Author Topic: The Shampeachement Follies  (Read 34989 times)

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #400 on: January 30, 2020, 11:57:23 AM »
Totally erroneous statement. Trump is innocent until proved guilty. ...But he must prove his innocence to stop the continual smears. How has that worked out anytime during his Presidency, so far?

My point is that Trump is supposedly sitting on proof of his innocence but is actively fighting to prevent anyone from seeing it.

What you should be saying is that if he has his people testify it might show that he did intend to investigate what was going on in 2016. Demonstrating that agenda would not prove his innocence (whatever that is supposed to mean) but it would prove that at minimum a part of his intent was to correct a potential wrong in the previous election, which is the only bar he should have to meet.


His people could testify, as you suggest, that he was focused on conspiracy theories about 2016 or even that he showed genuine frustration that Hunter Biden got a job due to corrupt influence or that he didn't trust the proof provided to the Pentagon about reforms. Any hard evidence probably would have given Pelosi the leverage to make the more restive members of the party to wait for the election. If only to keep impeachment in reserve.

As it is, Trump handed her the ability to decide the timing of the trial, which Pelosi could have delayed until all the court cases were settled, and let the DNC argue that Republicans in the Senate are complicit in covering up an impeachable offense. But I'm sure he's preventing people from testifying just to protect the prerogatives of some future President.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #401 on: January 30, 2020, 12:10:02 PM »
While you may be right that declining to employ that strategy might mean that he couldn't (i.e. that his claims are not true), it certainly does not necessary mean that. It could also mean that he does things in a sloppy way and tells people things an in informal and even confusing manner, so that they are not even quite sure what his 'real motives' are. It shouldn't surprise me to learn that he issues instructions all the time without carefully walking people through the reasons why it should be done. "Guys, we need to do something about Ukraine. Burisma, Bidens, Steel Report, all that. Let's get on that, and make it happen. Some bad people were there, we need to get them in line." People walk out of the meeting vaguely knowing the plan but still scratching their heads. That ring a bell? Plus with Trump flip-flopping all the time about what he really meant (truthfully or otherwise) and you're stuck between he's confused, he's a liar, and he's an idiot. So good luck parsing that and proving specifically was his intent was and was not. Did he even know?

I'm not trying to mount a defense of him, but rather mentioning a few options offhand that are easily plausible and which indicate how tough this case really should be to demonstrate. Showing his specific and illegal intent requires having more info than I suspect they had when they began the impeachment process; it may even require info which doesn't exist because Trump is such a weirdo. If that were so it might inspire more anger against him, but also means that trying a case where his intent is the main event is going to be tough; certainly not a trivial slam-dunk like they're trying to pretend it is.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #402 on: January 30, 2020, 12:35:02 PM »
The proof under question isn't the proof of Trump's guilt, which he would obviously interested in suppressing, but the proof of his innocence. The claim was that Trump has to prove his innocence in order to stop the Left from smearing him. That he's actively preventing people who might be able to offer such proof from testifying is suggestive that they can't.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #403 on: January 30, 2020, 12:47:47 PM »
BTW, the Dershowitz comment that constitutes a kill shot for the impeachment, and has opponents hot and bothered is this:

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

This quite clearly refers to something that is in the public interest AND could help a president get elected. Dershowitz does not have a history of being obtuse or vague.

The reactions are boringly predictable but basically variations of "So what you're saying is if Trump thinks his re-election is in the public interest, he can do anything!"

In my experience, anytime an argument begin with "so what you (he/she/they) are saying is..", you're no longer arguing logically/factually and have directly crossed into mind reading.

Schiff and lots of others (Colbert, seriously I thought you were smarter dude) are already using edited/mind-reading versions of Dershowitz's quote across the media. It's all they have left because how would you argue it as stated?


« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 01:02:09 PM by ScottF »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #404 on: January 30, 2020, 12:53:32 PM »
Do you have the full quote? I'm only seeing pieces added on to pieces which isn't ideal.

Quote
The reactions are boringly predictable but basically variations of "So what you're saying is if Trump thinks his re-election is in the public interest, he can do anything!"

That's based on what Dershowitz said about how all politicians see their re-election as being in the public interest.

It's only a kill shot if it's shown that Trump had a reasonable belief that coercing Ukraine into announcing an unwarranted investigation into Burisma was also in the public interest as well as good for his re-election.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #405 on: January 30, 2020, 01:05:16 PM »
Quote
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.

Oh, yeah, that worked so well for the House for their other subpoenas.  ;D  What makes you think it would be any different with Bolton, who already said he wouldn't testify to the House until a court ordered him to, because Trump ordered him not to?  Do we have to go over the Obstruction of Justice charge? ;)

I hadn't heard the House lost their case in court.  How well did it go for them again?

Last I checked one could still challenge any subpeona in court and that's not evidence of a separate crime of obstruction.

Quote
Quote
The House then declined to pursue the matter further, even when Bolton subsequently announced he was willing to testify.

