Poor Little Dem's Mad: Taking Their Ball and Going Home

[Mr Spinkles]

The only way that joke can be taken seriously is either....
1) One is so anti-Trump that one can only see the worst possible inference.
2) There was follow up on the offer, ie, Russia found the emails, & was paid by the media.
The 2nd didn't happen.
The 1st exemplifies how impeachment isn't about crimes...it's
politically motivated. Finding crimes is merely the justification.
The real issue is whether the particular Prez is loathed enuf
bi-partisanly. Clinton wasn't. Likely Trump won't be.
(If Dems really believed crimes warrant impeachment, then
they'd have convicted Clinton. But they still liked him.)

You guys are waaay off base here. Unfortunately I don’t have time to respond in depth.

Suffice it to say that (1) the “Russia are you listening” speech, while in isolation it can be dismissed as a joke (as we could do with almost every absurd thing Trump says) was part of a broad, consistent pattern of not respecting the importance of keeping foreign powers from meddling in US elections, including the Trump tower meeting, statements the President has made that have caused the FEC chair to point out that would be illegal, and committing the “obstructive acts” Mueller identified in the Russia investigation - the acts that virtually everyone, even Lindsay Graham, even Trey Gowdy, even Jeff Sessions, even Steve Bannon (!) ALL agreed were mistakes on Trump’s part at best, and injuries to the US ability to fend off foreign interference, at worst. And (2) he was NOT impeached for those things.

All that behavior combined is what incited talk early on of impeachment - again, I repeat, even Lindsay Graham acknowledged the possibility of impeachment, not just the Dems.

This was not “boorish” behavior. That’s whitewashing it. This was putting Trump first, not America first, and almost EVERYONE knew it - but half the country has since deleted it from memory due to cognitive dissonance.

Lindsay Graham didn’t threaten Trump with “the beginning of the end” of his presidency because Trump was starting to be too “boorish”.

Donald Trump is almost completely isolated in thinking his posture and actions toward the Russia investigation were helpful to the United States in protecting our elections from Putin’s illegal meddling.

You guys have latched onto the “Russia are you listening” comment but what you are missing is that’s just emblematic of a broad pattern of behavior. Go read the Mueller report if you want the full picture, it’s quite damning re: Trump’s behavior. Notwithstanding that he was (thankfully) not found to have successfully, directly colluded with Russia’s attacks on our election.

Incidentally, Russia WAS listening when Trump made those comments. Within hours of him making that speech they engaged in cyber crime against the United States and released the embarrassing DNC emails they stole. His comments appear to have given Russia encouragement to injure the United States, and understandably, anticipate there would be less blowback for Russia if Trump got elected.

Also incidentally, Trump said before the speech that he was going to drop a major bombshell about Hillary Clinton ... and he was expecting to get dirt on her from Russia at the Trump tower meeting. It was only after he did NOT get the expected dirt at the Trump tower meeting that he gave that speech. Turns out, no bombshell was dropped and no explanation was given ... all he said was “Russia I hope you’re listening”.

You guys want to chalk up his comment as a mere joke. It wasn’t. Was it a well thought out attempt to collude with Russia? Of course not, because almost NOTHING he does is well thought out. Many times, his attempts to put Trump ahead of the United States are feckless, or thwarted by his own subordinates trying to protect him from himself.

Here’s the point: he is not in the least CONCERNED about things that he should be, things that are of great importance to the US but not to him personally. Things like protecting our elections.

He’s not an evil genius. He’s not any kind of genius. But he is ethically incompetent. And that is almost as injurious to our country. His comments may be laughable - how close he came to impeachment, on bipartisan grounds when he tried to sabotage the Russia investigation, was no laughing matter however.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I guess I did have time to respond in depth!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Poor nowhere man wouldn't recognize impartiality if it kick him in the groin. The fact that he claims Democrats aren't impartial is the epitome of ironic.

Yea. Just look at the Socialist Democrats flagship states. New York and California.

The poster of impartiality. Aahh... No.

Smoking the wacky stuff a bit?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The key point here: when the Trump Party complains that the Dems have long talked about impeaching Trump, they are trying to argue that the Dems are trigger happy on impeachment.

Ironically, the facts show the opposite is true.

Trump engaged in a pattern of behavior that was legitimately concerning and arguably impeachable - yet the Dems held their fire. That’s just a fact.

