US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[FeatsOfStrength]

Originally Posted by JU_88

From what i understand, few Americans actually care that much about this impeachment business.

Well as someone who was born in the USA but has been a naturalised UK citizen for the past 15 years I find it hard to comprehend how people in the US have managed to become so entrenched in their partisan caves that they have fully lost the ability to reason or understand anything that is not the Democrat/Republican shadow on the wall.

Politics, international relations and the mechanisms of law and government are more complicated than a yin/yang yes or no, it's the same with the current Impeachment. The party you support isn't important here, it's A) the accusation's made against the President. B) Whether or not the accusations are duly founded and C) What the appropriate response is in lines with the Constitution.

So far I haven't seen any valid defence of the President, either from the White House or the Republican party. All i see is half-baked conspiracy theories and petty jibes. Worse still if you look at the President's actions and "the transcript" he released it seems to confirm that there was a Quid Pro Quo and that it was done in bad faith to affect the narrative of the 2020 election.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

So its been quite evident, to me anyway, the impeachment hearing was fueled by hearsay. But I always thought hearsay isnt admisable in a trial even one held in the senate. I wonder how thats gonna work.

Hearsay can be admissible in US Law, there are numerous exceptions. Being hearsay evidence in itself does not stop it from being potentially strong evidence or relevant especially when you have multiple witnesses confirming the same incident. If the President was truly confident in his innocence, he wouldn't have blocked his staff from testifying.

Just my analysis as a lawyer though, everyone is entitled to their own opinion in free societies.

[Rockstar]

Oh boy, another lawyer. Since I've never voted in my life and have no political affiliation or hide in a political cave Why do you think there is a need to provide a valid defense of the president, against what? From what I've read has shown everything to be highly political, accusations to be unfounded hearsay, media reports fraud and internal misbehavior of the FBI against a duly elected president. In otherwords I agree with the IG report and professor Johnathan Turly's testimony.

Sure you may not like him, think him unbecoming, a bore, dispise the color of his hair make fun of the size of his hands. IMO that is more akin to political satire and trivial, petty childish behavior. If anything Trump is just like you and everyone else including me (sometimes ). The best defense we can have against any politician from any party is to become an INFORMED voter. You dont like the current trade policy because TRUMP bad man, allies friends, china to super duper? Those are nothing more than emotional useless reasons, right along their playbook to keep the herd in line by not knowing enough to ask intelligent questions.

[FeatsOfStrength]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Oh boy, another lawyer. Since I've never voted in my life and have no political affiliation or hide in a political cave Why do you think there is a need to provide a valid defense of the president, against what? So far everything I've read has shown accusations to be unfounded hearsay, media reports fraud and internal misbehavior of the FBI against an elected president.

Sure you may not like him, think him unbecoming, a bore, dispise the color of his hair make fun of the size of his hands. IMO that is the trivial, petty childish behavior. If anything Trump is just like you.

Because the office of President in the United States is not equivalent to that of a King. Constitutional processes are there to provide checks and balances against abuse of power. Which is what the President is being accused of. If the White House is incapable of defending itself against the accusations beyond blocking witnesses, personal attacks on representatives involved in the hearings and putting forward conspiracy theories about Ukrainian interference in the elections, it looks to me as though they have no defense.

The President's appearance or personal life is irrelevant, it's his actions as an elected official that are concerning. If abuse of power is not addressed then why even bother having checks and balances at all if they're not checking or balancing anything?

The reference to Plato's cave wasn't aimed at you in particular i was using it to describe what I've seen happen to American politics & society as a whole. I don't know what you've been reading, but if you want to read the documents directly relating to the impeachment hearing and not second hand biased accounts posted on blogs, social media and news sites you can find them here.

[Rockstar]

Dont need a lecture about checks and balances that IMO is a trivial distraction from my question. I asked what does he need to defend against.

Article I Abuse of power
"President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election".
Still no eye witness testimony, only hearsay. Personally I have yet to see or hear of any proof that he solicited information for this reason. It appears to me as does prof, Trurly he's busy defending himself against what Alexander Hamilton warned us about in his Federalist Essays Summary No. 65 March 7, 1788. If you or anyone has even a shred of evidence of wrong doing I would love to hear about it.

