Impeachment, Indictment, 25th Amendment 5
This is a continuation of the topic Impeachment, Indictment, 25th Amendment 4.
This topic was continued by Impeach, Indict, 25th Amendment, Vote--REPEAT! 6.
Talk Pro and Con
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1margd
Greg Sargent @ThePlumLineGS | 2:13 PM · Jan 24, 2020:
Two questions about the "take her out" audio of Trump on Yovanovitch:
(1) Why is POTUS, who has the power to remove ambassadors, conspiring with goons to do so?
(2) WTF is SDNY doing, and is Barr interfering?
Opinion | Damning new audio of Trump illuminates scandal’s back alleys
Greg Sargent | Jan. 24, 2020
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/24/damning-new-audio-trump-illum...
Two questions about the "take her out" audio of Trump on Yovanovitch:
(1) Why is POTUS, who has the power to remove ambassadors, conspiring with goons to do so?
(2) WTF is SDNY doing, and is Barr interfering?
Opinion | Damning new audio of Trump illuminates scandal’s back alleys
Greg Sargent | Jan. 24, 2020
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/24/damning-new-audio-trump-illum...
3margd
Trump’s legal team contradicts DOJ position on subpoenas, House lawyers tell appeals court
Ann E. Marimow | Jan. 24, 2020
House lawyers told a federal appeals court late Thursday that arguments put forth by President Trump’s legal team in the Senate trial this week contradict the Justice Department’s position in two pending cases over witness testimony and evidence.
The lawyers for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to rule quickly on the pair of separation-of-powers cases, which they said could affect the Senate proceedings.
House Democrats went to court seeking testimony from former White House counsel Donald McGahn and access to secret grand jury evidence from former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation. Justice Department attorneys have urged the appeals court to stay out of what they say are political disputes between Congress and the White House.
But at the Senate trial this week, Trump’s lawyers criticized House Democrats for moving too swiftly to impeach the president without allowing the courts to rule on the congressional subpoenas...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/trumps-legal-team-contradicts...
______________________________________________________________________________
Ian Bassin @ianbassin | 3:17 PM · Jan 24, 2020:
Trump Admin to Congress: You need to litigate your subpoenas in court. That’s what courts are for.
Trump Admin to Courts: You can’t adjudicate these subpoenas. That’s not what courts are for.
🤔
Quote Tweet
Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney · Jan 23
NEW: The House has filed a letter with the Appeals Court arguing that
Trump's impeachment lawyers have completely contradicted their arguments in the McGahn case.
Image ( https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1220552453768261635/photo/1 )
Ann E. Marimow | Jan. 24, 2020
House lawyers told a federal appeals court late Thursday that arguments put forth by President Trump’s legal team in the Senate trial this week contradict the Justice Department’s position in two pending cases over witness testimony and evidence.
The lawyers for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to rule quickly on the pair of separation-of-powers cases, which they said could affect the Senate proceedings.
House Democrats went to court seeking testimony from former White House counsel Donald McGahn and access to secret grand jury evidence from former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation. Justice Department attorneys have urged the appeals court to stay out of what they say are political disputes between Congress and the White House.
But at the Senate trial this week, Trump’s lawyers criticized House Democrats for moving too swiftly to impeach the president without allowing the courts to rule on the congressional subpoenas...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/trumps-legal-team-contradicts...
______________________________________________________________________________
Ian Bassin @ianbassin | 3:17 PM · Jan 24, 2020:
Trump Admin to Congress: You need to litigate your subpoenas in court. That’s what courts are for.
Trump Admin to Courts: You can’t adjudicate these subpoenas. That’s not what courts are for.
🤔
Quote Tweet
Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney · Jan 23
NEW: The House has filed a letter with the Appeals Court arguing that
Trump's impeachment lawyers have completely contradicted their arguments in the McGahn case.
Image ( https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1220552453768261635/photo/1 )
4margd
Trump Is Not Shamed
Dahlia Lithwick | Jan 23, 2020
...As the Senate hears his case, Trump is recommitting some of the same offenses that got him impeached in the first place.
...this month alone?
...the Commerce Department announced that it would refuse to obey a congressional demand for the release of a 2018 investigation into national security risks around imports of autos and auto parts, citing a presidential claim that it would “interfere with the president’s ability to protect confidential executive branch communications and could interfere with ongoing negotiations.”
...without any explanation, the Trump administration abruptly canceled four classified briefings related to the Iran crisis, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refused a House request that he speak at a public hearing on the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. T
...Steve Mnuchin, Trump’s treasury secretary, tried to block disclosure of how much taxpayer money has been spent on Secret Service protection for presidential travel for Trump and his adult children until after the 2020 election.
....the FBI failed to comply with U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton’s order to turn over, by Jan. 17, summaries from interviews with Jared Kushner in Robert Mueller’s investigation to CNN and BuzzFeed...
...U.S. Customs and Border Protection deported an Iranian student on a valid visa who was returning to Boston for school...despite...federal judge('s) emergency...ruling (that) his removal be stayed for two days pending a hearing in his case...
...a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals excoriated the Board of Immigration of Appeals for overt defiance of an earlier court order
...D.C.’s Attorney General Karl Racine charged the Trump inaugural committee and the Trump Organization with using $1 million of charitable funds to enrich the Trump family during the inauguration.
...This list isn’t by any means comprehensive, by the way...oversight moves away from government to journalists and private watchdogs, and as defiance of the law becomes the new normal...
...In giving up on (congressional prerogatives to define and monitor what the outer boundaries of presidential misbehavior might be), Senate Republicans are inviting more defiance of any oversight, more blanket claims of immunity, and an ever-expanding class of actions that if taken by the president, cannot be illegal. That’s not something that will happen next month or next year. It’s happening as the impeachment itself unfolds.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/donald-trump-impeachment-criming-con...
_____________________________________________________________________
“He Really Thinks His Call Was Perfect. It Wasn’t”: Trump at Odds With GOP, Kushner*, His Campaign as Impeachment Bites
Gabriel Sherman | January 24, 2020
...As Donald Trump’s defense team prepares to make its first arguments on the floor of the Senate on Saturday, top Republicans are increasingly worried that Trump’s lawyers are woefully unprepared to counter Democrats’ meticulous, fact-based case for removing Trump. In the president’s circle there’s not full-blown panic—but there’s worry....
Trump himself is making the situation worse, both with his rages—he set a 142-tweet record on Wednesday—and his insistence that Republicans buy in fully to his defense strategy...
Removing Trump from office remains a distant outcome, but the dynamics of the Senate trial are clearly shifting in directions that are dangerous for the president.
...a source close to Trump... “Senators really dislike Trump and are tired of having to go to the mat for him on crazy, batshit stuff...We know if senators took a secret vote today, he’d be removed.”
...impeachment is a serious drag on his campaign...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/trump-at-odds-with-kushner-as-impeachmen...
* Kushner made Time cover
Dahlia Lithwick | Jan 23, 2020
...As the Senate hears his case, Trump is recommitting some of the same offenses that got him impeached in the first place.
...this month alone?
...the Commerce Department announced that it would refuse to obey a congressional demand for the release of a 2018 investigation into national security risks around imports of autos and auto parts, citing a presidential claim that it would “interfere with the president’s ability to protect confidential executive branch communications and could interfere with ongoing negotiations.”
...without any explanation, the Trump administration abruptly canceled four classified briefings related to the Iran crisis, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refused a House request that he speak at a public hearing on the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. T
...Steve Mnuchin, Trump’s treasury secretary, tried to block disclosure of how much taxpayer money has been spent on Secret Service protection for presidential travel for Trump and his adult children until after the 2020 election.
....the FBI failed to comply with U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton’s order to turn over, by Jan. 17, summaries from interviews with Jared Kushner in Robert Mueller’s investigation to CNN and BuzzFeed...
...U.S. Customs and Border Protection deported an Iranian student on a valid visa who was returning to Boston for school...despite...federal judge('s) emergency...ruling (that) his removal be stayed for two days pending a hearing in his case...
...a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals excoriated the Board of Immigration of Appeals for overt defiance of an earlier court order
...D.C.’s Attorney General Karl Racine charged the Trump inaugural committee and the Trump Organization with using $1 million of charitable funds to enrich the Trump family during the inauguration.
...This list isn’t by any means comprehensive, by the way...oversight moves away from government to journalists and private watchdogs, and as defiance of the law becomes the new normal...
...In giving up on (congressional prerogatives to define and monitor what the outer boundaries of presidential misbehavior might be), Senate Republicans are inviting more defiance of any oversight, more blanket claims of immunity, and an ever-expanding class of actions that if taken by the president, cannot be illegal. That’s not something that will happen next month or next year. It’s happening as the impeachment itself unfolds.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/donald-trump-impeachment-criming-con...
_____________________________________________________________________
“He Really Thinks His Call Was Perfect. It Wasn’t”: Trump at Odds With GOP, Kushner*, His Campaign as Impeachment Bites
Gabriel Sherman | January 24, 2020
...As Donald Trump’s defense team prepares to make its first arguments on the floor of the Senate on Saturday, top Republicans are increasingly worried that Trump’s lawyers are woefully unprepared to counter Democrats’ meticulous, fact-based case for removing Trump. In the president’s circle there’s not full-blown panic—but there’s worry....
Trump himself is making the situation worse, both with his rages—he set a 142-tweet record on Wednesday—and his insistence that Republicans buy in fully to his defense strategy...
Removing Trump from office remains a distant outcome, but the dynamics of the Senate trial are clearly shifting in directions that are dangerous for the president.
...a source close to Trump... “Senators really dislike Trump and are tired of having to go to the mat for him on crazy, batshit stuff...We know if senators took a secret vote today, he’d be removed.”
...impeachment is a serious drag on his campaign...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/trump-at-odds-with-kushner-as-impeachmen...
* Kushner made Time cover
5margd
Adam Schiff @RepAdamSchiff | 3:53 PM · Jan 24, 2020:
Let’s imagine it wasn’t Joe Biden.
Let’s imagine it was any one of us.
Let’s imagine the most powerful man in the world was asking a foreign nation to conduct a sham investigation of us.
What would we think about it then?
Because next time, it might be.
1:42 ( https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1220811846699114497 )
U.S. Senate | Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump
___________________________________________________________
House Intelligence Committee @HouseIntel | 8:06 PM · Jan 24, 2020:
President Trump's position:
—He cannot be investigated for crimes
—He can end any federal investigation into him
—Neither he nor his aides can be subpoenaed
—Congress can't investigate him outside of an impeachment inquiry
—And they can't investigate him as part of one, either
0:58 ( House Impeachment Manager Jason Crow, https://twitter.com/HouseIntel/status/1220875454762180608 )
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS | Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump
___________________________________________________________
Adam Schiff @RepAdamSchiff | 9:14 PM · Jan 24, 2020:
All over the world, those living under oppressive regimes look to us.
They look to us because we have a rule of law. Because in America, no one is above that law.
To my Senate colleagues, I implore you:
Give America a fair trial.
She's worth it.
3:34 ( https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1220892620169281536 )
U.S. Senate | Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump
Let’s imagine it wasn’t Joe Biden.
Let’s imagine it was any one of us.
Let’s imagine the most powerful man in the world was asking a foreign nation to conduct a sham investigation of us.
What would we think about it then?
Because next time, it might be.
1:42 ( https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1220811846699114497 )
U.S. Senate | Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump
___________________________________________________________
House Intelligence Committee @HouseIntel | 8:06 PM · Jan 24, 2020:
President Trump's position:
—He cannot be investigated for crimes
—He can end any federal investigation into him
—Neither he nor his aides can be subpoenaed
—Congress can't investigate him outside of an impeachment inquiry
—And they can't investigate him as part of one, either
0:58 ( House Impeachment Manager Jason Crow, https://twitter.com/HouseIntel/status/1220875454762180608 )
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS | Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump
___________________________________________________________
Adam Schiff @RepAdamSchiff | 9:14 PM · Jan 24, 2020:
All over the world, those living under oppressive regimes look to us.
They look to us because we have a rule of law. Because in America, no one is above that law.
To my Senate colleagues, I implore you:
Give America a fair trial.
She's worth it.
3:34 ( https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1220892620169281536 )
U.S. Senate | Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump
6proximity1
As can be seen from the graph, above, those polled who favor Trump's impeachment and removal have not reached 49% since October 23rd, 2019.
Meanwhile, as seen in the graph, below, Trump's overall job-approval rating is within a 1.2 percentage points (44.8) of its all-time high-point (46%) since his inaguration in January of 2017.
7margd
Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 9:37 AM · Jan 25, 2020:
Our case against
lyin’, cheatin’, liddle’ Adam “Shifty” Schiff,
Cryin’ Chuck Schumer,
Nervous Nancy Pelosi, their leader,
dumb as a rock AOC, &
the entire Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrat Party,
starts today at 10:00 A.M. on @FoxNews, @OANN, or Fake News @CNN, or Fake News MSDNC!
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 9:37 AM · Jan 25, 2020:
Our case against
lyin’, cheatin’, liddle’ Adam “Shifty” Schiff,
Cryin’ Chuck Schumer,
Nervous Nancy Pelosi, their leader,
dumb as a rock AOC, &
the entire Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrat Party,
starts today at 10:00 A.M. on @FoxNews, @OANN, or Fake News @CNN, or Fake News MSDNC!
8Molly3028
Putin/Trump are winning because the attention span of Americans
is so much shorter than it has ever been. The Impeachment is
exhibit #1 in this regard.
Today's Senate jury appears to be a present-day version of the
1995 OJ jury.
An Impeachment acquittal in the Senate will be the A-OK election
interference signal Putin is patiently waiting for from the modern-
day GOP/Cult45.
is so much shorter than it has ever been. The Impeachment is
exhibit #1 in this regard.
Today's Senate jury appears to be a present-day version of the
1995 OJ jury.
An Impeachment acquittal in the Senate will be the A-OK election
interference signal Putin is patiently waiting for from the modern-
day GOP/Cult45.
9margd
More reason to subpoena John Bolton's testimony.
Also, what and when did WH lawyers (and McConnell) know?
Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says
Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt | Jan. 26, 2020
...drafts of a manuscript...circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.
Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.
...Over dozens of pages, Mr. Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September. He described not only the president’s private disparagement of Ukraine but also new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement...Secretary of State Mike Pompeo...Attorney General William P. Barr...acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney...
...Mr. Bolton’s lawyer...Charles J. Cooper...Said he provided a copy of the book to the White House on Dec. 30 — 12 days after Mr. Trump was impeached — to be reviewed for classified information, though, he said, Mr. Bolton believed it contained none.
The submission to the White House may have given Mr. Trump’s aides and lawyers direct insight into what Mr. Bolton would say if he were called to testify at Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial...
...White House advisers have floated the possibility that they could go to court to try to obtain a restraining order to stop him from speaking. Such an order would be unprecedented, but any attempt to secure it could succeed in tying up his testimony in legal limbo and scaring off Republican moderates wary of letting the trial drag on when its outcome appears clear.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html
________________________________________________________________
The word ‘history’ comes from the Greek ‘historia’, ‘a finding out’, and ‘histor’, a ‘wise man’.
But its beginnings are even more ancient: from a root that also gave us the Latin ‘videre’, to see’.
...
Susie Dent @susie_dent | 2:15 AM · Jan 27, 2020
https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1221693109286903808
Also, what and when did WH lawyers (and McConnell) know?
Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says
Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt | Jan. 26, 2020
...drafts of a manuscript...circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.
Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.
...Over dozens of pages, Mr. Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September. He described not only the president’s private disparagement of Ukraine but also new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement...Secretary of State Mike Pompeo...Attorney General William P. Barr...acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney...
...Mr. Bolton’s lawyer...Charles J. Cooper...Said he provided a copy of the book to the White House on Dec. 30 — 12 days after Mr. Trump was impeached — to be reviewed for classified information, though, he said, Mr. Bolton believed it contained none.
The submission to the White House may have given Mr. Trump’s aides and lawyers direct insight into what Mr. Bolton would say if he were called to testify at Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial...
...White House advisers have floated the possibility that they could go to court to try to obtain a restraining order to stop him from speaking. Such an order would be unprecedented, but any attempt to secure it could succeed in tying up his testimony in legal limbo and scaring off Republican moderates wary of letting the trial drag on when its outcome appears clear.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html
________________________________________________________________
The word ‘history’ comes from the Greek ‘historia’, ‘a finding out’, and ‘histor’, a ‘wise man’.
But its beginnings are even more ancient: from a root that also gave us the Latin ‘videre’, to see’.
...
Susie Dent @susie_dent | 2:15 AM · Jan 27, 2020
https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1221693109286903808
10margd
Roberts, if not R senators, appears to care about his legacy and historical reputation.
In the end, will he go along with McConnell's kangaroo court?
John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?
Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards | Jan. 27, 2020
...An overwhelming number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe the Senate should hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump’s impeachment trial. Striking new revelations about the president’s role in the Ukraine affair, as reported from an unpublished manuscript by John Bolton, underscore the need for his testimony and that of others.
...Chief Justice John Roberts (gets to choose to hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump’s impeachment trial). This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice.
Most critically, it would take a two-thirds vote — not a majority — of the Senate to overrule that. This week, Democrats can and should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas on his authority so that key witnesses of relevance like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney appear in the Senate, and the Senate should subpoena all relevant documents as well.
...the chief justice can decide evidence questions like executive privilege, but his determinations can be overruled by a majority of senators...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.ht...
In the end, will he go along with McConnell's kangaroo court?
John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?
Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards | Jan. 27, 2020
...An overwhelming number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe the Senate should hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump’s impeachment trial. Striking new revelations about the president’s role in the Ukraine affair, as reported from an unpublished manuscript by John Bolton, underscore the need for his testimony and that of others.
...Chief Justice John Roberts (gets to choose to hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump’s impeachment trial). This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice.
Most critically, it would take a two-thirds vote — not a majority — of the Senate to overrule that. This week, Democrats can and should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas on his authority so that key witnesses of relevance like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney appear in the Senate, and the Senate should subpoena all relevant documents as well.
...the chief justice can decide evidence questions like executive privilege, but his determinations can be overruled by a majority of senators...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.ht...
11margd
Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?
Greg Sargent | Jan. 17, 2020
His final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!
We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said: Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/17/hannity-previews-trumps-final...
Greg Sargent | Jan. 17, 2020
His final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!
We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said: Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/17/hannity-previews-trumps-final...
12Molly3028
It appears that Pelosi and Bolton have turned out to be, by chance, teammates on TEAM AMERICA!
She stalled things long enough for his book publication date (etc.) to be revealed during the Senate trial!
Fate is working her magic!
She stalled things long enough for his book publication date (etc.) to be revealed during the Senate trial!
Fate is working her magic!
13Limelite
>12 Molly3028:
Law may be working her magic, too. Bolton has no legal standing to refuse complying with a subpoena on the basis of executive privilege and Trump has no legal standing to prevent Bolton from complying, either.
Democrats need to ask the Chief Justice to rule on calling witnesses. Precedence makes it indefensible to deny doing so; but if he were to deny them, Democrats need to demand the full senate vote on the ruling, something they can do.
Then it would be up to Republicans to either vote with the CJ, or against him. A vote to support denying witnesses will only expose them to the consequences of their votes at election time, after Bolton's book is published and the confirmation of Trump's guilt on the first article of impeachment is revealed -- in all its deplorable detail.
Should Republicans vote to overrule the CJ, it would open the door for them to call the irrelevant witnesses they want to hear from. After hearing from Bolton, to follow up with faux impeachment trial witnesses who are not involved in Trump's offenses would make Republicans look like smarmy idiots, a chronic condition they seem unable to avoid, that likely will disgust voters to the point their former supporters will stay away from the polls.
Kinda resembles a box, don't it?
Law may be working her magic, too. Bolton has no legal standing to refuse complying with a subpoena on the basis of executive privilege and Trump has no legal standing to prevent Bolton from complying, either.
Democrats need to ask the Chief Justice to rule on calling witnesses. Precedence makes it indefensible to deny doing so; but if he were to deny them, Democrats need to demand the full senate vote on the ruling, something they can do.
Then it would be up to Republicans to either vote with the CJ, or against him. A vote to support denying witnesses will only expose them to the consequences of their votes at election time, after Bolton's book is published and the confirmation of Trump's guilt on the first article of impeachment is revealed -- in all its deplorable detail.
Should Republicans vote to overrule the CJ, it would open the door for them to call the irrelevant witnesses they want to hear from. After hearing from Bolton, to follow up with faux impeachment trial witnesses who are not involved in Trump's offenses would make Republicans look like smarmy idiots, a chronic condition they seem unable to avoid, that likely will disgust voters to the point their former supporters will stay away from the polls.
Kinda resembles a box, don't it?
14Molly3028
>13 Limelite:
I'm loving this turn of events. I believe it is equal to the time the existence of the Nixon taping system
was exposed by Butterfield.
I'm loving this turn of events. I believe it is equal to the time the existence of the Nixon taping system
was exposed by Butterfield.
15margd
Boy, are Trump, his lawyers, RNC, and other defenders scared of Bolton!
It WILL come out, though--sooner or later.
Julia Davis (Daily Beast) @JuliaDavisNews | 11:01 PM · Jan 27, 2020:
The White House is reportedly considering taking out a restraining order to silence John Bolton
Panicked Trump Hits Back at Bolton Book With Blizzard of Lies
The White House is reportedly considering taking out a restraining order to silence the former national security adviser.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/john-bolton-book-impeachment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Sargent @ThePlumLineGS | 9:36 AM · Jan 27, 2020:
Crucial detail in NYT's Bolton scoop:
Sources tell NYT that Bolton's manuscript intensified worry among Trump's team about his testimony.
A former NSC official explains to me why it's likely Trump's lawyers did get it. That and much more in my new piece:
Opinion | Four big takeaways from the explosive John Bolton revelations
No new witnesses? GOP Senators have run out of excuses.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/27/four-big-takeaways-explosive-...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Haberman @maggieNYT | 1:09 PM · Jan 27, 2020:
RNC sends out email attacking Bolton
Image ( https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1221857779096440834 )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Campbell @JasonSCampbell | 7:31 PM · Jan 27, 2020:
Just insane stuff happening on Lou Dobbs tonight
Image ( https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1221953995800862730 )
ETA
Lou Dobbs Slams Staunch Conservative John Bolton as ‘Tool for Radical Dems’
Justin Baragona | Jan. 28, 2020
DEEP STATE? “John Bolton himself has been reduced to a tool for the radical Dems and the deep state,” the pro-Trump host exclaimed...
...Despite Bolton’s longtime association with Fox and Republican politics, the fervently pro-Trump Dobbs went on a full-scale attack during his show Monday night...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/lou-dobbs-slams-staunch-conservative-john-bolton-a...
________________________________________________________
ETA:
Trump waived executive privilege when he called Bolton a liar
Barbara McQuade | Jan. 27, 2020
...Trump’s tweets directly denying the substance of Bolton’s reported allegations waive any privilege that might have protected them from public disclosure. Privilege is meant to keep a president’s secrets confidential. If the president reveals those secrets or publicly discusses the conversations himself, there is no longer any need to protect them from disclosure...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/27/trump-waived-executive-privile...
It WILL come out, though--sooner or later.
Julia Davis (Daily Beast) @JuliaDavisNews | 11:01 PM · Jan 27, 2020:
The White House is reportedly considering taking out a restraining order to silence John Bolton
Panicked Trump Hits Back at Bolton Book With Blizzard of Lies
The White House is reportedly considering taking out a restraining order to silence the former national security adviser.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/john-bolton-book-impeachment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Sargent @ThePlumLineGS | 9:36 AM · Jan 27, 2020:
Crucial detail in NYT's Bolton scoop:
Sources tell NYT that Bolton's manuscript intensified worry among Trump's team about his testimony.
A former NSC official explains to me why it's likely Trump's lawyers did get it. That and much more in my new piece:
Opinion | Four big takeaways from the explosive John Bolton revelations
No new witnesses? GOP Senators have run out of excuses.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/27/four-big-takeaways-explosive-...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Haberman @maggieNYT | 1:09 PM · Jan 27, 2020:
RNC sends out email attacking Bolton
Image ( https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1221857779096440834 )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Campbell @JasonSCampbell | 7:31 PM · Jan 27, 2020:
Just insane stuff happening on Lou Dobbs tonight
Image ( https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1221953995800862730 )
ETA
Lou Dobbs Slams Staunch Conservative John Bolton as ‘Tool for Radical Dems’
Justin Baragona | Jan. 28, 2020
DEEP STATE? “John Bolton himself has been reduced to a tool for the radical Dems and the deep state,” the pro-Trump host exclaimed...
...Despite Bolton’s longtime association with Fox and Republican politics, the fervently pro-Trump Dobbs went on a full-scale attack during his show Monday night...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/lou-dobbs-slams-staunch-conservative-john-bolton-a...
________________________________________________________
ETA:
Trump waived executive privilege when he called Bolton a liar
Barbara McQuade | Jan. 27, 2020
...Trump’s tweets directly denying the substance of Bolton’s reported allegations waive any privilege that might have protected them from public disclosure. Privilege is meant to keep a president’s secrets confidential. If the president reveals those secrets or publicly discusses the conversations himself, there is no longer any need to protect them from disclosure...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/27/trump-waived-executive-privile...
16margd
Strangely inappropriate topic choices for conflicted, projecting lawyers defending Trump:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/478857-trump-chooses-high-profile-bu...
