WSJ GOP Doesn't Now Have Votes to Block Witnesses
Politico Trump team warns vulnerable senators: Stand strong or prepare for an endless trial
AP FACT CHECK: Trump wrong on Bolton; more claims from trial
FactCheck False Claim Ukraine Got Aid ‘Before Schedule’
PBS Dershowitz Argument against Impeachment
Politico Trump finds nearly unwavering loyalty from Republicans after Dem case
It seems to me that censuring Trump's behavior would be common sense off ramp, however that seems unlikely since he has no interest in apologizing.
Politico Trump team warns vulnerable senators: Stand strong or prepare for an endless trial
AP FACT CHECK: Trump wrong on Bolton; more claims from trial
FactCheck False Claim Ukraine Got Aid ‘Before Schedule’
PBS Dershowitz Argument against Impeachment
Politico Trump finds nearly unwavering loyalty from Republicans after Dem case
It seems to me that censuring Trump's behavior would be common sense off ramp, however that seems unlikely since he has no interest in apologizing.
“It’s a very serious matter and I’m listening in a respectful way,” said Collins, who has already signaled that she may vote for additional witnesses to be called. “I’ve filled up 25 pages of notes on my legal pad and I pay very close attention.”MinnPost How would you feel if Trump had apologized for his behavior toward Ukraine?
But for the rest of the party there’s almost no interest in even inching toward a rebuke of Trump. There’s definitely no attempt to censure the president or propose some other formal condemnation short of impeachment. To Republicans, there’s no point trying to concede Trump did anything wrong — a far cry from Democrats’ denunciation of President Bill Clinton’s behavior during his 1999 impeachment trial.
“Our job is not to evaluate in great detail what happened. Our job at this point is to evaluate whether it’s impeachable or not,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). “And I don’t see minds changing on that, including mine.”
48 comments:
A deal that could be reached (and Trump, I am told likes to make deals), is that Trump could admit that he was wrong to seek foreign influence in American elections and furthermore, I would ask that he withdraw his candidacy for reelection in 2020. In exchange also, I would offer that if a Democrat is elected this year, he would pardon Trump for any federal crimes he might have committed during and prior to his presidency.
--Hiram
Yep. Don't see that happening... :-)
Question for those still paying attention to this stupid soap opera: Have the Democrats released full transcripts of all the witnesses [they] already called?
Yes they did. Back on November 26th they released the last of the transcripts from their investigation.
It's fascinating how things have changed. When the whistleblower report was released, it was the GOP position that there was no quid pro quo, but it would be bad if there actually had been one. Today, the quid pro quo is acknowledged, but now it's perfectly OK.
A source for Drewbie's comment
Sean,
Pelosi's drawing this out was definitely a good idea.
New information keeps coming out daily it seems... :-)
I am hoping that at sometime we all acknowledge that...
"Trump manipulated State personnel and Withheld Tax Payer money from an approved purpose in order to get the Ukranian government to investigate the missing server conspiracy and the Biden situation."
At least then the discussion can focus on if these actions constitute an impeachable offense.
Jerry,
If the statement was...
"Obama manipulated State personnel and Withheld Tax Payer money from an approved purpose in order to get the Ukranian government to investigate the missing server conspiracy and the Cheney situation."
Would you see it as an impeachable office that justified removing Obama from office?
Or would it just be Obama operating within his accepted boundaries?
Rationale?
"the missing server conspiracy"
The DNC server isn't missing, though. Never has been.
"Have the Democrats released full transcripts of all the witnesses [they] already called?"
Has the Administration released the full transcript of the "perfect" phone call from the highly-classified server on which it doesn't belong and which is being illegally withheld from Congress and the American people?
Moose
Moose,
"is being illegally withheld from Congress"
Has judge ruled on this or are you just making things up as you go?
Sean,
Even Jonah Goldberg agrees with you.
So again the judgment would be... Is this within the President's purview?
No matter how crazy it sounds to most of us...
"Trump manipulated State personnel and Withheld Tax Payer money from an approved purpose in order to get the Ukranian government to investigate the missing server conspiracy and the Biden situation."
"Is this within the President's purview?"
No, it's not. Why would we ask the Ukrainian government to investigate potential corruption by an American citizen? That's what the Federal Corrupt Practices Act and the Department of Justice are for. Yet, despite this being in the news for years, no investigation was ever started. The Republican Congress had years to investigate this, too, yet they did nothing.
