I'm begging you, Democrats: Assume you are talking to an ordinary American, someone who hasn't been sitting around watching hearings, who doesn't have the time or patience to listen to elaborate explanations, and who isn't just already on your team.
Imagine this person saying to you:
I'm very busy. I'm going to vote next year, but I'm seeing this impeachment business, and I don't have time to do all the homework. I don't trust any of you politicos, and I don't want to try to figure out who among all you characters is more honest and patriotic than the others. I'd like to wait for the election and hash it all out next year in the normal way, but you're talking about immersing us in all this crazy stuff about who said what to whom and what was in Trump's head. You need the support of the people — normal people, like me — and you need to tell me clearly, factually, what the hell you are talking about. If you say 100 words without pulling it together and making sense to me, you need to shut up and leave me alone. I hate you.The reason for impeaching should be very clear and not dependent on a predisposition to make leaps of inference or the belief that Trump is a terrible President.
Democrats, if you can't do this, you need to step back from the precipice.
পোস্টগুলি
৩৬১টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 361 এর 201 – থেকে 361Why Schiff got the hook:
Emerson polling showed that support for impeachment flipped since October from 48 percent support with 44 percent opposing to now 45 percent opposed and 43 percent in support. Among key independents, the switch was even more pronounced. In October, 48 percent supported impeaching President Donald Trump, with 39 percent opposed. Now, 49 percent of independents oppose impeachment, while only 34 percent support it.
A new Marquette University Law School poll found that 40 percent of registered voters in the swing state of Wisconsin think that Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 53 percent do not think so. Another 6 percent weren’t sure.
A new Gallup poll shows that Trump’s approval has ticked up two points since the impeachment drama began, with 50 percent of Americans opposed to it and 48 percent in support. Henry Olsen notes that Gallup polls all adults, not just registered voters, meaning that a poll of registered voters would have Trump’s job approval even higher and impeachment opposed by closer to a 52-46 margin. - The Federalist.
One’s an outlier, two is interesting, three is a trend. Westinghouse Rules.
"...tell me clearly, factually, what the hell you are talking about. If you say 100 words without pulling it together and making sense to me you need to shut up and leave me alone. I hate you"
Of course Chuck needs to make that "you" him Everyone hates Chuck. Even his dog.
Amadeus 48: Peggy Noonan gives us the view from the fur-lined redoubts of the haute bourgeoisie in Manhattan.
"Fur-lined redoubts".
There's a Laslo riff in here somewhere.
Sorry, Western Electric rules, I have been retired for a while now.
Easy peasy assignment professor:
President Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine by withholding vital military aid in a time in which they are at war with our number one global enemy Vladimir Putin for the favor of investigating and smearing is Chief political rival
Althouse, this post of yours has now elicited a full page of comments that demonstrate how craven, how cultish, and how dumb the Trump base really is.
Chuck should meet Gary over at Ricochet. Gary, at least, seems to have some sense of humor. Maybe it's a lawyer thing.
Trump is the Rodney Dangerfield character in "Caddyshack." Chuck and Gary are the judge.
Ryan poised a New task!...
Explain it like I am five years old.
The D's wanted Cookies
Trumpster said BAD D's!!!
D's Cried and made poopies in their pants
Trumpster will make them sit in corner next November
Rocean: excellent point.
And wasn't the FBI investigating Trump when he was running? If that was allowed, then what's the bug deal?
I'm begging you, Democrats: Assume you are talking to an ordinary American
Dem politicos don't talk to ordinary Americans; they talk to certified crazy people, people who would literally cheer if Trump were assassinated. (Yeah, I went there. On today of all days.)
President Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine by withholding vital military aid in a time in which they are at war with our number one global enemy Vladimir Putin for the favor of investigating and smearing is Chief political rival
Howard is so dumb he does not remember who really withheld aid. Obummer would only grant non-lethal aid, like blankets, and then dropped it off in Poland so he could sneak away. And pretend. Obama was good at pretending.
Gilbar: yes! someone should check the ELI5 reddit board on this.
Howard gets it though. Why bother with evidence? How is that going to help you impeach Trump? Just repeat the accusation.
I think that when Democrats decided that they needed to destroy moderate Republican Elise Stefanik for asking actual penetrating questions, that is when Democrats won their case in swing districts everywhere! She replaced a Democrat in NY21, so this was a brilliant stratagem.
Easy peasy assignment professor:
President Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine by withholding vital military aid in a time in which they are at war with our number one global enemy Vladimir Putin for the favor of investigating and smearing is Chief political rival
Except that he didn’t but +1 for effort. And Biden isn’t his chief political rival since who that is hasn’t been determined yet.
She asked for a one-paragraph explanation dipweed, it's exactly what I provided and it is exactly true what the Democrats are pushing. of course there might be some validity to your highly ideological conspiracy theory although I doubt it but that wasn't the point of this post. so once again because you are so impotent and powerless in your daily life you seek to lash out irrationally on this blog in order to boost your dwindling self-esteem that's really sad doc
Chuck: I am breaking my new goal of just one comment per Althouse post here. So this will be my last comment on this one.
Well, if you had any self-control, you wouldn’t be Chuck.
But more to the point, even if we assumed that Sondland’s magically-recovered memory of his presumptions is accurate, all he canfirmed was that lots of people thought that Trump was pressuring Ukraine, which must mean that Trump was pressuring Ukraine. Two thoughts on that:
1) How come no-one can testify that Trump, universally described as super-chaotic and discipline-free, ever actually expressed this pressure?
2) We know that the White House included a number of “patriots” committed to bringing Trump down. That commitment seems like the most obvious source of the presumption of pressure.
I used to respect the way Nancy Pelosi discouraged her fellow Democrats from pursuing premature impeachment. But when I saw the Inquisition start to go after VP Pence with her blessings, I realized that perhaps Madame Speaker was in this for herself, being third in line for the Presidency. It all looks like a naked power grab.
Althouse, this post of yours has now elicited a full page of comments that demonstrate how craven, how cultish, and how dumb the Trump base really is.
The lefties are, indeed, nasty little shits. But the NeverTrumpers like that Texas clown you linked earlier in the thread and the deep staters are the ‘human scum’ that Trump mentioned last month. Did you understand that he was also talking to you?
- Krumhorn
I just checked, and only saw an ELI5 on "why has trump not been impeached yet?" Go figure. Someone who uses reddit should go over there and start a thread.
Prioritizing stability is an emotional thing to do. Everyone wants order but only up to a point and everyone is risk averse but only up to a point. Your balance is yours and it has something to do with your body and your nervous system and hormones and so forth, so there's a male/female aspect to it.
In the current controversy over impeachment, both sides are making claims to preserving order, so the big abstraction won't determine which side you are on.
Guys like to solve deep simple problems (abstracting away details), women like to be fair.
Satisfaction at solving a deep problem is not exactly well called emotion. It's a motivation.
One sort of problem is building a system that won't collapse under predictable operating conditions, like, in the case of the Constitution, having bad people in government.
Guys look at how changes would work with bad people around, because the stability of the system matters most.
Women just want to be fair, screw the stability.
I see that the President has found a way to end this entire sham of a process right now. He, apparently, stated that he wants a trial. If recent history is to be believed the Democrats will reflexively come out against it.
Last week Trump’s main opponent was Fauxahontas.
This week, it’s the South Bend Scold/shyster.
Next week?
The answer is blowing in the wind.
I hope these democratic pricks understand this is the new normal going forward. Oh sure its all fun and games until your guy will get impeached because the house flips into republican control. Since they have now convinced themselves there doesn't have to be any criminality involved and impeachment is just a "political act" watch what happens next.
