Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

sid waddell

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

the fact that republicans are blatantly letting Trump getting away with what he did and not allowing evidence could well hurt them more then they think, Trump was never getting convicted but maybe they should have been a bit more subtle about it....people are saying the democrats messes up by pursuing impeachment but I think it has left Trump badly exposed.... there is going to be more and more revelations about the Ukraine scandal and some very awkward for republican senators to answer... and I'm sure Lev has more videos and Bolton will be doing many interviews

Everybody always thinks this. That "next time" they'll suffer, that they'll somehow be shamed and "exposed" and therefore Trump will somehow be shamed and exposed.

It makes about as much sense as saying that Putin will have awkward questions to answer and could be "shamed and exposed".

The Republicans don't play by normal rules, they are not good faith actors, and cannot be shamed. They are a full blown cult.

All this was a choreographed manoeuvre. Alexander was put forward as a potential "swing" vote. Why? Because he's in a safe state, he's retiring, and because it took the heat off Gardner and Tillis who have loseable senate races this year. Nobody talked about them. Even Collins' "yes" vote was a choreographed manoeuvre to help her re-election chances. Would Collins have voted yes if the Republicans needed her vote? Would she fook.

Newsflash, democracy in the US is completely ****ed, everybody should fully expect the election to be rigged where it needs to be rigged.

Since the start of all this, people have touchingly wanted to believe that this is not what it is, a trans-national crime syndicate masquerading as a government. Perhaps confronting this reality is too painful.

Those who said such were proclaimed "doom mongers" or "crazy". And yet the doom mongers keep being proved absolutely right.

StringerBell

The problem the republicans will face in the words of Ben Shapiro even is that they are going to be in trouble in the purple states if and when shoes continue to drop and they voted no on more evidence or witnesses.

I don't remember people (like myself) who pretty accurately predicted how this entire charade would go being called doom mongers or
crazy or anything though?

This was the overwhelmingly likely outcome and nobody does dark arts of politics like Moscow Mitch.

sid waddell

StringerBell wrote: »

The problem the republicans will face in the words of Ben Shapiro even is that they are going to be in trouble in the purple states if and when shoes continue to drop and they voted no on more evidence or witnesses.

Trump can afford to lose Pennsylvania and Michigan. He only needs to hold Wisconsin (or one of the other two, whichever is easiest). And that can be arranged with the best "democracy" money can buy, ie. a fix., voter suppression, voter fraud, vote tampering, perhaps all three.

And nobody should be any under any illusions about them being willing to do it, with some outside help from their "friends".

The Republicans can afford to lose Maine, Colorado, and one of Arizona, North Carolina or Georgia and still hold the senate 51-49. Democrats have no other pick up chances.

All three of the latter are likely to vote for Trump. That means Democrats won't be taking back the senate this year.

PropJoe10

I sincerely hope that all this comes back to bite the Republicans hard, but they're in the cult of Teflon Don now. I can't see it. Best we can hope for is that the Dems manage to scrape a majority in the Senate in the next sitting, to make Don's next term pretty much useless. If the Republicans keep the Senate and Don gets re-elected, watch out.

sid waddell

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I sincerely hope that all this comes back to bite the Republicans hard, but they're in the cult of Teflon Don now. I can't see it. Best we can hope for is that the Dems manage to scrape a majority in the Senate in the next sitting, to make Don's next term pretty much useless. If the Republicans keep the Senate and Don gets re-elected, watch out.

I'd say it's watch out right now. There will likely be more fake investigations, fake narratives and actual show trials very soon, and existing investigations into Trump will be shut down by Barr.

