Impeaching Donald Trump

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The point is history creates the present.  Not much you can do to change it.  However, what's going on has to be dealt with within the current situation whatever caused it.  Iran has been trying to control the Middle East for their benefit. Nothing wrong with that.  However, if it's against our interest, then we conflict with them.  It's the way of he world.  They're not wrong. But neither are we.  Both sides look to advance their interests. 

Well said, Alan.

[kers]

Iraq now wants foreign troops to leave the country... They find they have had enough war in their land; Go make your war somewhere else...
A logical action in the light of what just happened and before... However this is not in the interest of the USA...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

A bit of historic perspective:

“Did Britain meddle in a US presidential election?”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50752217

When US President George HW Bush craved "a smoking gun" in 1992 to politically kneecap his White House challenger Bill Clinton, the British government delved into its files for damaging information. So, did the Bush camp solicit foreign interference to help him win an election - the allegation that has seen President Trump impeached?

[LesPalenik]

Iraq now wants foreign troops to leave the country... They find they have had enough war in their land; Go make your war somewhere else...
A logical action in the light of what just happened and before... However this is not in the interest of the USA...

The first sentence is true. However, what they will find out is not the end of the war, but beginning of another upheaval.

[JoeKitchen]

Iraq now wants foreign troops to leave the country... They find they have had enough war in their land; Go make your war somewhere else...
A logical action in the light of what just happened and before... However this is not in the interest of the USA...

Although I would like us to leave and would be happy to incur the results, the USA leaving Iraq would be a disaster for the Middle East.  As Les pointed out, it would not be the end of war, but the beginning of a new one. 

First, lets ask the obvious, why was an Iranian general so easily able to move throughout Iraq supporting Iranian backed militias?  Because the Shiite majority (in Iraq) largely align with the Mullahs in Iran.  The Shiites welcome this because of their hatred of the Sunnis and the Kurds. 

Second, why was the vote held?  The Shiites looked at the bombing as an opportunity to get rid of the USA, which would allow them to rule the country with impunity.  The reason we know this is because all of the Sunni and Kurd representatives did not show up for the vote out of protest.  So now the prime minister (who is a Shiite) faces the very serious question of supporting the resolution and aligning with his party, or allowing the USA to stay.  The former will more then likely start a civil war of Shiites vs. Sunni & Kurds, whereas the latter will not get him re-elected. 

Lets assume that the PM follows through and kicks the USA out.  It is only a matter of time before the Shiites start oppressing the Sunnis and Kurds, and, assuming the Sunnis and Kurds fight back, then all hell breaks loose.  Iraq borders Syria, with a strong Kurdish population in the North, and Jordan, a 95% Sunni country, both of which could get drawn into the fighting if a civil war begins.  Of course, if the Kurds in Syria and certainly if Jordan gets involved, so will Iran. 

Then Israel will need to make a decision on whether or not to get in.  It could be within Israel's best interest to ally themselves with the Sunnis since they are anti Iran (enemy of my enemy thing) and it would go a long way with their neighbor Jordan.  Not to mention allowing Iraq to become a proxy state of Iran would bring Iran too close for comfort for Israel.  Of course, if this happened, the USA is now back in the fight. 

This is a worse case scenario, but given the 1000s of years of Shiite and Sunni conflict, it is probably more likely then not civil unrest would result in Iraq. 

PS, something else to consider if the Middle East gets drawn into a war with Iran and Israel being involve, is how long would it be until Israel nukes Iran?  Unlike the West, Israel really has no qualms using their nukes, and eventually nuking Iran would become an option to them.  So, would the world just let the ME be, knowing there is a strong possibility of a nuclear war breaking out, or would the West intervene to prevent this?  Of course intervening to prevent nuclear weapons being used would mean support Israel's side, since supporting the opposing side would increase Israel's need to use their nuclear weapons. 

[Chris Kern]

A bit of historic perspective:

“Did Britain meddle in a US presidential election?”

Thanks for posting the link.  This well-reported piece, while not relevant to whether President Trump may have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," offers an interesting parallel from a relatively recent election.  (As well as a rare published use of the word thaumaturge to refer to the political skills of former President Bill Clinton.)

