Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[Uncle Ted]

So the Dems finished up presenting their "overwhelming and uncontested evidence"...

Embedded Tweet

Anyone? Please...

Wait... I know some Ukrainians that have something:

[myboynoah]

So with the latest totally not-at-all shocking revelation from John Bolton that Trump told him directly that he would withhold the $400 million in military aid until Ukraine announced investigations into the Bidens, it looks like vast majority of Senate Repubs (and Repubs in general) has retreated even further down the dark hallway. Their position now seems to be that even if Trump did use his office to direct the usage of the assets of the U.S. Government to his own personal benefit by asking a foreign government to get involved in our U.S. election (one in which he will be a candidate), that is still okay, of little consequence, and not an impeachable offense. Rick Santorum, now a CNN pundit, even acknowledged that Trump very likely said what Bolton alleges, but then noted that Trump says a lot of things. Huh?

Oh sure, some Repubs are claiming that Bolton is lying, but puhhhhlease. Who are we to believe? A serial liar who lies even when he doesn't need to and whose lies are legion and fully verifiable over the past four years, or a longtime Repub foreign policy expert and former Ambassador to the UN who is known to tell it like it is?

Does anyone doubt that when Trump skates on this (as it appears he will) that he will be emboldened and even more brazen in doing just the same as long as he is President?

[creekster]

So with the latest totally not-at-all shocking revelation from John Bolton that Trump told him directly that he would withhold the $400 million in military aid until Ukraine announced investigations into the Bidens, it looks like vast majority of Senate Repubs (and Repubs in general) has retreated even further down the dark hallway. Their position now seems to be that even if Trump did use his office to direct the usage of the assets of the U.S. Government to his own personal benefit by asking a foreign government to get involved in our U.S. election (one in which he will be a candidate), that is still okay, of little consequence, and not an impeachable offense. Rick Santorum, now a CNN pundit, even acknowledged that Trump very likely said what Bolton alleges, but then noted that Trump says a lot of things. Huh?

Oh sure, some Repubs are claiming that Bolton is lying, but puhhhhlease. Who are we to believe? A serial liar who lies even when he doesn't need to and whose lies are legion and fully verifiable over the past four years, or a longtime Repub foreign policy expert and former Ambassador to the UN who is known to tell it like it is?

Does anyone doubt that when Trump skates on this (as it appears he will) that he will be emboldened and even more brazen in doing just the same as long as he is President?

Trump was stupid for saying there was no Quid pro Quo. As Dershowitz pointed out, I think correctly, the mere fact of a QpQ is not impeachable. We use foreign aid in that manner all the time and have done so for generations. The issue is whether he did so for an improper purpose or not. And that issue has to be determined by evidence and not just dislike for Trump. So if Trump says he is asking for an investigation into the election in 2016 and examining activities of actors such as Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and everyone seems to concede they gave the appearance of acting with a conflict of interest, that is likely a legitimate QpQ and it would take some evidence that Trump's actual subjective purpose was to thwart Biden's ambitions in 2020. I am unaware that Bolton's draft manuscript says any such thing, although I could be wrong.

I am more aligned with Sen. DiFI's comments from yesterday (which she sort of walked back today, but I digress) that at this point the impeachment proceedings are such a mess we should just let people vote and decide that way. Unlike Schiff, I do trust the voters to decide.

[frank ryan]

Trump was stupid for saying there was no Quid pro Quo. As Dershowitz pointed out, I think correctly, the mere fact of a QpQ is not impeachable. We use foreign aid in that manner all the time and have done so for generations. The issue is whether he did so for an improper purpose or not. And that issue has to be determined by evidence and not just dislike for Trump. So if Trump says he is asking for an investigation into the election in 2016 and examining activities of actors such as Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and everyone seems to concede they gave the appearance of acting with a conflict of interest, that is likely a legitimate QpQ and it would take some evidence that Trump's actual subjective purpose was to thwart Biden's ambitions in 2020. I am unaware that Bolton's draft manuscript says any such thing, although I could be wrong.