Sarah Kendzior has consistently predicted show trials and she's been right about literally everything else. This rotten episode was itself a form of show trial but the ones that follow are likely to be a lot worse.

sid waddell

I'm sure our resident Trump "supporters" (can't question their motives, oh no) will have hot takes on why landmines are good. Perhaps they'll even have long, rambling posts on why they should be used at the border with Mexico. Sadism is an integral part of Trumpism after all.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/absolutely-horrific-trump-preparing-to-roll-back-restrictions-on-us-military-use-of-landmines/

StringerBell

sid waddell wrote: »

Trump can afford to lose Pennsylvania and Michigan. He only needs to hold Wisconsin (or one of the other two, whichever is easiest). And that can be arranged with the best "democracy" money can buy, ie. a fix., voter suppression, voter fraud, vote tampering, perhaps all three.

And nobody should be any under any illusions about them being willing to do it, with some outside help from their "friends".

The Republicans can afford to lose Maine, Colorado, and one of Arizona, North Carolina or Georgia and still hold the senate 51-49. Democrats have no other pick up chances.

All three of the latter are likely to vote for Trump. That means Democrats won't be taking back the senate this year.

Yeah I'm aware of electoral math, it doesn't change the point though.

So who was calling me or you or whoever a doom dayer or crazy?

aloyisious

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The Quid pro Quo alone is not the crime. There’s nothing illegal about Trump holding back that aid to push for an investigation of the Bidens.

The crime would be if Trump did the quid pro quo specifically in order to benefit himself in 2020 and for no other reason.

Yes, now that last is an admission you have an opinion on the possibility that Don may not have the investigation solely to find out if there was crookery done by the Bidens for an unknown reason, but that Don may have wanted it for the purpose of gaining a personal benefit by damaging the reputation of an opponent in the upcoming election.

In respect of that, there would be no point in you repeating the mantra that one would have to know what was on Don's mind to find the answer. The reason you gave above is something a lot of people saw the chance of by looking at his track record, quite simply that in Dons mind the end justified the means.
The same now applies, and is seen to be the rule the GOP applied in the trial, to the GOP, that in politics crookery is ok and rife under that party's understanding of the constitution.

EltonJohn69

Do you reckon there will be chants of build the wall or lock her up after the vote for no wittiness ??? There will be at least a round of applause anyway..... maybe some foot stamping also....

sid waddell

StringerBell wrote: »

Yeah I'm aware of electoral math, it doesn't change the point though.

So who was calling me or you or whoever a doom dayer or crazy?

It's my feeling in a general sense across all media and within US politics, especially the Democratic party itself, that those who put forward a worst case (ie. reality-based) scenario are sidelined, you hear nonsensical phrases like "impeach him at the ballot box" a lot, which presumes that the election will be fair (a huge assumption) and people pleading to focus on "bread and butter issues", that that's the way to win, while neglecting the utterly monstrous nature of this regime and the need to bring it down and drag it into the dirt - for the sake of democracy and society.

I still think a lot of people in the Democratic party or the corporate US media really don't know just what they are up against, you see it with the centrists like Biden who are still talking about bi-partisanship, Claire McCaskill on MSNBC last night talking like the Republicans are good faith actors, when they aren't. Bi-partisanship or the notion of it is a complete joke now, the Republicans will never entertain bi-partisanship ever again. You see the likes of CNN and the New York Times constantly giving nods to Trumpism and Trumpist narratives in their framing and phrasing, as if they are somehow legitimate, perhaps in an effort to make life easier for themselves - hint, it won't. The Glenn Greenwald/Michael Tracey/Matt Taibbi cabal have been particularly bad for pushing pro-Trump narratives.

The Current Affairs Forum is probably more relevant in terms of here as I think there are a lot of genuinely clued in posters on this forum as well as the ones that clearly aren't, or should I say "provocateurs". But if you glance across different online forums, Irish forums, there is a general reluctance and refusal to consider what the abhorrent reality of Trump and Trumpism is, there are copious apologists and minimisers and both sidesers and trolls, who drag debate down to the gutter. Perhaps that's because the reality of what Trump is too awful to contemplate, and/or perhaps a mixture of people being actual sadists and lovers of fascist authoritarianism.

A common narrative here over the last year or so was that the Democrats shouldn't impeach because that's what Trump wanted. That narrative was wrong and it was a narrative that involved giving Trump what he wanted in order to "pacify" him.

