I don’t believe that’s relevant to Max S.'s argument, which he summarized in this succinct paragraph:
Notice that his therefore’s and thereby’s make no mention of the “why” / the reason that the president violated the law and Article II Section 3, only that the violation happened, and that happening is enough to justify impeachment in his eyes. A similar, perhaps even more severe, violation of law occurred under Obama’s watch.
Ignoring, for the moment, the bad-faith nature of the whataboutism that Hurricane Dikta demonstrates, quoting the relevant portion of the act he refers to may be illuminating:
From here.<<color-coding mine>>
So.
This part stipulates that $50 million shall be available only for lethal equipment, subject to paragraph 3.
Paragraph 3 immediately follows. It specifically states that that $50 million held for lethal military aid “shall be available for purposes other than lethal assistance” if the Secretaries of Defense and State feel that the use for such funds for lethal equipment is not in the national security interests of the US, and certify this decision to the appropriate Congressional committee (which, by the way, was all done).
Therefore, there was no violation by the Obama administration in this matter.
Again, this is rather pointless, as it was no more than a refutation of Hurricane Dikta’s bad-faith use of “whataboutism”.
What Obama did, or didn’t do, has abso-fucking-lutely no bearing on what Trump is doing now.
What the whistleblower’s party is, has nothing to do with the evidence that has been reported, investigated, and corroborated.
Are you seriously claiming that Trumpists in government are NOT saying the whistleblower “must/needs to” testify, and they are instead saying “should” testify?
What’s next, are you going to claim that Trumpists are NOT saying that Trump has a right to face his accuser?
Again with the calling your opponents stupid. What we are seeing is your backpedaling on throwing out weak arguments, being called on it, and going on the attack, Roger Stone-style.
We are surely going to see this again in just a few minutes, when you realize that your weak position on “must/needs to” cannot be defended on its merits.
You’ve gotten confused again. I wasn’t the one that first raised the issue of Ciaramella being called to testify in the impeachment inquiry. YOU did, in post #4288.
[/QUOTE]
You are a part of the problem with what’s wrong with America today. And it is sad because I don’t think your dumb, or ill-informed (misinformed perhaps), or in a cult-like daze, like so many of Trump’s supporters. But look, Trump is a very bad person. Trump is also a very bad president. Trump is an obvious conman. Trump is an obvious criminal (sufficient for proof in court, perhaps not, but sufficient for a reasonably intelligent person to put 2 and 2 together to get criminal, oh heck yeah). It is obvious that Trump is using the office for his personal gain, and the gain of the Trump organization. Maybe Democrats and their policies are awful for the country. Maybe the Republicans are great. But none of that matters because Trump isn’t any of that. Trump is a criminal conman that is wrecking the democratic foundations and rule of law of YOUR country. A country that I legitimately think you love (I can tell by your posts, I may disagree with you, but I can tell that you want the policies that are best for the USA). Trump isn’t any of that. Trump is the swamp that he claims he’s going to drain. You do the USA no favors by continuing to carry water for Trump and sinking deeper into the muck with the Republican party. In my view, the best thing you could do is try to help the Republican party pull itself out of the Trump swamp.
Not that I think any of this will matter to you so carry on.
Comparing this to the Nixon proceedings, that was less than 50 years ago, but my impression was that a considerable portion of the population, and much of the media, considered those to be serious matters, worthy of forming some informed opinion on. And the participants seemed not solely motivated by “scoring points.”
Having a hard time viewing today’s environment as an improvement or progress. Someone help me - is this a blip, or evidence of a trend? And how is it “a good thing”?
Why? What does this have to do with anything anymore?
Look, whether you’re invoking it or not, the Sixth Amendment gives one the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The whistleblower will not be called as a witness against Trump - the case is relying entirely on other sources.
How we became aware that there was a case to be made is purely of historical interest now. Or honest curiosity. Or revenge. None of which gives anyone the right to demand his presence now. If the whistleblower keeled over dead right this minute, the case against Trump would be every bit as solid as if he were alive.
Just to clarify, do you believe any of the information that can be obtained by having the whistle blower take the stand has the potential to exonerate Trump, or do you just believe that potential “collaboration” between a whistle blower and the House Intelligence Chairman is unethical/illegal (damages the whistleblower process itself)?
Do note that Ditka is making this case in support of a man who has openly exhorted his supporters to make “2nd amendment solutions” on his political enemies.
The sixth amendment does not apply for at least two reasons:
[ol]
[li]This is not a criminal trial[/li][li]“Accusers” only applies to witnesses called to testify. Even if this proceeded to a criminal trial, there is no reason to assume that the WB wold be called as a witness. That would be totally up to the discretion of the prosecutor (although the defense could call such a person, I can’t imagine that it would be in their best interest to do so)[/li][/ol]
Note that IANAL but I have read several articles from legal professionals regarding this issue.
Ditka has stipulated to #1, and completely ignored #2.
People in this thread have compared the inquiry to a grand jury – I don’t even think that comparison is apt. We’re at the stage in the process where detectives call in witnesses to give statements at the station. The idea that anyone has a “right” to confront any witness at this stage, or publicly name them, is absurd. It’s mobster thinking.
What makes this process uniquely frustrating is that this SHOULD all be happening behind closed doors, by the FBI at the direction of the AG, except the AG has decided he serves the president and not the constitution. So the only recourse congress has is to hold hearings. Except half of the people tasked with the investigation have already decided that no crime has been committed, so they’re completely uninterested in asking relevant questions.
It’d be like 2 detectives investigating a case, one is interested in the truth and calling appropriate witnesses down to the station to give statements, and the other is trying to burn the police station down.
Back to the Trumpist tactic of having an impossibly high threshold to prove wrongdoing by Trump, but Obama et al need to prove their innocence even when your charge that they broke the law misfires, eh?
I just spot-checked yesterday’s proceedings — I had to turn it off about two minutes into Devin Nunes because I didn’t want to break the television by throwing something at it — but I really liked Ambassador Taylor’s facial expressions when the Republican counsel kept trying to make him say that CFSG’s actions were really no big deal.
Oh, and Peter Welch’s response to Jim Jordan hammering away at HD’s main talking point:
(From what I could see, if Jordan had been brought in to be an attack dog, he needs to go back to the pound. Not even good theatrics.)
