Sad but true
*
Gross link removed.*
Gross.
Don’t post NSFW or disgusting links again.
I suspect he will soon be investigating the rampant corruption of Bernie and Jane Sanders, and revealing “evidence” that Bernie is deep cover Commie agent planted by Joesph Stalin circa 1950.
I think the President’s defense is a more than “fuck off, I’m the President”. I mean, I see how you get to that, because the effect of refusing to cooperate for the reasons given is equivalent to the effect of refusing based on “I’m the fucking President”.
If you’re thinking, Max, there weren’t any real reasons behind the President’s obstruction, then you are assuming the conclusion. The defense brief does list reasons and you can see it in Appendix C. The whole point of having a trial is to decide whether those reasons survive the prosecution’s rebuttal, according to whatever standard of proof each Senator wants to use.
The reasons given are that the initial phase of the inquiry was not authorized by the house and therefore the President was not compelled to comply, that the President has an interest in keeping his foreign policy decision-making process secret, that under the circumstances the President is entitled to executive privilege with regards to certain senior officials, and finally that refusing to allow the President’s (agency) counsel during testimony deprived the President of his right to claim executive privilege. If I afford the President every benefit of the doubt, just by looking at the reasons on their face, I do not find them to be absurd. That’s why I take his arguments seriously, or at least his lawyers’ arguments; that is why I do not immediately find for the prosecution on the count of obstruction.
So that’s what I was saying to drad dog, who appeared to ask why I afforded Mr. Trump’s defense any serious consideration.
~Max
You are right, but in the context of this thread that reasonable argument rests on the premise that Mr. Trump actually abused power.
I think your note about Mr. Trump’s affinity for authoritarianism in other respects, while valid, is a separate argument from the one BeepKillBeep made.
~Max
We can agree to disagree about that one.
Nevertheless, Ravenman had claimed that the defense team contradicted sworn testimony. In this instance it turns out the defense team (apparently) contradicted an implication drawn from sworn testimony with a second-hand description of an email, but that implication is based on the assumption that the email was prompted by the withholding of funds.
It is a reasonable assumption, I will admit. But it would not be unreasonable if the email was routine. I need more information to conclude the defense team lied.
~Max
Here’s my objection to this: If you take it as valid, then you imbue into the executive branch power of oversight over itself, whereas our constitutional system is based on the idea that each branch both oversees the others and is overseen by the others.
Meaning, if the executive takes umbrage at efforts by the legislative to intervene in executive actions, it is incumbent on the executive to go to the judicial branch for relief. Which is to say, in practical terms, that Trump was obligated to cooperate unless and until the courts said he didn’t have to.
Here, the executive has adopted the inverse approach: I don’t have to, and the legislature needs the judiciary to join them before I’d even consider it.
That turns the idea of ‘checks and balances’ on its head, because it doesn’t presuoppose that each branch is legitimately entitled to check the other.
And, more importantly, it creates a complete immunity for a president for the last year or so of his or her presidency, since it means that a president can simply obstruct any investigation and trust that any lawsuits can be dragged out beyond the end of the term.
In the real world, if a person is served with a subpoena, they don’t just get to say, “No. File a lawsuit if you want me to comply”. Instead, they have to run to court to seek an injunction or other emergency relief, because the law presumes that they are obligated to comply. As we see with this impeachment, allowing the subject of the investigation to dictate the terms of cooperation just creates roadblocks that delay justice, since no reasonable person with exculpatory evidence tries to hide it.
Sure we do - just not immediately. Unfortunately, at the moment odds look good that the voters will give him another 4 years.
And short of removal, there are plenty of opportunities for a non-craven Congress to limit a bad-acting president.
Could it paradoxically be better for Dems if the Pugs vote against witnesses since the latter would be defying the wishes of 75% of the voting public, and the Bolton revelations are already known and will be made public again in a few months?
I could actually hear his voice when I read that.
Hey, hey, hey… PEOPLE! Alan Dershowitz says that Alan Dershowitz didn’t say the things that people heard Alan Dershowitz say! That darn pesky lamestream media is distorting his words!
