Impeachment

[Alatar]

Right or wrong, I think this was a bad idea. It will galvanise the Republicans in an "us against them". The most important thing should be to stop him getting a 2nd term. Once thats done, reform the laws, go after him in civil court, whatever. Just make sure the Dems win.

[Cerin]

I would assume that using aid/sanctions as leverage in foreign negotiations is pretty normal. I would be surprised to learn that it is criminal for Presidents to do this.

There is reportedly a 2018 tape of Biden bragging about how, as VP, he used a billion dollar aid package to pressure Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was looking into something involving Biden's son in Ukraine. Since the incident of this firing did occur and pre-dates Trump's entry into politics, and since Biden is not yet nominated as a candidate for Pres., it might be difficult to paint Trump's request first and foremost as an attempt to interfere in the upcoming election. One could assume that as President, he has a level of interest in a country's affairs to which we are giving a large amount of aid.

Alatar, I think Trump's base tends to be perpetually galvanized. But I wonder about a backlash among the non-galvanized, having to do with the continuous nature of the Dems fixation on investigating Trump rather than concentrating on issues that concern voters. I also wonder about a backlash against the media, producing votes for Trump.

[Cerin]

By agreeing to provide the complaint (if they really do), they have conceded that they don't have discretion to withhold it.

I think, by agreeing to provide the complaint, they have conceded that wild press speculation will do more harm than the complaint itself.

[elengil]

For every Republican saying it isn't, I'd just like them to ask themselves, what would I have felt if Obama did this?

I've been saying this for the last 3 years.

If Obama had bragged about sexual assault...
If Obama had paid off a porn star...
If Obama had asked Russia to hinder his opponent on national TV...
If Obama had the same turn-over rate despite hiring "the very best people"...
If Obama's press secretary had routinely lied...
If Obama had routinely lied...
If Obama had suspended press briefings...
If Obama had declared a false state of emergency to divert military funds to a pet project...
If Obama had committed obstruction of justice...
If Obama had been investigated for 2 years and could not be exonerated...
If Obama had enriched himself off the presidency by funneling taxpayer funds to and having foreign dignitaries stay at his businesses...
If Obama hadn't turned over his tax returns...
If Obama had shared top secret information with hostile powers in order to brag...
If Obama had turned every single national tragedy and memorial event into a personal photo-op...
If Obama had threatened to have his political rivals investigated and thrown in jail...
If Obama demanded personal loyalty over loyalty to oath and country...
If Obama had called his political rivals disloyal and unAmerican...
If Obama had said that there were some 'very fine people' among terrorists...
If Obama had said "I like taking the guns first, then due process"...
If Obama had stood next to a foreign hostile power and disavowed the US intelligence agencies...
If Obama had been incapable of reading his daily intelligence briefings...
If Obama needed the entire job dumbed down so he could understand it...
And if Obama had still utterly failed to understand it, and further claimed nobody understood it, nobody knew, nobody had ever heard of emoluments before or had any idea how hard health care was...

I miss the days when the tan suit was a scandal.

I remember when Republicans thought lying about a sexual encounter was sufficient basis for an impeachment. Now it seems that there is no line serious enough, no crime heinous enough to warrant holding a president accountable - so long as the president professes their party.

[yovargas]

Cerin - your willingness to excuse nearly any behavior from Trump is frankly baffling to me. The idea that you would look at this and think "this is probably normal" is.... baffling.

Also disappointed to hear you repeat easily debunked Republican talking points. The Biden accusation is, unsurprisingly, largely BS. Biden's threats were not made for any personal gain. See the politifact article explaining that Biden wasn't the only one making this threat.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... d-ukraine/

[Griffon64]

It's the "for personal gain" thing that seems to confuse people.

The Presidency is an office, the individual occupying it should act on behalf of the country's interests, not their own personal interests.

I've seen this confusion all the way back when Melania Trump stayed in New York instead of the White House for a while, at an increased cost of millions to taxpayers, and Trump supporters said "It is his money, he can do what he wants to with it." No, it is not his money. It belongs to the citizens of the United States, not the president. You don't suddenly own all the public money and taxpayer funds in America to do with as you please when you are elected president. And in the same way, diplomacy absolutely includes give and take of foreign aid, military aid, etc - but for the benefit of the country as a whole, not the individual occupying the Presidency.

If this argument sinks in, I suppose Trump supporters will just start arguing that attacking Joe Biden's son is in the interest of the country, though.

[Cerin]

yov, I am not excusing, but am trying to look at things from a neutral perspective.

I do think, generally speaking, that it is probably normal for Presidents/officials to use aid as leverage in foreign negotiations. I'm not referring to Trump's call as normal, but in general, I do not see using promises of aid in foreign negotiations as untoward. Isn't that what the Iran deal was all about? Giving aid in exchange for what we wanted?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Isn't that what the Iran deal was all about? Giving aid in exchange for what we wanted?