The independent counsel law was all fine and dandy for the democrats until Ken Starr appeared and stepped on Bill Clinton's dick. It was wrong for the republicans to try to impeach Clinton over perjury during a civil trial. I guess this will make things even if they impeach Trump? Do they think this will be the end of it? I fear for our countries future now this will be the norm.
"There's a Laslo riff in here somewhere."
I tee it up. Others swat it down the fairway.
Althouse, this post of yours has now elicited a full page of comments that demonstrate how craven, how cultish, and how dumb the Trump base really is.
I see absolutely no reason to respond to his childish name calling.
If we ignore him, he will go away.
"seek to lash out irrationally on this blog in order to boost your dwindling self-esteem that's really sad”
That’s what Democrats call evidence.
What a sad state that Andy McCabe is a fixture on CNN.
He is a disgraced liar - and CNN stands him up as an expert.
CNN’s Andy McCabe: “Fictitious theory” Ukraine meddled in 2016 election
"The foreign policy equivalent of Trump’s shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue."
Jesus. You really have gone over the edge. Process above all else seems to be the problem with you NTs imo. It's Trump’s party now. I question the nobility of going down with the ship. Best wishes with that.
This isn’t going to be the norm for the reason that Meade gave, Democrats will be punished for it. Then both parties will have an institutional memory for how stupid it is.
Rhbardin sure spends a lot of time on this blog, which is run by a woman. I wonder why?
History will judge why the Democrats couldn't manage to field one single acceptable candidate to oppose President Trump. My premature guess is that they have no party platform on which to stand. Trump stole their best planks. What they sound for now is rotten and resembles a gallows rather than a party platform.
Shorter Noonan:
Only democrats are allowed to flush out stuff for political gain. They can use lies and fraud to do it without consequence.
nifty.
Now you're just being boring mr. Skylark can't you find a nursery rhyme short story myth tail etc to couch your argument in rather than the empty platitude of an impotent supporter of a failed Mussolini
I am re-astounded daily on the levels of stupidity and willful ignorance displayed by "our betters".
Peggy Noonan has to make a living somehow. Those Manhattans aren't going to pay for themselves.
I don't feel beat up on. I do think it is a reasonable question to ask, given the "case for impeachment" I laid out at 6:24 am. why would I (in the real world) oppose impeachment?
On issue 1 (use of gov't resources for political ends). A. It should not be impeachable for a President to pursue legitimate policy objectives that have the secondary impact of helping the President politically. A President can enter into a treaty before an election, even if concluding the treaty would help the President get re-elected. A President can even say to a foreign leader, "Give me these concessions today; it would help me get re-elected; and after I'm re-elected I'll have more flexibility to address your concerns." B. It should not be impeachable for a President to lead an executive branch in which some officials take actions to help the President politically. The evidence here appears to me to be too much of the "I assumed the President wanted," "I was told the President wanted." If an IRS employee initiates a tax investigation into opponents of the President, on the assumption that "This will make the President happy," or "This is what the President wants," that action should not be grounds for impeaching the President. C. Too much of the evidence is weak and indirect ("I overheard a conversation," "Someone described a conversation," etc.
On issue 2 (failure to cooperate with Congress). The Democrats blew this (for me) by failing to conduct hearings at the request of the entire House (by floor vote) and by refusing to conduct the hearings with openness and fairness. Imagine that Congress establishes an ad hoc committee to annoy the President, and calls hearings every day to question executive branch employees and request documents. A President would be justified in ignoring the requests and subpoenas of such a committee. (I am not qualified to make legal arguments about separation of powers and executive privilege -- I am talking about what is "right" or "just".)
Orange Man Bad.
Howard: “... in a time in which they are at war with our number one global enemy Vladimir Putin...”
Haha haha. Oh Howard, the 1980s just called and said they want their foreign policy back.
Trump stole their best planks.
Exactly. Trump's stances on trade, immigration, crime, and manufacturing are to the left of Bill Clinton's while Clinton was president.
We are trying to convict Trump (cause we hate him) of Joe Biden's (cause we love him) crime. Not recommeneded but at least honest.
Shoot, Obama withheld aid from Ukraine without even asking for anything in return.
" than the empty platitude of an impotent supporter of a failed Mussolini”
I’m not the one who supports Liz Warren.
Great post, Ann. My wife is a law professor, and she instructs her student to write their briefs (and exams) as if they were addressing Grandma and wanted her to understand the law of the case and the argument. If you can demonstrate that granny gets it, it also mean that you do as well. It works with juries too.
- Krumhorn
Question for pro-impeachment or pro-impeachment inquiry people:
If there had been no military aid pending, would it have been ok for Trump to ask Zelinski to look into what Biden was saying?
Great comment, Molly.
Blogger David Begley said...
The House Dems in Trump districts won’t vote to impeach.
I've been saying this all along, but the complete lack of adherence to facts, process, and rationality that have been on such vibrant display the past two weeks makes me wonder.
It was wrong for the republicans to try to impeach Clinton over perjury during a civil trial.
Looking back after Epstein ties it all together....
Clinton is a rapist, his wife, the former SOS, knew what he was and stayed with him.
He and she knew he knowingly consorted with a sex-trafficker’s goods.
Did I mention she was SOS?
Did State willingly —DOES—State willingly aid known sex trafficking rings?
Is this another reason State is fighting so hard?
A President can enter into a treaty before an election, even if concluding the treaty would help the President get re-elected.
Or, conversely, he can impose a treaty-like obligation on the country like Paris Accords and the Iran deal ,without asking the Senate to ratify them because he knows they won't. Then he can assure "Vlad" that he will have even more flexibility after the election.
President Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine by withholding vital military aid in a time in which they are at war with our number one global enemy Vladimir Putin for the favor of investigating and smearing is Chief political rival
1. Howard does not understand the word "blackmail."
2.China is our #1 global enemy. Russia is an oil kleptocracy with diminishing revenues thanks to Trump allowing US to become the world's largest oil producer.
3. Hunter Biden is a coke addict who was bribed by Burisma to the tune of several $million
4. Trump (and I) desperately want Joe Biden to get the Dem nomination. Joe makes his own dirt. You don't need to dig any up.
5. Trump's chief political rival is the Deep State.
Answer to Ann's question from another blog,
"A President should not use his power and American resources to get a foreign government to investigate political rivals."
Very weak. I disposed of it in short order.
Dr.K to Howard: "President Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine by withholding vital military aid in a time in which they are at war with our number one global enemy Vladimir Putin for the favor of investigating and smearing is Chief political rival"
Howard is so dumb he does not remember who really withheld aid. Obummer would only grant non-lethal aid, like blankets, and then dropped it off in Poland so he could sneak away. And pretend. Obama was good at pretending.
Howard is dumb but that's beside the point here. Seems obvious to me that the agreed-upon, coordinated tactic is to *just keep repeating the obvious bullshit as if it were obvious fact*. Brass it out. I find it hard to believe that even Peggy Noonan is sheltered and senile enough to deep-down believe the crap she's putting out. Howard's just doing the same at blog-poster level.
Some are putting it out rationally and cynically, some (like Noonan, I suspect) are putting it out subsequent to resolutely refusing to think very hard about what they're doing, and some are putting it out at the local level, as it were, because they're emotionally invested dumbasses.
At this juncture factual debate is entirely irrelevant.
I maintain the electorate is not taking this impeachment as seriously as it should, and are going to be shocked and dumbfounded by the ramifications after the fact.
Blogger iowan2 said...
" New polls from other states are confirming the shift as well. “
Well that would explain why Schiff seems to have gotten the hook, when a few days ago, Pelosi was telling us she had no idea how long this would go on.
...
