So reads the second paragraph of the "Answer of President Donald J. Trump" "In Proceedings Before the United States Senate." My link goes to the PDF at the White House website. I couldn't find a text document of the 6-page letter so there's nothing to cut and paste. The White House website does have this text introduction, which, you can see, stresses the politics:
The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election—now just months away. The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the President began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.Other than the word "he," that sounds like something Trump could say at a rally. It's all about the motivations of the House Democrats, which, I'd like to point out, corresponds exactly to the House Democrats' argument against Trump: He/They took the powers of government and used them for personal advantage and only personal advantage. The legitimate, governmental purpose of that power was completely absent.
If we knew for a FACT that the House Democrats acted solely for their own personal, political advantage AND that Trump acted solely for his own personal, political advantage, do the 2 transgressions cancel each other out? But we don't know these things as facts, and the Democrats are calling on the Senate to answer the question about Trump, but they can't shield themselves from the question about themselves.
I see 3 ways to untangle these parallel problems: 1. The question of the House Democrats' political motivation must be answered first, and if they are appropriating the mechanisms of government solely for political benefit, they must be stopped in the act and denied the use of the Senate, or 2. When there is a legitimate governmental purpose, it's acceptable that a desire for political gain is also present, and that should let the Democrats over the threshold but will also set up the absolution of President Trump, or 3. The political component of impeachment is inherent, open, and part of the constitutional design, entirely different from turning federal spending and foreign policy into a personal, political tool.
But I've been talking about website text introducing the 6-page Answer. In the formal Answer, Trump certainly isn't arguing So what if I'm political too?
The document says he has "not in any way 'abused the powers of the Presidency.'" Everything he did was "perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of the national interest." He did "nothing wrong." The call was so perfect that "Mr. Schiff created a fraudulent version" of the call, and that proves the Democrats "knew there was absolutely nothing wrong with that call." As for what they call "obstruction of Congress," the Democrats didn't go to court to resolve the dispute over whether Trump's claim of executive privilege was valid, so they can't turn that into a basis for impeachment.
The Answer concedes nothing. Nothing was personally political. It was all on the highest level. Of course, that's what the House Democrats say about themselves too.
পোস্টগুলি
৪৫৭টি মন্তব্য:
457 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»The House is doing the nation’s business in warning any and all away from looking at any corruption whatsoever that involves a powerful Democrat. POTUS’s curiosity about foreign election interference at the behest of Democrats? Well, that’s impeachable.
This is a cut and dried case of impeach and remove and should be taught in high school civics classes as such.
Don't forget the personal advantage of the voters.
They don’t even have the facts right. Zelensky brought up Burisma, Trump only talked about election inteference in 2016.
There is an opportunity again for search engines to upend Google. Google has tweaked their algorithms in search of profit and political influence, to the point that you can no longer find stuff you know is there. Mickey Kaus pointed this out too. You have to bookmark anything you think you might want. For instance the part were the witness clarified her testimony that Zelensky brought up Burisma first.
“Abuse of power” = policy difference.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law.[1] The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual "law", not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.. - Wikipedia
I guess that Nancy figures a mistake was made in 1803 and she is damn well going to correct it!
If we knew for a FACT that the House Democrats acted solely for their own personal, political advantage
We do know this for a FACT. As to whether this RESULTS in their benefit ten months from now, that’s a more nuanced question.
Nothing was personally political. It was all on the highest level. Of course, that's what the House Democrats say about themselves too.
The difference is that Trump is telling the truth.
It's all about the motivations of the House Democrats,
With no underlying crime, that’s all we’re left with.
How else to explain to the American people what we’re about to hear Adam Schiff talk about for 24 hours?
He’s clearly going on and on about SOMETHING, so it’s up to the defense to describe for the American people what it is.
"We do know this for a FACT.” We have a mens rea problem with Nancy, she may be innocent of the charge on grounds of delusionality.
My devious sister learned that little trick too. As children she could punch me and scream. She always got away with it.
It turns on the role of the Senate. As holders of a trial where they set their own trial rules, must they be limited to the case presented by the House, which is necessarily affected by the trustworthiness of the House members? Or can they use whatever they want and bring in whatever new evidence they want?
I get the feeling before this is over the Hawaiian judge will be involved.
Or can they use whatever they want and bring in whatever new evidence they want?
The Constitution sets up a deliberately-separate, two-part process for a reason.
It’s not to give Congress two bites at the apple.
They don’t even have the facts right. Zelensky brought up Burisma, Trump only talked about election inteference in 2016
They did a good job burying that point...
I guess that Nancy figures a mistake was made in 1803 and she is damn well going to correct it!
I'm not going very far out on the limb, saying: Nancy figures the mistake was made in 1776
Kevin said...
“Or can they use whatever they want and bring in whatever new evidence they want?“
The Constitution sets up a deliberately-separate, two-part process for a reason.
It’s not to give Congress two bites at the apple.
The constitution is far too vague for you to be making a statement like that. The Senate has had zero bites at the apple and they can chew any way they wish. The question is what, if any, standards have arisen over the years and is there good cause to stick with those standards or change them?
"They did a good job burying that point...”
It’s not buried so deep that it can’t be unburied. But it won’t be reported, I can guarantee you that. It’s been a constant theme in the press in recent years that you don’t report news that gives succor to conservatives, whether it be about grooming young girls as sex slaves because stories like that feed into conservative narratives about immigration, or honest stories about what really went on in Ukraine, because that would help Trump. The Hill has all but disowned their reporting on what the Democrats were doing in Ukraine in 2016, even though none of it has been shown to not be true, they let the reporter, Jon Solomon go, evidently with a gag agreement that he should never have signed. He could have made more money with a book.
rehajm said...
I get the feeling before this is over the Hawaiian judge will be involved.
if the fraudulent and corrupt republicans have the audacity to unconstitutional NOT remove Trump;
i'm confident that our loyal Hawaiian judge will rule on that!
Not that this matters!
According to the NYT's, it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL to elect Trump, in the first place!!
On account of because of RACISM! or something
</sarc
"The question is what, if any, standards have arisen over the years and is there good cause to stick with those standards or change them?”
Nancy threw them out already by making new rules for the House on impeachment with completely disregarded precedent, same as she is trying to throw out Marbury vs Madison. So no, that’s not the question, in the words of Lewis Carroll, “the question is ‘who is to be master?’ that is all."
The Senate has had zero bites at the apple and they can chew any way they wish.
Then you argue they need not wait for the House at all.
Charges are brought in the House and tried in the Senate is clearly established.
At least for those still following the Constitution.
I get the feeling that if the senate (which is not a big if) acquits - is that the correct term? - then the Democrats will find a judge or two to find the senates aquittal illegal.
But on the charge of obstruction of congress: is that a thing? From what I understand there was no legal requirement for anyone the house wanted to talk to, to comply. Is that or is it not the case?
Please don't add extra paragraph breaks to your comment. One extra space to break up paragraphs is all you want. I just deleted someone who otherwise had an acceptable comment because there were 10 or so extra spaces added after the comment. I know this can be done by mistake, but if you see you've done it, delete your comment and repost. The person I deleted can repost. Just don't do that extra space thing.
You know the only question that remains is did Burisma approach Hunter Biden about a position on the board or did Joe force him on them. Hard to believe it was the former since Joe was expected to provide a service, so he’d be on the loop.
I hope PDJT spends a little time discussing this at the SOTU. What fun!
