Author Topic: The Shampeachement Follies  (Read 41372 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #250 on: December 22, 2019, 10:42:27 PM »
Quote
Mentions Biden twice(in a single statement) in relation to corruption and events in Ukraine.
No.  You don't get to make this up.  Trump made zero reference to "corruption".  Zelensky arguably made an implicit reference to corruption, but Trump ignored that reference completely, and his reference to the Biden's was much more closely tied to his "favour" statement than to Zelensky's "swamp" reference.

Did you read the call summary/transcript?

The ask for a Favor was very clearly and indisputably tied to the Mueller investigation. It's the only thing Trump makes connections in his immediate ask.

Biden doesn't come up until after Zelenskyy replies to his request.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #251 on: December 23, 2019, 12:32:33 AM »
You don't think Trump can be corrupt on multiple issues at the same time?

I guess I should address this one. I do think Trump views Biden as a rival, I do think the ask for an investigation into Biden's son and the Burisma activities what an attempt to "get at" Biden.

I do not think it was intended as a means of influencing 2020 in the way it is portrayed, except in the off-chance Ukraine actually found something that could be acted on, something I think Trump himself probably also views as unlikely(then again, given his past tendency to spout off conspiracy theories...). But even getting an investigation into the Bidens announced would simply be a way to "poke him in the eyes."

It's hilarious how you guys complain, piss, and moan about Trumps lack of restraint in Rallies, on Twitter, etc. And yet suddenly in this phone call, you're suddenly viewing Trump as this Criminal Mastermind that could teach Mafia Don's a master class in how to carry out a conspiracy.

The problem the Trump Admin most likely has with getting their top level people to testify is how embarrassing much of what would be said would be for Trump, and them. I doubt there is going to be anyone testifying that 2020 even entered into any discussions about this with regards to Trump until after the Democrats started talking about it.

Which is a problem when the grounds for impeachment is that Trump did this for the purpose of influencing the 2020 election outcome.

What he probably did is still wrong. It is dubious on more than a few levels, and certainly questionable on ethical and multiple other grounds. What it probably is not, is criminal because as Comey testified with regards to Hillary and the mishandling of Classified documents: Criminal intent is not present. It most likely is not even what the Democrats want to portray it as being.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2019, 12:36:18 AM by TheDeamon »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #252 on: December 23, 2019, 07:38:45 AM »
Quote
it  doesn't make sense in the larger picture. Trump would need to ensure they get the money by the end of the FY regardless, so the opportunity to play games with it is rather limited given a start date of July 25th and the FY ending on September 30th. That's only 2 months.
a) as the witnesses have testified, the extortion started well before the July 25 call, and b) do you really think that Trump wasn't willing to have the Ukrainians believe he would allow the funds to go unspent (or to actually leave them unspent for that matter?)

Evidently the extortion started on the 25th of July?

Unless you're saying Kasandra is a Trump apologist now?

And last night we learned that the hold on military funds for Ukraine was placed within hours after the July 25 call with instructions to keep that decision "closely held".  Perhaps all along she's known that there are shoes to drop, maybe a closet full of them.  The more that come out before the Senate can implement their trial plan the harder it will be for them to exclude witnesses with inside knowledge.

You're tiptoeing through the evidence trying to avoid slipping and falling.  We KNOW that internal discussions in the WH started before July 25 and we KNOW that Zelensky's staff was asking about the funding before July 25.

Here's my full-on tin foil hat tilt.  Trump several times said that Putin denied having anything to do with US election interference in 2016 to help him, and that he believed him.  What Trump doesn't say, but implicitly appears to have acted on, is that Putin told him that Ukraine interfered to help Hillary.  He dispatched Rudy to Ukraine in April to start the digging, before Biden declared his candidacy.  At that time, he was focused only on Hillary; his goal at that time was to discredit Mueller and his report, which was due to be released a few weeks later.

He was stewing on this Ukrainian perfidy the whole time that the Mueller investigation was grinding along.  When Mueller's testimony fizzled on July 24, Trump realized he was free ("exonerated") from that and immediately turned his attention to getting the goods on how Ukraine had helped Hillary and, now, Biden, who had already jumped to the top of the Democratic polls.  That made Biden an obvious target for his scorched earth problem solving approach, since he would make a viable candidate.

The July 25 call was the opening shot in the direct extortion scheme.  Zelensky obviously wanted US military help and a high-profile visit to the WH.  Being the mob-style businessman he is, Trump realized he had a golden opportunity to put the screws to Zelensky.  He didn't have to "root out corruption" because he didn't care about that. Zelensky only needed to announce that he had reason to reopen the Burisma (Biden) investigation for Trump to disparage and delegitimize Biden in the eyes of his supporters.

There is zero evidence supporting claims against either Hillary or the Bidens, but Trump doesn't need evidence.  He doesn't even want it, because evidence can be tested.  Remember that every US intelligence agency and every US member of the diplomatic core have dismissed the claims Trump and Rudy are pimping about Ukraine, but they won't go away.

Rudy keeps promising that he will reveal his evidence "soon" and "real soon," and that you'll be amazed at what he's found.  Lindsay Graham has even invited him to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, but warned him that he had better have a good case and solid evidence.  So far Rudy hasn't appeared.

Personally I prefer a good fedora to a tin-foil cap, and nothing I wrote is contradicted by any evidence and most of it is supported by things we do know.  People who want to believe the the Trump/Rudy conspiracy theory so badly want their story to be true, but so far have produced zero evidence to back it up.

Quote
It's hilarious how you guys complain, piss, and moan about Trumps lack of restraint in Rallies, on Twitter, etc. And yet suddenly in this phone call, you're suddenly viewing Trump as this Criminal Mastermind that could teach Mafia Don's a master class in how to carry out a conspiracy.

