October 24, 2019

"Many presidents have used their foreign policy power for political or personal advantage. Most recently, President Barack Obama..."

"... misused his power in order to take personal revenge against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last days of his second term, Obama engineered a one-sided UN Security Council resolution declaring that Israel's control over the Western Wall -- Judaism's holiest site -- constitutes a 'flagrant violation of international law.' Nearly every member of Congress and many in his own administration opposed this unilateral change in our policy, but Obama was determined to take revenge against Netanyahu, whom he despised. Obama committed a political sin by placing his personal pique over our national interest, but he did not commit an impeachable offense. Nor did President George H. W. Bush commit an impeachable offense when he pardoned Caspar Weinberger and others on the eve of their trials in order to prevent them from pointing the finger at him."

From "Impeachers Searching for New Crimes" by Alan Dershowitz (at Gatestone Institute).

AND: It would be great if we could just follow a sort of golden rule: Impeach a President you hate only if you would impeach a President you love for doing the same thing.

PLUS: I read my golden rule out loud to Meade and he said "Impeach unto others as you would have others impeach unto you."

140 comments:

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Why isn't this in the NYT?

oh right- the NYT is gearing up to be the new Hillary super pac. Where all of Hillary's crimes get no coverage or mention. Same with the rest of the corrupt corporate press.

Brent said...

When he's right. There are numerous examples in Obama's admin. Infuriating.

stlcdr said...

The problem is that it is hypothetical. And there's a thousand excuses for not doing something then and doing it now.

on the other hand, 5 cars speeding, one car gets caught: 'what about the other cars?! Not Fair!' is not a good excuse.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

If this is all Dershowitz has by way of defense against William Taylor's testimony then Trump is certain to be impeached.

Fernandistein said...

"And just wait until the public realizes that this brouhaha is about the President delaying foreign aid payments to Ukraine. There’s nothing more sacred in the eyes of American voters than our national duty to pay foreign aid promptly."

Sebastian said...

"It would be great if we could just follow a sort of golden rule"

Progs have their own golden rule: do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.

It would be great to have a world without progs. But by contrast with cruelly-neutral, it-would-be-great Althouse, we need to to deal with the world as it is and progs as they are.

henry said...

Fake impeachment nonsense. At least the Congress isn't passing laws. Those never end well.

tim maguire said...

stlcdr said...5 cars speeding, one car gets caught: 'what about the other cars?! Not Fair!' is not a good excuse.

Whattaboutism is not a good look, but if you keep pulling over the same car and keep ignoring the same other 4, there's a problem, isn't there?

Situational outrage is bullshit.

Seeing Red said...

Via Lucianne: Schiff witness Taylor has ties to Burisma think tank, Soros, McCain leaker

Freder Frederson said...

Dershowitz, like Guiliani, was a good lawyer at some time in the past. Both now apparently are suffering from serious mental decline.

n.n said...

Spying, colluding, obstructing, witch hunts, warlock trials, and neo-fascists raging. And now there is evidence of a Libya-ISIS affair that fueled the Syrian war, endangering Alawites, Jews, Christians, Kurds, and American soldiers. Blood for oil, guns, diversity, and retributive change.

Fernandistein said...

Fun fact!

1/(Golden Rule) = 1 - (Golden Rule)

wendybar said...

What goes around comes around....be careful what you wish for....

buwaya said...

All argument is irrelevant. This is about power, that is all.
Everything done is part of the amoral struggle.

There are no rules or law or ethics or beliefs here, simply the human equivalents of terrain, weather and logistics, to be worked around if necessary, or exploited if possible. Anyone on whom rhetorical appeals to such numinous things would work aren't players, or even intelligent observers, but parts of that human terrain.

Freder Frederson said...

I bet if, when you were a law professor, one of your first year students had made this argument, you would call them into your office and tell them they should probably reconsider their decision to go to law school.

buwaya said...

Imagine that you are observing a chess game between strangers.
Or a war between sides that are equally unsympathetic, Iran-Iraq in the 80's say.
That is the level of dispassion you need to evaluate the situation.

Chess, of course, is a vastly simpler game and it has rules. And actual war simplifies conflicts by putting limits to "human terrain", and creates its own fuzzy but discrete rules.

brylun said...

Impeachment is a political act. In Trump's case, the loss of control of the House by Republicans made a Trump impeachment a foregone conclusion.

madAsHell said...

Who would have guessed Obama was so petty, and thin skinned?

brylun said...

Apparently Mr. Taylor is a long-time Democrat, having worked for former Sen. Bill Bradley.

tim maguire said...

Freder Frederson said...
Dershowitz, like Guiliani, was a good lawyer at some time in the past. Both now apparently are suffering from serious mental decline.


Maybe so, but that's no response to this op-ed. Do you have issues with his factual claims?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Taylor smells.

Beasts of England said...

’If this is all Dershowitz has by way of defense against William Taylor's testimony then Trump is certain to be impeached.’

How did you get a transcript of Taylor’s testimony, ARM?

Automatic_Wing said...

Indeed, it's completely ridiculous to imagine someone like LBJ having moral qualms about witholding foreign aid to get something that would help him politically.

Unknown said...

So the Golden Rule is imaginary?

stevew said...

Leave it to Meade to state the truth so simply!

Sad to say this rule is a utopian fantasy given that it is to be applied to politics and politicians.

Skylark said...

