial as soon as tomorrow night https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1223092603069050880
__ _
Keith Boykin
@keithboykin
·
Lamar Alexander joins fellow Republicans in voting for the first impeachment trial in U.S. history with no witnesses. Shame on him and his party. They are now accomplices in Donald Trump’s crimes.
__ _
Burgess Everett
@burgessev
·
New w @BresPolitico: As senator in 1999, Joe Biden wrote four-page memo arguing against need for Senate to bring in witnesses in impeachment trial
“The Senate may dismiss articles of impeachment without holding a full trial or taking new evidence.”
__ _
Stephen Miller
@redsteeze
·
POLL
Which campaign dropped the Biden impeachment memo
harkin (d6cfee) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:28 pmMayor Pete
Bernie(Definitely Bernie)
Warren
NY Times
__
Dustin Volz
@dnvolz
Lamar Alexander votes with Trump more than 90 percent of the time and until about yesterday was never viewed as a swing vote on anything. This was all theater.
nk (1d9030) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:32 pmMurkowski is next. She will be a “no”. She says she will decide in the morning but Mitch is not going to leave it up to the Chief Justice with a 50/50 split. I expect 49 yes votes.
noel (4d3313) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:38 pmIt is very short-sighted to not allow witnesses and documents. Sure, the trial is over quickly but they wouldn’t have voted for removal after Bolten’s testimony anyway. They could have looked legitimate by allowing limited witnesses.
Now, history will judge it to be a bogus Senate trial. Accurately.
noel (4d3313) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:42 pmI wouldn’t bet that…
I’d bet Manchin would vote No.
whembly (c30c83) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:43 pmNo. I think history won’t look too kindly to the House Impeachment. They barely had a case and “chucked” it over to the Senate to do the dirty work.
whembly (c30c83) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:47 pmWe’ll see Bolton on Tapper within a week, saying what he should have been saying in the Senate.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:49 pmManchin will only vote No if the R’s already have the votes. He pulled the same stunt with Kavanaugh. He was going to vote with the D’s, but once he heard Collins speech supporting Kavanuagh, he joined her voted “yes” thereby picking up some cheap “I’m bi-partisan” cred.
rcocean (1a839e) — 1/31/2020 @ 2:41 am264. whembly (c30c83) — 1/30/2020 @ 8:20 pm
I knew that was the answer before they said it. It sounds a little ridiculous, so the question had some value in extracting the answer. The on;y question was would they seize on the easy answer.
Remember they’re talking about campaign fiance law. It’s a legal distinction. Once they ave that distinction, it extends also to the question of “interference.”
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/31/2020 @ 3:54 am264.
The cognitive dissonance jarring.
whembly (51f28e) — 1/31/2020 @ 6:47 am277. I had read that distinction before.
a quid pro quo is OK as long as the quid, is a quid or more, or easily convertible into it.
(One quid = 1 pound sterling)
https://www.infoplease.com/askeds/quid
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/31/2020 @ 6:51 am…and also you’re entitled to spend, or not spend, that quid any way you want that’s legal. (It’s entirely up to your discretion.)
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/31/2020 @ 6:56 amTrump did it. Lamar Alexander admits that the President is guilty and the case is proven but it’s not necessary to require more witnesses or remove him from office.
Using 390 million government dollars to bribe a foreign government into investigating your opponent is…. wait for it…..”inappropriate”.
noel (4d3313) — 1/31/2020 @ 7:36 amNo, it’s perfect.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/31/2020 @ 7:45 amLike Trump understands “quid pro quo”. “Tit for tat”? Possibly. Although he’s just as likely to think there’s a “w” missing.
nk (1d9030) — 1/31/2020 @ 7:46 amYeah, in many ways this is the best-case scenario for Democrats, as I have noted before. Acquittal ws a foregone conclusion, but this way the GOP doesn’t even get to pretend it cared about taking the allegations seriously.
I think I’m back to wanting them swamped. They’ll still have the filibuster even if they lose the majority. Until Chuckie S. takes it away I mean.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/31/2020 @ 7:47 am281. noel (4d3313) — 1/31/2020 @ 7:36 am
I think Lamar Alexander’s position is that it s not necessary for him to ear what Bolton has to say in order for him to decide how to vote. That should not be the only consideration. I don’t think it is good for Americans to live in two different universes.
He’s also not considering the possibility that Bolton might say something worse than what has been reported, or that he might clear Trump of attempted coercion of he Ukrainain government.
We’re talking so far abot what has been reported to be in the book and there is now mor reason than before to beleve that the leaks about what’s in the book is a distortion. And what the leak says is itself further dstorted.
anyone wants
Using 390 million government dollars to bribe a foreign government into investigating your opponent is…. wait for it…..”inappropriate”.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/31/2020 @ 7:50 amI doubt it.
It probably is some kind of legal concern that had John Bolton insisting on a subpoena before he talks.
Interesting fact. On Wednesday an acqaintance was in Times Square, Broadway and 42nd St where he saw a sort of demonsration. There were people carrying signs, at least of which an ordinary college graduate wouldnt understand. They might be members of a union or paid,. They were mostly young minorities. He took video.