Your hilarity is more of a cackle than a laugh.  Trump is an entertainer of the twisted clown variety when he's in public.  When he's not performing and in his quiet moments he's thinking about how to get away with murder, a tried and true winning strategy for him.

TheDeamon, give it up.  You've hinted in different ways that you don't believe any of the Ukraine nonsense Trump is spewing, either.  Why not just come out and say what he did was not only wrong, but it proves that he doesn't deserve to be President, and we've done nothing to deserve him, either.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #253 on: December 23, 2019, 08:57:23 AM »
“When he's not performing and in his quiet moments he's thinking about how to get away with murder, a tried and true winning strategy for him.”

Where are the bodies?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #254 on: December 23, 2019, 09:19:24 AM »
“When he's not performing and in his quiet moments he's thinking about how to get away with murder, a tried and true winning strategy for him.”

Where are the bodies?

It's amusing that you didn't take that as a metaphor.  But if you like, change murder to extortion, business fraud, tax fraud, breach of contract, defamation, sexual harassment, misrepresentation, hiring undocumented aliens, denial of wages and probably others if he had only thought of them.  Murder, well, he has people who can do that for him if needed, but since he thinks he can't be arrested for any crime while he's president I guess the sky's the limit.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #255 on: December 23, 2019, 10:57:27 AM »
It’s so ironic that you make out Trump as a murderer when it was Obama that ordered the execution of US citizens.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #256 on: December 23, 2019, 11:37:16 AM »
TheDeamon, give it up.  You've hinted in different ways that you don't believe any of the Ukraine nonsense Trump is spewing, either.  Why not just come out and say what he did was not only wrong, but it proves that he doesn't deserve to be President, and we've done nothing to deserve him, either.

Undeserving of being President? Sure.

Legally qualified to be President? Yes.

Nothing I've seen so far, IMO, raises to the bar of disqualifying him from office by means of legal process.

If you want him removed from office that desperately, put forward a candidate that can beat him in an Election that uses the Electoral College.

Don't turn the legal system into a mockery of itself in an ends justify the means mentality.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #257 on: December 23, 2019, 12:55:25 PM »
It’s so ironic that you make out Trump as a murderer when it was Obama that ordered the execution of US citizens.
Link?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #258 on: December 23, 2019, 01:03:03 PM »
It’s so ironic that you make out Trump as a murderer when it was Obama that ordered the execution of US citizens.
Link?

The killing (via drone) of an Al Qaeda recruiter and propagandist in Yeman. If memory serves correctly his son was also killed in one of the strikes. He was a US citizen and he was on a kill list put together by the Obama admin.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #259 on: December 23, 2019, 01:13:22 PM »
The Dems/Liberals on my FB feed that are talking about are dead-set convinced that Trump's guilty. I'd halfway suspect that if Trump Admin officials did come forth and given testimony that exonerates Trump, they'll be screaming about perjury. I guess we'll see if the Trump admin does that, should the Democrats ever turn the case over to the Senate.

Doesn't that sound to you a lot like how the Republicans kept investigating Hillary over Benghazi and her emails - a total of 7 times - without ever finding anything?

I have no comment on Benghazi.  I think the reports of it being an abuse have a grain of salt, but far too much of a whine to be real.  Congress has legitimate oversight roles, and those investigations were actually within those roles.  The public nature of them was for another purpose though, and not one that is to the credit of the investigators.  The actual report issued however is far more fair than anything produced by the Dems.  Go read it again if you forget, it's heavily fact based, and does a good bit to exonerate Obama personally.

But there's no question that they found guilt on Hillary's e-mails.  We now know from Lisa Page's released testimony that the DOJ issued a proclamation that Hillary would not be charged under the gross negligence standard, nonwithstanding that it is expressly included in the law.  That's why Comey's statement was changed to remove that exact term (and replaced with a functionally equivalent term) in his claim about that reasonable prosecutors wouldn't bring these charges.  They found gross negligence therefore they found a violation of the law, they only explained the independent basis of intentional action (which, they construed as narrowly as possible, as it could have been established from the intentional act of creating the server and redirecting email to it AFTER having been warned of the risk).

He literally found evidence of a breach of the law, and hid the ball on what was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion to not bring the charges (exercising that discretion is generally unreviewable, and he could have been open about it, but it was not politically feasible to tell the truth, he couldn't just say, "She absolutely violated the law, but we decided it wasn't "bad enough" to prosecute.")  This was literally, exoneration in spite of finding a violation of law.

This is in direct contrast to what you listed about Trump:

Quote
Likewise how Trump and Barr will never stop investigating the FBI for the Mueller investigation.  Coming up empty is just another name for We Need A Bigger Shovel.  How many reputations are they going to destroy before they finally give up and throw Rudy under the bus?

The IG report makes it clear that the FBI violated the legal standards that apply to the FISA court.  He found no reasonable reason that they left out exculpatory evidence that they had knowledge of, found their explanations unsatisfactory and decided to tell us that they didn't tell him they were corrupt.  Based on this fact pattern, you either have gross incompetence and a wilful disregard for the law.  Or you have politically motivated action.  The IG does not speculate.

Mueller on the other hand found nothing.  No Russian collusion and no obstruction of justice (or did you miss the DOJ conclusion that Meuller's evidence was NOT sufficient to establish obstruction of justice).  And that was after the House and the Senate were also not able to find Russian collusion.  And will the full cooperation of the White House and the power to compel testimony.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #260 on: December 23, 2019, 01:21:15 PM »
Thanks for reminding me.  That was inexcusable.  If that's not what Crunch was thinking of, he can still respond.  This is not unique to Obama, however.  Trump ordered a commando raid in Yemen on Jan 29, 2017 that killed a girl who was an 8-year old US citizen and her grandmother.  As I recall, Bush killed a US citizen in a drone strike (or raid?) in 2002.  It's rare, violates international policy and should never happen.

