|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Taq writes: Percy writes:
I don't think that is needed for impeachment. There is already more than enough evidence to justify a trial. More directly, we must have the testimony of Bolton, Giuliani and Mulvaney (and I would add Perry and McGahn and others), no matter how long it takes for subpoena challenges to wend their way all the way up to the Supreme Court. I agree that the evidence they already have is sufficient for voting articles of impeachment, but the more narrow and shallow the less impact. If I didn't already say it in this thread, I would like to see every Senator go on the record for every impeachable act, not just the Ukraine. House Democrats risk going down in history as giving greater weight to their political fortunes than to their constitutional responsibilities.
What I think people have lost sight of is that impeachment is an indictment. It isn't a conviction. I think there's only one person here who doesn't understand the difference between impeachment in the House and trial before the Senate, and they aren't a participant in this thread.
The bar is much, much lower for indictment. The lower the bar is set for articles of impeachment, i.e., the less their breadth and evidence, the easier they can be dismissed.
It would also be worth reminding Republicans that no lawyers from the defense are allowed into grand jury hearings in the lead up to an indictment. That is how due process works in the US. Nowhere in due process does it give the suspect a right to be a part of the investigation or grand jury hearings. Congressional Republicans are pushing this view on their constituents because they know they will not listen to anyone with correct information. The contradictions from the Republican side abound. First the process is too private, then it is too public. First it is too slow, then it is too fast. First it is presumptuous for desiring testimony from principles, then it relies too much on testimony from non-principles. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
In a post back in January of 2017 about Trump's inauguration (Message 138) I said this that resulted in a relatively brief sub-discussion with NoNukes about the value of political influence:
Percy in Message 138 writes: Trump's inauguration speech writes: For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. He's right in one sense. I believe everyone in the Senate is a multi-millionaire, and those in the House probably aren't doing badly either. How is that Obama is a multi-millionaire, $12.2 million according to Google. Politics should not be a route to riches. Those who hear its siren call should fare no better than teachers and policemen. When I wrote those words Obama was worth $12.2 million according to Google. Today he is worth $40 million. He has made $27.8 million in his nearly three years of retirement. He commands around $500,000 for a single speech. Just yesterday he closed on a $12 million house on Martha's Vineyard (an upscale island off the coast of Massachusetts). I continue to object to politics as a road to riches. The main driving force is the value of political influence. The rich are willing and able to pay a great deal of money for it. We have to get money out of politics. We want politics to attract our best and brightest, not our most greedy. To tie this back into the topic, I think Trump was attracted to the presidency because he's attracted to power and because he saw it as the ultimate money making opportunity. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
From White House Officials Huddle With Senate Republicans On Impeachment Trial : NPR:
quote: Why is this not considered highly inappropriate collusion between the defendant and the trial judges? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Taq writes: If this was something like a one-off crime (e.g. theft at a political party's offices) it might be different, but this is an ongoing campaign to solicit political favors from foreign countries, as shown by Trump's solicitation of help from China. Trump has committed multiple impeachable offenses, but if only Ukraine articles of impeachment reach the Senate then for that trial its a one-off crime. The first successful removal of a president will require a broad range of charges that are deep in evidence.
There is an threat to the upcoming election, so it makes little sense to allow obstruction to push the investigations past the 2020 election. Wouldn't wending through the legal challenges only push the trial out to next spring or summer? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
jar writes: How long has it taken to get access to il Donald's financials? I think you're alluding to Southern District of New York lawsuit. Expedited legal proceedings are possible and probably likely for presidential impeachment lawsuits where the principles are the legislative and executive branches. An example of the courts moving quickly are the rulings issued by the Florida and US Supreme Courts after the 2000 election. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
This editorial in the NYT, Opinion | Please, Democrats, Don’t Make the Impeachment Articles Too Narrow - The New York Times, precisely captures what the Democrats are doing wrong concerning impeachment. The impeachment needs to be broad in terms of charges brought, and the evidence needs to be deep:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Taq writes: Percy writes: Wouldn't wending through the legal challenges only push the trial out to next spring or summer? Possibly longer since they will start in the lowest court possible... There are only three levels of federal courts: District, Circuit and Supreme. Lawsuits would start at the District court level, and, given the critical nature, it's reasonable to expect they'd be fast-tracked.
