Although this goes back a few days, nobody (as far as I can see) gave the obvious answer to this talking point: The evidence of Trump’s guilt is clear and obvious enough to convince someone who is rational and impartial. However, the Republicans have made it clear (some, like McConnell, even explicitly admitting) that they are not impartial. So, that is why more evidence is needed.
Will the further evidence convince them? Realistically, probably not. However, it will make their position more and more untenable.
It is sad that we have descended so far from the days of Watergate when Howard Baker said the important question to determine was “What did the President know and when did he know it?” Now, the Republicans in the Senate apparently don’t give a shit about trying to determine anything about why the President withheld the Ukrainian aid and the White House meeting.
So, do you believe that Sondland, who gave $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, is left-leaning? And, what about the witnesses that the Democrats are asking for? Are Bolton and Mulvaney left-leaning? If not, then by your standards, they ought to give exonerating testimony, or at least a charitable interpretation on what Trump said and did, and the Republicans should want them to testify.
Or maybe your statements apply only to people who are not under oath?
We can begin to see the strategy not just for impeachment, but more importantly, beyond impeachment.
As Sen Graham, and others, put it: the Democrats, not Trump, are the ones violating the Constitution.
So there you have it. There’s the angle of attack: The Democrats are the ones who are the danger to the Republic.
And if that is to be believed, if one half of America is to digest the notion that the Democrats who were elected to congress are the danger to the Constitution, to the rule of law, to law and order, and to the existence of the Republic, then there must be a remedy, a solution. If they truly push the idea that Democrats are a threat to the Republic, then this threat must be met with force. A special threat, requires special methods of neutralization.
You’re assuming that it’s an opinion. As said, if people elect an arsonist as fire chief, then you need to get rid of that guy. It’s not an extreme position, and not even really was opinion, it’s just a matter of knowing the guy well enough and understanding the harm that could be done by holding that role.
I thought the post was more wit than a debatable topic. The smiley face and “checkmate, mate” made it seem like you were being more tongue in cheek than serious. Sorry for not addressing it.
Are you saying you want to discuss the merits of impeaching someone who has taken an oath of office and then tells even a single lie?
Does the National Review have an official position on this though? Its nice for the retired Republicans to feel his need for removal as well, but it doesn’t mean anything really. It would be more interesting if the NR itself said, “Doof’s gotta go.”
The New York Times has an article (paywall warning) that talks about how to be a Republican today, you have to be all for Trump or not be a Republican, at least not one with any role in the party. So virtually no one speaks out against him.
I’m not sure when or how his control over the party will end, although I think if he loses the election next year, the sharks will turn on him and it will be a bloodbath.
I really do wonder what the Republican plan is for the Post-Trump world. Ivanka? Are they going all in on a totalitarian cult of personality like North Korea? Is that their end game?
Honestly, I can’t imagine that the personality cult built around him will continue once he’s gone. His children are incompetent but they’re not as self-deluded as he is.
In a lot of ways, Trump makes it easy for Republicans to be themselves. They don’t have to worry about charges of hypocrisy, of being a misogynist, of being racist, or caring about anything other than enriching themselves and bulldozing everyone in their way. Trump told about 130 million voters what he was going to do and over 63 million voted for him. They don’t have to pretend to be anything anymore. They’re free to be as nasty as they wanna be.
It is most uncharitable to say that the Republican senators “have vowed to support their agenda irrespective of what facts are proved.” Nobody has said or implied any such thing. Being reasonable one would have to conclude that what McConnell and others have said is that based upon the evidence presented they do not believe that the case has been made for removal from office and as of today I would vote to acquit.
Deposition testimony is nowhere near the same as live testimony. You get a deposition to prepare for trial and hone your trial strategy. People ignore my subpoenas and/or claim a privilege quite frequently. Then I must file a motion to compel and have a court decide the validity of the subpoena. Trump has the right, just like any other litigant, to refuse a subpoena that he does not believe he has to honor. It is not his fault that the judicial branch acts too slowly. The Dems took no action at all to enforce their subpoenas and simply impeached him for obstruction of Congress. That’s outrageous.
If I subpoena you for something related to my trial, are you suggesting that you should have no rights to challenge it if you believe it was improper? No checks and balances, my demand is the law?
Further, Clinton could not make a non-frivolous argument that testimony regarding a personal sexual relationship with a White House intern was the sort of executive policy that could or should be shielded from public view. Foreign policy is the quintessential executive function that should largely be done behind the scenes. However, he released THE evidence, the transcript (or approximation of it) of the call in question. The whistleblower said he was concerned about the call. Trump released the call.
The ultimate issue is “Was the call criminal?” The 100 senators are there to decide that question, not John Bolton. It does not matter if Bolton thinks it was fine or thinks it was criminal. If Bolton thinks it was fine, will that change your mind? Will it nudge the needle to make you possibly question your assessment? Of course not. That’s why opinion evidence is generally not allowed at trials; it’s irrelevant.
You’re slipping, asahi. The big picture is far worse than that.
From a party standpoint, the point of Trump isn’t Trump. The point of Trump is to see how far they can push the envelope for corruption, authoritarianism and a general disregard for the rule and operation of the law. If they can get away with as much as they have with someone like Trump in power, consider what they could do with someone smart and competent in the White House. It doesn’t bear thinking about.
That doesn’t mean that such a result is inevitable, but it’s rather disappointing that things have gone as far as they have.
I’ve been thinking along these lines, too. Donnie is a test case, a bellwether. When he gets in again, it’s gloves off, bare-knuckle, no-more-rules, anything goes time. The Pubbies will ultimately shove him aside and run roughshod over voter protection, equality laws, environmental protection, the social safety net, programs for the poor and disabled-- all of it down the toilet, and it won’t need to be flushed 15 times. Gone, like it never happened.
That’s not a “reasonable” interpretation; it’s gross spin. They’re not saying “based upon the evidence presented they do not believe that the case has been made for removal from office and as of today I would vote to acquit”; they’re saying “I’m not even going to pretend to consider the evidence presented in the trial - which is where the actual evidence for conviction or acquittal gets presented - and I will attempt to block anyone else from considering it, so that I can acquit the President regardless of the evidence.” Lindsey Graham even specifically said he was “not trying to be a fair juror” and added:
That looks an awful lot like he has “vowed to support their agenda irrespective of what facts are proved”. And McConnell has likewise made it clear that his intention was to prevent witnesses from being called so that he could move straight to an acquittal vote.
So no, it’s not “uncharitable” to interpret their statements in that way; it’s entirely consistent with them.