Turn, turn, turn - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15053148
Prof Tribe wrote a book about impeachment that argued against impeaching Trump. I didn't agree, but he's one of a handful of guys that knows this sort of thing cold.

I have 2 points to make today. The first is that Trump's "favor to ask" phone call changed Prof Tribe's mind. It changed the mind of most serious people, from Pelosi on down.

The second is why I disagreed with Prof Tribe. I was using a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard. Prosecutors routinely prosecute cases without proof. They try to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Trump clearly has something going on with Russia that he is desperate to keep hidden. When the Founding Fathers said "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", they weren't talking about case law. There was no book of criminal statutes, for one thing. But the important bit is that they wanted Congress to pass judgement if the president acted against the interests of the country.

That has happened repeatedly, blatantly...

If you read what the Founding Fathers wrote, Trump has done it all, except treason. We're not in a declared war. Which is something of a technicality these days, we're always fighting somebody somewhere, usually several somebodies in several places. Congress passes the buck because they don't want to take the blame, because these military adventures go wrong so often.

I digress. My respect for Prof Tribe is total, but this was something about which reasonable people could disagree.

Once Mueller had testified, and that chapter was over, Trump picked up the phone and called Ukraine. The timelines have not gotten much attention in the press, but they are crucial. It tells us Trump immediately went back to his attempt at undermining the election, which is the beating heart of a democracy, and tried to plunge a dagger into it. He won't stop.

To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time to every purpose, under heaven

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKP4cfU28vM
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15053230
late wrote:The timelines have not gotten much attention in the press, but they are crucial. It tells us Trump immediately went back to his attempt at undermining the election, which is the beating heart of a democracy, and tried to plunge a dagger into it. He won't stop.

Investigating whether Biden violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is not an impeachable offense, nor is invoking a request for help via treaty. We have lots of them--interpol, interfipol, etc. There is nothing illegal about investigating potential corruption of public officials.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15053233
blackjack21 wrote:There is nothing illegal about investigating potential corruption of public officials.
That is especially true of Trump, in case you forgot he's a public official.

By all means, investigate Biden, as well. The fewer corrupt politicians you have, the better.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15053235
Godstud wrote:That is especially true of Trump, in case you forgot he's a public official.

By all means, investigate Biden, as well. The fewer corrupt politicians you have, the better.

@blackjack21

I am of this opinion also. In Estonia we had the leader of the largest party kicked out of politics because his dealings looked suspicious. Nothing super conclusive but 30k EU was found stashed and his party basically disawoved him. The shit with Trump kinda reminds me things that are happening in Russia, Egypt, even Thailand to a degree. If you want your system to be less corrupt than you can't be blind to this.

Also the problem with Trump is how he does things. Investigating Biden is okay but you can't do it like a quid pro quo. In a sense you get aid cut if you don't help. That is beyond doubt now.

It's very unlikely that Trump will get impeached and that is a bad thing because it simply shows others that corruption is tolerated as long as the party approves. Not the people but the Republican party.
By late
#15053245
blackjack21 wrote:
Investigating whether Biden violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is not an impeachable offense, nor is invoking a request for help via treaty. We have lots of them--interpol, interfipol, etc. There is nothing illegal about investigating potential corruption of public officials.



Biden was investigated, this is a blatant attempt to coerce a foreign country to influence the presidential election.

That is precisely why the Founding Fathers created impeachment.

Here's the other shoe; the Burisma thing does look bad. But it's legal and routine, happens all the time, unfortunately.

But it's also a distraction from the extreme corruption of the Trump family. If you were a bloodhound, they'd leave you at home. The Saudi bought the Trumps, when they threw away money into Jared's disastrous 666 investment. Here's a clue, get that in court, and you'd get a conviction.

One other thing, Trump's consigliere, Barr, has been trying to persuade Trump to kick Giuliani to the curb. Want to know how bad this is? Kelly wouldn't be in the same room with him. Bolton called this a "drug deal", and would have nothing to do with it, and likely left the administration over it.

IOW, you are ignoring the worst corruption in American history to howl like a hound dog over a transparent scheme to smear the Bidens.

This is so far off the reservation that it is macabre; a perversely self-destructive exercise that is a parody of governance.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15053257
Godstud wrote:That is especially true of Trump, in case you forgot he's a public official.

There's no question about it. So far, they have found no wrongdoing.

JohnRawls wrote:In Estonia we had the leader of the largest party kicked out of politics because his dealings looked suspicious.

Well, legally, you should have more than that. Politicians SHOULD avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. However, that appearance itself isn't a crime.

JohnRawls wrote:Investigating Biden is okay but you can't do it like a quid pro quo. In a sense you get aid cut if you don't help. That is beyond doubt now.

That is how interpol, interfipol, etc. work. They are requests for help through official channels.