Even here, people seemed to be genuinely debating whether Republicans might somehow vote to have witnesses, as if they were good faith actors. That narrative was wrong. The outcome was never in doubt.

"Saviour syndrome" , ie. the belief that surely somebody will stand up against this madness and rein Trump in, has been rife among those who abhor Trump. First it was the FBI, then it was Mueller, SDNY, the courts, Pelosi, Republican senators like Flake, Romney or Collins, members of Trump's family or cabinet etc., surely somebody will stand up to him. The final one is the voters. Surely they will stand up and save the US. But it's highly unlikely they will, because they won't be allowed to.

There are no saviours. Trump has completely ridden roughshod over everything and everyone in the same way Putin did, and all the talk about checks and balances has proven to be nonsense.

Gbear

sid waddell wrote: »

You see the likes of CNN and the New York Times constantly giving nods to Trumpism and Trumpist narratives in their framing and phrasing, as if they are somehow legitimate, perhaps in an effort to make life easier for themselves - hint, it won't. The Glenn Greenwald/Michael Tracey/Matt Taibbi cabal have been particularly bad for pushing pro-Trump narratives.

I haven't listened to or read much of him but from his travels around the podcast circuit he appeared to be making a similar point to the one you're making - that the media is fundamentally failing in it's duty to report on facts and that journalism has been totally found out in the face of the torrent of lies from the Fascist Right.

On a related note, you also hear David Frum on a lot of these podcasts too, including what I think is quite a good podcast; Talking Feds, but the sheer gall of people like him, when he coined the term axis of evil, and was responsible for chucking Iran into it for no ****ing reason, at a time when relations with the country were somewhat thawing over their shared enmity with the Taliban, really makes these guys look like atrocious human beings.

Igotadose

Taibbi wrote 'Insane Clown President' talking about the Trump 2016 campaign. Not sure how he can be construed as even slightly pushing a pro-Trump narrative. He's pretty much been right about the US all along and anti-Trump.

sid waddell

Gbear wrote: »

I haven't listened to or read much of him but from his travels around the podcast circuit he appeared to be making a similar point to the one you're making - that the media is fundamentally failing in it's duty to report on facts and that journalism has been totally found out in the face of the torrent of lies from the Fascist Right.

On a related note, you also hear David Frum on a lot of these podcasts too, including what I think is quite a good podcast; Talking Feds, but the sheer gall of people like him, when he coined the term axis of evil, and was responsible for chucking Iran into it for no ****ing reason, at a time when relations with the country were somewhat thawing over their shared enmity with the Taliban, really makes these guys look like atrocious human beings.

I think Taibbi has been absolutely dreadful and has been a major contributor to the failing of a lot of liberal media and its willingness to push lies and be credulous in the face of industrial bullshlt. He's continually pushed pro-Trump narratives, has completely closed his mind to the notion that official lines coming from Trump and the regime regarding investigations etc. are bullshilt (the bullshlt Barr statement on the Mueller report, for example, which he was triumphantly touting within minutes of its release). It seems to me that he has become a complete parrot for William Barr and the like, as well as Russia.

For somebody who before Trump I would have had respect for as a journalist, it's been an astonishing heel turn. At this stage I believe he has zero credibility whatsoever.

And a look into his past living in Russia is interesting, to say the least, and brings up all sorts of very problematic behaviour.

Greenwald has effectively been Taibbi's partner in all of this. You look at the very worthy work Greenwald does in Brazil, where he lives, and then look at his bizarre commentary about Trump and cosying up to Fox News, as well as his rubbishing of the excellent work of his own news outlet, The Intercept, and it's like it's two completely people, almost schizophrenic.

Frum is a neo-con who I have zero time for as regards his foreign policy past, but I do think he sort of gets some of what's going on with Trump, in the very pompous way that conservative US commentators tend to write, as does the otherwise abhorrent Bill Kristol and a few others. I wouldn't really trust them for a second given their pasts, but I do get the feeling there is some small sort of John McCain type integrity about them, which is very rare in Republican media circles.