Seth Abramson @SethAbramson | 6:22 PM · Jan 27, 2020
*TRUMP'S BIZARRE DEFENSE, DAY TWO*
🔷 corrupt lawyer Bondi lectures on corruption
( https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20191111/cerabino-keeping-america-and-qatar-g... )
🔷 conflicted lawyer Hershmann lectures on conflicts of interest
🔷 Purpura lectures on no quid pro quo after Bolton confirms one
🔷 pro-impeachment lawyer Starr lectures on the evil of impeachment
And--Alan Dershowitz reverses himself on impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors":
Never Been Wrong, But Is 'Far More Correct Right Now' (time.com)
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/478857-trump-chooses-high-profile-bu...
Seth Abramson @SethAbramson | 6:22 PM · Jan 27, 2020
*TRUMP'S BIZARRE DEFENSE, DAY TWO*
🔷 corrupt lawyer Bondi lectures on corruption
( https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20191111/cerabino-keeping-america-and-qatar-g... )
🔷 conflicted lawyer Hershmann lectures on conflicts of interest
🔷 Purpura lectures on no quid pro quo after Bolton confirms one
🔷 pro-impeachment lawyer Starr lectures on the evil of impeachment
And--Alan Dershowitz reverses himself on impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors":
Never Been Wrong, But Is 'Far More Correct Right Now' (time.com)
17lriley
It's amazing to me that Bolton's manuscript is inside lying around the White House for weeks and it's like nobody bothers to take a real look at it. Trump's own defense team even---it's as if they've taken no account of Bolton's story at all to structure Trump's defense around and now it's torpedoed them. WTF!--really. There is no level of competency to be found at all anywhere within this administration.
This is the Republican party's guy though and if he goes down there's a good chance that Pence goes down with him. These GOP Senators are between a rock and a hard place. Yeah they are craven sycophants but if Trump and Pence are forced out--who are they going to run in November?--they've even shut down some primaries. If they remove Trump they have no candidate and their entire party is delegitimized and in disarray. If they stick by him they probably lose the presidency--he will be indicted at least by the NYS attorney general and they'll more than probably lose more Senate and House seats. There are at least 26 Republican House members and 4 Republican Senators retiring this election. That's a pretty big number and a tell about how confident they are about future prospects of their party. 26 House members is 1 out of every 8.
This is the Republican party's guy though and if he goes down there's a good chance that Pence goes down with him. These GOP Senators are between a rock and a hard place. Yeah they are craven sycophants but if Trump and Pence are forced out--who are they going to run in November?--they've even shut down some primaries. If they remove Trump they have no candidate and their entire party is delegitimized and in disarray. If they stick by him they probably lose the presidency--he will be indicted at least by the NYS attorney general and they'll more than probably lose more Senate and House seats. There are at least 26 Republican House members and 4 Republican Senators retiring this election. That's a pretty big number and a tell about how confident they are about future prospects of their party. 26 House members is 1 out of every 8.
18proximity1
Alexander Hamilton's text impeaches President Trump's impeachers :
Alexander Hamilton's Objections and Answers Respecting the Administration of the Government
________________________
“For he alone is free
Who chooses what to will, and wills
His choice as destiny.
No eye his future can foretell.
No law his past explain
Whom neither Passion may compel,
Nor Reason can restrain.
Well?”
_____________
The Rake’s Progress
An Opera in three acts
A fable by
Wistan Hugh Auden and Chester Kallman
192wonderY
A deep dive into the anti-federalist position of some Founding Fathers
Mitch McConnell’s Complicity Has Deep Roots
To the antifederalists, the historian Jack Rakove notes in “Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution,” the Senate “loomed as a conspiratorial den” that could collude with the executive against the rest of the government. It could use its legislative powers to strike down House legislation and its executive powers — treaty-making and confirmation of presidential nominations — to govern without the direct consent of the people.
…
The antifederalists looked to impeachment as a prime example of everything that was wrong with the Senate. Despite the expectations of the Constitutional Convention, the antifederalists did not think the Senate would ever remove the president, much less any other official it approved of. “Should he, contrary to probability, be impeached, he is afterwards to be tried and adjudged by the Senate, and without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members who shall be present, he cannot be convicted — This Senate being constituted a privy council to the President, it is probable many of its leading and influential members may have advised or concurred in the very measures for which he may be impeached,” Luther Martin, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, observed in his November 1787 address to the Maryland legislature.
Likewise, the writer known as “Federal Farmer” argued that the high bar to removal and the deep entanglement of the Senate and the executive meant the impeachment power was practically a dead letter. “Under these circumstances the right of impeachment, in the House, can be of but little importance; the House cannot expect often to convict the offender, and, therefore, probably, will but seldom or never exercise the right.” And in an unpublished pamphlet, a young James Monroe levied a similar critique of impeachment. “In the operation of this government,” Monroe wrote, there might be offices “committed against one quarter of the community” that would be “highly beneficial to others.” In such a case, he asked, “could we expect from the representatives of these states a candid or impartial decision against the interests of their constituents?”
Mitch McConnell’s Complicity Has Deep Roots
To the antifederalists, the historian Jack Rakove notes in “Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution,” the Senate “loomed as a conspiratorial den” that could collude with the executive against the rest of the government. It could use its legislative powers to strike down House legislation and its executive powers — treaty-making and confirmation of presidential nominations — to govern without the direct consent of the people.
…
The antifederalists looked to impeachment as a prime example of everything that was wrong with the Senate. Despite the expectations of the Constitutional Convention, the antifederalists did not think the Senate would ever remove the president, much less any other official it approved of. “Should he, contrary to probability, be impeached, he is afterwards to be tried and adjudged by the Senate, and without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members who shall be present, he cannot be convicted — This Senate being constituted a privy council to the President, it is probable many of its leading and influential members may have advised or concurred in the very measures for which he may be impeached,” Luther Martin, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, observed in his November 1787 address to the Maryland legislature.
Likewise, the writer known as “Federal Farmer” argued that the high bar to removal and the deep entanglement of the Senate and the executive meant the impeachment power was practically a dead letter. “Under these circumstances the right of impeachment, in the House, can be of but little importance; the House cannot expect often to convict the offender, and, therefore, probably, will but seldom or never exercise the right.” And in an unpublished pamphlet, a young James Monroe levied a similar critique of impeachment. “In the operation of this government,” Monroe wrote, there might be offices “committed against one quarter of the community” that would be “highly beneficial to others.” In such a case, he asked, “could we expect from the representatives of these states a candid or impartial decision against the interests of their constituents?”
20Molly3028
Spineless GOP Congressional members are allowing their fear
of a life-long con man and cult personality to turn their wrath
against a conservative icon. Putin and his ilk around the globe are
watching a very entertaining Internet show.
of a life-long con man and cult personality to turn their wrath
against a conservative icon. Putin and his ilk around the globe are
watching a very entertaining Internet show.
22krolik
I suspect that the Bolton story will quickly be processed by the faithful as an apostasy and thus an earlier friend will no longer have a hearing.
Recent partisan division are no longer "tribal" but sadly metaphysical.
Recent partisan division are no longer "tribal" but sadly metaphysical.
23lriley
#22--Bolton being thrown out of the Trumpcultheaven is not necessarily a bad thing particularly if Trump loses in November and also if he takes a lot of other like minded hawks out of Trumpheaven with him. The neocons can form their own anti-Trumper party then.
Enemies of enemies are not really friends in cases like his---they're also present and future foes and really Bolton like Trump is an enemy of mankind. I like what Bolton has done in this case but he's no hero--he's a war happy ghoul.
Enemies of enemies are not really friends in cases like his---they're also present and future foes and really Bolton like Trump is an enemy of mankind. I like what Bolton has done in this case but he's no hero--he's a war happy ghoul.
24Limelite
Have to see if Dems can winnow minimum of 4 Repubs away from McTurtle's caucus. I'm afraid that between the lackeys' fear of the Orange Shitegibbon's powers of vengeance and his bribery with promises of campaign funding that that is precisely the carrot - stick maneuvering that keeps the fact-haters in line.
In terms of Realpolitik, for Repubs to let Dems win the Bolton witness fight means they would open themselves to further calls by them for additional witnesses, including Mulvaney and Pompeo, to name but two. And that spells doom for their desire for a quick trial and for their ability to keep the cover-up in place.
Some Repubs are predicting trial over by this Friday, which indicates intention to stifle all resemblance to a fair trial and to kick sand in the face of their senate trial oath. Not that either of those factors should surprise anyone.
In terms of Realpolitik, for Repubs to let Dems win the Bolton witness fight means they would open themselves to further calls by them for additional witnesses, including Mulvaney and Pompeo, to name but two. And that spells doom for their desire for a quick trial and for their ability to keep the cover-up in place.
Some Repubs are predicting trial over by this Friday, which indicates intention to stifle all resemblance to a fair trial and to kick sand in the face of their senate trial oath. Not that either of those factors should surprise anyone.
25margd
State of the Union address is Feb 4, I think. Trump didn't invite Pelosi to (Feb 5?) signing of USMCA... Maybe Bolton testimony? Could be an interesting week.
ETA: USMCA signing today (1/29) not next week.
ETA: USMCA signing today (1/29) not next week.
26margd
Why the White House May Not Dare Fight on Executive Privilege
Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissmann | January 28, 2020
...the White House might never truly want to litigate the executive privilege question. That’s because it could cause a federal court (or the Chief Justice) in short order to make the determination that the President committed a crime. Those advising the President would be wise to think hard before taking the actual step of asserting executive privilege to block the testimony of John Bolton or others.
As a threshold question, the judge will most probably look to whether an exception to executive privilege applies. The court could find that the privilege does not apply, for example, in those instances where the privilege has been waived by the President or his agents having spoken about the contents of the conversation. But there is another threshold issue: if the proposed testimony involves evidence of criminal activity (more commonly understood as the “crime-fraud” exception in the context of attorney-client privilege). As former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and his coauthors explained in a thorough analysis of executive privilege and its exceptions, “government officials cannot use constitutional privileges to hide evidence of crimes” (citing United States v. Nixon, United States v. Myers, Comm. on Judiciary, In Re Sealed Case).
Indeed, the Chief Judge in the District of Columbia courthouse, where the White House would need to bring a court case to block testimony based on a claim of executive privilege, has dealt with the crime fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege (which is generally more absolute than the executive privilege). Judges even warn counsel away from contesting the issue in these kinds of situations by noting that the court would then be compelled to determine if the relevant communications involved criminal activity*...
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20200128/former-trump-chief-of-staff-john-kel...
_____________________________________________________________
*
Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance
https://www.gao.gov/products/D21272
B-331564: Jan 16, 2020
In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation.Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President...
View Decision (PDF, 9 pages) https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
View Decision (HTML) https://www.gao.gov/products/D21272#mt=e-report
--------------------------------------------------
Press statement regarding GAO Decision B-331564, Office of Management and Budget--Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance
https://www.gao.gov/press/press-statement-b-331564-omb-ukraine.htm
Jan 16, 2020
Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissmann | January 28, 2020
...the White House might never truly want to litigate the executive privilege question. That’s because it could cause a federal court (or the Chief Justice) in short order to make the determination that the President committed a crime. Those advising the President would be wise to think hard before taking the actual step of asserting executive privilege to block the testimony of John Bolton or others.
As a threshold question, the judge will most probably look to whether an exception to executive privilege applies. The court could find that the privilege does not apply, for example, in those instances where the privilege has been waived by the President or his agents having spoken about the contents of the conversation. But there is another threshold issue: if the proposed testimony involves evidence of criminal activity (more commonly understood as the “crime-fraud” exception in the context of attorney-client privilege). As former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and his coauthors explained in a thorough analysis of executive privilege and its exceptions, “government officials cannot use constitutional privileges to hide evidence of crimes” (citing United States v. Nixon, United States v. Myers, Comm. on Judiciary, In Re Sealed Case).
Indeed, the Chief Judge in the District of Columbia courthouse, where the White House would need to bring a court case to block testimony based on a claim of executive privilege, has dealt with the crime fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege (which is generally more absolute than the executive privilege). Judges even warn counsel away from contesting the issue in these kinds of situations by noting that the court would then be compelled to determine if the relevant communications involved criminal activity*...
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20200128/former-trump-chief-of-staff-john-kel...
_____________________________________________________________
*
Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance
https://www.gao.gov/products/D21272
B-331564: Jan 16, 2020
In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation.Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President...
View Decision (PDF, 9 pages) https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
View Decision (HTML) https://www.gao.gov/products/D21272#mt=e-report
--------------------------------------------------
Press statement regarding GAO Decision B-331564, Office of Management and Budget--Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance
https://www.gao.gov/press/press-statement-b-331564-omb-ukraine.htm
Jan 16, 2020
27Molly3028
John Bolton is the "John Dean" of this very disturbing Trump era.
He had to step forward because GOP reps were not going to do
the right thing without being pushed in that direction. A TEAM
AMERICA member to the rescue in the nick of time!
He had to step forward because GOP reps were not going to do
the right thing without being pushed in that direction. A TEAM
AMERICA member to the rescue in the nick of time!
28margd
Breaking:
Lev Parnas making his way to the United States Senate
0:08 ( https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1222548599206301696 )
2. Lev Parnas has arrived at the United States Senate
( https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1222549532552110080 )
3. Media has found Lev Parnas at the United States Senate
( https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1222550138062802946 )
4. Lev Parnas has entered the United States Senate office buildings
( https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1222551567297122311 )
5. Lev Parnas making his way through the United States Senate
( https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1222554157393104896 )
- Adam Parkhomenko @AdamParkhomenko | 10:54 AM · Jan 29, 2020
Lev Parnas making his way to the United States Senate
0:08 ( https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1222548599206301696 )
2. Lev Parnas has arrived at the United States Senate
( https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1222549532552110080 )
3. Media has found Lev Parnas at the United States Senate
( https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1222550138062802946 )
4. Lev Parnas has entered the United States Senate office buildings
( https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1222551567297122311 )
5. Lev Parnas making his way through the United States Senate
( https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1222554157393104896 )
- Adam Parkhomenko @AdamParkhomenko | 10:54 AM · Jan 29, 2020
29Molly3028
https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/john-bolton-likes-tweet-saying-trump-should-fire...
Trump should fire the moron who hired John Bolton!
Fate is working her magic!
Trump should fire the moron who hired John Bolton!
Fate is working her magic!
30Limelite
BOLTON BOMBSHELL #2
Dem. Rep Eliot Engel claims Bolton "unprompted" in September to look into the ousting of former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
Engel probably calculated that now was the time to release this info because until he learned that Bolton's ms. had been leaked, he would have believed it wiser to keep quiet in order to protect Bolton from Trump's well known vengeful attacks that have been -- predictably -- launched against him since knowledge of Bolton's forthcoming book reached the public.
Added:
This event confirms in my mind that Republicans will stifle all attempts to call witnesses and seek withheld documents. To do so would leave them holding a live grenade that's pin has been pulled.
Dem. Rep Eliot Engel claims Bolton "unprompted" in September to look into the ousting of former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
Bolton and Engel spoke by phone Sept. 23 — two days before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry — and Bolton strongly implied something improper had taken place around Yovanovitch’s removal from her diplomatic post in Kyiv.https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/revealed-bolton-urged-house-dems-to-investigate...
Engel probably calculated that now was the time to release this info because until he learned that Bolton's ms. had been leaked, he would have believed it wiser to keep quiet in order to protect Bolton from Trump's well known vengeful attacks that have been -- predictably -- launched against him since knowledge of Bolton's forthcoming book reached the public.
Added:
This event confirms in my mind that Republicans will stifle all attempts to call witnesses and seek withheld documents. To do so would leave them holding a live grenade that's pin has been pulled.
32margd
"Yippee," says Bolton?
He has his advance, and this threat will only INCREASE book sales when it eventually IS published!
As if that were possible.
He has his advance, and this threat will only INCREASE book sales when it eventually IS published!
As if that were possible.
33margd
Had me slapping MY forehead!
Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable
Nikki Carvajal, Paul LeBlanc and Marshall Cohen | January 29, 2020
...Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor emeritus and high-profile defense attorney, argued that Trump cannot be impeached for pressuring Ukraine for investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden because doing so would be aimed at helping his reelection chances. Dershowitz said Trump's motivations would ultimately be fueled by the public interest because he believes his reelection is what's best for the country.
"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "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 elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
The comments, which came in response to a question about the legality of quid pro quos, could normalize the type of behavior that landed Trump in the middle of the impeachment scandal, and that Democrats say constitutes an improper solicitation of foreign influence in a US election.
Dershowitz added that all elected officials consider things in political terms, asking, "If you're just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters?"
"We may argue that it's not in the national interest for a particular president to get elected," he said, "and maybe we're right," but in order for it to be impeachable, he argued, one would have to prove that the decision was based solely on "corrupt motives."
"A complex middle case is 'I want to be elected. I think I'm a great president. I think I'm the greatest president there ever was and if I'm not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.' That cannot be an impeachable offense," Dershowitz concluded...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/dershowitz-quid-pro-quo/index.html
ETA---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOP: We should let the people decide in the next election.
Also GOP: The GOP has the absolute right to corrupt the next election to make sure the people don’t get to decide.
- Steven Strauss (Princeton Visiting Prof) @Steven_Strauss | 3:33 PM · Jan 29, 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA
One tweet said it best: Dershowitz finally "jumped the shark".
Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable
Nikki Carvajal, Paul LeBlanc and Marshall Cohen | January 29, 2020
...Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor emeritus and high-profile defense attorney, argued that Trump cannot be impeached for pressuring Ukraine for investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden because doing so would be aimed at helping his reelection chances. Dershowitz said Trump's motivations would ultimately be fueled by the public interest because he believes his reelection is what's best for the country.
"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "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 elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
The comments, which came in response to a question about the legality of quid pro quos, could normalize the type of behavior that landed Trump in the middle of the impeachment scandal, and that Democrats say constitutes an improper solicitation of foreign influence in a US election.
Dershowitz added that all elected officials consider things in political terms, asking, "If you're just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters?"
"We may argue that it's not in the national interest for a particular president to get elected," he said, "and maybe we're right," but in order for it to be impeachable, he argued, one would have to prove that the decision was based solely on "corrupt motives."
"A complex middle case is 'I want to be elected. I think I'm a great president. I think I'm the greatest president there ever was and if I'm not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.' That cannot be an impeachable offense," Dershowitz concluded...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/dershowitz-quid-pro-quo/index.html
ETA---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOP: We should let the people decide in the next election.
Also GOP: The GOP has the absolute right to corrupt the next election to make sure the people don’t get to decide.
- Steven Strauss (Princeton Visiting Prof) @Steven_Strauss | 3:33 PM · Jan 29, 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA
One tweet said it best: Dershowitz finally "jumped the shark".
34margd
Adam Schiff on Trump Admin threat to fight witnesses indefinitely (2:17):
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1222690536462733317
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1222690536462733317
35Molly3028
Trump/Barr/Pompeo must be delighted that Trump's lawyers &
defenders in the Senate are sending Putin the message that
interfering in the 2020 election is a wonderful idea ~ begging at
rallies and/or secret maneuverings will not be necessary THIS
TIME AROUND.
defenders in the Senate are sending Putin the message that
interfering in the 2020 election is a wonderful idea ~ begging at
rallies and/or secret maneuverings will not be necessary THIS
TIME AROUND.
36margd
Jonathan H. Adler (prof) @jadler1969 | 8:16 AM · Jan 30, 2020:
Note the only zeroes involve cases where proceedings ended because the individual resigned
Quote Tweet
James Wallner (sr fellow) @jiwallner · 9h
Witnesses in impeachment trials:
Blount = 0;
Pickering = 15;
Chase = 81;
Peck = 33;
Humphreys = 6;
Johnson = 47;
Belknap = 45;
Swayne = 47;
Archbald = 120;
English = 0;
Louderback = 46;
Ritter = 57;
Claiborne = 19;
Hastings = 59;
W. Nixon = 10;
Clinton = 3;
Kent = 0;
Porteous = 3
Note the only zeroes involve cases where proceedings ended because the individual resigned
Quote Tweet
James Wallner (sr fellow) @jiwallner · 9h
Witnesses in impeachment trials:
Blount = 0;
Pickering = 15;
Chase = 81;
Peck = 33;
Humphreys = 6;
Johnson = 47;
Belknap = 45;
Swayne = 47;
Archbald = 120;
English = 0;
Louderback = 46;
Ritter = 57;
Claiborne = 19;
Hastings = 59;
W. Nixon = 10;
Clinton = 3;
Kent = 0;
Porteous = 3
37margd
Republicans’ damaging new line of defense
(WaPo) Editorial Board | Jan. 29, 2020
...frightening. If Republicans acquit Mr. Trump on the basis of Mr. Dershowitz’s arguments, they will be saying that presidents are entitled to use their official powers to force foreign governments to investigate any U.S. citizen they choose to target — even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Mr. Trump could induce Russia or Saudi Arabia or China to spy on Mr. Biden, or on any other of the many people subject to his offensive tweets. In exchange for any embarrassing information, the president might offer official favors, such as arms sales or a trade deal or the lifting of sanctions. Do Republicans really wish to ratify such presidential authority? Will they not object if the next Democratic president resorts to it?
Republicans are finally beginning to accept the facts of what Mr. Trump did — though all the facts will not be known unless they allow Mr. Bolton and other witnesses to testify. They must now draw the necessary conclusion from those facts: that what Mr. Trump did was wrong. After doing so, they could argue that the offense does not merit impeachment, or that any sanction should be delivered by voters. But a conclusion that the president did nothing wrong would inflict grave damage on our political system.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-are-trying-to-pass-off-trump...
(WaPo) Editorial Board | Jan. 29, 2020
...frightening. If Republicans acquit Mr. Trump on the basis of Mr. Dershowitz’s arguments, they will be saying that presidents are entitled to use their official powers to force foreign governments to investigate any U.S. citizen they choose to target — even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Mr. Trump could induce Russia or Saudi Arabia or China to spy on Mr. Biden, or on any other of the many people subject to his offensive tweets. In exchange for any embarrassing information, the president might offer official favors, such as arms sales or a trade deal or the lifting of sanctions. Do Republicans really wish to ratify such presidential authority? Will they not object if the next Democratic president resorts to it?
Republicans are finally beginning to accept the facts of what Mr. Trump did — though all the facts will not be known unless they allow Mr. Bolton and other witnesses to testify. They must now draw the necessary conclusion from those facts: that what Mr. Trump did was wrong. After doing so, they could argue that the offense does not merit impeachment, or that any sanction should be delivered by voters. But a conclusion that the president did nothing wrong would inflict grave damage on our political system.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-are-trying-to-pass-off-trump...
38proximity1
In a remarkably stupid article ( "Is Trump Above the Law?") in The New York Review of Books (January 16th, 2020 / Vol. LXVII, No. 1) Noah Feldman (Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University Law School) writes,
Nonsense. No, Professor Feldman. First, it isn't an "argument". It's a principle of legal jurisprudence and, second, there is nothing about this principle that makes it peculiar to "Democrats"; so your attempt to slyly observe that this "argument" goes like this: "Democrats should not be able to impeach simply by reciting the words 'abuse of power' and then assigning any meaning they want to those words" is suggestive of the convenient approach you take to general principles of jurisprudence.
Instead, the principle, rightly stated, as a principle is "None should ground impeachment simply on a recital of the words 'abuse of power' and then assign any convenient meaning to those words"
And this principle isn't just a recent nice idea about how to promote fairness in the application of law. It's stated expressly in various amendments from the first to the ninth in what are commonly referred to as the Constitution's "Bill of Rights"; to appreciate the import of them, it's essential to review how their several clauses produce a larger theory of general civil rights, in this case, enjoyed by persons brought to answer civil suits or criminal charges in a court of law or its legal substitutes:
Notice that, in Professor Feldman's version of the important points, persons are protected from punishment: ..."no one should be punished without notice of a crime specified in advance."
But the Constitutional protections afforded by the amendments are a good deal stronger than that; and this is of the greatest importance. Under the Bill of Rights, it is not "merely" punishment which may not be done without "notice of a crime('s) specification" but, rather, it is the right to be free of being made to answer before the law at all for civil suits or criminal charges except by notice of a crime (or civil tort ( FR.: "wrong") ) specified in advance.
So, then, we need just never mind that Professor Feldman's assertion, "Yet impeachment and removal are not punishments," is absurd—which it is. The point, rather, is that the president's accusers have no right to make him answerable for charges which are not specified in advance.
Under the Constitution's clauses regarding impeachment, the notice is of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."(1) So we're obliged to correctly understand what these words mean and were intended to mean. As I see it, "bribery", "treason" (expressly defined in the Constitution's text itself) and "other... crimes and misdemeanors" are to be understood as applying to those persons who hold "high" elective or appointive office: Constitutional officers first and foremost—the president, vice president, the Secretary of State, federal judges, Justices of the Supreme Court, and members of the federal legislature, the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States Congress.(2) These are people whose crimes and misdemeanors when committed in the course of their official duties, constitute "high" crimes and misdemeanors. Thus, driving while intoxicated is not a "high crime or misdemeanor" even when the accused is a member of Congress, a Supreme Court Justice or federal judge, or president, vice-president or member of the president's cabinet—the executive department's secretaries.
Not even all cases of "bribery", strictly speaking, are to be considered "high" crimes or misdemeanors. If president Kennedy had secretly bribed the Little League coach of his son, John Jr.'s team to make John Jr. the team pitcher, that bribery would and should not constitute an impeachable offense—though it's strictly speaking an act of bribery and it is unquestionably done by a "high" officer of the United States government. It isn't a high crime or misdemeanor because it does not concern the president's official acts or his official duties.
