NYT 5 Takeaways from Bolton's Book
NYT Recording Shows that Swamp has NOT been drained
And of course the untrustable Trump claims that the very stalwart Bolton can not be trusted... :-)
The good news is that rationale professionals like Romney are starting to think that witnesses will be necessary. It will be interesting to see how the Trump Defense shifts with the ever growing evidence that he did with hold tax dollars for a personal investigation announcement...
I could not decide which comic I liked best, so I gave you 2.
NYT Recording Shows that Swamp has NOT been drained
And of course the untrustable Trump claims that the very stalwart Bolton can not be trusted... :-)
The good news is that rationale professionals like Romney are starting to think that witnesses will be necessary. It will be interesting to see how the Trump Defense shifts with the ever growing evidence that he did with hold tax dollars for a personal investigation announcement...
I could not decide which comic I liked best, so I gave you 2.
off topic link to contradict John's view that the GOP cares about the deficit:
ReplyDeleteRepublicans Are Very, Very Bad For the Deficit
At one time I thought the GOP wanted to cut spending, however with Trump in charge they are about as bad as the DEMs...
ReplyDeleteAnd I am painfully aware that the GOP is bad for the National debt...
Unless there is a DEM President in charge... Like with Clinton and Obama...
That is one reason I do regret voting against Hillary... At least the GOP would have fought her on spending, where as they seem to want to give Trump carte blanche.
Debt concerns have never driven our politics, although talk of debt has been a factor.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
The reason why lowering the debt doesn't happen is that it doesn't have a political constituency. Nobody hires a lobbyist in order to get less money.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
Actually at one time it must have been very different or they would not have taxed and scrimped so hard to pay down the debt from WWI and WWII.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that it is the baby boomers who grew up feeling entitled to pay low taxes and get large benefits...
I wonder why? Maybe that shift towards the Left?
Everyone wanted something for themselves or others but was unwilling to pay for it?
Debt was never a big issue for me. It's something that has been complained about all my life and never seems to matter. In political terms, I thought it became a dead issue when Republicans, the party committed to fiscal responsibility, gave us the largest tax cut in human history, which as you see, simply has not destroyed the economy.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
Of course debt is not an issue for you...
ReplyDeleteYou will be dead when the IOU's come due... :-)
The problem though is that most Baby Boomers and people of whatever they call my generation are just like you... :-(
ReplyDeleteWAPO 4 Takeaways from Defense on Monday
ReplyDeleteReuters Alan Dershowitz makes strong argument
Did any of you listen to Dershowitz? He definitely did a good job of explaining why it seems the DEMs really made the wrong charges...
The Hill Dershowitz Opinion
ReplyDeleteYou will be dead when the IOU's come due... :-)
ReplyDeleteIOU's come due every minute of every day. Yet eve Republicans claim the economy is thriving. What's the big deal?
--Hiram
Dershowitz, it seemed to me, made a "This is Spinal Tap" type argument. He said the presidents abuse of power went only to 10 when it really needs to go to eleven in order to be impeachable.
ReplyDelete==Hiram
Alan Dershowitz is a grifting clown who has totally flip-flopped on his position from the Clinton years.
ReplyDeleteDershowitz is a professional defense attorneys, and professional defense attorneys as a class, tend to be skeptical of all aspects of prosecution cases.
ReplyDeleteJust as a practical matter, I wouldn't be comfortable telling a president that no abuse of power can rise to the level of an impeachable offense. It's also the case that it really isn't a good idea to tell a psychopath that he is exempt from the application of the law. Trump is willing to murder on a whim, and that really is someone to whom you want to give a constitutional blank check.
--Hiram
Hiram,
ReplyDeleteOf course it is thriving... We are spending $1,000,000,000,000+ more than we are paying each year... Let the good times roll as long until the credit card runs out... Yippeeee…
Sean,
Dershowitz did cover that change of perspective in his lecture...
I do wonder why the House settled on such vague charges as:
ReplyDelete- Abuse of Power
- Obstruction of Congress
Especially since they did not wait to get a ruling by the courts...
ReplyDeleteThis keeps getting more interesting... :-)
Senate DEM says Defense made Good Points regarding Obstruction Charge
ReplyDeleteWhat is "vague" about the House charges, exactly?
ReplyDeleteJust say you're voting for Trump already and spare us 9 more months of this nonsense.
"Obstruction of Congress"
ReplyDelete- When would this apply in the future?
- What if the House and Senate are one party and the President is another?
- Can the Congress over ride our vote?
"Abuse of Power"
- This is generic complaint that often made...
- How does one measure that it was "excessive"?
"When would this apply in the future?"
ReplyDeleteWhen a President obstructs Congress.
"What if the House and Senate are one party and the President is another?"
You mean like during the Clinton impeachment, when the President himself gave a lengthy deposition, turned over thousands of documents, allowed staff members to testify...
"Can the Congress over ride our vote?"
If the President behaves an impeachable manner, they can be removed. That was what the Founding Fathers said. When a President is impeached, their Vice President becomes President, not the leader of the opposing party.
Seriously, that's your lame-ass argument?
Again, just tell us you're voting for Trump and get this charade over with.
Please define "Obstructs Congress" in measurable terms.
ReplyDeletePlease define "Impeachable manner".
Clinton was accused of a crime and ended up giving up his law license as part of his punishment.
- When would this apply in the future?
ReplyDeleteProbably if the executive categorically refused to honor congressional subpoenas.
- What if the House and Senate are one party and the President is another?
That doesn't make a difference. Each house of congress has subpoena power.
- Can the Congress over ride our vote?