The smoke and mirrors of Congressional scum seeking to remove the best President in American history has a very personal interest as its purpose. They are delaying personally going to prison for their foreign aid kick back scam that went into their personal overseas bank accounts. But that Bad Orange Man gets Hotel room rents.
If you came out of a coma and tried to unravel this, the striking thing would be that it's all a long continuation that reaches back to the Clinton campaign and the DNC fixing the Democratic primaries, trying to fix the Republican primaries by promoting Trump, trying to fix the election by tarring Trump with Russian involvement, trying to push the same disinformation to the Electoral College in the form of an intelligence briefing, and then a myriad of attempts by Deep State to entrap the President in obstruction charges. Common sense dictates that the Zelensky call was just another set up, to get the President to say the word Biden to justify a charge of abuse of power.
The government depends on unwritten rules, gentlemen's agreements. It's always an outrage when one side sees a new way of getting its way by violating one of them.
The system dynamics change, possibly from dynamics that work to dynamics that don't work.
Don't impeach on Trumped up charges isn't in the constitution but was something that the constitution depended on to form a working system. A penumbra perhaps, if the court were to take an analogous case. You have to follow this unwritten rule if any other rule is to work.
Dershowitz says he's testifying to protect the constituion but actually it's to protect an unwritten rule.
First unwritten rule broken that started it all was Gore protesting the Florida vote in 2000. By any means necessary means unwritten rules broken.
The wisdom of Jay Sekulow shows through in writing the Response. Jay has learned how to be in the middle of two sides of a fight and pick one to support in the showdown. In other words Sekulow is a trained and skilled fighter.
New rule: if the senate doesn't convict, all the house members voting for impeachment are impeached.
A system dynamics change.
Kevin said...
“The Senate has had zero bites at the apple and they can chew any way they wish.”
Then you argue they need not wait for the House at all.
I have argued that. And I don’t see the point of the rest of your comment.
This entire thing just piles on the instances of me waking up in the Bizarro World. What seems to be such a clear case of trying to undo the election, keeps getting dealt with by our media class as a serious, Watergate-like moment. It comes on the heels of a 3 year Russia collusion game/hoax that dragged out the word 'bombshell' more times than did WWII.
Russia Collusion showed a crime- by a Democrat administration, using the tools of the government to spy on an opposing campaign for President. That is clear, but unfortunately has been covered by pillow by our media class. Barr/Durham are investigating but they will get no help and this will take years. This is a huge coup attempt that runs through all levels. It is potentially the most major crime in American history. The media take? crickets
So how to follow that. Screw it. Let's just do that Impeachment thing we bantered about since before the election. We know he's guilty of....something. Let's just throw a bunch of crap up there, interview our own people, in closed rooms, without transcript, and do not allow any other witmesses from the defense to be brought in, heard, interviewed at all. The press will (and does) play along with us. And we'll get this thing into the Senate. From there, no one is sure what will happen. It's our best chance.
I live in the Bizarro World. Are there not 15 degreed Journalists! in this country who can ferret this out? Any 10 year old in any house in America, if given the actual facts, would have an answer for you.
Trump should show up at the Senate trial and demand to call Joe, Where's Hunter, and Adam Shiff as witnesses. That would be Must See TV!
If they call Adam Schiff, does he take them to court? Or does he just say “Come get me you screw!” He can’t take them to court, that much is clear. Otherwise the whole case falls apart.
Trump sure has Hunter pegged.... oh wait, that was that NYC hooker. Never mind.
If the Durham Grand Jury results in 4 AM raids tomorrow morning, I'm not going to be surprised.
Any predictions on Trump’s use of twitter during the fake impeachment trial?
Presently the safest place on Earth for kangaroos is the US Capitol Building
The Hill@thehill
"Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment" via
@TheHillOpinion http://hill.cm/D3AAh79
On the first day of class in deconstruction 101, you could use this tweet.
"Any predictions on Trump’s use of twitter during the fake impeachment trial?”
The usual suspects will be outraged. You may as well pay me in advance.
No coffee yet, but Schiff, Schumer and the rest of these tired, corrupt Democrats can fuck off.
#youtoo
I was wondering if he would tweet more or less than usual, Aunty Trump. I think it will be more, with at least once per sessions asking ‘Where’s Hunter?’
rhhardin, 6:57 AM:
"New rule: if the senate doesn't convict, all the house members voting for impeachment are impeached."
For attempting to interfere in the 2020 election.
It was a D.C. hooker from Arkansas who got knocked up.
Are there NYC hooker stories that are public?
"Any predictions on Trump’s use of twitter during the fake impeachment trial?"
I predict that whatever derogatory things he tweets about the House managers or their case will form the basis of another article of impeachment: Obstruction of Sham Impeachmnent Trial
The government depends on unwritten rules, gentlemen's agreements. It's always an outrage when one side sees a new way of getting its way by violating one of them.
The system dynamics change, possibly from dynamics that work to dynamics that don't work.
Democrats violate the rules, written and unwritten. Republicans follow the letter of the law and turn the other cheek. The system is still intact.
A salacious report from Page Six exposed how the former Vice President’s son sent a staffer to buy a dildo so that strippers could use it on him during one of his visits to Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club NYC in Hell’s Kitchen.. - Gateway Pundit
I will leave it to you to head over to the Urban Dictionary for a definition of “pegged” if you didn’t get the double entendre.
Wouldn’t that be great. Trump strolls into the Senate and demand that Schiff and the Bidens be called as witnesses. And the so-called whistleblower.
That Yalie has pulled off quite a stunt.
Doesn't seem to be any real dispute over the facts. Guilty as hell. Still, I personally don't favor impeachment simply because Trump is not a sufficiently valuable human being to make it worthwhile putting the nation through even this modest ordeal. People can see what he is. There is no hope of redemption.
Speaking of that Arkansas paternity case, how come that Judge hasn’t imposed sanctions? Hunter has produced zero documents, but one baby.
Thanks, Aunty Trump.
I guess it's easy to confuse the Hunter Biden and hooker stories.
You can understand why Burisma hired him!
Guilty of what? We need a high crime or misdemeanor in this impeachment game.
ARM pronounces guilt.
But I think the proper order is "Sentence first. Trial after."
Now let's ask "Guilty of what?"
Maureen Dowd is not a fan of Trump's legal team:
"Donald Trump, Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz have joined together in a pervy, hypocritical cabal to argue that Trump did not smirch the Constitution.
The Starr chamber was a shameful period of American history, with the prissy Puritan independent counsel hounding and virtually jailing Monica Lewinsky and producing hundreds of pages of panting, bodice-ripping prose that read more like bad erotica than a federal report, rife with lurid passages about breasts, stains and genitalia. Like the Rev. Arthur Dimmesdale and other Pharisaic Holy Rollers before him, the prosecutor who read the Bible and sang hymns when he jogged became fixated on sex in an unhealthy, warped way.
Even Trump was appalled. “Starr’s a freak,” the bloviating builder told me back in 1999. “I bet he’s got something in his closet.” In other interviews, he called Starr “a lunatic,” “a disaster” and “off his rocker,” and expressed sympathy for Hillary having to stand by her man when he was “being lambasted by this crazy Ken Starr, who is a total wacko.”
Starr, who once clutched his pearls over Bill Clinton’s sexual high jinks, is now going to bat for President “Access Hollywood.” After playing an avenging Javert about foreplay in the Oval, Starr will now do his utmost to prove that a real abuse of power undermining Congress and American foreign policy is piffle.