Except that he specifically said he would testify to the Senate, not the House.  And the impeachment was already headed to the Senate by then.  Day late and wrong house.

Again, the Senate should reject the House's defective record.  If this was a real court the case would be dismissed with leave to refile or remanded to the lower court to fix the problem.

In fact this is not a real case, it's a government funded campaign ad to interfere in the 2020 election.  Every single step of this has been managed by the left on a political basis.

Abuse of power by Trump?  My ass, clear abuse of power by the Dems.

Quote
And in any case, we now have more information than the House did at the time.

If the House needed that information they should have obtained it.  You can't impeach someone for claims they didn't develop without uncostitutionally taking the sole power to impeach from the House. 

Quote
The only question is whether they want to know the whole truth or cover the truth up. ;)

The only question is whether they will realize that this is nothing but politics and shut it down or let the Dems get away with the biggest political crime in our history.

I remember when Republicans used to brag about being the Moral Party.  The party that believed in the Justice and Facts.  You guys always made fun of us Democrats for not knowing what was true and what wasn't, not thinking logically, being driven by partisanship and emotions.

Now look at you.   With possible new information coming out (we didn't know before that Bolton had actually heard Trump say to stop the funds to Ukraine until they investigated Biden), why do you object?  Because he has the right to appeal revealing those facts (even though that would delay the process until after the election Trump wanted to influence).  Because in a "real court case" it would have been dismissed.  Because the claims weren't previously sufficiently developed before they were brought to the Senate (in spite of the fact that they couldn't get the evidence in a timely manner).

Tell me, do you give a flying f**k whether Trump actually tried to use his position as President to extort another nation, one that was fighting an invasion, in order to get dirt on a political opponent?  Or do you just want to make sure all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed before the Senate gets to judge?

I ask because the Trump defense team and the vast majority of Republican Senators don't care.  They are quite willing to give the President kingly powers to do whatever he likes (if its for the good of the country, like having Trump as President, he's justified in just about anything he does) as long as it is a Republican President.  Watch how fast they spin around when a Democrat is elected to our highest office.

We need to hear from Bolton to establish what the facts are.  Whether those are established in the House or the Senate does not change the facts.  And if Trump tried to use his office to extort another nation into helping with his election, he should be removed from office.  Anyone who believes in justice and facts would agree with that.

But those don't matter much to Republicans anymore, do they?

BTW, the Dershowitz comment that constitutes a kill shot for the impeachment, and has opponents hot and bothered is this:

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

This quite clearly refers to something that is in the public interest AND could help a president get elected. Dershowitz does not have a history of being obtuse or vague.

The reactions are boringly predictable but basically variations of "So what you're saying is if Trump thinks his re-election is in the public interest, he can do anything!"

In my experience, anytime an logical arguments begin with "so what you (he/she/they) are saying is..", you're no longer arguing logically/factually and have directly crossed into mind reading.

Schiff and lots of others (Colbert, seriously I thought you were smarter dude) are already using edited/mind-reading versions of Dershowitz's quote across the media. It's all they have left because how would you argue it as stated?

It's not mind reading.  It's logical inference.  (You've heard of that, haven't you?)

What is or is not in the "public interest" is a political question.  One can argue that making the Democratic Party illegal would be in the "public interest."  Ask any partisan Republican.  Just because you might disagree doesn't make it not so.  So the range of justification of something being in the "public interest" covers just about any action, including deciding that being President is ultimately in the public interest, especially if you are a very stable genius, so much smarter than everyone else! :)

Besides, the whole point of this impeachment is the firm belief that investigating debunked theories, those only held by the rightwing fringe, is in no way "in the public interest."  The only interests it would help is Trump's and the Republican Party's.

So, yes, the vagueness of the term "public interest" gives the President carte blanche to do just about anything he wants.  And if practically nothing is impeachable, and he cannot be charged with a crime while he is office, what the difference between a President and a king/dictator?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #406 on: January 30, 2020, 01:05:36 PM »
It's in the first section of this article:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/are-republicans-prepared-accept-dershowitzs-radical-defense

The MSNBC author, Steve Benen, then does exactly what I described and immediately states:

In other words, presidents who abuse their powers to win elections should be immune from punishment, so long as they believe their victory will benefit the public.

*in other words* . lol. yeah, no.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #407 on: January 30, 2020, 01:12:04 PM »
The proof under question isn't the proof of Trump's guilt, which he would obviously interested in suppressing, but the proof of his innocence. The claim was that Trump has to prove his innocence in order to stop the Left from smearing him. That he's actively preventing people who might be able to offer such proof from testifying is suggestive that they can't.

If what you're talking about is having his people testify in order to prove his innocence in the court of public opinion then it becomes even more implausible a strategy than what I outlined above. However hard it might be to *prove* innocence in court, it will be exponentially harder to do so in the media where plenty of media sources will continue to rag on you no matter what you say. There is no "objection, your honor" in the news.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #408 on: January 30, 2020, 01:13:25 PM »
So, yes, the vagueness of the term "public interest" gives the President carte blanche to do just about anything he wants.  And if practically nothing is impeachable, and he cannot be charged with a crime while he is office, what the difference between a President and a king/dictator?

