Political Roundtable Part XXVII

[Wizardspride]

Cults gonna cult....

[Pointgod]

I know generally what Schiff and Nadler have claimed. Clinton, as you know committed several crimes and it's certainly true that the House can impeach a president without evidence of a crime. If I were a juror (senator) I would refer to the constitution for guidance and probably conclude that removal from office would be extraordinarily unjust.

Regarding the obstruction of justice charge, my understanding is that the House did not want to litigate that issue and instead wanted to get the impeachment completed by Christmas break. Trump has every right to claim executive privilege and await a court decision on the merits of his claim.

It is NOT TRUE that Trump has claimed executive privilege. HE HAS NOT. He has invented blanket privilege to ignore Congress' constitutional requirement to oversee the executive branch. No such privilege exists in law.

Trump demanded that a foreign official manufacture fake dirt about his political opponent, in contradiction to America's national security needs, in order to help his in his personal reelection. Ukraine is a buffer between totalitarian Russia and Democratic Europe. It is in our national security interests that Ukraine not lose its war with Russia over the Crimea. Trump threatened, illegally, to withhold aid that Congress chose, in a bipartisan vote, to supply to Ukraine to protect our national security.

Clinton lied about getting a blowjob.

I don't see how you can perceive this any other way than a terrifying abuse of power, worse than ANY corruption we have seen in our nation's history, that requires immediate removal from office to protect our country and the future of Democracy.

Executive privilege has been exercised by all presidents in my lifetime. Obama used it for the Fast and Furious issue as well as other events. Presidents have a right to exercise privilege and the courts arbitrate that conflict as it relates to congress' oversight of the executive branch. Trump didn't need to assert the privilege because the House chose not to litigate the matter as it related to withholding of documents and witnesses. They were in a big hurry for some reason unknown to me. I wish they would have litigated because I think they would have succeeded.

Trump politely asked the Ukrainian Pm to investigate Biden (not manufacture dirt as you assert). The transcript is available for all to see.

Why, if you are so concerned about Ukrainians defense needs, did you not comment here when Obama refused to supply requisite defensive weaponry. i think he only provided blankets and other supplies not related to defense. It was only after Trump was elected that lethal weaponry was approved by congress and the president.

Clinton wasn't impeached for lying about a bj. He was impeached for lying under oath to a federal judge.

Edit - I meant he was punished by the court for lying under oath.

About fast and furious not quite correct. Obama cited executive privilege but Eric Holder testified to both the House and Senate committee under oath. The whitehouse eventually released 60000 documents by court order 2 years after congress sued. Trump hasn’t released a single piece of evidence to his crime and has blocked key administration officials from testifying. You remember that timeline that it took to get the evidence for fast and furious? That’s part of Trumps plan, delay and let it work through the courts until after the election. That’s why the Democrats has to move ahead. 60000 documents and key witness testimony for Obama to zero documents and testimony for Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/americas/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-facts/index.html

Trump didn’t politely ask the Ukrainians to investigate(nice spin) he threatened, coerced and bribed to make up dirt on Biden. There was zero evidence of corruption and Gordon Sondland testified under oath that Trump ONLY wanted an announcement of the investigation he didn’t care about corruption. Other than the Bidens name one other person Trump wanted investigates for corruption in Ukraine.

Obama’s funding to Ukraine is irrelevant to Trump’s crimes. Why is it that right wingers can never defend Trump without brininging up Obama? Why such a hard on for him?

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a personal matter, not one that jeopardized the national security of two countries. Oh and that means that BILL CLINTON testified under oath. I’m going to pull some whataboutism now, why don’t you hold Trump to the same standards?

Always good to debunk your bs pop pop

[popper]

There are a myriad of crimes underlying the Articles. Here are three:

Bribery/extortion - soliciting something of value in return for an official act.

Violation of campaign finance laws by soliciting something of value
from a foreign govt (Cohen is serving time for this right now)

Withholding of legally appropriated funds.

There are probably others but please address why these are not crimes
or not impeachable.