Also bear in mind the number of civilians that are killed in raids and drone attacks.  Trump has instructed the CIA not to reveal those numbers, but independent observer agencies report that the number has gone up dramatically under his leadership, as have the number of drone strikes overall.

We like to make a distinction between innocent (non-combatant) people killed by US forces in military operations based on "which side" they are perceived to be affiliated with.  If you only keep score of the US citizens who are killed by "friendly fire" you're ignoring 99% of the wrongful deaths we cause.

We can talk about Trump inviting the Taliban to Camp David on the anniversary of 9/11 some other time.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2019, 01:29:02 PM by Kasandra »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #261 on: December 23, 2019, 01:26:46 PM »
Quote
Mueller on the other hand found nothing.  No Russian collusion and no obstruction of justice (or did you miss the DOJ conclusion that Meuller's evidence was NOT sufficient to establish obstruction of justice).  And that was after the House and the Senate were also not able to find Russian collusion.  And will the full cooperation of the White House and the power to compel testimony.

Not quite.  Mueller felt constrained by the DOJ policy not to bring charges against a sitting President for the many instances of obstruction that he found.  That policy is both ridiculous and an artifact of the DOJ's investigation of Spiro Agnew.  Back then they decided that although a sitting President couldn't be indicted, a sitting Vice President could be.  The only reason for that policy decision was to make sure that Agnew was removed from office before Nixon was, because they recognized that the public wouldn't tolerate impeaching two Presidents in the same Administration, and doing them only months apart.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #262 on: December 23, 2019, 01:44:07 PM »
Also bear in mind the number of civilians that are killed in raids and drone attacks.  Trump has instructed the CIA not to reveal those numbers, but independent observer agencies report that the number has gone up dramatically under his leadership, as have the number of drone strikes overall.

First I agree with this. We knew about what Obama was doing because he ran it through the DOD in a semi-transparent way. Trump moved the drones back over to the CIA and put it back in a black box like Bush.

Secondly there is a distinction between collateral damage and being targeted for death from the skies. We know Obama targeted one US citizen, its possible Trump has done the same. I'm basing this on the fact that there were US citizens fighting with ISIS and its plausible (likely even) some of them were targeted specifically by air strikes because of their social media and propaganda efforts. But since the drone program went back into the CIA there is very little publicly known about it.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #263 on: December 23, 2019, 04:35:37 PM »
Quote
Mueller on the other hand found nothing.  No Russian collusion and no obstruction of justice (or did you miss the DOJ conclusion that Meuller's evidence was NOT sufficient to establish obstruction of justice).  And that was after the House and the Senate were also not able to find Russian collusion.  And will the full cooperation of the White House and the power to compel testimony.

Not quite.  Mueller felt constrained by the DOJ policy not to bring charges against a sitting President for the many instances of obstruction that he found.

I read what Mueller said.  I also read the conclusions of Barr AND Rosenstein that as a matter of law - without regard to that policy - the evidence that Mueller found was not sufficient to establish obstruction of justice.

I take note that no law - of any sort, not even DOJ policy - prohibitted Mueller from reaching a conclusion in his report.  Nothing whatsoever prevented him from saying, we found Obstruction but DOJ policy prevents us from prosecuting it.

He did not do so.  There is a reason for that.  The case he made was garbage.  It relied entirely on misreading the relevant statute, and treated publically defending yourself as proof of obstruction.  It also heavily relied on Comey's testimony, which as we can see from later revelations about lies Comey told, improprieties he pursued and FISA abuses was unwise.

He also ignored existing court interpretations on the applicability of statutes to the President (generally the President has to be specifically included within the terms and when he is not he is exempt) in relying on the provisions he relied on.  He ignored legal privilege on multiple occasions. 

Pretty much he lied about why he wouldn't say Trump is guilty, because it would unfair to say it when he knew he couldn't bring the charges, then wrote a couple hundred pages trying to smear Trump as much as possible without any way for Trump to defend himself. 

It's not surprising, every single part of the get Trump campaign has been about presenting one sided cases without any ability of the accused to defend themselves.  Again, it's literally unAmerican how the attacks on Trump have been handled. 

Quote
That policy is both ridiculous and an artifact of the DOJ's investigation of Spiro Agnew.  Back then they decided that although a sitting President couldn't be indicted, a sitting Vice President could be.  The only reason for that policy decision was to make sure that Agnew was removed from office before Nixon was, because they recognized that the public wouldn't tolerate impeaching two Presidents in the same Administration, and doing them only months apart.

That's a very limited understanding of the policy origins in question.  But yes, they did conclude no such exemption applies to anyone but the President.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #264 on: December 23, 2019, 05:57:40 PM »
“When he's not performing and in his quiet moments he's thinking about how to get away with murder, a tried and true winning strategy for him.”

Where are the bodies?

It's amusing that you didn't take that as a metaphor.

Why not take my “bodies” as metaphorical as well and show us the victims of Trump’s metaphorical murders? Or are these victimless metaphorical murders?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #265 on: December 23, 2019, 06:31:24 PM »
His contractors. Anyone he's feuding with in the press. Biden. Many cabinet members. Clinton. All members of the press. Teenage autistic girls. Anyone who went to trump University. Mexican judges. Business partners. Golf opponents. Nato leaders. Refugees. Muslims. He spends his down time fuming, plotting, and scheming on how to get one over on a multitude of enemies and marks.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #266 on: December 23, 2019, 07:28:58 PM »
His contractors. Anyone he's feuding with in the press. Biden. Many cabinet members. Clinton. All members of the press. Teenage autistic girls. Anyone who went to trump University. Mexican judges. Business partners. Golf opponents. Nato leaders. Refugees. Muslims. He spends his down time fuming, plotting, and scheming on how to get one over on a multitude of enemies and marks.