There are other areas of law, particularly criminal law but civil law as well, in which such high officials might be subject to impeachment by reason of the act's character, apart from its being part of the officials' statutorily defined duties. To personally commit or conspire with others in the commission (while in office) of murder, rape, robbery, or other crimes of violence or to commit crimes under existing treaties which constitute war crimes—these are rightly regarded as impeachable even when they are outside the realm of official acts of office or even when the crime's commission is "only" tangential to those duties.
In any case, we are not concerned here with such crimes and there is no particular urgency in taking up and settling the fine details of the circumstances in which a serving officer's involvement in such crimes should make him or her liable to impeachment and trial in the senate.
It's enough, instead, to confine ourselves to considering this president's acts done in office for reasons which directly relate to official government policy and, as such, are clearly set out and known to be crimes under the existing (federal) criminal code of the United States.
Bargaining for, soliciting or taking up for hypothetical consideration a foreign government's or a head-of-state's favors, aid, assistance, when pursuant to legitimate ends—the discovery or avoidance or prevention of crime, the furtherance of international agreements or existing treaties, —these are legal and legitimate as being within the president's purview (under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution); and the fact that, if and when successful and made publicly known, these acts may be helpful in a president's or another high official's current or potential ambitions for elective office does not, in and of itself, necessarily render them either illegal or illegitimate. (1(a))
In each and every instance, the high official has a right to require his or her accusers —or would-be accusers in civil or criminal cases—to show how the alleged acts were sufficiently recognizable under existing statutes as "crimes" or "misdemeanors" and, therefore, constituting, when done by a high government official, "high crimes or misdemeanors."
Going on, Professor Feldman writes,
Seriously? Are we to suppose that Trump or anyone else in his administration or on his team of legal counsellors has ever objected to the House of Representatives' impeachment authority itself? instead of, rather, the legitimacy of the grounds assumed to justify the undertaking of the process of impeachment?
And, as for this:
“I can find no example of any royal official in England who defied or denied the impeachment power of the House of Commons,”
I am sure that the American British-colonies' framers of the Constitution were quite familiar with the history of the tumultuous and conflicted “relations” between the English parliament and, in one case, Mary, Queen of Scots(3) (8 December 1542 – 8 February 1587 ) and, in a second and even greater case of direct defiance, that of Charles the First (4) (19 November 1600 – 30 January 1649), second son of King James VI of Scotland and Anne of Denmark—even if Professor Feldman is not familiar with this history.
_________________
(1) Article II, Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
(1(a))
(2) See, also, on this point:
"Meaning of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' " by Jon Roland at Constitution Society.
(3)
(4)
...
"The philosophical defense that the president should only be impeachable for a defined statutory crime is probably the strongest defense available to Trump's supporters. It rests on what is sometimes called the principle of legality, namely, that no one should be punished without notice of a crime specified in advance. As expressed by the House Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, Doug Collins, the argument is that Democrats should not be able to impeach simply by reciting the words 'abuse of power' and then assigning any meaning they want to those words.
“The strength of this defense rests on the intuitive sense that it must be unfair to punish someone for conduct he could not have known would merit punishment. Yet impeachment and removal are not punishments. Any criminal punishment for the president's actions would have to result from a separate criminal trial, at which the principle of legality would apply.
“More basically, however, it is often perfectly legitimate to sanction someone for conduct that is obviously morally wrong, even if it has not been clearly delineated in writing in advance. That is why, as a historical matter, common law judges sometimes punished behavior that was not known in advance to be criminal but that they considered morally wrong in itself. It is also surely the reason why constitutional commentators like Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story thought that the words 'high crimes and misdemeanors' were intended to be open-ended—and considered that open-endedness perfectly legitimate. Some conduct by a president is so obviously wrong that it does not have to be specified in advance. Trump, like every president before him, should have known that it would be morally wrong to use the power of his office to solicit a foreign government to investigate his presidential rival for his personal benefit.”
______________________
(emphasis added)
Nonsense. No, Professor Feldman. First, it isn't an "argument". It's a principle of legal jurisprudence and, second, there is nothing about this principle that makes it peculiar to "Democrats"; so your attempt to slyly observe that this "argument" goes like this: "Democrats should not be able to impeach simply by reciting the words 'abuse of power' and then assigning any meaning they want to those words" is suggestive of the convenient approach you take to general principles of jurisprudence.
Instead, the principle, rightly stated, as a principle is "None should ground impeachment simply on a recital of the words 'abuse of power' and then assign any convenient meaning to those words"
And this principle isn't just a recent nice idea about how to promote fairness in the application of law. It's stated expressly in various amendments from the first to the ninth in what are commonly referred to as the Constitution's "Bill of Rights"; to appreciate the import of them, it's essential to review how their several clauses produce a larger theory of general civil rights, in this case, enjoyed by persons brought to answer civil suits or criminal charges in a court of law or its legal substitutes:
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
___________________
(emphasis added)
Notice that, in Professor Feldman's version of the important points, persons are protected from punishment: ..."no one should be punished without notice of a crime specified in advance."
But the Constitutional protections afforded by the amendments are a good deal stronger than that; and this is of the greatest importance. Under the Bill of Rights, it is not "merely" punishment which may not be done without "notice of a crime('s) specification" but, rather, it is the right to be free of being made to answer before the law at all for civil suits or criminal charges except by notice of a crime (or civil tort ( FR.: "wrong") ) specified in advance.
So, then, we need just never mind that Professor Feldman's assertion, "Yet impeachment and removal are not punishments," is absurd—which it is. The point, rather, is that the president's accusers have no right to make him answerable for charges which are not specified in advance.
Under the Constitution's clauses regarding impeachment, the notice is of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."(1) So we're obliged to correctly understand what these words mean and were intended to mean. As I see it, "bribery", "treason" (expressly defined in the Constitution's text itself) and "other... crimes and misdemeanors" are to be understood as applying to those persons who hold "high" elective or appointive office: Constitutional officers first and foremost—the president, vice president, the Secretary of State, federal judges, Justices of the Supreme Court, and members of the federal legislature, the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States Congress.(2) These are people whose crimes and misdemeanors when committed in the course of their official duties, constitute "high" crimes and misdemeanors. Thus, driving while intoxicated is not a "high crime or misdemeanor" even when the accused is a member of Congress, a Supreme Court Justice or federal judge, or president, vice-president or member of the president's cabinet—the executive department's secretaries.
Not even all cases of "bribery", strictly speaking, are to be considered "high" crimes or misdemeanors. If president Kennedy had secretly bribed the Little League coach of his son, John Jr.'s team to make John Jr. the team pitcher, that bribery would and should not constitute an impeachable offense—though it's strictly speaking an act of bribery and it is unquestionably done by a "high" officer of the United States government. It isn't a high crime or misdemeanor because it does not concern the president's official acts or his official duties.
There are other areas of law, particularly criminal law but civil law as well, in which such high officials might be subject to impeachment by reason of the act's character, apart from its being part of the officials' statutorily defined duties. To personally commit or conspire with others in the commission (while in office) of murder, rape, robbery, or other crimes of violence or to commit crimes under existing treaties which constitute war crimes—these are rightly regarded as impeachable even when they are outside the realm of official acts of office or even when the crime's commission is "only" tangential to those duties.
In any case, we are not concerned here with such crimes and there is no particular urgency in taking up and settling the fine details of the circumstances in which a serving officer's involvement in such crimes should make him or her liable to impeachment and trial in the senate.
It's enough, instead, to confine ourselves to considering this president's acts done in office for reasons which directly relate to official government policy and, as such, are clearly set out and known to be crimes under the existing (federal) criminal code of the United States.
Bargaining for, soliciting or taking up for hypothetical consideration a foreign government's or a head-of-state's favors, aid, assistance, when pursuant to legitimate ends—the discovery or avoidance or prevention of crime, the furtherance of international agreements or existing treaties, —these are legal and legitimate as being within the president's purview (under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution); and the fact that, if and when successful and made publicly known, these acts may be helpful in a president's or another high official's current or potential ambitions for elective office does not, in and of itself, necessarily render them either illegal or illegitimate. (1(a))
In each and every instance, the high official has a right to require his or her accusers —or would-be accusers in civil or criminal cases—to show how the alleged acts were sufficiently recognizable under existing statutes as "crimes" or "misdemeanors" and, therefore, constituting, when done by a high government official, "high crimes or misdemeanors."
Going on, Professor Feldman writes,
… “If Trump's (presumed) abuse of office for personal gain is the epitome of the conduct feared by the framers, his outright refusal to cooperate in any way with the House impeachment inquiry would almost certainly have taken them (i.e. the framers) by surprise. Nothing in the debates at the Constitutional Convention or the ratifying conventions that followed suggests that the framers even began to imagine an executive who would purport to deny the House its power to impeach him. I can find no example of any royal official in England who defied or denied the impeachment power of the House of Commons.”
Seriously? Are we to suppose that Trump or anyone else in his administration or on his team of legal counsellors has ever objected to the House of Representatives' impeachment authority itself? instead of, rather, the legitimacy of the grounds assumed to justify the undertaking of the process of impeachment?
And, as for this:
“I can find no example of any royal official in England who defied or denied the impeachment power of the House of Commons,”
I am sure that the American British-colonies' framers of the Constitution were quite familiar with the history of the tumultuous and conflicted “relations” between the English parliament and, in one case, Mary, Queen of Scots(3) (8 December 1542 – 8 February 1587 ) and, in a second and even greater case of direct defiance, that of Charles the First (4) (19 November 1600 – 30 January 1649), second son of King James VI of Scotland and Anne of Denmark—even if Professor Feldman is not familiar with this history.
_________________
(1) Article II, Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
(1(a))
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
(2) See, also, on this point:
"Meaning of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' " by Jon Roland at Constitution Society.
(3)
( (Antonia Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots (1969) London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson) ) : … ‘As a sinner, I am truly conscious of having often offended my Creator, and I beg Him to forgive me, but as Queen and Sovereign, I am aware of no fault or offence for which I have to render account to anyone here below.’
—Mary Queen of Scots to Sir Amyas Paulet, October 1586
(Antonia Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots (1969) London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson)
(4)
(Wikipedia) : … “"I would know by what power I am called hither, by what lawful authority...?" He claimed that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch, that his own authority to rule had been given to him by God and by the traditional laws of England, and that the power wielded by those trying him was only that of force of arms. Charles insisted that the trial was illegal, explaining that,
no earthly power can justly call me (who am your King) in question as a delinquent ... this day's proceeding cannot be warranted by God's laws; for, on the contrary, the authority of obedience unto Kings is clearly warranted, and strictly commanded in both the Old and New Testament ... for the law of this land, I am no less confident, that no learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King, they all going in his name: and one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong ... the higher House is totally excluded; and for the House of Commons, it is too well known that the major part of them are detained or deterred from sitting ... the arms I took up were only to defend the fundamental laws of this kingdom against those who have supposed my power hath totally changed the ancient government.”
39fuzzi
The echo chamber continues, and continues.
>38 proximity1: what??? To heck with the law, to heck with the Constitution, to heck with the Bill of Rights, we have to get Trump!
>38 proximity1: what??? To heck with the law, to heck with the Constitution, to heck with the Bill of Rights, we have to get Trump!
The Left has shown that the collusion exoneration last year by the heralded Robert Mueller investigation—all 22-months, the “dream team,” and $34 million of it—meant absolutely nothing.https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/26/target-trump-forever/
Nor did it matter that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz found no justification of “collusion” in the Steele dossier to justify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants it issued to spy on Carter Page.
Both the Mueller and Horowitz investigations confirmed that even the partisan and warped FBI “Crossfire Hurricane” intrigues could find no Russian-Trump collusion.
And yet the House impeachment managers cannot finish a sentence without exclaiming “Russian collusion,” as if it has now transmogrified into some exotic foundational myth.
Remember, no sooner had Mueller found no collusion between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Kremlin and no actionable obstruction than the progressives narrative was recalibrated into Ukrainian quid pro quo—albeit after brief detours in “Recession!” and “Racism!”
Yet it is now as if neither Mueller nor Horowitz ever existed, as if we have forgotten the thousands of hours of investigation that found no Russian collusion, but indeed discovered the systematic warping of the FISA court by allegations of such falsities. As if to prove that the Mueller investigation was never biased, Andrew Weissmann now appears on MSNBC as a legal analyst to continue what he once did for Mueller, in the manner of the post-Russian “collusion” careers of Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and James Clapper. ...
40jjwilson61
>39 fuzzi: Are you suggesting that because Mueller "exonerated" Trump on accepting illegal help from the Russians in the last election that he can get away whatever else he wants to do?
(I put exonerated in quotes because Mueller also found evidence that Trump was obstructing the investigation which leaves open the possibility that Mueller was unable to find the evidence he needed because Trump successfully hid it).
(I put exonerated in quotes because Mueller also found evidence that Trump was obstructing the investigation which leaves open the possibility that Mueller was unable to find the evidence he needed because Trump successfully hid it).
41Molly3028
prox and fuzzi
are looking forward with glee to 5 more years of Trump
"unleashed." That would be the exact opposite of what every
Founder wanted for the America they forged in the Founding
Documents.
are looking forward with glee to 5 more years of Trump
"unleashed." That would be the exact opposite of what every
Founder wanted for the America they forged in the Founding
Documents.
42fuzzi
>40 jjwilson61: there's a lot of mind reading going on here, and elsewhere.
What part of the article I posted said what you just suggested?
What part of the article I posted said what you just suggested?
43jjwilson61
>42 fuzzi: The first sentence. "The Left has shown that the collusion exoneration last year by the heralded Robert Mueller investigation—all 22-months, the “dream team,” and $34 million of it—meant absolutely nothing."
I interpreted "meant absolutely nothing" as a complaint that what should have happened was that "The Left" should lay off Trump. If that's not what the author meant, then what do you think they meant?
I interpreted "meant absolutely nothing" as a complaint that what should have happened was that "The Left" should lay off Trump. If that's not what the author meant, then what do you think they meant?
44proximity1
>39 fuzzi:
Right you are. Getting something on Trump, however phony and fabricated, is a roving, carnevalesque, fifth-rate county-fair operation.
Therefore, if the F.I.S.A. court was flim-flammed with bogus and unsubstantiated so-called "evidence" of probable cause, or the "evidence" itself, the infamous Steele "dossier" was exposed and exploded as sheer junk, or if Mueller's waste of time, money and other resources based on these also, and, very predictably--because predicted-- came a'cropper, well, there are always other 'tents' at this wacky circus of hysterical morons and other acts under those tents.
_______________________
TM & © Warner Bros. (1948) (Wikipedia: Creative Commons)
"Badges?"
"We don't got no badges!"
"We don't need no badges!"
"I don't have to show you any stinking badges!"
Right you are. Getting something on Trump, however phony and fabricated, is a roving, carnevalesque, fifth-rate county-fair operation.
Therefore, if the F.I.S.A. court was flim-flammed with bogus and unsubstantiated so-called "evidence" of probable cause, or the "evidence" itself, the infamous Steele "dossier" was exposed and exploded as sheer junk, or if Mueller's waste of time, money and other resources based on these also, and, very predictably--because predicted-- came a'cropper, well, there are always other 'tents' at this wacky circus of hysterical morons and other acts under those tents.
_______________________
TM & © Warner Bros. (1948) (Wikipedia: Creative Commons)
"Badges?"
"We don't got no badges!"
"We don't need no badges!"
"I don't have to show you any stinking badges!"
45Limelite
Poor Dersh. He's doomed to be the video exhibit in the online definition of idiomatic English for "dog chasing it's own tail."
While he's doing his best to make a fool of himself -- and succeeding beyond even his own expectations -- Rep. Schiff lent a helping hand, pointing out that Barr's DOJ lawyers just completely contradicted Trump's impeachment defense.
Trump's counsel of clowns have been feverishly arguing that the charge of obstruction against their client is completely unwarranted, insisting Dems should have taken Trump to court to enforce subpoenas.
While Republicans fell all over themselves trying to scratch litter over their own crap, House Manager Schiff stood below C J Roberts and made fools out of the Trump defense team when he exposed them for chewing off their right paw when they didn't know what their left paw was doing.
While he's doing his best to make a fool of himself -- and succeeding beyond even his own expectations -- Rep. Schiff lent a helping hand, pointing out that Barr's DOJ lawyers just completely contradicted Trump's impeachment defense.
Trump's counsel of clowns have been feverishly arguing that the charge of obstruction against their client is completely unwarranted, insisting Dems should have taken Trump to court to enforce subpoenas.
But on Thursday, in an ongoing fight over the 2020 Census, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham said that the House can legitimately use its impeachment powers to respond to a president who defies subpoenas.Even John Turley, the Republican go-to legal scholar
. . .warned against “making a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts.”https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/politics/trump-impeachment-subpoena-hearing/index...
While Republicans fell all over themselves trying to scratch litter over their own crap, House Manager Schiff stood below C J Roberts and made fools out of the Trump defense team when he exposed them for chewing off their right paw when they didn't know what their left paw was doing.
. . .the Justice Department in resisting subpoenas is in court today … because, as we know, they’re in here arguing Congress must go to court to enforce its subpoenas, but they’re in the court saying ‘Congress, thou shalt not do that,’” he explained. “So the judge says: ‘If the Congress can’t enforce its subpoenas in court, then what remedy is there?’ And the Justice Department lawyer’s response is ‘Impeachment! Impeachment!’”https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/you-cant-make-this-up-senate-erupts-in-laughter...
At that, the Senate chamber burst into laughter.
“You can’t make it up!” Schiff said. “What more evidence do we need of the bad faith of this effort to cover up?”
46fuzzi
>43 jjwilson61: if after millions of taxpayer dollars and almost two years of investigations there is no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia (see the Mueller Report) then it seems to indicate that there wasn't any Trump/Russian collusion and the Dems need to stop wasting our money.
Read again:
And Adam Schiff needs to either admit he lied or produce the evidence he insisted he had (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/14/adam-schiff-there-ample-evidence-collusion-between-trump-campaign-russians/336786002/)
Read again:
Both the Mueller and Horowitz investigations confirmed that even the partisan and warped FBI “Crossfire Hurricane” intrigues could find no Russian-Trump collusion.
And yet the House impeachment managers cannot finish a sentence without exclaiming “Russian collusion,” as if it has now transmogrified into some exotic foundational myth.
And Adam Schiff needs to either admit he lied or produce the evidence he insisted he had (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/14/adam-schiff-there-ample-evidence-collusion-between-trump-campaign-russians/336786002/)
47jjwilson61
>46 fuzzi: ...then it seems to indicate that there wasn't any Trump/Russian collusion and the Dems need to stop wasting our money.
Are you under the impression that the impeachment is aboutRussian collusion. There was discussion about including some impeachment articles on Russia but they decided against it. This impeachment is about Ukraine, which is close to Russia, but it's not the same thing.
Are you under the impression that the impeachment is aboutRussian collusion. There was discussion about including some impeachment articles on Russia but they decided against it. This impeachment is about Ukraine, which is close to Russia, but it's not the same thing.
48John5918
>42 fuzzi: there's a lot of mind reading going on here, and elsewhere. What part of the article I posted said what you just suggested?
The article may or may not have said something explicitly, but it is not unreasonable for someone to point out the potential (perhaps unintended) consequences of that position or action.
The article may or may not have said something explicitly, but it is not unreasonable for someone to point out the potential (perhaps unintended) consequences of that position or action.
49Limelite
>46 fuzzi:
Are you another Republican trying to mischaracterize the impeachment of Donald John Trump?
Two articles have been filed. Look them up and read for yourself. Neither says a word about Trump/Russia collusion. Trump was impeached on both of them and no others.
But don't take comfort in the fact that these are the only articles filed. The House impeachment hearings, Trumps very own words, the public confessions of officials in his administration, and evidence that has emerged and continues to pile up since he was impeached all demonstrate that he could be impeached again on additional articles that meet the Constitutional test. In fact, there's nothing to prevent the House from filing new articles of impeachment and getting Trump on those, too.
That the Republicans in the Senate do not want to hear witnesses during Trump's "trial" (if that their behavior is anything approaching conducting an actual trial in the absence of calling witnesses) has informed 82% of Americans that those senators are merely participating in the cover-up of the truth.
In three weeks, like it or not, Bolton's secret-free ms. will become a secret-free published book, and anyone who isn't afraid of its contents can read it for themselves. Not to mention what is bound to be revealed at the trial(s) of Parnas and Fruman. Not to mention, further, that Trump faces and is still under numerous lawsuits and investigations. His legal troubles include (but may not be limited to):
Obstruction of Justice
Financial Corruption
Influence Peddling
Violation of Emoluments Clause (illegal profiting from presidency)
Defamation
Campaign Finance Violations. . .just to name some
And in about 3 weeks, all the sealed search and seizure warrants records from Roger Stone's trial will be released, probably around his Feb. 20th sentencing date. More info on Trump-Russia collusion?
As an ancillary, there's the ongoing investigation into Robert Hyde who is the person allegedly behind the surveillance of Amb. Yovanovitch. And an even another ancillary, there's also the FBI's counterintelligence probe into Trump's latest "fixer," Rudy Julie Annie. As Trump's personal lawyer, it may be hard to separate the master from the servant's illegal activities, should any be revealed.
The Senate "trial" looks like nothing more than the end of the beginning for Trump's trouble with the Law.
Are you another Republican trying to mischaracterize the impeachment of Donald John Trump?
Two articles have been filed. Look them up and read for yourself. Neither says a word about Trump/Russia collusion. Trump was impeached on both of them and no others.
But don't take comfort in the fact that these are the only articles filed. The House impeachment hearings, Trumps very own words, the public confessions of officials in his administration, and evidence that has emerged and continues to pile up since he was impeached all demonstrate that he could be impeached again on additional articles that meet the Constitutional test. In fact, there's nothing to prevent the House from filing new articles of impeachment and getting Trump on those, too.
That the Republicans in the Senate do not want to hear witnesses during Trump's "trial" (if that their behavior is anything approaching conducting an actual trial in the absence of calling witnesses) has informed 82% of Americans that those senators are merely participating in the cover-up of the truth.
In three weeks, like it or not, Bolton's secret-free ms. will become a secret-free published book, and anyone who isn't afraid of its contents can read it for themselves. Not to mention what is bound to be revealed at the trial(s) of Parnas and Fruman. Not to mention, further, that Trump faces and is still under numerous lawsuits and investigations. His legal troubles include (but may not be limited to):
Obstruction of Justice
Financial Corruption
Influence Peddling
Violation of Emoluments Clause (illegal profiting from presidency)
Defamation
Campaign Finance Violations. . .just to name some
And in about 3 weeks, all the sealed search and seizure warrants records from Roger Stone's trial will be released, probably around his Feb. 20th sentencing date. More info on Trump-Russia collusion?
As an ancillary, there's the ongoing investigation into Robert Hyde who is the person allegedly behind the surveillance of Amb. Yovanovitch. And an even another ancillary, there's also the FBI's counterintelligence probe into Trump's latest "fixer," Rudy Julie Annie. As Trump's personal lawyer, it may be hard to separate the master from the servant's illegal activities, should any be revealed.
The Senate "trial" looks like nothing more than the end of the beginning for Trump's trouble with the Law.
50Molly3028
America
1776 to January 31, 2020 ~ RIP
Scoreboard
Putin/Trump/Cult45 ~ 1
Founders ~ 0 (zero/zip)
1776 to January 31, 2020 ~ RIP
Scoreboard
Putin/Trump/Cult45 ~ 1
Founders ~ 0 (zero/zip)
51proximity1
(© Warner Bros., 1999, 2003)
( Photo: Visar Kryeziu/AP)
Top 8 Reasons Trump Already Won Impeachment | Whether the senators put the trial out of its misery this week or drag it on for months, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Here are the eight big reasons Trump won impeachment. | By Mollie Hemingway | January 30, 2020
The main question about which I now wonder is this:
How long, in the face of this débâcle, can Pelosi and Schumer survive as Democratic party leadership in the Congress?
They've been dreams-come-true for Donald Trump as his foes: inept, blatantly vile and vicious, moronic fools, bent on a creepy and dishonest program to reverse a democratic election outcome for partisan motives which are of the purest and most base kind.
How long before rank-and-file Democrats see and understand and refuse to further put up with the kind of shit-heads that are in the top posts in the party's Congressional organization?
_______________________________
See also:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/6128488129001
"Swing-vote GOP Sen. Alexander comes out against witnesses, paving way for imminent Trump acquittal" | By Gregg Re | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-republicans-do-or-die-moment-pivotal-vot...
52John5918
>51 proximity1:
You continue to repeat the fiction that this is about reversing an election result rather than holding a president accountable for his alleged misdeeds while in office.
You continue to repeat the fiction that this is about reversing an election result rather than holding a president accountable for his alleged misdeeds while in office.
53TrippB
>52 John5918:
”You continue to repeat the fiction that this is about reversing an election result rather than holding a president accountable…”
It isn’t fiction JTF. The impeachment effort began before Trump took office, and the Dems have been desperate to find a crime—any crime—to insert into this blatant, and repeatedly failed, attempt to reverse the election. They attempted to get traction with several other fabrications. When they couldn’t find an actual crime, they went with trying to fluff a dubious opinion into something that would get them enough votes to remove Trump, or at least turn a few voters against him before the next election. The House authorization to impeach was partisan. Not a single Republican went along with the charade, and one Dem congressman even changed his party to escape what has become of Democrats.