Igotadose

sid waddell wrote: »

I think Taibbi has been absolutely dreadful and has been a major contributor to the failing of a lot of liberal media and its willingness to push lies and be credulous in the face of industrial bullshlt. He's continually pushed pro-Trump narratives, has completely closed his mind to the notion that official lines coming from Trump and the regime regarding investigations etc. are bullshilt (the bullshlt Barr statement on the Mueller report, for example, which he was triumphantly touting within minutes of its release). It seems to me that he has become a complete parrot for William Barr and the like, as well as Russia.

Uhh... can you link to an example of Taibbi pushing a pro-Trump narrative?

For somebody who before Trump I would have had respect for as a journalist, it's been an astonishing heel turn. At this stage I believe he has zero credibility whatsoever.

And a look into his past living in Russia is interesting, to say the least, and brings up all sorts of very problematic behaviour.

Greenwald has effectively been Taibbi's partner in all of this. You look at the very worthy work Greenwald does in Brazil, where he lives, and then look at his bizarre commentary about Trump and cosying up to Fox News, as well as his rubbishing of the excellent work of his own news outlet, The Intercept, and it's like it's two completely people, almost schizophrenic.

Greenwald first and foremost was anti-Hillary and anti-Obama, and pro-Wikileaks. I discounted anything he said a long time ago.

Frum is a neo-con who I have zero time for as regards his foreign policy past, but I do think he sort of gets some of what's going on with Trump, in the very pompous way that conservative US commentators tend to write, as does the otherwise abhorrent Bill Kristol and a few others. I wouldn't really trust them for a second given their pasts, but I do get the feeling there is some small sort of John McCain type integrity about them, which is very rare in Republican media circles.

Frum and Kristol are wastes of skin from the old days. No disagreement there.

sid waddell

Igotadose wrote: »

Taibbi wrote 'Insane Clown President' talking about the Trump 2016 campaign. Not sure how he can be construed as even slightly pushing a pro-Trump narrative. He's pretty much been right about the US all along and anti-Trump.

But anybody can call Trump an "insane clown", I mean that's a given and in fact that narrative is actually a distraction. It's far too easy to call him an "insane clown" because it gives cover to him as regards the real shady stuff, where he and the Republicans are as far away from insane clowns as its possible to be, they're a ruthless machine. It's the criminality and the corruption and the ties to Russia that are the interesting bits. And it seems to me that Taibbi has zero curiosity on any of that, he rears up any time it's even mentioned. It's almost like he's protecting Trump.

Look at his reaction to the Trump-Ukraine extortion story. He pretty much completely dismissed it. That isn't how a journalist works. That's how a propagandist with something to hide works.

Gbear

sid waddell wrote: »

But anybody can call Trump an "insane clown", I mean that's a given and in fact that narrative is actually a distraction. It's far too easy to call him an "insane clown" because it gives cover to him as regards the real shady stuff, where he and the Republicans are as far away from insane clowns as its possible to be, they're a ruthless machine. It's the criminality and the corruption and the ties to Russia that are the interesting bits. And it seems to me that Taibbi has zero curiosity on any of that, he rears up any time it's even mentioned. It's almost like he's protecting Trump.

Look at his reaction to the Trump-Ukraine extortion story. He pretty much completely dismissed it. That isn't how a journalist works. That's how a propagandist with something to hide works.

I'd be interested to read up on that? Is there somewhere in particular he's made those comments?

There is absolutely this broken notion among centrists and pro-status-quo people that try to paint Trump as an anomaly, rather than the virtually inevitable product of the most corrupt political system in the Western World, that has been totally infiltrated by global organised crime. If anything, we're lucky that the one who's finally taken the plunge into naked Fascism is so incompetent.

StringerBell

StringerBell wrote: »

I'd be surprised, if it's anything more than upon reflection the house blah blah blah, don't feel comfortable blah blah blah and let's let the American people decide whether Mr Trump is guilty and deserves to be removed or not blah blah blah.