...and push through each level of appeals until reaching SCOTUS. There aren't a lot of level of appeals. A loser in District Court can appeal to the Circuit Court, and a loser in Circuit Court can appeal to the Supreme Court. There can be more appeals when application is made to an individual judge (appeal to a 3-judge panel or to the full court) or a 3-judge panel (appeal to the full court), but given the urgency I think each lawsuit would be brought to the full court.
Even then, Republicans will claim that it would be unfair to remove a nominated candidate from an election, so I think it is best to get this all done before primaries are in full swing. Yes, that would be best, but still not of much value without a broad array of charges and a great depth of evidence.
If you are going to convince Republicans to vote for removal... I can't see any scenario where enough Republicans would vote to convict on any article. The best that can be hoped for is that Republicans are forced to vote on articles that are broad and deep rather than narrow and flimsy, and that are supported by a majority of Americans.
...then you need to give them time to nominate a new candidate. Again, I can't see any scenario where the Republicans would need to nominate a new candidate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/...06-df3c54b3253e_story.html, an op-ed piece in today's post by David Von Drehle, makes several points relevant to my deepest concerns:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Taq writes: Percy writes:
The current articles are already supported by a majority of Americans, so that isn't the problem. It is a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless. If more than half the country thinks you should be removed from office, that doesn't bode well for the next election. I can't see any scenario where enough Republicans would vote to convict on any article. The best that can be hoped for is that Republicans are forced to vote on articles that are broad and deep rather than narrow and flimsy, and that are supported by a majority of Americans. Pick your favorite poll, but according to Do Americans Support Impeaching Trump? | FiveThirtyEight it's currently 47.8%. It's more than are against impeachment - maybe that's what you meant, that more people favor impeachment than oppose it?
The only scenario where Republicans would vote Trump out would be if they saw no way of him winning. I don't think so. I think any Republican Senator would only vote to convict if they felt it wouldn't hurt their own political fortunes.
However, as Faith has shown us, Trump supporters aren't swayed by facts, law, or morality. I don't think human beings in general are swayed by facts or logic. Trump supporters are just an especially dramatic example of this.
Trump losing his base is probably not going to happen, so all we are left with is 20 Republicans in the Senate finding a moral backbone, and the chances of that are slim to none. In all fairness, Democrats aren't much different. Two House Democrats have already come out against impeachment, and they're both from districts that Trump won in 2016. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
It seems to have been little noticed (I think Vox picked it up) that Rudy Giuliani admitted in a tweet that Trump administration interest in Ukrainian corruption was based upon "compelling evidence of criminal conduct by then VP Biden, in 2016":
There it is in a nutshell: to Trump, Ukrainian corruption means Joe Biden. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
CNN reports about a Growing divide between Trump and McConnell over impeachment trial | CNN Politics. While it's reassuring to hear that McConnell will not be Trump's lapdog in defining how the impeachment trial will be conducted in the Senate, how is it appropriate that they are even talking about this subject at all? Why is the defendant permitted to negotiate with the lead juror, the jury foreman so to speak? If the principles need to speak then it should be in the judge's chambers, which would be Chief Justice John Roberts' chambers.
I understand that the Constitution doesn't cover these kinds of details, but legal precedent, mere propriety, and maintaining at least the appearance of conducting a fair and unbiased trial, all demand that there be no informal contact on this subject between the White House and the Senate. All contact should go through formal proscribed channels, likely formal letters and memoranda. Just for the record, the article says that McConnell wants a quick and concise trial, while Trump wants a lengthy show trial where he calls witnesses like Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and the whistleblower. McConnell seems to want an actual trial, while Trump wants political theater with himself as the director. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
The Inspector General's report on the Carter Page FISA applications can be found here: Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation.
Here are the problems the IG found with the first Carter Page FISA application:
Here are the problems the IG found in the three subsequent Carter Page FISA renewals:
--Percy Edited by Percy, : Replace the link to the Fox News version of the IG report to the one at the Justice Department which is much better because it is searchable and copyable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
I extracted the problems the IG identified with the Carter Page FISA application and renewals to make it easier to find them. I think people should make of them what they will.
