The Trump Presidency: Part 17

[Minoosh]

Food for thought:

Children in cages: not a good enough reason.

Working with hostile powers to subvert an election: not a good enough reason.

Self-enrichment and inside dealing: not a good enough reason.

Attacking Joe Biden: IMPEACH HIM NAO!

Democrats are a funny lot.

They've let him get away with so much they shouldn't target him now? I hope that becomes a Republican talking point.

Separate from impeachment is an issue that may be more fundamental to Senate Republicans - the way Trump added strings to the Ukrainian aid that they never intended it to have. I keep saying that such foreign-policy issues are opening some daylight between them and Trump. There's a tipping point for them as well, I think. Pure speculation though.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

They've let him get away with so much they shouldn't target him now? I hope that becomes a Republican talking point.

You could have at least put "so, ..." at the beginning.

Nowhere did I say he shouldn't be impeached.

Separate from impeachment is an issue that may be more fundamental to Senate Republicans - the way Trump added strings to the Ukrainian aid that they never intended it to have. I keep saying that such foreign-policy issues are opening some daylight between them and Trump. There's a tipping point for them as well, I think. Pure speculation though.

I understand the underlying issue.

I don't think that's what moved the same caucus that sat on its hands when way more egregious violations happened.

"You can't explain a variable with a constant."

 

[Trebuchet]

Trump Tweets

Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called “Whistleblower,” represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way. Then Schiff made up what I actually said by lying to Congress......

His lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great Chamber. He wrote down and read terrible things, then said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason.....

....In addition, I want to meet not only my accuser, who presented SECOND & THIRD HAND INFORMATION, but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the “Whistleblower.” Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!

I'd give even odds that Trump not only HAS met the whistleblower, but that the whistleblower got at least part of his information directly from Trump in the oval office.

 

[Minoosh]

Trump Tweets

I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason.....

The feeling is mutual, I'm sure.

....In addition, I want to meet not only my accuser, who presented SECOND & THIRD HAND INFORMATION, but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the “Whistleblower.” Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!

Ah, but that's the rub. Someone is always spying on this president - his own handpicked "best (acting) people." They can't stand you, Trump. That's why they keep turning on you while kissing your ass in public.

Americans have a presumed right to meet their accuser in court. If only there were legal proceedings that could be initiated ...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Food for thought:

Children in cages: not a good enough reason.

Working with hostile powers to subvert an election: not a good enough reason.

Self-enrichment and inside dealing: not a good enough reason.

Attacking Joe Biden: IMPEACH HIM NAO!

Democrats are a funny lot.

This is a total distortion of the facts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump didn't write that. It's correctly spelled and somewhat coherent, and it's not bat-**** insane enough!

That first sentence is classic not-Trump. He'd be whining how unfair the witch hunt was.

 

[a_unique_person]

Trump didn't write that. It's correctly spelled and somewhat coherent, and it's not bat-**** insane enough!

You have become somewhat desensitised to Trumps tweets (whoever is creating them). It's insane alright, just not bat ***** insane.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

This is a total distortion of the facts.

Oh, well I missed when Trump was impeached for those things.

My mistake.

 

[Minoosh]

You could have at least put "so, ..." at the beginning.

Nowhere did I say he shouldn't be impeached.




I understand the underlying issue.

I don't think that's what moved the same caucus that sat on its hands when way more egregious violations happened.

"You can't explain a variable with a constant."

It's not a constant, though. Things build up over time. Even with Senate Republicans. I wouldn't want to place bets on when that will happen, though.

ETA: That's the caucus that has been sitting on its hands. House Dems were postponing a risky maneuver, IMO for valid strategic reasons.

 

[a_unique_person]

During a July 25 phone call, Trump made reference to the cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, which had investigated the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's computers during the 2016 campaign, but did not turn over the server to the FBI. Trump indicated that the server could presently be in Ukraine.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-defends-ukraine-investigation-questions-obama-involvement


The case of the missing server? What morons. If a server was a data risk for anyone the first thing you would do is take the disks out, smash them, the smash the server and send it off to the tip. The idea that it would be secreted out to the Ukraine, and presumabley hidden there, is just another wacky Trumpism.

 

[phiwum]

Oh, well I missed when Trump was impeached for those things.

My mistake.

There are a few questions that may be asked when deciding whether to start pursuing impeachment.

(1) Is the act (objectively) serious enough to warrant impeachment? (The notion that there's any objective answer to this may strike some as ridiculous and others as plausible.)