Think I got Lamar Alexander's statement correct in a get more concise form too.

This sham was never going to be anything but the cover up that it is and hopefully there will be consequences for it, but you wouldn't bet your life on it anyway.

sid waddell

Igotadose wrote: »

Uhh... can you link to an example of Taibbi pushing a pro-Trump narrative?

Check out his reaction to the bullshlt Barr statement about the Mueller report. He wholesale bought it and cheerled it.

Check out his reaction to the Trump-Ukraine story. Complete dismissal.

To me there is no other conclusion than that he has something big to hide. Or else he has completely abandoned all pretence of being a journalist. Either way, it points to somebody who lost all credibility he ever had.

Igotadose wrote: »

Greenwald first and foremost was anti-Hillary and anti-Obama, and pro-Wikileaks. I discounted anything he said a long time ago.

And perhaps therein lies the problem. Greenwald can't accept that Wikileaks was a compromised and partisan actor. There was plenty about Hillary Clinton that was problematic, but not on remotely the same scale as Trump. Greenwald now seems completely oblivious to the fact that he was and is a very important media actor on behalf of Trump, because if he's a "liberal" and he's saying this stuff, well then surely everything is all bull****, isn't it, and it's just a witch hunt, right? I think he has a massive case of cognitive dissonance.

Was there a role for an organisation like Wikileaks? Yes. Was Wikileaks itself a major and illegal part of a partisan US political campaign, acting on behalf of Russia. Undoubtedly.

Have Greenwald or Taibbi done any digging on any of this? Not a chance. Much easier to write crap opinion pieces and tweets bigging yourself up and vilifying anybody who isn't stuck in the prison of denial in which they now find themselves, trying to justify wrong positions which they took and are trying to desperately hold onto at any cost.

everlast75

Trump lawyers arguing in Court that Impeachment is the only way to remedy obstructive conduct in refusing to hand over documents, whilst simultaneously and on the same day arguing in the Senate that they way to go after Trump is in the Courts.

Trump arguing that people should be allowed remedy any ill behaviour by voting in the polls in November, while actively looking for foreign assistance in manipulating the election so that it is not the will of the people.

My brain cannot fathom how people cannot see this for what it is.

Unchecked power is bad enough, but in a person who is an incompetent, money grabbing, immoral bully - its a worst case scenario.

Sean.3516

FatherTed wrote: »

[PHP][/PHP]

Except he did not say that at all in the senate trial and has not since gotten up there and said Chief Justice Roberts, I mislead and I wish to change what I said here yesterday. What he said in the senate is completely different to what he says in that article.

This is what he said in the senate. Dershowitz isn’t backtracking in that article.

Here’s the sentence that’s causing the controversy:

“If a president does that he believes will help him get elected in the national interest, this cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in an impeachment.”

Now imagine he said this:

“If a president does something in the national interest that he believes will help him get elected, this cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in an impeachment.”

In terms of meaning, these two sentences are precisely the same. Yet if Dershowitz had said the second one instead of the first, we would not be arguing over this. The way he structured the sentence unfortunately puts emphasis on the “help him get elected part” and suggests that this is inherently in the national interest which is not what he meant.

Gbear

everlast75 wrote: »

Unchecked power is bad enough, but in a person who is an incompetent, money grabbing, immoral bully - its a worst case scenario.

Far from it. Think of all the bible thumpers in American politics who would happily send the US back to Theocratic feudalism, ban homosexuality, dismiss the need for separation of church and state... Trump's minor upside is that he has no governing ideology. He is an entirely petty and small-minded person, and that is limiting the amount of damage that he's doing, in comparison to someone deliberately attempting to destroy the Republic.

sid waddell wrote: »

Have Greenwald or Taibbi done any digging on any of this? Not a chance. Much easier to write crap opinion pieces and tweets bigging yourself up and vilifying anybody who isn't stuck in the prison of denial in which they now find themselves, trying to justify wrong positions which they took and are trying to desperately hold onto at any cost.