Article II Obstruction of congress
"Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives". Sure you may not like it But it is not without precedence it has been done before to quell inquiries. Think back to Dwight Eisenhower and Joe McCarthy.


The IG report and Professor Turly's testimony before congress during the impeachment hearing are not second hand accounts or linked to some obsure website or blog, But thanks anyway.

[mapuc]

It made me sad, reading words like
Hearsay seems to be allowed in Senate and in Congress.

Markus

[eddie]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Dont need a lecture about checks and balances that IMO is a trivial distraction from my question. I asked what does he need to defend against.

Article I Abuse of power
"President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election".
Still no eye witness testimony, only hearsay. Personally I have yet to see or hear of any proof that he solicited information for this reason. It appears to me as does prof, Trurly he's busy defending himself against what Alexander Hamilton warned us about in his Federalist Essays Summary No. 65 March 7, 1788. If you or anyone has even a shred of evidence of wrong doing I would love to hear about it.

Article II Obstruction of congress
"Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives". Sure you may not like it But it is not without precedence it has been done before to quell inquiries. Think back to Dwight Eisenhower and Joe McCarthy.


The IG report and Professor Turly's testimony before congress during the impeachment hearing are not second hand accounts or linked to some obsure website or blog, But thanks anyway.

And we don't need a lecture from you either, don't need your permission to post anything we feel strongly about, or your vote or your acceptance of it. Get over your self.

[Rockstar]

Reading comprehension issues again eddie? you sound just like Trump I never said you needed my permission, post anything you like. I just thought the checks and balance lecture was a distraction from my question. All I want to know is there any evidence that has been realized which supports Article I? Sure there was plenty of hearsay.


Can it be presumed Trump called for personal political gain? I suppose it could. But it can also be presumed he called for Ukraine's to look into the corruption and Biden's association with Burisma for national interest. Though Im not naive to think it could not be used for political advantage later on down the road.



If there is evidence to support Article I then bring it forth quit screwing around and remove him from office, you wouldnt hear a peep from me. If not quit the political drama shows and lets get on with more pressing issues.

[Skybird]

The sober, saddening truth.

https://translate.google.de/translat...F25323244.html

Like I said repeatedly: the lil' boy in the White House is not the cause but the symptom for an erosive process of hyperpolarization that runs sinces decades and destroys the very constitutkionasl and institutional fundament of political America. From this, America will never recover. History does not suddenly stop and reverse.


Meanwhile lil' boy's own lil boy behaves like a juvenile rowdy on the schoolyard. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by FeatsOfStrength

So far I haven't seen any valid defence of the President, either from the White House or the Republican party. All i see is half-baked conspiracy theories and petty jibes. Worse still if you look at the President's actions and "the transcript" he released it seems to confirm that there was a Quid Pro Quo and that it was done in bad faith to affect the narrative of the 2020 election.

If you were really a lawyer (and objective) as you claim, you would know the burden of proof is solely on the party pushing impeachment.

POTUS is innocent until proven guilty and does not have to provide any defence until the Dems prove their case.

POTUS was validly elected in 2016, if you are going to remove a duly elected President less than one year before the next election, you need a pretty serious reason.

Here the Dems cannot even prove that: 1) what they say happened even in fact happened (i.e. no factual proof, beyond hearsay and conjectures); and 2) even if we accept that what they say happened did in fact happen, exactly what laws POTUS has violated.

The Dems case is so weak and obviously politically motivated, that the GOP strategy to ridicule and ignore it is the only sensible course of action.

[Skybird]

Institutions and procedures do no longer function as they were once intended when they were designed. And the lil' boy? Simply reflects and reverses all charges against him, accusing the others of what he as done himself. Often seen defence mechanism in psychotherapy, and rhetoric seminars.


state reason has been turned into a boxing bout during the yearly fair. The more obscene the actors, the louder the mob yells and applaudes. Pennies and bottles flying through the air, praise thy champ everybody. The pride of the Western world. The highlight of cultural civilization.