Beyond the suspicions, no concrete proof has emerged of collusion between Bush and Major in the US election of '92.

But even if there was, isn't what President Trump allegedly did - brazenly soliciting the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to harm the election prospects of his potential White House challenger, Joe Biden - worse?

Not under US campaign finance law, according to Ann Ravel, former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission.

It is illegal for anyone to seek or accept anything of value from a foreign national in an American election, she points out.

As I previously have mentioned, that statute is 52 USC §30121: "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."

[PeterAit]

Say, ya don't think that Trump ordering that Iranian general killed has anything to do with distracting people from the impeachment--do ya?

[JoeKitchen]

Say, ya don't think that Trump ordering that Iranian general killed has anything to do with distracting people from the impeachment--do ya?

Nope!

Say, ya dont think the lack of even mentioning the impeachment in the House's opening yearly statement means they know impeachment has been a loosing battle?

[Alan Klein]

Thanks for posting the link.  This well-reported piece, while not relevant to whether President Trump may have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," offers an interesting parallel from a relatively recent election.  (As well as a rare published use of the word thaumaturge to refer to the political skills of former President Bill Clinton.)

As I previously have mentioned, that statute is 52 USC §30121: "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."

Chris you could use the word thaumaturge to describe Bill Clinton. But before he became president, everybody knew him as Slick Willy.

[Alan Klein]

Although I would like us to leave and would be happy to incur the results, the USA leaving Iraq would be a disaster for the Middle East.  As Les pointed out, it would not be the end of war, but the beginning of a new one. 

First, lets ask the obvious, why was an Iranian general so easily able to move throughout Iraq supporting Iranian backed militias?  Because the Shiite majority (in Iraq) largely align with the Mullahs in Iran.  The Shiites welcome this because of their hatred of the Sunnis and the Kurds. 

Second, why was the vote held?  The Shiites looked at the bombing as an opportunity to get rid of the USA, which would allow them to rule the country with impunity.  The reason we know this is because all of the Sunni and Kurd representatives did not show up for the vote out of protest.  So now the prime minister (who is a Shiite) faces the very serious question of supporting the resolution and aligning with his party, or allowing the USA to stay.  The former will more then likely start a civil war of Shiites vs. Sunni & Kurds, whereas the latter will not get him re-elected. 

Lets assume that the PM follows through and kicks the USA out.  It is only a matter of time before the Shiites start oppressing the Sunnis and Kurds, and, assuming the Sunnis and Kurds fight back, then all hell breaks loose.  Iraq borders Syria, with a strong Kurdish population in the North, and Jordan, a 95% Sunni country, both of which could get drawn into the fighting if a civil war begins.  Of course, if the Kurds in Syria and certainly if Jordan gets involved, so will Iran. 

Then Israel will need to make a decision on whether or not to get in.  It could be within Israel's best interest to ally themselves with the Sunnis since they are anti Iran (enemy of my enemy thing) and it would go a long way with their neighbor Jordan.  Not to mention allowing Iraq to become a proxy state of Iran would bring Iran too close for comfort for Israel.  Of course, if this happened, the USA is now back in the fight. 

This is a worse case scenario, but given the 1000s of years of Shiite and Sunni conflict, it is probably more likely then not civil unrest would result in Iraq. 

PS, something else to consider if the Middle East gets drawn into a war with Iran and Israel being involve, is how long would it be until Israel nukes Iran?  Unlike the West, Israel really has no qualms using their nukes, and eventually nuking Iran would become an option to them.  So, would the world just let the ME be, knowing there is a strong possibility of a nuclear war breaking out, or would the West intervene to prevent this?  Of course intervening to prevent nuclear weapons being used would mean support Israel's side, since supporting the opposing side would increase Israel's need to use their nuclear weapons. 

I'm tired of America being policeman.   Europe's needs Middle Eastern oil,  not us.  Lets get out of there and let the Brits,  French,  and others protect their oil.   Like in the Falklands War, will provide intelligence from our satellites and let the Brits do the fighting.