Trump’s behavior is what incited the talk of, but not actual, impeachment - that’s also a fact.

And finally, his continued corrupt behavior resulted in actual impeachment. Again it’s simply a fact that Pelosi decided not to go forward with an impeachment inquiry after the Mueller report, but changed her mind after Trump’s more than “boorish” handling of the Ukraine scandal. Even Trumps former Chief of Staff John Kelly was concerned after his departure that if Trump hired a “yes man” to replace him, Trump would get impeached. As luck would have it, Kelly’s replacement - Mulvaney - accidentally acknowledged the truth of the very same allegations that his boss has now been impeached for. John Kelly’s warning appears to have been prophetic.

It’s amazing how Trump’s behavior just doesn’t make an appearance, or bear some responsibility, in the Trump Party narrative of why he’s been impeached.

The Trump Party really, really wants to focus our attention on how much the Democrats dislike Trump and not engage with Trump’s behavior - except to to whitewash it by calling it “boorish”. “Gadfly” is another whitewashing term I have seen used ... as if the man is in any way comparable to Socrates.

It’s fascinating to see cognitive dissonance on a national level like this.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Most legal scholars do not support the idea that congress can define the non defined as a crime, only liberal scholars, who will change their tune if if is employed against a democrat president.

If all the things you say are true, the democrats would have a plethora of statutory crimes, yet they cite not one, why I wonder ?

Obstructing congress is a joke. Invoking a Constitutional right is not an impeachable crime. Congress has no power to void executive privilege, only the judicial branch does. Yet congress made no effort to legally get what they needed, instead, they impeached Trump because he would not just give his prosecutors/persecutors more papers to trawl through or witnesses to interrogate. Hilarious.

Abuse of power, as defined by democrat members of the House of Representatives. An offense which can mean anything to anyone. An offense based in the eternal conflict between the executive and legislative branches for power,and the expansion of pathological political hatred. A conglomeration of opinions refined to a set of opinions.

You seem to confuse me with a trumpette, I am not. He creates chaos and thrives in it. He sets his mind on a goal and uses no finesse, but rather bulldozer tactics to achieve it, By his speech and tone he creates firestorms, and doesn;t care. He is a street fighter, and uses street fighter tactics in political combat. There is more. Yet his policies or methods or language are not criminal, just very off putting for many, including me.

On the other hand, his administration has accomplished much that I find very acceptable. I will happily vote for four more years.

shmogie to be clear the question is whether an impeachable offense has to be a statutory crime. We disagree and there’s no need to rehash the debate. However, I say most legal scholars seem to agree with me, and I have cited sources. Are you saying most legal scholars say only statutory crimes are impeachable? If so, please provide a source to back up that claim.

Here’s another source to back up my claim, in addition to what I previously cited:

“The defenders of the impeached officer always argue, always, that a crime is required,” he says. “And every time that misconception has to be knocked down again.”

He offers this example: “Let’s say the President were to wake up tomorrow morning and says, ‘All this impeachment stuff is kind of getting on my nerves. I think I’m going to go to Barbados for six months. Don’t call me, I’ll call you,’ and just cuts off all contact and refuses to do his duty,” Bowman theorizes. “That’s not a crime. It’s not violating a law. But could we impeach him? Of course we could — otherwise what’s the remedy? We have a country without a President.”

Source:
What Are High Crimes and Misdemeanors? Here’s the History

 

[Revoltingest]

As you have already pointed out, congress isn't a court of law, so congress had absolutely no authority to convict him of perjury. What they DID have the authority to do was determine if his 'crimes' were sufficient reason to boot him from office. And what they concluded was that his crimes were against his wife and his marriage and not crimes against the nation.

They have no authority to convict of real crimes,
but they have it for infidelity (which isn't illegal)?

 

[Revoltingest]

You guys are waaay off base here.

Funny...I was thinking you were the one missing the boat.

Unfortunately I don’t have time to respond in depth.

Suffice it to say that (1) the “Russia are you listening” speech, while in isolation it can be dismissed as a joke (as we could do with almost every absurd thing Trump says) was part of a broad, consistent pattern of not respecting the importance of keeping foreign powers from meddling in US elections, including the Trump tower meeting, statements the President has made that have caused the FEC chair to point out that would be illegal, and committing the “obstructive acts” Mueller identified in the Russia investigation - the acts that virtually everyone, even Lindsay Graham, even Trey Gowdy, even Jeff Sessions, even Steve Bannon (!) ALL agreed were mistakes on Trump’s part at best, and injuries to the US ability to fend off foreign interference, at worst. And (2) he was NOT impeached for those things.