But I can see that it is very likely Pelosi pulled the plug on this abortion of an impeachment before the damage gets worse. Pelosi will NOT put articles of impeachment up for a vote until some Republicans sign on.
She's got Justin Amash already, although he's not offically a Republican any more. Is she desperate enough to count him?
Welcome to the real world April Apple. In politics money talks and so does bulshit all at the same time the laws of physics don't apply. grow up smell the coffee and take your bite out of that shit sandwich that is a daily requirement of all people
Doctor Francisco your eminence, facts and deed do not matter nor do Blackstone or Oxford definitions this bollocks is being tried in the court of public opinion where all bets are off. now I think you guys might have a point that the Democrats are overmatched by the bullshit generating machine that is Donald Trump. His ability to lie cheat and steal without Ruth is why you people love him so much. just because you're a worthless little cock doesn't mean you have to get your panties in a bunch every time someone farts or belches
"Quick. Find an absolutely clear, 1-paragraph, just-the-facts summary of exactly what Trump did that warrants impeachment."
OK, here is my submission:
(This space intentionally left blank)
That's it. Pretty simple, huh?
The former National Security Council official on Thursday distilled the fog of shady dealings and competition between Trump appointees and career bureaucrats with a crystal clear condemnation of his rogue foreign policy operation in Ukraine.
https://www.abc57.com/news/hill-puts-the-nail-in-the-democrats-case
I like distill the fog. Getting a cliche wrong is always great.
h/t scott adams
Doctor Francisco your eminence, facts and deed do not matter nor do Blackstone or Oxford definitions this bollocks is being tried in the court of public opinion where all bets are off.
On that we agree, Howard.
How would you like to have your life ruined by a corrupt prosecutor who manipulated and leveraged public opinion to put you in jail?
You probably don't mind totalitarianism when you think that you are on the "right" side, but what about when the winds shift? Are you ready for the US version of the Cultural Revolution? It will sooner or later eat its own.
The end-of-the-world scenario dr. Francisco d is a sure sign of mental illness fortunately for you you can hide behind your computer on the internet instead of having to walk around the streets with sandwich boards
Okay I'm calling it this thread is officially dead thanks for playing
Another witness for rhhardin
'Trump is a racist who is trying to 'make America white again' by deporting immigrants.'
'But Obama deported double the number of immigrants and put kids in cages'.
'I didn't follow politics then...I wouldn't denounce him because he was a gentleman.'
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1197867196707418117
Howard, up your game man. That was embarrassing.
I like distill the fog. Getting a cliche wrong is always great. Yeah the writer messed up that metaphor and my guess is that the writer has no idea what distillation actually is. That being said I think the metaphor does actually explain what is happening. So the situation is murky at first and there is fog all over, but then enough of the fog is removed through distillation to clear up some bits to be seen but not all. The bits that are cleared up for the left are Sondland saying, "Donald Trump wanted the meeting tied to Ukraine investigating Burisma." Unfortunately the remaining fog obscures from the left that Sondland later admits that no one actually told him that, and that it was his presumption. And some of that fog even seeped into the left's head and prevented them from realizing that a very similar word for presumption is speculation.
Gonna be a Democrat train wreck.. regardless of what they do.
Economy is great, jobs abound, troops coming home, USA is now 'OPEC', etc. And the Democrats idea of Trump's wrongs are just so convoluted!!
If they stop the hearings they look like fools. If they continue to impeach they will be fools.
From "Junction"..
"We haven't decided you're really wrong
For experience has its function
But my mind is at the crossroads
And I can't find the junction
We haven't decided you're wrong
For experience has its function
But you've thrown us out here on the backroads
And we're gonna find the junction"
Wounded Medic
Surgical Ward
U.S. Army Hospital, Zama, Japan
Howard said...
"Easy peasy assignment professor:
President Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine by withholding vital military aid in a time in which they are at war with our number one global enemy Vladimir Putin for the favor of investigating and smearing is Chief political rival"
What 'war' are we in with Russia right now??? But it could just as easily be..
"President Trump tried to pressure Ukraine by withholding vital military aid so to help investigate the obvious criminal enterprises of Biden & Son."
And that is how the average citizen looks at it. Biden & Son are crooks and Biden never had a real chance to win any presidential election.
Cuck comes out of his hugbox over at The Bulwark to announce that this is His Last Comment on The Thread: The True Essence of Conservatism is Defend Hunter Biden the Drug-Addled Loser Son of the Senator From MBNA Unconditionally, Unelected Officials Like LIEUTENANT COL Vindman and DOCTOR Hill Decide Policy, and (eventually) Vote Elizabeth Warren. OTHERWISE YOU'RE IN A CULT!!!!!!
AND THAT'S IT. HE PROMISES THAT THAT'S REALLY IT!!!!
BTW I have zero problem with Howard and if he hates me that's ok. He's amusing and probably believes about 80% (estimate) of what he's posting.
I have been radicalized against the Democrats. Dear Penthouse I never thought this would happen to me. I hate them. Hate hate hate. I'm beginning to think the Jacobins with their guillotines were on to something.
Howard is losing it. Go home Howard the bar is closing.
Is it reasonable to require the Democrats to be clear, concise, factual and operate within the laws and constitution? That is not their normal modus operandi. There are decades of Democrat precedent for vague, rambling, fact free and legally questionable articles of impeachment. Just ask the 9th Circuit, they'll gladly affirm what the Democrats are doing.
How much difference do you think it would make to national elections if we simply had a straight down the middle, unbiased, yet inquisitive press? I say at least 20 points in favor of Republicans and a decent boost for Libertarians, quite possibly more. The inquiry is simply Democrat campaigning for 2020, becuase they know how the media will run that for them, except that there are dissenting voices out there now - less in number, often stifled and censured, but they are there. Importantly, Democrats now over-play the media bias they depend on, and rightfully expect. People are starting to see it, finally.
Reading the posts of some of our favorite leftists like Howard and LLR Chuck is an indication of the anger level on the dem side now that they know they have already lost the PR battle over their pathetic lies.
Just think: the lefties have the entire legacy media, the entirety of the dem apparatus, the entirety of the Deep State to gin up and manufacture a ploy like this over a 18 months and STILL, STILL(!), this is the best frame up they could come up with!!
LOLOLOL
And they wonder why they are losing!
I will only be worried if our leftists LLR Chuck and Howard actually show some ability to start adapting to reality on the fly.
So far, no such worry!
Rough draft:
An impeachment trial is warranted because the undisputed evidence shows:
1. Trump used Presidential power and public money to coerce a foreign country into interfering in the 2020 American elections.
2. His actions were taken solely in his own interest. They harmed our national security interests and benefited only Russia.
3. Though Trump claims his conduct was proper, he abandoned it as soon as it became public, and has, without any legal basis, refused to produce any of the evidence that could show he acted properly.
4, This is exactly the kind of abuse and corruption that impeachment is intended to address.
This is a good post, but I do want to point out it’s not a *neutral* post. It’s from someone who wants to be a Democrat. The “begging you” makes this clear.
Good post, but “cruel neutrality” is not neutral.
Why wasn't the subject of the Biden's Ukraine corruption brought up at all during the Democrat debate - not by the moderators, and not by any opposing candidate. Is it not an important issue right now? Do all the candidates want Biden to win? Or is it that the subject supports Trump's actions, and no Democrat will ever do that, regardless of the action. The DNC put out the word, that you will not get the nomination if you bring it up, and the moderators are DNC operatives posing as journalists. There is no other explanation.
"The Deplorables stole the election. It's taken us three years, but we're about to take it back."