In 2007, he defended Jeffrey Epstein. By 2016, Starr was being ousted as president of Baptist Baylor University for failing to protect women and looking the other way when football players were accused and sometimes convicted of sexual assaults. In other words, he’s a complete partisan hack who doesn’t give a damn about sexual assault.
The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government watchdog, a few days ago deemed that Trump’s slimy Ukraine gambit violated a law. Yet Dershowitz will somehow argue that it doesn’t represent high crimes and misdemeanors."
ARM is blinded by hate, sees guilt as a desire, rather than the result of evidence. I wish you could live in the world you desire, ARM. It would be nice for you to have to face the consequences of your duplicity.
The perfect call is only one part of an entangled attempt by Trump and his lawyer to gain political advantage and destroy an honest State Department diplomat. Parnas adds even more seedy details what what has already been established. Now the question is does this rise to the level of a blow job in the Oval Office, or is this business as usual.
By her own admission, Pelosi said this was a purely political action aimed at destroying Trump.
There is no other way to interpret her statement that they had been working on impeaching Trump “for two years”, when the supposed actions he was impeached for happened only months ago.
roesch/voltaire, BJ Clinton was not impeached because he received a blow job in the Oval Office, or anywhere else for that matter.
Doesn't seem to be any real dispute over the facts. Guilty as hell.
Right now I'm guilty of hell of drinking coffee.
As offensive as that may be to some, it's still not a crime.
I definitely don't hate Trump. To hate someone you need at least some modicum of respect for them, some evidence that they deserve the investment of even a small amount of emotional energy. Trump is beneath hate. He is just a garbage bag of humanity. But, he's entertaining and has done the political world a real favor by revealing the apparently endless hypocrisy of his many supporters. No more moral majorities or tea party in our future.
Dems say Trump's only motivation was political, there was no underlying crime.
Trump says the same thing about Dems impeaching him.
Seems like an investigation of Biden and Biden's activities in Ukraine is the only way to sort this out.
Sen. Kennedy postited a scenario where the democrats list members of the Trump administration as their witnesses (Bolton, McGahn, etc.) and Trump lists his witnesses.
The Trump witnesses will testify and the democrat witnesses will not due to executive privilege. Naturally the dems will claim the trial illegitimate. I think the fight over witnesses will turn into such a shit show there won't be any. Or they will testify behind closed doors as with the Clinton trial.
’Doesn't seem to be any real dispute over the facts.’
😂
I wish someone would compile a list of all the sitting U.S. Senators that have called for Donald Trump to be impeached to date.
Blogger Mr. Majestyk said...
Trump should show up at the Senate trial and demand to call Joe, Where's Hunter, and Adam Shiff as witnesses. That would be Must See TV!
Trump should show up at the Senate trial and answer all of the questions relevant to his withholding aid to Ukraine.
’The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government watchdog, a few days ago deemed that Trump’s slimy Ukraine gambit violated a law.’
The GAO deemed that Obama violated a law seven times, most notably with the Bergdahl deserter-for-terrorists swap. But it sounds like the GAO was only granted absolute moral authority in 2016.
Trump trying to answer questions under oath for eleven hours would be must-see-TV. Unfortunately, even Trump has enough self knowledge to know that he is no Hillary Clinton.
Lol
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/the_trumpgrabbed_schrodingers_pussy_theory.html
Like any "legal" dispute over substantial matters, one should not take the legal forms seriously.
Legalities in the context of a genuine power struggle, or any dispute over substance, are mere ritual. And the framing of legal arguments is flexible enough to be useful to any side in such a struggle.
For an intellectual onlooker it is a temptation to be over-concerned with the minutiae of legal ritual and to ignore the reality and larger context of the power struggle. This is a trap, a delusion.
The important words in the Trump response is the claim that his actions were "taken in furtherance of the national interest." The House bill claims to the contrary: "The legitimate governmental purpose of [Trump's exercise of power] was completely absent." If Trump is correct then there is no abuse of power; if the House is correct, then (in my opinion) Trump should be removed from office. But I defy any supporter of removal to explain how this difference can be resolved without an exhaustive airing of the Biden family activities in Ukraine.
"Trump trying to answer questions under oath for eleven hours would be must-see-TV. “
Ditto Adam Schiff, Ditto Erice Ciaramella, ditto Nancy Pelosi, ditto Chuck Schumer.
"The legitimate governmental purpose of [Trump's exercise of power] was completely absent.”
it’s a steep climb to prove a negative.
’Doesn't seem to be any real dispute over the facts.’
In other words, the media is only reporting one side.
’Trump should show up at the Senate trial and answer all of the questions relevant to his withholding aid to Ukraine.’
Seeing as the aid was released eighteen days before the deadline, you have an absurdly tortured definition of ‘withholding’.
In other words, where it really matters, law is fiction, a fantasy, a mass delusion.
It does not really apply, or exist as anything but a rhetorical wedge to use against the deluded.
Maybe it's high crises and misdemeanors, a typo in the constitution.
"I definitely don't hate Trump. To hate someone you need at least some modicum of respect for them”
Whatever you have to tell yourself in order to maintain your self delusion of “reasonableness.” I always call people I don’t hate pond scum.
Ukraine hadn't yet returned their W-4, the IRS withholding form. How many dependents and so forth.
The impeachment itself clears Trump
-because the only way to convict Trump is to show that there was nothing untoward about the Bidens' activities in Ukraine
- which would require an investigation of the Bidens' activities in Ukraine
- which means the Bidens' activities in Ukraine are questionable
- therefore Trump's call for an investigation was appropriate to begin with.
rhhardin: Don't impeach on Trumped up charges isn't in the constitution but was something that the constitution depended on to form a working system. A penumbra perhaps, if the court were to take an analogous case. You have to follow this unwritten rule if any other rule is to work.
Nice to see that it's slowly getting through to you that functional societies require an implicit consensus that precedes all explicit contract. (Keep digging; follow through.)
That implicit consensus disappeared a few decades ago, unfortunately. Takes a while for most people to notice, however.
The Starr chamber was a shameful period of American history, with the prissy Puritan independent counsel hounding and virtually jailing Monica Lewinsky and producing hundreds of pages of panting, bodice-ripping prose that read more like bad erotica than a federal report, rife with lurid passages about breasts, stains and genitalia.
And yet all of it turned out to be true. My recollection is that Bill Clinton testified under oath — perjured himself, actually — that he never had sex with “that woman, Monica Lewinsky.” Ken Starr produced a lengthy report that said “oh yes, you did!” Are Presidents allowed to commit felony perjury? Democrat senators said “Yes!”
The plan by Pelosi and Schiff is to restrict the evidence to “facts” that can be distorted to convict Trump and exclude facts that work against that noble purpose.
When they said “completely absent” they opened the door to poke at the rotten fish that is Ukraine and watch the maggots writhe in the sunlight.
Doesn't seem to be any real dispute over the facts. Guilty as hell
The lefties have awakened but seem not to have recovered from Saturday night debauchery.
You know the truth since the Democrats began to demand impeachment before Trump was inaugurated, thus it has nothing to do with actions as President.
Case closed.
Nice to see that it's slowly getting through to you that functional societies require an implicit consensus that precedes all explicit contract. (Keep digging; follow through.)
Like where believers in sharia law can't be Americans. Death to cartoonists etc.