There is no excuse for this. There just is no excuse.



And the hyperpolarization of US politics will continue. These trenches will never turn narrower again.



Narciss making rabid grimaces by the billabong. The story will end like being told. What a relief. What a threat.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

If you were really a lawyer (and objective) as you claim, you would know the burden of proof is solely on the party pushing impeachment.

POTUS is innocent until proven guilty and does not have to provide any defence until the Dems prove their case.

POTUS was validly elected in 2016, if you are going to remove a duly elected President less than one year before the next election, you need a pretty serious reason.

Here the Dems cannot even prove that: 1) what they say happened even in fact happened (i.e. no factual proof, beyond hearsay and conjectures); and 2) even if we accept that what they say happened did in fact happen, exactly what laws POTUS has violated.

The Dems case is so weak and obviously politically motivated, that the GOP strategy to ridicule and ignore it is the only sensible course of action.

Its amazing how some people make claims they can't support based on the scantiest of arguments. They seem to be the sort who claim to have read something like War & Peace or Moby Dick after having only read the Cliff Notes of a book. It is somewhat similar to claiming to know the whole Bible based on a knowledge of the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and a handful of random Biblical quotes. One thing about lawyers: they tend to actually delve into the facts of a case before making statements on a case and also tend not to deal in overly broad, sweeping statements. I am no lawyer, but I do, at least, make the effort to actually look into the facts presented by all sides before dismissing, out of hand, the opinions presented by others, and, when I do refute someone's claims, I do make the effort to back up my position with verifiable cites, something a great number of Trumpettes seem incapable of achieving. Perhaps it is because there is a dearth of factual, logical, sensible, verifiable defenses for Trump's actions in office; perhaps it is the normal fear of facts and truth to be found in those who know they have no defense...


Interestingly, the only persons in the whole impeachment investigation process who have actually testified under oath and under penalty of perjury are not any of Trump's minions or associates who were involved in the activities in question; one would think, if Trump and themselves were not culpable, they would be clamoring to give sworn testimony; instead, what they do is hide under some dubious claim of privilege above the law and refuse offered opportunities to present their case and/or offer sworn testimony, which is a pity, really, because it would be fun to see them burst into flames while lying under oath...


I say the Senate should give in to Trump's request for a full trial with witnesses. Let Giuliani take the oath and give one of his famously 'coherent" rants and have him subjected to real cross-examination about te Ukraine matter. let the White House produce all the emails, notes letters, and other documents related for public view and the Senate's evaluation at trial. let those who actually participated in or have relevant knowledge and/or evidence of the related charges openly, and under oath and penalty of perjury, be heard. The GOP Senate leadership's worst fear is the truth and they are fighting mightily to sweep the trash that is Trump under the rug; they may ultimately succeed in terms of the impeachment trial, but one thing is very certain: there is an awful lot of other actionable illegality bearing Trump's fingerprint's still out there and has yet to fully move through the process. Then there is also the fact that Trump is Trump: the probability Trump will do something boneheaded, illegal, or highly detrimental to his tenure and/or his reelection is extremely, extremely high...


As far as:

Here the Dems cannot even prove that: 1) what they say happened even in fact happened (i.e. no factual proof, beyond hearsay and conjectures); and 2) even if we accept that what they say happened did in fact happen, exactly what laws POTUS has violated.

...is concerned, the Judiciary Committee is required, by law, to issue a report to support the charges made in an impeachment resolution and the Committee did so on 13 Dec 2019, in which the supporting evidence is detailed with appropriate reference to applicable law; the filing also includes dissenting views by GOP Committee members. Your claim, as with so many others of yours, is again no supported by the facts. Here is a link to a PDF of the official Judiciary Committee:


https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek...116hrpt346.pdf


There is plenty in the report to support the charges and it is based on actual sworn testimony and evidence. Sorry to have burst the bubble of "no factual proof, beyond hearsay and conjectures", but facts have a tendency to do so. I post the link with the knowledge that the response will be "TLDR", but you should "R", particularly if you are going to make such broad, sweeping, and inaccurate statements, and wish to have even a semblance of 'objectivity'...


