|
Replies: 38
| visibility 1
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I don't currently think there's enough "there" there
Nov 4, 2019, 10:25 AM
|
|
in the Ukraine phone call to impeach the President. (I think the Mueller stuff was much worse in terms of obstruction, etc.) So I think the President and those like-minded are right to say that he shouldn't be impeached over what's in the call, unless I learn something else that changes my mind.
However, the President's attitude, and those like-minded, toward the "whistleblower" is, to me, gross and very off-putting. Instead, we should be saying, with sincerity, "Thank you, whoever you are, for you concern and effort. We believe this transcript shows that the President is not guilty of impropriety, and we hope it so persuades you and the American people as well."
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [47795]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44515
Joined: 9/5/02
|
serious question. would your opinion
Nov 4, 2019, 10:30 AM
|
|
of the whistler change if you found out facts about his/her background which called his/her motives into question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46799]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30710
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Did his background make Trump
Nov 4, 2019, 10:33 AM
|
|
ask the Ukraine to investigate a US citizen and political rival?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: I don't currently think there's enough "there" there
Nov 4, 2019, 10:48 AM
|
|
If there is no "there" there, then why are officials refusing subpoenas? why was this conversation moved to a highly classified server? why the cover-up?
The obstruction charge on this will be an easy one.
Also think it's funny that now that the whistle blower is open to answering written questions under oath, that's not good enough. It was good enough for the POTUS during the Mueller investigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I believe the President takes it as a personal affront
Nov 4, 2019, 10:52 AM
|
|
When he is criticized, and his response to criticism is to lash out. His response to this inquiry is an extreme case of that. Instead of simply maintaining innocence, he essentially has a temper tantrum, and demands that others follow suit (like other Republicans).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93608]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I do consider an investigation into the..
Nov 4, 2019, 11:19 AM
|
|
executive branch of government by the opposing party more than a personal insult. Whether or not Trump cries or just exercises the power of his office by refusing to open the executive branch to a co-equal branch of government has not bearing on the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8885]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9764
Joined: 4/27/13
|
it helps grow his support though
Nov 4, 2019, 3:45 PM
|
|
might be able to win back the house at this pace
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93608]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
That's about the balance of power.
Nov 4, 2019, 11:14 AM
[ in reply to Re: I don't currently think there's enough "there" there ] |
|
The executive branch has rights and powers granted by the constitution. Those rights are equal to the power given to congress. Neither can demand of the other without judicial support. The office of POTUS is not a 'subject,' of the congress. Less so to only one party in the congress.
The whistleblower has no executive power. He is subject to congress. The whistleblowers right include constitutional rights which are for all within America's borders and whatever rights are afforded him by current whistleblowers' law and regulations.
Obstruction of justice without a crime has been subject of many arguments here. The SCOTUS ruled 0-9 on an obstruction of justice charge because the lower courts failed to explain the prosecutions' obligation to explain motive to the defendant.
Unless motive can be proven in court obstruction of justice is impossible to prove.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1183
Joined: 1/3/19
|
Re: I don't currently think there's enough "there" there
Nov 4, 2019, 9:40 PM
[ in reply to Re: I don't currently think there's enough "there" there ] |
|
If there is no "there" there, then why are officials refusing subpoenas? why was this conversation moved to a highly classified server? why the cover-up?
The obstruction charge on this will be an easy one.
Also think it's funny that now that the whistle blower is open to answering written questions under oath, that's not good enough. It was good enough for the POTUS during the Mueller investigation.
If there is no "there" there, then why are officials refusing subpoenas? why was this conversation moved to a highly classified server? why the cover-up?
The obstruction charge on this will be an easy one.
Also think it's funny that now that the whistle blower is open to answering written questions under oath, that's not good enough. It was good enough for the POTUS during the Mueller investigation.
Easy. Seperation of powers and a completely silly "investigation".