Let them have their own very nice nations where they'll fit in. Cultural difference.
Bill Clinton was recorded suborning perjury. “Deny, deny, deny.” - WJ Blythe Clinton.
But that comment shows what this “impeachment” is about to Democrats, as did the fact that they rammed it through with what even they recognize as insufficient evidence in order to pass it on the anniversary of the Clinton impeachment. Now they are trying, as best they can, to put whatever horse in front of the cart that their minions in the press will buy.
You could say that sociology is about nothing but discovering unwritten laws. All of Erving Goffman's work is about it.
I must congratulate ARM. Among the far left morons that post at Althouse, such as LLR-lefty Chuck and Inga, ARM has at least shown the ability to recognize when his idiotic lefty talking points are counter-productive.
For instance, ARM has dropped his hilarious "Great Awakening" schtick and has simply returned to the lefty/LLR-lefty "home" of calling all Trump voters deplorables and nazis etc.
So in that sense, ARM is slightly higher on the Far Left IQ scale than LLR-lefty Chuck (Note: Inga does not appear on the scale at all)
Though a small victory it is a "victory" for him nonetheless.
"Nice to see that it's slowly getting through to you that functional societies require an implicit consensus that precedes all explicit contract.”
Then consensus was that we were sending our children to die in the middle east while only pretending to protect them, and that the deplorables in the midwest were to be sold down the river in deals with the Chinese that would nonetheless make many Manhattanites, Chicagoans, and Cupertinions filthy rich.
Discriptive grammar is about discovering unwritten laws about what sounds wrong to a native speaker. There are thousands of them.
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Quirk Greenbaum Leech and Svartvik, 2000 pages. An entertaining summer's read. You find out what you didn't know you knew.
Seeing as the aid was released eighteen days before the deadline, you have an absurdly tortured definition of ‘withholding’.
Ah, so he only followed the law in attempt to avoid breaking the law? So it was attempted withholding, a crime.
I'm learning how libthink works after reading that if Trump files a motion to dismiss he's guilty of Obstruction of Congress.
A certain racist fopdoodle wants the Fifth Amendment not to apply to a certain president.
Should I start to type Life Long Racist Fopdoodle as LLRF for short?
Or will people think the R for racist really means "Republican"?
Tough choices.
Killing that Iranian general, BTW, was a way to communicate to the middle east in a language that they understand, see Sodom and Gomorra re sudden punishment from above.
Law is the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine of an arbitrary exercise of power go down.
"Ah, so he only followed the law in attempt to avoid breaking the law?”
Obstruction of Congress! Impeach and remove!
Something no one can refute: that Democrats hate Donald Trump because (1) his economic policies are lifting black people and Latinos out of poverty by providing them with real jobs, and (2) his foreign policies are cutting off access to graft, fraud, and corruption. He latter point is self-evident. As to the former point, the Democrats cannot exist as a party without poor people to throw crumbs to in exchange for votes.
We will know the left has reached full panic when LLR-lefty Chuck once again dons his p****-hat and hits the street to demand the Senate NOT investigate Quid Pro Joe and his Team of 5 Bidens Who Got Rich Off Government Corruption.
I would also like to know much more about Romney's son, Pelosi's son and John Kerry's stepson who all were paid millions by corrupt Ukrainian energy interests and/or ChiCom Generals running "businesses".
Perhaps in the years since 2000 our courts have established a "controlling legal authority".....
To this day the Japanese feel that Hiroshima and Nagasaki prove on their face that atomic weapons cost lives. Americans mostly believe that they save lives.
Motivated beliefs.
"Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
I definitely don't hate Trump. To hate someone you need at least some modicum of respect for them, some evidence that they deserve the investment of even a small amount of emotional energy."
Like I don't hate you.
And yet all of it turned out to be true. My recollection is that Bill Clinton testified under oath — perjured himself, actually — that he never had sex with “that woman, Monica Lewinsky.” Ken Starr produced a lengthy report that said “oh yes, you did!” Are Presidents allowed to commit felony perjury? Democrat senators said “Yes!”
Meanwhile the Republicans of that time demanded witnesses in the Senate trial. They demanded (and substantially got) documents and other witnesses and evidence from the White House.
Unlike Clinton, Trump has refused to testify. Unlike Clinton, Trump has refused all cooperation with the lawful investigation.
And this is no problem for me. I was on the Republicans’ side during Clinton. And I’m an anti-Trump Republican now. No conflicts for me. No past positions that I cannot reconcile.
If we knew for a FACT that the House Democrats acted solely for their own personal, political advantage
We know for a fact that democrats have been calling for impeachment ever since he was elected. All these calls were not based on anything he had done. They were based solely on their politics. We know for a fact that the Mueller Report didn't find anything impeachable. We know for a fact that this didn't stop the calls for impeachment.
We know for a fact that there is a possibility that there was corruption in the Ukraine and especially in the dealing of Burisma. We know for a fact that Hunter Biden's job at Burisma reeks of possible corruption. We know for a fact that the "Russia interfered not Ukraine" line is bullshit - both could have interfered, it's not an either/or situation like the Democrats are pushing
No offence, but you have to be pretty obtuse (not cruelly neutral) to not see this as a solely political attempt to smear Trump. As Nancy says with glee "he will be impeached forever" - no one made that statement about Clinton.
LLRF: "They demanded (and substantially got) documents and other witnesses and evidence from the White House."
...after the House pressed its position and ask the Article III Courts to demand the White House comply.
Leftist Collectivists always leave that part out w/rt Trump's situation.
The House gave away its power because the courts would have asked what the alleged underlying crime might be.
HINT: There still is no alleged underlying crime.
Blogger Birkel said...
A certain racist fopdoodle wants the Fifth Amendment not to apply to a certain president.
Should I start to type Life Long Racist Fopdoodle as LLRF for short?
Or will people think the R for racist really means "Republican"?
Oh I would agree that Trump could claim the Fifth. He has that right. But that would be after he was called as a witness and sworn in.
’Unlike Clinton, Trump has refused to testify.’
Unlike Trump, Clinton was accused of actual felonies.
"Unlike Clinton, Trump has refused to testify.”
Did the Democrats take him to court? Or is it your position that Congress is Trump’s direct boss, not the American people.
"Unlike Trump, Clinton was accused of actual felonies.”
Clinton had been proven to have committed actual felonies.
rhhardin brought up motivated reasoning. If you want a strong example of such, read Chuck’s comments. ARM's are more dishonest rhetoric.
ARM is blinded by hate,
No. He is just a dullard Yellow Dog Democrat.
They are a dime a dozen.
Results are the only "position" that matters. What we believe, or some "principles" that we lie to ourselves that we believe, are irrelevant.
None of this exists. If that result of "law" that cleared Clinton of consequences of an actual crime is a fact, then all talk of law in this or any other case is absurd, fantastic.
What really does exist is power, and its direction by ethical belief, should that be present, in the sense of a fear of God, among those who can make arbitrary decisions.
"Unlike Clinton, Trump has refused to testify.”
Did the Democrats take him to court? Or is it your position that Congress is Trump’s direct boss, not the American people.
Yup. The remedy for failure to testify was a legal challenge not impeachment. The Democrats knew they’d lose both the case and one article, so they just skipped the legal battle.
And this is no problem for me. I was on the Republicans’ side during Clinton. And I’m an anti-Trump Republican now. No conflicts for me. No past positions that I cannot reconcile.
