I know that there are some differences between a rabid wolverine and my friend’s pet ferret Winkles. Do you recognize that there are some similarities too?
Yes, for the same reason that I think police should follow the law when investigating a crime.
Are you trying to mischaracterize the letter?
Here’s what really happened. DoJ was investigating Paul Manafort and others. There were reports that Trump tried to tell Ukraine not to cooperate with those investigations. The Democratic senators wrote to a Ukrainian official asking if he has curtailed such investigations at the behest of the White House or others.
I think anyone who isn’t carrying water for Trump recognizes that this letter is nothing like you’ve portrayed it.
The only thing consistent is the White House’s corrupt intent on using law enforcement investigations for their own political gains – either to investigate, or not investigate. Standing up against that corruption is not its own form of corruption.
I agree with all you said wholeheartedly, and I don’t underestimate the venality of Kavanaugh, Alito and their ilk. Agree also that if SCOTUS rules 8-1 or 9-0 in favor, it will only be because the scumsters (love!) knew they didn’t have 5 votes. Like you, I expect Roberts to be the swinger in this instance (behind closed doors as you suggest). But my reason for this belief is a little more specific than yours on this point.
Roberts will shortly be sitting as the judge in an impeachment proceeding. He can’t go against what is the plain letter of the law in this instance as understood by, well… almost everyone, and maintain his charade of impartiality – which matters to him a great deal.
Honestly, that’s the only reason I expect him to swing his 5th vote toward the rule of law this time. Should the GOP come out of this shit show with some – any – thin veneer of credibility, I expect all 5 to do exactly as they and their Federalist Society masters bid them. Hell, they may not even any longer feel they need the thin veneer of credibility.
As much as anything I mourned on the night of November 8, 2016, it was what I knew would be the total loss of a fair, impartial SCOTUS for at least a generation. Our chickens have come home to roost. It sickens me how few voters understood the importance of this, couldn’t see the writing on the wall after Moscow Mitch’s twisting of traditional rules to deny Merrick Garland a vote. And here we are.
It is well known that corruption had played an unfortunate role in the political life of Ukraine. No doubt, the Leader’s zeal to avoid that contamination led him to demand investigations into that rampant corruption. We may rest assured that the investigation into the Bidens was merely one of many, many such investigations inspired by the Presidents leadership and zeal.
I suppose we could rest even more assured if HD would favor us with a list of those many, many investigations that did not include the Bidens. Maybe just the top ten, or so? Five?
One?
So the justification is that in the past someone didn’t audit Nixon’s tax records thoroughly, so this congress going to audit Trump’s returns without any specified evidence there was a lenient auditing of them? I don’t agree with that logic.
Which means the justification they aren’t his is not valid and hopefully the actual justification is valid.
I know these topics are fraught with looking for political motives and such. My question was not. You could have asked if that was my motivation. You seemed to be looking for more in my question than was there and were trying to answer an underlying thought that I did not have.
Sorry for being shirty. If I said, “If you were beating your wife last week you need to stop”, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t just think, “Well, I’m not beating my wife, so that statement is of no concern to me.”
Did you read the article I cited? It makes the legislative history of this statute clear. Trump has a pretty steep uphill climb.
I think that’s exactly what I did. I’m not sure why the word, ‘if,’ is meaningful when you say it but not when I do.
I’m sorry if you assumed I was ascribing such a motive to you, but I really was asking. I couldn’t think of another reason why you would be so concerned that a public official was being made to comply with legitimate oversight that is well established in the history of our nation. If you need that to be my failing, I’m ok with that.
I would only add the point that if Trump had released his tax returns as he repeatedly promised he would, and in accordance with the custom and practice of all presidents over the past 40 years, then there would have been no need for us to go through this nastiness at all.
I wasn’t interested in the statute, honestly. I asked about the 4th amendment protections. I know the statute exists and I know it is an uphill battle for Trump to circumvent it. One argument, I would think, is that he does still have some protections against an overzealous legislative body. I’m not saying that is the case here, but I am saying that just because it is a statute doesn’t mean other protections aren’t available. I asked about one that might be available. I truly hope Congress gets a look at his tax returns, but only if done in alignment with the democratic principles we have in this country.
You didn’t ask. “If” isn’t the word you need to focus on here. You made a statement based on a presumption or guess as to the motivation. Using the word “if” doesn’t make that go away. I see no question. Only a statement.