Yes, presidents can do basically anything they want. If any of those things are criminal, or were done solely for personal gain, it's impeachable. Democrats have done a lousy job proving the latter.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 01:23:17 PM by ScottF »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #409 on: January 30, 2020, 01:18:05 PM »
WS,

Check what you wrote again. You jump from 'Bolton says Trump withheld funds until investigation' right to 'Trump extorting a country under attack to undermine a political opponent.' Maybe these are unrelated points on your part but the one does not follow from the other despite you making it sound like they do based on the ordering of your arguments. That Trump may (or may not) have extorted the Ukraine specifically pending investigating the Bidens is separate and unrelated to his motive for doing so. You go from "he did it!" to "which proves it was to undermine a political opponent", which is the typical fallacious argument being made. Maybe he did exactly what you say, but it's not shown by the logic you are presenting.

Likewise, you later go on to insist that if a President does an action based on it getting him re-elected that makes it somehow pernicious. Well guess what, that's the main reason most politicians do anything. Maybe just eject the entire political posse? Hey I'll even support you on that :)  And heck, I don't even disagree that 'being re-elected' is a totally corrupt and BS reason to do something as a politician. But that speaks to the current structure of the political system, and not to Trump's wrongdoing. Doing stuff because it will help your next election is literally what the system is based on now. You can't call foul and insist this is malfeasance when it's an action you don't like by a guy you don't like. That really is double dealing.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #410 on: January 30, 2020, 01:22:16 PM »
Sure, Political ends are what drives the entire Shampeachment... and because it does, the President's team cannot just win the Constitutional Law argument, they must win the Bully Pulpit. When you're attacked by smears, you can't ignore it - you must prove it wrong.

Which he could do by having his people testify that his sole, or even primary, concern was ensuring that Ukraine didn't misuse the funds due to corruption. Strange that Trump's going to court to prevent those people from testifying though. Even more strange is that he isn't leaning on the Senate to allow him to introduce exculpatory evidence. It's almost like he thinks their testimony wouldn't prove his innocence.

More likely, any testimony they offer will only further confuse the issue and perpetuate the partisan divide. Basically, the testimony would provide exculpatory evidence demonstrating motives not related to 2020, while also providing evidence he was looking at the upcoming election.

Basically, the testimony would provide nothing new, and we would still be exactly where we are.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #411 on: January 30, 2020, 01:24:23 PM »
It's in the first section of this article:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/are-republicans-prepared-accept-dershowitzs-radical-defense

The MSNBC author, Steve Benen, then does exactly what I described and immediately states:

In other words, presidents who abuse their powers to win elections should be immune from punishment, so long as they believe their victory will benefit the public.

*in other words* . lol. yeah, no.

That still only seems to be quoting part of his statement. I'm not sure why they aren't quoting the whole thing because the line appears worse in context that out of it.

ETA
More likely, any testimony they offer will only further confuse the issue and perpetuate the partisan divide. Basically, the testimony would provide exculpatory evidence demonstrating motives not related to 2020, while also providing evidence he was looking at the upcoming election.

Basically, the testimony would provide nothing new, and we would still be exactly where we are.

Except there'd be a lot less room for the Democrats to accuse the Republicans of a cover-up or to argue that they'd be able to make the case for impeachment *if only* Trump allowed people to testify.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 01:28:06 PM by NobleHunter »

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #412 on: January 30, 2020, 01:38:46 PM »
Let me ask a question Betty Warren asked yesterday to the wrong people (the House Impeach Committee, rather than Trump's Lawyers):

If Ukraine had offered to Trump to investigate Biden (which would possibly help his campaign) for weapons to defend themselves, that would be illegal, right?  Offering assistance to a campaign in exchange for badly-needed assistance.

If that is illegal, why is the opposite--offering to release badly-needed weapons for an investigation into Biden--not illegal?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #413 on: January 30, 2020, 01:48:26 PM »
Let me ask a question Betty Warren asked yesterday to the wrong people (the House Impeach Committee, rather than Trump's Lawyers):

If Ukraine had offered to Trump to investigate Biden (which would possibly help his campaign) for weapons to defend themselves, that would be illegal, right?  Offering assistance to a campaign in exchange for badly-needed assistance.

Depends on the basis Ukraine gives for why they think Biden should be investigated. And it's funny you should mention that, considering Ukraine did do essentially that in regards to Manafort(Trump's Campaign manager) with the DNC and Obama Administration officials...

Quote
If that is illegal, why is the opposite--offering to release badly-needed weapons for an investigation into Biden--not illegal?

It is the basis, ie intent, behind the act which determines if the action is illegal or not. If a rational, and legal basis can be presented for conducting an investigation which isn't purely political in nature, the action is defensible.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #414 on: January 30, 2020, 02:50:11 PM »
If Ukraine had offered to Trump to investigate Biden (which would possibly help his campaign) for weapons to defend themselves, that would be illegal, right?  Offering assistance to a campaign in exchange for badly-needed assistance.

