Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[UVACoug]

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?

A point that I think is significant, that the media headlines have been designed to obfuscate (along with most of the other spin on this from the media and liberal pundits), is that Bolton's book apparently doesn't say anything at all about an "announced investigation." If you read the NY Times story carefully, what the book supposedly says (and which isn't actually revealed until about 3/4 of the way through the story) is that Trump said he wanted to withhold aid until Ukraine agreed to turn over material from a Russian investigation into Democrats including the Biden's. Here is the key paragraph:

In his August 2019 discussion with Mr. Bolton, the president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/u...k-ukraine.html

That isn't really consistent with the Democrat's narrative at all--which is that Trump didn't want a real investigation, he only wanted the appearance of an investigation in order to smear Biden for political purposes. The media is trying to obfuscate this though by being vague about it. The headline for the story is "Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought" which is the way this has been spun by almost everyone in the media. General references to "inquiries" while overlooking what the book supposedly actually says.

What Trump did is problematic in many ways, but asking the Ukrainians to turn over documents is a lot different than asking them to announce a fake investigation in order to smear Biden.

[UVACoug]

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.

I don't give a crap about Trump, but I do care a lot about due process. Removal of a President is a very serious thing, and unprecedented. The Democrats have a huge burden in that regard. So, yes, in my opinion, Trump and every other President deserves the "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to removal from office.

[myboynoah]

A point that I think is significant, that the media headlines have been designed to obfuscate (along with most of the other spin on this from the media and liberal pundits), is that Bolton's book apparently doesn't say anything at all about an "announced investigation." If you read the NY Times story carefully, what the book supposedly says (and which isn't actually revealed until about 3/4 of the way through the story) is that Trump said he wanted to withhold aid until Ukraine agreed to turn over material from a Russian investigation into Democrats including the Biden's. Here is the key paragraph:




That isn't really consistent with the Democrat's narrative at all--which is that Trump didn't want a real investigation, he only wanted the appearance of an investigation in order to smear Biden for political purposes. The media is trying to obfuscate this though by being vague about it. The headline for the story is "Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought" which is the way this has been spun by almost everyone in the media. General references to "inquiries" while overlooking what the book supposedly actually says.

What Trump did is problematic in many ways, but asking the Ukrainians to turn over documents is a lot different than asking them to announce a fake investigation in order to smear Biden.

Fair point, and we'll soon find out if it is valid.

That said, Repub Senators clearly believe that Trump did the worst that is being suggested. Why? Because they expect it's likely that he did so, and likely worse. Yet they still fall in line. A very horrible precedent that will come back and bite them.

[Lost Student]

I don't give a crap about Trump, but I do care a lot about due process. Removal of a President is a very serious thing, and unprecedented. The Democrats have a huge burden in that regard. So, yes, in my opinion, Trump and every other President deserves the "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to removal from office.

I agree with you. My statement was not about the process in general, but that we shouldn't take Trump at his word re: his motivations.

[UVACoug]

I agree with you. My statement was not about the process in general, but that we shouldn't take Trump at his word re: his motivations.

I agree. He has no credibility. The Dems still have to prove their case though.

[Uncle Ted]

Chuck Schumer wanted to invite their new star witness, Lev Parnas, to attend the senate hearing but Lev can't...

https://streamable.com/kes1i

Chuck forgot he is on house arrest.

[SeattleUte]

Chuck Schumer wanted to invite their new star witness, Lev Parnas, to attend the senate hearing but Lev can't...

https://streamable.com/kes1i

Chuck forgot he is on house arrest.

Parnas is the new Avanetti.

[myboynoah]

Republicans’ damaging new line of defense

The implications of this position are frightening. If Republicans acquit Mr. Trump on the basis of Mr. Dershowitz’s arguments, they will be saying that presidents are entitled to use their official powers to force foreign governments to investigate any U.S. citizen they choose to target — even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Mr. Trump could induce Russia or Saudi Arabia or China to spy on Mr. Biden, or on any other of the many people subject to his offensive tweets. In exchange for any embarrassing information, the president might offer official favors, such as arms sales or a trade deal or the lifting of sanctions. Do Republicans really wish to ratify such presidential authority? Will they not object if the next Democratic president resorts to it?

Republicans are finally beginning to accept the facts of what Mr. Trump did — though all the facts will not be known unless they allow Mr. Bolton and other witnesses to testify. They must now draw the necessary conclusion from those facts: that what Mr. Trump did was wrong. After doing so, they could argue that the offense does not merit impeachment, or that any sanction should be delivered by voters. But a conclusion that the president did nothing wrong would inflict grave damage on our political system.

Yep.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Somebody help me understand the argument against hearing from Bolton. I don't get it.

[myboynoah]

Somebody help me understand the argument against hearing from Bolton. I don't get it.

Ummm, he'll make Trump look bad?

[falafel]

Ummm, he'll make Trump look bad?