Do you always assume that the only reason anyone does something or asks questions is limited to the reasons you can think of? Because if so, that is kind of a big failing. Where did I express concern? It was a legal question. Period. You are ascribing motives and now concern to me that do not exist.
You do like the word “if.” If pigs had wings, they would fly. And??? It doesn’t matter what every other president did or didn’t do. Trump is a liar, clearly, but I don’t think that justifies an intrusion into his private life. Just because he said he would release them and hasn’t doesn’t give congress the right to go look anyway. Do you think it does?
Latest Trump defenses:
-
All witnesses against Trump are “never Trumpers” and are biased. Any witnesses in favor of Trump do not have to testify under oath because this is a sham. They can say what they want via twitter.
-
Nobody has asked witnesses directly if this was bribery. Nobody has said in depositions that Trump is guilty of bribery. Therefore Trump is innocent of everything.
I do. I say this as a former public servant who was subjected to a number of intrusions I would not have endured other than the fact that I chose to accept a job in the public sector.
If a private citizen wishes to retain his/her privacy to the full extent offered under the law, then don’t seek public service.
Okay, after watching the entirety of today’s hearing:
I don’t think we learned anything we didn’t know before from the transcripts of closed door testimony.
There was less grandstanding today than there was in last week’s hearings.
The Republicans didn’t seem interested in discussing or confirming the facts that these witnesses were called to share. Rather they seemed interested in reading conspiracy theories into the record (looking directly at you, Jordan).
More harping on “secret” meetings and “unfair” processes. No rebuttal that the meetings are private, but represented by both parties, or that the process is both following rules that Republican introduced while they were in power and gives more rights to the opposition than former impeachment proceedings did.
More characterizations of the proceedings as a “circus” and a “performance”. The only circus- like performance I saw was the Republicans contorting themselves into knots to avoid commenting on substance and facts and to make sure they worked in all of the Republican talking points.
More quibbling that the Democrats “changed” the charge from quid pro quo to bribery. I wonder why no one pointed out that “quid pro quo” (this for that) is pretty much Latin for “bribery”?
Vindman reading the end of his opening statement again at the conclusion of questioning was quite powerful.
I’m from Oregon, too. Now you have me wondering in what capacity you were doing your public service.
Thanks for the discussion and answers. I don’t think the answer as to why the 4th amendment doesn’t apply is clear from this, but I understand the sentiment that some people think public servants are not entitled to that protection.
They are entitled, but the operative word is “reasonable”. Public office is public trust, it is entirely reasonable that enhanced scrutiny is expected. The bigger the office, the bigger the trust, the more the scrutiny.
I thought the Right hated entitlements?
Seriously though, there is an easy way to make sure you never have to face congressional oversight, and that is don’t run for president. Otherwise take it up with the constitution and the concept of checks and balances that our system of government is based on.
There’s an absolute defense against libel: Having told the truth.
Likewise, there’s an absolute defense against having people look into your finances: Don’t commit financial crimes.
The Republican party, at least when I was growing up, was the party of “If you don’t want to do the time, don’t do the crime.” And it was the Democratic party that felt like there were justifications for unlawful activity.
I don’t where you are on that question. But, as a Republican, Trump’s just a big whiner who was too lazy and ignorant to know what he was getting into.
And now he’s put seven of his friends into jail, out of his incompetence and ignorance.
There’s nothing laudible about that.
It’s asinine to think that Joe Biden forced the removal of a Ukrainian prosecutor to spare his son from legal jeopardy. Many wanted the former prosecutor gone, including most EU countries. The issue wasn’t that he might prosecute someone, it was that the former prosecutor was known to be corrupt. As simple as that. The international community didn’t want corruption in high levels of the Ukrainian government. I’m not sure whether the old prosecutor was any more or less corrupt than Bill Barr, but it was well known that he was not an honest man.
That’s only the case because Joe Biden got it quashed a couple of years earlier, by extorting the Ukranians with $1B in aid to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.
I don’t see how this relates to the claim that he asked them to “make up information”.
Normally, evidence free conspiracy theories are presented with the courtesy of a cite. A bullshit whack a loon cite that often gives viruses… but at least it’s a cite.
Work in the Shape-shifting Lizard People, and you could land yourself a job at the White House!