Impeaching Donald Trump

[Robert Roaldi]

America is a great nation in spite of taxation not because of it.  It's private capital that's made us powerful and rich.

I'm a bit shocked to see you say this. There is a lot of private capital all over the world and there always has been, nothing uniquely American about that. Th US implemented explicit separation of executive and judicial powers, permitted individual freedom (sort of, in fits and starts), structured things so that upward mobility was not unduly hampered although access to very cheap new land helped a lot with that (made conveniently cheap because you chose not to pay market rates for the land opting instead for indigenous genocide but that discussion is for another day). In the past you have expressed repeated reverence for the constitution so I'm surprised that you now express the idea that rich people make you great.

[PeterAit]

I am amazed but delighted--Christians actually acting like Christians.

https://www.axios.com/christianity-today-evangelicals-supports-impeachment-92956ccb-241c-48d7-bad3-d3e4ddd2d64d.html

[Chris Kern]

I am amazed but delighted--Christians actually acting like Christians.

The full Christianity Today editorial is interesting.  It argues, inter alia, that

. . . the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.

And while it urges evangelical Christians to abandon Trump, and explicitly calls for his removal from office, the editorial is (pardon the expression) agnostic about the best way to do this:

Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.

To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?

While Trump remains quite popular among potential voters who identify themselves as Republicans, the support of many of his more prominent defenders has always been a matter of expedience—a transactional arrangement, as the news commentators like to point out, where they put up with his often bizarre behavior and contempt for facts and the law in return for specific policy or political objectives.  In the case of the evangelicals, the most important of these has been the nomination of "conservative" federal judges who, they hope, will reverse the secular trend of recent appellate rulings on issues such as abortion and gay rights.  There is a similar implicit bargain, no doubt, among many Republican members of Congress, including senators who will vote on whether to remove him from office assuming an impeachment trial takes place, who reportedly revile him in private but support him publicly so as not to offend his core populist supporters, whose defection could threaten their own continuance in office.  If I were religious, myself, I'd be tempted to say they have made a pact with the devil.

[BernardLanguillier]

And again you imply that only you et al are educated enough and read plural sources, and Trump supporters are not.

When are you going to accept that we read the same info, have the same intelligence, and surely my education is not inferior to yours, never mind that I have much broader life experience, and yet we draw vastly different conclusions. People think differently and have different world views, you know. And yours is not superior to mine. You lot at least should appreciate diversity,  not just in skin color, or which entrance your prefer, back or front.

Isn’t that a great opportunity for you to share your values and what aspects of Trump and Trump’s policies meet those values? I am fascinated how a citizen of the world with a wealth of experiences becomes a Trump supporter. And I hope you won’t answer that you support Trump because he somehow is less of a disaster than Democrat candidates...

My view that Trump supporters lack access to objective information sources is superbly backed up by the totally biased views they have of his impeachment. Any way you look at facts he is guilty as hell. I don’t see how you can both claim he isn’t and asert that you are objective about him.

As far as being open to different opinions, I happen to have views that bridge the traditional left/right devide. What I don’t like about Trump is the constant lying, the racism, the sexism, the lack of understanding of the world, his lack of respect for institutions, his focus on creating walls and on isolation instead of opening, his speech focused on the less favored but his actions supporting his rich friends, the terrible example he is showing to the kids of the world. Other than that he is fine I guess.

But in the end Slobodan the best proof of me being right although you are both smarter and more experienced is that I don’t have to twist logic to have the upper hand in our discussion. I can’t count the times when you chose to avoid answering the points I was making because the power of the truth is just unbeatable.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

Isn’t that a great opportunity for you to share your values and what aspects of Trump and Trump’s policies meet those values?

My view that Trump supporters lack access to objective information sources is superbly backed up by the totally biased views they have of his impeachment. Any way you look at facts he is guilty as hell. I don’t see how you can both claim he isn’t and asert that you are objective about him.

Cheers,
Bernard

Only one fact witness actually testified, Sondland, and he did not incriminate Trump.  This is why, after all this time, he was not charged with an actual crime even though they had been pushing bribery, etc., for so long.  The case is beyond weak. 