Okaaaaay… Let’s go to the tape:
Ummmm… uh… :dubious: :rolleyes:
Rudy Giuliani should have shut the fuck up before he wrote that letter. And Alan Dershowitz should have shut the fuck up before he became publicly complicit in this massive conspiracy to obstruct justice and cover-up this president’s crimes.
This would be the best solution for Republicans, I would think. McConnell has the (R) votes cast so that everyone wins back home with their constituents, but so it ends up in a tie. Have Roberts cast the tie-breaker in favor of witnesses. Then Roberts (someone who wants to secure his legacy as a fair & non-partisan CJ, who also doesn’t need to fear the voting public for re-election) is the bad guy/good guy in this. The (R) Senators could then blame the CJ on the witnesses being called, without having to face an angry electorate back home. I mean, these (R) Senators aren’t stupid-- cowardly and craven, yes, not stupid. They are essentially trapped between a rock and a hard place on this. Make Roberts the scapegoat.
This is the only part I don’t agree with. How are you getting from stonewalling the house to violating the role of the executive to breaching the Constitution? Those are big leaps of logic and I am pretty sure the defense contends each leap.
~Max
I think we are talking past each other. I said the defense theory is that the whistleblower has nothing to do with the timing of the release of funds. You responded by saying “*t would make no sense at all for it to be on this one single thing [(the whistleblower)] as you say”. You are right, that makes no sense; but that is also not the defense theory.
~Max
It’s not an agree/disagree thing. It’s simply a fact. Hearsay is a rule of evidence that does not apply to Impeachment proceedings.
I don’t like the name “idiot king” but you are free to call it whatever you wish.
~Max
I’ll admit it, ignoring an established chain of command can cause problems. I think it’s clear that the President blindsided the departments of state and defense, which did in fact cause problems and confusion. Such a lack of coordination is directly attributable to the President’s failure as the leader of our executive branch, and certainly the same failure in other contexts could cause fatalities. Or take another example, the withdrawal of troops from Syria. Or another example, the military strike in Iraq, which actually did cause friendly casualties and will likely haunt us for months if not years. In other words, Mr. Trump’s leadership skills are dangerously lacking, based on the record. I concede all of that.
You are misunderstanding my argument. The reason the President can ignore the “chain of command” in this case is not because he is somehow the commander of the federal law enforcement. It is because the Constitution gives the President personally the executive power - which includes all federal law enforcement powers. The President is free to delegate that power as he sees fit. Congress does not create the power to enforce the law when they establish an office of the attorney general or federal prosecutor, they only decide to fund such an office. The Congress does not divest the President of his powers to coordinate law enforcement with foreign agencies when they establish a department of State, they merely provide funding for such a department and laws for its members. I believe this is called the unitary executive theory.
~Max
Moriarty mostly makes the case in post 587. The House issued subpoenas to the White House as part of their impeachment inquiry. For the White House to respond with, “Well, the House didn’t vote on this and that, and therefore these subpoenas are invalid” is usurping the role of the Judiciary. The default is that the subpoenas are valid; if the WH disagrees, it is up to them to get a ruling from the courts to support their resistance. Otherwise, we’re looking at obstruction of Congress.
Note that “the House has sole power of impeachment.” The WH doesn’t get to critique their process in deciding whether or not to comply- the default is that they must comply, and it is up to the WH to seek a ruling from the Judiciary to avoid obstruction of Congress. As it stands, the WH is effectively usurping the authority of the House as well in telling them how they have to run their show before they will comply.
All of this violates the separation of powers. While that may not be a statutory crime (I am not sure if a regular Joe can be accused of usurping the authority of branches of government), that is obviously a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers. The POTUS is then assuming the powers of a monarch or despot, avoiding which was the Founder’s whole point in setting up separation of powers in the first place.
So. An executive who refuses to play by those rules can be impeached. The executive can’t just decide on a whim to play outside the bounds of the Constitution.
The rebupkis have fetishized the wb and used him to mislead and distract gullible americans. They refer to him all the time, and not in the context of timing. Rand Paul tried to out him yesterday. I watch all the news networks. The defense does not only consist of timing or logic arguments. it has to do with woo.