All that behavior combined is what incited talk early on of impeachment - again, I repeat, even Lindsay Graham acknowledged the possibility of impeachment, not just the Dems.

This was not “boorish” behavior. That’s whitewashing it. This was putting Trump first, not America first, and almost EVERYONE knew it - but half the country has since deleted it from memory due to cognitive dissonance.

Lindsay Graham didn’t threaten Trump with “the beginning of the end” of his presidency because Trump was starting to be too “boorish”.

Donald Trump is almost completely isolated in thinking his posture and actions toward the Russia investigation were helpful to the United States in protecting our elections from Putin’s illegal meddling.

You guys have latched onto the “Russia are you listening” comment but what you are missing is that’s just emblematic of a broad pattern of behavior. Go read the Mueller report if you want the full picture, it’s quite damning re: Trump’s behavior. Notwithstanding that he was (thankfully) not found to have successfully, directly colluded with Russia’s attacks on our election.

Incidentally, Russia WAS listening when Trump made those comments. Within hours of him making that speech they engaged in cyber crime against the United States and released the embarrassing DNC emails they stole. His comments appear to have given Russia encouragement to injure the United States, and understandably, anticipate there would be less blowback for Russia if Trump got elected.

Also incidentally, Trump said before the speech that he was going to drop a major bombshell about Hillary Clinton ... and he was expecting to get dirt on her from Russia at the Trump tower meeting. It was only after he did NOT get the expected dirt at the Trump tower meeting that he gave that speech. Turns out, no bombshell was dropped and no explanation was given ... all he said was “Russia I hope you’re listening”.

You guys want to chalk up his comment as a mere joke. It wasn’t. Was it a well thought out attempt to collude with Russia? Of course not, because almost NOTHING he does is well thought out. Many times, his attempts to put Trump ahead of the United States are feckless, or thwarted by his own subordinates trying to protect him from himself.

Here’s the point: he is not in the least CONCERNED about things that he should be, things that are of great importance to the US but not to him personally. Things like protecting our elections.

He’s not an evil genius. He’s not any kind of genius. But he is ethically incompetent. And that is almost as injurious to our country. His comments may be laughable - how close he came to impeachment, on bipartisan grounds when he tried to sabotage the Russia investigation, was no laughing matter however.

Those are all basically reasons to dislike Trump.
But to impeach? I don't think you'll convince
enuf in the Senate to agree with you.
So it happened with Clinton, despite certain
guilt of crimes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yet congress made no effort to legally get what they needed

That is untrue, and I think you know it. They issued subpoenas, the WH blanket obstructed, and Congress is continuing to pursue McGahns and other testimony and documents in court while the WH continues to fight it. They only made “no effort” to delay the process while Trump plays rope-a-dope and had no obligation to do him that favor.

To say Congress made “no effort to legally get what they wanted” is just not true and you know it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Funny...I was thinking you were the one missing the boat.

Those are all basically reasons to dislike Trump.
But to impeach? I don't think you'll convince
enuf in the Senate to agree with you.
So it happened with Clinton, despite certain
guilt of crimes.

No, those are not basically reasons to dislike Trump. His apparent infidelity is a reason to dislike him. His lack of regard for the Constitution is more than that. Again: Lindsay Graham didn’t acknowledge Trump was close to getting impeached simply because he didn’t like him; he acknowledged it because firing Mueller would have injured the interests of the United States and been an abuse of power, and at the time, he had the courage to say it.

To try to characterize those specific reasons as just “not liking Trump” is extremely disingenuous and self-serving hyperbole.

 

[Revoltingest]

To try to characterize those specific reasons as just “not liking Trump” is extremely disingenuous and self-serving hyperbole.

One might say that your views are self-serving, ie,
bias confirmation out of intense hatred. My reason?
Too many are no basis for impeachment. And the
rest are inadequately evidenced.
We shall see who is right when the Senate tries.

 

[Shadow Link]

OAN Three Part Investigative Report on Ukraine, Corruption and Biden Family – Rudy Giuliani and Chanel Rion Travel to Ukraine… | The Last Refuge

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yea. Just look at the Socialist Democrats flagship states. New York and California.