It’s like this never happened:

What wasn’t known at the time, Shokin told me recently, was that Ukrainian prosecutors were preparing a request to interview Hunter Biden about his activities and the monies he was receiving from Ukraine. If such an interview became public during the middle of the 2016 election, it could have had enormous negative implications for Democrats.

Democrats continued to tap Ukraine for Trump dirt throughout the 2016 election, my reporting shows.


Or this:

Nellie Ohr, the wife of senior U.S. Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, worked in 2016 as a contractor for Fusion GPS, the same Hillary Clinton–funded opposition research firm that hired Christopher Steele, the British spy who wrote the now-debunked dossier linking Trump to Russia collusion.

Nellie Ohr testified to Congress that some of the dirt she found on Trump during her 2016 election opposition research came from a Ukrainian parliament member. She also said that she eventually took the information to the FBI through her husband — another way Ukraine got inserted into the 2016 election.


Or this:

In addition, I wrote last month that the Obama White House invited Ukrainian law enforcement officials to a meeting in January 2016 as Trump rose in the polls on his improbable path to the presidency. The meeting led to U.S. requests to the Ukrainians to help investigate Manafort, setting in motion a series of events that led to the Ukrainians leaking the documents about Manafort in May 2016.. - The Hill

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016

And this certainly never appeared in the New York Times in August leading up to the election!

Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump’s Campaign Chief
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html

And Manafort isn’t rotting in prison today for the crime of being associated with Trump.

bbkingfish said...

Israel's lawyer compares Obama's above board actions through official UN channels to Trump and Guiliani's subterranean drug deals with Russian and Ukrainian gangsters?

If that's the best that a guy as smart as Dershowitz can come up with, President Dumpty is truly cooked.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/09/do-not-listen-to-israels-lawyer

Skylark said...

"Both now apparently are suffering from serious mental decline.”

Commies always accuse dissenters of mental problems and when given the power they crave, lock up the ones they don’t just shoot in “mental hospitals.”

Biden is the one who appears to be suffering mental decline, and Hillary has been shown to be a fool. No wonder Comey let her off on the grounds that she didn’t understand her crimes.

narciso said...

he wrote a script, with Schiff, longer than the indianopolis monologue in jaws, of course there was no first hand corroboration,

Michael K said...


Blogger Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

If this is all Dershowitz has by way of defense against William Taylor's testimony then Trump is certain to be impeached.


ARM and Freder rush to argue with zero facts. Taylor, who was heavily involved in Ukraine corruption, has not had his testimony released. All that is presented is his opening statement. Nice try, lefties.

Skylark said...

"Schiff witness Taylor has ties to Burisma think tank, Soros”

It was a Soros funded group in the Ukraine that gave the Ukrainians a “do not prosecute” list backed by the Obama Administration.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/434875-top-ukrainian-justice-official-says-us-ambassador-gave-him-a-do-not-prosecute

How much Kool Aide do you have to drink to not be able to see that?

Lewis Wetzel said...

" Blogger brylun said...
Apparently Mr. Taylor is a long-time Democrat, having worked for former Sen. Bill Bradley.
10/24/19, 8:54 AM"

But Dana Milbank say Taylor was Trump's "hand-picked ambassador."
So it doesn;t matter that he is a Trump-hater with ties to corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs.

Limited blogger said...

Who longs for the 'good ole days' when Obama was president?

Michael K said...

How did you get a transcript of Taylor’s testimony, ARM?

He doesn't need no stinkin' transcript. He just knows what he said.

By the way, Obama wasn't getting "revenge" on Netanyahu. He was just sticking one more knife in one of those Jews he hates. The way his Reverend taught him in those years in Wright's church.

Yancey Ward said...

Ms. Althouse nailed it. If one wouldn't impeach Trump if he were a Democrat, and no one really believes the Democrats in Congress would be doing this if Trump were a Democrat, then the impeachment being contemplated today is illegitimate.

And just to foreclose the argument I know is coming- it isn't enough to argue that Republicans would be the ones demanding impeachment if Trump were a Democrat. To make this argument immediately concedes the point Althouse is making.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Obama should have been impeached for conducting government business with his SoS on her personal email account and illegal server.

Rusty said...

That's some catch, that catch 22.

Rusty said...

William Taylor gave testimony behind closed doors and no republicans on the committee were allowed to attend. And you usual suspects are just fine with that? That's OK? I'm talkin to you ARM.

Ron said...

Impeach Melba!

Yancey Ward said...

On Bill Taylor:

He was the guy behind the whistleblower- I predicted this on Meaininginhistory a couple of weeks ago. The tell was the text message he sent to either Sondland or Volker (I forget which). That text was deliberately sent to create a paper trail- he had already set into motion the complaint that was filed by someone else.

Here are the key take aways from Taylors written statement:

(1) Like the whistleblower complaint, he had literally no firsthand knowledge about whether or not there really was a quid pro quo in place. It was all hearsay testimony on Taylor's part. Indeed, each time he questioned anyone above his rank about this, he was told by others that there was no quid pro quo- literally every time.

(2) And here is the most important part of Taylor's testimony- Taylor did have first hand knowledge about what the Ukrainians knew right through the day the aid was approved and released in September- the Ukrainians never knew why the aid was hold. How can you have a quid pro quo if the other party doesn't know about it. And Taylor's testimony also implies that no one above him, and below Trump, knew about it either since they all disclaimed the idea according to Taylor. Of course, the Freders, ARMS, and Schiffs of the world will argue that the quid pro quo wasn't explicitly said or written, but was implied all along. However, if that is the case, good luck proving that. Unless you are a mind reader, you can't impeach Trump for what you believe he was thinking. Hell, you might as well impeach him for secretly wanting to torture and murder young children.