Why? Because Hunter Biden cashing in on his dad's name may be a bit shady, but it's not illegal. (Are we similarly going to look into Cofer Black, the well-connected Republican with no oil and gas background who was also on the Burisma board?)
This whole thing is a fraud that the President was trying to perpetrate on his own political behalf. It's abuse of his presidential power.
Is this within the president's purview?
This is a pretty general question. What is "this"? And what is "purview"?
As any public official should know, while they have discretion to do plenty of things, they don't have discretion to do wrong thing, or things for corrupt reasons.
Something I think is interesting is the unique position president's currently find themselves in. It is established Justice Department policy that sitting presidents cannot be indicted for actions taken while in office. But this policy as it stands, in no way affect the president's obligation to follow the law. That obligation he shares with everyone else, is unchanged by Justice Department policy. So what is the remedy if he does violate the law? Are such actions themselves legal? To the extent available, can they be reversed by courts? Are citizens obliged to follow illegal presidential policies? Are all such illegal actions grounds for impeachment?
--Hiram
"Has judge ruled on this or are you just making things up as you go?"
Congress has subpoena power, and Dump hasn't claimed executive privilege. There's nothing to make up.
What I found in a web search:
'In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that, while the court’s “interest in preserving confidentiality is weighty indeed and entitled to great respect,” in the course of investigations, “when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.”
In other words, when it comes to investigations into governmental misconduct, demands for evidence needed to properly conduct the investigation usually override invocations of executive privilege. If there is a compelling reason executive privilege is invoked for specific materials, such as protection of national security, the courts may be more likely to uphold its invocation. But in the Nixon case, the court made clear that this privilege is nullified when it comes to evidence that could prove governmental misconduct.
With the Nixon ruling, the court created legal precedent regarding the most commonly invoked type of executive privilege, which provides privacy for the president’s confidential communications. The justices posited that this protection is provided by the Constitution’s mandate of “separation of powers,” but as University of Missouri Law Professor Frank Bowman told Reuters, in the course of an impeachment inquiry, “virtually no part of a president’s duties or behavior is exempt from scrutiny.”'
Moose
Unfortunately for the DEMs, University of Missouri Law Professor Frank Bowman has ZERO authority in this case...
So we are left with....
"With the Nixon ruling, the court created legal precedent regarding the most commonly invoked type of executive privilege, which provides privacy for the president’s confidential communications. The justices posited that this protection is provided by the Constitution’s mandate of “separation of powers,”"
Until it goes to court again...
Please remember that our government was set up to protect the 3 branches from each other. They did not want Congress harassing or tossing a President out of office just because they did not like them.
This Andrew Johnson Impeachment piece is pretty fascinating.
I didn't realize you were a constitutional scholar.
My bad.
Moose
"They did not want Congress harassing or tossing a President out of office just because they did not like them."
Yet Congress has the sole power to do exactly that, and no court or executive could stop it.
Moose
They did not want Congress harassing or tossing a President out of office just because they did not like them.
It's not a question of what the founders wanted, it's a question of what the founders did. And they certainly created a system where presidential harrassment was viable, and which allowed congress to throw the president out of office. Remember, the president isn't elected by the people. He lacks the political legitimacy of Congress.
--Hiram
Hi Guys,
Sorry but it appears you are incorrect, that is unless you get 2/3 of the Senators to want to change the precedent...
You really need to read the Johnson piece... Even with majority party being against him they could not garner the votes to remove him...
Sean, Moose and Hiram,
If it was the GOP hammering on Obama in the same way for the same thing and the election was in 9 months.
Would you want the Senate to remove him from office?
Now stop and think before you answer that...
What does 9 months have to do with it? The standard should be the behavior.
I don't have to stop and think.
What do the Constitution and laws of our country require?
Moose
Well then ignore the 9 mths…
Would you want the Senate to remove Obama from office for doing these exact same things?
"Obama manipulated State personnel and Withheld Tax Payer money from an approved purpose in order to get the Ukranian government to investigate the missing server conspiracy and the Cheney situation."
Or would you give him the benefit of the doubt that had an appropriate reason for doing so?
Or may you just want to censure him for pushing the boundaries of propriety?
Same exact fact pattern with a Democrat? Sure, go ahead and impeach. I don't abide Democratic scoundrels.
If it was the GOP hammering on Obama in the same way for the same thing and the election was in 9 months.
Would you want the Senate to remove him from office?
The GOP hammered Obama for eight years. It was irritating but he lived with it, and far less self pity. Note, for example, the cooperation with the Benghazi hearings. How many hours did Hillary testify before Republican committees? How many hours has Pompeo testified before the house?