Chuckles is at it again. I don't know if he had his first gin and tonic yet. It's pretty early.
The lies seem smoother when has had a few drinks.
All of this suggests that the Democrats have conceded the 2020 election as a way of removing Trump from office. Too bad they never conceded the 2016 election.
And this is no problem for me. I was on the Republicans’ side during Clinton.
Careful, Chuck. Your subnormal IQ is showing again.
LLRacistF: "Unlike Clinton, Trump has refused to testify."
This is a lie. Clinton was commanded to testify by an Article III Court. President Trump has never been commanded by any court to testify regarding his conduct while president. To conflate the two is a lie.
Liar.
Racist.
Fopdoodle.
Too bad they never conceded the 2016 election.
Hill was too busy swilling chardonnay and smashing lamps.
LLRacistF:
The FifthAmendment is invoked after a person is called before a court of competent jurisdiction to testify against himself.
Can you tell me the name of the court case you keep referencing?
To be fair, Quaestor, as a referent Hillary smashing lamps and getting hammered doesn't really narrow the time frame terribly well.
Frankly "2016" only narrows the events down to about 350 possible days.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck (WHO WILL FIGHT YOY!): "And this is no problem for me. I was on the Republicans’ side during Clinton. And I’m an anti-Trump Republican now. No conflicts for me."
LOLOLOLOL
Now that IS funny!!! Remember way back when LLR-lefty Chuck pretended to think highly of McConnell?
Now? LLR-lefty Chuck wont even defend McConnell from Pelosi/Schiff-ty/lefty Kavanaugh II/Electric Boogaloo attacks calling Mitch a compromised russian asset and traitor who is destroying the Senate!!
In the end ALL of LLR-lefty Chuck's FakeCon lies have been fully and completely exposed.
So. Much. Winning. Under. Trump.
In the 17 or so federal officer impeachment trials in the Senate in American history, most of them by far involve federal judges. And if a federal judge had done what Trump did in this impeachment — blocking witnesses and the production of documents and other evidence — everyone in Congress would be offended and would be taking the position that the accused was obstructing Congress.
The rats can say anything they want. Unfortunately for them, there’s video from the start saying impeach.
It's illegal to dig into Pelosi family government money whoring, Clinton family government money whoring, Biden family government money whoring, Kerry family government money whoring... and on an on...
Perfectly legal to hire Christopher Steele to create the bogus document needed for our FBI and CIA and FISA courts to spy and create false narratives as springboards for spying and false allegations against the NOT-D.
...
This is a lie. Clinton was commanded to testify by an Article III Court. President Trump has never been commanded by any court to testify regarding his conduct while president. To conflate the two is a lie.
Well that is true! And I would not doubt it. So let’s issue a Senate trial subpoena to Trump — an Artcle I subpoena — and see what happens.
Hell, who needs a subpoena? Just ask him to testify! Give him the choice. Give him every imaginable concession on the time, place and manner of testimony so as to minimize any interference with Executive Branch functions.
Just get him under oath, and under cross examination.
Chuck - how many fucking witnesses to this this phone call are there?
Your side sure do feel they have the right be be in power. F U chuck, and the corruptocrat you rode in on.
Power is all. The 17 judges in question were subject to a greater power, which swatted them away as annoyances and impediments to public order. These judges had no real powers backing them, money or powerful advocates, or public support.
But in a conflict between the president and congress? That is a power struggle.
Abandon delusion.
LLR-lefty Chuck: "...obstructing Congress...."!!!!
Full Marxist Lawfare blog talking points.
One should never go full marxist Lawfare talking points before noon simply as a matter of policy and good taste.
Seriously, it's not possible for LLR-lefty Chuck to show his truest of True Dem colors more than by this line of attack.
So its fun to watch Chuck keep making it.
Was it Original Mike yesterday who said he had come around to the belief that Chuck was being paid to post? There ARE quite a few lefty billionaires funding FakeConservative efforts online......and LLR-lefty Chuck spends his entire time here pushing their lefty talking points.
All day every day.
I wonder if that's just a coincidence?....
alanc709: ARM is blinded by hate, sees guilt as a desire, rather than the result of evidence...
Nah, you're making this way too complicated. ARM is just a standard-issue mid-wit shitlib who occasionally presents a simulacrum of a fair-to-middling troll. (Longer term exposure reveals this to be an artifact of style rather than any deliberate product of cleverness.) The emo in question is just predictable lashing out from the anxiety and confusion caused by trying to get a no-longer adequate map of reality to continue making sense. Lot of that going around.
’And if a federal judge had done what Trump did in this impeachment...’
Federal judges have executive privilege?
The posobiec link shows evidence of the ukrraine corruption scheme back in 2014-5
Not actually feeling any anxiety or confusion. Things are going pretty much exactly as I anticipated. Trump could not be more tediously predictable. If at the age of 70 you don't know much it is highly unlikely that you are going to know a lot more at the age of 73. Once a salesman always a salesman.
"And if a federal judge had done what Trump did in this impeachment — blocking witnesses and the production of documents and other evidence”
So Trump had been ordered to produce documents by a judge and he refused?
...everyone in Congress would be offended and would be taking the position that the accused was obstructing Congress.
I noticed you stopped short of saying they would be impeached...
Most of those 17 judges were either drunk on the bench, taking bribes, breaking the law and/or doing Clintonesque corrupt things. Of those that were impeached for abuse of power: Peck jailed a lawyer he didn't like, Swayne did the same with two lawyers, English was impeached for 'misbehavior', not a high crime or misdemeanor...
None of them 'obstructed Congress'.
...
Now? LLR-lefty Chuck wont even defend McConnell from Pelosi/Schiff-ty/lefty Kavanaugh II/Electric Boogaloo attacks calling Mitch a compromised russian asset and traitor who is destroying the Senate!!
Oh, but I will! I really like and respect Mitch McConnell. I always have. And I have never been in more disagreement with him, than I am over the debacle that is the Trump presidency. I would not engage in any name-calling against McConnell; nothing like what you suggested. Just hard, honest disagreement. And yes I WOULD defend McConnell from your suggested name-calling.
This is a sad and serious situation that, I think, demonstrates how badly Trumpism has broken the Republican Party. Martha McSally, times 53.
Dems are following their playbook: wage a lawfare against an unbeatable opponent just before an election. E.g. Ted Stevens of Alaska, Rick Perry of Texas, and a few others.
Indictment just before the election, no court trial in sight until long after the election, case got thrown out of court, prosecutors got reprimanded for overreach and no other punishments, a Democrat got in office.
They hate Trump, so they want to tack the scarlet letter on him as the third president "impeached". The Fake Media use the Impeachment coverage to cover up Trump's achievements: the economy, stupid! USMCA, the China trade deal, the lowest unemployment in decades, the longest economic expansion in history -- a scary thing when it ends...
In the mean time, Democrats and the Fake Media turned themselves into terrorist apologists to deny a Trump win for killing an "untouchable" terrorist mastermind exposing the weakness of the Islamic State and Obama's odious nuclear deal.
Trump could not be more tediously predictable
He's either crazy and unpredictable or tediously predictable. THose groups are mutually exclusive. He can't be both. You losers need to get together and pick one...
Chuck is a lawyer, I would like to hear him square his position with Marbury v Madison. Why is it that Trump doesn’t have recourse to the courts?
The answer is that this is political, not legal, but if Chuck admits that, his whole argument falls apart.