PS you are correct that Congress can define High crimes and misdemeanors
however it chooses so technically a criminal act is not necessary rendering
that whole argument irrelevant.

OK. Let's take them one by one.

Bribery - Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden for corruption. I believe the Ukrainian PM said Trump never threatened to withhold the money. By law, Trump couldn't withhold the money past the end of the FY regardless. The money was transferred and no investigation took place. I think it's a weak case but that's just my opinion.

Campaign Finance Violation - If soliciting something of value from a foreign government to aid one's campaign is an impeachable offense then no president in living history would have survived a full term. I do realize though that there are gradations here and that if Trump had solicited a million dollar under the table campaign contribution then the case would be much stronger IMO.

He didn't withhold legally appropriated funds past the FY deadline. No case here IMO.

Look, I agree Trump is a distasteful human being. I just don't see anything here that rises to the level of impeachment.

1. Zelensky was in no position to start complaining and further antagonizing Trump.
Of course he publicly said what he said. It simply cannot be accepted as his sincere belief
under those circumstances. There is other documentary evidence that they clearly felt pressure
even if they were in no position to start publicly complaining about it.

2. Please provide at least one example of a Presidential candidate accepting aid from a foreign govt
on behalf of their political campaign before claiming that it is common practice.
Trump in 2016 doesn't count.

3. The GAO said it was a crime. I hope you understand why I would consider that a
more authoritative source than your (so far) undocumented opinion.

1. Maybe you are correct but courts and jurors would give weight to his testimony
2. Obama asked Medvedev to give him space until after his election when he would have more flexibility
3. The GAO said the Obama administration committed crimes including spending millions of dollars not appropriated by congress

[popper]

Guys. I appreciate the dialog. I was invited to render an opinion, I did, and subsequently got seven or eight responses. I simply don't have time to respond thoughtfully to a 7 to 1 ratio of posters. To sum up, the House has a right to impeach for any reason whatsoever. IMO, the articles don't justify removal from office but I understand they you all believe differently. Have a nice night.

[Ruzious]

I know generally what Schiff and Nadler have claimed. Clinton, as you know committed several crimes and it's certainly true that the House can impeach a president without evidence of a crime. If I were a juror (senator) I would refer to the constitution for guidance and probably conclude that removal from office would be extraordinarily unjust.

Regarding the obstruction of justice charge, my understanding is that the House did not want to litigate that issue and instead wanted to get the impeachment completed by Christmas break. Trump has every right to claim executive privilege and await a court decision on the merits of his claim.

It is NOT TRUE that Trump has claimed executive privilege. HE HAS NOT. He has invented blanket privilege to ignore Congress' constitutional requirement to oversee the executive branch. No such privilege exists in law.

Trump demanded that a foreign official manufacture fake dirt about his political opponent, in contradiction to America's national security needs, in order to help his in his personal reelection. Ukraine is a buffer between totalitarian Russia and Democratic Europe. It is in our national security interests that Ukraine not lose its war with Russia over the Crimea. Trump threatened, illegally, to withhold aid that Congress chose, in a bipartisan vote, to supply to Ukraine to protect our national security.

Clinton lied about getting a blowjob.

I don't see how you can perceive this any other way than a terrifying abuse of power, worse than ANY corruption we have seen in our nation's history, that requires immediate removal from office to protect our country and the future of Democracy.

Executive privilege has been exercised by all presidents in my lifetime. Obama used it for the Fast and Furious issue as well as other events. Presidents have a right to exercise privilege and the courts arbitrate that conflict as it relates to congress' oversight of the executive branch. Trump didn't need to assert the privilege because the House chose not to litigate the matter as it related to withholding of documents and witnesses. They were in a big hurry for some reason unknown to me. I wish they would have litigated because I think they would have succeeded.

Trump politely asked the Ukrainian Pm to investigate Biden (not manufacture dirt as you assert). The transcript is available for all to see.