Skylark said...

Meanwhile, after printing dirt fed to them by the Ukrainian intelligence agencies in support of Hillary, the New York Times is doing stealth edits to make her look less crazy:

https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1187036978463891456

Francisco D said...

If this is all Dershowitz has by way of defense against William Taylor's testimony then Trump is certain to be impeached.

Tell us what you know about that testimony, ARM.

It hasn't been released?

Oh. Wait a minute ...

This is what we have for lefties today. It is truly pitiful.

Big Mike said...

Nice of someone to notice that Trump's predecessor used the power of the Presidency to settle scores and personally enrich himself (his salary was $400K annually for eight years, and he left the White House able to buy a $15M mansion on Martha's Vineyard). At any rate the Democrats seem to be taking the position that it is illegal to root out corruption that enriches Democrats. Understandable, perhaps, but not viable long term for this country.

Skylark said...

It was “above board” for the Obama Administration to seek dirt on Trump from the Ukrainians. It was dastardly for Trump to look into it.

That’s all they got.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

This is William Taylor's biography.

West Point grad.
Fought in Vietnam
Received a Bronze Star.
Appointed United States ambassador to Ukraine by George W. Bush

Taylor's opening statement is freely available to anyone with an internet connection. It is remarkably damning.

Skylark said...

"And you usual suspects are just fine with that? That's OK? I'm talkin to you ARM.”

If I understand star chambers correctly, at leas the accused had rights. So this isn’t even that. But then again, look at Wikipedia:

The Star Chamber was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.

The Special Counsel has also been thus corrupted.

Original Mike said...

"William Taylor gave testimony behind closed doors and no republicans on the committee were allowed to attend."

Is this true?

Brian said...

I like the Althouse standard.

Note that George HW Bush would have been impeached under the Clinton standard if he had committed similar infractions.

Skylark said...

Thanksgiving this year is going to be a national shit show.

traditionalguy said...

We left the reality universe after Trump and Military Intelligence whipped the Deep State candidate in 2016. They think Trump is in their trap, but it’s the other way around.

rhhardin said...

The problem with Obama was that it was against the national interest while also being in his personal interest.

Being in his personal interest doesn't matter so long as it's not against the national interest.

daskol said...

Has Meade's standard ever truly applied? Andrew Johnson's "kitchen sink" impeachment, with 11 articles, was a bunch of politically motivated stuff, tacked on to tendentious claims that he'd violated a likely unconstitutional law (Tenure of Office Act) in firing a Lincoln appointee in his Secretary of War. Mostly the Republicans impeached him because he was a racist jerk and undermined their efforts at Reconstruction, and because they could. Clinton's impeachment was also highly partisan. This high falutin view of impeachment is, in effect, impeachment bullshit. After they impeach Trump, it will have even less of a stigma than we think it does today. It already stings less than we'd like.

Skylark said...

U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who provided key testimony to the Democrats’ controversial impeachment inquiry yesterday, has evidenced a close relationship with the Atlantic Council think tank, even writing Ukraine policy pieces with the organization’s director and analysis articles published by the Council. The Atlantic Council is funded by and works in partnership with Burisma.

The Ukraine is basically Teapot Dome and all of the Democrats and many Republicans as well, most notably Romney, have been dipping their beaks.

If everyone who has benefited or had a family member benefit from the protection money that Burisma has been paying to hold on to its ill-gotten gains, there would be no quorum.

This is the real reason that Democrats are fighting this hammer and tongs, or hammer and BleachBit.

Skylark said...

Real reason for impeachment:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-23/democrats-fear-more-trump-voters-in-wisconsin

Skylark said...

"Clinton's impeachment was also highly partisan.”

Suborning perjury?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

While Biden actually committed the crime of actual quid pro quo - bragging about it on tape - The corrupt left are attempting to make it illegal to point out Biden's corruption.

RMc said...

Impeach a President you hate only if you would impeach a President you love for doing the same thing.

Dammit, woman, if we loved the president there'd be no need to impeach him! Think!

bagoh20 said...

Can anyone think of any argument that would stop the Democrats from trying to have their own Presidential campaign and election in Congress. There is no such argument. It's like trying to reason with your 2 year old that wants that candy in the checkout lane.

They will do what what they want, even if it costs them the election, which it will. You could tell that 2 year-old that if he gets the candy, it will be the last one he ever gets, and he would still want it with all his heart, and he'd give you a hundred different illogical reasons why. The Democrats blew over 1000 seats across the country under Obama and Pelosi, and then lost a Presidential election to someone nobody could imagine winning. Now they are only doubling down becuase they still want their candy. Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?

daskol said...

Impeachment is a political remedy. Trump's recourse is not to avoid impeachment, but to make it politically costly to his tormentors. Politics is bloodsport, and rules, especially the principles inherent to our justice system, don't apply except where we can make their application, or their lack of application, a political matter.

Skylark said...

Democrats think that taking graft from an oligarch who used his former position in the Ukrainian government to deal himself a vast fortune in energy leases is perfectly A-OK where the only reason that their powerful names are bought is to protect the man from prosecution. Defending the Democrats in this are supposed liberals who could quote you chapter and verse the crimes of The United Fruit Company in Central America.

It’s like they are somehow lobotomized, brain dead, not even purblind, but plain old blind to the perversion of their supposed values. It is kind of like the feminists selling out feminism to protect Bill Clinton.