"This is a sad and serious situation”
Chuck got the blast fax from Pelosi!
Why no "Bribery" charge?
Why did the corrupt democrats charge him with "Obstruction of congress"?
That's laughable on its face.
Trump obstructed their corrupt witch hunt.
Crazy typically displays as a reduced set of stereotyped behaviors. Trump is only a little crazy. He is very limited, intellectually and emotionally.
Aunty Trump to me:
"Nice to see that it's slowly getting through to you that functional societies require an implicit consensus that precedes all explicit contract.”
Then consensus was that we were sending our children to die in the middle east while only pretending to protect them, and that the deplorables in the midwest were to be sold down the river in deals with the Chinese that would nonetheless make many Manhattanites, Chicagoans, and Cupertinions filthy rich.
Nice tl;dr for the elite consensus.
On the other hand the original reference was to "functional societies", which eventually stop functioning when the implicit elite consensus is grossly at odds with the implicit consensus the rubes *think* the elites share with them. Until the rubes wise up, their enemies can manipulate and abuse the now-unmoored "explicit contract" for all its worth. (I think this state of affairs is covered in the Tao Te Ching. Followed by some stuff involving revisions in the preferred disposition of the Mandate of Heaven, iirc.)
“Unlike Clinton, Trump has refused to testify. Unlike Clinton, Trump has refused all cooperation with the lawful investigation.”
Someone mentioned that an Article III court had required Clinton’s cooperation. Here, the House went directly from requesting the President to waive Executive Privilege to using that effective refusal to waive Executive Privilege to an article of impeachment. Do not stop. Do not pass go. And definitely do not bother with an Article III court to moderate between the House’s assertion of its Article I powers and the President’s Article II powers. And probably the reason that they didn't go to court, is that we have over two centuries of the courts saying essentially that the Presidency has the right and power to keep its internal decision making secret from Congress, except in very rare circumstances.
Why didn’t Trump give the House everything that they wanted? Trump stated what I remember both Obama and Bush (43) say before him, and that is to protect the Presidential decision making from Congressional meddling and micromanagement. This is a long established Presidential prerogative, and acceding to the House’s demands there would have abrogated that prerogative, not only for Trump himself, but for all the Presidents who come after him.
You don’t need my word for this. You can read that near the top of the letter by the President’s lawyers to Congress That is the subject of this thread. They pointed out that Trump, as President, had a moral and institutional duty to deny Congress’ attempt to intrude on an area that has for centuries been considered protected by Executive Privilege.
Aunty Trump writes: Chuck is a lawyer, I would like to hear him square his position with Marbury v Madison. Why is it that Trump doesn’t have recourse to the courts?
A lawyer in the same sense that the player in charge of the Monopoly™ money is a banker.
The Articles of Impeachment are a joke. The Congressmen who voted for them are political hacks. Their cheerleaders in the media are dishonorable fools.
I hope the Left pays a price for this farce. Yes, Trump will be acquitted since there is no chance of 67 votes in the Senate. I hope he gets reelected this Nov, in part, because of this farce. And I hope the House flips and ditzy Nancy is sent to permanent minority status.
Spoiler warning, Trump is acquitted. Now enjoy the show if you must.
I don't see any way to curb lawfare, do you? The mere notion of highly paid partisan lawyers teeming up to trounce Trump turns my stomach. Lawfare has always been there, but it's never been so obvious as in this impeachment drama. My hope is that their effort fails and it impugns the whole Democrat brand until they put more effort into offering a better, more positive alternative. They truly have become the party of hate.
Imagine being a partisan Democrat (or a Chuck-like proxy), having to wake up each day to find a new way to hate Trump!
It's illegal to dig into demcoratic corruption
How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections
Should we impeach Biden before he wins the 2020 election, or after?
AllenS at 7:59 AM
Clinton was not impeached because he received a blow job in the Oval Office
Everyone should know that basic fact.
Trump stated what I remember both Obama and Bush (43) say before him, and that is to protect the Presidential decision making from Congressional meddling and micromanagement.
That is what elections are for. If you don't like the President's policies, defeat him at the next election.
On the other hand, if you cannot defeat him because the voters like his policies, you can go insane.
That is the Democrats' position now.
“But we don't know these things as facts, and the Democrats are calling on the Senate to answer the question about Trump, but they can't shield themselves from the question about themselves.”
We don’t know that the Democrats thought they were acting for their own “personal political advantage.” We do know of the nature of their proceedings, the second hand nature of virtually all their evidence, their failure to conform their charges to Constitutional standards and their deliberate, obvious refusal to consider reasonable alternative explanations for Trump’s behavior. All these combine as near conclusive evidence that they are acting to further the political interests of the Democrat Party.
Of course, it is possible to use their own “standards” against them and assume, for example, that the attacks on Barr, the blatantly sleaziness of Schiff’s conduct, Queen Nan’s BS, etc., evince a real fear that Trump’s Administration will expose the extent to which Democrats have corrupted our government, beginning with the Bidens.
Imagine being a partisan Democrat (or a Chuck-like proxy), having to wake up each day to find a new way to hate Trump!
I give them too much credit...there is nothing new each day about their whining...it's always the same complaint day in and day out.
Chuck at 8:18 AM
Trump should show up at the Senate trial and answer all of the questions relevant to his withholding aid to Ukraine.
Do you think that President Clinton should have showed up at his Senate trial and answered all of the questions about his committing perjury?
“In the 17 or so federal officer impeachment trials in the Senate in American history, most of them by far involve federal judges. And if a federal judge had done what Trump did in this impeachment — blocking witnesses and the production of documents and other evidence — everyone in Congress would be offended and would be taking the position that the accused was obstructing Congress”
Which is totally irrelevant, because impeachment of a judge doesn’t impact Separation of Powers between Congress and the President. Presidents routinely deny witnesses from testifying before and refusing to provide documents to Congress on a routine basis by asserting Executive Privilege, in order to protect Presidential decision making from Congressional oversight. Sometimes that assertion is legitimate, as was very likely the case, and sometimes it isn’t, as was the Obama Administration’s assertion of Executive Privilege in response to Congress’ investigation of Fast and Furious. That is one reason that Article III courts are brought in to adjudicate these disputes, because neither of the other two branches can be completely trusted to not be operating from partisan or institutional biases.
This is a boring shampeachment, and the Senate R's by refusing to dismiss it out of hand, are now giving the D's a weapon in the future to use against other R Presidents. Of course all Mitch Turtle and his gang really care about Big Donor $$$.
All Trump has to prove is that there were aspects of his Ukraine policy that were in the national interest. It’s a minimal standard. It only takes a single counterexample to disprove a negative. He doesn’t need to answer questions that would inevitably range all over the place to do that.
There were stories about Ukraine election interference in Politco, the New York Times, The Hill, etc. If Trump says he read them, which he obviously did, the whole thing collapses. Right now the Democrats and their allies like Chuck are working feverishly to foreclose that line of defense.
1/19/20, 9:59 AM
Blogger Mike Sylwester said...
Chuck at 8:18 AM
Trump should show up at the Senate trial and answer all of the questions relevant to his withholding aid to Ukraine.
Do you think that President Clinton should have showed up at his Senate trial and answered all of the questions about his committing perjury?
Yes. In case that answer was not clear enough, I’d like to add an exclamation point; Yes!
Chuck at 9:12 AM
if a federal judge had done what Trump did in this impeachment — blocking witnesses and the production of documents and other evidence — everyone in Congress would be offended ...