If that is illegal, why is the opposite--offering to release badly-needed weapons for an investigation into Biden--not illegal?

Not sure what the point of this question is. Is your question about campaign finance law? As I understand the rules foreign countries cannot directly contribute to a campaign. There are also financial restrictions on local entities contributing to campaigns. However locally they get around this by having PAC's 'not affiliated' with the party run ads and so forth to help the campaign even though they are not working for them. So evidently certain kinds of de facto in kind donations are permitted so long as they are conducted in a non-direct manner. I think what you are perhaps indirectly asking is whether it is illegal for a foreign country to make indirect in kind donations in the form of actions that will bolster a campaign without directly donating to it? I suppose a lawyer might be able to answer that. If it is illegal for a foreign country to do that then it doesn't matter what they are getting in exchange for it (whether weapons or chocolates). If it is legal for a foreign country to do that then it likewise doesn't matter why they choose to do so, unless in so doing they are directly violating some other law, such as bribery laws. Where it gets murky is to what extent 'favors' to the President can be considered as personal rather than national. For instance when Tony Blair supported Bush 43 in Iraq, was this allegiance a personal 'bribe' to Bush or was it allegiance to the U.S.? Good luck extricating those from each other. I think part of the point people make about a President being able to get stuff done is that when something gets done 'for them' it's also getting done for the country. Where this gets ugly is when what the President wants is dumb.

That being said, reversing directions in your above example does not create an equivalent situation. If I'm working in government and tell you that you *will* pay me money in exchange for my services, I am extorting you and using force to coerce you. If you tell me you will offer to pay me in exchange for my services, you are bribing me. Accepting a bribe is bad, but is not the same as extorting people. There could be overlap, but no force is necessary with a bribe; it could be a mutually agreeable arrangement. Extortion means someone involved is upset but can't do anything about it.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #415 on: January 30, 2020, 03:16:26 PM »
Quote
BTW, the Dershowitz comment that constitutes a kill shot for the impeachment, and has opponents hot and bothered is this:

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
I see why you think that - you have ignored the previous statements clarifying the one you quoted, PLUS you misunderstand to what "that" refers in the "that cannot be the kind..." clause. This is what Dershowitz stated (my markup)
Quote
Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest1. And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest.

And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected2, in the public interest3, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.4
  • 1,2:This is all about a politician's belief about his own election - not about some general "public interest" outside the scope of the re-election.
  • 2: Dershowitz is clearly talking about a politician enacting a quid pro quo that serves to get themself re-elected
  • 3: this clause clarifies the precedent, the president's action to improve their chance of re-election; he is not using it as a separate, standalone motivation for the questionable action.
  • 4: what "cannot... [result] in impeachment" is the action described in the initial clause, that action that will help them get themself re-elected, just so long as they believe that their re-election is in the public interest.
Dershowitz is not actually making a claim here about things that are or are not in the public interest.  His statement is completely about politician's belief about their own election being in the public interest, and why, since they believe their election to be in the public interest, their re-election itself is sufficient rationale for just about any otherwise impeachable action.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 03:18:41 PM by DonaldD »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #416 on: January 30, 2020, 03:30:25 PM »
[...]their re-election itself is sufficient rationale for just about any otherwise impeachable action.

I don't understand what you mean by this clause. Since a President is *always* campaigning for re-election in their first term, how could this type of action ever by an 'impeachable action' according to this logic? Do you mean to say that what would be an impeachable offense in their 2nd term could be considered 're-election strategy' in their 1st?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #417 on: January 30, 2020, 03:33:58 PM »
if you prefer, I could have worded it like this: "... is sufficient rationale to excuse just about any otherwise impeachable action."

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #418 on: January 30, 2020, 03:56:54 PM »
If we consider that politicians can't use their franking privileges, desk phone, or photocopier to seek re-election, I think it is pretty clear that you can't use a diplomatic phone call for that purpose. Now taking Air Force One to a re-election rally, thinly veiled as some other kind of speech? Yeah, we got to put up with that one for the dual-purpose argument, which can also apply here. You want to fund some opposition research? Go right ahead. Hire an army of investigators to go dig up dirt on Biden and try to get yourself re-elected. You can even hint at it to your super-pac.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #419 on: January 30, 2020, 05:01:07 PM »
Too many misleading accusations don't equal truth or the moral high ground.

Listening to the Hearing now, the Democrats have claimed "absolutely no truth to any conspiracy theories about the Ukraine in the 2016 election."

What about the VERIFIED documents John Solomon put out? These documents have not been looked at by the House. There are all these tranches of documents from the Ukraine that shatter that Democrat claim that were missed:

Quote from: John Solomon
1.  Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine’s new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship with oligarchs and other key figures. What was the CIA, FBI and U.S. Treasury Department telling Trump and other agencies about Zelensky’s ties to oligarchs like Igor Kolomoisky, the former head of Privatbank, and any concerns the International Monetary Fund might have? Did any of these concerns reach the president’s daily brief (PDB) or come up in the debate around resolving Ukraine corruption and U.S. foreign aid? CNBC, Reuters and The Wall Street Journal all have done recent reporting suggesting there might have been intelligence and IMF concerns that have not been fully considered during the impeachment proceedings.