That's about it.

[UVACoug]

Somebody help me understand the argument against hearing from Bolton. I don't get it.

There's at least three arguments that I've heard:

1. It's the House's burden to come forward with evidence to support their case. They had a chance to pursue Bolton's testimony prior to impeaching the President, but chose not to. It's not the Senate's job to do what the House decided not to do, especially when the House felt it was too much of a burden.

2. Even if everything the House alleges in the impeachment articles were assumed to be true, it wouldn't be sufficient for impeachment. Thus, there is no need to hear further testimony and witnesses to prove allegations that aren't sufficient to begin with. This argument is similar to an argument that would be made in court in a motion to dismiss. In such situations, the judge assumes all the plaintiff's claims are true and has to decide whether they amount to a valid claim or crime. If not, the case will be dismissed before trial and before any witnesses are called or evidence is submitted.

3. If we allow any witnesses, the process will get mired down and drug out for months and months and we want to get this wrapped up (especially since everyone knows the outcome is inevitable and there is an election coming up). This argument is bolstered by Trump's attorneys suggesting they will go to Court to try and block Bolton's testimony if a subpoena is issued. Another version of this argument is that if we allow this impeachment trial to get bogged down for months while subpoenas are issued and witness testimony is pursued, it will set a terrible precedent for future impeachment trials.

I think all of the arguments have some merit, but none are completely persuasive. The analogies of an impeachment trial to a civil or criminal trial before the judiciary are overblown in my opinion. At the end of the day, there is no real binding precedent one way or the other. If the Senate wants to know what Bolton has to say, they can subpoena him. If not, there's nothing compelling them to. Politically, it seems like a no brainer to get Bolton's testimony, unless it is going to take months before it happens. The court battle is what deterred the House from pursuing it. I don't see how the same concerns wouldn't justify the Senate making the same decision.

At the end of the day, this whole thing is a partisan joke. I think everyone would be better off it were put to bed as quickly as possible.

[Uncle Ted]

Somebody help me understand the argument against hearing from Bolton. I don't get it.

Who wants to hear from Bolton? His music sucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Uncle Ted]

There's at least three arguments that I've heard:

1. It's the House's burden to come forward with evidence to support their case. They had a chance to pursue Bolton's testimony prior to impeaching the President, but chose not to. It's not the Senate's job to do what the House decided not to do, especially when the House felt it was too much of a burden.

2. Even if everything the House alleges in the impeachment articles were assumed to be true, it wouldn't be sufficient for impeachment. Thus, there is no need to hear further testimony and witnesses to prove allegations that aren't sufficient to begin with. This argument is similar to an argument that would be made in court in a motion to dismiss. In such situations, the judge assumes all the plaintiff's claims are true and has to decide whether they amount to a valid claim or crime. If not, the case will be dismissed before trial and before any witnesses are called or evidence is submitted.

3. If we allow any witnesses, the process will get mired down and drug out for months and months and we want to get this wrapped up (especially since everyone knows the outcome is inevitable and there is an election coming up). This argument is bolstered by Trump's attorneys suggesting they will go to Court to try and block Bolton's testimony if a subpoena is issued. Another version of this argument is that if we allow this impeachment trial to get bogged down for months while subpoenas are issued and witness testimony is pursued, it will set a terrible precedent for future impeachment trials.

I think all of the arguments have some merit, but none are completely persuasive. The analogies of an impeachment trial to a civil or criminal trial before the judiciary are overblown in my opinion. At the end of the day, there is no real binding precedent one way or the other. If the Senate wants to know what Bolton has to say, they can subpoena him. If not, there's nothing compelling them to. Politically, it seems like a no brainer to get Bolton's testimony, unless it is going to take months before it happens. The court battle is what deterred the House from pursuing it. I don't see how the same concerns wouldn't justify the Senate making the same decision.

At the end of the day, this whole thing is a partisan joke. I think everyone would be better off it were put to bed as quickly as possible.

You forgot we already heard from Bolton concerning the Drumpf/Zelensky phone calls... he said they were "very warm and cordial calls":

Of course this is before Drumpf fired Bolton for being such a warmonger...

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Rather than wasting the senate's time they should just wait until his book actually does comes out. If the book is interesting then the house can subpoena him (it will no longer be executive privilege, right?), take him down to their secret interrogation room, water board him under some bright lights and loud acid rock music and make him talk!

[BlueK]

There's at least three arguments that I've heard:

1. It's the House's burden to come forward with evidence to support their case. They had a chance to pursue Bolton's testimony prior to impeaching the President, but chose not to. It's not the Senate's job to do what the House decided not to do, especially when the House felt it was too much of a burden.

The House asked John Bolton to testify on November 7th. Bolton said he would not go unless there was a subpoena AND only after it went through the courts. So not true they didn't want him to come. You can argue they didn't push hard enough through the court system, but then the Trumpists would have just said the Dems were trying to drag it out.