An entire generation of people willing to look critically at events of the last few years is being introduced to the benefits of undemocratic, counter-majoritarian protections enshrined in our form of government. Hail to republicanism. The system is working, and nothing beats first-hand appreciation of that in terms of long term stability. I for one welcome a return to appointed rather than elected senators, and to a reconsideration of term limits and other measures to encourage churn among elected officials and especially the administrative state. I hope that the "revolving door" tax on officials leaving govt for the private sector will, hopefully not far off, find sufficient support to be seriously considered and eventually passed. The system is working, and it's ugly.
They haven’t been able to do that for three years. Or have they done ANYTHING in the house. In the senate they have managed to filibuster every nominee for justice or the admin.
Where is the damn USMCA vote. Pathetic excuse for an American political party.
Take the hours and hours of testimony. Now delete all the testimony that is second/third/fourth hand. Now delete all the testimony that amounts to,"I have no direct evidence, but I presume". Include the discarding of all "evidence" that is mind reading. Remember that includes things like, THIS is why Trump did x-y-z. Finally take away all the testimony that says, sure Trump as President legally is in charge of foreign policy, but that's not the way WE do it. Make sure you delete those that are basically saying, "I'm butt hurt due to not getting to sit at the adult table.
What cha got?
Why wasn't the subject of the Biden's Ukraine corruption brought up at all during the Democrat debate
Because they--congresscritters, senior bureaucrats, members of the press--are mostly neck deep in this stuff themselves. They stick together because otherwise they hang together. The Augean Stables won't clean themselves. Trump is the broom.
Blogger Stephen said...
Rough draft:
Where to you address any specific evidence? You just repeated the accusation as if it had been proven. We just had this whole impeachment show, surely you have evidence now?
Paroxysms of the ruling class amidst their desperate attempts to restore their superiority. That's the show.
"An impeachment trial is warranted because the undisputed evidence shows..."
I believe it is undisputed that -- when the argument begins by claiming something is "undisputed" -- the speaker is conveniently skipping past the part of which they are least confident in proving.
I am Laslo.
OK, good:
"An impeachment trial is warranted because the undisputed evidence shows:"
The evidence is disputed. In fact, it is disputed whether there is any evidence at all. For example, several witnesses said there was no or that they knew of no quid pro quo. Another testified that it was simply his presumption.
"1. Trump used Presidential power and public money to coerce a foreign country into interfering in the 2020 American elections."
But his actual statements and the "evidence" thus far refer to 2016.
"2. His actions were taken solely in his own interest. They harmed our national security interests and benefited only Russia."
Why solely? On what grounds would or could anyone say that? If no aid was in fact withheld, what national security interest was affected? And if the Trump administration has in fact supported Ukraine more strongly than Obama, in what sense are its actions "benefitting only Russia"?
"3. Though Trump claims his conduct was proper, he abandoned it as soon as it became public, and has, without any legal basis, refused to produce any of the evidence that could show he acted properly."
Huh? Trump has abandoned nothing, and there was nothing to abandon. What "evidence" is he supposedly withholding that could show he acted properly?
"4, This is exactly the kind of abuse and corruption that impeachment is intended to address."
What is "this"? There was no abuse and no corruption. In fact, getting the Ukrainians to take their own anti-corruption commitments seriously is in the national interest--and in fact demanded by law. The corruption is all on the other side, with Ukrainian payments to the son of the VP and active Dem efforts to solicit Ukrainian state support against the Trump campaign. Which have yet to be fully investigated.
Stephan, How do you address the fact that Ukraine worked with the Democrats to help HIllary, or at a very minimum, Trump had reasonable grounds to believe that, and to send somebody he actually trusted to find out.
Why is Taylor currently blocking visas on Ukrainians willing to testify to this in the US?
You have written several topic sentences, as we said in elementary school, and no supporting arguments. You were asked to write a paragraph.
You’re making his head hurt Sebastian. He was promised there would be no logic.
An impeachment trial is warranted because the undisputed evidence shows:
1. Trump used Presidential power and public money to coerce a foreign country into interfering in the 2020 American elections.
Stephen,
I don't know if you intended that to be an extremely weak argument, but it is laughable. If any court of law accepted that argument, any one of us could be imprisoned for anything at any time.
What evidence is there of coercion? So far there is only inference by various witnesses. Ukraine doesn't say they were coerced. The only fact witness said Trump wanted nothing from them.
How would Ukraine interfere in a future election by investigating a clear prima facie case of bribing the sitting US VP?
Democrats took their best shot during the last 10 days, and it isn't nearly enough. If this were a criminal trial, and the Senate trial will probably follow such procedures pretty closely, only a small portion of the testimony seen so far would even be allowed to be repeated in the Senate trial. Not one witness had actual first hand evidence of a crime being committed by Trump, and they didn't even have second-hand or hearsay evidence of it either. The most damaging witness against Trump was Sondland, and yet Sondland was forced to admit under cross that Trump had told him that there were no conditions on getting the aid finally approved.
Here is what is going to be allowed at the Senate trial in a case made by the Democrats in the House:
(1) Testimony about the hold on the aid, and when it was placed and by whom, and written reasons for the hold. Also witnesses to when it was lifted, and a written reasons as to why.
(2) Any witness who has seen (can authenticate) written evidence that Trump put the hold on the aid in return for the investigations against the Bidens specifically, or was told by Trump that the hold was for that reason. To date, there are no such witnesses- I have read every transcript that has been released to the public.
That is the Democrats' case that will be allowed in the Senate trial. Only the OMB and others who handled the hold on aid directly, and Sondland and Volker would be allowed to testify on behalf of the prosecution (they are the only two who had evidence relevant from conversations with Trump himself). Every other witness just had second hand knowledge that arrived via Vindman or the two phone conversations whose transcripts have been released already- you don't need their testimony unless they claim the transcripts are substantially incorrect, and no one who testified publicly said this, and they were all questioned about it, too- they are on the record that the transcripts were accurate.
Trump his counsel will have far more leeway to present a defense- that defense will likely be allowed the presentation of evidence against Biden and his son. The Democrats can't argue that it was corrupt to ask Zelensky for an investigation of the Bidens and Burisma, but not allow Trump to make the case that an investigation was a proper thing to do. Trump's defense will, of course, be allowed to present all the sworn testimony from every witness Schiff called where the witness stated that they had no knowledge of a quid pro quo, which is all of them to date.
No to mention that Trump was under investigation at the time by Schiff, still is, BTW, on the groundless Russian “collusion” charge, and had a right to gather exculpatory evidence, wherever that led. Here I thought that foreign election interference was the most heinous possible crime and had to be rooted out at all costs as a matter of the utmost importance to national security!
Oh, that’s only if you thought it helped Trump.
"1. Trump used Presidential power and public money to coerce a foreign country into interfering in the 2020 American elections."
So corruption by Presidential candidates is off limits for investigation, even when it interferes with our national interest. Notice it's what you accuse Trump of, although it never actually took place under Trump, and none of the witness could say it did.
"2. His actions were taken solely in his own interest. They harmed our national security interests and benefited only Russia."
Why is investigating the obvious corruption bragged about by Biden not in the national interest? Corruption that siphons off exactly the kind of money we were providing. Investigating such corruption is called for by our treaty with Ukraine, and obviously worthy of action for us and a reform government there. The fact that it might benefit Trump if the culprit happens to be running for President is no justification to ignore it. As for harming anything, it didn't happen. Nothing was withheld, and no investigation was announced.
"3. Though Trump claims his conduct was proper, he abandoned it as soon as it became public, and has, without any legal basis, refused to produce any of the evidence that could show he acted properly."
He released the transcript immediately telling us all exactly what he did.
"
4, This is exactly the kind of abuse and corruption that impeachment is intended to address."