Since Bidens the only one on your list that relates to impeachment, how has he been harmed?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #267 on: December 23, 2019, 07:45:38 PM »
His contractors. Anyone he's feuding with in the press. Biden. Many cabinet members. Clinton. All members of the press. Teenage autistic girls. Anyone who went to trump University. Mexican judges. Business partners. Golf opponents. Nato leaders. Refugees. Muslims. He spends his down time fuming, plotting, and scheming on how to get one over on a multitude of enemies and marks.

Since Bidens the only one on your list that relates to impeachment, how has he been harmed?

Clearly his reputation is more tarnished than it was. He's probably getting more death threats than usual. He's going to be investigated now. Not to mention any potential result to his election chances as he gets knocked entirely off messages with questions about Ukraine. As far as his family goes, probably no more sweet patronage jobs for his son.

One can say, well he deserves all of that, but it's still harm. Just like trump justifies lots of his plots and attacks.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #268 on: December 23, 2019, 09:18:46 PM »
Quote
Undeserving of being President? Sure.

Legally qualified to be President? Yes.

I didn't say he wasn't legally qualified; I said we didn't deserve a President like him.  Do you think we (you) do?

Bonus question, Thinking about foreign policy and international relations, the national debt, handling of health care, immigration, infrastructure and climate policy, do you (still) think Trump is a better President than Clinton would have been?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #269 on: December 23, 2019, 09:36:04 PM »
He won the election. He's the President we deserve by that metric alone.

Yes, still better than Clinton. But then, we're looking at very different metrics when we're saying "better" in that context.

Would Hillary have been better for certain issues? Undoubtedly. But in the big picture, and longer-term picture, she was a national disaster from my point of view(What happened with the FBI and the FISA court with the Trump Campaign is evidence enough of that--if Hillary won, that IG report would likely have never happened).

Of course, at this point, I'm starting to wonder if a Trump Electoral win in November might result in a leftist revolt against the United States, and in some ways, I'd be oddly okay with them making the attempt. But then, I've previously said I'm more comfortable with a Civil War Scenario where it's the left that gets "pushed" into revolting rather than the right. (Mostly because "the right" would generally be much slower on throwing that particular switch in sufficient numbers to matter, unless they're playing defense) But the left-wit anti-Trump crowd? If Trump wins on November 3rd, I'd be surprised if there isn't wide spread rioting in many urban areas on the morning of the 4th.

In some respects, the previous paragraph alone is likely to be motivation enough for a lot of people to show up and vote Trump in 2020, just to watch the leftists hang themselves.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #270 on: December 24, 2019, 08:42:02 AM »
Quote
He won the election. He's the President we deserve by that metric alone.

I just love semantics.  Also, I notice that you didn't respond to any of the substantive issues I asked about.  Which do you think will be a longer lasting problem for the country: any of the things I asked about or past institutional malfeasance in the FBI investigation.

Quote
Of course, at this point, I'm starting to wonder if a Trump Electoral win in November might result in a leftist revolt against the United States, and in some ways, I'd be oddly okay with them making the attempt. But then, I've previously said I'm more comfortable with a Civil War Scenario where it's the left that gets "pushed" into revolting rather than the right. (Mostly because "the right" would generally be much slower on throwing that particular switch in sufficient numbers to matter, unless they're playing defense) But the left-wit anti-Trump crowd? If Trump wins on November 3rd, I'd be surprised if there isn't wide spread rioting in many urban areas on the morning of the 4th.

Say, weren't you the one who first used "tin-foil hat"?  I suppose you think the Democrats would rise up using all the guns they've cached over the last 12 years.  No wait, those was 2nd Amendment conservatives who have threatened to rise up against the government and support Republicans.  Maybe all of the domestic terrorism Democrats have committed have been training and reconnaissance exercises.  No, those were by right wing extremists who align with Republicans.  Maybe they have been burning down black churches and invading black churches and Jewish synagogues to incite other Democrats to get a taste for blood.  No, wrong again. Those are right wing racists and anti-semites who want to rid the country of unwanted people and purify the nation.

You'll have to 'splain which component of the militant Democrats are plotting the insurrection.  Maybe it's the teachers who say they don't want to carry guns in school.  Any self-respecting right wing thinker would recognize that that is just a cover so that they don't have to reveal how many weapons they actually have stockpiled.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 08:48:35 AM by Kasandra »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #271 on: December 24, 2019, 11:13:27 AM »
Yes, we remember how y’all categorized the BLM active shooter as a white conservative in that BS study to prove that conservatives and whites are the big menace.  The white privileged left doesn’t get its hands dirty; they just point and lie and people die.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #272 on: December 24, 2019, 12:25:59 PM »
What one prominent law professor is saying:

"But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.

If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all."

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #273 on: December 24, 2019, 12:45:50 PM »
Quote
He won the election. He's the President we deserve by that metric alone.

I just love semantics.  Also, I notice that you didn't respond to any of the substantive issues I asked about.  Which do you think will be a longer lasting problem for the country: any of the things I asked about or past institutional malfeasance in the FBI investigation.

Hillary would have implemented further "nanny state" regulations in place in the name of "equality" and "fairness" which would have been a death-knell to personal liberty in this country. But hey, we could rest easy because it is all for the cause of "social justice" so personal justice needs to take a back seat to the well being of the group.

