The Washington Post editorial board wrote today about the dangerous precedent that the Senate is establishing by refusing to accept any evidence and refusing to have a real trial of the impeachment charges.
By doing so, they are truly making the president an emperor or a king, who can do whatever he wants so long as his party controls the Senate. Trump’s desire to be like his friends Putin and Kim is clear; why the Senate Republicans want to make his conduct and behavior and his belief that he is above the law is not at all clear. Is it because he made large contributions to their campaigns? Are they cowering for fear of a hostile tweet? Or is it their lust for power at any price?
Yet the rigging of the trial process may not be the most damaging legacy of the exhibition Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) is orchestrating in full collaboration with the White House. That might flow from the brazen case being laid out by Mr. Trump’s lawyers. The defense brief they filed Monday argues that the president “did absolutely nothing wrong” when he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch investigations of Joe Biden and a Russian-promoted conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. It further contends that Mr. Trump was entirely within his rights when he refused all cooperation with the House impeachment inquiry, including rejecting subpoenas for testimony and documents. It says he cannot be impeached because he violated no law.
By asking senators to ratify those positions, Mr. Trump and his lawyers are, in effect, seeking consent for an extraordinary expansion of his powers. An acquittal vote would confirm to Mr. Trump that he is free to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election and to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to induce such interference. It would suggest that he can press foreign leaders to launch a criminal investigation of any American citizen he designates, even in the absence of a preexisting U.S. probe, or any evidence.
The defense would also set the precedent that presidents may flatly refuse all cooperation with any congressional inquiry, even though the House’s impeachment power is spelled out in the Constitution. And it would establish that no president may be impeached unless he or she could be convicted of violating a federal statute — no matter the abuse of power. Those are principles that Republicans will regret if they conclude that a Democratic executive has violated his or her oath of office. Yet Mr. Trump demands they adopt his maximalist position regardless of the consequences.
We know that many Republican senators do not accept this unacceptable defense. Some, such as Rob Portman (Ohio), Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.), Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.) and Susan Collins(Maine), have publicly criticized Mr. Trump for calling on Ukraine or China to investigate Mr. Biden. Mr. Portman and Mr. Toomey have taken the position that Mr. Trump’s behavior was wrong but not worthy of impeachment — a response that would, at least in theory, preserve some guardrails on the president’s behavior.
Mr. Trump’s defense is designed to destroy those guardrails. If Republican senators go along with it, they will not only be excusing behavior that many of them believe to be improper. They will be enabling further assaults by Mr. Trump on the foundations of American democracy.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
We saw during the Bush 43 administration the devastating effects of excessive executive power. That’s why so many people were crying tears of joy/relief in November of 2008. Finally we had a Constitutional Scholar as president – one who even specialized in the First Amendment. Finally we would reign in such awful powers and prevent another warmongering madman from taking control of our country.
Except that said First Amendment scholar did not reign in executive power – in fact, he codified and expanded everything Bush did. And we good liberals let him get away with it because he was “our guy” and we “knew” he’d never abuse the power. Whatever else you believe about Obama, he did probably the most to leave the door open for Trump in so many ways.
I must have missed the time when Barack Obama decided to withhold foreign aid to a country until their leader publicly announced that he was investigating a political rival.
I must have missed when Obama told foreign countries to please illegally hack all the computers at Bain Capital so he could get some out of context sentences from e-mails to smear Romney. I must have missed when his campaign invited them to a meeting specifically to discuss how a foreign country could distribute that dirt to smear John McCain.
I certainly hope that when Bernie Sanders wins, he uses all the executive power he LEGALLY has to push progressive policies.
I will certainly demand that Bernie Sanders step down if he decides to invite a foreign government to illegally gather dirt or smear his political rival — or even worse, EXTORTS them by putting their population in grave danger by withholding much needed aid until the leader of that struggling country helps to smear the Republicans in Congress because Bernie has decided to break the law to “win” and push progressive policies. But Bernie would not do that because he is not a CRIMINAL.
But there would be nothing wrong with Bernie using executive power he legally has to enact good progressive policies. In fact, that is what I hope Bernie does.
Whatever else you believe about Bernie Sanders, he would not act criminally and use his Presidential executive power to get a foreign government to help him win an election. And whatever else you believe about Obama, there is NOTHING that Obama did that “left the door open” for Trump to extort a foreign government to smear his political rival to help him win an election.