2.  State Department memos detailing conversations between former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. He says Yovanovitch raised the names of Ukrainians she did not want to see prosecuted during their first meeting in 2016. She calls Lutsenko’s account fiction. But State Department officials admit the U.S. embassy in Kiev did pressure Ukrainian prosecutors not to target certain activists. Are there contemporaneous State Department memos detailing these conversations and might they illuminate the dispute between Lutsenko and Yovanovitch that has become key to the impeachment hearings?

3.  State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. There is documentary evidence that State provided funding to this group, that Ukrainian prosecutor sought to investigate whether that aid was spent properly and that the U.S. embassy pressured Ukraine to stand down on that investigation. How much total did State give to this group? Why was a federal agency giving money to a Soros-backed group? What did taxpayers get for their money and were they any audits to ensure the money was spent properly? Were any of Ukrainian prosecutors’ concerns legitimate?

4.  The transcripts of Joe Biden’s phone calls and meetings with Ukraine’s president and prime minister from April 2014 to January 2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Did Burisma or Hunter Biden ever come up in the calls? What did Biden say when he urged Ukraine to fire the prosecutor overseeing an investigation of Burisma? Did any Ukrainian officials ever comment on Hunter Biden’s role at the company? Was any official assessment done by U.S. agencies to justify Biden’s threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid if Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin wasn’t fired?

5.  All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine. The U.S. government’s main whistleblower office is investigating allegations from a U.S Energy Department worker of possible wrongdoing in U.S.-supported Ukrainian energy business. Who benefited in the United States and Ukraine from this alleged activity? Did Burisma gain any benefits from the conduct described by the whistleblower? OSC has concluded there is a “substantial likelihood of wrongdoing” involved in these activities.

6.  All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings. What did the U.S. know about allegations of corruption at the Ukrainian gas company and the efforts by the Ukrainian prosecutors to investigate? Did U.S., Latvian, Cypriot or European financial authorities flag any suspicious transactions involving Burisma or Americans during the time that Hunter Biden served on its board? Were any U.S. agencies monitoring, assisting or blocking the various investigations? When Ukraine reopened the Burisma investigations in March 2019, what did U.S. officials do?

7.  All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department’s foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue a joint project with Burisma Holdings. State official George Kent has testified he stopped this joint project because of concerns about Burisma’s corruption reputation. Did Hunter Biden or his American business partner Devon Archer have anything to do with seeking the project? What caused its abrupt end? What issues did Kent identify as concerns and who did he alert in the White House, State or other agencies?

8.  All cables, memos and documents showing State Department’s dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016. We now know that Ukrainian authorities escalated their investigation of Burisma Holdings in February 2016 by raiding the home of the company’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Soon after, Burisma’s American representatives were pressing the State Department to help end the corruption allegations against the gas firm, specifically invoking Hunter Biden’s name. What did State officials do after being pressured by Burisma? Did the U.S. embassy in Kiev assist Burisma’s efforts to settle the corruption case against it? Who else in the U.S. government was being kept apprised?

9.  All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden’s office concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. We now know that multiple State Department officials believed Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma created the appearance of a conflict of interest for the vice president, and at least one official tried to contact Joe Biden’s office to raise those concerns. What, if anything, did these Cabinet agencies tell Joe Biden’s office about the appearance concerns or the state of the various Ukrainian investigations into Burisma?

10. All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy’s request in spring 2019 to monitor the social media activities and analytics of certain U.S.  media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. Did any such monitoring occur? Was it requested by the American embassy in Kiev? Who ordered it? Why did it stop? Were any legal concerns raised?

11. All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence on the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine’s ambassador to Washington or efforts to publicize allegations against Paul Manafort. What did U.S. officials know about these efforts in 2016, and how did they react? What were these federal agencies’ reactions to a Ukrainian court decision in December 2018 suggesting some Ukrainian officials had improperly meddled in the 2016 election?

12.  All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. Did anyone in these U.S. government agencies interview or have contact with Chalupa during the time the Ukraine embassy in Washington says she was seeking dirt in 2016 on Trump and Manafort?
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 05:05:08 PM by wmLambert »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #420 on: January 30, 2020, 05:18:19 PM »
John Solomon??  ;D

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #421 on: January 30, 2020, 05:42:04 PM »
How a conservative columnist helped push a flawed Ukraine narrative

Quote
Except both stories had major defects. The State Department called Lutsenko’s allegations against Yovanovitch “an outright fabrication.” And Lutsenko eventually backed off, retracting his claim in April that the ambassador had given him a do-not-prosecute list. He further said in May that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden or his son. (Lutsenko was eventually replaced as chief prosecutor by Ukraine’s reform-minded new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.)