If you want my own opinion it's that when you spend at least a hundred times more effort and time analyzing documents than it took to create them you'll inevitably find issues and problems. I also think that a number of the points are very poorly described and lack a great deal of context, making them very difficult to interpret. It's often difficult to ferret out where the problem lies that is purportedly being described, or even why it is a problem at all. Probably someone could easily write a report detailing the deficiencies of the IG's investigation and report. People writing these things with the benefit of hindsight and much greater time and manpower forget that their own efforts are as colored with human imperfection as the subject of their own report. For example, if Report 95 is so important it should be footnoted, and the footnote should point to where in the document Report 95 is described. I still don't know what Report 95 is. It's first mention is in point 3 - it isn't previously described. Reports 80 and 102 that are also referenced are not described. Were I grading the IG report for clarity I would give it a D-. The points are also a hatchet job on Christopher Steele. The investigation obviously made a great effort to seek out derogatory information, but Steele worked for MI6 for 22 years in positions of increasing responsibility, and over the years he must have received a number of very complementary reviews, but no mention of this is made at all in the IG's Steele hit list, er, report. I also think that even though Attorney General Barr and Senator Lindsey Graham and other Republicans who have gone over to the dark side do not believe the IG went far enough in pursuing and endorsing Trump's conspiracy theories, I believe he was still influenced by the knowledge that Trump makes it very, uh, uncomfortable for those he perceives as lacking sufficient enthusiasm for them. As compensation for not buying into the Trump conspiracy theories I believe the IG came down far harder on the FBI than was warranted by the evidence. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Assuming the House passed the two articles of impeachment, Trump will face trail before the Senate. Trump is the defendant and will be defended by his defense team, the Senate is the jury, and prosecutors will be appointed by the House.
Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the Senate, is, in essence, the jury foreman, and he has a unique twist on fair and unbiased trials. In a late Thursday interview with Sean Hannity, Mitch McConnell committed to "total coordination" with the White House and Trump's defense team. A better example of collusion could not be found. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/...c1-fd0d91b60d9e_story.html --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Here is a link to the House Judiciary Committee Report on the Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. It's 658 pages long, start reading now if you want to be done by Christmas.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
As reported by the Daily Beast: Rudy Giuliani Doubles Down on Fox News, Says ‘I Forced’ Marie Yovanovitch Out of Ukraine. When asked by Fox News host Laura Ingraham if he forced Yovanovich out, especially since he wasn't an official representative of the U.S. government, he said he forced her out and that she was corrupt:
quote: Of course there is no evidence of corruption on the part of Yovanovich. And in a recent interview in The New Yorker, Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer and not a representative of the United States, declared in no uncertain terms that he forced Yovanovich out of her ambassadorship of the Ukraine because she was "corrupt" and was making "investigations difficult for everybody.":
quote: He also told the magazine that he had compiled a dossier of information on Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Yovanovich. New Yorker reporter Adam Entous obtained a copy of the dossier and said it included some outlandish and some impossible claims. People are claimed to be where they could not possibly be (e.g., Hunter Biden breakfasting with Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken when he was at the hospital where his brother lay dying). People are claimed to be involved in things they could not possibly have been involved in (e.g., Kent and Yovanovich helped set up NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine) in order to protect the Bidens when neither was stationed in Ukraine at the time). He claimed Yovanovich has a relationship with George Soros that does not exist. It turns out Giuliani was being passed information by Yuriy Lutsenkio, the disgraced former Prosecutor General of the Ukraine. Lutsenko is known for letting Manafort co-conspirator Kilimnik, who Mueller wanted for witness testimony, flee to Russia. He further thwarted Mueller's investigations into Manafort by not providing documentation and secret records of double bookkeeping. Giuliani was also "pissed off at her" for blocking the visa application of Viktor Shokin, another disgraced Ukrainian Prosecutor General, to visit New York because he had, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent put it, "knowingly subverted and wasted U.S. taxpayer money." Giuliani passed the dossier to the FBI where, at least publicly, they did nothing with it. Certainly none of it's highly questionable information turned up at the House hearings. Meanwhile Giuliani's henchmen, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, have been arrested and indicted, and it's not impossible that at some point Giuliani himself could be arrested. Giuliani seems to be expert at what could best be described as, given Trump's monarchical aspirations, palace intrigue. We can only hope that it all catches up with him sooner rather than later. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024