Such policy is entirely within the power of the President. A crime didn't happen with Trump, but what you are saying is true of what Biden did as Vice President. He can't impeach him , but he should be investigated, especially if he's running for President. All there is here against Trump is simply that Biden is running. That was wasn't his call.
We have hearsay evidence only that a “crime” even happened. They bolster their hearsay with circumstantial evidence that the crime that people told them second and third hand had happened could possibly have happened.
Johnny said that he heard Mary say that her friend’s cousin saw Billy driving drunk last night, and even though there is no direct word of any accident and his car was in the driveway this morning unscratched, a car like his was seen on Main Street last night.
Guilty! Billy is obviously guilty! It doesn’t matter if Johnny, Mary, and the rest hate Billy and that Billy has a car! The fact that they made such a big deal about Sondman until he recanted on close questioning shows that they know what real evidence looks like. They just don’t have any.
At this point, if it is some kind of coverup, kudos to Trump for pulling it off, because it looks pretty airtight to me.
“Ukraine is just a target of opportunity. If it wasn't that it would be something else”
Exactly right. I will remember that phrasing, and apologies in advance if I don’t attribute it to you when I use it in the future - my mind just doesn’t work that way.
The money to buy the Dem majority in the House in 2018 came from promises of impeachment. Crooked Hillary had been robbed, and OrangeManBad was in the White House. Plans for impeachment were being drawn up even before the 2018 election, with staffers for Palsi, Schifty, and Wadler working with Lawfare. Immediately after the election, they hired Lawfare people to help rewrite the rule changes to give them their streamlined faux impeachment process. Adopting these new rules was one of the first orders of business of the new House majority in December of 2018. By the first of the year, they had the bare bones of an impeachment process in place, but no apparent crime that could be sold as a High Crime or Misdemeanor. I think that they had planned to use the findings of the Mueller investigation as the basis for impeachment, but Trump pulled the rug out from under them by getting AG Barr confirmed so quickly, and Barr immediately shutting down Mueller. Trump and Barr then barred the House Dems from the underlying mountain of evidence and information that that investigation had compiled by asserting Executive Privilege and enforcing grand jury secrecy laws. They still had their impeachment process all setup, ready to go, only needing a plausible crime, and a political obligation to Soros, etc.
The House Dems spent the next six months or so looking for something that they could plug into their already setup impeachment process. Maybe in desperation, HSCI chairman Schifty appears to have manufactured it, with his staffers working with one of their former colleagues to generate the “whistleblower” complaint about the call this summer between the US and Ukrainian Presidents. The problem, from the first was that there was no there there. The telephone was completely legitimate, and about as far from illegal or impeachable as you could get.
Schifty, his Lawfare and CIA buddies, and staffers are extremely clever, but not nearly as smart as they think that they are. It appears they made several significant errors. The first was that the “whistleblower” was not on the call, but rather heard about it second hand. He got critical parts wrong. This became immediately obvious after Trump immediately released the transcript. Schifty got caught with his pants down, publicly mischaracterizing the call. The second error was that the phone call involved the Ukraine, which turns out to be significant in the exposure of the Trump/Russia Collusion hoax, as well as the rapidly unraveling SpyGate scandal. It turns out that the closest thing to an “ask” by Trump in the phone call was for help determining how these operations were put together in the spring and summer of 2016 by the Clinton campaign working with Obama Administration officials and the Deep State. Trump didn’t really care about the Bidens and their corruption, but rather how the former Ukrainian government worked closely with the Democrats in 2016 to to beat Trump. That was bad enough, but worse, DOJ IG Horowitz is ready to publish his report on FISA abuse, which likely cannot avoid bringing in evidence of collusion between the Democrats and the former Ukrainian government to influence our 2016 election.
The first rule of holes is essentially to quit digging. Pretty much everything that the Democrats can do at this point to try to sell some sort of a High Crime or Misdemeanor being found in that phone call, can be easily turned against the Democrats by Trump and Republicans, pointing out that the Dems were the ones committing the big crimes in the Ukraine, working with the Ukrainian government to influence the 2016 election, to trading billions in US aid for many millions, in bribes.
That is my advice to the Democrats - quit digging. You are already in a hole, and are just making it deeper.
Stephen: An impeachment trial is warranted because the undisputed evidence shows:
Althouse explicitly asked you to make the case to sane people like her, not to repeat the bullshit-saturation-strategy talking points the anti-Trumpists have gone all-in for. Althouse follows the msm, she's already thoroughly familiar with, and exasperated by, this nonsense.
Look, it's one thing if you're so lacking in self-respect and respect for other commenters here that you (and the other lefties here) continue to post the same mendacious, retard-grade bullshit that's been shown to be bullshit and rejected as such, over and over and over. But you could at least show some respect for your hostess and work on upping your fucking game.
Reading the anti-Trump commenters only so far in this thread, and they are all exactly the same- they all assume to be true the actual thing that needs to be proven in a trial. I read all the comments by Chuck, ARM, Howard, Stephen, etc. such as they have been posted so far in this thread.
Imagine, if you will, that Trump were on trial for ordering the shooting Adam Schiff in cold blodd on 5th Avenue. The analogy to the impeachment trial to date would be that Trump should be convicted because 10 witnesses thought Trump was guilty, but had no actual evidence that he committed the crime.
Every anti-Trump commenter in this thread needs to read about the Begging the Question Fallacy because every one of them is committing this improper debate technique, and not doing so in any clever manner either.
Kudos to the professor for hitting this nail on the head. That what Trump did ( whatever that was) is impeachable is only in the warped mind of those attempting this coup.
"...and work on upping your fucking game."
Unfortunately they are at the top of their game, with nowhere else to go. The argument works on those already believing the same "undisputed" things, but has no voltage otherwise.
They are like an acclaimed U.S. Women's Soccer National Team beating other women's teams, but now having to play an under-15 boys squad.
I am Laslo.
Imagine, if you will, that Trump were on trial for ordering the shooting Adam Schiff in cold blodd on 5th Avenue. The analogy to the impeachment trial to date would be that Trump should be convicted because 10 witnesses thought Trump was guilty, but had no actual evidence that he committed the crime.
And, BTW, Schiff is still seen around his usual haunts and claims no recollection of the incident.
Thanks Yancy,
After a five second internet search:
"In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning."
You nailed it.
Hillary weighed in on Twitter and said that he needed to be impeached because he’s guilty. So that’s where commenters on the left are getting it. Imagine her as chief law enforcement officer of the land.... shudder.
Find an absolutely clear, 1-paragraph, just-the-facts summary of exactly what Trump did that warrants impeachment.
Trump is trying to get Democrat corruption investigated, and prosecuted. As every single elected Democrat of any note is participating in the same kind of corruption that Joe and Hunter Biden pulled, for the sake of the Democrat Party Trump must be stopped.
Any questions?
Yancey Ward: Every anti-Trump commenter in this thread needs to read about the Begging the Question Fallacy because every one of them is committing this improper debate technique, and not doing so in any clever manner either.
To be fair, they may lack the nous to understand that that's what they're doing.
Though this incomprehension is not necessarily caused by any inborn cognitive deficiency - logical argumentation is an acquired skill. Our schools used to train their charges in its rudiments, but no more. It's possible that some of them really can't see why their arguments are so bad. Others, however, are old enough to know better. Not sure what their problem is.
rhhardin said... "You're not a normal person...."
Althouse said... "And you?"
rhhardin said... "I'm a guy"
Try being a man instead.
Blogger Howard said...
Easy peasy assignment professor:
President Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine by withholding vital military aid in a time in which they are at war with our number one global enemy Vladimir Putin for the favor of investigating and smearing is Chief political rival
1: VP Biden, backed by President Obama DID blackmail Ukraine by withholding vital economic aid until they fired the prosecutor who was investigating a corruption company that was paying off Hunter Biden, and through him, Joe Biden.
