President Trump

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Had Hillary won we would never have heard anything about Russian interference in the election and the Electoral College would have been praised by Democrats.

[Skyweir]

Quite possibly ... but tis not what happened.

And tbh highly unlikely as US intelligence was tracking Russian interference prior to the 2016 elections.

If I recall correctly Trump, at least on one occasion invited Russian interference.

[Avatar]

Deepening divisions in US politics serve only the politicians.

--A

[Skyweir]

Truth .... this is DeepTruth.

Divisiveness does not serve a nation.

[TheFallen]

TF ... much of those offences that WF cited occurred after he got in office. Some occurred prior to Trump getting into office. You said yourself that Hilary precipitated Trumps victory in 2016 ... how do you imagine the Dems could have prevented the low bench mark that Trump has now set after 4 years in office????

1. Theyre not time lords
2. They cant change a fucking thing about Trump ... most of us cant even believe half of the shit that comes out of his god damned mouth.
3. They do not possess super powers mores the pity.

Yeah Sky, that's a little disingenuous of you. Of course I realise that - but still, roughly 50% of WF's long litany of listed charges against Trump were known before 2016... presuming they're all accurate, one would have thought that Trump was a very easily beatable candidate back then.

But obviously not.

And looking forward, my point remains that Hillary's pantomime politics with her divisive ("deplorables!") and negative campaigning demonstrably did not work back then - so it's surely utter idiocy to presume that more of the self-same tactics will work in the run-up to 2020. But that's exactly what the Dems are exclusively doing.

And its not about getting a perfect runner in either the Pubs or the Dems ... its about getting some one that can raise that bar. And lets face it ... thats NOT that challenging is it?

You are never going to get a PERFECT candidate, but you can back a competent, reasonably articulate and rational one.

Preeeeecisely! It really should not be that difficult - the current bar is against any chosen standards set pretty damn low. Now, if only there were some signs of the Dems being aware of what you've stated.... but where is their viable alternative candidate being presented? Where is their realistic alternative manifesto being put forward? The Dems are again utterly fixated on destructive and divisive pantomime politics negative campaigning - to them, it's all about slamming Trump, rather than putting up a credible alternative.

Yes, sadly, the Dems' eternal and sole mantra seems to be "Look! Trump's an asshole!". However, as as I recently stated:-

"But Trump's an asshole!" (however true) really isn't the mantra that's going to win any party the presidency. Especially when it's being extended to "But Trump's an asshole! And so by definition is anyone supporting him!"

In my very firm view, until this penny drops with the Dems, they're screwed - or rather, their blinkered zealotry is unwittingly screwing themselves and their chances next year.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Nihilo regardless of whether or not the Russian nationals involved in the DNC Server hacking will answer for their crimes ... does not in and of itself imply that such crimes did not happen.

Of course Putin will not honour any extradition order for the purpose of indicting Russian citizens .. for US electoral interference.

It is also highly unlikely any of those Russian nationals will ever of their own free will and volition travel to the US and step foot on US soil.

Thats hardly the point, right?

Its about national security ... IS national and cyber security. Inviting foreign states to interfere in US electoral process is surely not a positive, right?

Pretending it never happened might assist some to sleep at night but will not take away that proven vulnerability. That it happened and continues to happen is the issue.

Though at the end of the day foreign electoral interference is not new. Countries with the capability to interfere have been doing it for decades. Does not make it right OR desirable.

I have to ask if you are suffering from an injury, as none of this has anything to do with the current banana-republic show trial. It has been conclusively proven that there was no collusion and/or coordination between the Russians and the duly elected government. Please try to stay on point.

[Skyweir]

Yes please try to stay on point Nihilo perhaps reading more broadly could be a useful exercise.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

No one has, to date, pointed out exactly what the impeachable offense really is. "Quid pro quo" is how diplomacy is always undertaken and, at this time, no prosecutor in Ukraine is investigating Hunter Biden (as far as we know here--I haven't seen anything reported about it anywhere). No one can cite which portion of the U. S. Code Trump may have violated.

Of course, no crime or violation has to have happened since the House may impeach him whenever it wants to without having to justify its action to anyone. If they wanted to do it they would just do it.

[Gaius Octavius]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... el-verdict

Even the Guardian is saying this impeachment stuff is a nothing burger.

[Brinn]

Just a simple question here: Which of the following statements is more likely in your opinion:

1. Trump believed that withholding aid would benefit his personal interests and damage a political enemy.

2. Trump believed that withholding aid advanced the interests of the US as a nation.

To answer my own question: I believe it is a near certainty that Trump was focused on damaging a political enemy and improving his chances at reelection and had little to no concern about the geopolitics of Ukraine or the effect that withholding military assistance would have.

[Skyweir]

No one has, to date, pointed out exactly what the impeachable offense really is. "Quid pro quo" is how diplomacy is always undertaken and, at this time, no prosecutor in Ukraine is investigating Hunter Biden (as far as we know here--I haven't seen anything reported about it anywhere). No one can cite which portion of the U. S. Code Trump may have violated.