JohnRawls wrote:It's very unlikely that Trump will get impeached and that is a bad thing because it simply shows others that corruption is tolerated as long as the party approves.

He will get impeached, but not removed from office. The bottom line is that they did not establish anything in the hearings. Every witness said they had no direct evidence of a quid pro quo or of any illegal act--EVERY SINGLE WITNESS. So where do you get the idea that there is even a case? Did you not watch the hearings?

late wrote:Biden was investigated, this is a blatant attempt to coerce a foreign country to influence the presidential election.

Burisma was being investigated, and the Bidens had the investigation shut down by firing a prosecutor by holding up aid and then bragging about it to the Council on Foreign Relations.

late wrote:That is precisely why the Founding Fathers created impeachment.

No it is not. It was created so that rival powers could not buy the presidency. That's why someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot run for president either. He wasn't born here.

late wrote:Here's the other shoe; the Burisma thing does look bad. But it's legal and routine, happens all the time, unfortunately.

It's legal to hire Hunter Biden and pay him copious amounts of money without directly stipulating that the money is for lobbying the US government. It is illegal if it results in a quid pro quo that requires an official act that benefits a private interest. That's why the Bidens are in trouble and Trump is not.

late wrote:But it's also a distraction from the extreme corruption of the Trump family.

If that were the case, it's likely Trump would have been convicted of some crime at some point. However, that hasn't been the case. He's spent the last 10 years running a TV show on NBC. It's not that I don't think NBC isn't corrupt, but they generally do things according to the law. So how are you going to prove your case?

late wrote:The Saudi bought the Trumps, when they threw away money into Jared's disastrous 666 investment.

Once again, you have a layer of indirection right in your charge that more than likely doesn't get anywhere near Trump.

late wrote:One other thing, Trump's consigliere, Barr, has been trying to persuade Trump to kick Giuliani to the curb.

Right. They don't want a loose cannon, and Trump is okay with it.

late wrote:Kelly wouldn't be in the same room with him. Bolton called this a "drug deal", and would have nothing to do with it, and likely left the administration over it.

That's fine. Trump was attacked on the Trump-Russia story. He has every right to counter-attack. He has every right to get rid of anyone who isn't on board with that too.

late wrote:IOW, you are ignoring the worst corruption in American history to howl like a hound dog over a transparent scheme to smear the Bidens.

That isn't even close to the worst corruption in American history. A far better example, which isn't even the worst, is paying off the Clintons directly and indirectly to approve the sale of uranium to Russia--something Mueller was in on too.

late wrote:This is so far off the reservation that it is macabre; a perversely self-destructive exercise that is a parody of governance.

Eh? Whatever. It would be nice if you could get just one witness under oath to testify that the president broke a specific law of the United States Code or Code of Federal Regulations. So far, they've got bupkis. "The seriousness of the charge" is not a basis for a conviction. You need evidence, and you don't have any. By contrast, there is enough evidence to justify a criminal investigation into the Bidens.
By Finfinder
#15053263
JohnRawls wrote:@blackjack21

Also the problem with Trump is how he does things. Investigating Biden is okay but you can't do it like a quid pro quo. In a sense you get aid cut if you don't help. That is beyond doubt now.

It's very unlikely that Trump will get impeached and that is a bad thing because it simply shows others that corruption is tolerated as long as the party approves. Not the people but the Republican party.


Simply stated you couldn't be more wrong. There is a massive amount of doubt, if you think otherwise you haven't fairly looked the facts. Just to start with all you need to do is read the transcript of the call. Game Set Match.
By Rugoz
#15053266
@late

Whom are you trying to convince?

Trump said he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and his braindead followers would still vote for him. That sums it up perfectly. You won't convince Pofo's Trumpster zombies ever.
By late
#15053267
blackjack21 wrote:
1) There's no question about it. So far, they have found no wrongdoing.



2) That is how interpol, interfipol, etc. work. They are requests for help through official channels.


3) The bottom line is that they did not establish anything in the hearings.


4) Burisma was being investigated, and the Bidens had the investigation shut down by firing a prosecutor by holding up aid and then bragging about it to the Council on Foreign Relations.


5) No it is not. It was created so that rival powers could not buy the presidency.

6) It's legal to hire Hunter Biden and pay him copious amounts of money without directly stipulating that the money is for lobbying the US government. It is illegal if it results in a quid pro quo that requires an official act that benefits a private interest. That's why the Bidens are in trouble and Trump is not.


7) If that were the case, it's likely Trump would have been convicted of some crime at some point. However, that hasn't been the case. He's spent the last 10 years running a TV show on NBC. It's not that I don't think NBC isn't corrupt, but they generally do things according to the law. So how are you going to prove your case?


Eight) Once again, you have a layer of indirection right in your charge that more than likely doesn't get anywhere near Trump.