I am more aligned with Sen. DiFI's comments from yesterday (which she sort of walked back today, but I digress) that at this point the impeachment proceedings are such a mess we should just let people vote and decide that way. Unlike Schiff, I do trust the voters to decide.

Lots of words to say it's no biggie.

[Commando]

Lots of words to say it's no biggie.

Seriously. I know the whole shooting someone on 5th Ave was just a metaphor, but damn...

[creekster]

Lots of words to say it's no biggie.

It might be. It might not be. That's the point. But I don't think the House managers have produced evidence of the necessary elements, but Trump has helped them by stupiudly insisting there was no QpQ. A confederacy of dunces.

Honestly, I am still much more bothered by his actions in Syria with the Kurds. That said, I am confident that Trump always has an eye to his benefit in the now and the future. But you still have to prove it and impeachment is a pretty big deal.

[myboynoah]

Trump was stupid for saying there was no Quid pro Quo. As Dershowitz pointed out, I think correctly, the mere fact of a QpQ is not impeachable. We use foreign aid in that manner all the time and have done so for generations. The issue is whether he did so for an improper purpose or not. And that issue has to be determined by evidence and not just dislike for Trump. So if Trump says he is asking for an investigation into the election in 2016 and examining activities of actors such as Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and everyone seems to concede they gave the appearance of acting with a conflict of interest, that is likely a legitimate QpQ and it would take some evidence that Trump's actual subjective purpose was to thwart Biden's ambitions in 2020. I am unaware that Bolton's draft manuscript says any such thing, although I could be wrong.

I am more aligned with Sen. DiFI's comments from yesterday (which she sort of walked back today, but I digress) that at this point the impeachment proceedings are such a mess we should just let people vote and decide that way. Unlike Schiff, I do trust the voters to decide.

I hope the "dislike" comment isn't aimed at me. Overwhelming reporting and evidence point to a QpQ for his own personal benefit in the election.

Everyone doesn't concede an appearance of a conflict of interest. Multiple looks at VP Biden's actions exonerate him.

Finding out Trump's actual subjective purpose in this matter seems a very easy task. Simply ask Mulvaney et al to come on up to Capitol Hill and clear Trump's name.

[Lost Student]

Trump was stupid for saying there was no Quid pro Quo. As Dershowitz pointed out, I think correctly, the mere fact of a QpQ is not impeachable. We use foreign aid in that manner all the time and have done so for generations. The issue is whether he did so for an improper purpose or not. And that issue has to be determined by evidence and not just dislike for Trump. So if Trump says he is asking for an investigation into the election in 2016 and examining activities of actors such as Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and everyone seems to concede they gave the appearance of acting with a conflict of interest, that is likely a legitimate QpQ and it would take some evidence that Trump's actual subjective purpose was to thwart Biden's ambitions in 2020. I am unaware that Bolton's draft manuscript says any such thing, although I could be wrong.

I'm not so sure I would agree with that. I think there needs to be some heightened scrutiny since the QPQ directly affects the personal interests of the person asking for it--IOW, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.

I am more aligned with Sen. DiFI's comments from yesterday (which she sort of walked back today, but I digress) that at this point the impeachment proceedings are such a mess we should just let people vote and decide that way. Unlike Schiff, I do trust the voters to decide.

Trust the same voters that elected Trump in the first place? I don't. I also don't trust the process that led to Trump and Hillary being the candidates.

[creekster]

I hope the "dislike" comment isn't aimed at me. Overwhelming reporting and evidence point to a QpQ for his own personal benefit in the election.

Everyone doesn't concede an appearance of a conflict of interest. Multiple looks at VP Biden's actions exonerate him.

Finding out Trump's actual subjective purpose in this matter seems a very easy task. Simply ask Mulvaney et al to come on up to Capitol Hill and clear Trump's name.

It isn't aimed at anyone in particular, and I was actually thinking more of Schiff and some of his fanciful recreations than anything you said. I just mean that you cant substitute dislike for Trump for testimony, etc. I am in favor of testimony from BOlton, and Mulvaney, etc.