Of course, no crime or violation has to have happened since the House may impeach him whenever it wants to without having to justify its action to anyone. If they wanted to do it they would just do it.

The impeachment offence resides in the realm of bribery and extortion.

Trump is accused of manipulating a foreign state to dig up dirt on a electoral opponent ... for his personal benefit.

And seeking a foreign state to investigate an American citizen ... and given what Trump is using as bribery ... right congressionally approved foreign aid to that state Trump is seeking a PERSONAL favour from ... which Trump has made clear they wont get without delivering dirt on the Bidens.

What IS BAU if you will is applying non personal conditions with foreign aid. Such conditions may be related to improvements in human rights record, applying ANTI corruption measures, a cessation of hostilities, an arrangements re trade agreements etc.

It is not BAU to seek personal favours or personally benefit from a particular arrangement. That is a significant conflict of interest and accepting gratuities can facilitate further acts of corruption.

That is NOT BAU

I worked for government most of my working life ... such behaviours are sackable offences are best and indictable at worst.

Thats what the impeachment is about.

I have linked the whistleblowers complaint upthread .. and pretty sure you can get up to speed by googling its framework and purpose.

[Zarathustra]

And seeking a foreign state to investigate an American citizen ... and given what Trump is using as bribery ... right congressionally approved foreign aid to that state Trump is seeking a PERSONAL favour from ... which Trump has made clear they wont get without delivering dirt on the Bidens.

How did he make this clear? It's not in the transcript. Do you have any evidence of this claim? Something besides a rumor? Post it.

[Skyweir]

That is demonstrated in corroborating evidence. Trust me Im an interplanetary doctor

My internet is erratic .. I shall return with links

[Avatar]

Just a simple question here: Which of the following statements is more likely in your opinion:

1. Trump believed that withholding aid would benefit his personal interests and damage a political enemy.

2. Trump believed that withholding aid advanced the interests of the US as a nation.

Yeah, I gotta go with option 1 myself.

--A

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Josh Marshall @joshtpm | Twitter



Elad Nehorai @PopChassid | Twitter [Video: 1.75 min]

[Skyweir]

Just a simple question here: Which of the following statements is more likely in your opinion:

1. Trump believed that withholding aid would benefit his personal interests and damage a political enemy.

2. Trump believed that withholding aid advanced the interests of the US as a nation.

Yeah, I gotta go with option 1 myself.

--A

Damn my internet had been playing up all day and I missed Brinns post

Yup salient distinction and bang on point.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The impeachment offence resides in the realm of bribery and extortion.

Trump is accused of manipulating a foreign state to dig up dirt on a electoral opponent ... for his personal benefit.

I heard Pelosi say that yesterday--now that is something they could look in to; I will locate that portion of the U. S. Code and we will see if it applies. Oh, and the phone call cannot be both bribery and extortion because those are two different things--bribery is "I'll give you this money for x" and extortion is "give me that money or I will do something harmful to you" and there is nothing approaching extortion in the phone call.

The key word is "accused". Can anyone prove the allegations? The quick and dirty answer is "no", because the accuation is politically motivated and not based in reality.

Of course, when the Democrats were seeking the aid for foreign nationals to dig up dirt on their political opponent that is perfectly acceptable. Double standards--what a shame.

Here is the really salient question about the phone call with Ukraine: was the aid money actually withheld? No? Then there is nothing to the story whatsoever.

On Brinn's question....yes, Trump being Trump probably believed it would advance his personal interests. So? All Presidents wind up making decisions which advance their personal interests, because "securing my legacy", "fulfilling a campaign promise", or "if I do this it will increase my chances of being re-elected" are all instances of "advancing my personal interests". So...Trump is "guilty" of doing what every POTUS has done? Breathtaking.

I missed yesterday. Today is the morning of 15 November 2019 and Trump has not yet been impeached. Presuming they do get around to impeaching him, when the Senate does not remove him from office, what then?

Oh...and at some point the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, must testify in public. His complaint was based on secondhand information and if he doesn't testify then the people who testify saying "I heard it from the whistleblower" means the information is thirdhand and not worth the paper upon which the words will be printed.

[Skyweir]

Pretty sure that bribery is one of the prescribed offences that qualify for impeachment.

[Brinn]

On Brinn's question....yes, Trump being Trump probably believed it would advance his personal interests. So? All Presidents wind up making decisions which advance their personal interests, because "securing my legacy", "fulfilling a campaign promise", or "if I do this it will increase my chances of being re-elected" are all instances of "advancing my personal interests". So...Trump is "guilty" of doing what every POTUS has done? Breathtaking.

That may be true to some extent but my concern is his disregard for coherent foreign policy and his willingness to subjugate US security interests to his own personal interests. In truth, he probably didn't even realize that what he was doing threatened US security interests as he's neither smart enough to understand the ramifications nor is he wise enough to take counsel from those who are.

[Skyweir]

Hashi are you saying bribery and extortion is and should be if done by POTUSs?

Are you saying every POTUS uses his the power of his office ie foreign aid to extort RECIPIENT STATES to get dirt on their personal political rivals ... to maximise their chances of an election win?

Really?