Following on the heels of the Obama Admin, as evidenced by DOJ behavior re:Trump, I don't think even 4 years of Hillary would have been something the United States could recover from as a nation anyone who values personal rights would want to be associated with.

Trump is bad, but it's like being given the choice between being "gifted" with an untreatable form of cancer, or deal with a few simple bone fractures. I'll take my chances with the bone fractures.

Quote
Quote
Of course, at this point, I'm starting to wonder if a Trump Electoral win in November might result in a leftist revolt against the United States, and in some ways, I'd be oddly okay with them making the attempt. But then, I've previously said I'm more comfortable with a Civil War Scenario where it's the left that gets "pushed" into revolting rather than the right. (Mostly because "the right" would generally be much slower on throwing that particular switch in sufficient numbers to matter, unless they're playing defense) But the left-wit anti-Trump crowd? If Trump wins on November 3rd, I'd be surprised if there isn't wide spread rioting in many urban areas on the morning of the 4th.

Say, weren't you the one who first used "tin-foil hat"?  I suppose you think the Democrats would rise up using all the guns they've cached over the last 12 years.  No wait, those was 2nd Amendment conservatives who have threatened to rise up against the government and support Republicans.  Maybe all of the domestic terrorism Democrats have committed have been training and reconnaissance exercises.  No, those were by right wing extremists who align with Republicans.  Maybe they have been burning down black churches and invading black churches and Jewish synagogues to incite other Democrats to get a taste for blood.  No, wrong again. Those are right wing racists and anti-semites who want to rid the country of unwanted people and purify the nation.

You'll have to 'splain which component of the militant Democrats are plotting the insurrection.  Maybe it's the teachers who say they don't want to carry guns in school.  Any self-respecting right wing thinker would recognize that that is just a cover so that they don't have to reveal how many weapons they actually have stockpiled.

Were you paying attention to the response to Trump's win in 2016? There was rioting back then. I'd expect the response in 2020 to even less "restrained" the second time around.

You're also pretending Anti-Fa isn't lurking out there in the periphery waiting for their chance to smash some MAGA's face in.

You're also ignoring there are plenty of left-wing kooks out there as well, California independence anyone?

And of course, there is the smugness in social media when it comes to anti-Trump, they come across as convinced the "typical Trump supporter" would make someone with an IQ above 90 seem like a super-genius. That level of contempt for the other side doesn't promise good things moving forward.

Then we get down to the rhetoric being used in regards to Trump currently. How do you think a LOT of Democrat/Left wing "true believers" are going to respond to Trump winning 4 more years, possibly by way of the "horribly broken Electoral College" a second time. When they've been fed a steady diet of news reports and campaign rhetoric that presents Trump as being just short of the second coming of Hitler and the biggest domestic threat to Democracy we've ever faced?

As the Anti-Trump rhetoric ratchets up even more, in particular after the impeachment is killed in the Senate, IF it even gets to the Senate, there is a very real chance you're going to see a lot of people go "screw it" and vote for Trump in 2020 just so the Lunatics currently engaged in the political process do flip out and lose control. If only so we don't have to deal with them again in 2024 because their response is likely to remove many of them from the process going forward.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #274 on: December 24, 2019, 01:20:13 PM »
I think it's a far cry from some radicals with bicycle locks and milkshakes to a mass uprising of civil unrest and destruction. Anybody who thinks a trump win is going to lead to the watts riots on a national scale is delusional.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #275 on: December 24, 2019, 02:17:34 PM »
Quote
What one prominent law professor is saying:

It only takes one, even if none others are.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #276 on: December 24, 2019, 02:52:55 PM »
I think it's a far cry from some radicals with bicycle locks and milkshakes to a mass uprising of civil unrest and destruction. Anybody who thinks a trump win is going to lead to the watts riots on a national scale is delusional.

It is tin foil hat territory, but predicting riots in response to a 2020 Trump win isn't much of a reach.

Now it reaching the level of the 1960's race riots, that's a major stretch. Going beyond even that is an ever deeper one. But for the people who believe we're on the cusp of a Civil War-type event, Trump's the "most obvious" catalyst on the political scene at the moment. Well, aside from completely revoking the 2nd Amendment at least. You also need to remember part of Trump's base in 2016 was "burn it all down" in mindset, that still applies for 2020, even more so when it looks like some Dems are ready to trash the place if they don't get what they want.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 02:55:05 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #277 on: December 24, 2019, 03:05:02 PM »
I think it's possible you could see marches, roads blocked, and maybe some broken store windows. I wouldn't call that a riot.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #278 on: December 24, 2019, 03:45:05 PM »
Quote from: El Deamon
He won the election. He's the President we deserve by that metric alone.

I just love semantics.


Not sure that the question of whether Trump "deserves" to be president deserve anything better than a semantic answer.  No one deserves that sort of power.


 
Quote
Also, I notice that you didn't respond to any of the substantive issues I asked about.

Substantive issues do tend to get lost under non-substantive flourishes like the above.

 
Quote
Which do you think will be a longer lasting problem for the country: any of the things I asked about or past institutional malfeasance in the FBI investigation.

I went fishing for the things you asked about and wasn't sure I found them on this page. 

Quote
Here's my full-on tin foil hat tilt.  Trump several times said that Putin denied having anything to do with US election interference in 2016 to help him, and that he believed him.  What Trump doesn't say, but implicitly appears to have acted on, is that Putin told him that Ukraine interfered to help Hillary.  He dispatched Rudy to Ukraine in April to start the digging, before Biden declared his candidacy.  At that time, he was focused only on Hillary; his goal at that time was to discredit Mueller and his report, which was due to be released a few weeks later.

