Kansas Crimson

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 4:49 pm I'm perfectly fine with Trump taking the fall. No skin off my teeth. BUT I want to learn everything in the process. I find it more than a touch disturbing that the Boomers on this board are perfectly OK with the FBI committing a series of heinous "mistakes" or worse, cUZ tRUMp!

It is possible -- and I'd go so far as to say probable -- that BOTH of the following are true:

1. Trump committed impeachable offenses for which he should be removed from office and, perhaps, even crimes that should be prosecuted once that has occurred.

2. The intelligence bureaucracy, with prompting from appointed or elected officials, committed a series of illegal acts (searches, wiretaps, investigations, etc.) to justify its actions and to punish Trump for his unwillingness to play nice.

Leawood wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:08 am As some smart guy on here said, no impeachment until the articles cross the hall to the Senate.

So, recall the vote and re-open the hearings, get court ordered subpoenas, and take testimony, just like the Trumplicans demand. As I've said before, Federal Judges like expedited briefing on important issues. We are dealing with east coast law firms that run their offices 24/7. Videotape the depositions. It can be done. Call the Majority Leader's bluff. If he thinks everything has been sloppy, clean it up. Give the Majority Leader what he wants, a full record.

In the legal context, judges can hold judgments for 30 days and alter or amend them on their own motion. I'm sure the Speaker can do the same thing since, you know, it is only political.

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 4:30 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:58 am

Feral wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:46 pm Gosh, no wonder Trump doesn't want them to testify:

This is at least the second major revelation that's come since Trump was impeached, and I can't imagine anyone sane would suggest we've seen all there is to see.

Unless something changes dramatically and Trump is actually removed (or forced to resign), the Democrats will have to figure how to handle additional revelations post-non-removal. I would think the right course of action would be to use these subsequent revelations to put heat on vulnerable GOP senators (as opposed to re-litigating impeachment on worse iterations of the same facts).

"Revelation X simply underscores what we already knew: Trump is guilty as sin. However, it makes clear that Vulnerable Senator Y is and has always been complicit in the coverup."

Democrats have to start thinking ahead, and swinging control of the Senate would seem to be the best firewall protecting the country from a second Trump term, whether legitimately won, or otherwise.

Speaking of "...the Democrats will have to figure how to handle additional revelations post-non-removal...", they aren't the only ones:



If Mitch McConnell is going to pull off his scheme to turn President Trump’s impeachment trial into a quick and painless sham with no witnesses, the Senate majority leader needs the story to be covered as a conventional Washington standoff — one that portrays both sides as maneuvering for advantage in an equivalently political manner.

But extraordinary new revelations in the New York Times about Trump’s corrupt freezing of military aid to Ukraine will — or should — make this much harder to get away with.

McConnell badly needs the media’s both-sidesing instincts to hold firm against the brute facts of the situation. If Republicans bear the brunt of media pressure to explain why they don’t want to hear from witnesses, that risks highlighting their true rationale: They adamantly fear new revelations precisely because they know Trump is guilty — and that this corrupt scheme is almost certainly much worse than we can currently surmise.

That possibility is underscored by the Times report, a chronology of Trump’s decision to withhold aid to a vulnerable ally under assault while he and his henchmen extorted Ukraine into carrying out his corrupt designs.

The report demonstrates in striking detail that inside the administration, the consternation over the legality and propriety of the aid freeze — and confusion over Trump’s true motives — ran much deeper than previously known, implicating top Cabinet officials more deeply than we thought.

[...]

What makes all this new information really damning, however, is that many of these officials who were directly involved with Trump’s freezing of aid are the same ones Trump blocked from appearing before the House impeachment inquiry.

This should make it inescapable that McConnell wants a trial with no testimony from these people — Democrats want to hear from Mulvaney, Bolton, Duffey and Blair — precisely because he, too, wants to prevent us from ever gaining a full accounting.

We now have a much clearer glimpse into the murky depths of just how much more these officials know about the scheme — and just how much McConnell and Trump are determined to make sure we don’t ever learn. That’s so indefensible that it might even breach the levee of the media’s both-sidesing tendencies.

...Trump’s defenders are taking a huge risk
Here’s another possibility. If McConnell does pull off a sham trial leading to a quick acquittal, more might surface later that, in retrospect, will get hung around Republicans’ necks and reverse-reveal just how corrupt their cover-up really was.

As George T. Conway III has noted, in such a scenario, Trump’s defenders will suffer blowback from “the very evidence they sought to suppress.”

This new report underscores the point. The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) is currently battling the administration over a tranche of OMB and Pentagon documents related to the aid freeze that CPI just obtained due to a court order. This is how Duffey’s emails surfaced, but much of what CPI has obtained has been blacked out.

CPI is asking a judge to lift the blackouts, and a ruling is expected as early as March. So it’s plausible that CPI could obtain a great deal of new information — showing even more clearly how worried officials were that Trump’s freeze was breaking the law — in only a few months.

That could come after Senate Republicans ran a sham trial and acquitted Trump. Do they really want to be on the hook for having suppressed such evidence, even in the face of a whole new round of deeply incriminating revelations?

[...]

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 4:49 pm I'm perfectly fine with Trump taking the fall. No skin off my teeth. BUT I want to learn everything in the process. I find it more than a touch disturbing that the Boomers on this board are perfectly OK with the FBI committing a series of heinous "mistakes" or worse, cUZ tRUMp!