9)Right. They don't want a loose cannon, and Trump is okay with it.


10) That's fine. Trump was attacked on the Trump-Russia story. He has every right to counter-attack. He has every right to get rid of anyone who isn't on board with that too.


11) That isn't even close to the worst corruption in American history. A far better example, which isn't even the worst, is paying off the Clintons directly and indirectly to approve the sale of uranium to Russia--something Mueller was in on too.


12) Eh? Whatever. It would be nice if you could get just one witness under oath to testify that the president broke a specific law of the United States Code or Code of Federal Regulations.



1) Turn on your TV, you know, the impeachment hearings?

2) Trump didn't use any of the normal channels.

3) More fiction.. The witnesses all bore witness to wrongdoing, and the report included the phone logs, which adds weight to their testimony.

4) You've packaged a number of lies into a short space. Give my congrats to the professional liar who gave you that stinker. The EU, the US, and the IMF had been pressuring Ukraine for months to clean up their act. Obama sent Biden, pursuant to official US policy, to clean up the corruption. "The intent makes the crime".

5) The principle is the same, and it's right there in the historical record. They did not want a president to betray the country.

6) No, Trump is being impeached, and the FBI concluded their investigation of Biden because they didn't find anything. "favor to ask, though"... You have it exactly backwards.

7) Way to miss the obvious. The stature of limitations will limit what can be done. Btw, rich people routinely fly under the radar if they get good lawyers..
If he loses, he will spend the rest of his life in court. Or commuting for jail to court, and back. Nixon avoided that fate by resigning. Trump isn't half as smart as Nixon.

Eight) An interesting assertion, perhaps you could support that, I could use a good laugh. That violates Emoulements, putting your interests ahead of the country's interests, along with side issues like obstruction of justice.

9) Giuliani could be the camel that broke the elephants back. He's still at it, and it stinks to high heaven.

10) They didn't want to go to jail.

11) Uranium One was for idiots only. It was unbelievably stupid. No uranium went to Russia. There is no connection between any of the parts of the supposed controversy. And there was no betrayal of the country.

"But, as the NRC explained at the time, “no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”

"We don’t even know if Clinton was involved in the committee’s review and approval of the uranium deal. Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times" (If you look into the timeline, it's unlikely she had any direct involvement.)

This bit of fiction was written by a Breitbart propagandist, which should tell you all you needed to know.

Look, if you want to actually say something that isn't a lie (just for a change of pace) try Andrew Johnson. There was a lot of corruption in the 1800s. But your basic problem will remain, they didn't betray the country. That adds a qualitative difference that you can't get away from.)

12) You love this lie, you keep repeating it. The Constitution does not restrict Congress in any way. That was deliberate, as we have told you many times. It would not be possible to construct a set of laws to cover every possible eventuality.

That is just too much brain dead propaganda for one post. Seriously.
By late
#15053270
Rugoz wrote:
@late

Whom are you trying to convince?

Trump said he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and his braindead followers would still vote for him. That sums it up perfectly. You won't convince Pofo's Trumpster zombies ever.



Because propaganda works.

I can't persuade the victims of propaganda, but I can try to oppose it to try and limit the number of people that fall victim to it in the future.

If you don't, they win.
By Finfinder
#15053284
Rugoz wrote:@late

Whom are you trying to convince?

Trump said he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and his braindead followers would still vote for him. That sums it up perfectly. You won't convince Pofo's Trumpster zombies ever.


Isn't it obvious he trying to convince himself and perhaps people like you. Trump could cure cancer and you'd have a problem with him so what are we talking about here?
By late
#15053288
Finfinder wrote:
Isn't it obvious he trying to convince himself and perhaps people like you. Trump could cure cancer and you'd have a problem with him so what are we talking about here?



It's ironic that you write that at the same time the impeachment hearings are going over this in excruciating detail.

Btw, I did not object to Obama refusing to expand aid to Ukraine, and I did not object to Trump expanding aid to Ukraine.

It's something on which reasonable people can differ. On a purely personal note, I approve of the expanded aid. But that's me being sentimental, which is not the same thing as thinking it's a smart policy decision.

Foreign affairs are the hardest thing a president does (assuming they are trying to be a good president, which would not currently be a valid assumption). Which is why they all screw up. Even Ike, who was the last president you could say was good at foreign affairs, made a number of mistakes.

Part of the problem is that when you do something, that will usually set of a cascade of responses. Doing nothing will also set off a cascade.

Presidents work with "imperfect information" (information theory) and some of the consequences are going to be unpredictable, and usually not what you wanted.
By Finfinder
#15053289
late wrote:It's ironic that you write that at the same time the impeachment hearings are going over this in excruciating detail.

Btw, I did not object to Obama refusing to expand aid to Ukraine, and I did not object to Trump expanding aid to Ukraine.