What document on that list do you think shatters anything? This list is mostly innuendo.

He didn't actually put out any of these documents. He states:

Quote
There are still wide swaths of documentation kept under wraps inside government agencies like the State Department that could substantially alter the public’s understanding of what has happened in the U.S.-Ukraine relationships now at the heart of the impeachment probe.

As House Democrats mull whether to pursue impeachment articles and the GOP-led Senate braces for a possible trial, here are 12 tranches of government documents that could benefit the public if President Trump ordered them released, and the questions these memos might answer

"Under wraps" means nobody has seen them, just that he's hoping he'll get to see them and he's sure they would show how guilty Biden was.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #422 on: January 30, 2020, 07:45:57 PM »
Solomon's website has all the documents hot-linked so you can see them. Hurry before Leftwing IT-types take them all down. Such archives are short-lived.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #423 on: January 30, 2020, 08:05:32 PM »
I guess you mean the top story on his blog? The big section you quoted does not have any links, and you didn't provide one. The vast majority of these documents say the same thing that nobody has refuted, that Biden looked bad because of the appearance of impropriety, that Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, etc.

I'm not going to plow through all of these, but I thought this was interesting:

Quote
“On the grounds of possible legalization of proceeds derived from criminal activity and corruption, please grant us permission to share the information included in the reply to this request with Latvian law enforcement entities for intelligence purposes only,” the letter said.

Arturs Saburovs, the Third Secretary at the Latvian embassy in Washington, confirmed his country flagged the transactions in February 2016 after seeing public reports that Burisma was under investigation in Ukraine and that Hunter Biden served on the company’s board. He said Latvia did not receive any evidence back from Ukraine to further its investigation.

He makes a lot of hay about this, but it really doesn't mean much. Ukraine ignored a subpoena. Which apparently went ignored by Shokin one month before he got fired. If anything, it backs up the accepted facts by international sources - Shokin refused to investigate and prosecute corruption.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #424 on: January 30, 2020, 09:03:30 PM »

"Elizabeth Warren says she’ll create a federal task force to investigate corruption during the Trump administration if she’s elected president."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/warren-task-force-investigate-trump-administration-68424348


If Trump is running against her wouldn't this be illegal, unConstitutional, and an abuse of power, at least according to the Democrats impeaching Trump and according to Warren herself who believes Trump deserved to be impeached and removed from office?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #425 on: January 30, 2020, 10:29:30 PM »
No. Because she's not using the power of her current office. She's making a campaign promise. Same reason why trumps lock her up chants and promises to investigate Clinton were not a problem. There is a reason why none of the candidates are on the team of house managers in the impeachment trial.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #426 on: January 30, 2020, 10:30:40 PM »
Honestly, it's not that much different than Trump claiming he'd put Hilary in jail when he became president.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #427 on: January 30, 2020, 10:34:12 PM »
Warren is a joke not because of the Trump comment but because of things like this:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/warren-vows-to-give-young-trans-person-veto-power-over-her-secretary-of-education-pick/

Basically, she's saying she'll have her secretary of education screened by a "young trans person" before they could get the job.

I don't even...somewhere Elizabeth just got caught up in it all.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #428 on: January 31, 2020, 02:13:56 AM »
Well I wasn't suggesting she should be charged now. I'm saying that according to the Democrats, she is running on a campaign that promises if elected on Day One she will break the law, abuse her power, violate the Constitution, and deserve removal of office by impeachment. And that's coming from the Democrats in Congress.

It's interesting though that none of them to my knowledge have come out against it and said now hold on a minute. Are you sure you want to do that seeing as how that's why we're impeaching Trump?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #429 on: January 31, 2020, 02:32:47 AM »
Well I wasn't suggesting she should be charged now. I'm saying that according to the Democrats, she is running on a campaign that promises if elected on Day One she will break the law, abuse her power, violate the Constitution, and deserve removal of office by impeachment. And that's coming from the Democrats in Congress.

It's interesting though that none of them to my knowledge have come out against it and said now hold on a minute. Are you sure you want to do that seeing as how that's why we're impeaching Trump?

Warren isn't orange, and isn't a man. She's safe from being on the receiving end of Orange Man Bad Derangement Syndrome.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #430 on: January 31, 2020, 09:29:30 AM »
Well I wasn't suggesting she should be charged now. I'm saying that according to the Democrats, she is running on a campaign that promises if elected on Day One she will break the law, abuse her power, violate the Constitution, and deserve removal of office by impeachment. And that's coming from the Democrats in Congress.

It's interesting though that none of them to my knowledge have come out against it and said now hold on a minute. Are you sure you want to do that seeing as how that's why we're impeaching Trump?

No one's come out against it because it's not the gotcha you think it is.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #431 on: January 31, 2020, 10:25:10 AM »
Nancy is now saying that Trump "cannot be acquitted". It looks like she's going to ride this puppy right into the ground. It has to suck when reality refuses to cooperate with how you think the world should be.