Given that he's now been charged on trumped up crimes in retaliation to his exposing of corruption in the Brazilian government and collusion between the judiciary and Bolsonaro to keep Lula in prison during the election, perhaps he'll begin to understand what the stakes are here, and how much these kinds of activities are linked to one another around the globe.

sid waddell

Gbear wrote: »

I'd be interested to read up on that? Is there somewhere in particular he's made those comments?

There is absolutely this broken notion among centrists and pro-status-quo people that try to paint Trump as an anomaly, rather than the virtually inevitable product of the most corrupt political system in the Western World, that has been totally infiltrated by global organised crime. If anything, we're lucky that the one who's finally taken the plunge into naked Fascism is so incompetent.

This is a typical Taibbi opinion piece. It's designed to completely deligitimise the Trump-Ukraine story, full of straw man narratives and deflections.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/whistleblower-ukraine-trump-impeach-cia-spying-895529/

I don't disagree that Trump is the symptom rather than the cause of decades of political corruption and pandering to racism and xenophobia and insane culture wars by the Republicans, and political impotence from the Democrats (they are in no way equivalent - the Democrats have been a consistent disappointment, the Republicans have for decades been a consistent existential threat to democacy and society). He's the logical outcome, for sure.

I think the mistake people make, and a gross underestimation of him, is to call Trump incompetent. In normal terms he's incompetent, yes, but in terms of what all this is about, I think he's the exact opposite of incompetent. His personality means he's exceedingly competent, he excels in fact, at the shut down of democratic norms, the spread of fear and panic, and the spread of kleptocracy and all the other nakedly hateful **** he has brought full blown into the mainstream. For somebody to destroy democracy in the US (or at least to turn it into a simulacrum), chaos, an alternate reality where truth has no currency, is needed. Republicans have been at this for years, but nobody is better at creating chaos than Trump.

Bizarre "charismatic" personality types excel at destroying or neutering democracy and bringing far right ideas into the mainstream. It's likely a necessary trait, certainly in a US or western context - the personality requirements Putin needed to destroy democracy in Russia were different.

Like, could Mike Pence or Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush have got elected and pulled this off? No chance. Because they don't have the personality type required. But Ivanka Trump does by virtue of who she is, she will put a fake gloss on the rotten whole and Trumpism will mutate while maintaining its essential kleptocratic and authoritarian nature.

Sean.3516

moon2 wrote: »

A crime is still a crime if you do something which is not a crime at the same time.

No.

Abuse of power is not a strict liability crime. It is an intent based crime.

A quid pro quo, literally means “this for that”, ie. Trump held back military aid in exchange for an investigation.

Transactions like this occur in foreign policy literally all the time. If Trump tells North Korea he will lift sanctions if they discontinue their nuclear programme, this is a quid pro quo.

What makes the quid pro quo criminal is if it is done purely for political gain with disregard for the national interest.

Christy42

Sean.3516 wrote: »

This is what he said in the senate. Dershowitz isn’t backtracking in that article.

Here’s the sentence that’s causing the controversy:

“If a president does that he believes will help him get elected in the national interest, this cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in an impeachment.”

Now imagine he said this:

“If a president does something in the national interest that he believes will help him get elected, this cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in an impeachment.”

In terms of meaning, these two sentences are precisely the same. Yet if Dershowitz had said the second one instead of the first, we would not be arguing over this. The way he structured the sentence unfortunately puts emphasis on the “help him get elected part” and suggests that this is inherently in the national interest which is not what he meant.

1,000,000 times no.

The dude is a lawyer. At a certain point we have to take people on what they say. Not what we hope they said. Why does Trump and his staff need English to English translators all the time. They are meant to be the best people with the best words and so I am going to hold them to that standard. This is their job.

Career con artists should not get the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who does give it to them is asking to get conned.

If Trump wants to put the argument forward he can hire a lawyer who can speak properly.