Congress has the power to impeach. If that means anything, it must mean that Congress has the power to override the vote. And bear in mind, the president is a special case since he is not elected by voters. Impeaching the president does not override any vote.
--Hiram
I don't think the guy who talked about this being the "Age of Impeachment" was wrong. The next time there is a Democratic president with a Republican House of Representatives, it is virtually guaranteed that the president will be impeached. Our government is failing, and one way that manifests itself is in the loss of legitimacy of our political leaders. That's not something I like, but it is happening, it's the new normal, something we all have to live with.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
"Please define "Obstructs Congress" in measurable terms."
ReplyDeleteIt's not a number or a rate. The President was charged with this because he engaged in a complete stonewall of Congress's impeachment investigation.
"Please define "Impeachable manner"."
We've seen how it's been done in the past, right? Andrew Johnson was impeached for ignoring Congressional acts. Nixon was going to be impeached for abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and contempt of Congress. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress (essentially the same as the contempt of Congress charge against Nixon). There's nothing novel about what Trump is being impeached for.
"Clinton was accused of a crime and ended up giving up his law license as part of his punishment."
Bill Clinton was not accused of a crime. His fine and disbarment were civil procedures, not criminal ones.
Sean,
ReplyDeleteIf you have 2 people of equal power who disagree... How do we know who is obstructing who? That is why it was important to get the third person (ie court) to weigh in.
Clinton and Nixon both had crimes against them...
Johnson is more like this one and he was acquitted for the same reason Trump will likely be acquitted
The changes could be easily interpreted to be political in nature.
You and Hiram like to slice that crime definition pretty thin....
ReplyDeleteIf I get a parking ticket I broke the law and have to pay a fine...
It doesn't matter to me that it is just a civil offense, I still have to pay the piper...
Oops... Apparently you were incorrect...
ReplyDelete"On his last day in office in 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license in order to head off any criminal charges for lying under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton has been eligible to seek reinstatement of his license since 2006, but as of 2013 he had not applied to do so."
Or these folks are wrong.
Yep... Perjury is a crime...
ReplyDelete"That is why it was important to get the third person (ie court) to weigh in."
ReplyDelete"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Sole. Power.
The courts have no say.
Moose
Moose,
ReplyDeleteThe House does have the right to investigate and impeach...
The question is if the Executive Branch needs to participate in their investigation?
That is the question the court has not answered yet...
And the Senate has the right to not remove the President from office...
This is an excellent civics lesson...
You and Hiram like to slice that crime definition pretty thin....
ReplyDeleteTrump is a murderer. You don't have to slice a crime definition thinly to find that.
--Hiram
Hiram,
ReplyDeletePlease provide evidence and why didn't the House Impeach him for that?
"On his last day in office in 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license in order to head off any criminal charges for lying under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky. "
ReplyDeleteGood thing we don't have a President today who's settled cases to put potential charges behind him, right?
Sean,
ReplyDeleteCouldn't you just say....
Yes John, you were correct and I was incorrect?
Bill Clinton was still never charged with any crime.
ReplyDelete"you were correct and I was incorrect?"
ReplyDeleteComing from a guy who continually posts the same already debunked crap over and over again?
Please give me an example...
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure I provide sources for most of my "crap".
Just because you disagree with them does not make the debunked. :-)
One of the charges in his Impeachment proceedings was perjury.
ReplyDeleteAnd he in essence took a plea bargain so he would not later go to court.
Any time you wander into talking about welfare, you drag up the same old canards, misstate the requirements and limits, post the same old videos and make up your own figures about "waste".
ReplyDelete"One of the charges in his Impeachment proceedings was perjury."
ReplyDeleteImpeachment ain't a criminal trial.
"And he in essence took a plea bargain so he would not later go to court."
So like the Trump Foundation situation then, which was also at risk of generating criminal charges before the settlement.
Please continue to correct me if I misstate a fact.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do hypothesize occasionally which includes making assumptions / estimates. I am pretty sure I clearly note that they are assumptions and not facts. Usually then I ask people for better estimates / data.
This started when you I brought up the vagueness of the Trump charges. My point was simply that Nixon and Clinton were accused of specific crimes.
Not so with Trump or Johnson.
The charges against Trump aren't vague, though. They're not crimes under statute, but they aren't vague. It's very clear behaviors what the articles assert was an abuse of power (leveraging Ukrainian military aid for personal political benefit) and obstruction of Congress (not allowing officials to testify and not turning over documents under subpoena).
ReplyDeleteFrom your perspective they are not vague. And that is based on some strong assumptions.
ReplyDelete"leveraging Ukrainian military aid for personal political benefit"
How do you know he was not just chasing conspiracy theories because he thought it was good to clear them up?
"not allowing officials to testify and not turning over documents under subpoena"
Without a judges ruling, how do you know this is not allowed?
I am not sure the jury is supposed to bringing all that bias and opinion into their deliberations.
"How do you know he was not just chasing conspiracy theories because he thought it was good to clear them up?"
ReplyDeleteBecause he was using his personal attorney as the point man for the scheme.
"Without a judges ruling, how do you know this is not allowed?"
As I've pointed out before, the Trump team was not operating in good faith with their changing rationales depending on who was hearing the argument. This in and of itself is evidence of obstruction. With the President engaged in active attempts to undermine the 2020 election, allowing him to tie this up for months in the courts is not a feasible option.
"I am not sure the jury is supposed to bringing all that bias and opinion into their deliberations."
The House is not the jury.
Ah... But here we are talking about the Senate...
ReplyDeleteMost of Senate had already made up their mind before the articles of impeachment were approved.
ReplyDeleteI unfortunately think that was true for members from both parties. :-(
ReplyDeleteSo much for that oath to be impartial.