(2) Can we convince (most of) the voting public that this is serious enough to warrant impeachment?

(3) Can we convince at least some Republican Congressmen of the same?

For (2), the act has to be one that most folk can understand and agree is bad. The Ukraine thing is just such an issue, not because poor widdle Biden was victimized, but because Trump is using foreign policy to gain political advantage in an illegitimate way. That's pretty easy to see is wrong, if you can convince folks that this is what happened. The fact that we have a knowledgeable whistleblower bringing the allegation, evidently a career civil servant (if that's an appropriate term for a CIA analyst) helps make this case.

Now, personally, I care more about (1) than (2) or (3), even though some here may scoff at the presuppositions for (1). Those who care about (3) (David Brooks and George Will are in that camp, as are Trump defenders and some Democrats) primarily would say that this isn't the time and there probably is no time for impeachment, since there is no hint the Republicans will cave on any issue ever. This is probably too cynical and perhaps once the evidence comes out, some Republicans will rediscover a spine.

So I wouldn't say that attacking Biden is a step too far. It's not really about Biden, far as I'm concerned. If it turns out that Biden really was illegitimately interfering in Ukraine in order to protect his son (which seems terribly unlikely given what we know), I'd like that to become known and for his political career to be over. But I'd also say that Trump's actions deserve impeachment because he has not acted in the interest of the U.S. or justice but in his narrow political interest.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It's not a constant, though. Things build up over time. Even with Senate Republicans. I wouldn't want to place bets on when that will happen, though.

ETA: That's the caucus that has been sitting on its hands. Dems were postponing a risky maneuver, for valid strategic reasons.

I'm not convinced that a significant portion of Congress is deeply disturbed that a President might attach conditionalities to American foreign policy.

I despise it, please understand.

But also understand how those 2 statements differ.

 

[kookbreaker]

Oh, well I missed when Trump was impeached for those things.

My mistake.

The distortion was that Biden has anything other than a tangential figuring into the cause of these impeachment demands.

It’s like saying the Watergate scandal was simply about the bugging of the DNC headquarters.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I'm not convinced that a significant portion of Congress is deeply disturbed that a President might attach conditionalities to American foreign policy.

I despise it, please understand.

But also understand how those 2 statements differ.

They wouldn't be disturbed about a president doing that in faithful execution of his duties, but that's not what happened, and the ignorance schtick is getting tiresome.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The distortion was that Biden has anything other than a tangential figuring into the cause of these impeachment demands.



It’s like saying the Watergate scandal was simply about the bugging of the DNC headquarters.

What's the reason for Trump wanting to intimidate Ukraine?

What would he gain by their comliance?

"Tangential" my left ass cheek...

No, what I said is nothing like your distorted analogy.

 

[Stacyhs]

Food for thought:

Children in cages: not a good enough reason.

Sadly, for most people, it's not.

Working with hostile powers to subvert an election: not a good enough reason.

If Mueller had not concluded that he saw no collusion, the Dems may well have impeached him. But, Mueller did say that.

Self-enrichment and inside dealing: not a good enough reason.

That investigation is still ongoing. So far, it has not been proven. Certainly not enough to bring impeachment proceedings. I still have hopes strong evidence of this is discovered. We can say it's obvious he's been enriching himself through his office, but until something definitive is found, there's not much Congress can do.

Attacking Joe Biden: IMPEACH HIM NAO!

Democrats are a funny lot.

It had nothing to do with Trump attacking Joe Biden per se. It had to do with trying to use funds approved by Congress to extort information on a political rival from a foreign government in the next election. It could have been Warren, Sanders, or any of the other primary candidates.

So far, this is the strongest case for impeachment they've found.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

They wouldn't be disturbed about a president doing that in faithful execution of his duties, but that's not what happened, and the ignorance schtick is getting tiresome.

Oh, there's a "faithful" way to improperly influence foreign countries.

Your resorting to insults schtick was never interesting to begin with.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

If Mueller had not concluded that he saw no collusion, the Dems may well have impeached him. But, Mueller did say that.

So far, this is the strongest case for impeachment they've found.

No.

 

[Stacyhs]

No.

Apparently Pelosi and the House disagree with you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, well I missed when Trump was impeached for those things.

My mistake.

You picked one variable when there were dozens of differences in your list. You can't just pick the one variable that suits your argument (pretending the impeachment is about Biden when it is about Trump).