Anyway if it was in the national interest I am curious why they didn't start with this argument. Like Russian interference (which Trump now accepts) we had to fight through hoards of lies and terrible defenses to get to the truth. Well now I feel there are a few more lies to uncover and when they have lied so much I have good reason to feel this way. They changed their minds 100 times but none of this gets rid of the fact that this deal was conducted on behalf of Trump's personal interests by Trump's personal lawyer instead of official staff.

I was told repeatedly there was no quid pro quo. Now that is gone and why should I believe anything about their intent after they just lied to me about the quid pro quo occurring in the first place?

Sean.3516

aloyisious wrote: »

Yes, now that last is an admission you have an opinion on the possibility that Don may not have the investigation solely to find out if there was crookery done by the Bidens for an unknown reason, but that Don may have wanted it for the purpose of gaining a personal benefit by damaging the reputation of an opponent in the upcoming election.

I never said that Trump wasn’t at least somewhat concerned about his re-election prospects when he asked for the investigation. I believe that he was. This still doesn’t make it abuse of power.

This is Dershowitz’s whole point. Everything that any politician does is at least somewhat calculated to help them win the next election. As long as you’re acting in the national interest this isn’t criminal. When you disregard the national interest to act solely in you political interests, this is abuse of power.

aloyisious wrote: »

In respect of that, there would be no point in you repeating the mantra that one would have to know what was on Don's mind to find the answer. The reason you gave above is something a lot of people saw the chance of by looking at his track record, quite simply that in Dons mind the end justified the means.

The second paragraph is absurd. You can’t conclude Trump’s intent about this specific quid pro quo by looking at his track record. That’s not how the law works. Besides if Trump has done all of this many times before, then why aren’t the Dems impeaching him for those things also? Psychoanalysis isn’t admissible as a form of evidence.

aloyisious wrote: »

The same now applies, and is seen to be the rule the GOP applied in the trial, to the GOP, that in politics crookery is ok and rife under that party's understanding of the constitution.

The argument is not that crookery is okay. It’s that an act by a politician in office isn’t criminal just because it happens to help them get re-elected. If it was you could impeach someone for literally anything.

everlast75

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I never said that Trump wasn’t at least somewhat concerned about his re-election prospects when he asked for the investigation. I believe that he was. This still doesn’t make it abuse of power.

This is Dershowitz’s whole point. Everything that any politician does is at least somewhat calculated to help them win the next election. As long as you’re acting in the national interest this isn’t criminal. When you disregard the national interest to act solely in you political interests, this is abuse of power.

This is utter, utter nonsense.

It was NOT in the national interest to withhold military aid to force a foreign Country to announce an investigation into your political opponent. If you don't accept that as a fact, you are not going to understand why it is a problem.

Your defence is predicated on the assumption that it was, and that assumption is categorically wrong.

Trump went on a solo run to discredit a political opponent using the powers of his office. That is 100% an abuse of this power.

The idea that Trump is concerned with corruption at all is fanciful, but to think that there was anything other than his own self interest at play here is utter nonsense.

Trump knew after Mueller's investigation that he should not use foreign interference in the election. The next day he's on the phone putting pressure on the Ukraine.

You say you have to look into the mind of the President and if the mens rea or intent isn't there, you must not convict.

Well in murder trials, you look at the evidence and the conduct of the accused in order to convict. You don't need a Vulcan mind meld ffs, otherwise there would be no one accused of murder.

I cannot tell if you or anyone else on here always believed the guff that is being spouted now, or that you have altered your opinion to fit the Trump narrative. Either way, its delusional.

aloyisious

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I never said that Trump wasn’t at least somewhat concerned about his re-election prospects when he asked for the investigation. I believe that he was. This still doesn’t make it abuse of power.

If part of his motivation for the investigation and what it could uncover about the Biden's was his concern about his re-election prospects then that to me is abuse of power. We are talking about his re-election here, a very personal gain [4 more years] and nothing else.

