The Trump Impeachment Inquiry

[steronz]

@Max_S

Responding out of order, but I don’t think that’s a strong question. The presumption is of innocence and the burden for corrupt purpose is beyond a reasonable doubt - these are my opinions of course, but I believe they are shared by most if not all Republican Senators who constitute the jury majority. I’m speculating, but something as simple as “We didn’t have an ambassador at the time and I thought I/Rudy/Bill Barr could do a better job than Mr. Taylor” would prevent me from finding corrupt purpose without as-of-yet-unseen evidence to the contrary.

~Max

You keep trying to dance on the head of this pin here. And maybe, sure, maybe Trump will be standing there on the head of that pin with you after all the cards fall. With God, all things are possible.

But please, take a step back. At best, AT BEST, this Ukraine fiasco tells us 3 things. One, Trump is a terrible leader, since his own state department employees have testified that they had no fucking clue what was going on. Two, Trump is a terrible communicator, since no coherent message was ever presented to his own staff about his vision for Ukraine. And three, Trump has absolutely no understanding about ethics in government.

Do you see what all the career civil servants did after witnessing even small parts of this shitshow go down? They did what ethical people do - - they documented their observations contemporaneously, they spoke to their chain of command, they spoke to legal counsel, they reported things to the IG. Every single one. As they’re trained to do.

If Trump had even one iota of a clue about how government ethics work he would have known, KNOWN, that the career civil servants would have reacted the way they did. He would have KNOWN that there would be reasonable concerns about the appearance of unethical behavior. To combat these entirely predictable reactions, he would have clearly COMMUNICATED his plan to the state department. He would have coordinated with legal counsel. He would have couched all of the above in clearly defined policy goals that would result in effective execution of his vision.

But he didn’t. And every time Donald Trump finds himself in ethical hot water, he and his drones blame everyone but the one person who could have prevented each and every scandal in the first place, by being an effective communicator and leader.

So MAYBE you’re right, in that Trump is totally ethical but just completely bad at his job. Is that the goal post now?

Isn’t it much more likely that the reason he keeps finding himself in these ethical quandaries is that, you know, he actually lacks ethics?

[Skywatcher]

@steronz

Trump has absolutely no understanding about ethics in government.

Or anywhere else, for that matter.

[JohnT]

Max S’s “arguments” rest on a faulty assumption which has zero basis in historical fact: that sovereign nations welcome interference with the political processes which determine the leaders of the State’s policy-making apparatus.

No successful country in recorded history has ever welcomed foreign influence in this decision. In fact, when this does occur, it is commonly cited as an indicator of that State’s decline.

So all that wall of text? It’s meaningless wordsmithing, with little fact or historicity behind it, because the assumption behind the wall is… well, it’s wrong. It’s like generating a mathematical proof after declaring any number divided by zero = 14.3765. The proof itself may work, but since it isn’t factual, it’s worthless.

[JohnT]

(Is ‘historicity’ a word? It is one now! )

[steronz]

(in reply to Skywatcher)

Sure. But my point is that civil servants are taught ethics. It’s not like Bill Taylor reacted the way he did because he’s a particularly ethical person (although he may very well be, and I have no reason to doubt that he is). Rather, he reacted the way any civil servant would have. And Trump lackeys are quick to say, “But Trump isn’t a politician!” which in this case is to say, Trump never had the ethical training Bill Taylor likely did.

But he’s had almost 3 years now to surround himself with people who know these things. He’s had almost 3 years to learn how government works. But we’re made to believe that he was just straight up baffled at how all these government employees and “so called whistleblowers” reacted to his actions? Is he that bad at being a leader? And is that the defense Republicans really want to hang their hat on? If he can’t identify unethical behavior when he’s the one doing it, how can we expect him to clean up corruption in the US, Ukraine, or in his own staff?

We can’t. Either Trump is unethical, or he’s so bad at being president that there’s no functional difference between him acting unethical because he’s a bad person and him acting unethical because he’s incompetent.

[eschrodinger]

Nothing in my post that you quoted, MaxS said that the president lacked the power to do those things. It said it was an abuse of power to do those things for those purposes.

And while it may have been an interesting exercise weeks ago to think about how things might play out if there had been a legitimate US DOJ investigation going on, by now it is clear that is not what was happening. So I’m not going to respond to all the rest of what you posted.

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

@steronz

…Either Trump is unethical, or he’s so bad at being president that there’s no functional difference between him acting unethical because he’s a bad person and him acting unethical because he’s incompetent.