Did she really see any other outcome, or is she just saying her lines like a good soldier?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #432 on: January 31, 2020, 10:34:19 AM »
Quote
Are you sure you want to do that seeing as how that's why we're impeaching Trump?
It would seem you don't understand why Trump is being impeached... seriously, this is a pretty stark misrepresentation; if you honestly believe this is 'why' Trump is being impeached, I would suggest you need to throw out what you think you know, and re-read the articles of impeachment at the very least.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #433 on: January 31, 2020, 12:03:39 PM »
Basically, she's saying she'll have her secretary of education screened by a "young trans person" before they could get the job.

Is that such a terrible idea? This is what we're dealing with currently.

Quote
After his graduation in 2017 Howe filed a complaint with federal civil rights officials at the Department of Education, hoping to ease the way for other transgender students at his school to use the bathrooms of their choice. But an examination of federal records by POLITICO shows that his complaint is one of at least five involving transgender students denied bathroom access that was thrown out by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who has halted such investigations.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #434 on: January 31, 2020, 01:00:12 PM »
Basically, she's saying she'll have her secretary of education screened by a "young trans person" before they could get the job.

Is that such a terrible idea? This is what we're dealing with currently.

Yes, it is a terrible idea. First off, young people are stupid. I know because I was one.  Second, if we're going to screen key appointments according to group identity (horrible on its face), we should probably start with groups that represent more than 1% of the population.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #435 on: January 31, 2020, 01:07:16 PM »
Is that such a terrible idea? This is what we're dealing with currently.

Quote
After his graduation in 2017 Howe filed a complaint with federal civil rights officials at the Department of Education, hoping to ease the way for other transgender students at his school to use the bathrooms of their choice. But an examination of federal records by POLITICO shows that his complaint is one of at least five involving transgender students denied bathroom access that was thrown out by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who has halted such investigations.

Such first world problems...yes what a disaster.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #436 on: January 31, 2020, 01:11:27 PM »
Quote
if we're going to screen key appointments according to group identity (horrible on its face), we should probably start with groups that represent more than 1% of the population.
I guarantee you that the vast majority of federal appointees are already screened by a number of white, straight, cisgender men. That is undoubtedly the point that Warren was making.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #437 on: January 31, 2020, 01:28:14 PM »
I created a new thread for the Warren discussion, to keep this for the Trump impeachment.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #438 on: January 31, 2020, 01:32:32 PM »
The Breitbarters are going apeshift about Roberts refusing to use the whistleblower's name and rejecting Rand Paul's question.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #439 on: January 31, 2020, 04:23:30 PM »
The whistleblower is entirely inconsequential apart from potentially proving that Schiff lied multiple times about him or his team having contact with them. Even if/when that's proven, won't change anything because he was acting for the greater good.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #440 on: January 31, 2020, 05:38:33 PM »
The whistleblower is entirely inconsequential apart from potentially proving that Schiff lied multiple times about him or his team having contact with them. Even if/when that's proven, won't change anything because he was acting for the greater good.

Watching social media, there are claims floating around that the (suspected) whistleblower was/is dating Schiff's Daughter, I'm dubious, but too lazy to bother fact-checking it. Would be hilarious if true, but I doubt it.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #441 on: January 31, 2020, 05:41:03 PM »
Let's say that everything you assert is true. Schiff was in on it from the start, wrote the script himself, gave him $50k and a foot massage.

Would that then mean Trump should be acquitted, even if he had committed an impeachable offense?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #442 on: January 31, 2020, 05:51:39 PM »
He didn’t.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #443 on: January 31, 2020, 05:55:30 PM »
Let's say that everything you assert is true. Schiff was in on it from the start, wrote the script himself, gave him $50k and a foot massage.

Would that then mean Trump should be acquitted, even if he had committed an impeachable offense?

In this case, truth is very much in the eye of the beholder regarding Trump. As to Schiff, it introduces a poisoned well into the mix, and the potential need for criminal charges against the whistleblower, and either the impeachment or resignation of Schiff.

If Schiff did do the above hypothetical, it doesn't matter if he was proven right in the end or not. He should be removed from office, two wrongs don't make a right.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #444 on: January 31, 2020, 05:56:13 PM »
My favorite scene, which perfectly encapsulates this sham, was Roberts asking about a final statement. Nadler just takes off, blinders on, to the microphone like there’s a twinkie on it. In a Seinfeld episode brought to life, we hear Schiff going, “Jerry, Jerry, Jerry”. But, it was LEEEEEROOOOOOOY NADLER!” Jerry was gone and gave a truly, epically bad closing statement.

I must have watched that half a dozen times and I laughed harder every single time.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #445 on: January 31, 2020, 06:02:02 PM »
So that’s it, no witnesses. Great news, indicating this sham may soon end

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #446 on: January 31, 2020, 06:48:11 PM »
Let's say that everything you assert is true. Schiff was in on it from the start, wrote the script himself, gave him $50k and a foot massage.

Would that then mean Trump should be acquitted, even if he had committed an impeachable offense?