Why, if you are so concerned about Ukrainians defense needs, did you not comment here when Obama refused to supply requisite defensive weaponry. i think he only provided blankets and other supplies not related to defense. It was only after Trump was elected that lethal weaponry was approved by congress and the president.

Clinton wasn't impeached for lying about a bj. He was impeached for lying under oath to a federal judge.

Edit - I meant he was punished by the court for lying under oath.

There's no nice way to put this, but this is as close I can get. It's impossible to have a grownup conversation with someone who acts like he doesn't understand what Trump was so obviously implying in his conversations with the Ukraine government - knowing that he ordered the money be held before he was basically forced to let it be released.

[popper]

I understand completely ruzious. Trump may have felt he could leverage a political advantage by delaying the transfer.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

And so it begins. The fix is in.

[Pointgod]

Guys. I appreciate the dialog. I was invited to render an opinion, I did, and subsequently got seven or eight responses. I simply don't have time to respond thoughtfully to a 7 to 1 ratio of posters. To sum up, the House has a right to impeach for any reason whatsoever. IMO, the articles don't justify removal from office but I understand they you all believe differently. Have a nice night.

Popper it’s hard to have a conversation with you when youve prejudged the matter at hand. You should want to hear from key witnesses and see ALL the documents related to the impeachment. If there are witnesses and documents that can clear Trump, you and every Republican should want to see that too. If there’s evidence to exonerate Trump than you can own all the libs and say I told you so. call you Senators and tell them to vote to allow witnesses. If Trumps actions don’t add up to something he should be removed for, then the facts should decide that, not Mitch McConnell

[gtn130]

popper getting his lines from Alan Dershowitz I guess

[popper]

Guys. I appreciate the dialog. I was invited to render an opinion, I did, and subsequently got seven or eight responses. I simply don't have time to respond thoughtfully to a 7 to 1 ratio of posters. To sum up, the House has a right to impeach for any reason whatsoever. IMO, the articles don't justify removal from office but I understand they you all believe differently. Have a nice night.

Popper it’s hard to have a conversation with you when youve prejudged the matter at hand. You should want to hear from key witnesses and see ALL the documents related to the impeachment. If there are witnesses and documents that can clear Trump, you and every Republican should want to see that too. If there’s evidence to exonerate Trump than you can own all the libs and say I told you so. call you Senators and tell them to vote to allow witnesses. If Trumps actions don’t add up to something he should be removed for, then the facts should decide that, not Mitch McConnell

I think I’m one of the few here that doesn’t prejudge. During the two year Mueller investigation I never said a word. Never once speculated on Trumps guilt or innocence. I watched Schiff and Raechal Maddow, and read the NYT and Wapo and many other progressive outlets and wondered why they were so sure Trump was guilty. Did they have information that the rest of us didn’t? They prejudged, as did some on this thread, and ended up with egg on their face. I have no doubt Trump is a dishonest person, he’s proven so over and over. But so have many other politicians including Biden. I don’t expect that the R controlled Senate will help the D controlled House make a case against Trump. I could be wrong. IMO the House should have taken the time necessary to subpoena and litigate the need for additional witnesses and documents and allow for the courts to compel. For reasons I don’t understand, they chose not to. So here we are.

[Wizardspride]

Guys. I appreciate the dialog. I was invited to render an opinion, I did, and subsequently got seven or eight responses. I simply don't have time to respond thoughtfully to a 7 to 1 ratio of posters. To sum up, the House has a right to impeach for any reason whatsoever. IMO, the articles don't justify removal from office but I understand they you all believe differently. Have a nice night.