The only conclusion that seems possible is that all people like ARM care about is that the Democrats are in power and in charge of the graft. It’s their one firmly held value.

Skylark said...

I still like how Paul Pelosi avoided prosecution involving a company he co-founded and served as the original president when the company was busted for being founded as a cover for a couple of con men who were banned from serving as corporate officers for fraud.

The obvious lessen to anybody who wants to get into to government for the graft is to be a Democrat. Then the New York Times will run cover for you.

Freder Frederson said...

Maybe so, but that's no response to this op-ed. Do you have issues with his factual claims?

His factual claims are irrelevant. What Obama did is of an entirely different character than what the charge against Trump is. The charge against Trump is that he held foreign aid, which had been approved by Congress, as a tool to get Ukraine to investigate Biden's son, or alternately (since the story keeps changing) to get Ukraine to investigate a thoroughly debunked claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton, or maybe because he didn't like the corruption in Ukraine. If it was the first, then that is definitely a campaign law violation, a felony, and certainly is a "high crime".

And before you say, "well that means no presidential candidate could ever be investigated", that is bullshit. As I have explained before, and you all just conveniently ignore this fact, the Justice Department is perfectly able to open an investigation into the matter, and even bring charges (provided they don't open it because of undue influence by the president).

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The Schitt show is desperate to manufacture a crime. He will. He's corrupt and covered by the hack press.

stevew said...

"William Taylor gave testimony behind closed doors and no republicans on the committee were allowed to attend."

I believe this is false, that Republicans on the committee did attend and did question Taylor. Schiff, however, as implemented a gag order on anyone talking about this secret testimony, especially the parts that have not been released by Schiff.

Powerline reports this angle.

Michael K said...


Blogger Original Mike said...

"William Taylor gave testimony behind closed doors and no republicans on the committee were allowed to attend."

Is this true?


No, the members of the committee were allowed to attend but not to ask questions and are not allowed to reveal what he said.

narciso said...

taylor, met with atlantic stafffer, Thomas eager in august, we hear he talked to zernak and zelensky, but did he provide any proof.

narciso said...

now it turns out if you read the local papers, like the kiev post, one notes that certain officials, like deputy defense minister hladecky are facing indictment, so is former economic development minister grossman, pictured on his wiki page, meeting john Kerry, the date is not clear,

narciso said...

there are echoes of 'Shelley's heart' when the deep state org, called the fis, does everything to let the left prevail, the instrument is a skull and bones type society, call Trelawney's heart, that has infiltrated the media and govt,

Bay Area Guy said...

@ARM:

Regarding Taylor:

West Point grad.
Fought in Vietnam
Received a Bronze Star.
Appointed United States ambassador to Ukraine by George W. Bush


Nice credentials! So what?

Taylor's opening statement is freely available to anyone with an internet connection. It is remarkably damning.

Pray tell us what was "damning" about it. I thought reasonable people don't make arguments by assertion.

Ambassadors don't make foreign policy. They are 3rd level peons of the Executive Branch, beneath the SecState, beneath the President.

steve uhr said...

I punished myself and watched Hannity the past two nights to see how he handled Taylor’ statement. Surprise ... he pretty much ignored it. Luckily the republican “mob” gave him something to talk about.

steve uhr said...

Rusty — all the members of the committees could attend. And ask questions - either directly or through their counsel.

jim said...

What was Obama's personal gain from this? "Revenge"?

Drago said...

I see ARM has been reduced to the "Mueller Defense" in coming to the support of the Burisma-linked, Schiff-staff colluding Biden buddy non-whistle-blower "whistle-blower"!!

You know who else served in the military and attained flag rank and was highly accomplished?

Benedict Arnold.

Rusty said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
"This is William Taylor's biography.

West Point grad.
Fought in Vietnam
Received a Bronze Star.
Appointed United States ambassador to Ukraine by George W. Bush"

Benedict Arnold was appointed by the Continental Congress. I have a relative who fought in Vietnam he also has a bronze star. You'd have trouble finding a bigger douchebag.

"Taylor's opening statement is freely available to anyone with an internet connection. It is remarkably damning."
No it's not. What it is , is self serving. What he says under oath is damning. You , however, nor anyone else not hand picked by Shiff, will be allowed to hear his testimony. Which I guess you are just fine with. Amiright.

Drago said...

The way it works for ARM is like this:

Q: Mr Mueller, can you tell us what role FusionGPS played in pushing the now discredited hoax dossier to the FBI to start an investigation?

A: I don't know who or what FusionGPS is or how they worked with the democrats to facilitate this hoax....but I did serve in Vietnam.

ARM: See?? Mueller completely demolished the republicans talking points!! He served in Vietnam!! That's a get out of jail free card!!

LOL

ARM thinks this is a "sophisticated" approach when conducting another (another!) frame up.

MountainMan said...

"William Taylor gave testimony behind closed doors and no republicans on the committee were allowed to attend."

Is this true?

No, it is not. Several Republicans were there and this story was followed up yesterday with comments from them that on cross-examination Taylor's opening statement - which is what the Dems on the committee have been touting - was not supported by his answers. All he had was hearsay and no first-hand knowledge. Both Deven Nunes and John Ratcliffe were interviewed yesterday about this on TV. They have demanded Schiff release the full transcript but the won't as it will blow up the narrative. This is why everything is being done in secret, so that the Dems can leak what they want while the Republicans are basically following the rules, with the exception of these comments, by not revealing the exact testimony. They have their hands tied by Schiff's rules.