In this case, truth is very much in the eye of the beholder regarding Trump. As to Schiff, it introduces a poisoned well into the mix, and the potential need for criminal charges against the whistleblower, and either the impeachment or resignation of Schiff.

If Schiff did do the above hypothetical, it doesn't matter if he was proven right in the end or not. He should be removed from office, two wrongs don't make a right.

You are correct. If he did all that, I would expect him to be expelled from Congress - although I assume he would resign first. Unclear if this would be a criminal case, maybe bribery in my hypothetical.

I don't think you leave someone in power to abuse it more just because the guy who undercovered the malfeasance was dirty. What if "deep throat" Mark Felt had been hyperpartisan? And would Republicans have insisted that he be identified and subpoenaed, and would that have vindicated Nixon as a victim of his enemies?

To help crunch out, these are hypothetical statements, so your assertion that Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense is less than useless. You can recognize hypothetical arguments by phrases like "consider for the sake of argument", "what if", "even if". Dershowitz used these over and over.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #447 on: January 31, 2020, 07:42:41 PM »
Let's say that everything you assert is true. Schiff was in on it from the start, wrote the script himself, gave him $50k and a foot massage.

Would that then mean Trump should be acquitted, even if he had committed an impeachable offense?

In this case, truth is very much in the eye of the beholder regarding Trump. As to Schiff, it introduces a poisoned well into the mix, and the potential need for criminal charges against the whistleblower, and either the impeachment or resignation of Schiff.

If Schiff did do the above hypothetical, it doesn't matter if he was proven right in the end or not. He should be removed from office, two wrongs don't make a right.

You are correct. If he did all that, I would expect him to be expelled from Congress - although I assume he would resign first. Unclear if this would be a criminal case, maybe bribery in my hypothetical.

I don't think you leave someone in power to abuse it more just because the guy who undercovered the malfeasance was dirty. What if "deep throat" Mark Felt had been hyperpartisan? And would Republicans have insisted that he be identified and subpoenaed, and would that have vindicated Nixon as a victim of his enemies?

To help crunch out, these are hypothetical statements, so your assertion that Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense is less than useless. You can recognize hypothetical arguments by phrases like "consider for the sake of argument", "what if", "even if". Dershowitz used these over and over.

The problem is, and I dodged it in my initial response, is that operating on the assumption that it was proven that what Trump did was impeachable. Then he should be impeached.

The problem at hand is that it was not proven he did something impeachable, because the Democrats botched their job when the House had control of the situation. It was not, and is not, the Senate's job to fix the screw up of the House in an impeachment proceeding. The real precedent being set in this case, not the one Democrat partisans will be claiming, is that it is the responsability of the House to make sure their case is "in order" prior to impeaching someone and sending it on to the Senate. The Senate's role is to hear the case for Impeachment, not investigate it further after that stage has been reached.

The House knew there were more witnesses they could call, and that an already existing mechanism existed to gain access to said witnesses. They declined to use it, under the guise "it's urgent, urgent, emergency" and ignoring that for the Senate to "investigate properly"(again, not their role) they'd likely end up with comparable legal roadblocks to address.

The fault lies with the House. In their rush to get it out the door(which was entirely motivated by Politics), they ensured the case was going to fail even before they ratified the Articles of Impeachment in December. But they knew that then, their political calculation is this outcome, now that it is all but assured, is going to help them in the 2020 campaign cycle. We'll find out in November.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #448 on: January 31, 2020, 08:24:43 PM »
Acquittal should happen tomorrow. Schiff, Schumer and team won't stop but the cold truth is that while they've been taking this swing, they've taken their eye off the ball. If you come at the king you best not miss, and now a socialist will be their party's nominee. The speed and depth of change within their own party must be dizzying to anyone born before 1990.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #449 on: January 31, 2020, 11:39:22 PM »
The House knew there were more witnesses they could call, and that an already existing mechanism existed to gain access to said witnesses. They declined to use it, under the guise "it's urgent, urgent, emergency" and ignoring that for the Senate to "investigate properly"(again, not their role) they'd likely end up with comparable legal roadblocks to address.

To be fair, I think in order to evaluate how much of a screw up hurrying the process is, we need to think about what the process is supposed to prevent, which is a sitting President doing bad things. Imagining that the impeachable offenses may have included really bad things (vaguely pressuring the Ukraine not being such a thing, even if it is vaguely bad) it might very well be urgent to remove the President. People could be dying, the nation in danger, and with that looming the notion that the Congress has to wait 6-12 months to get some slow process in order reminds me of the Old Republic in the SW prequels. If a President is committing crimes it needs to be possible to get him out of there right quick, in theory. In practice this particular case seems by some to be an 'emergency' and to others a sham, so we have a weird case. If the Democrats truly believe this to be urgent - a point of view they will regret in future if some other President really does do terrible things after crying wolf this time - then I suppose I don't blame them for wanting it to be speedy. That in itself is not necessarily a fault, unless takes the view that they don't *really* see it as urgent but are trying to time the political optics game properly.