Stop it, please. Your NORMALIZATION of Trump holding up aid until a foreign government worked with his personal team on a POLITICAL ERRAND is not funny anymore — it is dangerous. I’m really starting to think you are just a right wing troll here.
I don’t actually believe that you are as smart as you are and are not INTENTIONALLY playing dumb as if you are just confused about the difference between illegally holding up foreign aid to get a foreign country to smear a political rival and using executive power legally.
There are certainly some nuances between the proper use of executive power and that is certainly worthy of discussion when that comes up. That is not what you are doing. Instead, you are offering the false equivalency that the William Barr/Trump/Nixon view of “the President is above any law so can commit any crime he wants” is no different than the legal use of executive power.
You are normalizing a crime by a President, which is exactly what Nixon supporters did in 1973 when they said that if his campaign wanted to break into the Watergate to gather dirt and Nixon wanted to cover it up, it was simply “executive power” that was no different than LBJ and those Nixon lovers tried very hard — just as hard as dienne77 does with Trump — to insist that what Nixon did was just like every previous President did and how dare anyone criticize Nixon.
dienne77, reading this I would think that you are also very upset about Nixon’s resignation and believe poor Nixon was “victimized” by those terrible, terrible Democrats who “left the door open” and it’s all their fault and Nixon was wrongly blamed for doing just what Presidents always do.
There is a difference between executive action that political opponents don’t like — which I am positive will happen when President Bernie Sanders uses the executive power he legally has to enact progressive policies — and criminal behavior.
I pray you will stop repeating right wing talking points that Trump’s actions, like Richard Nixon’s, were no different than Obama’s.
I sincerely hope you didn’t hurt yourself on any of the logical leaps you’ve made here. I can look up a good chiropractor for you if you’d like.
“There is a difference between executive action that political opponents don’t like — which I am positive will happen when President Bernie Sanders uses the executive power he legally has to enact progressive policies — and criminal behavior.”
Criminal behavior? You mean like illegally invading a sovereign nation based on lies? You mean assassinating a U.S. citizen and his 16 year old son? You mean illegally entering a sovereign nation to kidnap an enemy and dump his body in the ocean? You mean allowing bankers to crash the economy, wipe out the life savings and homes of millions of people and destroy millions of lives and then turn around and hire those very bankers into the next administration? Those kinds of criminal behaviors???
Dienne, are you seriously suggesting that it is ethical to pressure a foreign nation to dirty up a possible political opponent, thus interfering in the presidential election?
As Prof. Laurence Tribe clearly explained in the article I posted, impeachment doesn’t require a crime. It requires serious misdeeds that abuse and degrade the office.
Sigh. Diane, we’ve been over this. Pointing out how the Democrats have gotten us where we are and how they continue to be complicit even in the Trump era is not a defense of Trump. I know you understand that.
The point is, we may or may not get rid of Trump this election year, but unless we get rid of neoliberalism, we will not get rid of Trumpism. If we nominate another neoliberal Democrat, and if s/he can manage to beat Trump (that latter being very unlikely), the next Republican will make Trump seem positively rational.
dienne77 says:
“The point is, we may or may not get rid of Trump this election year, but unless we get rid of neoliberalism, we will not get rid of Trumpism.”
So shockingly wrong. Trumpism is neo-fascism — about a leader being able to do anything he wants – without limit – simply because he is a leader. Including suspending democracy.
You can’t get rid of neoliberalism unless you have democracy first. I don’t believe for one minute that you are not smart enough to understand that. If you are not a Trump-supporting troll, you are doing a spot on imitation of one.
As I said, you keep confusing all sorts of things as if all of us have said that executive power gives the President the right to drum up fake intelligence and lie to the american people to get them to support a war. No one except the Nixon/Trump normalizers like you say that there is no difference between Bush/Cheney’s lying and presenting false intelligence and Obama sending a team to capture and/or kill bin Laden.
You jumped the shark quite a while ago and I realize that you think that what Trump did with illegally extorting a smear of his political rival is no different than Obama’s foreign policy decisions. But it is.
So what do you think about Biden using his position as VP to get his son a $600,000 job he wasn’t qualified for and for which he did nothing? That’s okay, though, right? Because … Democrats.
I don’t think Dienne is GOP at all. She is probably an independent that leans Democrat. But she is also being critical – appropriately so – of the party she normally votes for and is holding them accountable. It’s important to do so.