This article was on Breitbart yesterday.

I think Devin Nunes and John Ratcliffe's interviews are out there on YouTube but I don't have time to get the links right now.

MountainMan said...

"William Taylor gave testimony behind closed doors and no republicans on the committee were allowed to attend."

Is this true?

No, it is not. Several Republicans were there and this story was followed up yesterday with comments from them that on cross-examination Taylor's opening statement - which is what the Dems on the committee have been touting - was not supported by his answers. All he had was hearsay and no first-hand knowledge. Both Deven Nunes and John Ratcliffe were interviewed yesterday about this on TV. They have demanded Schiff release the full transcript but the won't as it will blow up the narrative. This is why everything is being done in secret, so that the Dems can leak what they want while the Republicans are basically following the rules, with the exception of these comments, by not revealing the exact testimony. They have their hands tied by Schiff's rules.

This article was on Breitbart yesterday.

I think Devin Nunes and John Ratcliffe's interviews are out there on YouTube but I don't have time to get the links right now.

Michael K said...

News for ARM and Freder.


The House minority leader told Ingraham that he cannot get into specifics about the questioning because of the veil of secrecy that Schiff has placed over the impeachment inquiry.
“Adam Schiff won’t let us talk about what happened,” he said in reference to the closed-door session. “There is no quid pro quo.”

Ratcliffe told Fox News after listening to Taylor that the envoy brought up some interesting information but said nothing “worthy of impeachment.”

McCarthy also said the GOP members of the intelligence committee are being treated like children by Schiff’s people. (RELATED: Kevin McCarthy Scolds Nancy Pelosi After Democratic Freshman Lawmaker Makes Vulgar Comment)
“What happened in the Intel committee, even the members cannot read any information unless one of Adam Schiff’s own staffers are in the room next to them.”


Sounds like the way no government of ours has ever been run.

Rusty said...

I got it from,'Instapundit' on Sunday. So...... yeah. Probably.

bagoh20 said...

I don't have a problem with a President pursuing corruption in our highest offices like Trump did here, even if it happened as the Democrats claim, becuase the important thing is that the corrupt officials get exposed. If that also helps the current President get reelected then that not only is OK, but desirable, and that goes for a Republican or Democrat President.

Do we really want to punish a President for doing his job with the power we give him? Only a President could do this; expose a former Vice-President and get a nation to do an investigation against well-funded powerful interests. If Obama did this in a similar situation with a Dick Chaney who bragged about his corruption, and the evidence was there as it is is with Biden, we also should support that. If that helped Obama politically, isn't that exactly what it should do? If exposing corruption hurts your party's candidate, then stop supporting corrupt people.

We could actually start attracting people into politics that want to do their jobs well, rather than people who want to jump on the gravy train with their family and friends in tow.

Fernandistein said...

EU sez: "Ukraine is a priority partner for the European Union (EU)."

Those indigent wretched Europeans need your deplorable money.

bagoh20 said...

Following the rules of a corrupt lying asshole by helping him hide the truth seems like a weak play.

daskol said...

"Clinton's impeachment was also highly partisan.”

Suborning perjury?


Is all perjury a high crime and/or misdemeanor? I'm not trying to defend Clinton. I just think his impeachment is a data point, one of two, that impeachment has never really followed Meade's moderate modulation for golden rule style impeachment.

bagoh20 said...

"I punished myself and watched Hannity the past two nights to see how he handled Taylor’ statement. Surprise ... he pretty much ignored it"

You mean a statement that essentially says: somebody told me something happened....

Like all the rest of it, it's hearsay anyway. It should be ignored by everyone until it's first hand, and preferably not from someone with an obvious conflict of interest.

Ann Althouse said...

"I bet if, when you were a law professor, one of your first year students had made this argument..."

Made what argument? State the argument with precision so we can examine it. I seriously do not see the "argument" you are talking about.

Think of that as me calling YOU into my office to tell you that your should probably reconsider your decision to post that comment.

Richard Dolan said...

"It would be great if we could just follow a sort of golden rule: Impeach a President you hate only if you would impeach a President you love for doing the same thing."

It's all about deciding what's "the same thing."

Ann Althouse said...

"Leave it to Meade to state the truth so simply!"

Another way to put it is engraved on the front of the Supreme Court: Equal justice under the law.

Ann Althouse said...

Am I supposed to be keeping track of testimony that is being heard in private? Put it out where I can see it or don't bother me with partial leakage. I have stopped reading articles that say THIS! THIS! is the smoking gun, with a name that changes every few weeks. It's like somebody is nudging me constantly, nudging me to pay attention to something they won't actually show me.

Ann Althouse said...

In my first attempt at that last comment, I typo'd " THIS! THIS! is the smoking guy."

There is no smoking hot guy in the story. That's for damn sure.

daskol said...

There may be no smoking hot guy, but the smoking man (cue creepy X Files music) is all over this thing.

narciso said...

you're supposed to ignore testimony, that is uncorroborated, mere assertion is not enough, and that's what the 15 page statement is,

cubanbob said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
This is William Taylor's biography.

West Point grad.
Fought in Vietnam
Received a Bronze Star.
Appointed United States ambassador to Ukraine by George W. Bush

Taylor's opening statement is freely available to anyone with an internet connection. It is remarkably damning."