In any case, iran is weak now and in no way prepared to fight anyone.   Their economy is in the tank.   Their people hate the regime. Sure,  they'll do some remote attacks on a tess American troops.   Then we'll retaliate.   Then what are they going to do?

[Alan Klein]

Say, ya don't think that Trump ordering that Iranian general killed has anything to do with distracting people from the impeachment--do ya?

It could also help get him re-elected by showing Americans that he has their interest at heart and will protect them. 

Also like Osama Bin Laden, this guy killed a lot of Americans. So killing him is good for Revenge.

[JoeKitchen]

I'm tired of America being policeman.   Europe's needs Middle Eastern oil,  not us.  Lets get out of there and let the Brits,  French,  and others protect their oil.   Like in the Falklands War, will provide intelligence from our satellites and let the Brits do the fighting.

In any case, iran is weak now and in no way prepared to fight anyone.   Their economy is in the tank.   Their people hate the regime. Sure,  they'll do some remote attacks on a tess American troops.   Then we'll retaliate.   Then what are they going to do?

I agree.  I was just pointing out that Iraq is a great buffer zone between warring factions.  If Iraq becomes an Iranian proxy, shit hits the fan.  It's only a matter of time. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... As I previously have mentioned, that statute is 52 USC §30121: "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."

Weren’t you mentioning it earlier that the SCOTUS has been reluctant to treat intangibles as “anything of value”?

[Rob C]

I wonder if any of our resident experts can tell me why, if not for long-term financial, energy and political gain, successive US govts. have insisted on a presence in all Asian countries where they can get a foothold?

In those respects, they strike me as no different to any other country aware of the rest of the world.

I may be mistaken, but they do appear far less interested in Africa than is China; that too strikes me as an interesting thought.

:-)

[Chris Kern]

Weren’t you mentioning it earlier that the SCOTUS has been reluctant to treat intangibles as “anything of value”?

I haven't researched the case law of that provision, much less its legislative history, but "thing of value" is a term that is also used in a number of other federal statutes―including 18 USC §201, Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses―and the courts generally give it an expansive interpretation.  In any event, "a favor" that provides a service similar to opposition research would undoubtedly qualify because political campaigns often pay consultants to provide opposition research, and similarity to a paid service is one of the most common tests that federal courts apply to determine whether something meets the statutory requirement for having a "value."

[Alan Klein]

Weren’t you mentioning it earlier that the SCOTUS has been reluctant to treat intangibles as “anything of value”?

So
So if an American president ask the British prime minister to say something nice about him, that could be grounds for impeachment because he's asking a foreigner to impose himself on American politics. I don't think that's the kind of thing that the constitution is talking about. What it's referring to t bribery when when a foreign government pays the president privately a bunch of money to get America to do something for them. Zaza

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I haven't researched the case law of that provision, much less its legislative history, but "thing of value" is a term that is also used in a number of other federal statutes―including 18 USC §201, Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses―and the courts generally give it an expansive interpretation.  In any event, "a favor" that provides a service similar to opposition research would undoubtedly qualify because political campaigns often pay consultants to provide opposition research, and similarity to a paid service is one of the most common tests that federal courts apply to determine whether something meets the statutory requirement for having a "value."

Opposition research... shouldn’t then a bunch of Democrats be criminally charged for the Steele dossier?

[James Clark]

To be fair, James has provided plenty of personal info in the past. He is a cool guy.  We just happen to (politely) disagree politically.

Thank you.

[James Clark]

I know James is a good guy, Slobodan. I even like his photography.

Thank you also

But I think everybody posting on The Coffee Corner should say where they're from and how old they are. That has nothing at all to do with their photography, but it has plenty to do with their political arguments.

I guess I feel like I've mentioned it all before - my background info is no secret, but if it really helps everyone to have it listed I'll update my profile when I get a moment.   I'm a 47 YO white guy living in Austin TX.

[Chris Kern]

Opposition research... shouldn’t then a bunch of Democrats be criminally charged for the Steele dossier?

No: they paid for it.  The statute I cited prohibits contributions or donations of anything of value by foreign nationals.