In the judge cases, was the principle of Executive Privilege ever a consideration?
Was it Original Mike yesterday who said he had come around to the belief that Chuck was being paid to post? There ARE quite a few lefty billionaires funding FakeConservative efforts online......and LLR-lefty Chuck spends his entire time here pushing their lefty talking points.
I have come to that conclusion. The other Althouse trolls are typical emotional progressives who follow the Democrat party line. Chuck is following a script he was given.
His deceptions were clever in the very beginning. However, he doesn't seem to realize that the game has been over for some time. I suspect that he is just doing his job because he is getting paid and it keeps his gin cabinet stocked. There is no way he has influenced anyone on this blog.
Blogger Aunty Trump said...
All Trump has to prove is that there were aspects of his Ukraine policy that were in the national interest. It’s a minimal standard. It only takes a single counterexample to disprove a negative. He doesn’t need to answer questions that would inevitably range all over the place to do that.
This is an excellent point worth considering. Because there hasn’t been a shred of evidence that the Trump Administration lifted a finger to pursue a real, serious investigation of Ukrainian corruption.
Ambassador Sondland said it was his impression that Trump was only demanding the announcement of a Burisma/Biden investigation, and not an actual investigation. He said that under oath.
There is no evidence of any serious interest in Ukrainian corruption. And no evidence that the federal government has ever seriously pursued a real investigation since the hold, followed by the release, of the aid to Ukraine.
Chuck at 8:18 AM
“Trump should show up at the Senate trial and answer all of the questions relevant to his withholding aid to Ukraine.”
Why does Trump have that obligation? He has no legal obligation to do so, nor an institutional or moral obligation. His institutional obligation is to not show up and not give Congress information that is none of their business, from a Constitutional and institutional point of view. Showing up and answering those questions would reduce Presidential power not just for Trump, but also for his successors as President.
"Chuck said...
Blogger Mr. Majestyk said...
Trump should show up at the Senate trial and demand to call Joe, Where's Hunter, and Adam Shiff as witnesses. That would be Must See TV!
Trump should show up at the Senate trial and answer all of the questions relevant to his withholding aid to Ukraine."
I agree. Trump has no need to testify, since all the evidence so far is contrary to his "withholding aid" since it was allocated within the timeframe allowed.
You don’t suppose any of those celebratory pens used to sign the impeachment found their way into the hands of donors to the Democrats? FEC should be on it, if it weren’t a nest of Democrat operatives.
"Because there hasn’t been a shred of evidence that the Trump Administration lifted a finger to pursue a real, serious investigation of Ukrainian corruption.”
He asked that the indisputable election interference by Ukraine be looked into by Ukraine. Sondland’s testimony changed under the cross examination you rightly revere. You should go back and read what he said after the break, when the stories had all been filed with Democrat allies in the MSM, before Republicans were allowed to ask the first question.
I just skip.
Democrat claim: “The legitimate governmental purpose of [Trump's exercise of power] was completely absent."
From the Democrat perspective this is true. Exposing Democrat grifting and their corruption of the United States Government toward that end is not a legitimate government purpose, since the “legitimate purpose” of the government is to enrich Democrats, their families and friends.
The embassy in Kiev under Yavonovich was clearly part of the cover up. She had already demanded that election interference by Democrat friendly politicians in Ukraine not be investigated in her meeting with Ukraine prosecutors.
Blogger Mike Sylwester said...
Chuck at 9:12 AM
“if a federal judge had done what Trump did in this impeachment — blocking witnesses and the production of documents and other evidence — everyone in Congress would be offended ...”
In the judge cases, was the principle of Executive Privilege ever a consideration?
Not sure; I expect not.
Is that what it comes down to? Trump claims executive privilege, successfully blocks his staff from testifying and blocks all document production. The House sues, and a final decision is not obtained until 2021 or 2022. Under the (Judge) Nixon case, the Senate could vote 51-49 to reject the claim of privilege and the Article III courts would not intervene. And then it really does come down to open obstruction of Congress.
In any event, it all comes down to Trump hiding witnesses and evidence behind legalistic objections. Not a good look, for a guy who won election so narrowly to begin with.
“The legitimate governmental purpose of [Trump's exercise of power] was completely absent."
I don’t see how disproving this requires Trump to prove that he set out on a crusade against Ukrainian corruption. I think that they were looking into election interference and the stink of the rotting corpse of Biden corruption kept presenting itself, which is why Ciaramella, who was at the meeting were the Ukrainians were told that Shokin must go, panicked.
Blogger Aunty Trump said...
The embassy in Kiev under Yavonovich was clearly part of the cover up.
Don't sell her short. She was part of the coup.
"The House sues, and a final decision is not obtained until 2021 or 2022.”
That’s what it comes down to, isn’t it? You guys are sure there is a pony under all of that horseshit, and Romney will almost certainly go along, since his people were also involved in Burisma.
LLRacistF: "Because there hasn’t been a shred of evidence that the Trump Administration lifted a finger to pursue a real, serious investigation of Ukrainian corruption."
This is a lie. Well, it's not a lie if "shred of evidence" means evidence LLRFs gave personally considered. And it's not a lie if "real" and "serious" no longer mean standard dictionary definitions of those words. This is the Costanza Standard.
Racist fopdoodles are all buffoons.
The Democrats are walking into a trap- that much is clear based on the response.
The Democrat's claims rest on the idea that there was no "national interest" served in Trump wanting the Ukrainians to investigate the 2016 election interference or in the Biden's dealings with Burisma. Trump's response zeroes in on that aspect of the impeachment- indeed, the impeachment articles rest solely on that claim that no national interest was served. However, you can't prove that without examining the Bidens' dealings with Burisma, the Chinese, and other foreign governments- and the corruption isn't limited to Hunter Biden.
I always have. And I have never been in more disagreement with him, than I am over the debacle that is the Trump presidency.
The only reason you feel this way is because you hate Trump. The facts (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with any of this. Trump hatred has so infected you that you are utterly incapable of any reasonable or rational thought when it comes to Donald Trump. In that regard, you really are no different than the other poo-flinging lefties that inhabit this place.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: get help. I truly am sincere about this. Your hatred has so eaten at your soul that you don't even resemble the person you once were.
What Chuck ultimately wants is for the Democrats to have their witnesses and the testimony carefully scoped to prevent Trump from presenting a defense, and for Trump to be denied his witnesses, and with corrupted quislings like Romney, it’s possible he gets his way. And be sure that Romney will vote to prevent any testimony regarding Burisma or Ukraine corruption.
"However, you can't prove that without examining the Bidens' dealings with Burisma, the Chinese, ...”
Yep, you can only prove a negative by exhaustion, lacking a mathematical proof.
LLRacistF, who claims to be a licensed, practicing attorney doesn't know if Executive Privilege could have been an issue in the impeachment trials of federal judges.
Let's savor that comment!
Blogger Chuck said...
Blogger Mike Sylwester said...
Chuck at 9:12 AM
“if a federal judge had done what Trump did in this impeachment — blocking witnesses and the production of documents and other evidence — everyone in Congress would be offended ...”
In the judge cases, was the principle of Executive Privilege ever a consideration?
Not sure; I expect not.
Is that what it comes down to? Trump claims executive privilege, successfully blocks his staff from testifying and blocks all document production. The House sues, and a final decision is not obtained until 2021 or 2022. Under the (Judge) Nixon case, the Senate could vote 51-49 to reject the claim of privilege and the Article III courts would not intervene. And then it really does come down to open obstruction of Congress.
In any event, it all comes down to Trump hiding witnesses and evidence behind legalistic objections. Not a good look, for a guy who won election so narrowly to begin with.
1/19/20, 10:32 AM
Trump is only a little crazy. He is very limited, intellectually and emotionally.
Pure projection. All I've ever seen out of any of your comments are the very binary behaviors that you try to attribute to Trump.
He's beaten you all at every turn, yet you can't square that - the cognitive dissonance would be overwhelming. So you do the human thing - ignore the facts that don't fit your narrative.
Talk about tedious and predictable...
I think pdjt should be impeached for his shithole countries remark in addition to everything else.
John Henry
The Senate will likely call no witnesses considering the nature of the Trump's response, but if they do, the Democrats are sunk, and they know it.
I think the letter by Trump’s attorneys to the Senate laid out the arguments against the impeachment very clearly. Neither article claimed anything remotely resembling a High Crime or Misdemeanor. I find the second article especially egregious. Trump is being impeached essentially for denying Congress testimony and documents that Congress almost assuredly has no legitimate right to have. They are extremely likely to be protected under Executive Privilege. Of course, the President was never able to officially invoke Executive Privilege, because the House never voted to take those refusals to Court. Instead, they bypassed that essential step, and went straight to impeachment.
I love the picture of Schify saying: “We are going to impeach Trump for obstructing our attempt to frame him”. See the second picture down in Powerline’s THE WEEK IN PICTURES: BLOWOUT IMPEACHMENT EDITION
Make no mistake. These articles of impeachment are an egregious institutional power grab by the House. Nothing else.
As Buwaya rightly points out though, this is all just so much cheering from the stands and the results will depend on what happens on the playing field, much of which is obscured from us. They just periodically post a score.
’Ambassador Sondland said it was his impression that Trump was only demanding the announcement of a Burisma/Biden investigation, and not an actual investigation. He said that under oath.’
Impressions under oath!! Sounds really official...
And probably the reason that they didn't go to court, is that we have over two centuries of the courts saying essentially that the Presidency has the right and power to keep its internal decision making secret from Congress, except in very rare circumstances.
This is what I suspected as well. And of course our resident Trump haters dishonestly ignore that. Pelosi's house would lose in an Article III hearing, and they know it. But it doesn't fit the "Trump refused to testify while Clinton did" narrative, so it shall not be stated.
You have to remember- the House could have called Parnas as a witness during their investigation- same with Bolton, but they didn't. The White House might have continued to oppose Bolton's testimony, but the House didn't challenge that, and it is all but certain that they didn't do so because they know Bolton doesn't actually have anything that Vindman and Sondland hadn't already given them. Indeed, if you call Bolton, he will be asked by Trump's lawyers what he thought of the Biden's dealings with Burisma and other countries. That is the problem with high level witnesses for the Democrats- in the House proceedings, Schiff shut down such questions immediately, but in the Senate trial, the Democrats aren't in control any longer.
In any event, it all comes down to Trump hiding witnesses and evidence behind legalistic objections.
The other option is that every time Congress demands something from the president, the president should just give it over. Like every president prior to Trump has done, right?
Oh wait. That never happened prior to Trump either.
Question for Chuck: does this rule only apply to Trump? Why?
Thomas Wictor predicts that PDJT will show up at the impeachment hoohah with a bunch of classified, until that morning, documents.
He will the proceed to shred demmies until they cry.
If he does as Wictor predicts it will be the awesomest thing ever!
Pdjt has absolute, unstoppable, authority to declassified anything.
John Henry
John Henry
It would be fun to ask Ciaramella what was discussed with the Ukrainians in that meeting with Shokin’s deputies in the White House at about the time Shokin’s firing was demanded. Look for a claim of executive privilege.
Remember when Eric Holder handed over the Fast and Furious documents? Me neither. He was censured and it turned out later that that censure was racist because Congress would never get mad at a white guy for that.
Remember when the House issued a preserve evidence order to Hillary, and she took it as a hint that she should take BleachBit and hammers to 30K emails? Good times, good times!
Remember when Hillary’s lawyer for the BleachBit and hammers guy turned out to be, per Mueller’s own testimony, running the investigation day by day?
And Chuck asks why we think he supports Hillary and worships Obama.
Ambassador Sondland said it was his impression that Trump was only demanding
This is too easy. When questioned he said no one told him, he just assumed.
Nicely cogent analysis Althouse. How will you decide among the three? (Now I’ll start at the top and see the first 100 or so answers.)
Blogger John henry said...
Thomas Wictor predicts that PDJT will show up at the impeachment hoohah with a bunch of classified, until that morning, documents.
Love me some Thomas Wictor, but in this arena he's one of the "all of Trump's enemies are really white hats executing a secret plan that will bring everyone down in one swift motion" Qanon believers.
LLR-lefty Chuck: "And yes I WOULD defend McConnell from your suggested name-calling."
LOLOLOLOL
My "suggested namecalling"?!....
Too funny.
Ni doubt about, Chuck is easily into his second or third highball already.
"“In any event, it all comes down to...”
"Fuck all of that legal mumbo jumbo people! We all know it’s just for show, this guy is guilty and we all know it and these legal formalities are getting in the way of the hangin’!"
“ Is that what it comes down to? Trump claims executive privilege, successfully blocks his staff from testifying and blocks all document production. The House sues, and a final decision is not obtained until 2021 or 2022. Under the (Judge) Nixon case, the Senate could vote 51-49 to reject the claim of privilege and the Article III courts would not intervene. And then it really does come down to open obstruction of Congress.”
“In any event, it all comes down to Trump hiding witnesses and evidence behind legalistic objections. Not a good look, for a guy who won election so narrowly to begin with.”
As I have repeatedly pointed out, Congress almost assuredly has zero Constitutional right to those documents or the testimony of those witnesses. The “legalistic objections” are just that, that the President had no Constitutional obligation to provide them to Congress. And your apparent response is “we don’t need no stinking Constitutional justification for those documents and witnesses - we’ll just impeach”.
As for timing - if they had gone to court, they almost assuredly would have gotten expedited hearings all the way up to the Supreme Court. Sure that might have pushed final resolution into early 2020. Maybe even done before the end of 2019. The courts have been doing that all along here. And the John Roberts, protecting the institutional power of the Judiciary, would have pushed that as hard as he could. He definitely wouldn’t have wanted his Branch be seen as anything but apolitical. Except, that when there was still time to get the case through the court system, then finish up the impeachment long before the election, the House majority decided not to pursue this in court. The reason there was political - it would likely pushed the Senate impeachment closer to the election. And, indeed, the House probably wouldn’t have impeached, if the vote had been in 2020, not 2019. So the timing issue was really a political issue by the House majority.
But the real reason, and not the bogus timing issue cited above, of not going into court, was that the Dems pretty well knew that they would lose in court. The courts, and esp the Supreme Court, would very likely have told the Dems to pound sand. There was no evidence admissible in court that even suggested that a High Crime or Misdemeanor had been committed by Trump with that phone call. All that they had was a bit of inadmissible 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay and some surmises and suppositions, mostly by people who had strong biases against Trump. And that meant that the requests for those documents and witnesses were nothing more than a fishing expedition, and thus not sufficient justification for overriding Executive Privilege.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন