What to do the President from your party is caught doing something really questionable and likely illegal?
What then will be their defense for:
- This is like questioning who called in the tip that someone was "embezzling" from a company.
- I mean the initial review has proven without a doubt that the report was correct.
- Many very experienced and trustworthy civil servants have corroborated that the "embezzling" took place and who was behind it.
- So why would we need the Whistle Blower's testimony?
- Apparently the case must be pretty air tight, since instead of defending the President they decide to interrupt the proceedings.
- Kind of like Trump's resistance to releasing his tax returns, what crimes has he committed that he is scared to show the people what he and his staff have been doing?
- What would GOP politicians and voters do if a DEM President refused to be transparent with them?
- Really? We know a potential crime occurred and you want to avoid hearing the evidence?
What then will be their defense for:
- The President's personal lawyer working with Ukraine's previous President and Prosecutor in the Spring of 2019 to get Biden investigations started.
- Trump and Giuliani working to get an anti-corruption ambassador removed pre-maturely without cause.
- A President asking for favors.
- The President's personnel hiding the actual text / recording. When it was supposedly a very good normal call.
- A President telling Ukraine that the aid and visits were delayed
- Then the President wants to harm the Whistle Blower.
- And the President wants to prevent the facts from coming out.
26 comments:
It's remarkable that hardly anyone is willing to defend the substance of what the president has done. Just offhand, I think the strongest defense is to say while soliciting foreign intervention in American elections isn't a very nice thing to do, it isn't sufficiently serious to justify removal from office. That seems to be the conclusion Republicans have reached.
--Hiram
But instead they avoid saying that, and they try to distract us with political theater.
Then there is Trump saying this about people who want to know what "our civil servant" has been up to.
And praising politicians who violated the rules and brought personal cell phones into a US High Security Room. Which required tax payers to pay for security sweeps.
Trump's tweets that praise lawlessness and insult governmental transparency.
"Thank you to House Republicans for being tough, smart, and understanding in detail the greatest Witch Hunt in American History. It has been going on since long before I even got Elected (the Insurance Policy!). A total Scam!" Trump tweeted Thursday.
But Trump has also been unsparing in his attitude toward Senate Republicans who have chided his dealings with Ukraine that are at the heart of the impeachment probe — especially Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah.
“The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats,” Trump tweeted Wednesday afternoon. “Watch out for them, they are human scum!”
I guess I went from being an irredeemable deplorable...
To be Human Scum...
Because I demand results and transparency from all politicians.
Does the behavior of the republicans make you less likely to vote for a GOP candidate?
I don't know... I guess I prefer to look at each race independently...
That is an advantage of being willing to vote across party lines...
Versus those folks who just vote by party affiliation.
But instead they avoid saying that, and they try to distract us with political theater.
Republicans have a tactical problem in a very basic way. The president is a liar and that means they cannot rely on what he says. They are left with issues that aren't dependent on the president's credibility, in this case the process issues. Even here, the defenses are short term. Transcripts aren't being released now, but does anyone doubt they won't be released eventually. Taylor was a hugely damaging in private. Will it be less damaging in public? If Democratic congress people try to keep the process hearing secret indefinitely, believe me, I will be just as critical as the Republicans.
The problem with respect to transparency for Republicans isn't that they are wrong, the problem is that they are too right, and that transparency ultimately will be disastrous for the president they are trying to protect.
--Hiram
On NPR a pundit proposed that if the President acknowledged that he
- made in error in judgment, and
- noted that he had learned from it.
the Republicans could maybe defend him better.
They kind of doubted that would happen given Trump's personality.
It's a question of what "defend better" means. Republicans will defend the president well enough by just voting for acquittal at Mr. Trump's senate trial. Does "defend better" mean a strategy that is more likely to help Republican senators get re-elected? Let's bear in mind that senators want to and can be in office forever, while I would say that there is a pretty substantial possibility will lose next year assuming he even runs.
The Wall Street Journal in defending the president, argues that the president is too incompetent to be really capable of the impeachable offenses with which he will be charged. If you think about it, it's hard to imagine a scenario where his nefarious dealings with Ukraine, depending as they did, on the cooperation of honest people, could possibly have succeeded.
--Hiram
It almost did succeed, though. The only person who knew about this as it was going on and alerted the authorities was the whistleblower. It's great that Taylor and all these other folks are coming forward now, but if the Ukarinian President had agreed to go give the speech announcing the investigation that Trump wanted, the damage would be done.
And now you've got Bill Barr and Rudy Giuliani (and others) literally running around the globe using the official powers of the U.S. government to try and manufacture dirt on Biden, Warren, and the others.
I guess my question then would be... Can the GOP hold the Senate if they find an obviously guilty Trump innocent?
Or will the Law & Order Republicans and Independents have had enough of this ignoring Emperor Trump's blatant nudity?
I bet Trump will love the WSJ defense. :-)
I have a sense that a number of people were speaking through the whistleblower. He seemed remarkably well informed.
To me, one of the many strange things is Trump's insistence that the whistleblower got stuff wrong. He is literally the only person who says that. The complaint was extremely well drafted and is completely supported both by the transcript Trump provided and by the accounts of other players. Trump is demonstrably lying about this.
--Hiram
I am not sure Barr is trying to manufacture dirt...
They really want to understand how the whole Mueller investigation got triggered and if someone did something improper / political.
But I could be wrong...
They really want to understand how the whole Mueller investigation got triggered and if someone did something improper / political.
My understanding is that a Democratic operative filed a report that Trump was in the pay of Russia. Is there something wrong with investigating that?
--Hiram
"I am not sure Barr is trying to manufacture dirt..."
Sure, they are. That was the whole point of the Ukraine deal. That's why the trade czar isn't saying if they've made such inquiries to China. They're on a worldwide fishing expedition.
However I am not sure Barr is on that boat.
Or do you think he lied about not knowing Trump mentioned him in the call.
Can the GOP hold the Senate if they find an obviously guilty Trump innocent?
I think the calculation Republican senators, one I don't disagree with, is that the far greater risk for them is to vote for conviction. Just as the road to hell is paved with good intentions, good intentions never go unpunished, it's also true that it's the nail that sticks up is the one to get hammered down. for politicians, as maybe for the rest of us, it's so easy to let someone else be the hero. Why not leave it to the voters to remove Trump from office?
--Hiram
But there must be some state where GOP senators are more at risk by letting Trump skate free.
I am not a Republican, but Trump delivers what I think Republicans want most, young, activist Republican federal judges which will ensure Republican control of the federal government for generations to come. Was Trump too big a price to pay for that?
--Hiram
The question is will he and their decisions cost the GOP the Presidency and the control of the house and senate in about 1 year?
Judges are useful, but the other 2 branches also have a lot of power.
Judges are useful, but the other 2 branches also have a lot of power.
In a Democratic administration, pretty much the Judges will run the country. Nothing will happen except through negotiation with them.
--Hiram
Are you arguing that the Liberal judges have been running the country up til now?
It seems to me that Federal judges mostly control federal law. States should still be able to do as their citizens wish. Shouldn't they?
I think my comment referred to Republican judges.
Because of the supremacy clause, federal judges can write both state and federal laws.
--Hiram
Personally I do not think they can write any laws...
Well other than making gay marriage legal across every State.
Personally I do not think they can write any laws...
They can and they do. The Supreme Court has quite a lot to say about health care policy.
--Hiram
Actually I think they had little to say about healthcare...
They had more to say about "paying" for healthcare and what religious organizations had to accept.
Post a Comment