The poster of impartiality. Aahh... No.

Smoking the wacky stuff a bit?

You ARE funny! Both are FAR more impartial than Tennessee or Alabama... or half the ref states for that matter.

 

[QuestioningMind]

They have no authority to convict of real crimes,
but they have it for infidelity (which isn't illegal)?

Who do you imagine convicted whom of infidelity?

 

[Twilight Hue]

You ARE funny! Both are FAR more impartial than Tennessee or Alabama... or half the ref states for that matter.

I live in the people's republic of New York.

The Socialist Democrats here live in their own planet of their making , and will listen to nobody but themselves.

Oh by the way. This little juicy tidbit from Chairman Cuomo....


Conservatives aren't welcome in New York, according to Governor Cuomo | Heather Long

And yep. He said that.

Stop huffing the laughing gas bub. ;0)

Socialist Democrats are partisan and partial as it gets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I live in the people's republic of New York.

The Socialist Democrats here live in their own planet of their making , and will listen to nobody but themselves.

Oh by the way. This little juicy tidbit from Chairman Cuomo....


Conservatives aren't welcome in New York, according to Governor Cuomo | Heather Long

And yep. He said that.

Stop huffing the laughing gas bub. ;0)

Socialist Democrats are partisan and partial as it gets.

The article's body did not support the headline. Did you read it?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

One might say that your views are self-serving, ie,
bias confirmation out of intense hatred. My reason?
Too many are no basis for impeachment. And the
rest are inadequately evidenced.
We shall see who is right when the Senate tries.

Which reasons specifically are "no basis" for impeachment? Please keep in mind, as I said, I am not claiming the reasons pre-Ukraine scandal were necessarily a basis for impeachment. I am saying they were a legitimate basis to openly consider, though ultimately reject acting on, impeachment. Even Lindsay Graham and John Kelly spoke of the possibility of impeachment - was that due to their "bias confirmation out of intense hatred" or because of specific actions Trump took (such as firing Comey and attempting to fire Mueller)?

Surely if you are honest, and actually listen to what I am claiming you cannot disagree: you don't think Trump's actions have nothing to do with why there has been talk of his impeachment, and why he is now impeached? Why do you think Trump's current greatest ally, Lindsay Graham, and Trump's own former Chief of Staff, John Kelly, spoke of the possibility of impeachment before the Ukraine scandal - were they simply lashing out against his "boorishness" and expressing their intense hatred? Or were they concerned about specific actions Trump was taking or might take? Be honest.

Also, I hope you are right, that we will settle this when the Senate tries. I am afraid they will not actually try. I hope I am wrong.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My views are oriented towards policies, ie, things he
should or shouldn't do or have done.
Impeachment is about political infighting, & difficult
for me to take position on, particularly because the
impeachment case is so weak.

Right & wrong in this case are about more than morality,
ie, the law. I don't know that well enuf to say what Trump
can & can't do. The courts will sort it out...possibly.

It seems that you want others to take a side....for or against Trump.
It's a political rather than policy matter. So not only do I care little
about it, I can't say what legal limits there are to each side's power,
nor can I say what is the best politically.

Thanks for explicating.

It strikes me that you have a litany of complaints about him,
& the sum total add up to impeachmentworthiness, with which
he should fully cooperate. I just don't see it that way.

Thanks, yes that is correct. As a number of House Democrats articulated better than I can, the fact that he is a repeat offender and shows no remorse or even consciousness that his behavior is inappropriate, in spite of many of his own aids sounding the alarm, suggests there will continue to be a clear and present danger of him repeating the offense. That weighs, in my view, on whether it is impeachable more heavily than if this was more of a one-off thing or a mistake that he quickly apologized for and tried to rectify.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Abuse of power, as defined by democrat members of the House of Representatives. An offense which can mean anything to anyone. An offense based in the eternal conflict between the executive and legislative branches for power,and the expansion of pathological political hatred. A conglomeration of opinions refined to a set of opinions.

Well, actually abuse of power doesn't just mean anything to anyone, and I think you know that. Otherwise Democrats could put tons of stuff in the articles of impeachment, such as re-routing military funds for his inane wall, or causing our longest government shutdown needlessly, or trying to fire Mueller and then lying about it, or putting his inexperienced children in positions of high office when they shouldn't even have a security clearance, or trying to ban people from entering our country on the basis of religion, or separating children from their parents at our border; etc, etc.