It was by an organization called refusefascism.org. The majority of the signs went “Trump/Pence Out Now” Like as if impeachment would remove both of them. They were giving up white square things that maybe could be used as bumper stickers that said that. Also there was a sign about witnesses. And another against NDAs. Do you think any of the people there knew what an NDA was? It didn’t even spell it out. Or explain its relevance. I assume it’s related to the topic of impeachment and witnesses. Some intellectual wrote out the signs.
I think Bolton may be bound by an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) But of course, if so, how could he hope to publish the book? So I don’t understand it. Was he counting on being subpoeaned? Wouldn;t that be a gamble? Is it only to make his defense simpler?
The book, by the way, is still under review. The classification review wasn’t finished on Jan 23 when a letter was sent to his lawyer.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/31/2020 @ 8:05 amnoel (4d3313) — 1/31/2020 @ 7:36 am
according to what Schiff sad last night, that idea was only broached to the Ukrainains on Sept 7 (or possibly Sept 1) after Trump said no quid pro quo, but he said that becase he was caught but he couldn’t restain himself from asking Sondland to tell the Ukrainians something that amounted to aquid pro quo although without using that term.
But wait..Trump didn’t want any investigations – he just wanted the Ukrainian government to announce them so that Joe Biden would be smeared because Ukraine had a sterling reputation for integrity (I am adding some thoughts to what Adam Schiff said)
And Zelensky caved in, but then came Adam Schiff to the rescue because his was the only Congressional committee interesed in this we are led to assume, or at least the only committee committee was the on;y one that had the whistleblower complaint, which Trump knew the contents of.
Schiff was heading toward doing something that might get the whistleblower complaint, that did not allege money for investigations made public and caused Trump to lift the hold.
Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 1/31/2020 @ 8:17 am271.It is very short-sighted to not allow witnesses and documents. Sure, the trial is over quickly but they wouldn’t have voted for removal after Bolten’s testimony anyway.
Someone else came up with a much better analogy. Trials have witnesses. Appellate courts? Not so much. The Supreme Court of the United States? No witnesses. The final, last appeal court, of the United States uses no witnesses.
iowan2 (1c4a14) — 1/31/2020 @ 8:58 amThe final, trier of facts in impeachment, The United States Senate, needs no witnesses. The House has limitless restraints in the search of facts. When the House has those facts in hand, they write the Articles of Impeachment. Hand those off to the Senate, then the House Managers present ALL the facts they have gathered. If there are any deficiencies in the evidence, the House is responsible to correct those before they send their work to the Senate.
Everything that guy just wrote at 287 is bullsh!t.
nk (1d9030) — 1/31/2020 @ 9:05 amOh hey Iowan says the Senate doesn’t need evidence or witnesses. Coincidentally, this is the only time in history an impeachment hasn’t had any. Also the only time the Senate leadership outright said it was working with the accused as its defense.
Those pretending this was a legitimate process are pretending. Tyrants do pretty well in world history. What America had before the GOP screwed it up was pretty rare. To throw that away… and to cheer that…
Evil.
Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/31/2020 @ 9:18 amSchiff didn’t say quite explicitly all of what I summarized him as saying. You know, abut the sterling reputation for integrity of Ukraine so that people would believe the “smear” Or about his being the only committee that was exposing what was going on – but you would think so – he didn’t even say it was his committee.
He neglected to note that the whistleblower report said nothing about military aid being used to get Zelensky to “play ball” but only the prospect of a meeting or a phone call with Trump. Which, of course, happened by July 25. The whistleblower did mention the aid hold in a classified appendix and said they were given no reason for it.
The whistleblower had several facts wrong, like Trump, in the July 25 call wanting Zelensky to retain Lutsenko, (he did not) or Sondland and Volker trying to discourage or undermine Giuliani. (speaking to Giuliani in an attempt to “contain the damage” to national security, and helping Ukrainian leaders understand and respond to the differing messages they were receiving)
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/31/2020 @ 9:47 am288. iowan2 (1c4a14) — 1/31/2020 @ 8:58 am
That someone was Adam Schiff. He said the framers and the constitution did not make the Senate a Court of Appeals for the House but the place where a trial took place. (of course in 1787 they didn’t have such reliable transcripts, not to mention video)
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/31/2020 @ 9:51 am290
That’s patently not true.
The Senate heard/read from something like 14 of the 17 House witnesses.
Additionally, most impeachment, the Senators in the President’s party absolutely worked with the defense.
The House impeachment manager F’ed up royally here by not presenting a strong case with fully vetted and court adjudicated witnesses.
It’s really takes some serious balls to pull the pin on the grenade in the House, and simply ask the Senate (which the opposing party has the majority) to deal with it.
whembly (51f28e) — 1/31/2020 @ 9:51 am293. They knew they wouldn’t win in the Senate. But they thought they could put on a show.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/31/2020 @ 10:05 amWalrus Gumbo will never talk “for free.”
It’s all about him, now, and like a good little GOP neocon, he’s gonna cash in as much as he can. Paid speeches– or eventual TeeVee face time to coincide w/t hype as his book is released. He’ll dine out on it as long as he can. He has burned bridges at Fox– so after that book is out a month, he’ll be old news very fast– and like most of us, he likes to eat every day.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/31/2020 @ 3:17 pmIs that you, Steppe Nomad?
DRJ (15874d) — 2/1/2020 @ 12:00 pm