President Trump was trying to get this corruption investigated. If "blackmailing Ukraine" is a crime, then it's President Trump's job to get it investigated ("take care that the laws will be faithfully executed."
If what Biden did wasn't a crime, then neither is what Trump did.
2: President Obama refused to give Ukraine the kind of aid that Trump briefly held up. If it was a crime for Trump to hold up the aid, it was an even worse crime for the Obama Admin to refuse to give the aid while Russia was invading Ukraine.
So, either former VP Biden is a criminal enemy of the US who must be crushed, or everything Trump did is perfectly legitimate. And if former VP Biden is a criminal enemy of the US, then it was President Trump's job to investigate him, and being Trump's "Chief political rival" doesn't make him immune to criminal investigation.
IOW, your excuse fails on all counts
I haven't watched the whole thing, but have essentially watched the cross examination of witnesses by the Republicans. My takeaway is that few, if any, witnesses had direct knowledge of what was going on in the Oval Office regarding Ukraine. Lots of "presumption" or " I heard it through the grape vine". The one direct communication I remember was Sondland asking Trump what he wanted and Trump responding ( according to Sondland) with "nothing, no quid pro quo, just do what he ran on". Whether you are a Dew or a Republican it is pretty hard to skirt around that direct testimony and I have seen nothing that makes the case against impeachment any clearer.
Laslo: Unfortunately they are at the top of their game, with nowhere else to go. The argument works on those already believing the same "undisputed" things, but has no voltage otherwise.
They are like an acclaimed U.S. Women's Soccer National Team beating other women's teams, but now having to play an under-15 boys squad.
An analogy so beautiful, I wept.
OK, I laughed 'til I cried. But real tears were involved.
"Try being a man instead”
Pearls before swine.
Answer to Ann's question from another blog,
"A President should not use his power and American resources to get a foreign government to investigate political rivals."
Very weak. I disposed of it in short order.
Start with President Obama used the "Five Eyes Alliance" to spy on the 2016 Republican Presidential campaign (Trump team):
https://thenationalsentinel.com/2018/06/04/sara-carter-allies-five-eyes-global-spy-arrangement-exposed-over-trump-russia-hoax/
If this is impeachable, if this is a "high crime", let me know when Obama, Biden, Comey, Brennan, and everyone else in the Obama Admin who was part of this has:
1: Been impeached, found guilty, and permanently barred from ever again holding any US office
2: Been prosecuted and convicted for their crimes (it can't be a "high crime" if it isn't a crime).
I have been asking that of people for about 2 months and have yet to get an answer that isn't a tautology, along the lines of "Trump has committed impeachable offenses and this is one."
"But, what exactly is the impeachable offense?"
Trump committed impeachable offenses and this is one. Can't you see?"
"Sorry, please explain it to me."
"If you can't see it, you're just hopeless."
“Trump his counsel will have far more leeway to present a defense- that defense will likely be allowed the presentation of evidence against Biden and his son. The Democrats can't argue that it was corrupt to ask Zelensky for an investigation of the Bidens and Burisma, but not allow Trump to make the case that an investigation was a proper thing to do. Trump's defense will, of course, be allowed to present all the sworn testimony from every witness Schiff called where the witness stated that they had no knowledge of a quid pro quo, which is all of them to date.”
I think that they could go into gory detail about how the Ukrainians, in 2016, worked with Crooked Hillary and the Obama Administration to beat Trump, since it was help in unraveling that that was Trump’s real “ask” in the phone call. If I were lead defense counsel, I would reserve that for it’s in terrorem effect on the Democrats and their Deep State allies, but probably not use it, because it would likely be more confusing than useful.
The key piece of evidence that I would beat the jury with would be the transcript of the call. Go through it thoroughly, and try to get a copy into the jury’s hands. The transcript is essentially the best evidence of what was said on the call (“The best evidence rule has its origins in the 18th century case Omychund v Barker (1745) 1 Atk, 21, 49; 26 ER 15, 33. Wherein Lord Harwicke stated that no evidence was admissible unless it was "the best that the nature of the case will allow"“). There was no recording because of international agreements not to record this sorts of conversations between nations’ leaders. So, instead, the practice has been to have multiple people (4 here) listen in on the call, transcribing as they go along, then work together after the call to develop a consensus transcript. This was what was done. This is the definitive version of what was said on the call. It’s not hearsay, because it involves present sense recorded. Then, when cross examining and prosecution witness, hand them a copy of the transcript, and ask them where specifically they found what they are testifying was in the transcript of the call. They won’t be able to, because it won’t be in there.
Blogger Stephen said...
Rough draft:
An impeachment trial is warranted because the undisputed evidence shows:
1. Trump used Presidential power and public money to coerce a foreign country into interfering in the 2020 American elections.
2. His actions were taken solely in his own interest. They harmed our national security interests and benefited only Russia.
Nope. He asked them to investigate criminal coordination between the 2016 Ukraine gov't and the Hillary Clinton campaign. He also apparently asked them to look into corruption actions by the then VP of the US
A: If "investigating foreign interference in a US Presidential election" is a crime, then everyone on the Mueller team, and everyone who supported the Mueller investigation, needs to go to jail
B: Investigating corrupt acts by US gov't officials is the President's job. It's in the national interest to punish corrupt officials.
C: If "delaying military aid to Ukraine for 2 months" is a crime and attack on US national security, then Obama and Biden, who delayed US military aid to Ukraine for over two YEARS, need to be in jail, stat. Which, again, means that investigating Biden is in the US National interest
3. Though Trump claims his conduct was proper, he abandoned it as soon as it became public, and has, without any legal basis, refused to produce any of the evidence that could show he acted properly.
Again wrong. Sondland testified that President Trump said he wasn't going to keep Ukraine from getting the air, regardless of what they did or didn't do. President Trump said that before this all came out. So your timeline is factually wrong, and every conclusion you draw from it is therefore wrong.
It is not the defendant's job to "prove his innocence". Esp. when the "prosecution" has yet to provide any evidence that an actual crime took place.
4, This is exactly the kind of abuse and corruption that impeachment is intended to address.
Nope. Impeachment is intended to address criminal activity. That's why it's limited to "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Questions of "judgment" are for the voters, not for impeachment. Since there will be a Presidential election in less than a year, the proper "jury" for this is the American voter. You don't like Trump's Ukraine policy? Got to the voters, and make your case
But you can't. Because when it comes to Ukraine, President Trump is better, and far more supportive, than President Obama ever was.
See: sales of Javelin anti-tank weapons to Ukraine during the last two Administrations (hint: Total sold by US to Ukraine during Obama Admin == 0)
I'm IN FAVOR of Dems jumping from the precipice and down, Down, DOWN into the crevasse, never to be seen again.
As for Peggy Noonan, I gave up on her years ago.
rhhardin sure woke up full of piss and vinegar today! Very entertaining, as were AA's ever so patient responses.
Chuck-- I read the article that you linked to now (thanks). Pretty small beer, I'm afraid. Where was the writer's outrage when Barry laundered US dollars through third countries to pay off our enemies in Iran, directly compromising our security?
Not impressed with even the worst-case interpretation of the Ukraine phone call affair. If we're not getting something for our foreign aid money, it's wasted. This is obvious, right?
Bruce Hayden said...
I think that they could go into gory detail about how the Ukrainians, in 2016, worked with Crooked Hillary and the Obama Administration to beat Trump, since it was help in unraveling that that was Trump’s real “ask” in the phone call. If I were lead defense counsel, I would reserve that for it’s in terrorem effect on the Democrats and their Deep State allies, but probably not use it, because it would likely be more confusing than useful.