Abuse of power is when, for example, you condition the performance of obligatory official duties (such as releasing funds mandated by Congress) in exchange for things that will benefit you personally (such as making a public announcement that will damage a political rival), to the injury of the United States (by damaging an ally and encroaching on Congress' constitutional power of the purse, investigating and impeaching the executive). Not every despicable tweet by Trump meets those criteria so flagrantly that virtually his entire staff was alarmed by it; and therefore, not "anything to anyone" was included in the articles of impeachment.

Abuse of power is, certainly, more broad than a statutory crime. And I acknowledge that you think a statutory crime is the only type of impeachable offense. But to say it can mean anything to anyone is greatly exaggerating. Again, as you know, one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon was abuse of power, and that was all but certain to pass with bipartisan support.

You seem to confuse me with a trumpette, I am not. He creates chaos and thrives in it. He sets his mind on a goal and uses no finesse, but rather bulldozer tactics to achieve it, By his speech and tone he creates firestorms, and doesn;t care. He is a street fighter, and uses street fighter tactics in political combat. There is more. Yet his policies or methods or language are not criminal, just very off putting for many, including me.

I appreciate you acknowledging this and I don't disagree with much of what you say here. However, here is what you are missing. When he uses naughty words like "****hole country" or "grab her by the ****y", those naughty words demonstrate lack of finesse. It may be hard for you to believe, but it is not his lack of finesse that rises to the level of impeachable conduct, in my view.

When he re-purposes funds allocated by Congress, and corruptly conditions official acts in exchange for things that will benefit him personally, and then lies about it, and then refuses to comply with reasonable requests by Congress for information on why those funds were held up, and blanket obstructs an impeachment inquiry without even so much as a pretense of executive privilege (an excuse you gave him, that he didn't even cite because it makes no sense to withhold OMB records that would be released anyway in normal course) .... all that is not a lack of finesse. It's not boorish. It is subverting the checks and balances of our Constitution, which he swore to protect in his oath of office.

The whistleblower, Vindman, Sondland, Taylor, Fiona Hill and others didn't express concern about this Ukraine scandal because Trump lacked finesse ... Lindsay Graham didn't say if Trump fired Mueller it would be "the beginning of the end" of his presidency because that would be boorish .... former Chief of Staff John Kelly didn't warn Trump if he hired a yes-man to replace him he might end up impeached because Trump is a street fighter .... these things happened because Trump is ethically incompetent, and sometimes he blunders across the line of what is appropriate or Constitutional.

When he committed the "obstructive acts" identified by Mueller, that too was not just a lack of finesse. It was ethical incompetence. And even if his ethical incompetence stems from his childish penchant for chaos, rather than some sinister intention to do evil, it causes the same injury to the United States - to our checks and balances, to the powers of Congress, to the integrity of an FBI investigation, etc.

Don't get me wrong - his "lack of finesse" should absolutely be taken as a red flag that he might also be ethically incompetent. But his actions are what have proved that suspicion to be true. Still, it's worth noting that no one, as far as I have seen - literally not even his children - has stood up to defend him as a character witness - "He is not the type of person who would ever do something like that". Because, well, we all know he is that type of person, don't we.

On the other hand, his administration has accomplished much that I find very acceptable. I will happily vote for four more years.

But a Trumpette, you are not. Got it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

OAN Three Part Investigative Report on Ukraine, Corruption and Biden Family – Rudy Giuliani and Chanel Rion Travel to Ukraine… | The Last Refuge

A blog that is trying to replace Breitbart?

How much do you want to bet I can find a lie, or a very misleading statement, in the first 10 minutes of the video?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The article's body did not support the headline. Did you read it?

Of course. Cuomo was referring to the 'extreme' Republicans. Right?

Here's Cuomo's quote you probably saw from the article....

"… You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican party candidates are running against the SAFE Act – it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are".

Yet the article continues.....

But Cuomo crossed a line by saying anyone who supports traditional marriage or is against abortion is not welcome in New York. While no one would mistake New York for Utah, there’s certainly lots of diversity and “traditional values” in the state, ranging from ultra orthodox Jewish communities in the Big Apple to Amish in upstate New York. It reinforces stereotype of liberals as tolerant … as long as people are speaking views they agree with.