I don’t know that I would say he is unethical, I think amoral might be a better word. I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist so I have not training to diagnose our President but it seems to me he looks at right and wrong only in relation to how it impacts him personally or what he personally wants. If that means he is a narcissist so be it but I don’t pretend to be qualified to make that diagnosis.

We know he doesn’t read much of anything and clearly he has very little understanding of how our government functions or what limits there are on the office he holds. His ignorance in this regard is clearly illustrated in his tweet today claiming the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution is “phony” while at the same time saying the impeachment investigation is itself unconstitutional. There can be no question this guy is the most ignorant person to ever hold the office he currently occupies.

Can he be unethical if he is too stunted intellectually to understand what ethics actually are?

[steronz]

I mean, in my own government domain, when someone is caught violating ethical guidelines it’s a fact based decision, intent or ignorance of the rules doesn’t come into it. So whatever point you’re trying to make, and linguisticly or semantically I think you’re making a good point, it doesn’t really apply to the issue of whether or not Trump is a dingbat.

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

@steronz

I mean, in my own government domain, when someone is caught violating ethical guidelines it’s a fact based decision, intent or ignorance of the rules doesn’t come into it. So whatever point you’re trying to make, and linguisticly or semantically I think you’re making a good point, it doesn’t really apply to the issue of whether or not Trump is a dingbat.

I wholeheartedly agree that understanding/knowledge of rules or of the law as well as intent or ignorance of said rules/laws don’t figure into it. I believe the President is completely lacking any understanding of right and wrong in the way you and I understand it. Anything that affects him negatively is dishonest, crooked, unconstitutional, blah blah blah. Things that are pleasing or have a positive impact are perfect, beautiful, blah blah blah. There is something wrong with the way his brain perceives what is going on around him. Maybe it’s mental. Maybe it’s developmental. But clearly the guy isn’t right in the head in some way.

[Dr.Colossus]

@Dinsdale

So at what point is Trump subpoenaed to testify? What happens then?

The only thing I know about ANYTHING is that ANYONE who handles Trump will never, ever, let him any where near a sworn testimony because anyone who has ever met him knows he can’t help but purger himself via every spoken word excreted from his neck orifice.

I’m not going to be more descriptive because I’ve already been warned about sexually descriptive conversation,

…

But Trump’s neck folds.

He lies out of those neck folds. This guy can’t ever be put under oath because he literally cannot refrain from lying because he literally cannot understand what truth even is.

(moderation warning duly note).

[Dr.Colossus]

I don’t know where else to post this for effect, but tonight I saw “we are trademarking the term ‘fake news’ so we can sue Trump if he uses it.”

I loled myself into a fit.

Who is doing that?!

TEEN VOGUE.

I laughed so hard I might as well be dead. Now I hope I die tonight because what can beat that? TEEN VOGUE is a front-line infantry against president pussy-throat.

(mod warning noted).

[OttoDaFe]

@Dinsdale

So at what point is Trump subpoenaed to testify? What happens then?

Kindasorta related, at 10:00 EDT Wednesday a panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an appeal of a decision forcing Mazars (CFSG’s accounting firm) to hand over eight years of financial records to the Manhattan District Attorney. This is the case in which CFSG’s lawyers argued that a sitting President is immune from any legal proceeding regarding his actions before or during his tenure — an argument which Judge Victor Marrero called “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.”

What makes this at least tangentially related to the topic at hand is that in the same ruling, the judge also cast doubt on the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted:

In his 75-page opinion, Marrero wrote that the theory holding that a president cannot be indicted "has gained a certain degree of axiomatic acceptance, and the DOJ Memos which propagate it have assumed substantial legal force as if their conclusion were inscribed on constitutional tablets so-etched by the Supreme Court.” His view, however, was different: “The Court considers such popular currency for the categorical concept and its legal support as not warranted.”

Whether this part of the ruling is addressed in the appeal isn’t apparent. If it is, and the judge’s opinion is upheld … better lay in lots&lots of popcorn.

[guizot]

@Kolak_of_Twilo

Can he be unethical if he is too stunted intellectually to understand what ethics actually are?

Of course he can. Ethics are manifested through behavior, not understanding. If his intellect is so stunted that it can’t guide him ethnically then he is still, by definition, unethical.

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

@guizot

Of course he can. Ethics are manifested through behavior, not understanding. If his intellect is so stunted that it can’t guide him ethnically then he is still, by definition, unethical.

Undoubtedly his behavior is unethical. I have no question about that.

[mjmlabs]

@OttoDaFe

Kindasorta related, at 10:00 EDT Wednesday a panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an appeal of a decision forcing Mazars (CFSG’s accounting firm) to hand over eight years of financial records to the Manhattan District Attorney. This is the case in which CFSG’s lawyers argued that a sitting President is immune from any legal proceeding regarding his actions before or during his tenure — an argument which Judge Victor Marrero called “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.”