If the House has enough to impeach, they should vote to impeach and present their care in the Senate...where both sides get to present witnesses and evidence, and question any and all witnesses present.
The House doesn't really want to impeach, as the Senate can call the Bidens' and whomever else they wish, then vote to acquit.
The House Dems would rather drag this out and try to use it to influence the 2020 election without and actual impeachment vote that will alienate a lot of swing voters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I'm curious why you think there is no "there' there?***
Nov 4, 2019, 3:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
My reading of it, just doesn't seem so bad...
Nov 4, 2019, 3:31 PM
|
|
Not to the level of impeachment, anyway, for me. I think it was more dumb than sinister or criminal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Everything Trump seems to fall under "dumb" that's true...
Nov 4, 2019, 3:46 PM
|
|
but are you saying that he didn't mean to purposefully hold military aid that was already approved by Congress going to Ukraine in order to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival? And then try to cover it up? He told Ukraine that he was sending his personal attorney to help so there was planning and intention. That's not something you just accidentally do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93608]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I know, all the audicaty of Trump to...
Nov 4, 2019, 3:56 PM
|
|
be involved in criminal activity then release the transcript to make sure everyone knows he did it.
What you are missing is that only democrats see a crime here. Are you willing to say pubs don't admit there's a crime because of politics and continue to deny that politics alone is the dem motivation for this entire fiasco?
The standards for impeachment are treason, bibery, high crimes or misdemeanors. The constitution does not consider jaywalking or littering a legitimate reason to bring charges against a POTUS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I want to hear Prod's opinion here, not a cultist's.
Nov 4, 2019, 4:05 PM
|
|
real quick though: Trump released a call summary, not transcript. (I stopped reading here, but I assume the rest of what you said was equally factually wrong).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93608]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You wouldn't be the first person here to know you don't...
Nov 4, 2019, 6:12 PM
|
|
agree with a post when you click on it and you wouldn't be the first one to find a minor point of disagreement and ignore the rest of the post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
(sigh) fine, I went back and read the rest...
Nov 4, 2019, 8:59 PM
|
|
Politics is obviously at play considering impeachment is a political instrument but no, clearly, politics alone is not the concern here (at least by the dems). Considering we know a number of those that have testified expressing concern about what they heard on the phone call were not democrats it should point any rational person to dismiss any potential bias.
As for your last point, here is a good interview:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/impeachment-expert-law-trump-merits-removal-893358/
"The it’s-not-a-crime argument is raised every time there’s a significant impeachment controversy involving a public official, throughout our history. The defenders of the official will always make this argument, Oh, this isn’t a crime. And every time, we have to do this process of constitutional education and tell people that it doesn’t have to be a crime. This same argument was raised in the Andrew Johnson case. The same argument was raised with Nixon. The House Judiciary Committee put out a nice freestanding report with Nixon; they address this question squarely and concluded, as pretty much every respectable constitutional observer agrees, that a crime is not required.
Consider it. It would be pretty crazy to suggest that a crime is required. Because if you imagine all kinds of bad things that a president might do that we would want to remove them for, an awful lot of them aren’t necessarily criminal."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93608]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: (sigh) fine, I went back and read the rest...
Nov 5, 2019, 5:56 AM
|
|
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors..."
Yeah-no, it has to be crime. Elsewise, it's just political.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Read the article, it goes into why that's not true.***
Nov 5, 2019, 1:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I think some of that stuff is spotty to prove in the call
Nov 4, 2019, 6:21 PM
[ in reply to Everything Trump seems to fall under "dumb" that's true... ] |
|
transcript. The reason I support the inquiry is that the inquiry may uncover other evidence, beside the call transcript, that may inform us on his intent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
What about all the other evidence?
Nov 4, 2019, 6:36 PM
|
|
Trump has admitted to it.
Mulvaney has admitted to it.
Testimonies we've seen have corroborated it.
Whistleblower's claim has been corroborated.