The exonerations of Biden go to his conduct vis a vis tha prosecutor (a QpQ) but not to what was expected of Hunter Biden in that time frame.

[creekster]

I'm not so sure I would agree with that. I think there needs to be some heightened scrutiny since the QPQ directly affects the personal interests of the person asking for it--IOW, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.




Trust the same voters that elected Trump in the first place? I don't. I also don't trust the process that led to Trump and Hillary being the candidates.

But any action taken by any president will arguably work to his benefit or his party's benefit in an upcoming election. It takes more than just that. Either way, and you might be right about some sort of heightened scrutiny, Trump would be much better off taking this tack (as Dershowitz suggested) than by trying to deny any QpQ at all.

I do trust the voters. If they elect Trump again, then so be it. As I have said many times, I did not vote for him in 2016 and it is very unlikely I would vote for him in 2020. But iof that is what the country wants, then I can support that choice regardless of how much I dislike Trump. I think the system is sound and will/does work if we employ it properly.

[Uncle Ted]

As Dershowitz pointed out, I think correctly, the mere fact of a QpQ is not impeachable. We use foreign aid in that manner all the time and have done so for generations.

Yeah, those guys running this country do the QpQ thing all the time... Hunter Biden (yes, the whole chasing, coke sniffing, University of Del reject) was getting a cool million a year from that Ukrainian energy company because he gave them access to Daddy Joe. Not to mention, Daddy Joe used some big time QpQ to get them to stop investigating that same energy company. It is all true... I saw it on PBS!

How do you think those guys all get so rich on the relatively meager salary they are given?

[Uncle Ted]

It isn't aimed at anyone in particular, and I was actually thinking more of Schiff and some of his fanciful recreations than anything you said. I just mean that you cant substitute dislike for Trump for testimony, etc. I am in favor of testimony from BOlton, and Mulvaney, etc.

The exonerations of Biden go to his conduct vis a vis tha prosecutor (a QpQ) but not to what was expected of Hunter Biden in that time frame.

Yeah, I would like to hear from Molton and Mulvaney... but I suspect if they did call them they would just say something like, "Sorry, that's all executive privilege but we can talk about my cat."

I would like to hear from from Hunter Biden too as well as Daddy Joe. Now that would be entertainment.

[SeattleUte]

I think the best argument, that would have headed this whole thing off, would have been to admit everything and say, so what? Admit even that they wanted corruption investigated including the Bidens. Be non-apologetic for that, saying that of course we were interested in that because Joe Biden is running for president. You bet. Like that professor from South Texas said in the NYT column, just because helping Trump is a collateral effect doesn't make it corrupt. The Hunter Biden set up earning 60k a month to do nothing on the Burisma board looks so bad. How could democrats say that was fake? There'd at least be a fact issue. Joe Biden was in a conflict of interest, even if he wasn't corrupt, when he meddled in the prosecution of Burisma.

[Uncle Ted]

I am not a lawyer nor play one on TV but isn't withholding a transcript like unethical and stuff?

Embedded Tweet

Hey, Hillary might be right... Not releasing that 18th transcript seems like a coverup!

Embedded Tweet

Thanks for the phone number, Hill!

[myboynoah]

I think the best argument, that would have headed this whole thing off, would have been to admit everything and say, so what? Admit even that they wanted corruption investigated including the Bidens. Be non-apologetic for that, saying that of course we were interested in that because Joe Biden is running for president. You bet. Like that professor from South Texas said in the NYT column, just because helping Trump is a collateral effect doesn't make it corrupt. The Hunter Biden set up earning 60k a month to do nothing on the Burisma board looks so bad. How could democrats say that was fake? There'd at least be a fact issue. Joe Biden was in a conflict of interest, even if he wasn't corrupt, when he meddled in the prosecution of Burisma.

I wish Trump had done just that as well. And then sent his cronies over to the House to testify, and then on to the Senate. He should have testified himself. What has he got to hide?