Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Former Congressman Chris Collins, the first Congressman to endorse Trump, heading to prison for 2+ years on his insider trading conviction.

[Dr. Strangelove]

EOgI-MkWkAAD3_H?format=jpg&name=small.jpg

[Dr. Strangelove]

Latest batch of Lev Files shows he texted frequently with Derek Harvey, one of Devin Nunes' top aides. Same Devin Nunes who originally said he had no clue who Lev Parnas was.

EDIT: Months ago Parnas' lawyer claimed that Lev was part of a group that met at least weekly at the Trump Hotel to essentially plot on how to get Ukraine to cough up dirt on Biden. The group included Giuliani, "journalist" John Solomon, DiGenova/Toensing, and Derek Harvey, who was acting as a proxy for Devin Nunes. The texts released tonight seem to verify this was accurate. Harvey and Farnas communicated quite a bit

[iam416]

So what?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump's top-notch anti-corruption squad.

EOhPLP3XsAELS86?format=jpg&name=medium.jpg

[Dr. Strangelove]

So what?

Meh, I would say it's becoming increasingly likely Devin Nunes is mixed up in the "get Zelensky to implicate Biden" scheme too?

[froot loops]

Just let Trump be Trump, a very conservative ideal. You are either for Trump or you are not a.conservative.

[Dr. Strangelove]

"Who the hell cares about the budget? We're going to have a country"

RIP Tea Party

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...f6d_story.html

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Jeff Buchanan]

The actual text of the Trump defense team's response to the articles of impeachment. A required response. What I like about reading this is that it is uncluttered by the mutterings of both sides of the debate working to grab the upper hand in that debate.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/18/797597980/read-the-white-house-response-to-the-senate-impeachment-trial-summons?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news

Compare and contrast to the House Articles:

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/articles%20of%20impeachment.pdf

It's going to be interesting to see how the proceedings unfold next week. On it's face, the two articles should make their case without the need for additional testimony to elaborate on them. I don't think either one of them does that. The 2nd article, Obstruction of Congress is especially weak. Will the Senate allow witnesses? If they do allow witness testimony what bearing does it have on the facts that the House presented in the articles?

We know this isn't a legal proceeding in the strictest sense of the word; it's not a court. The rules for a trial have largely been defined by precedent - mostly involving due process whatever that may be defined to be in each case. McConnell has already signaled he's going to use the Clinton trial as a guide. Details of the rules the trial will follow will emerge as the various amendments to the rules are debated next week. I think it is good advice to simply ignore all the debate on witnesses. All witnesses will tend to do, IMO, is allow for the impeachment managers to make a circus out of what should be a solemn, straight forward event, the outcome of which should be based entirely on the case the House presented to the Senate last week.

There's a lot of wiggle room here for the Senate and McConnell, appears to me, to be in the driver's seat. But, keep focused on this: did Trump engage in activity that can be defined as "High Crimes and Misdemeanors?' It's an entirely political question. Whether he broke the law is irrelevant unless it applies to establishing unfitness for office, i.e., the impeachment managers can establish that Trump does not possess the requisite honor, integrity, and character to be trusted to carry out his functions in a manner free from corruption. This important detail became the guiding principal in the Clinton Impeachment. I believe a case for that can be made not necessarily in the Ukraine affair alone but more broadly. Not only is making that case highly speculative but also, the House did not broaden the articles to include that behavior. IMO, it's important to understand that and therefore ignore all the pundits who will try to argue for or against that case.

I think it's safe to say that both sides will very publicly clamor that his conduct in the Ukraine affair does or does not establish such unfitness. The rest of the bull-shit that will be floating around in the press next week, including inappropriate claims regarding his bad behavior beyond the Ukraine Affair, can be dismissed as political theater - the House chose not to address any of that. It's my belief a super majority in the Senate will not vote in favor of removal. I'm probably among a majority of Americans who both understand the House impeachment and Senate trial process, have looked carefully at the articles and the Trump defense team's response to them who would not remove Trump from office. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like the guy or not. I don't but removing Trump from office for abuse of power or obstruction of congress is unjustified on two grounds: (1) The House failed to make it's case and (2) removal sets a terrible precedent in America's constitutional structure. I favor that acquittal because I think there is some validity to the assertion coming from the Trump defense team that the Democrats are trying to use the impeachment process as a means to overturn the will of the American voters that elected Trump.

[iam416]

On it's face, the two articles should make their case without the need for additional testimony to elaborate on them. I don't think either one of them does that. The 2nd article, Obstruction of Congress is especially weak

Correct, the first article is ok and especially correct.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Correct, the first article is ok and especially correct.

Do you think the first article is sufficient to support a charge of High Crimes and Misdemeanors such charge applying only to the Ukraine Affair in that by Trump's conduct in that singular event he establishes that he does not possess the requisite honor, integrity, and character to be trusted to carry out his functions in a manner free from corruption?

[Ghengis Jon]

Yes.

Using the Presidency to leverage another country in the national interest is expected. Using the Presidency to leverage another country for personal interest is impeachable.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Yes.

Using the Presidency to leverage another country in the national interest is expected. Using the Presidency to leverage another country for personal interest is impeachable.

Well, that's the crux of it, right there. I'm not adequately versed in the evidence that the House submitted to assert that it supports the leveraging of another country for personal interests - in this case getting dirt on a potential political opponent in the 2020 elections. I've heard plenty of talk about this from both sides. Unequivocal supporting evidence contained within the Articles presented to the Senate (that I linked to)? Don't think so.

I think the articles of impeachment have to stand on their own merits in the instance of this singular trial. I don't think they do. That brings up the issue of testimony from both sides elaborating on Article 1 in a way that supports it's assertions or renders them invalid. I can see arguments on both sides of that issue and that's what I oppose hearing in the context of the Senate trial. It will draw it out interminably. Let both sides - the mangers and Trump's defense team - present their cases for and against the president based on the Articles presented and the response to them.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Poll released in Iowa today has Biden ahead but more surprisingly has Bernie in 5th!!!