Popper it’s hard to have a conversation with you when youve prejudged the matter at hand. You should want to hear from key witnesses and see ALL the documents related to the impeachment. If there are witnesses and documents that can clear Trump, you and every Republican should want to see that too. If there’s evidence to exonerate Trump than you can own all the libs and say I told you so. call you Senators and tell them to vote to allow witnesses. If Trumps actions don’t add up to something he should be removed for, then the facts should decide that, not Mitch McConnell

I think I’m one of the few here that doesn’t prejudge. During the two year Mueller investigation I never said a word. Never once speculated on Trumps guilt or innocence. I watched Schiff and Raechal Maddow, and read the NYT and Wapo and many other progressive outlets and wondered why they were so sure Trump was guilty. Did they have information that the rest of us didn’t? They prejudged, as did some on this thread, and ended up with egg on their face. I have no doubt Trump is a dishonest person, he’s proven so over and over. But so have many other politicians including Biden. I don’t expect that the R controlled Senate will help the D controlled House make a case against Trump. I could be wrong. IMO the House should have taken the time necessary to subpoena and litigate the need for additional witnesses and documents and allow for the courts to compel. For reasons I don’t understand, they chose not to. So here we are.

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[dobrojim]

I understand completely ruzious. Trump may have felt he could leverage a political advantage by delaying the transfer.

This is the complete essence of abuse of power.
He used money and his official office for something
that was actually contrary to the national interest and
solely for his personal interest.

The argument that Trump was seriously interested
in fighting corruption is laughable for a number of
reasons most particularly by his desire to repeal
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as well as a level
of corruption by numerous members of the administration
not seen since at least Teapot dome.

PS - an assertion has been made that a Biden is corrupt.
I may have issues with various policy positions he has taken
especially back in the 90s. But please cite one example of
Biden’s personal corruption and I don’t believe the plagiarism
case to be particularly relevant. I categorically reject the
“All politicians are corrupt” rationalization.

[popper]

I understand completely ruzious. Trump may have felt he could leverage a political advantage by delaying the transfer.

This is the complete essence of abuse of power.
He used money and his official office for something
that was actually contrary to the national interest and
solely for his personal interest.

The argument that Trump was seriously interested
in fighting corruption is laughable for a number of
reasons most particularly by his desire to repeal
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as well as a level
of corruption by numerous members of the administration
not seen since at least Teapot dome.

PS - an assertion has been made that a Biden is corrupt.
I may have issues with various policy positions he has taken
especially back in the 90s. But please cite one example of
Biden’s personal corruption and I don’t believe the plagiarism
case to be particularly relevant. I categorically reject the
“All politicians are corrupt” rationalization.

Did Obama abuse power when he directed millions of dollars from the treasury be sent to insurance companies without congressional authorization? I think the court said he did so illegally.

Who said Trump was seriously interested in fighting corruption?

Who said Biden is corrupt?

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[pancakes3]

I think I’m one of the few here that doesn’t prejudge. During the two year Mueller investigation I never said a word. Never once speculated on Trumps guilt or innocence. I watched Schiff and Raechal Maddow, and read the NYT and Wapo and many other progressive outlets and wondered why they were so sure Trump was guilty. Did they have information that the rest of us didn’t? They prejudged, as did some on this thread, and ended up with egg on their face.

Trump got as close to guilty as a person can without being convicted. I don't know why you're framing the results of the mueller probe as some sort of exoneration. The gist of the report was "well, we have all the makings of collusion and obstruction but can't say so definitively because we can't prove intent" and if you read between the lines there - rarely can someone *prove* intent. criminals don't keep records of their intent. plus, Trump was never deposed to get his version of the story on the record. without deposing Trump about his intent re: collusion and obstruction, you're not going to be able to say definitively that he colluded or obstructed. the fact that the report specifically says "this is not an exoneration" is fairly damning given the context. note that many of the people who mueller did depose were found guilty, and are now in prison. 199 charges, 37 indictments/guilty pleas, and 5 prison sentences worth.

the mueller report contained some really messed up stuff, including a definitive statement that russia interfered with the 2016 elections. re: collusion, the analogy is this: say a group of russians robbed a bank, and for their getaway, they hopped on a city bus, and the bus driver continued to drive his route, making stops, dropping off and picking up passengers. the bank robbers get off at one of the stops, and got away. who's to say if the bus driver was an accomplice getaway driver? well, you have to investigate the bus driver. you need to subpoena documents, and depose the bus driver, but the bus driver is invoking executive privilege, and not allowing anyone in his administration to talk to you. so what can you do, but write a report that says "well, the circumstances are really iffy, and there's no good reason for a bus driver to keep driving his route, knowing that there were bank robbers on his bus, but we can't prove that it was a premeditated, full on conspiracy. he's not guilty, but he's also not innocent."

and this has nothing to do with partisanship. I'm not saying this as a gotcha, just laying out the facts.

