Okay, I’ve caught up and read the entire thread. Gotta say, I almost broke down and gave up on page 25, when I took a break for a day and came back to find it had swelled from 27 pages to 31. But I powered through and overcame.
Now. What’s all this about Biden?
The call was “perfect” in the sense that there was no static on the line, it didn’t drop due to a poor connection, nobody missed a crucial statement because the other guy was going through a tunnel, that sort of thing.
Both Pompeo and Giuliani are claiming that it is the responsibility of the U.S. president to “investigate” Ukraine corruption. I’m pretty sure it’s not in the job description.
When Trump talks, anything associated with himself is “perfect,” just as a verbal tick he can’t stop doing. If he walks down the hall, the carpeting is “magnificent”; if he turns on a light, the switch is the most amazing invention; if he takes a shit, the toilet water is “perfect.”
He can’t stop himself from talking like this. It comes from a lifetime of talking like a snake oil saleman; it’s deeply engrained behavior.
Looks more like they, and Pompeo and the rest of the White House, have chosen to simply stonewalleverything. That has always worked *so *well, hasn’t it?
It’s worked for them so far, so why stop now? I can only hope that the new inquiry gives teeth to the subpoena power.
Remember when Michael Cohen released tapes of some of his conversations with Trump? There was a tape where you hear Cohen walking into the room while Trump is talking in the phone. Then Cohen effusively praises Trump for a great phone call.
The level of insecurity (Trump) and obsequious ( Cohen) in that moment always made me laugh.
For the record, I intended to express that drad dog had no evidence whatsoever that I was gaslighting anyone and that the notion was ludicrous.
That being said, I do sincerely apologize for altering the quote itself rather than adding the emoji outside of the quote. That was a mistake on my part.
And hopefully Schiff and Pelosi are willing to put anyone who is in contempt in jail.
That said, this from Twitter:
Impeachment and removal are about removing a corrupt president.
Refusing to hand over evidence is further evidence of corruption.
Refusing to hand over evidence is further evidence of law-breaking.
Hand-wringing and crying: “OMG Trump & Pals are stonewalling Congress! They will to destroy democracy!” helps Trump because it:
creates panic,
undermines confidence, and
encourages cynicism
which happen to be the same goals of Russian Active Measures.
Instead . . .
Instead, we should be saying, “HA! See how guilty they are? Why are they refusing to testify? Why are they hiding evidence? Because they are GUILTY.”
This will help get public opinion behind impeachment and removal.
Also, it’s the truth.
Another common, and effective, answer is “Because to hell with the traitor Dems! MAGA!” Unfortunately.
I meant “useful” to Russia.
~Max
Thank you. I strive to take a political position that would be consistent no matter whether I agree with a branch of government or not. I want the same oversight procedures to work if my favorite president is in office doing exactly what I want as they would if an American Vladimir Putin were in office.
I am not in favor of throwing out the rules just because I do not like what the president does, or just because I suspect the president has abused his authority. I do not consider myself or my opinion so much more important than others’ opinions that the president should bend to my will alone, and neither do I think anybody in this thread takes such a position of bad-faith. There need to be articulable reasons before I support the release of ostensibly sensitive documents, and I think the best way to overrule the executive’s claim to privilege is through the Congress, subject to mediation by the Supreme Court if necessary.
And in case somebody is reading this without having followed the thread, I am well aware that President Trump himself released the Trump-Zelensky memorandum.
I won’t deny that an executive branch which covers up unconstitutional acts is acting unconstitutional. I will dispute that the relationship between the executive branch and the other branches is one-way. The Congress has a check on the presidency via impeachment, the current jurisprudence suggests that Congress can sue for documents (if the DoJ can sue, surely Congress can), and the Supreme Court may rule on the executive’s claim of privilege. If there is concern that the President may be covering up unconstitutional acts, Congress is the institution which can and should investigate the matter.
Consider the alternative, a private right of action with option for judicial review. Do we really want to burden the court with the responsibility of reviewing every classified document that an American citizen alleges is part of a coverup? Do you realize just how easily that could backfire, considering one party’s propensity for conspiracy theories? Would you suggest some sort of petition system where if a number of Americans petition for the public release of a classified document, the executive branch is forced to release it? We already have a petition system built-in to the representative democracy in the form of our legislature. What’s wrong with having Congress take on this investigatory function, as it is now?
~Max
I think that deterrent is still in full force if presidential call transcripts aren’t released publicly until Congress formally proposes articles of impeachment. Congress, or at least members of an investigatory committee, can still view such documents in a classified setting. If there is a claim to executive privilege, I am relying on Congress to sue the President.
