I’m not a lawyer or a Senator, but if I was a Senator I would place the burden on House managers to convince me that at least one of those conditions had been violated (except breaking statutory law) before I vote to convict based on a quid pro quo abuse of power.
If there was a statutory violation, I would have a wholly different set of criteria and there would be a different article of impeachment.
~Max
That burden shouldn’t be too hard. Shit, they can just use Aspenglow’s post (#1738).
It might just be me, but I have nothing but trouble trying to understand what it is you are stating at all, in all of your posts in this thread. A quid pro quo, which there was, is not the root of Trump’s Ukraine phone call B.S. The fact that he was asking Ukraine to imvestigate his opponent, an American citizen, was.
That’s impeachable.
Sure, there was an implied quid pro quo. But none of this depends on that.
No! The issue here is Trump’s behaviour and whether the is guilty of ‘high crimes and misdemeanours’. What Joe or Hunter Biden did or did not do has nothing to do with it.
Not only does “convincing Republicans” merely play into their hands by suggesting that there may be something implicating Biden, it also plays into their hands by deflecting from the current criminal, treasonous behaviour of The President.
What do folks think will be the eventual fate of the following (non-Trump) figures:
Resignation?
Fired by Trump?
Conviction and pardon?
Conviction and prison?
Serve out term until January 2021?
Rudy Giuliani
Bill Barr
Mike Pompeo
Mitch McConnell
Joseph Maguire
Mike Pence
Which is the entire point of Max’s arguments.
NYT:
Key part of the article:
Ouch.
Admitted, I am bending over backwards to put lipstick on a pig. But when iiandyiiii said I was playing devil’s advocate, he wasn’t entirely accurate. If I were a (Republican, which I am) Senator I would really need to be certain before convicting the President. At no point so far have I been convinced to my satisfaction that the President committed an impeachable act, even if I think he probably did.
It is not clear to me, as demonstrated by my repeated claims that there is a way out the abuse-of-power-for-investigating-a-rival charge. If you or anyone presents me with a constitutional argument, I’ll look at it honestly and try to find a way to be unconvinced. I don’t do this in bad faith, if you convince me I’ll defend your position just like I’m defending mine right now.
I admit that there are other impeachable offenses, aside from quid pro quo. I mentioned campaign finance violations and witness tampering, and Ravenman mentioned impoundment although I haven’t been able to find the law behind that charge yet. I’ll look some more tonight or tomorrow night.
My first post ([POST=21883945]#786[/POST]) in this thread mentioned campaign finance law, but I didn’t base my argument on that alone because I don’t think a violation of campaign finance law is a “high crime” just because it’s a violation of law. It’s not even a felony unless the “thing of value” is over a certain amount that I can’t remember off the top of my head. Instead I went with the abuse of power construction of “high crimes”. And I hesitate to call it an abuse of power if there might be good reasons to press an investigation.
I don’t know what prompted the administration to open an investigation, so I cannot offer an actual defense. But you also don’t know what prompted the administration to open an investigation. We can speculate that the basis was insufficient to warrant an investigation, and I think that’s probably right. This is something the House of Representatives should be able to ascertain during the course of their investigation, which I support.
If official subpoenas turn up an unsatisfactory basis for investigation, the President loses any benefit of the doubt I have given him.
If the President refuses to release the basis for investigating Mr. Biden/son, Senator Max S. might support conviction for obstruction of justice.
I mean, sure, I could go read Fox News articles and build a case against Mr. Biden. But that takes a lot of willpower, and I’m not getting paid to defend the President. At some point I draw the line.
Admitted, but I don’t think that proves anything.
I haven’t read the documents that were just handed over to Congressional staffers (I don’t think they are publicly available). I also haven’t heard about Tom Bossert’s thing but I’ll look into that.
I know it’s hard to convey emotion through text, but I am being sincere in this thread. If you still want me to stop, I will stop.
~Max
Are you pretty sure of that?
What is the Over / under on Trump having called the FBI already and demanded evidence of Hunter Biden’s wrong-doing as he “knows” there is corruption and the lack of charges is making him look bad?
I’d bet a thousand dollars that Trump has never called the FBI in his life. The Ukrainian equivalent, sure.
He tried calling FBI on the phone, but dialing 324 never worked.
What’s going on at Fox News right now is actually a lot more complex and nuanced than you guys are making it out to be. It’s also utterly fascinating, and arguably key to the future of the country. Farhad Manjoo makes that case in his column in the New York Times titled “Why Lefties Should Watch Fox News”: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/opinion/impeachment-fox-news.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
The only explanation I can come up with for Trump’s statement today, is that he’s totally bought into the “impeachment is good for me! Energize the base!” argument. So he’s double-dog-daring the House to impeach him.
The president’s interpretation of the law (Constitution) doesn’t enter the picture. My interpretation of “high crimes” is that the president must abuse his powers. If the government has reason to suspect that an American citizen committed a crime, it is incumbent on the government to investigate and ensure that justice is served. Just because Hunter Biden is the son of the President’s rival, does not mean he is immune from the law. Given the choice between the mere appearance of impropriety on the administration’s part, and actual criminal activity by the President’s rivals, I pick the appearance of impropriety. That means I give the president the benefit of the doubt.
The actus reas would be the President investigating a political opponent’s family. The mens rea would be the President doing so to with the intent of furthering personal politics, instead of upholding the law.
If the President had a valid reason to investigate, it is very difficult for me to find the mens rea I consider necessary for conviction (if I were voting).
~Max
Dude. He literally, and proudly, confessed to exactly the thing you say warrants removal from office.
If you want people to continue to engage you here, you have to take a position.
I speculate that any “lawyer” (fixer) for Trump has to, as a matter of course, commit multiple crimes on his behalf.
As to what happens to them–what exactly triggered the FBI investigations into people like Manafort or Cohen?
Can congressional investigations trigger a response from the FBI? Would they have to select another Special Prosecutor?
As for pardons, I’m surprised Trump has been holding out on giving them out, but I recently read that part of this Ukraine fiasco all began as a fishing expedition on how to pardon Manafort. Maybe he’s planningto expunge all his crony’s records on his last day in office.
I agree that the act of investigating a political opponent (or his family) could be an abuse of power consistent with the “high crimes” in Article II Section 4. But there are two parts to a crime, the act and intent, and I am not yet convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump did so with intent to profit from the investigation, as opposed to upholding the law. See my recent [POST=21896685]post #1755[/POST].
I think he probably did, but probability is not the standard I would use if I were a Senator, and it’s not the standard I think most Republicans will require.
~Max
Dude, I can no longer follow a coherent line of argument from you.