I have no doubt Trump is a dishonest person, he’s proven so over and over. But so have many other politicians including Biden. I don’t expect that the R controlled Senate will help the D controlled House make a case against Trump. I could be wrong. IMO the House should have taken the time necessary to subpoena and litigate the need for additional witnesses and documents and allow for the courts to compel. For reasons I don’t understand, they chose not to. So here we are.

But that's not how the impeachment process works. The House impeaches and the Senate convicts. It's like how cops arrest people, and the courts determine guilt or innocence. The House investigated and found enough evidence to "arrest" Trump and now it's the Senate's job to hold the trial. Giving the House the full power to impeach and remove takes power away from the Senate.

Not to be condescending, but should I remind you that our government is one built off checks and balances? Congress is a check on the President. Moreover, the House and Senate are checks on each other. Those are the factions that should be working against each other. Instead, the line is set between D and R, and that's not how the government was designed to function. When you lose the power of one branch checking the other branch because those branches happen to be the same political party, you get really messed up results like the denial of Garland of a SCOTUS seat, or the Senate Majority Leader openly declaring that he has no intention of holding a fair trial of removing the President based on political party alone.

When McConnell or Graham say "we don't need witnesses or further investigation, i've heard enough" before the trial starts is the definition of a kangaroo court. to go back to the police/court analogy, it's tantamount to the judge saying "we don't need to hold a trial, i know that guy's innocent and i don't plan on looking at any further evidence because i've read the arrest report."

it's bad, man. it's real bad.

[popper]

Thanks again for the interesting dialog guys. This thread is not good for my blood pressure so I’m going back into hibernation. Enjoy.

[Zonkerbl]

I know generally what Schiff and Nadler have claimed. Clinton, as you know committed several crimes and it's certainly true that the House can impeach a president without evidence of a crime. If I were a juror (senator) I would refer to the constitution for guidance and probably conclude that removal from office would be extraordinarily unjust.

Regarding the obstruction of justice charge, my understanding is that the House did not want to litigate that issue and instead wanted to get the impeachment completed by Christmas break. Trump has every right to claim executive privilege and await a court decision on the merits of his claim.

It is NOT TRUE that Trump has claimed executive privilege. HE HAS NOT. He has invented blanket privilege to ignore Congress' constitutional requirement to oversee the executive branch. No such privilege exists in law.

Trump demanded that a foreign official manufacture fake dirt about his political opponent, in contradiction to America's national security needs, in order to help his in his personal reelection. Ukraine is a buffer between totalitarian Russia and Democratic Europe. It is in our national security interests that Ukraine not lose its war with Russia over the Crimea. Trump threatened, illegally, to withhold aid that Congress chose, in a bipartisan vote, to supply to Ukraine to protect our national security.

Clinton lied about getting a blowjob.

I don't see how you can perceive this any other way than a terrifying abuse of power, worse than ANY corruption we have seen in our nation's history, that requires immediate removal from office to protect our country and the future of Democracy.

Executive privilege has been exercised by all presidents in my lifetime. Obama used it for the Fast and Furious issue as well as other events. Presidents have a right to exercise privilege and the courts arbitrate that conflict as it relates to congress' oversight of the executive branch. Trump didn't need to assert the privilege because the House chose not to litigate the matter as it related to withholding of documents and witnesses. They were in a big hurry for some reason unknown to me. I wish they would have litigated because I think they would have succeeded.

Trump politely asked the Ukrainian Pm to investigate Biden (not manufacture dirt as you assert). The transcript is available for all to see.