He was stewing on this Ukrainian perfidy the whole time that the Mueller investigation was grinding along.  When Mueller's testimony fizzled on July 24, Trump realized he was free ("exonerated") from that and immediately turned his attention to getting the goods on how Ukraine had helped Hillary and, now, Biden, who had already jumped to the top of the Democratic polls.  That made Biden an obvious target for his scorched earth problem solving approach, since he would make a viable candidate.

As for Trump's error of trusting Putin, yes that's devastating, as it was when Obama did it ("blank slate"), and when Bush Jr. did it (his buddy Putin).

But setting that error aside, it does seem a legitimate thing for a US president to want to investigate.  I agree there's a conflict of interest, but ... I don't think this is what you're referring to.  Help me out?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #279 on: December 24, 2019, 10:36:11 PM »
Quote
Not sure that the question of whether Trump "deserves" to be president deserve anything better than a semantic answer.  No one deserves that sort of power.

I was questioning whether *we* deserved him, not whether we voted for him.

Quote
I went fishing for the things you asked about and wasn't sure I found them on this page.

They're there, look again.

Quote
As for Trump's error of trusting Putin, yes that's devastating, as it was when Obama did it ("blank slate"), and when Bush Jr. did it (his buddy Putin).

Really?  You say any sort of equivalence to either of those Presidents showing willingness to talk and Trump's acceptance of Putin's explanations over the unanimous conclusions of every US Intelligence agency?  Really?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #280 on: December 24, 2019, 11:08:08 PM »
Quote
Not sure that the question of whether Trump "deserves" to be president deserve anything better than a semantic answer.  No one deserves that sort of power.

I was questioning whether *we* deserved him, not whether we voted for him.

*I* didn't vote for him. But he won the Electoral College.

As I said, don't like it? Help field a candidate that can beat him in the Electoral College.

Otherwise, he is the candidate we deserve.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #281 on: December 24, 2019, 11:16:45 PM »
Quote
As for Trump's error of trusting Putin, yes that's devastating, as it was when Obama did it ("blank slate"), and when Bush Jr. did it (his buddy Putin).

Really?  You say any sort of equivalence to either of those Presidents showing willingness to talk and Trump's acceptance of Putin's explanations over the unanimous conclusions of every US Intelligence agency?  Really?

Nope. I’m not talking about willingness to discuss. I’m talking about Obama’s idiotic “the 1980s called and they want the Cold War back.” Dumbest thing Obama ever said.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #282 on: December 25, 2019, 07:24:01 AM »
Interesting that that single comment, a zinger in a debate, somehow is elevated to stand beside Trump's interference in Ukraine and Russian matters. 

I said (and meant) that I don't dislike you, but I seriously don't like you dredging up isolated factoids from the distant past without context as if they bear weight on a current set of discussions.  It's a weird variation on the FOX tactic of finding one client scientist who sent an email of questionable value years ago to discredit the entire global warming analysis.  Then, of course, we find that the email wasn't questionable when read in context, but it's too late.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #283 on: December 25, 2019, 08:00:56 AM »
Arrghh!
Quote
It's a weird variation on the FOX tactic of finding one client climate scientist...

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #284 on: December 25, 2019, 09:48:02 AM »
Arrghh!
Quote
It's a weird variation on the FOX tactic of finding one client climate scientist...

https://archive.org/details/HundertAutorenGegenEinstein

Quote
From The Ultimate Quotable Einstein p. 170, Einstein said of this work:

Quote
If I were wrong, then one [author] would have been enough!

Einstein’s retort with regard to his theory when he heard that a book titled 100 Authors against Einstein was published in Germany. Quoted in Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (London: Bantam, 1988), 178

And on a tangential note:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475704-dem-senator-requests-legal-opinion-on-if-trumps-ukraine-aid-delay-broke-law
Quote
"Michael Duffey, a top Trump Administration official, sent an email ordering that the military assistance be withheld, and that that order be hush-hush and no one know about it. What were they hiding? What were they afraid of?" Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Sunday.

The Funds being held back doesn't (yet) point back to Trump, but to someone else in the Admin. Mr. Duffey would certainly be a useful person to have testify as to why he did that, if only the Democrats had bothered to wait to explore this before they voted to impeach Trump in the House.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #285 on: December 25, 2019, 11:54:26 AM »
I'm really beginning to like you :).  Einstein was a single theoretical physicist who came up with revolutionary theories about matter, energy and time.  He did that with a blackboard, a violin and without wearing socks.  And since his theories, like all theories, were designed to be tested by his theoretically oriented and experimentally oriented peers, it would only take one of them to find a flaw in his theories that would require correction.  So far, after more than 100 years, no one has ever managed to do that.  It's been asserted by many other brilliant physicists that even if a flaw is found, it would probably show that his theories were incomplete rather than wrong.

Einstein also said that explanations should be as simple as possible, but not moreso.  Most of your arguments have been, well, moreso.

Contrast that with climate scientists, who are not theoreticians.  They observe, calculate, measure, model and ultimate predict changes in the earth's natural climate over time.  Since this is predictive analysis based on models, there are many different outcomes predicted by different sets of those scientists.  As of now, a few climate scientists do not completely accept any of those findings and a very small number claim that that are completely wrong.  That's also par for the course.

But in the Trump White House, on FOX News and in other conservative media, there is almost unanimous agreement among non-scientists or scientists of dubious credentials that climate change predictions are a hoax.  The reasons for their attitude are almost universally nefarious, since THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, but insist on their point of view anyway.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #286 on: December 25, 2019, 12:10:45 PM »
Interesting that that single comment, a zinger in a debate, somehow is elevated to stand beside Trump's interference in Ukraine and Russian matters. 