I am pretty sure if Obama had been caught conspiring with foreign leaders for personal electoral advantage, he would have been impeached. I am also pretty sure, if Trump had handled the situation better he could have avoided impeachment. The bar for Trump behavior is extremely low.
--Hiram
NYT Witnesses Less Likely
Well that was short lived good news... :-(
Now the question will be:
1. Acquitted and Trump did nothing unacceptable
2. Some form of censure
3. Removal from office
I assume 3 is off the table and my favorite #2 is unlikely...
It will be interesting to hear what Trump's takeaway from all this. I do have to say, it really is not a good idea to give a psychopath unlimited power.
--Hiram
Maybe he will learn humility...
hahahahahahahahaha
Best Questions
If the Senate proceeds without witnesses, then that should open the door for the House to just keep going. Go to court to get the witnesses and documents. Keep flogging the Parnas revelations. Set a busy September and October schedule for more hearings.
I am not sure either side will have much more patience and interest in this topic.
It seems to me the DEMs had better nominate someone who is electable in purple states and get to selling that candidate and platform.
Today Fascism wins.
I guess we'll just have to get rid of this corrupt authoritarian executive the old-fashioned way...
Moose
Moose,
You are so funny...
50% wanted him removed and 50% did not...
How do you see that as "fascism"?
"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."
Beating him is easy. The DEMs just need a person and message that resonates in more States.
Do you think the DEMs can stop focusing on the niches long enough to appeal to the masses?
"Beating him is easy."
No, it's not. The Republican Party has systematically disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of black voters across many states. The Electoral College enables them to win the Presidency despite winning an ever-shrinking minority of voter support. The GOP has now endorsed open collaboration with foreign powers to win elections. No matter who the Democratic nominee is, you're going to see some rigged up "investigation" of their "corruption" because nobody is going to be held accountable for anything. At this point, if Trump finds a way not to be re-elected in 2020, it would be a shock.
"Do you think the DEMs can stop focusing on the niches long enough to appeal to the masses?"
Democrats have won the popular vote in four of the last five elections. Appealing to the masses is not the problem.
Sean,
The system is "setup and has been the same for centuries" that to win...
A party must appeal to people from all across America...
The unfortunate reality is that the DEMs have chosen to be the party of urbanites and minority groups...
It is easy to win if the DEMs build a platform that appeals to the whole country, not mostly to urban and fringe voters.
I am not sure what happened to the DEMs that they can not appeal to the folks in the fly over states... Maybe they stopped listening to them in their race to the Left. :-(
If you doubt this how can the DEMs be thinking of nominating a DEM Socialist?
"A party must appeal to people from all across America..."
No, they don't. The GOP is a party that doesn't appeal to urban and an increasing number of suburban voters. But the system rewards arbitrary boundary lines more than people.
You are correct...
Somebody a very long time ago developed our government so a bunch of States would share a common Federal government for mutual benefit.
They could have created a Federal government that controlled a bunch of States, but that was not their decision.
They felt it was important that local government was empowered unlike back in countries where nations were ruled by the monarchs and oligarchs.
For better or worse, this our reality... Now what are the DEMs going to do to sway voters from more states?
It doesn't have to be our reality. A process was also created to change that system when it wasn't working. I would argue that moving away from the Electoral College would make it more likely that candidates engage with overlooked areas.
Under the current system, why should a Republican candidate invest resources into flipping California, or a Democratic candidate in flipping places like Alabama or Wyoming? Without the electoral college, though, there would be a lot of use in Republicans or Democrats trying to turn areas where they lose by huge margins into areas where they lose by small or moderate margins.
Without the electoral college everyone would forget flyover country exists... :-(
Not like they remember us much now days until election time... :-)
"Without the electoral college everyone would forget flyover country exists... :-("
I don't think that's true at all. Every vote would be important. A majority of the MN population is urban/suburban, yet you see both parties run statewide campaigns.
I disagree...
I think the coasts would rule the country.
I think the coasts would rule the country.
Florida doesn't have a coast. Georgia? South Carolina? North Carolina? Alabama? Mississippi? Louisiana? Texas? Are all these states coastless?
--Hiram
Does any state have more coast than Alaska?
--Hiram
Really, when you think about it, in terms of coasts, Trump has a lot more support from sand and water than the Democrats. Surely why the framers chose to give geological features the vote back there in 1787.
--Hiram
Post a Comment