It is possible -- and I'd go so far as to say probable -- that BOTH of the following are true:

1. Trump committed impeachable offenses for which he should be removed from office and, perhaps, even crimes that should be prosecuted once that has occurred.

2. The intelligence bureaucracy, with prompting from appointed or elected officials, committed a series of illegal acts (searches, wiretaps, investigations, etc.) to justify its actions and to punish Trump for his unwillingness to play nice.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:51 pm And, of course, lost in all of the oUtrAgE is the minor detail that Hunter Biden managed to live a pretty sweet life courtesy of his dad’s dealings with the Unkraine. But, hey, back to the other quid pro quo . . .

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:51 pm And, of course, lost in all of the oUtrAgE is the minor detail that Hunter Biden managed to live a pretty sweet life courtesy of his dad’s dealings with the Unkraine. But, hey, back to the other quid pro quo . . .

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:51 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:51 pm And, of course, lost in all of the oUtrAgE is the minor detail that Hunter Biden managed to live a pretty sweet life courtesy of his dad’s dealings with the Unkraine. But, hey, back to the other quid pro quo . . .

Well, and a Yale law degree.
But sure, Biden not doing anything about his son taking a board position on a Ukrainian company is bad, and I think that would qualify as using his position for personal gain. He shouldn't be President.

Trump not only has done that with his kids - he used your taxes dollars to attempt to bribe another country for personal gain.

Which of those is worse?

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:49 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:51 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:51 pm And, of course, lost in all of the oUtrAgE is the minor detail that Hunter Biden managed to live a pretty sweet life courtesy of his dad’s dealings with the Unkraine. But, hey, back to the other quid pro quo . . .

Well, and a Yale law degree.
But sure, Biden not doing anything about his son taking a board position on a Ukrainian company is bad, and I think that would qualify as using his position for personal gain. He shouldn't be President.

Trump not only has done that with his kids - he used your taxes dollars to attempt to bribe another country for personal gain.

Which of those is worse?

One has been pretty well established, the other is just hearsay and conjecture, so I’m much more concerned about the former.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:11 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:49 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:51 am

Well, and a Yale law degree.
But sure, Biden not doing anything about his son taking a board position on a Ukrainian company is bad, and I think that would qualify as using his position for personal gain. He shouldn't be President.

Trump not only has done that with his kids - he used your taxes dollars to attempt to bribe another country for personal gain.

Which of those is worse?

One has been pretty well established, the other is just hearsay and conjecture, so I’m much more concerned about the former.

What personal gain is Joe Biden getting from his son being on that board?

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:16 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:11 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:49 am

One has been pretty well established, the other is just hearsay and conjecture, so I’m much more concerned about the former.

What personal gain is Joe Biden getting from his son being on that board?

Do you have kids? Providing an easy life for them and your grandchildren is an enormous personal gain.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:29 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:16 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:11 am
What personal gain is Joe Biden getting from his son being on that board?

Do you have kids? Providing an easy life for them and your grandchildren is an enormous personal gain.

To the kids, yes. What benefit did JOE Biden gain other than the love, thanks and admiration of his son, which he likely already had? Did Joe make money off Hunter's job? Gain connections he didnt have despite being Vice President? Gain some sort of political "in"?

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:52 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:29 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:16 am

Do you have kids? Providing an easy life for them and your grandchildren is an enormous personal gain.

To the kids, yes. What benefit did JOE Biden gain other than the love, thanks and admiration of his son, which he likely already had? Did Joe make money off Hunter's job? Gain connections he didnt have despite being Vice President? Gain some sort of political "in"?

That's why I asked if you have kids. As you get older, that kind of benefit begins to far outweigh any personal fiduciary or influence gain. Not trying to knock you at all - just saying it doesn't make sense until you are in that position.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:18 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:52 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:29 am

To the kids, yes. What benefit did JOE Biden gain other than the love, thanks and admiration of his son, which he likely already had? Did Joe make money off Hunter's job? Gain connections he didnt have despite being Vice President? Gain some sort of political "in"?

That's why I asked if you have kids. As you get older, that kind of benefit begins to far outweigh any personal fiduciary or influence gain. Not trying to knock you at all - just saying it doesn't make sense until you are in that position.

I have six and a sixteen year old daughters.

Your point is ridiculous when attempting to compare it to our President using Congressionally approved taxpayer money to leverage personal benefits in his reelection.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:19 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:18 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:52 am

That's why I asked if you have kids. As you get older, that kind of benefit begins to far outweigh any personal fiduciary or influence gain. Not trying to knock you at all - just saying it doesn't make sense until you are in that position.

I have six and a sixteen year old daughters.

Your point is ridiculous when attempting to compare it to our President using Congressionally approved taxpayer money to leverage personal benefits in his reelection.

So, it's okay if it's for the right reasons? You really want to go with that line of reasoning?

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:56 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:19 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:18 am
I have six and a sixteen year old daughters.

Your point is ridiculous when attempting to compare it to our President using Congressionally approved taxpayer money to leverage personal benefits in his reelection.

So, it's okay if it's for the right reasons? You really want to go with that line of reasoning?

"It"? Again, you're comparing a benefit you described as a Dad possibly feeling paternal pride about his son having a job that he may have only gotten due to who his father is to a President holding up desperately needed Congressional funds to another nation so he can have a few sound bites for his reeelection campaign IF Joe Biden wins the Dem nomination.

The two are not even in the same stratosphere, let alone close enough to blob them into an "it's only OK if..." comparison. That's an Illy level faulty leap of logic.