The GOP is even starting to pivot to admit Trump did it but say there isn't anything wrong with it.
What more would you like to see come out in the inquiry?
(note: it was a call summary, not a transcript)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I have seen some testimony...
Nov 4, 2019, 6:47 PM
|
|
I see a lot of people sharing their concern about what the President did. Doing something concerning to people is not impeachable, to me. For me to support impeachment, I would need to see proof that the President knowingly and tried to leverage a foreign country into helping him in a personal way, at the expense of the country. Maybe that proof will be uncovered in the inquiry.
(I have only reviewed public evidence. I haven't read any news articles saying what witnesses are "reportedly" saying in close-door testimonies. I trust that evidence will be released in a public way in due time.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
The call transcript corroborates the whistleblower's
Nov 4, 2019, 9:37 PM
|
|
concerns for sure. But again I say, doing something concerning is not impeachable, to me.
Here's what the transcript does not say, explicitly: "I want you to try to take down Biden because he's running against me." Or, "We're not going to give you any money if you don't do this."
Now, many people think this is implied. And maybe it is. That's why it's important to me, that an intent be established. Did the President talk to someone and share that intent, other than in the call itself? If so, maybe it will be uncovered in the inquiry.
Now, I think it's a perfectly valid opinion for someone to read that call transcript and believe that exactly what is there is enough for impeachment. That is a judgment one can make. I do not make that judgment, personally. I have a higher bar, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Is intent not part of the corroboration?
Nov 4, 2019, 10:07 PM
|
|
In regards to the call summary and the whistleblower's concerns? The concern being that the intention of Trump's phone call was to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden in exchange for military aid and visit? If you think the summary corroborates that, what more are you looking for in regards to intention?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Not necessarily...
Nov 5, 2019, 6:06 AM
|
|
As I understand it, the whistleblower heard there were improper things on the call, and reported it. Good and right thing to do. Several other witnesses have said that they were concerned with what was on the call. That does not necessarily mean the President purposefully did something impeachable.
Again, I stress, this is my opinion. I think for it to rise to the level of impeachable, the President must have knowingly did this for his own personal reasons. Just asking Ukraine to help on Biden is not impeachable, to me. It can be argued that them investigating Biden is good for the country. But if we know that the President was doing it because he was just trying to help himself get elected, without regard for actual pursuit of justice, then that's another story. Intent.
But if someone disagrees with that and thinks there's already enough there, then that's fine. That's why we have a vote. And we do not expect it to be unanimous. I do not like this attitude of, if I think the President's actions aren't impeachable, then the whole thing's a sham. It's actually possible for it to be a good, legitimate investigation in which different people have different judgments, and vote accordingly. America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
One addendum...
Nov 5, 2019, 6:15 AM
|
|
If asking for help from a foreign country in investigation someone or something for any reason is illegal, then that's a different story. If leveraging aid for the investigation is illegal, different story. My understanding is that those things are not illegal. I can have my mind changed on that, of course.
And I will also add, I do not support what the President said or did on the call. I think it was a very bad thing to do. But that's not the same thing as thinking he should be impeached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [400]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 255
Joined: 4/22/17
|
Re: One addendum...
Nov 5, 2019, 1:34 PM
|
|
I'm interested in getting your opinion on a couple of things.
First, if Trump's motivations were truly in cleaning up Ukrainian corruption, why sideline Bill Taylor who is a career diplomat that has worked for administrations of both parties and is well versed in Ukrainian affairs in favor of his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Additionally, why was the public announcement of these investigations so important to Trump? If the goal was to root out corruption then it seems as if the public nature of these statements would not be regarded with such importance. However, if the goal was to cast doubt on the credibility of his possible political opponent then it seems a public announcement of investigations would be a great way to do just that.
ClemsonTiger1988 I'm interested in hearing your thoughts as well.
Message was edited by: Clemson_Chris®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I think you make good points...