It's something on which reasonable people can differ. On a purely personal note, I approve of the expanded aid. But that's me being sentimental, which is not the same thing as thinking it's a smart policy decision.

Foreign affairs are the hardest thing a president does (assuming they are trying to be a good president, which would not currently be a valid assumption). Which is why they all screw up. Even Ike, who was the last president you could say was good at foreign affairs, made a number of mistakes.

Part of the problem is that when you do something, that will usually set of a cascade of responses. Doing nothing will also set off a cascade.

Presidents work with "imperfect information" (information theory) and some of the consequences are going to be unpredictable, and usually not what you wanted.


You are the best so now you are the voice of bipartisanship. :lol: :lol: :lol: That is great just point me to the threads here on POFO when you wanted to impeach Obama for his comment to Dmitry Medvedev

Obama tells Russia's Medvedev more flexibility after election
4 MIN READ


SEOUL (Reuters) - President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election. Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him “space” until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.

The unusually frank exchange came as Obama and Medvedev huddled together on the eve of a global nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, unaware their words were being picked up by microphones as reporters were led into the room.

how ironic
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seized on Obama’s comment, calling it “alarming and troubling.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nucl ... JI20120326
By Finfinder
#15053295
late wrote:Not even close, but I can focus, unlike some I could mention.


So I'll take it you have no answer for my post. Game Set Match........ next thread.
By late
#15053298
Finfinder wrote:
So I'll take it you have no answer for my post. Game Set Match........ next thread.



Wake me up if you ever say anything relevant...
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15053316
late wrote:1) Turn on your TV, you know, the impeachment hearings?

Yeah. So far, all the witnesses never saw Trump do anything criminal.

late wrote:2) Trump didn't use any of the normal channels.

Referring them to the DoJ is the normal channel.

late wrote:The witnesses all bore witness to wrongdoing, and the report included the phone logs, which adds weight to their testimony.

They were all directly asked if they were on the call. They said no. They were all asked if they had ever met or communicated with the president. They said no. They were all asked if they witnessed an impeachable offense. They all said no. The rest of it is hearsay, rumor mongering, conjecture and supposition.

late wrote:4) You've packaged a number of lies into a short space. Give my congrats to the professional liar who gave you that stinker. The EU, the US, and the IMF had been pressuring Ukraine for months to clean up their act. Obama sent Biden, pursuant to official US policy, to clean up the corruption. "The intent makes the crime".

The EU, US and IMF all wanted Ukraine to drop its dependence on Russian-subsidized natural gas, purchase natural gas at market prices, and allow Western gas companies in to develop natural gas fields in the Ukraine. Burisma was suspected of obtaining a concession in an unlawful or extra-judicial manner.

late wrote:5) The principle is the same, and it's right there in the historical record. They did not want a president to betray the country.

The president has not betrayed the country.

late wrote:6) No, Trump is being impeached, and the FBI concluded their investigation of Biden because they didn't find anything. "favor to ask, though"... You have it exactly backwards.

Trump is going to remain in office, and Biden is going to lose if he gets the nomination.

late wrote:7) Way to miss the obvious. The stature of limitations will limit what can be done. Btw, rich people routinely fly under the radar if they get good lawyers..
If he loses, he will spend the rest of his life in court. Or commuting for jail to court, and back. Nixon avoided that fate by resigning. Trump isn't half as smart as Nixon.

And I should care about any of this, because?

late wrote:An interesting assertion, perhaps you could support that, I could use a good laugh. That violates Emoulements, putting your interests ahead of the country's interests, along with side issues like obstruction of justice.

Your assertion is that the Saudis somehow bought off Jared Kushner, and by extension have bought off Trump. Once again, your assertion contains a layer of indirection. If Trump is that crafty, you'll never catch him.

late wrote:9) Giuliani could be the camel that broke the elephants back. He's still at it, and it stinks to high heaven.

Giuliani hasn't broken any laws. Why should he stop? The whole purpose of all this bullshit is to try to prevent Trump from turning tables on his interlocutors. It's not going to work.

late wrote:10) They didn't want to go to jail.

Whatever.

late wrote:11) Uranium One was for idiots only.

Selling interests in the ingredients to nuclear weapons to your supposed enemy seems a little on the suspicious side. If that's okay, I see little reason why anyone would be concerned about other things Russians may or may not do.

late wrote:12) You love this lie, you keep repeating it. The Constitution does not restrict Congress in any way.

Maybe you should look at the Bill of Rights. It absolutely restricts Congress.

By the way, why is this post titled after a refrain from a Pete Seeger song?

Nobody cares, Sivad. You can't even respect yours[…]

A recent requirement added is to be a rapist. […]

800 million lifted out of poverty in 40 years. […]

What is Fascism

Your lack of historical knowledge is not an argum[…]