Why, if you are so concerned about Ukrainians defense needs, did you not comment here when Obama refused to supply requisite defensive weaponry. i think he only provided blankets and other supplies not related to defense. It was only after Trump was elected that lethal weaponry was approved by congress and the president.

Clinton wasn't impeached for lying about a bj. He was impeached for lying under oath to a federal judge.

Edit - I meant he was punished by the court for lying under oath.

Throughout the entire House impeachment inquiry Trump flagrantly and illegally obstructed all sources of evidence the Dems asked for WITHOUT claiming executive privilege. Not once did he or any of his lawyers claim executive privilege. You, or whoever told you this, are flat out wrong about this.

In the transcript Trump PLAINLY asked for an investigation RIGHT AFTER Zelensky asked if he would be able to buy more missiles. It is obviously a quid pro quo. After this call Trump instructed his co-conspirators to tell Zelensky that if the investigations didn't happen, Zelensky wouldn't get ANYTHING - meetings with the WH, his $400 million of military aid, or aid of any kind. So it's actually worse than what he admitted to in the transcript, but the transcript is bad enough. It's impossible to read the transcript and not see Trump's obvious corrupt intent. The transcript is *the* basis for the impeachment inquiry.

The lethal force we are supplying to Ukraine is tiny and mostly symbolic. The most important aid we are giving to Ukraine is our public support. But it does ratchet up our support a little to supply lethal aid, so it's even more treasonous of Trump to withhold it in order to extort Ukraine into manufacturing dirt on Biden.

You should note, Popper, that none of Trump's defenders are disputing the fact that he did indeed try to shake down Zelensky. If you listen carefully, the current defense boils down to "there is nothing wrong with bribery and extortion, as long as the President does it, because the President is king and above the law."

[Zonkerbl]

I understand completely ruzious. Trump may have felt he could leverage a political advantage by delaying the transfer.

This is the complete essence of abuse of power.
He used money and his official office for something
that was actually contrary to the national interest and
solely for his personal interest.

The argument that Trump was seriously interested
in fighting corruption is laughable for a number of
reasons most particularly by his desire to repeal
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as well as a level
of corruption by numerous members of the administration
not seen since at least Teapot dome.

PS - an assertion has been made that a Biden is corrupt.
I may have issues with various policy positions he has taken
especially back in the 90s. But please cite one example of
Biden’s personal corruption and I don’t believe the plagiarism
case to be particularly relevant. I categorically reject the
“All politicians are corrupt” rationalization.

Did Obama abuse power when he directed millions of dollars from the treasury be sent to insurance companies without congressional authorization? I think the court said he did so illegally.

Who said Trump was seriously interested in fighting corruption?

Who said Biden is corrupt?

Besides being a heinous example of "whataboutism," this is basically an admission that abuse of power is wrong.

[Zonkerbl]

I'm trying to be respectful, but have you been following this closely?

He gets his sources from right wing news which is actually worse than not following it at all.

Wrong and not worthy of a response.

But your views hew *so closely* to right wing talking points and, forgive me, are so obviously contradictory and ill-informed. It has to come from somewhere. If you were making this all up yourself it would be either less nonsensical, like Duck, or more crazy, like Daone. Is this all from conversations with your ex-union buddies over beer (I know you've said you're pro-union in the past)? I'd allow that, honestly. I hope that's what it is, because I have something I'd like to say to ex-union Trump supporters - He HATES you! He thinks you're a mark who he can manipulate with lies and hate. He has done NOTHING for you and in fact is trying to take healthcare away from you and any remaining rights to organize. He hates your kids and their future, he doesn't want them going to college, doesn't want to do *anything* about climate change, and wants them to be satisfied with dead end service jobs until the robots make them obsolete. That 3.5% unemployment rate he keeps crowing about? Almost all absolutely crap, low pay, part time, dead end jobs.

Unions are dead but that doesn't mean the GOP is suddenly your friend. They hate you even more than Trump does. Dems are starting to come around to the idea of a UBI funded with taxes on the wealthy and that's the only answer that can replace unions.