If you listened to the testimony on the radio, which I did, it was pretty compelling. The substance of it is hard to ignore. I just think it’ll end up like the Mueller hearings.
I think Trump and Trumpism will probably be wounded politically as a result of the hearings but he’ll have enough support to survive. I suspect part of the reticence among the center and center right to favor impeach Trump is just a fundamental desire to have the final say for themselves at the ballot box. For some percentage of the electorate, it’s possible to dislike Trump but dislike the idea that their opportunity to vote for or against him could be taken away from them.
You are confused. The only place I brought up the 6th amendment was in response to JohnT’s “traffic court” analogy. It was a specific response to his post. You (and many others) are reading into that some broader defense of President Trump that simply isn’t made there.
Perhaps it would clarify the matter for you if you could try to to tell me specifically which “risible claim” I made and which post I made it in.
I can only speculate as to the justification but I am of the opinion that there are situations where a president is justified in asking another country to investigate a US citizen. Specifically I think it can be justified when the DoJ has an ongoing investigation, based on a reasonable suspicion if not probable cause, and hits a roadblock that requires cooperation with the foreign country’s law enforcement.
I am not assuming that Trump was the origin of the push to investigate Hunter Biden or Burisma. But to answer your question, I suppose he should have taken that request to the Department of Justice.
Any valid truth seeking reasons? I mean, trying to smear the messenger, when the message is verified, is an utter bullshit distraction tactic not a real reason.
But that is not the situation that is relevant here. There is no evidence that Trump was asking “a favor, though” of Zelensky on behalf of an ongoing investigation of the Bidens by the US Department of Justice. If such evidence existed, why would it be kept secret, given that it would exonerate Trump?
It’s also not the case that Trump was asking Zelensky for an investigation. The evidence suggests that Trump was asking only that an investigation be announced:
It was a fairly clever scheme, actually. If the head of a sovereign nation announced ‘we are investigating [a major political figure]’ that would be above-the-fold, breaking-news headlines for days or even weeks. Every outlet–CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and on and on–would have given it major coverage. No actual “investigating” would have been needed; Joe Biden would have become ‘the guy so dirty another nation had to investigate him’ to millions.
Clever scheme. Foiled by a patriotic whistleblower. What a disappointing blow to autocrats!
There is another concern about not following proper channels that I would like to address. This would be a much different situation if Trump had asked Great Britain or Canada to help investigate a private citizen. Depending on the circumstances it might still be wrong, but not nearly as wrong.
If you have listened to or read the testimonies of the diplomatic staff, you will find the theme of “Ukraine is not a “rule of law” country” repeated time and again. This is actually important. The Ukrainian legal system does not afford the same protections as the US legal system. One reason investigations are handled jointly under MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) is to ensure that US citizen receive fair and humane treatment. Otherwise you could be setting up an American citizen to be tortured or even murdered.
I have been interested in the mechanics of corruption in the former USSR for a long time now, ever since I read Bill Browder’s book Red Notice. After which I read a lot of other books and material on the subject. It’s impossible to convey in a message board post the depth and breadth of corruption in the former USSR, especially to an audience that refuses to get it. But one reason fighting corruption is such a challenge is that if you stripped away the corruption, there would be nothing left. One USSR businessperson claimed she ran for public office because she couldn’t afford not to. If she held that office, that was one less person she had to pay off.
And “anti-corruption” efforts are frequently just a changing of the guard in corruption land. But, in general, the pro-Western faction have to at least do a better job of pretending not to be corrupt than the pro-Russians like Guiliani’s clients. Burisma was built on corruption like EVERY SINGLE LARGE COMPANY IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.
Because when the country’s assets were divided up, the big industrial interests went to the guys that were able to steal them. And they are passed from thief to thief during the course of various regime changes and “anti-corruption” campaigns.
So a key part of Western anti-corruption efforts include stopping bogus “anti-corruption” investigations by partisan prosecutors. It also includes sometimes overlooking the past offenses of the company’s owners - who are pretty much all dirty - if they keep their noses clean, submit to oversight and run their companies cleanly and adhered to Western standards of corporate governance (This is why the companies loaded up their boards with Americans). It also provides plenty of fuel for gaslighting people that don’t understand the politics of the region.
This is why the US has preferred that Ukraine concentrate its anti-corruption efforts on the plenty of open cases where people are currently stealing from the Ukrainian people. The State Dept and NCS officials briefly described a few of those cases in their depositions.
I’m no mindreader, so I won’t speculate on your motives. But your bringing up the sixth amendment in a context very similar to the risible way other Republicans have brought it up, and then claiming you were talking about something entirely different and completely trifling, is successfully derailing the thread once more.
I’ll stop responding to the derailment, now that it’s clear you’re unwilling to back that particular talking point, and hope that others will, in order to keep this specific thread derailment from continuing.
So you raise some manufactured reasons why someone needs to testify in an impeachment proceeding, someone calls out your manufactured reasons using an analogy, you respond with something about the 6th Amendment; and you blame someone else for raising the issue of someone being called to testify in the impeachment trial - an issue that YOU raised in the first place. Then, you basically call me stupid because you can’t keep a coherent line of argument on the whistleblower. Nice.
If anything, this shows how little Republicans have in the way of substance on this topic. It all boils down to “you can’t make me oppose Trump” and character attacks.
Regarding Ann Hedonia’s post: That’s pretty important. By delving into how totally not unreasonable it is for Trump to ask for investigations for specific individuals, you are defending a form of corruption Max S. It’s not an anti corruption probe if you are only asking to investigate your opponents.
I watched Tucker Carlson’s take on Day One, what the heck. His guests were Stephanie Grisham (who I’ve never seen, she never gives press conferences AFAIK) and a GOP congressperson from Ohio. Nobody, not once, made any reference to the substance of the impeachment inquiry. Tucker’s assertion is that the Dems are “making it up as they go”, and that the whole thing is actually about a policy difference between Trump and The Establishment, namely that Trump would like to get along with Russia (who is No Threat To America!) while The Establishment is stuck in 1977.
Again, not one reference to the substance of the impeachment inquiry.
In a trial, yes. This isnt a* trial*. It’s a pre-indictment hearing. Generally, the People lays out evidence that will allow the Jury to return a indictment. The Defense is not generally allowed to cross examine the witnesses or bring in exculpatory evidence. The witnesses need not be present in person.
When it gets to the Senate, if Mitch allows a trial, then the defense may cross examine any witnesses. The Senate does the Trial, the House the hearing/ Indictment.
No he is correct, When it gets to the trial stage, all witnesses must be available for cross examination. A anonymous tip can be *probable cause *but it cant be used during the actual trial.
Does anyone know if Democratic senators gain greater discovery powers during the Senate phase of the impeachment? Can they submit and discovery request for the actual transcript of the call and have it produced? Actually get Mick to testify? Giuliani? If Giuliani claims some bogus AC privilege, can John Roberts say, “Bullshit” and make him answer?
So in the scenario I outlined in which a punk drops a dime on on a rival, you, as the DA, would fell it’s your duty to tell the drug dealer “Oh, by the way, just so you know, it was Jimmy the fink who ratted you out.”?