Sean.3516

Christy42 wrote: »

The dude is a lawyer. At a certain point we have to take people on what they say. Not what we hope they said. Why does Trump and his staff need English to English translators all the time. They are meant to be the best people with the best words and so I am going to hold them to that standard. This is their job.

Actually it’s you that needs an English to English translation. For the umpteenth time. Dershowitz did not misspeak. He did not make a mistake. What he said makes perfect sense. I’ll break it down again for you.

“If a president does something that he believes will help them get elected in the national interest, this cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in an impeachment.”

So in this sentence Dershowitz is saying “if a president does something”. There are two aspects of the thing the president is doing that we need to look at.

1.) “[something] that he believes will help him get elected” This is an opinion/belief about the consequences of the thing being done. This is not the rationale for why the thing is being done. It is of no consequence with regard to the legality of the thing.



2.) “in the national interest.” This is the rationale. The thing being done is being done in the national interest. This tells us if an abuse of power is happening or not. If it’s not being done in the national interest but solely to help an election. It’s abuse of power. If it’s being done in the national interest, then ancillary benefits such as help in re-election make no difference.

Christy42 wrote: »

Anyway if it was in the national interest I am curious why they didn't start with this argument.

Dershowitz didn’t lead with this because Dershowitz’s job on the defence team is to lay out a case for what is impeachable conduct and what isn’t. There were other members of Trump’s team who made the argument that Trump was acting in the national interest.

A defence team in any case will normally lay out the criteria for guilt to a jury before they argue as to why their client isn’t guilty.

Christy42 wrote: »

They changed their minds 100 times but none of this gets rid of the fact that this deal was conducted on behalf of Trump's personal interests by Trump's personal lawyer instead of official staff.

It’s not illegal for Trump to send a personal employee to Ukraine to gather info on Bursima.

It’s irrelevant as to the crime Trump is accused of which is holding back the aid for the sole purpose of benefiting his 2020 campaign.

Christy42 wrote: »

Like Russian interference (which Trump now accepts) we had to fight through hoards of lies and terrible defenses to get to the truth.

Christy42 wrote: »

I was told repeatedly there was no quid pro quo. Now that is gone and why should I believe anything about their intent after they just lied to me about the quid pro quo occurring in the first place?

Trump has the annoying counterproductive habit that when he is accused of something. He never ever concedes an inch. Even if it’s in his interest. Like Russia, it would have been in his interest to just say: Russia interfered but I didn’t collude with them. Which is the position he eventually took. Instead he denied even the remote appearance of impropriety.

With Ukraine. He should have said: I engaged in a quid pro quo, but that isn’t a crime, a corrupt quid pro quo is. Instead he took the stupid position of no quid pro quo.

Trump’s ridiculous tendency to embellish his own innocence to ridiculous proportions doesn’t make him guilty.

frag420

frag420 wrote: »

It gets better...

... A section of Donald Trump’s much-vaunted border wall between the United States and Mexico has blown over in high winds, US border patrol officers have been reported as saying.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/trump-border-wall-between-us-and-mexico-blows-over-in-high-winds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

And it keeps on getting better...

The Washington Post reports that US border officials and others say it will probably “require the installation of hundreds of storm gates to prevent flash floods from undermining or knocking it over, gates that must be left open for months every summer during ‘monsoon season’ in the desert”.

“The open, unmanned gates in remote areas already have allowed for the easy entry of smugglers and migrants into the United States,” the paper adds.

aloyisious

frag420 wrote: »

And it keeps on getting better...

The Washington Post reports that US border officials and others say it will probably “require the installation of hundreds of storm gates to prevent flash floods from undermining or knocking it over, gates that must be left open for months every summer during ‘monsoon season’ in the desert”.

“The open, unmanned gates in remote areas already have allowed for the easy entry of smugglers and migrants into the United States,” the paper adds.

Looking at the trees on the Mexican side that prevented the fence from toppling over it put me to mind that the fence foundations cant have been deep due to the tree roots shooting off in all directions underground on both sides of the border.