The Dems could have censured him, and gotten bipartisan support.  The call was in fact not perfect.  However, they went full hog and pushed for impeachment.  More then likely the thought from Pelosi was to protect her current majority from be primaried by radicals who would not be able to win in the general, and that irrefutable evidence would be found if an inquiry began.  This would then increase public support, decreasing his chances of winning re-election.  This went well for about a month. 

However, she never took into consideration what would happen if no strong evidence was found and that having her majority vote for weak articles of impeachment without any crime in a solely partisan way would radicalize them in the eyes of the public.  It was a total screw up on her part, and she is now making it worse by refusing to the send the articles to the Senate. 

I am not so sure what she is thinking.  Pretty much every republican in the Senate does not want to receive these articles.  Her threat of holding onto the articles has no leverage.  Plus the longer she holds on to them, the more and more this looks partisan.  Even Noah Feldman, yes one of the radical law professors called by the Dems, has said that until the articles are delivered, Trump can argue he has not been impeached. 

And if you think the media has actually been objective on this, well then "Merry Impeachmas!"

[RSL]

Any way you look at facts he is guilty as hell.
Cheers,

Bernard

What he's "guilty as hell" of, Bernard, is beating Hillary when she was supposed to be a shoo-in. That's what this whole Kabuki performance in the House has been about. In the end it's going to cost the Democrats the presidency and the House. People here in the U.S. are pissed.

I don't know what kind of propaganda you're getting out of your news media there in Japan, but don't depend on what you're reading or seeing on TV.

[BernardLanguillier]

Only one fact witness actually testified, Sondland, and he did not incriminate Trump.  This is why, after all this time, he was not charged with an actual crime even though they had been pushing bribery, etc., for so long.  The case is beyond weak. 

The Dems could have censured him, and gotten bipartisan support.  The call was in fact not perfect.  However, they went full hog and pushed for impeachment.  More then likely the thought from Pelosi was to protect her current majority from be primaried by radicals who would not be able to win in the general, and that irrefutable evidence would be found if an inquiry began.  This would then increase public support, decreasing his chances of winning re-election.  This went well for about a month. 

However, she never took into consideration what would happen if no strong evidence was found and that having her majority vote for weak articles of impeachment without any crime in a solely partisan way would radicalize them in the eyes of the public.  It was a total screw up on her part, and she is now making it worse by refusing to the send the articles to the Senate. 

I am not so sure what she is thinking.  Pretty much every republican in the Senate does not want to receive these articles.  Her threat of holding onto the articles has no leverage.  Plus the longer she holds on to them, the more and more this looks partisan.

Joe,

Pretty much every line in what you write does’t match available public evidence:
- sondland’s testimony did clearly support the claims laid by Democrats about what Trump is being impeached for
- had the white house not refused to follow the intent of the impeachment process by refusing more witnesses to testify there would be more confirmation of this
- Trump was just impeached for that and it’s the worst possible punishment defined by the law at this stage of the procedure
- the refusal of a bipartisan approach is clearly a Republican decision. Had they respected their oath to the US and US citizens they would have cooperated.
- the clear refusal of Republican leaders to make de senate a fair trial is another nail in the coffin of the US institutions

The only thing you are doing with your obviously biased reading of facts is to support my claim that Trump supporters are either ill informed or unable to be objective about him.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

What he's "guilty as hell" of, Bernard, is beating Hillary when she was supposed to be a shoo-in. That's what this whole Kabuki performance in the House has been about. In the end it's going to cost the Democrats the presidency and the House. People here in the U.S. are pissed.

I don't know what kind of propaganda you're getting out of your news media there in Japan, but don't depend on what you're reading or seeing on TV.

The same propaganda shared by every news outlet I am aware of except Foxnews.

What are the odds that the whole world is wrong and Fox is right?

Aren’t you able to smell something fishy?

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

Joe,

Pretty much every line in what you write does’t match available public evidence:
- sondland’s testimony did clearly support the claims laid by Democrats about what Trump is being impeached for
- had the white house not refused to follow the intent of the impeachment process by refusing more witnesses to testify there would be more confirmation of this
- Trump was just impeached for that and it’s the worst possible punishment defined by the law at this stage of the procedure
- the refusal of a bipartisan approach is clearly a Republican decision. Had they respected their oath to the US and US citizens they would have cooperated.
- the clear refusal of Republican leaders to make de senate a fair trial is another nail in the coffin of the US institutions

The only thing you are doing with your obviously biased reading of facts is to support my claim that Trump supporters are either ill informed or unable to be objective about him.