Nope.  I’ve given two comments so far from Obama, the debate one and the “blank slate” policy quote.  And the only “equivalence” I’ve made is trusting Putin too much.  Obama himself would admit that he overtrusted Putin. 

Trump isn’t on trial for trusting Putin here.  You are making too much of a big deal of this small point.

As for “distant past,” if I can’t compare one presidency to the previous two presidencies, that’s just silly.

Anyway, a point of similarity isn’t really “ equivalency.” Bush Jr made far more of a fool of himself fawning over Putin than either of his successors, and Trump more so than Obama, as best I can tell.


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #287 on: December 31, 2019, 11:40:55 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/30/792476791/federal-judge-dismisses-former-white-house-aides-lawsuit-over-congressional-subp

And here is why Schiff shouldn't have withdrawn his subpoena. Now it looks like they don't care about hearing from other people. It makes their impeachment case so much stronger if Trump is defying congress and the courts instead of just congressional subpoenas.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #288 on: December 31, 2019, 12:10:38 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/30/792476791/federal-judge-dismisses-former-white-house-aides-lawsuit-over-congressional-subp

And here is why Schiff shouldn't have withdrawn his subpoena. Now it looks like they don't care about hearing from other people. It makes their impeachment case so much stronger if Trump is defying congress and the courts instead of just congressional subpoenas.

Not quite, while:
Quote
"To be perfectly clear yet again, the House Defendants will not reissue the subpoena to Kupperman, period," lawyers wrote in earlier court documents. "The subpoena will not reissue today, tomorrow, or ever."

That's because they're wanting the Senate to issue those subpoenas and for the Republicans to battle it out with Trump over the same issue. The issue isn't dead, the Democrats simply decided to change the venue.

Bad move on their part, as the Senate is under no obligation to make the case for the House. If anything, letting THAT case go to the courts could be interesting to see how a court would rule on it. I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

Political angle not-withstanding, there is a reason why the Grand Jury stands separate from the actual Jury Trial. Turning the jury into a second Grand Jury perverts the idea of an "impartial jury" such as they're certainly not when it comes to impeachment hearings.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #289 on: December 31, 2019, 12:18:02 PM »
Quote

Bad move on their part, as the Senate is under no obligation to make the case for the House. If anything, letting THAT case go to the courts could be interesting to see how a court would rule on it. I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

Except, of course, it is not a criminal trial. The Constitution doesn't define the process or the rules. The Founding Fathers didn't give any indication for how to proceed.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #290 on: December 31, 2019, 12:24:23 PM »
Are we in agreement that executive privilege, at least on matters touching the articles of impeachment, doesn't apply during the Senate trial?

Given the severity of impeachment, I would think ensuring that the Senate has all the evidence matters more than following the forms of a criminal trial. IRRC, no criminal penalties can be levied during impeachment, which could mean (as I think it does for ordinary misdemeanors) there's more flexibility in due process.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #291 on: December 31, 2019, 01:27:45 PM »
Quote

Bad move on their part, as the Senate is under no obligation to make the case for the House. If anything, letting THAT case go to the courts could be interesting to see how a court would rule on it. I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

Except, of course, it is not a criminal trial. The Constitution doesn't define the process or the rules. The Founding Fathers didn't give any indication for how to proceed.

And with what the Democrats did in the House, we're so far into left-field(in every conceivable way) on the process at this point that I don't think anything from centuries ago is going to be particularly informative.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #292 on: December 31, 2019, 01:28:01 PM »
Quote

Bad move on their part, as the Senate is under no obligation to make the case for the House. If anything, letting THAT case go to the courts could be interesting to see how a court would rule on it. I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

Except, of course, it is not a criminal trial. The Constitution doesn't define the process or the rules. The Founding Fathers didn't give any indication for how to proceed.

In absence of specifics in the constitution, One should reasonably assume that the founders expected us to follow the same impeachment rules that the states had used for governors for decades before 1789.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #293 on: December 31, 2019, 01:29:53 PM »
Quote

Bad move on their part, as the Senate is under no obligation to make the case for the House. If anything, letting THAT case go to the courts could be interesting to see how a court would rule on it. I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

Except, of course, it is not a criminal trial. The Constitution doesn't define the process or the rules. The Founding Fathers didn't give any indication for how to proceed.

And with what the Democrats did in the House, we're so far into left-field(in every conceivable way) on the process at this point that I don't think anything from centuries ago is going to be particularly informative.

I disagree. I think that fairness is far better served by using a system the preexists the current political landscape. Impeachment was conceived originally as a system to send the kings governors and ministers back to him saying send us another one because this bastard is incompetent or corrupt or both.  America has corrupted and democratized impeachment into some sort of attempt to raise a mob, Where of the Congress doesn’t feel that it can engage the will of the people, then it backs down tail between legs as it did with Clinton.  What impeachment was supposed to be about, is a triumph of the rule of law over the Voice of the king and/or the vox populi.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2019, 01:37:39 PM by Pete at Home »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #294 on: December 31, 2019, 02:10:59 PM »
Quote
I disagree. I think that fairness is far better served by using a system the preexists the current political landscape. Impeachment was conceived originally as a system to send the kings governors and ministers back to him saying send us another one because this bastard is incompetent or corrupt or both.  America has corrupted and democratized impeachment into some sort of attempt to raise a mob, Where of the Congress doesn’t feel that it can engage the will of the people, then it backs down tail between legs as it did with Clinton.  What impeachment was supposed to be about, is a triumph of the rule of law over the Voice of the king and/or the vox populi.