”You continue to repeat the fiction that this is about reversing an election result rather than holding a president accountable…”
It isn’t fiction JTF. The impeachment effort began before Trump took office, and the Dems have been desperate to find a crime—any crime—to insert into this blatant, and repeatedly failed, attempt to reverse the election. They attempted to get traction with several other fabrications. When they couldn’t find an actual crime, they went with trying to fluff a dubious opinion into something that would get them enough votes to remove Trump, or at least turn a few voters against him before the next election. The House authorization to impeach was partisan. Not a single Republican went along with the charade, and one Dem congressman even changed his party to escape what has become of Democrats.
54margd
Support for witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial:
Quinnipiac 75
Monmouth 80
Reuters 72
CNN 69
AP/NORC 68
WaPo 71
That's an average of 73%!
...
- Josh Jordan @NumbersMuncher | 11:21 PM · Jan 30, 2020
Quinnipiac 75
Monmouth 80
Reuters 72
CNN 69
AP/NORC 68
WaPo 71
That's an average of 73%!
...
- Josh Jordan @NumbersMuncher | 11:21 PM · Jan 30, 2020
55margd
Trump’s attorneys have butchered a crucial Founder’s take on impeachment
William M. Treanor | Jan. 31, 2020
...debates led (Founder PA's Gouverneur Morris) to realize that impeachment was a critically important tool for ensuring that the president did not abuse his power. “This Magistrate the president is not the King but the prime-Minister. The people are the King,” Morris declared.
The Founders had revolted against a king to preserve their freedoms. Morris, reflecting on the arguments of his fellow delegates, recognized that impeachment had to cover a broad range of abuses to safeguard the supremacy of the people against such tyranny.
And, in our time of fierce partisan divide, it is worth remembering Morris, not simply for his views on impeachment, but for the example he set: he listened to others and was open to changing his mind.
Dershowitz and others on Trump’s defense team have eagerly repeated Morris’s initial ideas about impeachment to suggest that much of the president’s conduct should be beyond the reach of the impeachment process. But by ignoring Morris’s evolution on this issue, they provide a misleading case about the Founders’ views on impeachment. And their invocation of Morris suggests that he is someone who held firm to the defense team’s position, when in reality, he is an extraordinary example of the importance of openness to the arguments of opponents.
Paying attention to how Morris’s thinking changed on the impeachment issue offers critical lessons to the Senate today. First, he listened with an open mind and was persuaded to adapt his view. And second, he came to appreciate the fact that in America, the people are sovereign and the president must not be above the law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/31/trumps-attorneys-have-butchere...
______________________________________________________________
George Conway: Don’t let the defense fool you. This impeachment is all about corruption.
George T. Conway III | Jan. 30, 2020
...Defying their own obligations of candor to the tribunals before which they appear, (Trump lawyers have) lied to and misled the court of impeachment about the House proceedings and underlying facts, peddled conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation, and of course about Ukraine and the Bidens.
Their legal position is likewise false. It’s just not true that good motives, when mixed with bad ones, compel acquittal under the law. If a politician takes a bribe to do what he thinks would have been best for the public anyway, he still goes to jail. If he’s president, under a Constitution that refers to impeachment specifically for “bribery,” as well other “high crimes and misdemeanors,” he should still be removed.
It’s also not true that “abuse of power” is not impeachable, or that a statutory crime is necessary for impeachment. And it’s not true, as Dershowitz argued Wednesday, that the Framers’ rejection of “maladministration” as a basis for impeachment means that abuse of power isn’t impeachable. The Framers rejected the word “maladministration” because it covered mistakes and incompetence, not because it also could mean abuse of power. In fact, they swapped “high crimes and misdemeanors” into the final document precisely because it does cover such abuse.
It couldn’t be any other way, if you think about it for even a moment. Trump’s lawyers are right that if a president does what he honestly thinks is simultaneously in his personal electoral and the national interests, that’s not impeachable, in the following sense: If a president cuts taxes because he thinks it will get him reelected and it will create jobs, that’s fine. That’s ordinary electoral politics.
But if he cuts taxes because he has an agreement with a major backer that, in exchange for tax cuts, the backer will fund a huge super PAC to support his reelection, that’s impeachable — because that’s a corrupt quid pro quo for his personal benefit. So, too, if a president conditions another official act — releasing security assistance to a foreign country — on a requirement that the foreign country smear the president’s political opponent. That’s not politics; that’s corruption.
And corruption, for all the Trump lawyers’ attempt to muddy the waters with tortured interpretations of the Constitution, is what this impeachment is all about...
...Republican senators seem...so willing to entertain a false reading of the Constitution that would effectively render the impeachment clause a nullity. Should they do that, they will have sacrificed their own oaths to protect their own electoral prospects, and the country and the Constitution will have been saddled with a terrible precedent. The Senate will have told Trump that, indeed, he can do whatever he wants.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-conway-dont-let-the-defense-fool-...
______________________________________________________________
ETA
The impeachment trial hurtles toward its worst-case conclusion
Dana Milbank | Jan. 30, 2020
...With their votes to acquit, senators will embrace a new concept: Right is whatever the president says it is.
We are lost.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/30/impeachment-trial-hurtles-tow...
______________________________________________________________
ETA
John Roberts stares down another possible legacy moment
Joan Biskupic | January 31, 2020
...Will he break a tie...Senate may be evenly divided on (vote over witnesses), Democrats especially have argued that Roberts should be able to break a tie vote.
...In the 1868 trial of President Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Salmon Chase broke tie votes twice, but his overall political approach remains controversial today. In 1999, when Chief Justice William Rehnquist oversaw the trial of President Bill Clinton, he never faced an evenly split Senate vote. Rehnquist saw his role as more ministerial than the authority Chase seized.
Senate rules did not give the chief the power to cast votes, but they do dictate that he could make determinations on the relevance and materiality of evidence. The rules say that the chief could be reversed by a majority of the Senate.
...a recent Congressional Research Service report observed, "The Chief Justice, when presiding over an impeachment trial, would not be expected to vote, even in the case of a tie. If a vote on a question results in a tie, the question is decided in the negative."
...based on Roberts' trademark caution and use of Rehnquist as a model, he may shun any opportunity to make a real difference in this trial...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/john-roberts-impeachment-legacy/index.ht...
________________________________________________________________
ETA
1. Acquittal, But Not Exoneration
Charlie Sykes| Jan 31, 2020
...Even by the standards of the last 3 years, what we are seeing is a pretty stunning act of self-abasement by the GOP senate.
By refusing to have witnesses the GOP (1) assured that Trump’s acquittal is not an exoneration, (2) defies overwhelming public support for hearing witnesses (3) puts the GOP senate majority at risk by forcing vulnerables to cast toxic vote for a coverup.....
I think that the GOP underestimates the intensity of the backlash against their vote on witnesses. Of course I could be wrong, but I think it will offend American's innate sense of fairness... and casts real doubt on the fairness and even legitimacy of the verdict. And this is a problem for Trump.
Both sides now have their talking points, but without witnesses, there is no clean verdict... especially as more stuff keeps coming out.
Now folks like Martha McSally, Cory Gardner, Joni Ernst, and Thom Tillis will have to explain why they couldn't be bothered to listen to witnesses who might tell them the truth about what happened. The ads write themselves.This is what I had to say last night: I think McConnell bet his senate majority on Trumpism.. and, as a result, the senate is in now play:
Exit take: John Bolton can still speak.. anytime he wants. His move now... And lordy, there are more tapes...
https://mailchi.mp/thebulwark/acquittal-but-not-exoneration
William M. Treanor | Jan. 31, 2020
...debates led (Founder PA's Gouverneur Morris) to realize that impeachment was a critically important tool for ensuring that the president did not abuse his power. “This Magistrate the president is not the King but the prime-Minister. The people are the King,” Morris declared.
The Founders had revolted against a king to preserve their freedoms. Morris, reflecting on the arguments of his fellow delegates, recognized that impeachment had to cover a broad range of abuses to safeguard the supremacy of the people against such tyranny.
And, in our time of fierce partisan divide, it is worth remembering Morris, not simply for his views on impeachment, but for the example he set: he listened to others and was open to changing his mind.
Dershowitz and others on Trump’s defense team have eagerly repeated Morris’s initial ideas about impeachment to suggest that much of the president’s conduct should be beyond the reach of the impeachment process. But by ignoring Morris’s evolution on this issue, they provide a misleading case about the Founders’ views on impeachment. And their invocation of Morris suggests that he is someone who held firm to the defense team’s position, when in reality, he is an extraordinary example of the importance of openness to the arguments of opponents.
Paying attention to how Morris’s thinking changed on the impeachment issue offers critical lessons to the Senate today. First, he listened with an open mind and was persuaded to adapt his view. And second, he came to appreciate the fact that in America, the people are sovereign and the president must not be above the law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/31/trumps-attorneys-have-butchere...
______________________________________________________________
George Conway: Don’t let the defense fool you. This impeachment is all about corruption.
George T. Conway III | Jan. 30, 2020
...Defying their own obligations of candor to the tribunals before which they appear, (Trump lawyers have) lied to and misled the court of impeachment about the House proceedings and underlying facts, peddled conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation, and of course about Ukraine and the Bidens.
Their legal position is likewise false. It’s just not true that good motives, when mixed with bad ones, compel acquittal under the law. If a politician takes a bribe to do what he thinks would have been best for the public anyway, he still goes to jail. If he’s president, under a Constitution that refers to impeachment specifically for “bribery,” as well other “high crimes and misdemeanors,” he should still be removed.
It’s also not true that “abuse of power” is not impeachable, or that a statutory crime is necessary for impeachment. And it’s not true, as Dershowitz argued Wednesday, that the Framers’ rejection of “maladministration” as a basis for impeachment means that abuse of power isn’t impeachable. The Framers rejected the word “maladministration” because it covered mistakes and incompetence, not because it also could mean abuse of power. In fact, they swapped “high crimes and misdemeanors” into the final document precisely because it does cover such abuse.
It couldn’t be any other way, if you think about it for even a moment. Trump’s lawyers are right that if a president does what he honestly thinks is simultaneously in his personal electoral and the national interests, that’s not impeachable, in the following sense: If a president cuts taxes because he thinks it will get him reelected and it will create jobs, that’s fine. That’s ordinary electoral politics.
But if he cuts taxes because he has an agreement with a major backer that, in exchange for tax cuts, the backer will fund a huge super PAC to support his reelection, that’s impeachable — because that’s a corrupt quid pro quo for his personal benefit. So, too, if a president conditions another official act — releasing security assistance to a foreign country — on a requirement that the foreign country smear the president’s political opponent. That’s not politics; that’s corruption.
And corruption, for all the Trump lawyers’ attempt to muddy the waters with tortured interpretations of the Constitution, is what this impeachment is all about...
...Republican senators seem...so willing to entertain a false reading of the Constitution that would effectively render the impeachment clause a nullity. Should they do that, they will have sacrificed their own oaths to protect their own electoral prospects, and the country and the Constitution will have been saddled with a terrible precedent. The Senate will have told Trump that, indeed, he can do whatever he wants.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-conway-dont-let-the-defense-fool-...
______________________________________________________________
ETA
The impeachment trial hurtles toward its worst-case conclusion
Dana Milbank | Jan. 30, 2020
...With their votes to acquit, senators will embrace a new concept: Right is whatever the president says it is.
We are lost.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/30/impeachment-trial-hurtles-tow...
______________________________________________________________
ETA
John Roberts stares down another possible legacy moment
Joan Biskupic | January 31, 2020
...Will he break a tie...Senate may be evenly divided on (vote over witnesses), Democrats especially have argued that Roberts should be able to break a tie vote.
...In the 1868 trial of President Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Salmon Chase broke tie votes twice, but his overall political approach remains controversial today. In 1999, when Chief Justice William Rehnquist oversaw the trial of President Bill Clinton, he never faced an evenly split Senate vote. Rehnquist saw his role as more ministerial than the authority Chase seized.
Senate rules did not give the chief the power to cast votes, but they do dictate that he could make determinations on the relevance and materiality of evidence. The rules say that the chief could be reversed by a majority of the Senate.
...a recent Congressional Research Service report observed, "The Chief Justice, when presiding over an impeachment trial, would not be expected to vote, even in the case of a tie. If a vote on a question results in a tie, the question is decided in the negative."
...based on Roberts' trademark caution and use of Rehnquist as a model, he may shun any opportunity to make a real difference in this trial...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/john-roberts-impeachment-legacy/index.ht...
________________________________________________________________
ETA
1. Acquittal, But Not Exoneration
Charlie Sykes| Jan 31, 2020
...Even by the standards of the last 3 years, what we are seeing is a pretty stunning act of self-abasement by the GOP senate.
By refusing to have witnesses the GOP (1) assured that Trump’s acquittal is not an exoneration, (2) defies overwhelming public support for hearing witnesses (3) puts the GOP senate majority at risk by forcing vulnerables to cast toxic vote for a coverup.....
I think that the GOP underestimates the intensity of the backlash against their vote on witnesses. Of course I could be wrong, but I think it will offend American's innate sense of fairness... and casts real doubt on the fairness and even legitimacy of the verdict. And this is a problem for Trump.
Both sides now have their talking points, but without witnesses, there is no clean verdict... especially as more stuff keeps coming out.
Now folks like Martha McSally, Cory Gardner, Joni Ernst, and Thom Tillis will have to explain why they couldn't be bothered to listen to witnesses who might tell them the truth about what happened. The ads write themselves.This is what I had to say last night: I think McConnell bet his senate majority on Trumpism.. and, as a result, the senate is in now play:
Exit take: John Bolton can still speak.. anytime he wants. His move now... And lordy, there are more tapes...
https://mailchi.mp/thebulwark/acquittal-but-not-exoneration
56proximity1
(quote)
Their legal position is likewise false. It’s just not true that good motives, when mixed with bad ones, compel acquittal under the law. If a politician takes a bribe to do what he thinks would have been best for the public anyway, he still goes to jail. If he’s president, under a Constitution that refers to impeachment specifically for “bribery,” as well other “high crimes and misdemeanors,” he should still be removed.
It’s also not true that “abuse of power” is not impeachable, or that a statutory crime is necessary for impeachment. And it’s not true, as Dershowitz argued Wednesday, that the Framers’ rejection of “maladministration” as a basis for impeachment means that abuse of power isn’t impeachable. The Framers rejected the word “maladministration” because it covered mistakes and incompetence, not because it also could mean abuse of power. In fact, they swapped “high crimes and misdemeanors” into the final document precisely because it does cover such abuse.
It couldn’t be any other way, if you think about it for even a moment. Trump’s lawyers are right that if a president does what he honestly thinks is simultaneously in his personal electoral and the national interests, that’s not impeachable, in the following sense: If a president cuts taxes because he thinks it will get him reelected and it will create jobs, that’s fine. That’s ordinary electoral politics.
But if he cuts taxes because he has an agreement with a major backer that, in exchange for tax cuts, the backer will fund a huge super PAC to support his reelection, that’s impeachable — because that’s a corrupt quid pro quo for his personal benefit. So, too, if a president conditions another official act — releasing security assistance to a foreign country — on a requirement that the foreign country smear the president’s political opponent. That’s not politics; that’s corruption.
(end quote)
______________________
What?!
"Their legal position is likewise false. It’s just not true that good motives, when mixed with bad ones, compel acquittal under the law." ...
???
"good motives" ?
Corruption and bribery--the law's concerns--have nothing to do with trying to figure out or distinguish between "good" motives and "bad" ones.
The acts of elected officials are typically seen by their partisan opponents as "bad" or, at least, nothing they'd characterize as "good." Politicians are in business to get themselves into office (or remain there) and get (or keep) their opponents out of office.
What the law wants to know is whether there is legal proof (to the standard required by law) of intent to commit a crime. This has to be proven, not merely alleged.
How is a motive to be proven as illegal when there are entirely plausible reasons to suppose that a legal motive was just as reasonable? Well, you need evidence which shows an attempt to hide, disguise, alter or expunge credible evidence of an intention to violate the law.
If there'd been any of that concerning Trump, we wouldn't even be arguing here about this inane and ridiculous shit.
He'd have already been not just impeached but convicted and removed from office by this time. (Your efforts are more than three years old now!)
What Democrats and others who manifestly HATE TRUMP'S GUTS cannot stand is the fact that we're here arguing over this stuff not because Trump's allies refuse to see and accept the evidence of his illegal acts but, rather, because Trump's opponents didn't meet their legal burdens (responsibilities) to prove their charges.
That is their fucking fault, not the fault of Trump or his allies or supporters.
Trump's opponents could not even convince all of their own partisans, for fuck's sake!
Some House Democrats remained so unconvinced after all the impeachment's proponents had had to say about the case against Trump that they couldn't bring themselves to vote in positive favor of the articles of impeachment. Meanwhile, not a single Republican in the House was persuaded to vote for the articles of impeachment.
You people are a pathetic and disgusting--if also laughable--disgrace---a disgrace to justice, to fair-play and to honesty.
Politics is rarely if ever done via so blatant a manner as is described above:
... "if he cuts taxes because he has an agreement with a major backer that, in exchange for tax cuts, the backer will fund a huge super PAC to support his reelection, that’s impeachable — because that’s a corrupt quid pro quo for his personal benefit. So, too, if a president conditions another official act — releasing security assistance to a foreign country — on a requirement that the foreign country smear the president’s political opponent."
Fortunately, (or, as Trump's foes see it, unfortunately,) from all we can tell from the evidence, none of that happened. Nothing even "like" that happened.
In any case, such a scenario, though alleged, was never shown to have been the likely fact, let alone the most likely fact, and certainly not the demonstrably-proven fact.
Trump's foes failed to persuade, to "bring along" their audience--members of the public, members of "the jury" in the sense both literal or figurative,-- mainly by leaving out a key ingredient in their own step-by-step chain of reasoning. They overlooked or omitted to start by ensuring that, in their listeners' minds and hearts, there was what they possessed firmly established in their own: a visceral and hardly expressible loathing and open hatred for Donald Trump--as a person, president or anything else.
Without that, Trump is readily recognizabe by many many scores of millions of Americans--by proportions on the order of 45 to 65 percent and sometimes more--as, at most and at worst, a typical calculating politician in no significant way different from the very people seeking to have him removed from office for doing the very things they themselves do and have long and repeatedly done.
You fuckers failed in your case and in your torch-lit lynch-mob effort to get Trump.
You earned and you deserve that failure.
57lriley
Dershowitz is a smug piece of shit--just saying. He's peddled a bunch of these bullshit notions for a while. People in the past coming on here with this 'he's a liberal' junk. Please! Yeah he probably did vote for Hillary but he conditions his votes for 'liberals' on a politician's support for or not of the state of Israel. He's a center right jerk off. Basically all he did here was sell his notions on impeachment to McConnell and the fucking game was over. Trump's bribery/election fixing scheme turned into a So What! The democrats own parsing that impeachment is a political and not a legal thing played here to Dershowitz/McConnell's advantage. They turned it into a majority rules things and legality/criminal behavior has not a thing to do with what's about to happen. The democrats kept acting like things were on the up and up. Trump and the Republican controlled Senate just put paid to that idea. The thing I wonder about is whether they're going to continue to believe that this whole checks and balances thing is still functional.
But anyway if I'm a democrat in the House I still want to bring Mr. Bolton into a hearing--continue this political exercise and keep Trump's flaunting of the law and crimes still in public focus. Why not? Nothing behind closed doors. The public still deserves to hear the full story.
Back to Dershowitz---Epstein's pedophile island. He was there and he defended Epstein in court later. He's a complete scumbag.
But anyway if I'm a democrat in the House I still want to bring Mr. Bolton into a hearing--continue this political exercise and keep Trump's flaunting of the law and crimes still in public focus. Why not? Nothing behind closed doors. The public still deserves to hear the full story.
Back to Dershowitz---Epstein's pedophile island. He was there and he defended Epstein in court later. He's a complete scumbag.
58margd
>57 lriley: Lordy, sounds like there were tapes in Epstein land.
59Molly3028
Prox and his ilk
Americans will NOT find these 5 words anywhere in the Founding
Documents ~ he did it, so what.
AND
Doing lawless things is in the con man's DNA.
Americans will NOT find these 5 words anywhere in the Founding
Documents ~ he did it, so what.
AND
Doing lawless things is in the con man's DNA.
60John5918
>53 TrippB:
That does sound a bit like an unprovable conspiracy theory. But regardless of the motives of those who prosecute alleged crimes, if there is an alleged crime or misdeed, surely it deserves to be investigated?
That does sound a bit like an unprovable conspiracy theory. But regardless of the motives of those who prosecute alleged crimes, if there is an alleged crime or misdeed, surely it deserves to be investigated?
61TrippB
>60 John5918:
" if there is an alleged crime or misdeed, surely it deserves to be investigated?"
Exactly. There were alleged crimes or misdeeds regarding Biden & Son, and President Trump suggested it be investigated. Now, Biden & Son is alleged to be more like The Biden Family Syndicate. Worth investigating indeed.
https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062897909/profiles-in-corruption/
" if there is an alleged crime or misdeed, surely it deserves to be investigated?"
Exactly. There were alleged crimes or misdeeds regarding Biden & Son, and President Trump suggested it be investigated. Now, Biden & Son is alleged to be more like The Biden Family Syndicate. Worth investigating indeed.
https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062897909/profiles-in-corruption/
62Molly3028
Bombshell #2, Friday 1-31
Bolton refuses to flush his government career down the toilet to
cover for the actions of a life-long con man and cult personality.
He is a member of TEAM AMERICA.
Bolton refuses to flush his government career down the toilet to
cover for the actions of a life-long con man and cult personality.
He is a member of TEAM AMERICA.
63lriley
#58--not sure if there are tapes or not but Dershowitz has admitted to being on the island with Epstein. These are all rich and powerful people that Epstein was inviting.There is no way that Dershowitz didn't know what was going on. He claims he didn't have sex with anyone there but that's a stretch. He is smug as all get out--no doubt he thinks if no one can prove it......but still just being there tells you he was just fine with what was going on there and that makes Dershowitz a scumbag.
64John5918
>61 TrippB: There were alleged crimes or misdeeds regarding Biden & Son, and President Trump suggested it be investigated.
Indeed. Isn't that why you have an FBI?
And if there are alleged crimes and misdeeds regarding the president, isn't there a legitimate constitutional process called impeachment for them to be investigated?
Indeed. Isn't that why you have an FBI?
And if there are alleged crimes and misdeeds regarding the president, isn't there a legitimate constitutional process called impeachment for them to be investigated?
65John5918
Republicans march over the impeachment cliff – taking their self-respect with them (Guardian)
How can Republicans pretend to the world that their vision of America – where a president can happily use military aid to coerce a foreign government to smear his political rival in an election – is the model for democracy?
How can Republicans pretend to the world that their vision of America – where a president can happily use military aid to coerce a foreign government to smear his political rival in an election – is the model for democracy?
66John5918
Might be time to revisit Peter Cook's 1979 "biased judge" sketch on YouTube, based on a criminal case against a leading British politician. Different times, different circumstances, but some of the satire could still be relevant...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
There's an explanatory video for those who wish to know the background to this sketch, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUrnTTJQQYg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
There's an explanatory video for those who wish to know the background to this sketch, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUrnTTJQQYg
67margd
Scholars tell the Senate that Trump team’s legal arguments are wrong.
Charlie Savage | Jan. 31, 2020
About 300 law professors and legal historians, in an open letter* to the Senate on Friday, rejected the arguments put forward by the Trump impeachment legal team. They explained that the scholarly consensus is that impeachment does not require proof of an indictable crime and that “abuse of power” is an impeachable offense, contrary to what President Trump’s team has broadly argued
The letter also rejected a suggestion put forward by one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, that presidents may abuse the powers of their office to secure re-election without being impeached so long as they think their continuance in power would be good for the country.
“To accept such a view would be to give the president carte blanche to corrupt American electoral democracy,” the letter says.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/trump-impeachment-trial-01-31#scholars-trump-l...
* 18 p letter (mostly signatures):
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6765-v2-0-senate-open-letter-crimes/77b7...
Charlie Savage | Jan. 31, 2020
About 300 law professors and legal historians, in an open letter* to the Senate on Friday, rejected the arguments put forward by the Trump impeachment legal team. They explained that the scholarly consensus is that impeachment does not require proof of an indictable crime and that “abuse of power” is an impeachable offense, contrary to what President Trump’s team has broadly argued
The letter also rejected a suggestion put forward by one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, that presidents may abuse the powers of their office to secure re-election without being impeached so long as they think their continuance in power would be good for the country.
“To accept such a view would be to give the president carte blanche to corrupt American electoral democracy,” the letter says.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/trump-impeachment-trial-01-31#scholars-trump-l...
* 18 p letter (mostly signatures):
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6765-v2-0-senate-open-letter-crimes/77b7...
68proximity1
The American law and legal history professoriate now stand in open and flagrant disgrace as moral morons and political imbeciles.
Only the body-blow of harm to the nation due to Trump's pursuers equals for moral failure and disgrace what these damnable fools have just demonstrated about their professions.
Imagine it and imagine the picture of such a profession failing so terribly in its most important intellectual duties.
Now, fear for the fucking country if you have a lick of sense about you.
I have only one source of relief and refuge in light of such a dismal picture. Fortunately, thank heaven, that is in the knowledge that the average American's moral sense, by all the evidence of public-opinion polls, puts these professors to shame. For they can see and understand the actual facts and their context far, far more clearly and honestly that these disgusting 300. Who the Hell ever elected them?! Where in the hell does the Constitution assign them any particularly significant role in this matter?! The Constitution's terms are clear:
“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”
______________
(emphasis added)
Where, I wonder, are the professors of law and history who vehemently rejected the call to sign this letter?