I think going in to Hunter Biden's $50,000+ / month payoff from Burisma will be the big hammer. Because people can and do understand that.
Esp. if you can get justification for the $80k claim.
Having > 50% of voters saying "that drug addict cheater was getting more in a month from Burisma, than I get in paid a year?!?"
That will hit home
Hard
Ann Althouse said...
I don't support impeachment, so I don't know what you're trying to say about me. I think the way the impeachment works out in practice, the support of a strong majority of the people matters. My post is about the pro-impeachment side needing, this week, to make an easy-to-understand case to the people. Something fact based. Otherwise you just have 2 giant factions, revved up by the media into a ridiculous hysteria. If, in those circumstances, the Democrats impeach just because they have the votes in the House, I hope things go very badly for them.
rhardin is pointing out tendencies.
Many people voted for Hillary. They knew she was a crook. But they valued stability and the ability to watch the news without discomfort more than the founding principles of our republic.
This applies more to women than to men. Women value stability and a sense of community more than men.
Freedom is not comfortable.
Women just do not value freedom as highly as men do. Women more readily accept corruption and constraints if it means they can watch the news with less concern.
It affects men too, just less. It is a tendency.
You voted for Hillary Clinton. Your tortured justifications underline rhardin's assertion. You valued "normalcy" over justice and freedom.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Every anti-Trump commenter in this thread needs to read about the Begging the Question Fallacy because every one of them is committing this improper debate technique, and not doing so in any clever manner either.
This is the part that's annoying. They're just fucking banal.
"Otherwise you just have 2 giant factions, revved up by the media into a ridiculous hysteria."
A bit too 'moral equivalence' for me, this. As is true of children fighting in the backseat on the car trip to the grandparents, one of the factions DID start it; telling both sides to quit it is not cruelly neutral, but an abdication with the stakes at hand.
And - if the media was "revving" this debacle, they would be playing up both sides, like they do for opposing Super Bowl teams to increase interest; the media doesn't seem to have much interest in the story of the opposing team.
An arsonist does more than 'rev' a fire to a vacant house. Of course, maybe that vacant house WAS kinda asking for it.
I am Laslo.
I think going in to Hunter Biden's $50,000+ / month payoff from Burisma will be the big hammer. Because people can and do understand that.
Esp. if you can get justification for the $80k claim.
Having > 50% of voters saying "that drug addict cheater was getting more in a month from Burisma, than I get in paid a year?!?"
That will hit home
Hard
Yep. Major backfire. Almost as if the Dems whole idea is to fuck Biden.
MSM talking about this forces average working person/low info voter wonder what was the nefarious investigative plot Trump wanted Ukraine to participate in. No way around it, Vice Presidents son (and other politically connected families) get rich from no-show jobs.
I suspect Hunter Biden is undergoing extensive education regarding Ukraine and Burisma so he can appear extremely knowledgeable on the subjects when it is his turn in the hot seat.
@AA said ?!
Democrats, if you can't do this, you need to step back from the precipice.
_____&&&&&_____
That's a needy plea by abuse victim. Not yet ready to sever relations.
Are you one?
Make my day punk ---- respond as capable of discernment.
People keep saying Biden is Trump's rival. In what universe? He's not the Democrat nominee. Biden has never run an electoral race against Trump. They aren't former business opponents. They didn't vie for the love of the same woman. I loathe that the same tropes are endlessly repeated as if they are true. Repetition doesn't make it so.
Someone on this thread keeps insisting it was wrong for the Republicans to vote against this inquiry en masse.
This inquiry which was begun in secret, with a "whistleblower" kept secret but known to Schiff and his helpful, complaint-editing staff, where the call transcript had already been released and the testimony known not to contain the facts to convict, where the President and Minority Party only had the rights Adam Schiff granted them as he wished, and where the Republicans would not be allowed to call witnesses or raise objections.
What's worse, this someone purports to be a lawyer.
Chuck at 8:39 AM
I am breaking my new goal of just one comment per Althouse post here.
That's not a good goal.
This is a discussion forum.
When you comment, you generally should respond to thoughtful responses.
’An impeachment trial is warranted because the undisputed evidence shows...’
Undisputed evidence is tight!! To be clear, are you referencing the overheard telephone conversation at the restaurant, the REO Speedwagon gossip, or the impressions of someone who read about it in an article at Politico?
FullMoon said...
I suspect Hunter Biden is undergoing extensive education regarding Ukraine and Burisma so he can appear extremely knowledgeable on the subjects when it is his turn in the hot seat.
His dad is an idiot who can't string coherent sentences together without plagiarizing them from someone else.
He is so stupid he fought all the way to a DNA test on a paternity suit with a woman he was having sex with. Not a private "hey, let's do a paternity test" when she got pregnant and gave birth, but a public "I did not have sex with that woman" court ordered paternity test that blew up in his face.
I believe your suggestion that they should be educating HB about Burisma and Ukraine energy production is a good one.
I don't believe HB has the intellectual capacity to make the idea work.
"House Dems in Trump districts"
_____&&&&_____
If Squad can pull left why can't these counter that? Did they win by pulling left already? Then what's to fear for them? Should be safe.
Three words:
He defeated Hillary.
That's all they have.
I believe your suggestion that they should be educating HB about Burisma and Ukraine energy production is a good one.
I don't believe HB has the intellectual capacity to make the idea work.
They will attempt to prep him with stock evasions, sound bites and talking points, not genuine knowledge.
A lot of people are attacking my post because it does not cite specific evidence or because they disagree with it.
The assignment was to state the case for an impeachment trial to an undecided voter in 100 words or less, not to state all the evidence in support of that case. I got there in under 100 words.
So now the test is what a professed undecided voter makes of my statement. Almost no one who comments here is undecided. But Professor Althouse claims to be one or at least to speak for them.
So Professor Althouse, how did I do?
Bruce Hayden at 10:45 AM
.... The money to buy the Dem majority in the House in 2018 came from promises of impeachment. ... That is my advice to the Democrats - quit digging. You are already in a hole, and are just making it deeper.
Excellent comment.
So Professor Althouse, how did I do?
Nice doggie
The money to buy the Dem majority in the House in 2018 came from promises of impeachment.
I agree the money came form the impeachment thing. But not the votes. The 31 House members need to decide if they want to go all Bart Stupak.
“Yep. Major backfire. Almost as if the Dems whole idea is to fuck Biden.”
I don't think that it was intentional, but rather a case of Schifty opportunistically putting this whole scheme together, manufacturing the “whistleblower” complaint, etc. Since the Dems don’t have the Presidency, they really don’t have a national leader right now who could have set priorities. Crooked Hillary might have been able to do so, esp if she had lost more gracefully, or even not lost. Her blowing an easy election probably pissed off a bunch of Dems. Besides, she probably wouldn’t mind Biden blowing up, since I think that she still is hopeful of walking into a brokered convention, and walking out with the nomination.
That leaves Obama, who has essentially been MIA for most of the last three years. He probably would have told Schifty to try something else first, since Biden was his VP, it happened on his watch, and his legacy would likely suffer (and is suffering) as a result of Schifty picking the target he did pick.
To summarize, Schifty probably would have, and should have, picked the another target. No one told him to lay off the Ukraine because there is currently no central authority for the Dems. If Obama had been in charge, he likely would have suggested to Schifty that he try something else because this might make Obama less attractive due to his connection to Biden. ,
Stephen said...
So Professor Althouse, how did I do?
You did a good job of demonstrating just how poor the case for impeachment is.
You included assertion without fact and terrible inductive reasoning.