Cheers,
Bernard

LOL Bernard. 

Sondland, during cross examination (that did not get that much media attention) admitted that he was told by Trump there was to be no quid pro quo.  He also admitted that he did not think Trump had intentions for a quid pro quo.  So his testimony did not support the Dem's narrative. 

As I said before, every one, including the President, has the right to refuse a subpoena by congress.  Then congress has to make the decision whether or not to take that person to court.  This is excepted practice, and the fact is congress did not follow through with any of the subpoenas to a court.  As a matter of fact, Bolton voluntarily went to court to get a judge's opinion on if he should or should not testify, and the Dems pulled the subpoena at this point.  They did not even want to argue there case after the courts were already looking at it. 

Once again, according to noble law professor Noah Feldman, whom the Dems had so much respect for they called him to testify, does not agree Trump has been impeached until the articles are delivered.  He wrote an opinion piece on this in Bloomberg News, another source so objective they openly admit they will not investigate any Dems running for president. 

Insofar as bi-partisanship, well the Dems decided to engage in a lot of it during the inquiry.  And the fact is they could have postponed the vote and went to court to get these same witnesses they suddenly want to testify in the trial.  They did not. 

Merry Impeachmas!

[JoeKitchen]

By the way, Sharyl Attkisson has a great talk on the origin of "Fake News."  I was pretty surprised it was actually originally coined by the Dems in an attempt to discredit conservative websites. 

It was actually started by a former HRC associate with the hopes of it being a useful phrase to be used against conservatives in the election.  Then Trump high jacked it and completely turned it around on them.  Oh the irony life throws at you sometimes. 

[BernardLanguillier]

LOL Bernard. 

Sondland, during cross examination (that did not get that much media attention) admitted that he was told by Trump there was to be no quid pro quo.  He also admitted that he did not think Trump had intentions for a quid pro quo.  So his testimony did not support the Dem's narrative. 

As I said before, every one, including the President, has the right to refuse a subpoena by congress.  Then congress has to make the decision whether or not to take that person to court.  This is excepted practice, and the fact is congress did not follow through with any of the subpoenas to a court.  As a matter of fact, Bolton voluntarily went to court to get a judge's opinion on if he should or should not testify, and the Dems pulled the subpoena at this point.  They did not even want to argue there case after the courts were already looking at it. 

Once again, according to noble law professor Noah Feldman, whom the Dems had so much respect for they called him to testify, does not agree Trump has been impeached until the articles are delivered.  He wrote an opinion piece on this in Bloomberg News, another source so objective they openly admit they will not investigate any Dems running for president. 

Insofar as bi-partisanship, well the Dems decided to engage in a lot of it during the inquiry.  And the fact is they could have postponed the vote and went to court to get these same witnesses they suddenly want to testify in the trial.  They did not. 

Merry Impeachmas!

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.amp.html

Sorry your understanding of the implications of Sonderland testimony doesn’t seem aligned with facts.

Cheers,
Bernard

[RSL]

What are the odds that the whole world is wrong and Fox is right?

Aren’t you able to smell something fishy?

Cheers,
Bernard

The odds are very high.

And, yes, I can smell something fishy: the attempt to pull off a coup, beginning the day Trump was elected. At the moment the odds are very high that at least three of the principals in the coup attempt will be indicted and tried. But your "news media" aren't going to report that.

[James Clark]

Only one fact witness actually testified...

Why?

[JoeKitchen]

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.amp.html

Sorry your understanding of the implications of Sonderland testimony doesn’t seem aligned with facts.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, IMO, the NYTs has completely discredited themselves over the last few years. 

They have been caught in so many false stories due to their Trump derangement syndrome it is not even funny anymore.  On top of that, they deliberately edit out any type of exculpatory information that may go against their narrative.  Most recently was the hit piece on Kavanaugh about how at a college party someone pushed his penis into some girl.  (I'm not really quite sure how you do this or why would be drinking naked at a party, but this is what the article exclaimed.)  The problem though is that the woman in question did not remember this rather unforgettable event happening.  This was in the initial write up, but the editors decided to take it out before publishing.  It is stuff like this that has caused me to loose confidence in the NYTs. 