It is past time that these people spoke up loudly to denounce as moral cowards their colleagues.
As there is no God, what use in crying out, "God help these lost people!" ?
"About 300 law professors and legal historians, in an open letter* to the Senate on Friday, rejected the arguments put forward by the Trump impeachment legal team. They explained that the scholarly consensus is that impeachment does not require proof of an indictable crime and that 'abuse of power' is an impeachable offense, contrary to what President Trump’s team has broadly argued."
(Source & rights: skydancingblog.com)
69fuzzi
>68 proximity1: all this brouhaha is due to one political party and its supporters being unable to accept the results of an election.
The rest is just noise.
The rest is just noise.
70TrippB
>64 John5918:
”Isn't that why you have an FBI?”
For a brief moment I thought you might be joking. Why would President Trump entrust such a task to the agency rife with corruption, lies, leaks, and “insurance” policies intended to bring him down?
Joe Biden may have engaged in lucrative shady deals in Ukraine, and, if an investigation by Ukraine authorities had already compiled the evidence of such activity, he could possibly be manipulated after taking the office of president. By asking for an investigation, President Trump let it be known he wanted to know if such information existed.
Some people have chosen to forget the Obama Administration investigated Trump, and one explanation was there was a risk that he was beholden to another country, which is the same thing as being susceptible to blackmail by a foreign entity. A member of congress defended Obama’s investigation of his political party’s rival, stating, “Counterintelligence investigations differ from criminal investigations in their means, scope and ultimate disposition. Their goal is not successful prosecutions, but to identify and mitigate threats to national security. If a foreign power possessed compromising information on a U.S. government official in a position of influence, that is a counterintelligence risk. If a foreign power possessed leverage, or the perception of it, over the president, that is a counterintelligence nightmare. “
The source of this defense of President Obama’s investigation of Trump clearly considered Obama’s actions to be within the authority of the president, and, not just authority, but obligation. Who could argue with that, and how is Trump’s encouragement of an investigation of Biden’s shady deals any different?
Full disclosure: the defense of Obama’s investigation of Trump was uttered by one of the sleaziest politicians to ever serve in Congress: Adam Schiff. The Dem darling and hero who’s been condemning Trump’s actions is a shameless hypocrite…and that’s about the least insulting title he’s earned.
”Isn't that why you have an FBI?”
For a brief moment I thought you might be joking. Why would President Trump entrust such a task to the agency rife with corruption, lies, leaks, and “insurance” policies intended to bring him down?
Joe Biden may have engaged in lucrative shady deals in Ukraine, and, if an investigation by Ukraine authorities had already compiled the evidence of such activity, he could possibly be manipulated after taking the office of president. By asking for an investigation, President Trump let it be known he wanted to know if such information existed.
Some people have chosen to forget the Obama Administration investigated Trump, and one explanation was there was a risk that he was beholden to another country, which is the same thing as being susceptible to blackmail by a foreign entity. A member of congress defended Obama’s investigation of his political party’s rival, stating, “Counterintelligence investigations differ from criminal investigations in their means, scope and ultimate disposition. Their goal is not successful prosecutions, but to identify and mitigate threats to national security. If a foreign power possessed compromising information on a U.S. government official in a position of influence, that is a counterintelligence risk. If a foreign power possessed leverage, or the perception of it, over the president, that is a counterintelligence nightmare. “
The source of this defense of President Obama’s investigation of Trump clearly considered Obama’s actions to be within the authority of the president, and, not just authority, but obligation. Who could argue with that, and how is Trump’s encouragement of an investigation of Biden’s shady deals any different?
Full disclosure: the defense of Obama’s investigation of Trump was uttered by one of the sleaziest politicians to ever serve in Congress: Adam Schiff. The Dem darling and hero who’s been condemning Trump’s actions is a shameless hypocrite…and that’s about the least insulting title he’s earned.
71John5918
>70 TrippB: Why would President Trump entrust such a task to the agency rife with corruption, lies, leaks, and “insurance” policies intended to bring him down?
That's a pretty extraordinary allegation to make about a national police force which is widely respected throughout the world, and which has tens of thousands of officers who are supposedly dedicated to upholding the law. Is there any real evidence for this, or is it a far right conspiracy theory? And if it is true, why hasn't your president replaced its director during his three years in office? Presumably a new director would be able to ensure that an investigation of a high-profile figure such as Joe Biden would receive the highest priority and would be carried out by the most experienced and professional officers? And even if Trump didn't trust his own FBI, why on earth would he turn to a foreign leader to investigate a US citizen, rather than using some other investigative mechanism from within the USA?
Edited to add: the Obama Administration investigated Trump
Indeed, but they didn't ask a foreign leader to do it for them. They set up an investigation in the USA and the US Deputy Attorney General (not the president) appointed a former head of the FBI to carry out the investigation. It was an open and transparent process, not a disputed phone call.
That's a pretty extraordinary allegation to make about a national police force which is widely respected throughout the world, and which has tens of thousands of officers who are supposedly dedicated to upholding the law. Is there any real evidence for this, or is it a far right conspiracy theory? And if it is true, why hasn't your president replaced its director during his three years in office? Presumably a new director would be able to ensure that an investigation of a high-profile figure such as Joe Biden would receive the highest priority and would be carried out by the most experienced and professional officers? And even if Trump didn't trust his own FBI, why on earth would he turn to a foreign leader to investigate a US citizen, rather than using some other investigative mechanism from within the USA?
Edited to add: the Obama Administration investigated Trump
Indeed, but they didn't ask a foreign leader to do it for them. They set up an investigation in the USA and the US Deputy Attorney General (not the president) appointed a former head of the FBI to carry out the investigation. It was an open and transparent process, not a disputed phone call.
72lriley
Rubio, Portman, Collins, Murkowski, Alexander all are on record more or less saying Trump was wrong in his bribery scheme. Romney actually wanted witnesses. Graham, McConnell and others already in the tank before the removal proceeding began. It's hardly an exoneration. It's really a fix but a fix that almost everyone saw coming.
November's election isn't just about removing Trump. It's about removing Republican Senators as well.
November's election isn't just about removing Trump. It's about removing Republican Senators as well.
73fuzzi
>71 John5918: wrote
Actually, yes, they did.
UK’s GCHQ Director Confirms Obama Spied on ‘Trump and Campaign’ Using British Intel Assets Organized as Project Fulsome
http://themillenniumreport.com/2019/10/uks-gchq-director-confirms-obama-spied-on...
See also:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/12/ratcliffe-obama-admin-asked-foreig...
"Edited to add: the Obama Administration investigated Trump
Indeed, but they didn't ask a foreign leader to do it for them. They set up an investigation in the USA and the US Deputy Attorney General (not the president) appointed a former head of the FBI to carry out the investigation. It was an open and transparent process, not a disputed phone call."
Actually, yes, they did.
UK’s GCHQ Director Confirms Obama Spied on ‘Trump and Campaign’ Using British Intel Assets Organized as Project Fulsome
What makes the following official letter signed by the former Director of Great Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) so radioactive, is that it names US President Barack Obama as the one illegally requesting a foreign nation to spy and surveil on first Candidate Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for POTUS, and then on the same person as President-elect.
Because of the true import and far-reaching ramifications of the following letter, it’s all too clear that all of the other suspicions about Team Obama are also correct …. which, when considered in the aggregate, essentially constitute an unparalleled crime wave of epic proportions.
http://themillenniumreport.com/2019/10/uks-gchq-director-confirms-obama-spied-on...
See also:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/12/ratcliffe-obama-admin-asked-foreig...
74John5918
>73 fuzzi:
Are those two sources reliable, impartial and indepedent? This claiim has been widely debunked as a conspiracy theory. GCHQ declared, "Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wiretapping' against the then president-elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored".
Are those two sources reliable, impartial and indepedent? This claiim has been widely debunked as a conspiracy theory. GCHQ declared, "Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wiretapping' against the then president-elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored".
75fuzzi
>74 John5918: did you look at either or just dismiss them?
76Molly3028
Prox and Fuzzi
In 2016, about 75,000 voters were able to flip the Electoral
College. Now the USA (a country of 329+ million people) is stuck
with a life-long con man who has lawless genes in his DNA.
and
Kushner states that the people who left the administration didn't
have what it took to succeed in the Trump WH. In other words,
they did not have lawless genes in their DNA!
In 2016, about 75,000 voters were able to flip the Electoral
College. Now the USA (a country of 329+ million people) is stuck
with a life-long con man who has lawless genes in his DNA.
and
Kushner states that the people who left the administration didn't
have what it took to succeed in the Trump WH. In other words,
they did not have lawless genes in their DNA!
77TrippB
>71 John5918:
”That's a pretty extraordinary allegation to make….”
I fully agree, and you have no way to know how much it pains me to say it. The agency has thousands of good men and women who would probably use stronger language to condemn the scandal. This is a situation in which a few bad apples spoil the bunch, and, worse, the rot goes all the way to the top. Comey, McCaib, Page, Strzok, and who knows how many other FBI personnel were working to target Trump, and if even a portion of the allegations are true, they violated ethics and laws to do it.
Despite the good work of the FBI, they have a history of pushing the bounds of their jurisdiction and authority going back a hundred years. Spying on American citizens they deem to be dangerous subversives (you know, like Martin Luther King, Jr.) is not new. Those who swore to affidavits that included false information, lied to Congress, leaked classified information, and committed other crimes must have some twisted thinking to rationalize their violations of oath and federal law. However they try to rationalize it, they are wrong. A philosophy of “the end justifies the means” has no place in law enforcement
https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/10/ig-report-shows-comey-lied-to-congress-abou...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/justice-department-recommends-andrew-m...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/13/andrew-mccabe-lied-was-source-w...
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/397902-opinion-one-fbi-text-message-in-russia-...
”That's a pretty extraordinary allegation to make….”
I fully agree, and you have no way to know how much it pains me to say it. The agency has thousands of good men and women who would probably use stronger language to condemn the scandal. This is a situation in which a few bad apples spoil the bunch, and, worse, the rot goes all the way to the top. Comey, McCaib, Page, Strzok, and who knows how many other FBI personnel were working to target Trump, and if even a portion of the allegations are true, they violated ethics and laws to do it.
Despite the good work of the FBI, they have a history of pushing the bounds of their jurisdiction and authority going back a hundred years. Spying on American citizens they deem to be dangerous subversives (you know, like Martin Luther King, Jr.) is not new. Those who swore to affidavits that included false information, lied to Congress, leaked classified information, and committed other crimes must have some twisted thinking to rationalize their violations of oath and federal law. However they try to rationalize it, they are wrong. A philosophy of “the end justifies the means” has no place in law enforcement
https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/10/ig-report-shows-comey-lied-to-congress-abou...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/justice-department-recommends-andrew-m...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/13/andrew-mccabe-lied-was-source-w...
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/397902-opinion-one-fbi-text-message-in-russia-...
78John5918
>75 fuzzi: did you look at either or just dismiss them?
Yes, I read them, and then did a bit of internet research on the claims they made. Hence my response.
Yes, I read them, and then did a bit of internet research on the claims they made. Hence my response.
79John5918
>77 TrippB: the rot goes all the way to the top
So rather than writing off the FBI and going to a foreign power, why hasn't Trump replaced the head of the FBI with someone honest and reliable (which of course is not necessarily the same as someone who supports Trump) and tasked him with investigating Joe Biden using some of the "thousands of good men and women"? If there are only "a few bad apples", as you say, then surely a new director can sideline them and make use of the professionalism of what is, after all, your national/federal police force?
So rather than writing off the FBI and going to a foreign power, why hasn't Trump replaced the head of the FBI with someone honest and reliable (which of course is not necessarily the same as someone who supports Trump) and tasked him with investigating Joe Biden using some of the "thousands of good men and women"? If there are only "a few bad apples", as you say, then surely a new director can sideline them and make use of the professionalism of what is, after all, your national/federal police force?
80margd
ETA: 26-minute Schiff closing argument:
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1224602257527922688
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Excerpts of Adam Schiff's closing arguments: https://twitter.com/moscow_project/status/1224417795951202305 )
"The president had to look far and wide to find a defense lawyer to make such an argument"—the dangerous argument that, as long as a president believes a quid pro quo is in his own interest, it must not be impeachable.
"These undeniable facts require the president to retreat to his final defense: He's guilty as sin but can't we just let the voters decide?...And the short, clear, incontestable answer is no, you can't."
Trump's record leaves no doubt.
He solicited interference in 2016.
He did it again in 2019.
He will continue to do it unless Congress holds him accountable. https://themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump-will-cheat-again-if-he-is-not-remove...
"What are the odds if left in office that he will continue trying to cheat? I will tell you: 100%. Not 5%, not 10% or even 50%, but 100%. If you have found him guilty and you do not remove him from office, he will continue trying to cheat in the election until he succeeds."
"To the degree you can compare the process when it got to the Judiciary Committee in either prior and recent impeachments, it was largely the same as we have here."
"The president's counsel hopes that through sheer repetition they can convert non-truth into truth. Do not let them. Every single court to hear Mr. Philbin's arguments has rejected them."
"The president's counsel hopes that through sheer repetition they can convert non-truth into truth. Do not let them. Every single court to hear Mr. Philbin's arguments has rejected them."
"For reasons as varied as the stars, the members of this body and ours in the house are now far more accepting of the most serious misconduct of a president as long as it is a president of one's own party. And that is a trend most dangerous for our country."
"The daily attacks on the guard rails of our democracy so relentlessly assailed have made us numb and blind to the consequences. Does none of that matter anymore?"
"History will not be kind to Donald Trump. I think we all know that. Not because it will be written by Never Trumpers but because whenever we have departed from the values of our nation we have come to regret it, and that regret is written all over the pages of our history."
"Every single vote, even a single vote by a single member, can change the course of history. It is said that a single man or woman of courage makes a majority. Is there one among you who will say enough?"
"When the president tries to coerce an ally to help him cheat in our elections and then covers it up, we must say: enough. Enough. He has betrayed our national security, and he will do so again. He has compromised our elections and he will do so again."
"They gave you a remedy, and they meant for you to use it. They gave you an oath, and they meant for you to observe it. We have proven Donald Trump guilty. Now do impartial justice and convict him."
- The Moscow Project @moscow_project | 2:42 PM · Feb 3, 2020
____________________________________________________________________
ETA
Rachel Maddow MSNBC @maddow | 3:04 PM · Feb 3, 2020:
Schiff's closing argument in the Trump impeachment trial was one for the ages.
Would not surprise me if it's taught someday as the seminal opposition speech from this era in presidential (and Republican party) history.
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1224602257527922688
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Excerpts of Adam Schiff's closing arguments: https://twitter.com/moscow_project/status/1224417795951202305 )
"The president had to look far and wide to find a defense lawyer to make such an argument"—the dangerous argument that, as long as a president believes a quid pro quo is in his own interest, it must not be impeachable.
"These undeniable facts require the president to retreat to his final defense: He's guilty as sin but can't we just let the voters decide?...And the short, clear, incontestable answer is no, you can't."
Trump's record leaves no doubt.
He solicited interference in 2016.
He did it again in 2019.
He will continue to do it unless Congress holds him accountable. https://themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump-will-cheat-again-if-he-is-not-remove...
"What are the odds if left in office that he will continue trying to cheat? I will tell you: 100%. Not 5%, not 10% or even 50%, but 100%. If you have found him guilty and you do not remove him from office, he will continue trying to cheat in the election until he succeeds."
"To the degree you can compare the process when it got to the Judiciary Committee in either prior and recent impeachments, it was largely the same as we have here."
"The president's counsel hopes that through sheer repetition they can convert non-truth into truth. Do not let them. Every single court to hear Mr. Philbin's arguments has rejected them."
"The president's counsel hopes that through sheer repetition they can convert non-truth into truth. Do not let them. Every single court to hear Mr. Philbin's arguments has rejected them."
"For reasons as varied as the stars, the members of this body and ours in the house are now far more accepting of the most serious misconduct of a president as long as it is a president of one's own party. And that is a trend most dangerous for our country."
"The daily attacks on the guard rails of our democracy so relentlessly assailed have made us numb and blind to the consequences. Does none of that matter anymore?"
"History will not be kind to Donald Trump. I think we all know that. Not because it will be written by Never Trumpers but because whenever we have departed from the values of our nation we have come to regret it, and that regret is written all over the pages of our history."
"Every single vote, even a single vote by a single member, can change the course of history. It is said that a single man or woman of courage makes a majority. Is there one among you who will say enough?"
"When the president tries to coerce an ally to help him cheat in our elections and then covers it up, we must say: enough. Enough. He has betrayed our national security, and he will do so again. He has compromised our elections and he will do so again."
"They gave you a remedy, and they meant for you to use it. They gave you an oath, and they meant for you to observe it. We have proven Donald Trump guilty. Now do impartial justice and convict him."
- The Moscow Project @moscow_project | 2:42 PM · Feb 3, 2020
____________________________________________________________________
ETA
Rachel Maddow MSNBC @maddow | 3:04 PM · Feb 3, 2020:
Schiff's closing argument in the Trump impeachment trial was one for the ages.
Would not surprise me if it's taught someday as the seminal opposition speech from this era in presidential (and Republican party) history.
81Limelite
Vote of censure against Trump proposed by Sen. Manchin (D-WV) who seems to think a "lesser punishment" will lead to Republicans voting in favor. Someone musta passed him the Kool-Aid. Wasn't he listening when Republicans declared by word and deed that all they are going to do is exonerate Papa Don?
Can't he acknowledge that ONLY a censure vote forbidding Trump from running from public office again will protect our elections and keep us safe from his on-going cons? Are his eyes closed? He didn't see Trump send his Fixer, Giuliani, back to the scene of the crime AFTER he was impeached?
Republican senators are collectively a Profile in Cowardice who don't think a democratic Republic is worth preserving, or an oath to uphold the Constitution is a vow that holds them to their duty.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/03/manchin-censure-trump-110598
Can't he acknowledge that ONLY a censure vote forbidding Trump from running from public office again will protect our elections and keep us safe from his on-going cons? Are his eyes closed? He didn't see Trump send his Fixer, Giuliani, back to the scene of the crime AFTER he was impeached?
Republican senators are collectively a Profile in Cowardice who don't think a democratic Republic is worth preserving, or an oath to uphold the Constitution is a vow that holds them to their duty.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/03/manchin-censure-trump-110598
82margd
Laurence Tribe @tribelaw | 5:29 PM · Feb 3, 2020:
Unless the 4 wavering GOPs join all 47 Dems in voting for censure, with McConnell giving them license to do so,
Manchin’s censure move could serve only to give him and Jones cover to acquit, yielding a 55-45 acquittal margin and no majority to censure,
the worst possible outcome.
Unless the 4 wavering GOPs join all 47 Dems in voting for censure, with McConnell giving them license to do so,
Manchin’s censure move could serve only to give him and Jones cover to acquit, yielding a 55-45 acquittal margin and no majority to censure,
the worst possible outcome.
83Limelite
It's time to call the deniers of truth, destroyers of our Justice system, and betrayers of their sacred oaths what they are -- anti-Constitutionalists and anti-American.
84margd
Trump invited Saudi crown prince to his residence just before 2016 election: report
Matthew Chapman | February 3, 2020
..Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman met with Donald Trump one week before the 2016 election, at Trump’s “private residence.”
This came after an August 2016 meeting in which George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who recently pleaded guilty to child sex crimes, told Trump that the Saudi prince was interested in supporting his campaign.
The meeting was disclosed by Rick Gates...
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/trump-invited-saudi-crown-prince-to-his-residen...
Matthew Chapman | February 3, 2020
..Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman met with Donald Trump one week before the 2016 election, at Trump’s “private residence.”
This came after an August 2016 meeting in which George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who recently pleaded guilty to child sex crimes, told Trump that the Saudi prince was interested in supporting his campaign.
The meeting was disclosed by Rick Gates...
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/trump-invited-saudi-crown-prince-to-his-residen...
85margd
BREAKING:
Remember America? We do.
(01:26 https://twitter.com/Eleven_Films/status/1224906560616316930 )
...
- Eleven Films @Eleven_Films | 11:04 PM · Feb 4, 2020
__________________________________________________________________
ETA
...Susan Collins says she will vote to acquit Trump...
“I believe that the president has learned from this case...The president has been impeached. That’s a pretty big lesson.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/04/75-times-trump-insisted-hed-d...
...(Trump,) asked about Sen. Susan Collins saying he’d learned a lesson,...told the anchors he did not agree. He had done nothing wrong. “It was a perfect call.”...
- Josh Dawsey (WaPo) @jdawsey1 | 8:07 PM · Feb 4, 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this sound like a chastened, reformed president to anyone??
And the sheer brazenness to say this—to contradict his very defenders—before Trump even has been acquitted is hard to imagine.
- Joshua A. Geltzer | @jgeltzer8:25 PM · Feb 4, 2020
____________________________________________________________________
ETA
...In vowing to award Trump the acquittal he demanded, Senate Republicans have vastly expanded his executive power. He is surrounded in the White House by pliant sycophants who do as he tells them. Having gotten away with stonewalling all requests for documents and testimony from the House impeachment inquiry, why would Trump regard the concept of congressional oversight as anything but a joke? What is Congress going to do? Impeach him?...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-used-the-state-of-the-union-speech...
Remember America? We do.
(01:26 https://twitter.com/Eleven_Films/status/1224906560616316930 )
...
- Eleven Films @Eleven_Films | 11:04 PM · Feb 4, 2020
__________________________________________________________________
ETA
...Susan Collins says she will vote to acquit Trump...
“I believe that the president has learned from this case...The president has been impeached. That’s a pretty big lesson.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/04/75-times-trump-insisted-hed-d...
...(Trump,) asked about Sen. Susan Collins saying he’d learned a lesson,...told the anchors he did not agree. He had done nothing wrong. “It was a perfect call.”...
- Josh Dawsey (WaPo) @jdawsey1 | 8:07 PM · Feb 4, 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this sound like a chastened, reformed president to anyone??
And the sheer brazenness to say this—to contradict his very defenders—before Trump even has been acquitted is hard to imagine.
- Joshua A. Geltzer | @jgeltzer8:25 PM · Feb 4, 2020
____________________________________________________________________
ETA
...In vowing to award Trump the acquittal he demanded, Senate Republicans have vastly expanded his executive power. He is surrounded in the White House by pliant sycophants who do as he tells them. Having gotten away with stonewalling all requests for documents and testimony from the House impeachment inquiry, why would Trump regard the concept of congressional oversight as anything but a joke? What is Congress going to do? Impeach him?...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-used-the-state-of-the-union-speech...
86proximity1
RE: summation speeches in the Senate impeachment-trial proceedings against President Trump:
Fuck oiff and drop dead, Democrats.
Get on with the acquittal-vote, already! We're sick up to our fucking gills of you lot!
_______________________________
What a load of sanctimonious bullshit from Democrats!
I wonder who these asshole Democrat party Senators think they're "persuading" with this insufferable crap.
It can't be the general public--who've made it very clear already that they've not been shown sufficient evidence to warrant the impeachment proceedings--nor is it, certainly, any more than one or two of their Republican party senate colleagues who are sitting around at this late date and still susceptible to being talked into convicting President Trump on the basis of the laughably inadequate stuff which has been brought out so far, whether that has been done within the chambers of Conress or elsewhere in the press.
Democrats' ship en route to the November 2020 election:
Fuck oiff and drop dead, Democrats.
Get on with the acquittal-vote, already! We're sick up to our fucking gills of you lot!
_______________________________
What a load of sanctimonious bullshit from Democrats!
I wonder who these asshole Democrat party Senators think they're "persuading" with this insufferable crap.
It can't be the general public--who've made it very clear already that they've not been shown sufficient evidence to warrant the impeachment proceedings--nor is it, certainly, any more than one or two of their Republican party senate colleagues who are sitting around at this late date and still susceptible to being talked into convicting President Trump on the basis of the laughably inadequate stuff which has been brought out so far, whether that has been done within the chambers of Conress or elsewhere in the press.
Democrats' ship en route to the November 2020 election:
87margd
Pentagon officials stunned by White House decision to block Ukraine aid, new emails show
Vivian Salama | February 5, 2020
Days before the July 2019 call between President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, US officials were still working to expedite the delivery of Javelin anti-tank missiles to the country, according to emails and other internal documents reviewed by CNN.
The new information underscores how the July 18th decision to hold the military aid stunned officials, who had already assessed Ukraine deserved to receive it and were preparing a Javelin missile order as well. The decision reverberated across the government for weeks. Officials grew so concerned over the deferrals by the Office of Management and Budget that they noted the aid was at "serious risk," and questioned if the move was illegal...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/05/politics/emails-pentagon-alarm-ukraine-aid/index....
Vivian Salama | February 5, 2020
Days before the July 2019 call between President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, US officials were still working to expedite the delivery of Javelin anti-tank missiles to the country, according to emails and other internal documents reviewed by CNN.
The new information underscores how the July 18th decision to hold the military aid stunned officials, who had already assessed Ukraine deserved to receive it and were preparing a Javelin missile order as well. The decision reverberated across the government for weeks. Officials grew so concerned over the deferrals by the Office of Management and Budget that they noted the aid was at "serious risk," and questioned if the move was illegal...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/05/politics/emails-pentagon-alarm-ukraine-aid/index....
88margd
POLITICO @politico | 2:20 PM · Feb 5, 2020:
"The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor," Romney said.
"Yes. He did"
( 0:46 https://twitter.com/politico/status/1225137214801055745)
Romney will vote to convinct Trump, in dramatic break with GOP
"The president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust."
BURGESS EVERETT | 02/05/2020
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/05/sen-mitt-romney-will-vote-to-convict-tr...
"The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor," Romney said.
"Yes. He did"
( 0:46 https://twitter.com/politico/status/1225137214801055745)
Romney will vote to convinct Trump, in dramatic break with GOP
"The president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust."
BURGESS EVERETT | 02/05/2020
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/05/sen-mitt-romney-will-vote-to-convict-tr...
89margd
Doug Jones @DougJones | 11:08 AM · Feb 5, 2020:
Today, I have the solemn responsibility to uphold my oath of #ImpartialJustice
Growing up in Alabama I learned right from wrong.
What the President did was more than wrong. Someone has to stand up & say so. I will fulfill my oath & vote in favor of both articles of impeachment.
Senators are elected to make tough choices. We must study the facts & exercise independent judgment in keeping with our oaths.
I've studied the record for months. Unfortunately I believe the President abused his power for his own benefit.
My statement: https://sen.gov/V71P ( https://www.jones.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senator-doug-jones-statemen... )
Today, I have the solemn responsibility to uphold my oath of #ImpartialJustice
Growing up in Alabama I learned right from wrong.
What the President did was more than wrong. Someone has to stand up & say so. I will fulfill my oath & vote in favor of both articles of impeachment.
Senators are elected to make tough choices. We must study the facts & exercise independent judgment in keeping with our oaths.
I've studied the record for months. Unfortunately I believe the President abused his power for his own benefit.
My statement: https://sen.gov/V71P ( https://www.jones.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senator-doug-jones-statemen... )
912wonderY
>88 margd: The Atlantic got a pre-speech interview with Romney:
How Mitt Romney Decided Trump Is Guilty
Nor was the senator swayed by the theory that a president can be impeached only for breaking a statutory law. “To use an old Mormon hymn phrase, that makes reason stare,” he said. “The idea that Congress would have to anticipate all of the offensive things a president could possibly do, and then make them a statute?” Romney posed a hypothetical: What if the president decided to pardon every Republican in prison nationwide, while leaving every Democrat locked up? “There’s no law against that!” he said. “So it’s not a crime or misdemeanor. But it’s obviously absurd.”
How Mitt Romney Decided Trump Is Guilty
Nor was the senator swayed by the theory that a president can be impeached only for breaking a statutory law. “To use an old Mormon hymn phrase, that makes reason stare,” he said. “The idea that Congress would have to anticipate all of the offensive things a president could possibly do, and then make them a statute?” Romney posed a hypothetical: What if the president decided to pardon every Republican in prison nationwide, while leaving every Democrat locked up? “There’s no law against that!” he said. “So it’s not a crime or misdemeanor. But it’s obviously absurd.”
92lriley
All Democratic Senators including those (Manchin, Sinema and Jones) who were thought to be on the fence--along with the two Independents King and Sanders and Utah Republican Romney voted Trump guilty on the first article of impeachment. I particularly took pleasure hearing Romney's vote.
93margd
>92 lriley: Profiles in courage, considering what ilk and minions will throw at them. I am so impressed.
____________________________________________________________________________
ETA
A Profile in Courage
Peter Wehner | Feb 5, 2020
Mitt Romney is doing something nearly unheard of these days: He’s putting his country above his party. He’s voting his conscience when doing so comes at a cost. He’s not rationalizing weakness and timidity by prettying them up as virtues. He will vote to convict President Donald Trump, in an act of extraordinary political courage.
This decision would have negative ramifications for Romney in any era, but he faces particularly harsh consequences in this one, when political tribalism has never been more acute, when hating those who see things in politics differently than you do is fashionable, and when invective against perceived enemies is more emotionally powerful (and satisfying) then is affection for those you believe to be on your side.
We are living in the Era of Rage.
Mitt Romney knows this, and he therefore knows the attacks on him will be vicious. He will be accused of being a traitor not only by the president, a cruel and unforgiving man, but also by his fellow Republican lawmakers, the right-wing media complex, and even many of his constituents.
The truth is quite the opposite, of course. Romney, on whose presidential campaign I briefly worked in 2012, is doing something he believes is morally right even while knowing he will face quite a high cost, both professionally and personally.
...There’s an old hymn with which Romney is familiar, “Do What Is Right.” The chorus includes this line: “Do what is right; let the consequence follow.” It’s one thing to sing those words. It’s an entirely different thing to live them out.
Mitt Romney has lived those words, and history will honor him for having done so.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/mitt-romneys-profile-courage/6...
____________________________________________________________________________
ETA
A Profile in Courage
Peter Wehner | Feb 5, 2020
Mitt Romney is doing something nearly unheard of these days: He’s putting his country above his party. He’s voting his conscience when doing so comes at a cost. He’s not rationalizing weakness and timidity by prettying them up as virtues. He will vote to convict President Donald Trump, in an act of extraordinary political courage.
This decision would have negative ramifications for Romney in any era, but he faces particularly harsh consequences in this one, when political tribalism has never been more acute, when hating those who see things in politics differently than you do is fashionable, and when invective against perceived enemies is more emotionally powerful (and satisfying) then is affection for those you believe to be on your side.
We are living in the Era of Rage.
Mitt Romney knows this, and he therefore knows the attacks on him will be vicious. He will be accused of being a traitor not only by the president, a cruel and unforgiving man, but also by his fellow Republican lawmakers, the right-wing media complex, and even many of his constituents.
The truth is quite the opposite, of course. Romney, on whose presidential campaign I briefly worked in 2012, is doing something he believes is morally right even while knowing he will face quite a high cost, both professionally and personally.
...There’s an old hymn with which Romney is familiar, “Do What Is Right.” The chorus includes this line: “Do what is right; let the consequence follow.” It’s one thing to sing those words. It’s an entirely different thing to live them out.
Mitt Romney has lived those words, and history will honor him for having done so.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/mitt-romneys-profile-courage/6...
94margd
Rep. Jerry Nadler Says House Will Likely Subpoena John Bolton
Brian Naylor | February 5, 2020
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/05/802989827/rep-nadler-says-house-will-likely-subpo...
Brian Naylor | February 5, 2020
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/05/802989827/rep-nadler-says-house-will-likely-subpo...
95lriley
#93--FWIW all of Sinema, Manchin and Romney were elected or re-elected in 2018 so they each have 5 years to go. There are ways to get them out or at least Romney but it's a whole heap of trouble doing it. Jones is probably not winning Alabama in this year's election. That's true however he voted today. The Republicans ran Roy Moore a noted pedophile judge against him and lost. Alabama is deep red. If you're not going to be back you might as well go out with a clean conscience. Manchin is popular in his state--if Trump gets knocked off in 2020 Manchin's chances probably are pretty good in 2024 and even if not he'll have a decent shot. Arizona is getting bluer--5 years from now Sinema likely returns anyway.
This vote doesn't change any of their likely fates. It probably turns Romney into a pariah but one thing I'm wondering about (and I don't really like him) but what if Mitt switched parties? It's not like that hasn't happened before. Richard Shelby--the other current Alabama Senator did that switch years ago. Jim Jeffords (the Senator who Sanders replaced after he retired) was a Republican who switched to Independent and started caucusing with the Democrats during GW Bush's administration. That move in fact gave the Dems the Senate majority. There is also Arlen Specter who switched over to the Democrats during his last term. In that respect the Republican party should be careful because they could end up burning a bridge. Apart from taking back the Jones Alabama seat their Senate picture is kind of bleak. I expect they're going to lose anywhere from 3 to 5 seats in this election cycle with some chance it might go higher.
This vote doesn't change any of their likely fates. It probably turns Romney into a pariah but one thing I'm wondering about (and I don't really like him) but what if Mitt switched parties? It's not like that hasn't happened before. Richard Shelby--the other current Alabama Senator did that switch years ago. Jim Jeffords (the Senator who Sanders replaced after he retired) was a Republican who switched to Independent and started caucusing with the Democrats during GW Bush's administration. That move in fact gave the Dems the Senate majority. There is also Arlen Specter who switched over to the Democrats during his last term. In that respect the Republican party should be careful because they could end up burning a bridge. Apart from taking back the Jones Alabama seat their Senate picture is kind of bleak. I expect they're going to lose anywhere from 3 to 5 seats in this election cycle with some chance it might go higher.
97margd
Schiff on @MSNBC: I can tell you that after the Senate voted not to hear witnesses...we did approach John Bolton’s counsel, asked if Mr. Bolton would be willing to submit an affidavit under oath, describing what he observed in terms of the Prez’s Ukraine misconduct & he refused
- Alex Moe @AlexNBCNews | 10:09 PM · Feb 5, 2020
- Alex Moe @AlexNBCNews | 10:09 PM · Feb 5, 2020
98margd
Zelensky Adviser on Trump Impeachment: ‘It Definitely Was Stressful’
Betsy Swan | Updated Feb. 06, 2020
...“We are glad it’s (Senate trial) done,” said Igor Novikov, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “If we could choose, this thing wouldn’t have happened. It would have been building the relationship rather than trying to save it from something very political, very loud. It’s a really strange thing. It all happened so quickly.”
...“It definitely was stressful. It was literally 24/7 of reading the news, analyzing the news, talking to people, and strategic sessions in the middle of the night. The key to this—and I think we succeeded—was to be on top of the situation.”
The process brought near-disasters and surreal moments...
“I’m biased, I’m (Zelensky's) adviser, but I have to stress the point that he did incredibly well. He resisted temptations and sometimes even advice to get involved in this.”
Before Trump’s now-infamous July 25 call with Zelensky, Novikov said one member of Zelensky’s team urged him to offer Trump the opportunity to build a Trump Tower in Kyiv...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/zelensky-adviser-igor-novikov-says-trump-impeachme...
Betsy Swan | Updated Feb. 06, 2020
...“We are glad it’s (Senate trial) done,” said Igor Novikov, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “If we could choose, this thing wouldn’t have happened. It would have been building the relationship rather than trying to save it from something very political, very loud. It’s a really strange thing. It all happened so quickly.”
...“It definitely was stressful. It was literally 24/7 of reading the news, analyzing the news, talking to people, and strategic sessions in the middle of the night. The key to this—and I think we succeeded—was to be on top of the situation.”
The process brought near-disasters and surreal moments...
“I’m biased, I’m (Zelensky's) adviser, but I have to stress the point that he did incredibly well. He resisted temptations and sometimes even advice to get involved in this.”
Before Trump’s now-infamous July 25 call with Zelensky, Novikov said one member of Zelensky’s team urged him to offer Trump the opportunity to build a Trump Tower in Kyiv...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/zelensky-adviser-igor-novikov-says-trump-impeachme...
99margd
Mind-blowing stat:
48 Senators who voted to convict Trump represent 18 million more Americans than 52 Republicans who voted to acquit
- Ari Berman @AriBerman | 4:20 PM · Feb 5, 2020
48 Senators who voted to convict Trump represent 18 million more Americans than 52 Republicans who voted to acquit
- Ari Berman @AriBerman | 4:20 PM · Feb 5, 2020
100proximity1
A two-thirds- +1 vote in favor of impeachment is required to convict. That's for a reason.
_______________________
Genuine Abuse of Power—
Right under their noses millions of Americans failed to recognize a flagrant and years-long open abuse of government's power.
With no good cause at all, the president of the United States was subjected to a vicious and groundless legal persecution and only then, when that pursuit proved an open fiasco, he was further hounded with a spurious impeachment driven by sheer hatred and promulgated on a strictly partisan basis—barring two members of the opposition party who, themselves, refused to cater to the bilious Speaker of the House's vendetta against the president.
From the outset it was clear that the 'jury', namely, the U.S. Senate, would not agree to convict the president on the basis of any known or conceivably-valid evidence adduced. Yet, Nancy Pelosi and her partisans pursued the prosecution anyway with complete disregard for the fact that there was no basis on which to expect a conviction.
The Democrats' point and purpose was, then, simply to hound and persecute the president for the sole sake of persecuting him—with the full knowledge that, in the end, their case should not win a conviction. That is, he was subjected to this abuse of Congressional power “because Democrats could” muster the required votes in the House of Representatives and proceed where, in criminal courts, as we shall learn when president Trump leaves office, no respectable state or U.S. prosecutor would consider it useful or meritorious to bring criminal charges, there being nothing like any sufficient evidence to support them.
Americans watched this unfold over more than three years and, in all that time, failed to grasp the seriousness of the Democrat members' abuse of powers to impeach invested in the House of Representatives, or, grasping it, to then assert themselves vigorously as so sufficiently opposed to the vendetta that these House Democrats dared not go through with their hate-driven plan to attempt to humiliate and frustrate the president.
Had they demonstrated sufficient understanding of and, then, sufficient opposition to the House of Representatives' Democrats' abuse of power, Trump and the nation should have been spared this pointless exercise in sadistic gratification through the abuse of office. Instead, Trump's partisan foes joined a partisan press and leapt to every one of the most damning interpretations possible of Trump's words and deeds. Never mind that other much more plausible alternatives were obvious to others—so obvious that these were openly pointed out immediately in other more neutral or favorable press organs.
Nearly half of the adult American public made themselves parties to a mass-hysteria reaction against Trump's election to office and joined eagerly in his partisan pursuit and persecution—heedless to others' warnings about the great harm to the nation's body-politic and its foundational laws and principles of justice this vendetta entailed.
_______________________________________
RCP Poll Average
Trump Impeachment and Removal From Office: Support/Oppose:
_______________________
Genuine Abuse of Power—
Right under their noses millions of Americans failed to recognize a flagrant and years-long open abuse of government's power.
With no good cause at all, the president of the United States was subjected to a vicious and groundless legal persecution and only then, when that pursuit proved an open fiasco, he was further hounded with a spurious impeachment driven by sheer hatred and promulgated on a strictly partisan basis—barring two members of the opposition party who, themselves, refused to cater to the bilious Speaker of the House's vendetta against the president.
From the outset it was clear that the 'jury', namely, the U.S. Senate, would not agree to convict the president on the basis of any known or conceivably-valid evidence adduced. Yet, Nancy Pelosi and her partisans pursued the prosecution anyway with complete disregard for the fact that there was no basis on which to expect a conviction.
The Democrats' point and purpose was, then, simply to hound and persecute the president for the sole sake of persecuting him—with the full knowledge that, in the end, their case should not win a conviction. That is, he was subjected to this abuse of Congressional power “because Democrats could” muster the required votes in the House of Representatives and proceed where, in criminal courts, as we shall learn when president Trump leaves office, no respectable state or U.S. prosecutor would consider it useful or meritorious to bring criminal charges, there being nothing like any sufficient evidence to support them.
Americans watched this unfold over more than three years and, in all that time, failed to grasp the seriousness of the Democrat members' abuse of powers to impeach invested in the House of Representatives, or, grasping it, to then assert themselves vigorously as so sufficiently opposed to the vendetta that these House Democrats dared not go through with their hate-driven plan to attempt to humiliate and frustrate the president.
Had they demonstrated sufficient understanding of and, then, sufficient opposition to the House of Representatives' Democrats' abuse of power, Trump and the nation should have been spared this pointless exercise in sadistic gratification through the abuse of office. Instead, Trump's partisan foes joined a partisan press and leapt to every one of the most damning interpretations possible of Trump's words and deeds. Never mind that other much more plausible alternatives were obvious to others—so obvious that these were openly pointed out immediately in other more neutral or favorable press organs.
Nearly half of the adult American public made themselves parties to a mass-hysteria reaction against Trump's election to office and joined eagerly in his partisan pursuit and persecution—heedless to others' warnings about the great harm to the nation's body-politic and its foundational laws and principles of justice this vendetta entailed.
_______________________________________
>99 margd:
_____________
Mind-blowing stat:
48 Senators who voted to convict Trump represent 18 million more Americans than 52 Republicans who voted to acquit
- Ari Berman @AriBerman | 4:20 PM · Feb 5, 2020
RCP Poll Average
Trump Impeachment and Removal From Office: Support/Oppose:
Yes/Remove: 47.8
No :.............. 48.1 (+0.3)
101margd
>98 margd: contd.
Greg Sargent @ThePlumLineGS | 11:02 AM · Feb 6, 2020
... @RepAdamSchiff told @Maddow the NSA withheld crucial info from the House that was relevant to the Senate trial.
A former NSC official tells me this info was likely intercepted comms among Ukrainian officials about Trump's shakedown:
https://washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/06/trumps-latest-viral-attack-romney...
Image ( https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1225449706723184641/photo/1 )*
Image ( https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1225449706723184641/photo/2 )*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
"...Ned Price, a former CIA and National Security Council official, told me one plausible scenario is that this information comprised intercepted conversations among Ukrainian officials about Trump’s shakedown.
In this telling, House Democrats sought this information to shed light on how the Ukrainians saw Trump’s withholding of military aid. That could show Ukrainians felt pressure from the withheld aid as Trump’s ringleaders demanded the statement smearing Biden — which would undercut a key Trump talking point — or that they understood a direct link between the two, Price said.
“This would have been very pertinent information,” Price told me.
Price noted it’s likely the White House counsel — who led Trump’s impeachment defense — could have instructed NSA officials not to cooperate with House demands.
“By law, the NSA is required to provide pertinent information to congressional overseers,” Price told me. “Blocking that would require a deliberate intervention from the White House.”
To be clear, we don’t know what happened here. But as Price told me, though it’s unlikely the NSA will cough up this information, dogged investigative reporting might — and might also establish how it was covered up..."
___________________________________________________________________________
ETA
Maddow Blog @MaddowBlog | 9:54 PM · Feb 5, 2020:
"At some point there were instructions or dictates or requests from up above, and as a result, what was supposed to be turned over to us was withheld from us. That is particularly an issue with the NSA but may be with the CIA as well." -Rep. Adam Schiff
2:28 ( https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1225251295281524738 )
(Transcript)
https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1225478809169862663/photo/1
https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1225478809169862663/photo/2
Greg Sargent @ThePlumLineGS | 11:02 AM · Feb 6, 2020
... @RepAdamSchiff told @Maddow the NSA withheld crucial info from the House that was relevant to the Senate trial.
A former NSC official tells me this info was likely intercepted comms among Ukrainian officials about Trump's shakedown:
https://washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/06/trumps-latest-viral-attack-romney...
Image ( https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1225449706723184641/photo/1 )*
Image ( https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1225449706723184641/photo/2 )*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
"...Ned Price, a former CIA and National Security Council official, told me one plausible scenario is that this information comprised intercepted conversations among Ukrainian officials about Trump’s shakedown.
In this telling, House Democrats sought this information to shed light on how the Ukrainians saw Trump’s withholding of military aid. That could show Ukrainians felt pressure from the withheld aid as Trump’s ringleaders demanded the statement smearing Biden — which would undercut a key Trump talking point — or that they understood a direct link between the two, Price said.
“This would have been very pertinent information,” Price told me.
Price noted it’s likely the White House counsel — who led Trump’s impeachment defense — could have instructed NSA officials not to cooperate with House demands.
“By law, the NSA is required to provide pertinent information to congressional overseers,” Price told me. “Blocking that would require a deliberate intervention from the White House.”
To be clear, we don’t know what happened here. But as Price told me, though it’s unlikely the NSA will cough up this information, dogged investigative reporting might — and might also establish how it was covered up..."
___________________________________________________________________________
ETA
Maddow Blog @MaddowBlog | 9:54 PM · Feb 5, 2020:
"At some point there were instructions or dictates or requests from up above, and as a result, what was supposed to be turned over to us was withheld from us. That is particularly an issue with the NSA but may be with the CIA as well." -Rep. Adam Schiff
2:28 ( https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1225251295281524738 )
(Transcript)
https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1225478809169862663/photo/1
https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1225478809169862663/photo/2
102margd
>98 margd: Contrast withheld Ukraine info and Trump tax returns requested by House with response to Senate request for info on Hunter Biden:
Treasury responds to GOP (Nov) requests for Hunter Biden, Burisma info
Jordain Carney - 02/06/20
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481876-treasury-responds-to-gop-requests-for...
Treasury responds to GOP (Nov) requests for Hunter Biden, Burisma info
Jordain Carney - 02/06/20
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481876-treasury-responds-to-gop-requests-for...
104fuzzi
>103 John5918: that is beneath you.
105lriley
#103--LOL. Mr. Shit for brains. Orange-ish coloring--check. Tiny hands--check. Obese fat guy--check. Bug eyed turtle-ish looking toady--check. Everything checks out.
#104--obviously not. You do like to feign shock and disappointment.
#104--obviously not. You do like to feign shock and disappointment.
106John5918
>104 fuzzi:, >105 lriley:
The old fable of the emperor with no clothes? Being covered up by some bloke with a US flag, representing the US establishment, I suppose.
The old fable of the emperor with no clothes? Being covered up by some bloke with a US flag, representing the US establishment, I suppose.
107lriley
#106---I got all of the emperor with no clothes reference but the bloke is obviously McConnell (who is a turtle-ish looking toady/sycophantic butler here which kind of fits) and he's going to wrap the flag around him. There's also the Salvador Dali'esque toilet seat for the head. Trump also has a thing about flushing toilets.
108Carnophile
>96 theoria: Trump had no more chance of being convicted than barney does of kicking alcoholism.
"Mrowr, hiss!" I think someone's butt-hurt over Trump's acquittal!
"Mrowr, hiss!" I think someone's butt-hurt over Trump's acquittal!
109lriley
#108--FWIW Trump seems the most butt hurt of all. He's been lashing out even more since his kangaroo court caucus (or at least most of it) freed him from all responsibility for any crime he wants to commit. No we didn't get him removed but he's stained for all time--though he was stained before with all his sleazy orange makeup. Can't even get a tan in a honest way.
For an example of that lashing out was this bullshit national prayer breakfast crap. As if this dope can talk about religion with any credibility. I guess walking in one right to life march was all he needed to get right with god and be able to talk about others faiths and convictions.
For an example of that lashing out was this bullshit national prayer breakfast crap. As if this dope can talk about religion with any credibility. I guess walking in one right to life march was all he needed to get right with god and be able to talk about others faiths and convictions.
110John5918
>107 lriley:
Steve Bell always portrays Trump with a toilet seat in place of his unusual hairstyle. Bell is one of Britain's leading satirical cartoonists, I would say.
Steve Bell always portrays Trump with a toilet seat in place of his unusual hairstyle. Bell is one of Britain's leading satirical cartoonists, I would say.
111lriley
#110--it's a very apt cartoon. So the flushing toilets phobia of Trump's has nothing to do with it--more that he's a shithead with a brain that's in the sewer. But the guy with the flag looks lots like how I would expect a cartoonist to portray McConnell. The Flag is something for him to wrap himself in---he's kind of the Liberace of the current political scene.
112margd
Florida Bar confirms active inquiry into Matt Gaetz for impeachment hearing stunt
Grant Stern | February 7, 2020
Authorities at the Florida Bar have confirmed that they have an active misconduct investigation into the controversial Republican Representative who bills himself as “Trump’s ultimate defender.”
Yesterday, the Miami-Dade Democratic Party filed a complaint against Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) with the Florida Bar, who previously admonished the Congressman for his attempt to intimidate Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen to and prevent him from publicly testifying about the president’s crimes.
The complaint is over an October incident when the Florida man led a group of thirty House Republicans in a breach of the Intelligence Committee’s secure, compartmented information facility (SCIF). The childish attempt to derail Trump’s impeachment hearings ended with them ordering pizza and bragging about it on Twitter...
https://occupydemocrats.com/2020/02/07/florida-bar-confirms-active-investigation...
Grant Stern | February 7, 2020
Authorities at the Florida Bar have confirmed that they have an active misconduct investigation into the controversial Republican Representative who bills himself as “Trump’s ultimate defender.”
Yesterday, the Miami-Dade Democratic Party filed a complaint against Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) with the Florida Bar, who previously admonished the Congressman for his attempt to intimidate Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen to and prevent him from publicly testifying about the president’s crimes.
The complaint is over an October incident when the Florida man led a group of thirty House Republicans in a breach of the Intelligence Committee’s secure, compartmented information facility (SCIF). The childish attempt to derail Trump’s impeachment hearings ended with them ordering pizza and bragging about it on Twitter...
https://occupydemocrats.com/2020/02/07/florida-bar-confirms-active-investigation...
113margd
>103 John5918: Here's a photo that more accurately captures Jabba the Prez:
A Photo Of President Trump Returning To The White House Became An Immediate Meme
He's *literally* glowing!
Posted on February 7, 2020
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tanyachen/president-trump-confusing-color-l...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White House Photos @photowhitehouse | 8:38 PM · Feb 7, 2020:
Today, @realDonaldTrump was dancing with the sunset and strong winds
when he walked to the Oval Office from the Marine One on the South Lawn..
Photo by William Moon in the White House on February 7, 2020
Image https://twitter.com/photowhitehouse/status/1225957125278617600/photo/1
A Photo Of President Trump Returning To The White House Became An Immediate Meme
He's *literally* glowing!
Posted on February 7, 2020
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tanyachen/president-trump-confusing-color-l...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White House Photos @photowhitehouse | 8:38 PM · Feb 7, 2020:
Today, @realDonaldTrump was dancing with the sunset and strong winds
when he walked to the Oval Office from the Marine One on the South Lawn..
Photo by William Moon in the White House on February 7, 2020
Image https://twitter.com/photowhitehouse/status/1225957125278617600/photo/1
114margd
Laurence Tribe @tribelaw | 12:20 AM · Feb 8, 2020:
Trump says his impeachment by the House should be “expunged.”
No way. That’s not even a thing in our Constitution.
Impeachment isn’t like a juvenile DUI charge. Impeachment is forever.
Trump says his impeachment by the House should be “expunged.”
No way. That’s not even a thing in our Constitution.
Impeachment isn’t like a juvenile DUI charge. Impeachment is forever.
115proximity1
Impeachment--especially in this exclusively anti-Trump partisan case--is the equivalent of an "indictment" by a prosecutor.
Of itself, it has nothing at all conclusive about. The party so charged is then tried in the senate just as a defendant faces a jury trial when indicted. No one who is then found "not guilty" at trial would stand for others insisting that, in fact, what's most "important! is the indictment, not the fact that, at trial, the defendant was acquitted.
Every defense counsel worth his salt reminds the criminal jurors in his opening comments that "Any one of us could find himself charged with the offense my client is charged with. Being charged with a crime is absolutely no indication of guilt."
116John5918
>115 proximity1:
And doesn't every judge remind the jury that they must be impartial and unbiased? Indeed isn't there a process where jurors who are believed not to be impartial can be challenged and removed? If a juror were to state before the trial how she planned to vote, would that juror be acceptable?
Edited to add: And in a trial, don't they usually hear witnesses and sub poena documents?
And doesn't every judge remind the jury that they must be impartial and unbiased? Indeed isn't there a process where jurors who are believed not to be impartial can be challenged and removed? If a juror were to state before the trial how she planned to vote, would that juror be acceptable?
Edited to add: And in a trial, don't they usually hear witnesses and sub poena documents?
117Molly3028
Friday night massacre ~ 3 more loyal-to-the-Constitution Americans out the door
Putin continues to enjoy watching Americans destroying their
democracy. The "show" keeps getting better and better. On
election day, he just has to scr*w with our electric grid in a
strategic place to cause widespread panic about the election
results. Plans for that are probably already in the works.
Putin continues to enjoy watching Americans destroying their
democracy. The "show" keeps getting better and better. On
election day, he just has to scr*w with our electric grid in a
strategic place to cause widespread panic about the election
results. Plans for that are probably already in the works.
118lriley
#113--I can't make up my mind which is funnier. Jesus. I'm sure Barnum and Bailey would expect better than that from their clowns.
119Carnophile
>109 lriley: Trump seems the most butt hurt of all.
What planet have you been watching? He won.
No we didn't get him removed but he's stained for all time
LOL. Mantra of the losing side.
Yes, cry! Cry your bitter tears!
Here's the mantra of the winning side: Acquitted for all time.
Insert your salty tears here:
What planet have you been watching? He won.
No we didn't get him removed but he's stained for all time
LOL. Mantra of the losing side.
Yes, cry! Cry your bitter tears!
Here's the mantra of the winning side: Acquitted for all time.
Insert your salty tears here:
120lriley
#119--he hasn't even started to be acquitted. There is more serious shit than an impeachment awaiting him in the future. If he doesn't win in November he better hightail it out of the United States because the same SDNY that sent his lackey Michael Cohen will send him--might even give him Michael's old jail cell as he might be getting out around the time the Donald is going in. He won't have Bill Barr protecting him anymore. By the way that's really what I'm waiting for. Everyone knew that Senate trial was going to be a sham---still worthwhile IMO impeaching him anyway.
......and yeah he is the most butt hurt.
......and yeah he is the most butt hurt.
121proximity1
"He won't have Bill Barr protecting him anymore. By the way that's really what I'm waiting for."
Presumably--unless Democrats conspire to deprive Trump of his Constitutional rights--Trump shall have the benefit of a jury trial. The jurors shall judge his culpability on the facts at law as these are proven in court. Trump shall have the right to counsel, to be confronted with witnesses against him--in open court and they'll have not only to testify under oath, they'll be subject to examination and cross-examination on their testimony.
Jurors, taking the facts found and proven at trial, shall adjourn and deliberate over their verdict on the charges against Trump.
That's all the "protection" he should have or need to have.
And that verdict, if, like the Senate's, is "not guilty", shall be, unlike the Senate's, a final and definitive acquittal on such charges.
Presumably--unless Democrats conspire to deprive Trump of his Constitutional rights--Trump shall have the benefit of a jury trial. The jurors shall judge his culpability on the facts at law as these are proven in court. Trump shall have the right to counsel, to be confronted with witnesses against him--in open court and they'll have not only to testify under oath, they'll be subject to examination and cross-examination on their testimony.
Jurors, taking the facts found and proven at trial, shall adjourn and deliberate over their verdict on the charges against Trump.
That's all the "protection" he should have or need to have.
And that verdict, if, like the Senate's, is "not guilty", shall be, unlike the Senate's, a final and definitive acquittal on such charges.
122lriley
#121--so here we are again. No. 5?--as in times you couldn't help yourself from breaking your word.
But anyway.....Trump aka as individual No. 1--the guy benefitting and fully in knowledge of Michael Cohen's crimes (the sames ones that he's currently sitting in a prison cell for) on his behalf. Most of that work is already done. Not only the SDNY but the NY attorney general have him in their sights. Maybe you think they're not serious---in that case we'll see but here's the other thing he cannot be pardoned except by the NY governor.
But anyway.....Trump aka as individual No. 1--the guy benefitting and fully in knowledge of Michael Cohen's crimes (the sames ones that he's currently sitting in a prison cell for) on his behalf. Most of that work is already done. Not only the SDNY but the NY attorney general have him in their sights. Maybe you think they're not serious---in that case we'll see but here's the other thing he cannot be pardoned except by the NY governor.
123John5918
>121 proximity1: Trump shall have the benefit of a jury trial. The jurors shall judge his culpability on the facts at law as these are proven in court. Trump shall have the right to counsel, to be confronted with witnesses against him--in open court and they'll have not only to testify under oath, they'll be subject to examination and cross-examination on their testimony. Jurors, taking the facts found and proven at trial, shall adjourn and deliberate over their verdict on the charges against Trump.
Well, precisely. He'll have a fair trial, in which there are witnesses and where the judge and jurors are impartial. Now, compare that process with the Senate's impeachment hearing where the Republican majority refused to hear witnesses and, acting as judge and jury, were not impartial. A fair trial needs to be fair to the prosecution as well as to the accused.
Well, precisely. He'll have a fair trial, in which there are witnesses and where the judge and jurors are impartial. Now, compare that process with the Senate's impeachment hearing where the Republican majority refused to hear witnesses and, acting as judge and jury, were not impartial. A fair trial needs to be fair to the prosecution as well as to the accused.
124Molly3028
NO MORE LIMITS ~ FULL SPEED AHEAD
Trump knows that GOPers will do and say anything to stay in
power. He has been unleashed for the foreseeable future and
beyond. He and Putin are free to continue their Russianization of
America.
Trump knows that GOPers will do and say anything to stay in
power. He has been unleashed for the foreseeable future and
beyond. He and Putin are free to continue their Russianization of
America.
125proximity1
"Most of that work is already done. Not only the SDNY but the NY attorney general have him in their sights. Maybe you think they're not serious---"
_________________
Oh, no, I'm sure they're serious. So was Adam Schiff and so was Nancy Pelosi, Nadler, etc.
Was Trump convicted? (HINT: NOPE! (LOL!) )
Fuck their "seriousness". "Most of the work is already done"? LMFAO!
Right. Just a little detail to attend: they still have to convince a jury.
Get back to us when that "work" is done, won't you?
Until then, as usual, you're talking out of your fucking ass.
_________________
Oh, no, I'm sure they're serious. So was Adam Schiff and so was Nancy Pelosi, Nadler, etc.
Was Trump convicted? (HINT: NOPE! (LOL!) )
Fuck their "seriousness". "Most of the work is already done"? LMFAO!
Right. Just a little detail to attend: they still have to convince a jury.
Get back to us when that "work" is done, won't you?
Until then, as usual, you're talking out of your fucking ass.
126John5918
>125 proximity1: they still have to convince a jury
Precisely. An impartial jury. What they didn't have in the Senate hearings.
Precisely. An impartial jury. What they didn't have in the Senate hearings.
127fuzzi
>126 John5918: an impartial jury, but it's only impartial if they find the defendant guilty.
Riiiiiight.
Salem witch trials, anyone? Spanish inquisition? Soviet gulag? How about a necklace party in South Africa?
Riiiiiight.
Salem witch trials, anyone? Spanish inquisition? Soviet gulag? How about a necklace party in South Africa?
128proximity1
(REUTERS)
In another Trump win, court tosses Democrats' suit over his businesses by Jan Wolfe | Politics | February 7, 2020 / 3:27 PM /
_________________
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
A federal appeals court on Friday threw out a lawsuit brought by Democratic lawmakers that accused Donald Trump of violating anti-corruption provisions in the U.S. Constitution with his business dealings, capping a week of political victories for the Republican president.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the more than 210 House of Representatives and Senate Democrats lacked the required legal standing to bring the case, reversing a lower court judge’s decision that had allowed the case to proceed.
Two days after being acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment trial, Trump hailed the ruling as a 'total win,' telling reporters that 'it was another phony case.' Elizabeth Wydra, a lawyer for the lawmakers, said they were disappointed in the decision and were weighing their next steps.” …
… ...
Having a suit thrown out on the basis of lack of standing is one of the more elementary errors--made by hacks or desperate people who are grasping at straws--
This is what, in litigation, amounts to "throwing 'shit' against the wall and crossing one's fingers in hopes that some of it 'sticks.'"
It's an embarrassment.
Hey, Riley, give Elizabeth Wydra a ring. She could use your help as she "weighs next (legal) steps",
Case dismissed.
NEXT!
LOL!!!
129John5918
>127 fuzzi: an impartial jury, but it's only impartial if they find the defendant guilty
Well, to use your own words, that's beneath you. I did not say that. I merely allude to the fact that the Republicans in the Senate refused to hear witnesses, and the majority appeared to have publicly pre-judged the case even before the hearing began. If Trump is tried in a New York court it is far more likely to be, er, an impartial jury. It may find him guilty or it may acquit him, but at least it is likely to be a fair trial, unlike the Senate hearing which appeared to by-pass the normal due process.
Well, to use your own words, that's beneath you. I did not say that. I merely allude to the fact that the Republicans in the Senate refused to hear witnesses, and the majority appeared to have publicly pre-judged the case even before the hearing began. If Trump is tried in a New York court it is far more likely to be, er, an impartial jury. It may find him guilty or it may acquit him, but at least it is likely to be a fair trial, unlike the Senate hearing which appeared to by-pass the normal due process.
130lriley
The crime's on record and Cohen's already gone to prison for it. Trump was the instigator and beneficiary of the crime. He is the unnamed but also the confirmed Individual Number ONE. So the evidence is already in place and by the way the Trump Organization's CFO and all the evidence that goes with him is in the hands of SDNY too. When the time comes he will talk to the prosecution just like Sondland did. It will pass almost straight through a grand jury. Some fucking people I guess just live under rocks. It's like 'What? What!?'--like it's something fucking new--all this shit has been sitting in a prosecutor's hands since the day the FBI knocked down Cohen's door. They're going to hit him on multiple counts--maybe some of them won't stick but he won't escape altogether. And apparently prox and fuzzi don't think the FBI have a fucking major hard on for the Donald after he's bounced out of the White House? WTF!!!! After he's crucified that institution for the last 3 year? Hey I'm not a fan of the FBI but Hah! The SDNY has a major fucking hard on too. By the book--I'm sure. Their absolute best and most determined guys and gals who are going to soak up fame for putting him away. They're going to cross every t and dot every i and they'll never ever give up until the Donald's either in prison or d-e-a-d. And no POTUS--Democrat, Republican, Independent can pardon anybody for a state crime. They can pardon federal crimes. That's it. Donald's days are numbered.
131lriley
As I've remarked Trump better get his golfing in while he can. Keep on stuffing those McDonald's burgers and diet cokes in his head. He's going to be getting a steady diet of prison fare pretty soon--oatmeal and past its date applesauce. Jellied ham and slop he's not even sure what it is. There's a reason why he always tries to hide shit and he's not altogether competent at that by the way. There are reasons why he's so bombastic and goes off like a volcano all the time. He's fucking shitting his pants terrified of what happens after his POTUS days are over because there's only misery coming after that. The guy is a criminal and he's a goof and he'll go out mewling when his time comes and I don't think that time is that far away.
132John5918
>130 lriley:, >131 lriley:
I think what proximity, fuzzi and their ilk fail to understand is that the motive of those who report, investigate and prosecute an alleged crime is not the main issue; the main issue is whether the accused is guilty or not. There's no doubt that a lot of Democrats would like to see the back of Trump and that is an incentive for them to work diligently to ensure that his alleged crimes are properly investigated, but the FBI and other law enforcement agencies would do so anyway if they suspected a crime or had it reported to them, because that is their job and it is also a key element of a country that is ruled by law rather than power, wealth, force, impunity, etc (as is sadly the case in some of the countries in which I have lived and worked). Trump's alleged crimes will eventually be tried by a proper and impartial court of law, not by the partisan political charade of a Senate hearing, and then we will see what the result is.
I think what proximity, fuzzi and their ilk fail to understand is that the motive of those who report, investigate and prosecute an alleged crime is not the main issue; the main issue is whether the accused is guilty or not. There's no doubt that a lot of Democrats would like to see the back of Trump and that is an incentive for them to work diligently to ensure that his alleged crimes are properly investigated, but the FBI and other law enforcement agencies would do so anyway if they suspected a crime or had it reported to them, because that is their job and it is also a key element of a country that is ruled by law rather than power, wealth, force, impunity, etc (as is sadly the case in some of the countries in which I have lived and worked). Trump's alleged crimes will eventually be tried by a proper and impartial court of law, not by the partisan political charade of a Senate hearing, and then we will see what the result is.
133proximity1
... "Hey I'm not a fan of the FBI but Hah! The SDNY has a major fucking hard on too. By the book--I'm sure. Their absolute best and most determined guys and gals who are going to soak up fame for putting him away. They're going to cross every t and dot every i and they'll never ever give up until the Donald's either in prison or d-e-a-d. And no POTUS--Democrat, Republican, Independent can pardon anybody for a state crime. They can pardon federal crimes. That's it. Donald's days are numbered."
LOL!
Yada, yada, yada.
Tell it to the jury, pal. Practically anywhere Trump might face criminal trial, he'd be legally entitled to insist on a jury trial. In light of that, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how "hard" your fucking D.A. is to get a conviction.
A jury's right to determine a verdict --esp. "not guilty"--is out of a judge's hands. As long as it cannot be shown that the jury's verdict was influenced by some external inducement--that is, as long as the jurors reach a "not guilty" verdict on their own reasonings and judgments-- that verdict may not be questioned or second-guessed.
I myself, for example, could honestly swear an oath to hear a state case against Trump with an open mind, declaring my readiness to heed the evidence brought and presented in court and render an impartial verdict based on that evidence and, once deliberating, I might still find--as would not surprise me-- that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof. In this case, I'd vote to acquit. If even one other juror joined me, that would mean either a re-trial--if it were left up to you and yours, you, of course, would keep going until you got a conviction or a jury returned a majority--- or unanimous--verdict of "not guilty."
My father once recounted his times as a (state or county court) jury foreman. Sometimes he found that a defendant whose guilt, in his opinion, was beyond any reasonabe doubt, was stubbornly insisted on as "not guilty" by one or more of the other jurors. He found it infuriating but these jurors had a right to vote according to their judgment of the case and evidence. I have no basis on which to doubt those jurors' sincerity. For them, the district attorney didn't prove his case.
Too bad.
Criminals go without trial every day for no other reason that, in the judgment of the prosecutor, the case won't be successful. And really poor prosecutors are lousy judges of which cases aren't sound --so they prosecute them, wasting the tax-payers' money and losing the case or having to re-try or drop the case.
If there were any sound case against Trump on a criminal charge, that should have become inescapably obvious to lots of people a long time ago. Instead, millions of people simply do not either understand or agree with this hysterical vendetta of the Democrats--except as the really shitty politically-motivated thing that it is. In a criminal court, this is going nowhere because those people are a significant part of any jury pool. Try excluding every prospective juror who, as it happens, not only voted for Trump for president but would and do intend to do so again. There simply aren't that many pre-emptive exclusions allowed.
Your prosecutors can bust their asses trying to get a conviction agaisnt Trump. They aren't going to succeed. If I had any, I'd bet money on it. While there is no such thing as a "wrongful" acauittal, there is definitely such a thing as a wrongful conviction and those a trial judge not only may reverse, set aside, that verdict, he's positively obliged to do so if he cannot find some way to square the guilty-verdict with the evidence produced in his courtroom. I've known a criminal jury's conviction to be reversed by the court judge even where the defense attorney had not had time to formally request the reversal.
As for Trump's talking to the prosecutors, cooperating with their efforts to convict him--again, that's "in your dreams". Trump won't have to say a word to the state's attorney. He can answer every question with, "no comment," and there's not a damn thing the prosecutors can do about it.
Once more, you're talking out of your ass here.
134John5918
>133 proximity1:
Ah, so even though proximity doesn't read my posts, s/he agrees with me that Trump will get a fair trial, with an unbiased jury. And as I said in >126 John5918: and >129 John5918:, that's precisely what he didn't get in the Senate hearing.
Ah, so even though proximity doesn't read my posts, s/he agrees with me that Trump will get a fair trial, with an unbiased jury. And as I said in >126 John5918: and >129 John5918:, that's precisely what he didn't get in the Senate hearing.
135fuzzi
>129 John5918: no, what was beneath you was posting a disgusting caricature of someone. The cartoon didn't add anything to the discussion, but merely made clear your personal bias against the person under discussion.
>126 John5918: wrote "Precisely. An impartial jury. What they didn't have in the Senate hearings."
This is what I was responding to, a comment that is merely your opinion. You are alleging that there wasn't an impartial decision based upon what, that Trump was not found guilty?
There is no basis for the allegations implied that the jury (Senate) wasn't impartial, nor that they didn't do their job. Their job was to look at the evidence that the House of Representatives brought to the Senate, and judge if there was enough evidence to convict the President of the two "crimes" in the article of impeachment. That's why witnesses and additional information were not allowed in the Senate portion, because it's not the Senate's job to prosecute, only to make the determination of guilty or not guilty.
If you're upset at what a poor job was done presenting evidence and interviewing witnesses, look at the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, especially Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler. Their antics reminded me of a Keystone Cops movie.
I realize that the US system is different from other countries' judicial processes, and may be difficult to understand if someone is only using opinion pieces and NYT articles to help comprehend how things are done here in the former colonies. If an understanding of how the law works here is desired, it might be worthwhile to read articles by Democrats who believe in the rule of law, like Alan Dershowitz.
>126 John5918: wrote "Precisely. An impartial jury. What they didn't have in the Senate hearings."
This is what I was responding to, a comment that is merely your opinion. You are alleging that there wasn't an impartial decision based upon what, that Trump was not found guilty?
There is no basis for the allegations implied that the jury (Senate) wasn't impartial, nor that they didn't do their job. Their job was to look at the evidence that the House of Representatives brought to the Senate, and judge if there was enough evidence to convict the President of the two "crimes" in the article of impeachment. That's why witnesses and additional information were not allowed in the Senate portion, because it's not the Senate's job to prosecute, only to make the determination of guilty or not guilty.
If you're upset at what a poor job was done presenting evidence and interviewing witnesses, look at the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, especially Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler. Their antics reminded me of a Keystone Cops movie.
I realize that the US system is different from other countries' judicial processes, and may be difficult to understand if someone is only using opinion pieces and NYT articles to help comprehend how things are done here in the former colonies. If an understanding of how the law works here is desired, it might be worthwhile to read articles by Democrats who believe in the rule of law, like Alan Dershowitz.
136margd
0:24 ( https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1226538711623634947 )
0:05 ( https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1226544595288383489 )
1:48 ( https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1226583703146713089 )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like DOJ and Graham might be trying to avoid President's personal lawyer bearing post-impeachment, Russian dirt?
Justice Dept. Reviewing Information From Giuliani on the Bidens, Graham Says
Catie Edmondson | Feb. 9, 2020
...Senator Lindsey Graham...a South Carolina Republican who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a vocal Trump ally, said Attorney General William P. Barr told him in a telephone call early Sunday morning that the department was “receiving information coming out” of Ukraine delivered by Mr. Giuliani.
“He told me that they have created a process that Rudy could give information and they would see if it’s verified”...
...the Justice Department...has previously taken steps to distance itself from Mr. Giuliani, and in September, it said Mr. Barr had “not discussed anything relating to Ukraine” with Mr. Giuliani.
...(after impeachment trial) Mr. Trump and his allies have...signaled a continuing effort to investigate the business relationship Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, had with Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company, and whether the elder Mr. Biden acted improperly to benefit Burisma when he was vice president.
...“Any documents coming out of the Ukraine against any American, Republican or Democrat, need to be looked at by the intelligence services who has expertise that I don’t,” Mr. Graham said, “because Russia is playing us all like a fiddle.”
The receipt of information from Mr. Giuliani does not mean that the Justice Department will open any investigation into Mr. Biden or his son. The attorney general issued a memo last week saying that he must clear the opening of any investigation into a presidential candidate.
Mr. Graham’s remarks came after Mr. Giuliani claimed in an interview on Saturday night with Fox News that he had found a “smoking gun” in his investigation into the Bidens and called on Mr. Graham to investigate Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine. “We’ve got the documents, Lindsey”...
Mr. Graham had indicated in the fall that he would use the power of his Judiciary Committee gavel to investigate the Bidens’ work in Ukraine, requesting documents from the State Department and the Secret Service. In December, he invited Mr. Giuliani to testify before his committee about the trip he took to Ukraine in an effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens.
...“anybody who has got any information coming from the Ukraine needs to turn it over to the intelligence community,” (Graham said)...
0:05 ( https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1226544595288383489 )
1:48 ( https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1226583703146713089 )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like DOJ and Graham might be trying to avoid President's personal lawyer bearing post-impeachment, Russian dirt?
Justice Dept. Reviewing Information From Giuliani on the Bidens, Graham Says
Catie Edmondson | Feb. 9, 2020
...Senator Lindsey Graham...a South Carolina Republican who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a vocal Trump ally, said Attorney General William P. Barr told him in a telephone call early Sunday morning that the department was “receiving information coming out” of Ukraine delivered by Mr. Giuliani.
“He told me that they have created a process that Rudy could give information and they would see if it’s verified”...
...the Justice Department...has previously taken steps to distance itself from Mr. Giuliani, and in September, it said Mr. Barr had “not discussed anything relating to Ukraine” with Mr. Giuliani.
...(after impeachment trial) Mr. Trump and his allies have...signaled a continuing effort to investigate the business relationship Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, had with Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company, and whether the elder Mr. Biden acted improperly to benefit Burisma when he was vice president.
...“Any documents coming out of the Ukraine against any American, Republican or Democrat, need to be looked at by the intelligence services who has expertise that I don’t,” Mr. Graham said, “because Russia is playing us all like a fiddle.”
The receipt of information from Mr. Giuliani does not mean that the Justice Department will open any investigation into Mr. Biden or his son. The attorney general issued a memo last week saying that he must clear the opening of any investigation into a presidential candidate.
Mr. Graham’s remarks came after Mr. Giuliani claimed in an interview on Saturday night with Fox News that he had found a “smoking gun” in his investigation into the Bidens and called on Mr. Graham to investigate Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine. “We’ve got the documents, Lindsey”...
Mr. Graham had indicated in the fall that he would use the power of his Judiciary Committee gavel to investigate the Bidens’ work in Ukraine, requesting documents from the State Department and the Secret Service. In December, he invited Mr. Giuliani to testify before his committee about the trip he took to Ukraine in an effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens.
...“anybody who has got any information coming from the Ukraine needs to turn it over to the intelligence community,” (Graham said)...
137lriley
#133--I see prox has reengaged fully. He's made a hero out of the orange clown and the idea he'll end his days in his prison cell really really matters to him. What doesn't matter is whether (and there's no not) he deserves to be there. Michael Cohen was convicted on 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 counts all instigated by and for the benefit of the current resident of the White House aka Individual Number ONE and otherwise known as Donald J. Trump. The jury might not convict---well we'll see. Seems to me though that prosecutors have a whole lot to work with and the SDNY has the most aggressive reputation of any regional court district in the United States for putting people away.
I'm surprised though that prox puts more faith in juries than he does judges. Hasn't the Donald been stacking courts all over the country. It would seen though that Trump appointed judges would probably have to recuse themselves---you know that quid pro quo thing.
I'm surprised though that prox puts more faith in juries than he does judges. Hasn't the Donald been stacking courts all over the country. It would seen though that Trump appointed judges would probably have to recuse themselves---you know that quid pro quo thing.
138John5918
>135 fuzzi:
You obviously don't understand British satirical humour. What is "disgusting" is usually not the cartoon but the person/behaviour which the cartoon is satirising. Apparently you are unaware of the very old fable of the emperor with no clothes. Disgusting?
You also spin the Senate hearings to suit your own narrative. They had the option of hearing witnesses, and they opted not to. A number of the Senators who are the "jurors" reportedly collaborated in planning Trump's defence. A large number of the "jurors" also made it very clear that they were voting to acquit him before the hearing even took place. If Trump has to stand trial in front of a normal court, with judge and jury, he will not have all those built-in advantages. I have no idea whether or not he will be found guilty, but at least it will be a fair trial, unlike the Senate hearings.