What makes this at least tangentially related to the topic at hand is that in the same ruling, the judge also cast doubt on the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted:Whether this part of the ruling is addressed in the appeal isn’t apparent. If it is, and the judge’s opinion is upheld … better lay in lots&lots of popcorn.

These are, indeed, interesting times. I wouldn’t mind seeing an Amendment to the Constitution to the effect that A) A sitting President cannot be indicted, and/but B) All relevant statutes of limitation are tolled (“suspended,” essentially–the clock doesn’t run during the President’s term), and investigations into Presidential criminality are expressly permitted. This, of course, will never happen, but a boy can dream, can’t he?

On a laugh-to-keep-from-grinding-your-molars note, here’s Rudy in a cartoon from Connecticut’s own [del]Dan Perkins[/del] Tom Tomorrow: Subpoena, Schmubpoena

[Dinsdale]

@steronz

…But please, take a step back. At best, AT BEST, this Ukraine fiasco tells us 3 things. One, Trump is a terrible leader, since his own state department employees have testified that they had no fucking clue what was going on. Two, Trump is a terrible communicator, since no coherent message was ever presented to his own staff about his vision for Ukraine. And three, Trump has absolutely no understanding about ethics in government.
…

This is exceptionally well put. Hard to imagine how someone would disagree with all 3 points. But it seems that, at least, many people just don’t care. :rolleyes:

[YamatoTwinkie]

@Dinsdale

This is exceptionally well put. Hard to imagine how someone would disagree with all 3 points. But it seems that, at least, many people just don’t care. :rolleyes:

Yes, I think best case for Trump is that his “amazing presidential intuition” was correct all along, and despite all current available evidence to the contrary, the Bidens were actually engaged in criminal activity in Ukraine, and the crackpot Crowdstrike conspiracy theory is true. Max S seems to be withholding judgement until Trump has laid out his case here, and I can somewhat understand that.

I deeply suspect, however, that we’re never going to get anything more from Trump/Giuliani to prove their case other than random crap like this:

BREAKING NEWS twitter nonsense from Giuliani on October 10, which turns out to be a photo of an april printout of a wikileaks dump made public years ago.

Yes, read that again.

But even if all the conspiracy theories are true, those 3 points would still stand.

[Ravenman]

The world was juuuuuust starting to forget about Paul Manafort’s corrupt dealings with Ukraine that landed him in Federal prison… so thanks, Rudy, for reminding everyone of how Trump’s campaign manager is now behind bars!

[carlb]

I have not thought this through in any detail, so please start picking holes in this idea.

I think the best strategy for the House is to issue a few well-defined Articles of Impeachment that are the most solidly-backed, and the easiest for the public to wrap their heads around. Ukraine seems like the strongest case. I think a few of the more egregious instances of obstruction of justice are good candidates.

But (and, like I said, I have not really spent significant brainpower on this)…

What if they included one or two articles that were a little less certain, to provide cover whereby some of the more persuadable Senate Republicans could vote for acquittal? Essentially give them something where they could say to the less-rabid on the right, “see, I exercised my best judgement, and I voted against the ‘fake’ issues. But, some of this was just too egregious to stand for.”

Yeah, I know. The more I think about it, the more silly this idea seems. Still, I like to think there is a way to loosen up the Senate Republican voting bloc. Hope springs eternal and all that.

[Akaj]

@carlb

I have not thought this through in any detail, so please start picking holes in this idea.

I think the best strategy for the House is to issue a few well-defined Articles of Impeachment that are the most solidly-backed, and the easiest for the public to wrap their heads around. Ukraine seems like the strongest case. I think a few of the more egregious instances of obstruction of justice are good candidates.

But (and, like I said, I have not really spent significant brainpower on this)…

What if they included one or two articles that were a little less certain, to provide cover whereby some of the more persuadable Senate Republicans could vote for acquittal? Essentially give them something where they could say to the less-rabid on the right, “see, I exercised my best judgement, and I voted against the ‘fake’ issues. But, some of this was just too egregious to stand for.”

Yeah, I know. The more I think about it, the more silly this idea seems. Still, I like to think there is a way to loosen up the Senate Republican voting bloc. Hope springs eternal and all that.

So let me get this straight – you want Dems in the House to include weak articles of impeachment so GOP senators can vote to acquit but still look ethical by criticizing Trump for his behavior named in the stronger articles?

So GOP senators win re-election and Trump stays in office (but maybe gets his feelings hurt)?

Why on earth would Dems do that?