Benedict Arnold had an even more impressive CV. However without the transcript you have nothing. Schiff should release the transcript in its entirety and without any redactions.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

It's illegal to look into Biden's obvious and admitted crimes. The media exonerated Biden.
Proof that the media are in bed with the corruption at the highest levels.

Birkel said...

Althouse,
I take offense at your blatant look-ism.
LOL

Bay Area Guy said...

The impeachment path taken by the Dems is utter bullshit. They tried it with the Russian collusion hoax that failed, now it's the Ukranian hoax. We will soon know whether there are any honorable Democrats left in Congress. Any politician who supports this power grab should be mocked, ridiculed and voted out of office.

Francisco D said...

Am I supposed to be keeping track of testimony that is being heard in private? Put it out where I can see it or don't bother me with partial leakage

Well stated Althouse.

The Democrat strategy is to use these hearings to leak unverifiable slander to the Media in order to drive up Trump's unfavorables. Most people do not pay close enough attention to discern spin from verifiable fact.

It is working among loyal Democrats and Never Trump Republicans ... for now.

hombre said...

Dershowitz: The last ethical Democrat standing.

Freder and ARM, legal experts in their own right (LOL), unexpectedly launch ad hominem attacks on the man. Ethical Democrats will not be permitted to object while Rep. Schitt is busy “breaking a few eggs.”

cubanbob said...

Let's get real here. This whole impeachment insanity is stemming from the root cause of Trump promising to drain the swamp starting with the incontrovertibly criminal Hillary Clinton. This is nothing but a giant squirrel to distract from the the fact the DoJ is finally looking into criminal conduct and if possible, to set the predicate that any criminal charges against the Obama Administration swamp dwellers is illegitimate because of politics. Trump is not going to quit. He will be reelected and he will push against the swamp until the day he leaves. In the end, this is really all about corrupt money and power starting with Hillary as the proximate cause and in there is no doubt there a more than a few Republicans who also got their beaks wet.

Drago said...

Freder The Non-Lawyer: "I bet if, when you were a law professor, one of your first year students had made this argument, you would call them into your office and tell them they should probably reconsider their decision to go to law school."

Nothing patronizing about this comment. Nope. Nothing at all.

Well just add the Law as a specific area of expertise for Field Marshall & Global Security Expert Freder.

After all, Freder was a govt contractor for some period of time! What other "credential" or "experience" do you need?

Freder Frederson said...

Made what argument? State the argument with precision so we can examine it. I seriously do not see the "argument" you are talking about.

Sheesh, did you read what you wrote?

The argument that Dershowitz raised in the part of the op-ed you posted is that Obama introducing a U.N. resolution critical of Israel was not impeachable, and therefore Trump's using his office to get dirt on a political rival is not impeachable. Obama's action may have been ill-advised and based on personal animosity, but where is the crime?

He also states that H.W.'s pardon of Weinberger and others was not an impeachable offense (apparently based solely on the fact that no one suggested impeaching H.W. for granting those pardons). That is an open question. It certainly could be that abusing your pardon power to save your old bosses ass (and possibly your own) is indeed impeachable. Of course, since nobody is going to impeach a president who has already lost an election and has less than a month left in office (the pardons were granted on Christmas Day, 1992), whether or not misuse of the pardon power is impeachable is still an open question.

Granted, I didn't read the whole op-ed, but if you highlighted his strongest arguments, then he shouldn't be allowed to practice law any more, and nobody should pay attention to him.

Freder Frederson said...

It's illegal to look into Biden's obvious and admitted crimes.

Are you illiterate? Of course it is not illegal to look into Biden's alleged crimes (your characterization of them as "obvious and admitted" is wrong). The DoJ could open an investigation today and would be perfectly justified in asking the Ukrainian government for assistance.

The potential impeachable offense that is currently under investigation is whether Trump misused his office to coerce the Ukrainians to investigate potential malfeasance of his political rival.

Qwinn said...

Imagine a trial where the jury is not present, but the prosecution and defense are videotaped. Then, before the jury is brought in to view the tape of the trial, the prosecutor selectively edits the tape to remove anything that hurts his case. Only then is the jury allowed to watch it.

Would anyone sane consider this a fair trial? Yet this is what Democrats are attempting, where the voters are the jury.

hombre said...

Freder: “What Obama did is of an entirely different character than what the charge against Trump is.“

This is true. What Obama did was against the interest of one of our country’s allies and hence against our interest. What Trump did, as is clear from the uncontradicted transcript of the phone call to Zelensky, was to ask for an investigation into tampering with the 2016 US election and grifting and extortion by a US Vice President and his family, both in the best interests of the US.

All of the sleazy Democrat hullabaloo is to draw the sting of impending indictments against prominent Democrat by Barr’s DOJ by smearing Trump and Barr. Think Crooked Hillary, Biden, McCabe, Rice, Clapper, Brennan, etc. Big time Democrats have heretofore been immune from prosecution. Barr May lack the huevos to go for them, but swamprats like Pelosi and Schiff only know that the corruption is there, not what he will do about it.

n.n said...

Dershowitz: The last ethical Democrat standing.

Perhaps classical. A yesteryear liberal, before the progression.

n.n said...

"Clinton's impeachment was also highly partisan.”

Before and after #MeToo. Republicans overestimated feminist unity. Also, Iraq war 1.0 was persistent but stable under a ceasefire. The stock market was viable and growing. People had a positive outlook.

Freder Frederson said...

Nothing patronizing about this comment.

When Althouse republishes legal arguments that she would excoriate a first year law student for making, then she should be patronized.

alanc709 said...