Your penultmate sentence is also not worthy of you. As a matter of interest I don't read the NYT because it is behind a pay wall and I can't be bothered to cough up and remember another password. I obtain my information from a wide variety of global sources, factual as well as opinion pieces, and (here's the bit that Barney and maybe you don't understand) from my US friends and colleagues, who all apparently have a very different narrative from that of the likes of you and proximity.
You obviously don't understand British satirical humour. What is "disgusting" is usually not the cartoon but the person/behaviour which the cartoon is satirising. Apparently you are unaware of the very old fable of the emperor with no clothes. Disgusting?
You also spin the Senate hearings to suit your own narrative. They had the option of hearing witnesses, and they opted not to. A number of the Senators who are the "jurors" reportedly collaborated in planning Trump's defence. A large number of the "jurors" also made it very clear that they were voting to acquit him before the hearing even took place. If Trump has to stand trial in front of a normal court, with judge and jury, he will not have all those built-in advantages. I have no idea whether or not he will be found guilty, but at least it will be a fair trial, unlike the Senate hearings.
Your penultmate sentence is also not worthy of you. As a matter of interest I don't read the NYT because it is behind a pay wall and I can't be bothered to cough up and remember another password. I obtain my information from a wide variety of global sources, factual as well as opinion pieces, and (here's the bit that Barney and maybe you don't understand) from my US friends and colleagues, who all apparently have a very different narrative from that of the likes of you and proximity.
139margd
>138 John5918: Years ago, looking for "balance", I read NYT Bestseller The Case for Israel by Harvard Law's Alan Dershowitz.
It sure sent me scurrying back into my corner! Always in the back of my mind (along with OJ and Epstein stories) whenever today I read an opinion of his.
Certainly his defense of Trumpian powers is consistent...must be kompromat though he assures us he kept his undies on.
It sure sent me scurrying back into my corner! Always in the back of my mind (along with OJ and Epstein stories) whenever today I read an opinion of his.
Certainly his defense of Trumpian powers is consistent...must be kompromat though he assures us he kept his undies on.
140timspalding
A member above has been suspended for a week for a violation of the Terms of Service. Our Terms of Service ( https://www.librarything.com/privacy) prohibit personal attacks on other members. "Trump had no more chance of being convicted than (member) does of kicking alcoholism" is not an edge case. Members should not tolerate such language against another human being, whether or not you disagree with them. LibraryThing certainly does not.
141fuzzi
>138 John5918: obviously you are able to read my mind because you make the statement that I am unable to understand British humor.
Righto.
You also label my explanation of how the US system works as "spin".
Read the constitution: http://constitutionus.com/
House: has the sole power of Impeachment
Senate: has the sole power to TRY Impeachments
And I would also recommend you rely less on the words of corrupt politicians who see the arena of an impeachment as an opportunity to grandstand, to air their grievances, and not as a fact-based investigation and trial.
Righto.
You also label my explanation of how the US system works as "spin".
Read the constitution: http://constitutionus.com/
House: has the sole power of Impeachment
Senate: has the sole power to TRY Impeachments
And I would also recommend you rely less on the words of corrupt politicians who see the arena of an impeachment as an opportunity to grandstand, to air their grievances, and not as a fact-based investigation and trial.
142proximity1
>135 fuzzi:
All of that is exactly correct. Not only that, the above is a pithy statement of the central points here, what really matters about the controversy as far as the Senate trial on the articles of impeachment is concerned.
____________________________
The common citizen-jury, the citizen juror, far predates the founding of the United States. We get it from English common law. The English jury is so ancient an institution that the term "jury" was understood for centuries in England to always signify twelve people--citizens; not eleven, not thirteen, twelve. The American framers of the Constitution, those born and raised in English colonies, had been raised and, indeed, legally educated, in the understanding of English common law and its jury trials.
They, the framers, then took care to preserve all that was good about jury trials; and they were quite deliberate and focused in their discussions aimed at the further enhancement of these rights, correcting the weaknesses and faulty aspects of jury and trial practices as their experience and knowledge had revealed them to reinforce the defendant's rights beyond those with which English people of their own and former generations were acquainted.
Englishmen from six centuries ago would have been amazed to have been told that, six centuries later, a "jury" might be comprised of as few as six people--and, of course, no less surprise that these might include women.
The jury and the right to trial-by-jury is an intellectual advance so fundamental, so important, that I view it as the single most essential bed-rock freedom of them all.
If I could preserve only one civil right, one civil liberty, I would not hesitate a moment to sacrifice every other civil right, if strictly necessary to do so--the rights to free speech, to free assembly, to freedom of the press, the right to read and to speak--all these I'd sacrifice in aid of preserving the right to be tried by a common (petit) jury of one's peers and, of course, all that goes with it:
• the right to a trial at which the charges must be openly stated, proven by open evidence produced in court, based on testimony given under oath, under penalty of law for perjored testimony,
• the right to confront and question witnesses against the accused,
• and, of course, above all, the right of the accused to remain silent, wholly-uncoerced into cooperating in any way with the prosecution's case against him---the defendant must never be compelled by acts of either his commission or omission -- to cooperate in his own criminal conviction in any way.
RE: ... "It would seem though that Trump-appointed judges would probably have to recuse themselves---you know that quid pro quo thing."
LOL! Riley ought to pay better attention to his own arguments and prior points; for he's just reminded us that Trump, after his term as president, is going to face state criminal charges, not federal charges. Why did he emphasize that factor? Because it allowed him to gloat on the prospect of Trump's successors being legally unable to grant a pardon, a commutation of the sentence or other favor to undo the work of a criminal conviction.
If, on the other hand, Trump is tried in federal criminal court, then that conviction, assuming only for the sake of this discussion that he is convicted, may be pardoned or commuted by his successors. So Riley ought to make up his mind. Which is it? State or federal court?
If it's in state court that Trump is tried, then there is certainly no question of the judge's having to recuse himself because he was appointed by Trump--he could not have been.
If in federal court, then of course a Trump-appointed judge would and should be advised to recuse himself, even supposing that his case could be referred to such a judge in the first place.
RE: ... "the SDNY has the most aggressive reputation of any regional court district in the United States for putting people away."
so, tell us: how many former governors, U.S. senators or presidents of the United States have these (U.S. district) criminal courts "put away"? And why wouldn't Trump, if "put away" by one of them, be eligible for a pardon or commutation of the sentence by a successor of his?
Hmmm?
...
"Their (i.e. the U.S. Senators') job was to look at the evidence that the House of Representatives brought to the Senate, and judge if there was enough evidence to convict the President of the two "crimes" in the article of impeachment. That's why witnesses and additional information were not allowed in the Senate portion, because it's not the Senate's job to prosecute, only to make the determination of guilty or not guilty.
"If you're upset at what a poor job was done presenting evidence and interviewing witnesses, look at the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, especially Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler. Their antics reminded me of a Keystone Cops movie." ...
All of that is exactly correct. Not only that, the above is a pithy statement of the central points here, what really matters about the controversy as far as the Senate trial on the articles of impeachment is concerned.
____________________________
The common citizen-jury, the citizen juror, far predates the founding of the United States. We get it from English common law. The English jury is so ancient an institution that the term "jury" was understood for centuries in England to always signify twelve people--citizens; not eleven, not thirteen, twelve. The American framers of the Constitution, those born and raised in English colonies, had been raised and, indeed, legally educated, in the understanding of English common law and its jury trials.
They, the framers, then took care to preserve all that was good about jury trials; and they were quite deliberate and focused in their discussions aimed at the further enhancement of these rights, correcting the weaknesses and faulty aspects of jury and trial practices as their experience and knowledge had revealed them to reinforce the defendant's rights beyond those with which English people of their own and former generations were acquainted.
Englishmen from six centuries ago would have been amazed to have been told that, six centuries later, a "jury" might be comprised of as few as six people--and, of course, no less surprise that these might include women.
The jury and the right to trial-by-jury is an intellectual advance so fundamental, so important, that I view it as the single most essential bed-rock freedom of them all.
If I could preserve only one civil right, one civil liberty, I would not hesitate a moment to sacrifice every other civil right, if strictly necessary to do so--the rights to free speech, to free assembly, to freedom of the press, the right to read and to speak--all these I'd sacrifice in aid of preserving the right to be tried by a common (petit) jury of one's peers and, of course, all that goes with it:
• the right to a trial at which the charges must be openly stated, proven by open evidence produced in court, based on testimony given under oath, under penalty of law for perjored testimony,
• the right to confront and question witnesses against the accused,
• and, of course, above all, the right of the accused to remain silent, wholly-uncoerced into cooperating in any way with the prosecution's case against him---the defendant must never be compelled by acts of either his commission or omission -- to cooperate in his own criminal conviction in any way.
RE: ... "It would seem though that Trump-appointed judges would probably have to recuse themselves---you know that quid pro quo thing."
LOL! Riley ought to pay better attention to his own arguments and prior points; for he's just reminded us that Trump, after his term as president, is going to face state criminal charges, not federal charges. Why did he emphasize that factor? Because it allowed him to gloat on the prospect of Trump's successors being legally unable to grant a pardon, a commutation of the sentence or other favor to undo the work of a criminal conviction.
If, on the other hand, Trump is tried in federal criminal court, then that conviction, assuming only for the sake of this discussion that he is convicted, may be pardoned or commuted by his successors. So Riley ought to make up his mind. Which is it? State or federal court?
If it's in state court that Trump is tried, then there is certainly no question of the judge's having to recuse himself because he was appointed by Trump--he could not have been.
If in federal court, then of course a Trump-appointed judge would and should be advised to recuse himself, even supposing that his case could be referred to such a judge in the first place.
RE: ... "the SDNY has the most aggressive reputation of any regional court district in the United States for putting people away."
so, tell us: how many former governors, U.S. senators or presidents of the United States have these (U.S. district) criminal courts "put away"? And why wouldn't Trump, if "put away" by one of them, be eligible for a pardon or commutation of the sentence by a successor of his?
Hmmm?
143LolaWalser
>140 timspalding:
Wow, what blatant partisanship. Did you ever so much as reprimand barney for the copious insults to other posters?
Wow, what blatant partisanship. Did you ever so much as reprimand barney for the copious insults to other posters?
144LolaWalser
Anyone--can you help me identify any instance in which Tim suspended barney for a week for the insults he routinely dishes to others?
1452wonderY
>144 LolaWalser: It has happened, just more quietly. Why do you think Barney complained to Tim this time?
Person Who Is Always Troubled or Concerned Should Get Different Job, Workplace Experts Say
“Any employee who finds decision-making this harrowing should clearly consider working somewhere else,” the director of the University of Minnesota’s Workplace Health Institute said.
By Andy Borowitz
Person Who Is Always Troubled or Concerned Should Get Different Job, Workplace Experts Say
“Any employee who finds decision-making this harrowing should clearly consider working somewhere else,” the director of the University of Minnesota’s Workplace Health Institute said.
By Andy Borowitz
146timspalding
Barney has been suspended before. I have a record of the last two, since 2018, handy. Each time I suspend someone for a Talk message I write a note in that topic. You will find the last one here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/313892#6995768 .
If you believe that he or anyone else has attacked others, please send me a note with the URL and topic number. If you think they do so "routinely," you should be sending me them routinely. As the TOS clearly states, abuses do not excuse abuses, but I will act on abuses when they are shown to me. (You may, of course, also send them to Kristi, or Kate, if you feel I am biased.)
As for partisanship, I'm accused of it by everyone I suspend. The truth of the matter is, I have no idea what you were arguing about and don't care. The post was a clear violation.
If you believe that he or anyone else has attacked others, please send me a note with the URL and topic number. If you think they do so "routinely," you should be sending me them routinely. As the TOS clearly states, abuses do not excuse abuses, but I will act on abuses when they are shown to me. (You may, of course, also send them to Kristi, or Kate, if you feel I am biased.)
As for partisanship, I'm accused of it by everyone I suspend. The truth of the matter is, I have no idea what you were arguing about and don't care. The post was a clear violation.
147LolaWalser
>145 2wonderY:
I don't know if you're surmising or actually for some reason KNOW who is complaining to whom and what is going on "quietly" but either way that argument's rubbish. Announcing publicly you've banned someone has to be done for all or none. Theoria made one crack (as far as I can recall, ever) and got a public denouncement and notification of a week's suspension. Barney has rampaged on here insulting people dozens of times in most scabrous terms and I can't recall a single instance when Tim denounced him directly like this.
I don't know if you're surmising or actually for some reason KNOW who is complaining to whom and what is going on "quietly" but either way that argument's rubbish. Announcing publicly you've banned someone has to be done for all or none. Theoria made one crack (as far as I can recall, ever) and got a public denouncement and notification of a week's suspension. Barney has rampaged on here insulting people dozens of times in most scabrous terms and I can't recall a single instance when Tim denounced him directly like this.
148timspalding
Announcing publicly you've banned someone has to be done for all or none
I always do it when the violation took place on Talk.
I can't recall a single instance when Tim denounced him directly like this.
I always post about the abuse, and almost never name the person. I did not do so here, you will note. I did quote the words, in case there was some doubt and because--frankly--it's possible in over 147 messages, someone else said something over the line too.
Barney has rampaged on here insulting people dozens of times in most scabrous terms
Send any and all violations by any and all users my way, or to any other LT admin, especially if they post-date the users' last suspension.
I always do it when the violation took place on Talk.
I can't recall a single instance when Tim denounced him directly like this.
I always post about the abuse, and almost never name the person. I did not do so here, you will note. I did quote the words, in case there was some doubt and because--frankly--it's possible in over 147 messages, someone else said something over the line too.
Barney has rampaged on here insulting people dozens of times in most scabrous terms
Send any and all violations by any and all users my way, or to any other LT admin, especially if they post-date the users' last suspension.
149LolaWalser
>146 timspalding:
You quoted theoria's post which helped identify him whereas you didn't do so previously (that I've noticed).
If you believe that he or anyone else has attacked others, please send me a note with the URL and topic number. If you think they do so "routinely," you should be sending me them routinely
If you aren't being notified about what barney, pox et al. are doing it's only because their targets behave like adults and prefer to ignore them. But as it turns out this is a losing strategy when it comes to addressing TOS breaches.
Well, people, I'm not going to volunteer to sweep the Augean stables every time some incontinent drops his load so it's up to everyone to decide if they want to let barney and his ilk to abuse them unpunished.
Childish and wasteful as running to Tim every time may be... It irks me that someone like theoria and lriley gets put away on single prompts while continued abuse gets rewarded because we're too adult to reply in fashion.
You quoted theoria's post which helped identify him whereas you didn't do so previously (that I've noticed).
If you believe that he or anyone else has attacked others, please send me a note with the URL and topic number. If you think they do so "routinely," you should be sending me them routinely
If you aren't being notified about what barney, pox et al. are doing it's only because their targets behave like adults and prefer to ignore them. But as it turns out this is a losing strategy when it comes to addressing TOS breaches.
Well, people, I'm not going to volunteer to sweep the Augean stables every time some incontinent drops his load so it's up to everyone to decide if they want to let barney and his ilk to abuse them unpunished.
Childish and wasteful as running to Tim every time may be... It irks me that someone like theoria and lriley gets put away on single prompts while continued abuse gets rewarded because we're too adult to reply in fashion.
150John5918
>141 fuzzi: Senate: has the sole power to TRY Impeachments
And they chose to do it without hearing any witnesses and without viewing documents which were potentially available to them. Some of them chose to plan Trump's defence with him prior to the hearing. Some of them indicated which way they intended to vote even before the hearing. That indeed sounds like "corrupt politicians", to use your words.
And they chose to do it without hearing any witnesses and without viewing documents which were potentially available to them. Some of them chose to plan Trump's defence with him prior to the hearing. Some of them indicated which way they intended to vote even before the hearing. That indeed sounds like "corrupt politicians", to use your words.
151lriley
#142--how about either or--NYS's attorney general has remarked on the Trump foundation and it's tax returns and fraudulent use of charity funds and they have enough evidence to pursue a case if they feel like.
The Cohen case was a federal case and he went down on 8 charges and Trump was named as the instigator and beneficiary and as Individual Number ONE. Yeah he could be pardoned by the President for that but if he's not re-elected which one of Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Sanders, Steyer, Wang or Warren do you think is going to pardon him? I'm kind of thinking none of them. Even if they were one termers do you think the Donald could handle 3 or 4 years? He might trim down a little without the McDonald's and the chocolate cake every day but I'm thinking it would kill him.
The Cohen case was a federal case and he went down on 8 charges and Trump was named as the instigator and beneficiary and as Individual Number ONE. Yeah he could be pardoned by the President for that but if he's not re-elected which one of Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Sanders, Steyer, Wang or Warren do you think is going to pardon him? I'm kind of thinking none of them. Even if they were one termers do you think the Donald could handle 3 or 4 years? He might trim down a little without the McDonald's and the chocolate cake every day but I'm thinking it would kill him.
152lriley
To comment on Theoria's suspension---her comment was pretty innocuous IMO especially when compared to a whole lot of other things that have been said here over the last several years. From having no cop on the beat for years to all of a sudden we're suspending people for such small potatoes--I don't know--it seems overly corrective.
153LolaWalser
>152 lriley:
theoria is a dude
There are no cops here--it's that barney runs to Tim with complaints about everything, as I gather, while he spews curses and racist, misogynist, xenophobic bullshit and vitriol etc. ad libitum.
Imagine for a moment what it would look like if someone had contacted Tim every time barney insulted one of us and each time got suspended for a week. He couldn't stitch an hour together on here.
If it were just a matter of verbal admonishments I'd continue to support blocking. But to think that someone like barney got someone like theoria removed for a week from the site is beyond disgusting.
So I urge everyone to stop giving him a pass. I will unblock him, and I will complain to Tim at first insult. Which I'm guessing will be the first minute the very next time he pops up.
theoria is a dude
There are no cops here--it's that barney runs to Tim with complaints about everything, as I gather, while he spews curses and racist, misogynist, xenophobic bullshit and vitriol etc. ad libitum.
Imagine for a moment what it would look like if someone had contacted Tim every time barney insulted one of us and each time got suspended for a week. He couldn't stitch an hour together on here.
If it were just a matter of verbal admonishments I'd continue to support blocking. But to think that someone like barney got someone like theoria removed for a week from the site is beyond disgusting.
So I urge everyone to stop giving him a pass. I will unblock him, and I will complain to Tim at first insult. Which I'm guessing will be the first minute the very next time he pops up.
154lriley
#153--my mistake and apologies to theoria.
Myself and Barney do not like each other. The one good thing I can say about him is he does have a cute dog picture. Barney complains about TOS all the time and I've been hit with numerous FU responses from him in the past---which is fine except if you're going to play that way then you shouldn't be trying to run to the authority here trying to get him to punish your adversary. He's also one of those flag happy people which IMO is a joke. He wants the rules to apply to others not to himself. To me margd has been getting attacked rather viciously at times the past few years and he is one of those.....and it's pretty much bully stuff to silence her and good for her she keeps soldiering on.
Myself and Barney do not like each other. The one good thing I can say about him is he does have a cute dog picture. Barney complains about TOS all the time and I've been hit with numerous FU responses from him in the past---which is fine except if you're going to play that way then you shouldn't be trying to run to the authority here trying to get him to punish your adversary. He's also one of those flag happy people which IMO is a joke. He wants the rules to apply to others not to himself. To me margd has been getting attacked rather viciously at times the past few years and he is one of those.....and it's pretty much bully stuff to silence her and good for her she keeps soldiering on.
155timspalding
If you aren't being notified about what barney, pox et al. are doing it's only because their targets behave like adults and prefer to ignore them
I understand the impulse and sympathize, but LibraryThing has a Terms of Service. If people don't report violations, we won't hear about them. That's not unfairness. And it's not the fault of people who do report violations. I note, by the way, that that statement drew a number of flags. We don't go looking often, but we certainly reserve the right to inspect recent flags for signs of TOS violations.
her comment was pretty innocuous
FWIW, I disagree. In a previous example, a member was suspended for six days for a general "motherfuckers." Now, I'm pretty sure nobody thinks anyone else here is actually having sex with their mother. But saying someone is an alcoholic seems rather different to me. Not a small number of us have experience of alcoholism, and, I'm sure, not a few of us are alcoholics. This may be a cultural thing, but calling someone an alcoholic strikes me as less angry hyperbole and more of a mean attack. Lastly, such a statement online is also likely to give strangers pause. I don't know about you, but I'd rather a potential employer find somewhere online where I was attacked as an asshole, than where I was called an alcoholic.
I understand the impulse and sympathize, but LibraryThing has a Terms of Service. If people don't report violations, we won't hear about them. That's not unfairness. And it's not the fault of people who do report violations. I note, by the way, that that statement drew a number of flags. We don't go looking often, but we certainly reserve the right to inspect recent flags for signs of TOS violations.
her comment was pretty innocuous
FWIW, I disagree. In a previous example, a member was suspended for six days for a general "motherfuckers." Now, I'm pretty sure nobody thinks anyone else here is actually having sex with their mother. But saying someone is an alcoholic seems rather different to me. Not a small number of us have experience of alcoholism, and, I'm sure, not a few of us are alcoholics. This may be a cultural thing, but calling someone an alcoholic strikes me as less angry hyperbole and more of a mean attack. Lastly, such a statement online is also likely to give strangers pause. I don't know about you, but I'd rather a potential employer find somewhere online where I was attacked as an asshole, than where I was called an alcoholic.
156dypaloh
FWIW, the profile for barney67 now has this note: “Member either removed themselves or was removed by staff.”
157lriley
#155--for an employer to trawl the internet without good reason for shit on an employee IMO is intrusive. I would not want to work for such an employer. I seriously doubt that theoria or Barney had any other contact than on these particular pages. Anyone coming here should know that most people don't know each other on a truly personal level--I took theoria's comment on barney to be a flippant one off--in any case I don't think any of the posters in the group really know Barney's actual name--he once mentioned (if I remember correctly) that Barney was the name of the dog on his page and was not his real name. So I don't know Tim--it's up to you I guess. I don't really care much whatever names people call me though nor am I interested in bothering you with any of this nonsense and I'm retired and am planning on staying that way so I'm not worried about employers either......and still I don't think that theoria crossed a line really--probably even had been a target of a lot worse than that.
158John5918
A short interlude on presidential satire for fuzzi, from Kenya, albeit not from the NYT.
Daniel arap Moi: How Kenyans learnt to laugh at the president (BBC)
Daniel arap Moi: How Kenyans learnt to laugh at the president (BBC)
159margd
Your tax dollars, still being used to help Trump interfere with the integrity of US elections
- Catherine Rampell @crampell | 11:33 PM · Feb 10, 2020
"Advisers hoped that Secret Service moves in Manchester to secure the area for president
would make it harder for Democratic candidates and their supporters to transverse the state’s largest city
in the hours before the primary’s first votes are cast"
- Jonathan Lemire @JonLemire · 11h
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump plunges into New Hampshire race, aiming to rattle Dems
JILL COLVIN and JONATHAN LEMIRE | Feb 11, 2020
https://apnews.com/1b7be81455a2dee0dff5c24a603989ae
- Catherine Rampell @crampell | 11:33 PM · Feb 10, 2020
"Advisers hoped that Secret Service moves in Manchester to secure the area for president
would make it harder for Democratic candidates and their supporters to transverse the state’s largest city
in the hours before the primary’s first votes are cast"
- Jonathan Lemire @JonLemire · 11h
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump plunges into New Hampshire race, aiming to rattle Dems
JILL COLVIN and JONATHAN LEMIRE | Feb 11, 2020
https://apnews.com/1b7be81455a2dee0dff5c24a603989ae
161margd
Jim Jordan’s name comes up during Statehouse testimony on OSU abuse victims bill
Andrew J. Tobias | Updated Feb 12. 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio — U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan’s name came up Tuesday during a Statehouse hearing on a bill that would pave the way for victims of former Ohio State University doctor Richard Strauss to sue the university for damages.
Adam DiSabato, a former captain of the OSU wrestling team during the late 80s and early 90s, told members of the House Civil Justice Committee that Jordan and other team officials knew about open-shower team facilities that facilitated sexual harassment and abuse of team wrestlers, an allegation Jordan has denied.
He also said Jordan called him repeatedly in July 2018, after media outlets quoted his brother, Michael DiSabato, saying Strauss’ abuse was common knowledge to those surrounding the wrestling program, including Jordan.
“Jim Jordan called me crying, groveling… begging me to go against my brother…That’s the kind of cover-up that’s going on there,” he said...
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/02/jim-jordans-name-comes-up-during-statehou...
Andrew J. Tobias | Updated Feb 12. 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio — U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan’s name came up Tuesday during a Statehouse hearing on a bill that would pave the way for victims of former Ohio State University doctor Richard Strauss to sue the university for damages.
Adam DiSabato, a former captain of the OSU wrestling team during the late 80s and early 90s, told members of the House Civil Justice Committee that Jordan and other team officials knew about open-shower team facilities that facilitated sexual harassment and abuse of team wrestlers, an allegation Jordan has denied.
He also said Jordan called him repeatedly in July 2018, after media outlets quoted his brother, Michael DiSabato, saying Strauss’ abuse was common knowledge to those surrounding the wrestling program, including Jordan.
“Jim Jordan called me crying, groveling… begging me to go against my brother…That’s the kind of cover-up that’s going on there,” he said...
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/02/jim-jordans-name-comes-up-during-statehou...
This topic was continued by Impeach, Indict, 25th Amendment, Vote--REPEAT! 6.