But getting back to Sondland.  I have looked at his cross examination and he specifically states there was no quid pro quo.  This was not heavily reported on, and it is no wonder why. 

Gordon Sondland says Trump wanted ‘nothing’ from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky

I'll finish with this, if the evidence is so strong that Trump engaged in illegal activities, why are there no criminal charges in the two articles? 

[JoeKitchen]

Why?

Because the Dems did not want to go through the process of challenging the President in court. 

The executive and congress are separate bodies, and one does not have to follow the others requests.  If one side feels they have a case to force the other side to do so, they can then take their case to the courts.  But until that happens, there is no impropriety.

As I stated before, Bolton went to the courts himself to see if he should or should not testify, and the Dems then pulled the subpoena.  They refused to argue the case. 

If the Dems actually felt so strong about their case, why did they not follow through with it and go to the courts? 

Why?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Bernard, your self-righteousness borders with religious fanaticism.

You seem to believe that if I support Trump that something must be wrong with my value system. I have no intention to justify my value system and world view to you. You seem to believe that it is duty of innocent people to prove their innocence. I, and the whole western judicial system, strongly disagree. Your stance reminds me of the religious theory that atheists can not be moral people, as the only possible morality comes from belief in God.

[James Clark]

Because the Dems did not want to go through the process of challenging the President in court. 

The executive and congress are separate bodies, and one does not have to follow the others requests.  If one side feels they have a case to force the other side to do so, they can then take their case to the courts.  But until that happens, there is no impropriety.

As I stated before, Bolton went to the courts himself to see if he should or should not testify, and the Dems then pulled the subpoena.  They refused to argue the case. 

If the Dems actually felt so strong about their case, why did they not follow through with it and go to the courts? 

Why?

Honestly, it doesn't make any sense to me either - Susan McDougall went to jail for this stuff 20 years ago.  But considering what was revealed through the witnesses that did testify, I'm doubtful that the reasoning was a fear that the witnesses in question would exonerate Trump.  Could have been a political calculation that pushing this back to mid 2020 would look bad (it would), or that a Trump-friendly judge somewhere along the way would rubber stamp the "Trump is literally immune from any investigation at all" argument (that's the actual argument put forth by his lawyers in another case), or who knows what.

I do know that screaming about "no evidence" as Republicans keep doing, when at the same time Trump refuses to let "exculpatory" witnesses testify, is transparently stupid.

[James Clark]

But getting back to Sondland.  I have looked at his cross examination and he specifically states there was no quid pro quo.  This was not heavily reported on, and it is no wonder why. 

Gordon Sondland says Trump wanted ‘nothing’ from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky

 

NO.   Sondland testified that *Trump said* there was no quid pro quo.   And this was said to him by Trump AFTER the story broke.  That's an immensely critical difference.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

[JoeKitchen]

Regardless, Sondland's testimony is still not a smoking gun for either party.  His testimony, in its entirety, did not really help anyone.  It was just a big flop. 

Insofar as the tactics Pelosi has employed thus far, I am in agreement with you, I cant possibly understand why she is doing what she is doing.  Especially with her leaving for the holidays without sending the impeachment articles.  I have no idea what leverage she thinks she has with McConnell, but there does not appear to any.  Plus McConnell is perfectly happy without getting the articles and needing to spend time on a trial. 

Do you know McConnell had 12 new judges approved during the impeachment vote.  Impeachment is proving to be quite the great side show to keep progressive attention away from how the judiciary is being changed.   

But anyway, with the delay, the only possible reason I can think of in her refusing to send the articles over would have to do with those Dems in swing districts that voted yea for the articles.  Perhaps they pressured her to give them time to get home and see what the voters think about this with the far fetched idea that if there is drastic backlash in their districts, they could vote on a resolution to void the articles when they return.  I am doubtful of this conspiracy theory of mine, but cant think of any other reasons considering the total lack of leverage she has over McConnell.  Plus Pandora's box is already opened; nothing much can be done now.