Okay, Freder, now makes the argument citing things Trump actually did that are reasons to impeach him. Tweeting, using mean language, exaggerating or "lying" are not valid reasons.

Francisco D said...

cubanbob nailed it at 11:40.

It is not much different than the Kavanaugh hearings, except the Dems were embarrassed by their transparent lies and manipulations. That's why this is not a transparent process. It is totally a media process and the media are happy to comply.

Prediction: They will never impeach Trump because that would bring their "evidence" into public purview. They are just trying to muddy him up for 2020 and deflect from the Barr and Durham work.

readering said...

Yeah, Trump moved the Embassy to redress a negotiation imbalance between Israel and Palestinians, after Obama, like every other president and with Dershowitz's support, had thwarted will of Congress by not moving it. Dershowitz can't stop himself from seeking press.

Yancey Ward said...

The impeachment circus is being done this way because the Democrats did learn the lesson from the Kavanaugh hearings- if your witnesses can't hold up under cross, you can't convince Republicans or the public of your desired outcome.

Michael K said...

Prediction: They will never impeach Trump because that would bring their "evidence" into public purview. They are just trying to muddy him up for 2020 and deflect from the Barr and Durham work.<

I agree. The new resolution in the Senate today might bring some results.

RMc said...

Freder Frederson said...

His factual claims are irrelevant.


For the Freders of the world, all facts are irrelevant...except the ones that bolster their arguments, of course.

Michael K said...

The potential impeachable offense that is currently under investigation is whether Trump misused his office to coerce the Ukrainians to investigate potential malfeasance of his political rival.

Law professor Freder once again strikes out. Releasing that transcript so quickly made the Democrats look like the fools they, and Freder, are.

Come on, Freder. If you are so sure of your argument let's have a vote in the House !

Denman said...

I endured the pain of reading the opening statement mentioned but noted that only the term “investigation” is used. I may have missed it, but I didn’t read anything in it about a specific Biden investigation. If the investigation concerned interference with the 2016 election then that seems like a valid reason for Trump as president to pursue further inquiry. What am I missing here?

Ralph L said...

There is no smoking hot guy in the story. That's for damn sure.

They'd drag Kushner into this if they could. Hunter would do--20 years ago. He still has good teeth, brightened in a glass every night.

Bay Area Guy said...

I have a Golden Rule too. It is:

Don't be a Delusional Leftwing Fuckhead.

Rusty said...

"Think of that as me calling YOU into my office to tell you that your should probably reconsider your decision to post that comment."
OK. And I apologize to Meade in advance, but I got kind of a semi from the imagery that conjured up.

Bilwick said...

My Golden Rule is in the title of the Matt Kibbe book: "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff."

Freder Frederson said...

Releasing that transcript so quickly made the Democrats look like the fools they, and Freder, are.

Only a die hard Trump fan (and Trump himself) believes the bullshit that the transcript really shows the call was "perfect". First of all, it is a summary of the call, not a word for word transcript, as Trump has claimed. And while there was indeed there was no specific quid pro quo statement, the asking for a favor is problematic at best.

Subsequent testimony by quite a few people involved in the case seems to indicate there was indeed a quid pro quo. Granted we do not have the whole testimony, and it might be that the quid pro quo was investigating interference by Ukraine for Hillary during the 2016 campaign, which if that was it, may be stupid and bullshit, but probably not impeachable.

Freder Frederson said...

Come on, Freder. If you are so sure of your argument let's have a vote in the House !

You apparently think I have clout with the Congress. I will get right on the phone and tell the House that Michael K. instructed me to tell them to hold the vote forthwith, no more dilly dallying.

Skylark said...

"First of all, it is a summary of the call, not a word for word transcript,”

Just making that claim is an admission that the transcript doesn’t show what you wish it did.

Skylark said...

"If the investigation concerned interference with the 2016 election then that seems like a valid reason for Trump as president to pursue further inquiry. What am I missing here?”

Nothing. That’s why they are continuing to lie and conflate the issues to confuse as many people about it as possible. That’s why original sources are so important.

Rusty said...


"Subsequent testimony by quite a few people involved in the case seems to indicate there was indeed a quid pro quo. "
But we'll never know because we aren't allowed to see the evidence or question the witnesses. And you're fine with that?

Skylark said...

"he potential impeachable offense that is currently under investigation is whether Trump misused his office to coerce the Ukrainians to investigate potential malfeasance of his political rival.”

What if that malfeasance was collusion with foreigners to interfere in our elections? Because if it is off limits to inquire into that, then we have wasted three fucking years, and Democrats owe Trump a major apology.

BTW, that’s what Trump was interested in and I have given the actual smoking gun of Ukrainian interference on behalf of Hillary multiple times, but here it is again:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html

Yancey Ward said...

"Subsequent testimony by quite a few people involved in the case seems to indicate there was indeed a quid pro quo."

From what's been leaked by Schiff, it is just each of his witnesses repeating each other's gossip about what they believed the reason for the aid being withheld was- belief, not knowledge.

Not a single witness stated the following:

"I was explicitly told to tell the Ukrainians that they wouldn't get the aid unless they did X, Y, and Z.

Not a single leaked statement or piece of testimony is of that first hand type. All of it is of this type:

"I was told by so and so that they thought the hold up had to do with the asked for investigations," not that "they knew".