Nov 5, 2019, 1:46 PM
|
|
But your points are speculative, though well-reasoned. I'm looking for more concrete proof of those motives.
This is why making a judgment that his actions are impeachable is not a silly or unreasonable judgment. It's just not one I would make, at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93608]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I do not believe Trump trust anyone in the State Department.
Nov 5, 2019, 1:51 PM
[ in reply to Re: One addendum... ] |
|
"I realize that uf Ukraine pursued and investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.
To restore Ukraine's independence, Russia must leave Ukraine. This has been and should continue to be a bipartisan US foreign policy goal." Vindman
"As in previous times of National peril, we rely on our military, diplomats, intelligence officials, law enforcement officers, and other courageous patriots to protect our liberties, freedom, and democracy. May they stay resolute and strong despite corrupt political headwinds they face." John Brennen
Clearly these people believe they direct foreign policy. Rudy Giuliani is a trusted man in the Trump circle. Trump has know him for decades but he doesn't know these state dept employees and doesn't trust them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [400]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 255
Joined: 4/22/17
|
Re: I do not believe Trump trust anyone in the State Department.
Nov 5, 2019, 4:20 PM
|
|
I agree that it comes down to trusting Rudy more but trusting him with what? To carry out the interests of the United States or Trump's own personal interests? Any thoughts on why a formal announcement of an investigation was pushed for so hard?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8885]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9764
Joined: 4/27/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1183
Joined: 1/3/19
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93608]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: I do want to point out that I said there's "not ENOUGH"
Nov 5, 2019, 6:57 AM
|
|
I remember the transcript reflecting several reasons for investigating, corruption in Ukraine, and other possible reasons the sale of weapons was being delayed including getting NATO allies to do their part.
The political side is obvious when anyone sees only a possible quid pro quo with funding held until 'dirt on Biden,' is delivered.
We know that Zelinskyy didn't know the sale of Javlins were being held up. No matter if you're a dem or republican, Trump supporter or neverTrumper or just don't care at all, Trump really sucks at creating a quid pro quo deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93608]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Let me say this for the humpteeth time.
Nov 4, 2019, 6:20 PM
|
|
To prove obstruction of justice without an underlying crime the prosecutor must prove motive to commit an obstruction of justice. Motive is the key, most vital part, essence of obstruction of justice.
The SCOTUS ruled 0-9 in favor of the defendant due to the judge not explaining that to the jury. One can literally obstruct justice and not be guilty of obstruction unless they intended to obstruct justice.
You find a gun and drop it in the ocean. The guy who used the gun confesses to murder using that gun. You have technically obstructed justice without intent. Do you think they would charge you? Please don't get in the weeds just imagine that scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: I don't currently think there's enough "there" there
Nov 5, 2019, 8:44 AM
|
|
It is meaningless either way. It won't change anything for Trump in the big picture. It will just be a brief nuisance to him at most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93608]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Some time ago we all remembered what impeaching Clinton...
Nov 5, 2019, 2:59 PM
|
|
meant. It turned out to be an epic fail for pubs. Just a couple years ago everyone admitted that
impeaching Trump for political purposes would do him more good than harm.
I don't ascribe to the theory that Trump is an evil genius, oh, he's got the evil part down but how he reacted and behaved in the early part of his term clearly indicates he isn't a genius. His supporters learned to tolerate him.
Somehow I think he's at least smart enough to remember Clinton and enjoys this fight like a pig enjoys mud. I don't believe he is an idiot either. He thrives on attention and thinks nothing of getting in front of a mic or camera.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: Some time ago we all remembered what impeaching Clinton...
Nov 5, 2019, 3:45 PM
|
|
Its a huge waste of time. The Dems look silly. Do I think Trump os shady and unfit for office? Yes. It doesnt matter. The Repubs have his back and would prefer a shady Trump over any Dem option. Its all just a big waste of time and a weak show of "power", by the Dems. They have nothing. Trump can pretty much do what he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 38
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