I like several of your points, but the edges to some of them are a bit blurry to me.  As to pre-existing English precedent, Webster's 1828 dictionary is the closest thing we have to a contemporaneous definition in the drafting of the Constitution:

Quote
An accusation or charge brought against a public officer for maladministration in his office. In Great Britain, it is the privilege or right of the house of commons to impeach, and the right of the house of lords to try and determine impeachments. In the U. States, it is the right of the house of representatives to impeach, and of the senate to try and determine impeachments. In Great Britain, the house of peers, and in the U. States, the senate of the U.States, and the senates in the several states, are the high courts of impeachment

I highlighted the key word, which is maladministration, not commission of a crime.  That, in turn, is defined as:

Quote
Bad management of public affairs; vicious or defective conduct in administration, or the performance of official duties, particularly of executive and ministerial duties, prescribed by law; as the maladministration of a king, or of any chief magistrate.

No crimes here, either.  The King of England is mentioned in the second definition, but is explicitly excluded from the definition of impeachment, as he was/is not a public officer, and therefore can't be impeached.  Trump *is* a public official, and therefore is answerable to the House and Senate for his conduct, i.e., his maladministration of public affairs.  I tend to agree with people who say that the President, or any other official facing impeachment, has no right of "Executive Privilege" or any other right to withhold testimony, documents or other cooperation.

FWIW, Hamilton (Federalist 65) gives good arguments why the Senate is the least bad place to hold the trial, since the impeached President could still be tried for any crimes for which s/he was impeached, and the trials could end up coming before the Supreme Court for adjudication.  That also makes clear that the impeachment and trial are designed to take place outside of the judicial system, and therefore is not bound by its rules.  I wish those old boys had been a bit more specific about what the rules ought to be, but so it goes.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #295 on: December 31, 2019, 02:21:41 PM »
I wouldn’t look too pre-existing British precedent but rather to pre-existing American colonial precedent. For a colony to impeach the kings governor was risky political business. It meant saying screw you to the king. And unless Congress is willing to say screw you to the people, the vox populi, impeachment is out of its depth.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #296 on: December 31, 2019, 02:23:35 PM »
Do we have a student in this discussion? Or letterrip?  I would like to read this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1921980?seq=1


Quote

Power and Precedent in the Creation of an American Impeachment Tradition: The Eighteenth-Century Colonial Record

Peter C. Hoffer and N. E. H. Hull
The William and Mary Quarterly
Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), pp. 51-77
Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
DOI: 10.2307/1921980
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1921980


I think it would be useful to review what impeachment meant before we changed its meaning for the sake of Clinton and Trump.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2019, 02:27:13 PM by Pete at Home »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #297 on: December 31, 2019, 02:25:45 PM »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #298 on: December 31, 2019, 02:38:21 PM »
Are we in agreement that executive privilege, at least on matters touching the articles of impeachment, doesn't apply during the Senate trial?

No we are not in agreement on this point.  Executive privilege always applies, it can be breached in certain circumstances.  I don't see those circumstances as being terribly more likely to occur in the Senate trial than they were in the House impeachment charade.  Absent some kind of non-speculative evidence that protected materials are likely to have evidence of impeachable conduct and there is no less invasive way to get that evidence.

Now that said, the courts were never likely to support the broad assertion of a right to refuse to testify, instead they were almost certainly going to come down in a position that requires White House officials to appear before Congress but that provides for White House counsel or other representatives of the President to be present to assert privilege (whether or not such official would otherwise testify).  That said, I would think some officials are likely exempt from testifying.  It's hard to see, notwithstanding the district court's view, how McGahn can be compelled to testify in Congress.  Mulvaney maybe on the borderline, with somethings entitled to EP and others not, or he may be exempt entirely.

Quote
Given the severity of impeachment, I would think ensuring that the Senate has all the evidence matters more than following the forms of a criminal trial.

Then given the "severity" the House should have done its job and compelled the testimony of those officials that have the evidence.  Hard to argue that more evidence is required when the House has voted out articles of impeachment based on the current record, and asserted effectively that it is "clear" based on that record.

I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

I don't know what this means, but there's no restriction on introducing new evidence at trial.  The restrictions are on how it can be introduced and allowing the defense adequate notice and ability to prepare.

The biggest fault with the "record" to date, is the House's shoddy work, which effectively prevented any vetting of the "evidence" by the defense.  There's no good reason the Republican's in the Senate should voluntarily bend over backwards to fix the mess the House deliberately created.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #299 on: December 31, 2019, 02:45:37 PM »
Quote
An accusation or charge brought against a public officer for maladministration in his office.

I highlighted the key word, which is maladministration, not commission of a crime.

The founder's specifically considered and rejected maladministration as a standard.  Specifically because it was too low of a standard to apply. Ergo, an argument centered on maladministration is false.

Quote
No crimes here, either.  The King of England is mentioned in the second definition, but is explicitly excluded from the definition of impeachment, as he was/is not a public officer, and therefore can't be impeached.  Trump *is* a public official, and therefore is answerable to the House and Senate for his conduct, i.e., his maladministration of public affairs.

Or given the express rejection of maladministration all of the foregoing is incorrect.

Quote
I tend to agree with people who say that the President, or any other official facing impeachment, has no right of "Executive Privilege" or any other right to withhold testimony, documents or other cooperation.

On what basis?  The Nixon case flat out stated that the President was entitled to executive privilege.  And set out some of the limited basis on which the court under strict confidence could violate it on a limited scale.

It's been repeatedly  affirmed that the President is entitled to the privilege and that there are circumstances where it can be breached.  Never seen "fishing expeditions" listed in that list.

Quote
I wish those old boys had been a bit more specific about what the rules ought to be, but so it goes.

It wouldn't have done any good.  They were specific about maladministration (an you missed it) and about high crimes and misdemeanors and the House ignored that.