Now, let's see if the GOP Senate will actually hold a real fair trial or, in fear of how the actual truth and facts will cripple their little Party, once again stick their noses firmly up the crack of Trump's ample posterior, and do their version of a kangaroo court...






<O>

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Institutions and procedures do no longer function as they were once intended when they were designed. And the lil' boy? Simply reflects and reverses all charges against him, accusing the others of what he as done himself. Often seen defence mechanism in psychotherapy, and rhetoric seminars.

Thing is Skybird the Dems have actually done the same thing, many times, including against this president.

In 2016 the Democratic Party enlisted a foreign national with Russian sources to peddle Russian invented lies about Trump to a willing CIA and FBI as well as leak lurid details to biased media outlets in an attempt to fix the outcome of the upcoming presidential election in favor of their candidate, and when that failed, overturn its results. That is a fact and it is the same exact thing as what they are accusing Trump of trying to do in Ukraine, but the differences here are that they actually did it and Trump did not.

Besides there is the huge disparity factor when comparing a few simple words in a single conversation to a huge conspiracy of embedded partisans using the formidable investigatory resources of several federal government agencies including the use of foreign spies, domestic undercover agents, wire taps, secret (illegally obtained) and search warrants, not to mention still untold millions in taxpayer dollars.

Being a foreigner you may not realize it but the Democrats are the original Gas Lighters in this country and there are numerous examples of this type of dirty tactic going back to at least the Reagan years, long before they began to hate their former pal Donald Trump for the sin of becoming a Republican.

Did not Ted Kennedy, Lion of the Democratic party, attempt to collude with the Russians, the KGB itself apparently, in the 1980 election against President Reagan? Did not a delegation of Democrat Senators write to the President of the Ukraine just last year demanding that the Ukrainians investigate President Trump and subtlety threatening to withhold aid if they didn't play ball? Now if you can stretch Trumps call transcript into a crime by reading between the lines on what you think he "really meant" then a read of the letter that they wrote should be just as damning to you.

Thing is dude you can continue to play the troll from your foreign perch and call Trump all the stupid names you want but I'm betting that Trump is going to survive not only your disdain but also this latest coup attempt and that we voters are going to reelect him to a second term next November unless a better alternative presents itself. So far it hasn't, so you and the rest of the bad orange man haters can just stew in your bile for another 5 years as he continues to deliver prosperity and success for the American people.

I just hope that whoever replaces him in 2025 will meet with similar levels of disapproval. Hate him even more if possible because it will mean that he's continued to deliver on what we elected him to do and that's fine by me.

[vienna]

Looks like Ukrainian corruption is edging closer to Giuliani, and Trump's doorstep...


Giuliani associate Parnas was paid $1 million by fugitive Ukrainian oligarch --

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gi...rch-2019-12-17


...and here's why the above matters:


Yeah, the Letter. But Today's Biggest Trump News Came Out of a Court Room in New York. --

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/yeah...215500896.html


Trump's personal lawyer, who has personal ties to Ukrainian operative under indictment for corruption who, in turn have ties to a Russian-backed Ukrainian oligarch who is in exile from Ukraine because of his involvement in Ukrainian corruption...

Seems like Trump is trying to 'stamp out Ukrainian corruption' by subsuming it into his operations...





<O>

[Reece]

Good move!!

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Institutions and procedures do no longer function as they were once intended when they were designed. And the lil' boy? Simply reflects and reverses all charges against him, accusing the others of what he as done himself. Often seen defence mechanism in psychotherapy, and rhetoric seminars.


state reason has been turned into a boxing bout during the yearly fair. The more obscene the actors, the louder the mob yells and applaudes. Pennies and bottles flying through the air, praise thy champ everybody. The pride of the Western world. The highlight of cultural civilization.



There is no excuse for this. There just is no excuse.



And the hyperpolarization of US politics will continue. These trenches will never turn narrower again.



Narciss making rabid grimaces by the billabong. The story will end like being told. What a relief. What a threat.

The US survived the turbulent sixties and seventies and will survive this.