Not a single piece of testimony has confirmed that Trump or Pompeo, or anyone else in the Administration told any of the witnesses there was this condition on the aid being released. Not a single piece. And it is very likely that all the witnesses whose leaked testimony has been seen are quoting each other in these hearsay. So, Hill's claims are those she heard from Taylor and Morrison, Taylor's are from what he heard from Morrison and Hill, and if Morrison testifies, he will be quoting the hearsay of Taylor and Hill. All of it is circular testimony until it actually comes from someone with actual first hand knowledge of what Trump said. What you need to actually make the allegation solid is someone testifying that they heard Trump demand this, or a written order detailing this from someone in the chain of command. Anything else is just rumor and conjecture.

Kirk Parker said...

Sorry, Althouse and Meade, but the prog's actual Golden Rule for their own behavior is this: It's Different When We Do It.

pious agnostic said...

Denman said...
..... What am I missing here?

10/24/19, 1:22 PM


Ill will.

Freder Frederson said...

BTW, that’s what Trump was interested in and I have given the actual smoking gun of Ukrainian interference on behalf of Hillary multiple times, but here it is again:

I have no idea what this article has to do with Hillary. It is about Manafort's involvement in Ukraine.

Francisco D said...

Only a die hard Trump fan (and Trump himself) believes the bullshit that the transcript really shows the call was "perfect". First of all, it is a summary of the call, not a word for word transcript, as Trump has claimed.

Freder,

You do know how these transcripts are created, don't you. Maybe you should look it up.

There was no word for word transcript because the call is not taped. What foreign politicians would put up with that?

Trump did not claim it was a verbatim transcript. He knows the protocol that you are sadly ignorant of.

You are lying once again Field Marshall.

Ralph L said...

Rusty said...
I got kind of a semi from the imagery that conjured up.

Moisture makes xim rusty.

Freder Frederson said...

Trump did not claim it was a verbatim transcript.

Actually, in several tweets he claimed it was a "word for word" transcript.

So who is the liar?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

steve uhr said...
I punished myself and watched Hannity the past two nights to see how he handled Taylor’ statement. Surprise ... he pretty much ignored it.


I watched the first night. Hannity didn't mention Taylor that night. Hannity is not that smart and recognizes his limitations. In contrast Laura Ingraham took a lot of time to try to minimize the impact of Taylor's testimony. Probably would have been better to stick with the Hannity approach.

Skylark said...

Freder, it’s foreign election interference. It came from Ukrainian intelligence files, dirt on Trump, and printed in the New York Times in August of 2016. It was leaked at the behest of the Democrats, against Trump, and on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

From my post above:

wrote last month that the Obama White House invited Ukrainian law enforcement officials to a meeting in January 2016 as Trump rose in the polls on his improbable path to the presidency. The meeting led to U.S. requests to the Ukrainians to help investigate Manafort, setting in motion a series of events that led to the Ukrainians leaking the documents about Manafort in May 2016. - The Hill

So we have the Ukrainians saying that they were pressured to provide dirt on Trump during the election by the DNC and the Obama Administration, and we have the dirt on Trump from the Ukrainian intelligence files appearing in the New York Times.

Are you really that blind?

Skylark said...

Freder is going on about the transcript because he knows that it doesn’t show what the whistleblower, who was not there, claimed it would show. So who is lying, the four CIA agents tasked with transcribing the call real time, and comparing notes and coming up with the transcript? Or the guy who was repeating water cooler gossip and freaking out that the jig might be up on all of the Ukrainian graft?

Skylark said...

Ukraine dumping that stuff from their “secret ledger” into the US election campaign and forcing Trump’s campaign manager to resign had a larger effect on the election than anything the Russians had done.

But that’s off limits to investigate the source of that dirt because the Democrats were ultimately behind it and the Ukrainians did it to curry favor with future POTUS Hillary Clinton.

I thought that this whole thing was about election interference and digging dirt on political opponents in foreign lands, but that’s obviously wrong because Hillary paid her lawyer to make up the dirt in the Steele dossier, and there was no problem with that!

Now do you see why Republicans believe that this whole thing is a bullshit putup job by Democrats unhappy they lost the election, or are you just another trollbot like Tokyo Rose here, I mean ARM?

Michael K said...

Laura Ingraham took a lot of time to try to minimize the impact of Taylor's testimony. Probably would have been better to stick with the Hannity approach.

ARM is betting a lot that the transcript will not be a disaster for the Democrats. On the other had, he doesn't have much to bet,

Michael K said...

I will get right on the phone and tell the House that Michael K. instructed me to tell them to hold the vote forthwith, no more dilly dallying.

Good. Maybe a few such calls from Democrats will clue them in that they are heading for disaster.

n.n said...

Witch hunts and warlock trials are first-order forcings of catastrophic anthropogenic [political] climate change.

Francisco D said...

Actually, in several tweets he claimed it was a "word for word" transcript.

Freder apparently does not know how these transcripts are created nor does he understand the difference between "word for word" and "verbatim". The former refers to the transcript created by the four CIA analysts who actually create the final transcript. Verbatim would be a taped transcript. There is no verbatim transcript Freder, except in your fervently delusional mind.

I should be happy that the Left has become remarkably stupid and ignorant, but it saddens me.

Freder Frederson said...

nor does he understand the difference between "word for word" and "verbatim".

Word for word is verbatim you dolt. Just because you use the words in two different contexts doesn't mean they have a different meaning.

I really didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to claim that "verbatim" and "word for word" were not synonymous. But stupidity in the defense of Trump is apparently a virtue.