~Max
What is your opinion as relevant to our conversation? I can only guess that you have a favorable opinion on the Freedom of Information Act and a negative opinion of the executive branch’s current classification scheme.
I have anticipated some potential alternatives in my response to KarlGauss, [POST=21893514]post #1532[/POST]:
~Max
Nothing.
With regards to whether Mr. Trump spoke with intent to advance a foreign policy goal versus personal political gain, I do not think the the difference is relevant. It may well be that Mr. Trump actually believes Mr. Biden encouraged corruption in Ukraine to protect his son, therefore a valid foreign policy (cracking down on corruption in Ukraine) coincides with political gain (potentially exposing Mr. Biden’s son to some sort of charge).
That depends. Are those political opponents illegally interfering with foreign policy goals? If I were president and I have reason to believe my political opponent is funneling money through corrupt Ukrainian businesses to Russians who have interfered in U.S. elections, you bet I will pressure Ukraine to cooperate with my investigation of those businesses.
If everything alleged about Mr. Biden and his son is true, which it isn’t as far as I can tell, I would not have as much of a problem with Mr. Trump conditioning military aid on an investigation. There would only be appearance of impropriety left, which could have and should have been avoided where possible.
I wouldn’t be okay with Mr. Obama doing “this” to Mr. Romney, and I’m not okay with Mr. Trump doing “this” to Mr. Biden. But there are situations where I think it would be okay, specifically what Mr. Trump claims to be the situation. I don’t believe him, but I don’t know whether he is lying through his teeth or if he is really so gullible as to believe the conspiracy theories he propagates.
We’re talking about impeachment in general but this specific sub-thread is about keeping diplomatic communications out of the public eye. I am saying the communications should be kept secret from the public until Congress reviews the documents and cites them when proposing formal articles of impeachment. I don’t see any viable alternative - the executive branch has already marked them secret on foreign policy/national security grounds. Who else besides the Congress could or should possibly release the documents? What harm is done, or what benefit is gained, if Congress releases the documents before concluding their investigation and alleging that the documents are evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors?
~Max
Okay, this is not Great Debates. I retract my request for quotes. I suppose if one doesn’t feel like explicitly making one’s case in Elections, one shouldn’t have to.
Okay, then let’s discuss it. For convenience, your link.
These are from the “Why It Matters” summary at the end of your link. Remember, this whole thing started when I asked for evidence that Trump is doing the bidding of a hostile foreign power. The implication being made is that there are likely things that Trump has done that may be used to blackmail him by those powers. But in the whole of that article, there is no mention made, nor evidence offered, that this is actually happening. So I ask again, what from that link *supports *that notion? Maybe I’ve may have missed it. And I am not asking for definitive proof, btw.
One thing that I’m perplexed about, suggested by the first sentence, second paragraph, and that I actually thought of before reading the link. Does it make sense to anyone that if Trump knows he has led a life of corruption, such that he could be blackmailed with it to do a foreign power’s bidding, that he would not only be committing treason, but literally could be putting millions of lives at risk? It seems to me that such a person would have no desire to get anywhere near the presidency. Trump is many things, but I don’t think he’s that stupid.
That stupid and a bit more.
No, this has crossed my mind too.
I resolve this paradox by noting the indications that Mr. Trump did not want to win the presidency. A Trump presidency has been a running gag since I was a wee lad, and while I’m not a huge fan of Michael Moore’s politics, a lot of what he theorizes makes sense.
https://michaelmoore.com/TrumpSabotage/
~Max
A non-sociopath with something like a conscience, a non-narcissist, knowing he was corrupt, would have such thoughts. But there is no evidence that Trump cares about anyone but himself and his family and sycophants.
What other role would give him so much power to enrich himself and keep public attention on himself? Remember what kind of person he has shown himself to be. If you, like Max S., start with the presumption that he’s psychologically normal, you’ll only end up bewildered.
Trump isn’t stupid, but he isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. Worse, he believes he can get through any situation through his own wiles - bluffing, blustering, threatening, lying, skirting the law, violating the law entirely - whatever it takes.
I have known several people in the business world who suffered from the same hubris. Most of them fail miserably. A couple of them managed to make the money they wanted to make, and retired. Trump made his money, but instead of retiring he decided to a) go for power on a national scale, where his actions are public and b) go up against people with power of their own, some of whom (e.g. Pelosi) know how to use it a lot more skillfully than Trump.