I knew a guy who was an extreme narcissist and had a rather Trumpian view of the world: if something was good for him, it was by definition good. If it was bad for him, it was by definition bad. That led to a lot of hypocrisy, but if you called him out on his double standard, he was proud of his retort: “That’s not a double standard. That’s two separate standards connected by a common theme!”
I think when a lawyer is debating the word, “impartial,” as his basis for defending his party’s actions, that’s a pretty sad day. You know perfectly well what “impartial” means. It does not mean non-partisan. One can be highly partisan and still try a case – any case, including an impeachment – impartially.
If you need an example of this, remember the highly partisan, Trump-supporting juror in Paul Manafort’s trial. She desperately wanted to learn that Manafort was not guilty. But in view of the actual facts, she could not. Surely you can make this distinction as easily as such a juror.
This is my definition of an impartial trial. One can be partisan, but one must be open to considering the facts as they are proved. In the case of the Senate Republicans, they have vowed to support their agenda irrespective of what facts are proved. That’s not impartial by any measure.
Yes, let’s take up the Clinton trial. The Senate refused to allow the House Managers to call any live witnesses at all because those witnesses had all been deposed under oath and testified during the Ken Starr investigation. Did that escape your notice? Did it also escape your notice that all those witnesses complied with lawful subpoenas issued by the Independent Counsel? How would your cases go if witnesses simply ignored your subpoenas for both witnesses and documents?
How disingenuous are you prepared to be, to compare the investigations of Clinton and Trump, in your quest for acquittal?
Come again? If Bolton testifies that yes, he heard the call and either did/did not believe it was improper, how is that not relevant? He’s a direct witness to the call. He’s an expert in national security such that he can be named a National Security Advisor. But you maintain his testimony and opinion are irrelevant? That’s… novel. I suspect you’d find few judges who would support your assertion.
Emails confirming the expected timeline have been released:
They also contain some pretty suspicious redactions, based on some text that went unredacted.
This sort of thing could be one aspect of Pelosi’s leverage, due to waiting. The longer the Senate waits, the more information that will come out, strengthening the case and all the voters will be reminded each time that Trump was impeached and that he just keeps looking guiltier and guiltier with nothing exonerating ever coming out.
Is the iPhone used in so many of those messages secure? I am just curious, because there’s an awful lot of redacted material that was signed Sent by my iPhone.
neta - I guess there is no way to know re these specific devices- there are government secured iPhones that are issued. I was mis-remembering something.
Great catch, Sage Rat.
There is obviously still much that is not known about what actually happened around the unexplained withholding of Congressionally-approved Ukrainian military aid.
When he says “perfect” he may be referring to whatever he is thinking of at the moment and not what we are asking. “The call was perfect” may be in reference to the editing he did on it and his expected response on it from the press.
I just want to add one word to the discussion of impartiality: “uncontested”. The GOP has done nothing AFAIK to undermine the case built against Trump. They have wailed about the unfairness of it all, made references to Hunter Biden, compared impeachment to a coup, and seemed to have found the House guilty of being “partisan” or “liberal”. They have imputed motives onto Trump’s accusers and brought up conspiracy theories. But at no point (unless I missed it) have they done anything to dispute the picture painted by the sworn testimony of the impeachment inquiry.
They have suggested there is insufficient evidence to convict, while insisting that the blocked witnesses need not appear and seemingly oblivious to the obstruction of Congress article. None of this is truth seeking behavior. If it isn’t blatantly truth-evading, I don’t know what to call it.
That’s what they do. If they don’t have an argument (do they ever?), they attack people or process.
So some have mentioned.
He got caught and someone convinced him to release the aid. So he can’t possibly be guilty.
“I didn’t eat the cookie. Besides, it wasn’t very good. My crime did me NO good! I’m double super perfect innocent!!”
His supporters are clearly morons. And I don’t give a god damn if calling them that hurts their feelings. We are WAY, WAY past that. Fuck 'em.
A reminder that though many Trump supporters may have (shall we say) unimpressive intellectual gifts, it’s also the fact that they are operating on bad information. Yes, it’s their own fault for staying in the FoxNews bubble----but let’s not let the Murdochs off the hook.
If the Murdochs were to decide that Trump’s Presidency is no longer good for their own bottom line, then Trump’s supporters might suddenly start getting some actual facts served up to them instead of the usual propaganda.
Those supporters would be confused, of course. But if no one is feeding them talking points, they’d have nothing to say in Trump’s defense. (It’s not as though they think up these excuses and counterattacks by themselves, after all.)
Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, made the argument that Trump is not technically impeached until the articles are passed to the senate, and most of the news networks took the bait – discussing at length and debunking the idea that Trump right now has not been impeached.
For my mind, it’s ridiculous, because what difference does it make whether we label the current situation as impeached or not?
And even if everyone gave all the fucks about what we’re calling it, the Dems can pass the articles to the senate at any time. They could do it in the last second of the shot clock if they cared that much about getting that specific label on Trump’s legacy and nothing else.
- The president of the Ukraine and the US are both denying any pressure was implied or applied. You can’t have a quid pro quo or blackmail if no pressure is applied.
- Trump called Sondland and said there is no quid pro quo. Therefore, it doesn’t exist.
- The aid was released. How can you claim they were holding the aid hostage if it was given without the announcement of an investigation?
- The President is deeply troubled, very deeply troubled, about corruption and is just trying to weed it out wherever it may exist.
NONE of these hold any real weight if you apply the smallest amount of scrutiny to any of them, but you asked for defenses or explanations from the Trump administration. Those are just a few. I could probably come up with more if you want, but they have been giving them. They are flimsy and easily dismissed, which is probably why you don’t see them as explanations.
Touche. Yeah, none of those seem to hold up if viewed in the larger context of all the evidence, but I suppose they would do for someone who wants to believe enough.
There was reporting weeks and weeks ago that Zelensky was scheduled to appear on CNN to make some announcement (most likely that investigations into the Bidens were starting) the day after the aid was released. Then the aid was unexpectedly released, and Zelensky immediately canceled his planned CNN appearance.
Why did the Dems make no note of this in their arguments? When the WH mouthpieces say, “The aid was given and no announcement was made! So there!” Zelensky was one day away from making such an announcement out of, presumably, desperation that he’d never get the money any other way. The moment the aid was released he canceled his appearance. Therefore, is it not rational to conclude he was only making an announcement because aid continued to be held and he finally decided to give in?
We all see what we want to see. Sage Rat said he was ready to impeach Trump on day 1. As I said, these reasons are flimsy, at best, but if one is predisposed to seeing the situation one way or another, that is what will happen. Left or right, that is the way it goes. We are human. The trick isn’t to dismiss opposing views, the trick is to find a way to get someone to realize the contradiction in their views. But cognitive dissonance is incredibly difficult to overcome.
I fail to see how you feel that it is reasonable to make an assumption about my reasoning, but unreasonable to make an informed stance on Donald Trump, a person on whom thousands of pages of verifiable information exists.
We can go down this path. You will not come out the winner.
His position on the dreadful threat of cognitive dissonance is, however, entirely persuasive.
I’m sorry, Sage Rat. I shouldn’t have specified you specifically. I was merely trying to point out there are extreme view points. I should have not used your as an example because it then becomes personal.
This path, as you say, is nothing but opinion and as such I do not wish to head down it with you. I’m well aware of your stance and view. I’ve seen your reasoning and I have no desire to debate it with you.