You also made it clear that the democrats have been doing far worse over the last 4 years than they are even asserting without evidence what they accuse Trump of doing.
You did what a tool does.
Bibi Netanyahu has been charged with corruption in three scandals. Charges include fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes.
Because of our president's newly found concern over foreign corruption, he deliberately forbade distribution of $400 million in aid to the Ukraine - until Donald got caught wagging his own tail.
Now we can fully determine Trump's truth and honesty, as we watch for him to immediately stop foreign aid distribution to Israel for a mere $3.3 billion. Goose. Gander. All that rot! Exhale!
See, this is exactly the problem:
Trump deserves to be impeached and removed from office because he attempted to use (with what success remains to be seen) the instruments of government to influence electoral outcome in his favor. He used US gov't aid to the Ukrainians and US govt employees in the diplomatic corps (instruments of gov't) to persuade the Ukrainian gov't to find information that would cast discredit on Biden (influencing an electoral outcome in Trump's favor). - Molly
Molly seems like a reasonable person and she spelled out what she believes is an impeachable offense.
But the events she described simply did not happen. At all.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, read the (*&#(ing transcript of the call. All of it. I don't know why this is so difficult.
Stephen, accusations are a dime a dozen, "undisputed evidence" isn't. You assume the guilt in your argument. I could just as easily say the impeachment is a fraud because the undisputed evidence shows Adam Schiff is trying to cover up his own crimes.
I think Rep. Al Green summed it up in one sentence when he said, "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected."
Here is Rob Reiner’s contribution: “If we don’t remove Trump, Putin will have destroyed America!"
"A lot of people are attacking my post because it does not cite specific evidence...”
You are putting a lot of faith, faith unsupported by recent polling, in the idea that independent voters are utter morons. I mean complete, fell off the turnip truck yesterday, morons.
I find it charmingly idiotic that the dems are even using quid pro quo backwards. Much of our foreign policy is giving money to foreign countries so they will do something for us (block Russia, not attack Israel, allow us to put a military base there). In the constitutional sense, "bribery" or "quid pro quo" is when a president ACCEPTS a bribe in order to do something, like the common problem of politicians accepting a bribe to favor some constituent. What they are REALLY upset about is Trump trying to get Ukraine to investigate Biden (a political opponent) but just months ago the dems were continuing to scream about foreign interference in our elections--which is what Trump wants investigated. Also, the deep state not only investigated Trump but has managed to put a bunch of his staff in jail on fake charges. It is ok for them to do lawfare against him but not for him to do it. huh
Stephen: A lot of people are attacking my post because it does not cite specific evidence or because they disagree with it.
You really are having a great deal of difficulty understanding why "begging the question" produces invalid arguments, aren't you?
Bless your heart.
The dems cannot complete Ann's homework assignment because they A) don't themselves know what the crime is supposed to be B) do not want to put it in writing because then the craziness will be obvious and C) keep changing their minds. The "crime" is that Trump maybe wants to investigate obvious corruption by Biden, their possible candidate, which means (taking the Clintons as examples) that all a dem has to do to avoid going to jail is run for pres. huh
Bloomberg demonstrates that Trump's criminality is too complex to cover in a single paragraph but they provide a concise visually-enhanced graphic.
The investigations and lawsuits began even before Donald Trump took office. Now he is surrounded by them: Congressional inquiries that could lead to his impeachment and legal challenges that could force him to reveal his tax returns, pay damages or face criminal charges after he leaves office. Lawmakers and prosecutors are looking at whether he abused the powers of the presidency, obstructed an investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, engaged in fraudulent business practices, violated the emoluments clauses of the Constitution and defamed women by saying they lied about alleged sexual assaults. Here’s a guide to the biggest issues under investigation, or being fought out in federal and state courts.
Somehow Bloomberg missed court decisions against Trump such as Trump University, Donald J. Trump's illegal charity, and doesn't mention the illegal All County Maintenance company that drove his sister from her federal judgeship last year.
gadfly: Bloomberg demonstrates that Trump's criminality is too complex to cover in a single paragraph but they provide a concise visually-enhanced graphic.
I'm looking forward to the interpretive dance and poetry-slam coverage of this complex matter.
An impeachment trial is warranted because the undisputed evidence shows: - Stephen
There is no hope for people like you. None.
You spew bullshit - that even on the best of the left's terms, is disputed - and you claim it off as fact.
Just what in the hell is wrong with you people?
"3. Though Trump claims his conduct was proper, he abandoned it as soon as it became public, and has, without any legal basis, refused to produce any of the evidence that could show he acted properly."
Go find the press conference of Mulveny. When asked about the aide, and if it was in fact being held up, he responded 'the question not relevant, by statute the aide has to be disbursed.
That puts the lie to the notion (not supported by evidence) the aide was only released when the pause was made public. Also, Ukraine had no idea, despite the Laura Cooper testimony that made claims about Ukraine inquiries coming into her office, unbeknownst to her. She made the claim, but failed to bring emails and calendars to support her claim.
and has, without any legal basis, refused to produce any of the evidence that could show he acted properly."
He is refusing to provide his personal advisers because of executive privilege. The President's legal team, advises him based on precedent. The courts will decide. Same for documents. The legal premise is, no impeachment inquiry is on going because the House has never voted to authorize one. These are legal disputes. It is not a violation of law to defend yourself.
Using over 145 words to ask a question yet demanding that it be answered in less than 100?
Normal people don't do that.
Rob Reiner sounds like Aristotle or Descarte compared to Stephen, gadfly and the rest of the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
It is not hard to understand why gadfly's fledgling blogsite failed so spectacularly in record time.
I mean, why go to gadfly's Regurgitated Far Left Talking Points "blog" when you can just as easily simply pull up Democrat Underground or the DNC and read the original insanity for yourself?
One thing I want to highlight is that all the polls of the public supporting impeachment and removal that are shared with baited breath do not highlight that it takes 2/3's majority to remove in the Senate.
If it takes 2/3's then the polls should be 2/3's in favor. If they aren't you are asking for Senators to fall on their swords and defy the will of their constituents.
Every time one of these sorts of constitutional crises comes up I'm amazed at the founders wisdom in structuring the Constitution. Any time it looks like the "base" will force something through on a bare majority, the Constitution puts a brake on the action.
The lone exception was "It's a Tax" with Obamacare.
Replying to Jim at 2 pm. I want to make sure that you saw molly's reply to herself at 9:05. I think she agrees with you.
You mean used-up 90-iq hag Inga is back with her crappy dumb comments after she promised she was done with us and then after she was banned? Inga you’re just so fucking desperate. It’s pathetic. No one missed you, you have nothing to contribute, which is why you need the comment section of someone infinitely more accomplished than you whom you nevertheless attacked. Go away you goddamn parasite.
Of course you love another over-the-hill liar DOCTOR Hill.
Inga is trans-Chuck, another desperate begging loser. If I need to know what he thinks I can read Jennifer Rubin any day.
Even ARM would probably leave if asked. Not those two try-hards.
“Why was Obama not impeached if those things are illegal interference?”
In addition to the reason Meade gives above, any politician who participated in impeaching the first black president would be signing his own political--and possibly literal--death warrant.
Using government resources for private gain?
Is that the opposite side of the coin from what Nancy Pelosi is doing?
She is not passing USMCA in the hopes of hurting Trump's re-election campaign.
Or, as I call it, Democrats are criminalizing politics.
Orange Man Bad.
It is impossible to find any coherent democrat reasoning, although the minions continue to somehow believe it is.
But here is a very coherent recitation of what really went on.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/john-solomon-drops-28-uncomfortable-facts-crushing-debunked-conspiracy-theory-narrative
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন