When he asks a foreign country, rather than US law enforcement, and when he uses congressional approved foreign aid as leverage? Abso-fucking-lutely. There’s no possible other answer. Clear as fucking day that this is an abuse of power and more.
a) There have been places where it was illegal to chew bubble gum on weekends. “Crimes” doesn’t mean shanking people in dark alleys, regardless of whether that’s the sort of image that jumps into ones mind.
b) “High crimes and misdemeanors” has two parts, the bit on the left of the “and” and…
c) “High crimes and misdemeanors” is a historic term of art that is fairly well equivalent to “Conduct unbecoming an officer”.
d) One might note that “Conduct unbecoming” is a charge that exists within the hierarchy of the Executive branch, for the legal system that they invented for themselves and hold their people to.
e) A leader sets the example. If you tell people, “Walk towards that wall of guns and don’t stop, or you’re a useless bastard who deserves a keelhauling.” And you’re in charge of holding them to that level of discipline and punishment, you’re not well placed to complain that a standard of fitness for office like “Conduct unbecoming” is being lowered to a level like where Congress says that you shouldn’t try to cheat your elections.
Forget it, Sage Rat, it’s UltraVires. Next he’ll be saying Donny Two-scoops has no anus and hit fifteen holes in one on his first golf game, ever.
“He had to announce the investigations, he didn’t actually have to do them as I understood it.” -Gordon Sondland
This one sentence of Sondland’s testimony destroys any notion that Trump was engaged in any legitimate pursuit of corruption.
So, the arguments in defense of Trump dissolve into meaningless rhetorical tricks when exposed to scrutiny. Yet the Trumpers are as fervent as ever in supporting their election cheater. Why is that?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-lawmaker-had-visions-of-a-christian-alternative-government/ar-BBYhLNe
This article describes mainstream GOP figures who promote the fall of the US government and a re-ordering via civil war, one goal being “to sanctify Jesus Christ in the new government.” So, one explanation for GOP behavior is that they have common cause with Putin in seeking the destruction of the US government, and so who cares if Trump cheats with Putin’s help? All in the service of the cause, no?
Sounds crazy, but tune into a typically shrill right wing broadcast and you’ll hear that the Government or else Liberals are to blame for everything. It is never that living in the country sometimes sucks or that none of the locals have the knowledge or resources to create and maintain good-paying jobs locally. Nope, it’s liberals, and the government’s war on rural America. (Asahi, what do you think of this?)
We’re probably not yet to the point of a “New American Nation” (my wording, not the article’s). The environment is not, at this time, fertile enough for that seed to grow. But let’s fast forward 5-15 years into the future: there’s a major financial crisis that wipes out savings for another generation of Americans. This crisis destroys social security and medicare. This crisis causes unemployment to rise among young men to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Polarized political parties demonize each other. Voters initially vote for “reformer” presidents and legislatures with the unrealistic expectation that they immediately fix the economy but their reforms get tied up in legislative obstruction and also in courts that are stacked with conservative ideologues who declare their reforms unconstitutional. As a result, most voters regard the Constitution and the government that has for more than 2 centuries upheld it, as a dinosaur, a relic of the past that has little relevance to the world of today. Unable to change it with a convention, they either tacitly or explicitly enable a strongman to rule as he sees fit. Armed with enormous powers of the military, and with the enormous powers under things like the Patriot Act, he enacts emergency powers – completely constitutional, though as I said, that may no longer matter at this point.
Trump isn’t a natural strongman himself, but he is no less dangerous. What he is, is a natural criminal, a natural survivalist, a natural manipulator of people. What he’s doing is gradually getting Americans used to the idea that the country as they once knew it no longer functions as it should and he’s getting millions of us - even millions of us who didn’t vote for him – to accept the idea that it’s okay if we allow someone to occasionally just say “Fuck the law, fuck the Constitution, and fuck the rules.” Ordinary people by the millions are enabling authoritarianism, with an ‘ends justify the means’ manner of civic thought. It’s incompatible with democracy. Those hearings in which those civil servants testified against the Trump administration? Those were very, very important tests for our democracy, and considering that much of the country remains unmoved, it appears that we have failed them.
And it’s worsened by a lethal strain of tribalism which people view the same set of facts but experience different realities. Again, this is absolutely incompatible with democracy and incompatible with a free, fair, just, and open society.
Are you really proposing, in all sincerity, that the President of the United States could be impeached from office for the commission of a misdemeanor, a minor crime punishable by less than a year in jail, but can’t be impeached for blatant corruption?
If it matters, withholding congressionally mandated military aid violated the Impound Control Act of 1974.
If any other person in the United States was served a subpoena, they would be obligated to seek protection from the court to avoid their legal obligation. They cannot simply refuse to honor the subpoena because they believe it is improper, and the courts don’t need to ‘compel’ compliance; rather, the person needs to get off their ass and seek judicial relief. Ignoring a subpoena should result in a show cause warrant.
I couldn’t say it better than this:
The President should not be personally opening investigations into any individuals. Full stop.
There’s a long history of independence in the justice department for precisely this reason. Trump has flouted this convention ever since he asked Jim Comey to “Let this thing go” with Michael Flynn.
I understand the Republicans have made a defense out of Democrats’ lack of consistent messaging, and of Democrats later focus testing various messages, but the problem is that what Trump did is wrong from a lot of different angles, and everyone has their own way of looking at it. For instance:
It would be bad optics (at best) for Trump to personally ask the DOJ to look into the affairs of a private individual.
It would be wrong for Trump to ask the DOJ to look into the affairs of a private individual for personal benefit.
It would be bad optics (and also wrong) for Trump to ask the DOJ to look into the affairs of a political opponent.
It would be wrong for Trump to ask a foreign power to open (or announce) an investigation into a US citizen.
It would be wrong for Trump to ask a foreign power to open (or announce) an investigation into a political opponent.
It would be wrong for Trump to ask the DOJ to look into the affairs of a private citizen while offering something in return (a quid pro quo).
It would be wrong for Trump to ask a foreign power to open (or announce) an investigation into a US citizen while offering something in return (a quid pro quo).
From the other side, I can see how this could look like goal-post moving, or hunting for a charge that “sticks,” but please understand that the underlying activity is wrong no matter how many aggravating details also apply. For instance, if someone is accused of pulling a gun on a store clerk in order to get money from the register, and it later comes out that there was no money in the register, or that the accused didn’t want money at all and just wanted to pretend to rob them, it isn’t goal post moving to say, “But it’s still wrong to pull a gun on someone even if they didn’t do it to get money.”
Long story short, if you say that a President will no longer be able to personally start an investigation into a political opponent as a result of this impeachment, then holy shit, you’re finally getting it. That’s always been wrong and it should continue to be wrong in the future.
And the intelligence agencies successfully kept the existence of the investigation under wraps until after the 2016 election. If they were trying to cheat for Clinton, that was a stupid move.
It happened in Ukraine. That’s why you ask the Ukrainians to investigate. Is the FBI going to stomp into Ukraine and demand to see documents?
I mean, this blind hatred of Trump leads to incredibly dense comments such as this.
And in response to others who are outraged that the President is ordering investigations: that is his job. He is the executive branch. Not the DOJ, not the FBI, not anyone else but him. He has complete constitutional authority to conduct investigations.
What? I mean seriously, WHAT? How about we let Ukraine mind their own business? If Biden didn’t violate US law, then why should the US be interested in him getting punished in Ukraine for violating Ukrainian law?
No. Just, no. This is not how it’s been done in America, and for a good reason.
What if Trump were to order an investigation into Clinton for molesting kids? Pretty serious accusation there, might as well throw in her jail where political dissidents belong. Eh comrade?
Logic doesn’t work when it comes to discussions regarding Trump. If you say anything that remotely shows Trump in a positive light you become a “Trump Supporter”. Trump is a bad man and every thing he does is bad, agree to that or be vilified.
Feel free to keep ignoring this, but everyone else can see that it destroys this particular argument in Trump’s defense.
“He had to announce the investigations, he didn’t actually have to do them as I understood it.” - Gordon Sondland
That’s what Sondland assumed, he wasn’t told that directly, at the end of the day no statement was made and no investigations were undertaken.
Yes, Sondland assumed that. However, it appears that he assumed that because it was true.
That’s important.
Explain why no statement was made and no investigations were undertaken. Also, to my understanding, the statement was supposed to be made on CNN. CNN?! The outlet that Trump always attacks for being “Fake News”?
You really don’t understand why? :dubious:
You do not know what you are talking about.
The US frequently investigates crimes its citizens may have committed on foreign countries. There is what is known as a mutual legal assistance treaty or MLAT. The president could have asked his law enforcement agencies to contact Ukraine and open a properly conducted investigation. As this investigation would’ve had political implications, the law enforcement agencies would e taken precautions to keep the investigation from becoming public knowledge before the election, as they did when they investigated Trump in 2016.
One reason that MLAT is important with regards to countries like Ukraine is that Ukraine has a long sordid history of politically motivated investigations and incarcerations. These treaties allow the US to pursue justice while assuring that the perpetrator receives the same level of legal fairness and civil rights protection that is afforded to US citizens prosecuted within the US.
I’d like to think most of you would’ve been outraged if Trump had encouraged North Korea’s prosecution of Otto Warmbier. After all, what he was accused of is a serious crime in North Korea and he was probably guilty. He might have even been a Democrat.
To me, the biggest difference is that there is actually evidence of Warmbiers guilt, while no one has ever made a specific allegation against Hunter Biden.
Because someone blew the whistle on this scheme before it came to fruition. It was pretty huge news. I’m surprised you haven’t heard about it.
Plans were in place for Zelensky to go on CNN on 9/13. Per George Kent, “[Trump] wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to a microphone and say investigations, Biden and Clinton.”
Fortunately congress was made aware of the whistleblower complaint on 9/9. This led to the aid being released to Ukraine on 9/11 and the cancellation of Zelensky’s 9/13 CNN appearance.
These are basic undisputed facts of the case that completely destroy the, “Trump was investigating corruption,” argument.
Corruption is using public resources for personal gain. Trump wasn’t interested in investigating corruption, he was actively engaged in corruption.
This, from the poster that went, “incontrovertible proof of murder” to “Hunter Biden” in four sentences? Please.
ETA: Could you cite the clause of the Constitution that supports your “complete authority to conduct investigations”? Because that never came up in Article II.