Not exactly. It was ending sanctions in exchange for ironclad guarantees that Iran would not be able to get a nuclear weapon. Most importantly, even if ending sanctions could be considered similar to giving aid (although it really isn't), the key difference is that the quid pro quo in the one example was making the world (and the country) safer by preventing a "rogue" nation from getting nuclear weapons, while in the other example the quid pro quo was helping the president attack a political rival. The most significant part of the "transcript" (which is not really a transcript but instead a summary of the call), is the repeated statements by Mr. Trump that Zelensky should work with Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to investigate Biden. That to me shows conclusively that Mr. Trump was seeking personal assistance from a foreign government, as opposed to seeking to advance some kind of legitimate foreign policy aim. There certainly is not a smoking gun in which Trump makes an ex

On another point raised by Cerin, while I agree with yov that the allegations against Biden are completely bunk and have no basis in reality, that doesn't mean that having this be at the center of a political storm will not potentially be damaging it his efforts to secure the nomination. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

[RoseMorninStar]

I think Trump likes to put things out first so he can spin it (LIE) to his liking and accuse others of spin before anyone else can put the truth out. It's what he had Barr do to the Mueller report. He knows his 'people' would listen to and accept whatever he says just like he could, "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not "lose any voters.", even if it were caught on camera he would say everyone else is lying. He repeats his, 'You can only believe me/everyone else is lying' mantra. It's the line of a con man.

An Australian newspaper editor was on one of the Sunday morning political shows and they stated that the American press has HELPED Trump, not hurt him as he claims. They were shocked at Trump's 'alarming incoherence' and that he did not speak in full sentences or stick to a topic. He was all over the place. The American press, by means of doing the job of a journalist/reporter (taking speech and editing/parsing to make it easier for the average public to follow) made Trump sound more coherent than the meandering, disjointed mess his thought/speaking pattern truly is, normalizing his bizarreness.

[Cerin]

I remember when Republicans thought lying about a sexual encounter was sufficient basis for an impeachment. Now it seems that there is no line serious enough, no crime heinous enough to warrant holding a president accountable - so long as the president professes their party.

Clinton lying under oath was a crime. But is there a violation of law here? I don't know.

[elengil]

I remember when Republicans thought lying about a sexual encounter was sufficient basis for an impeachment. Now it seems that there is no line serious enough, no crime heinous enough to warrant holding a president accountable - so long as the president professes their party.

Clinton lying under oath was a crime. But is there a violation of law here? I don't know.

Yes, it was. So is obstruction, so is extortion, so is campaign finance hush payments, so is violating emoluments. But you don't see any violation of laws here? Not even worth the investigation??

[Faramond]

1. President Trump declares that Ukraine hasn't been reciprocal, that "things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good for Ukraine".

2. President Zelenskyy declares that "we are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."

3. President Trump asks Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden's son and to coordinate with both the Attorney General and Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

(1) is fine by itself. Even (1) and (2) are fine together as long as the nature of Ukrainian "reciprocity" in exchange for purchasing weapons is in the interests of the United States or human rights. But (3) makes it clear that what Trump is after is not the national interest but his own personal, political interests. The involvement of Giuliani makes it clear that Trump is after personal gain. This is an unacceptable abuse of the office and should be grounds for impeachment.

I think it is a useful measure of the corruption of the electorate to measure how many of US voters are willing to overlook such obvious corruption from their "team". I'm guessing that well more than half of the electorate would overlook corruption on their team. Trump's corruption is bad but the corruption of the electorate may be even worse in the long term.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thank you for weighing in, Faramond. While I don't always agree with you (anymore than you always agree with me!), I always respect your judgement. And I think you have zeroed in on exactly what the key question is.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

yov, I am not excusing, but am trying to look at things from a neutral perspective.

Calling abnormal things normal is not neutral.


eta - sadly, "corruption of the electorate" strikes me as an excellent phrase to describe our current times.

[RoseMorninStar]

elengil, I don't believe a person of color or a woman with 5 children among 3 spouses would ever have been taken as a serious candidate let alone the champion of the conservative 'religious' right' in the first place.

Calling abnormal things normal is not neutral.

Agreed.

Trump's corruption is bad but the corruption of the electorate may be even worse in the long term.

Very sad but I agree.

I could be mistaken, but isn't part of the problem is that Trump is requesting a foreign country to investigate a private US citizen without the basis of a crime but to 'find something' to make it look bad and to use it on the campaign trail against a rival? It's the e-mail or Benghazi 'scandal' for this election.

[yovargas]

That's already what they're doing. The day this whistle blower story came up, I decided to search youtube to see how the conservative pundits would react this and they spent most of the story talking about how the "real" scandal is what Biden said and did, but of course the biased mainstream media doesn't want to talk about that blah blah blah blah.

[elengil]

Filed under Irony, cross-referenced with Hypocrisy

Irony.JPG (19.12 KiB) Viewed 6468 times

[RoseMorninStar]

Acting DNI has said he will resign if he is unable to speak freely before congress or required to stonewall. That suggests he was asked to withhold or lie about something.

Gross incompetence.. that's been the problem all along.

[River]

Faramond, I think corruption of the electorate is how Trump got elected in the first place. And how he hopes to hold onto power.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Acting DNI has said he will resign if he is unable to speak freely before congress or required to stonewall.

It should be noted that Mr. Maguire has categorically denied the report that he said that he would resign if not able to speak freely, stating "I have never quit at anything and I don't intend to start now" (or words to that effect).