I have only voted Democrat, and I am aboustely disgusted at how most Democrats’ version of centrism is so much further to the right compared to those from other eras. Still, I will vote for anyone who can replace the monster we have in office now.
Correction: . . . . . absolutely
Biden did NOT “use his position as VP” to get his son that job and even the right wing Republicans have been unwilling to push that obvious lie, although whether or not something is true does not seem to matter to you when you smear Democrats.
You made the ugly innuendo that I think it is okay when Democrats’ children get high paid jobs because of their parents’ position but not okay when Republicans’ children do. And I did not say that. I pointed out that being hired because of your family’s connections when you aren’t really qualified for the job is – unfortunately – perfectly legal, whether it is the relatives of Democrats or Republicans who get generous compensation for jobs that they aren’t particularly qualified for.
In other words, JFK Jr. had no qualifications for people to give him lots of money to start a political magazine but they did. Neither the Bush daughter nor Chelsea Clinton nor Maria Shriver was hired to be on tv news shows based on their stellar qualifications for the job. Bernie’s stepson wasn’t hired to run his think tank because he was qualified, and his wife did not have the kind of academic credentials that college Presidents have when she got her positions at Vermont colleges. Tagg Romney didn’t get his hedge fund job because he is brilliant, and George W. Bush didn’t get his lucrative stake in the Texas Rangers because he knew baseball. Hunter Biden and the former President of Poland and Devon Archer weren’t put on the board of Burisma because of their knowledge.
The faux outrage expressed by the Republicans, whose own children benefit from their position, is expected. What isn’t expected is when people who claim not to be rabid Trump defenders make the false claim that having children who benefit from their parents powerful jobs is no different than Trump acting improperly and using his Presidency’s power to extort another country to smear his political rival. That is similar to Nixon using his position to cover up his campaign’s illegal activity to smear his Democratic rivals.
So when you keep posing that Trump’s crimes are okay because other politicians’ relatives have benefitted from their positions, you are simply repeating right wing propaganda to legitimize the illegal actions of President Trump. And that begs the question of why you would push the false narrative that because the laws don’t forbid relatives of powerful people to benefit from that power, that somehow means Trump should be allowed to break the law.
It wasn’t true when people like you said it about Nixon and it isn’t true now. Trump has been using executive power to push policies we despise for years. But he is being impeached not for using executive power but for breaking the law. You don’t seem to understand the difference and I find it interesting because that is exactly what the right wing propaganda says. But there is a difference so why are you so desperate to convince people that there is none?
I assume Burisma invited Hunter Biden to join their board in hopes of getting influence with Joe Biden and to get him to lay off his anti-corruption crusade, which was American policy.
From everything I read, Joe Biden never did any favors for Hunter or Burisma.
Burisma paid Hunter and got nothing for it.
But the important point is that this has nothing to do with whether Trump’s actions were proper in holding nearly $400 million in aid that had been appropriated by Congress, and refusing the release the aid unless Ukraine announced an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.
The independent General Accountability Office, which reviews government actions on behalf of the government, said that the Trump administration broke the Impoundments Act by withholding aid, which they had no right to do.
Top officials at the Defense Department–career officials, not political appointees–warned OMB that they were breaking the law.
Yes, what Trump did was criminal.
He should be prosecuted for breaking the law.
^^Robert Rendo, this comment is a reply to dienne77 and not to you, so let me clarify that in case you take offense for something that is not about you.
However, I don’t understand your need to defend dienne77 and her right wing Republican view of things. Bernie Sanders didn’t do anything illegal and neither did his stepson just because his stepson benefitted from Bernie’s position. So if dienne77 kept posting about it to make the false equivalency to Trump whenever there was any criticism of Trump, would you really believe that dienne77 was only implying that Bernie Sanders and his stepson did something as illegal as Trump did because she was ” being critical – appropriately so – of Bernie Sanders and holding him accountable”.
It would be wrong, period, and I hope you would also wonder what dienne77’s agenda was to change the subject to how Bernie was just as corrupt as Trump every time Trump’s corruption was mentioned.
This discussion is not about LEGAL ways that politicians’ relatives benefit — we all agree that is disgusting.
But when the subject is Trump doing ILLEGAL things and dienne77 keeps changing the subject to legal things Democrats or Bernie Sanders has done that are part of the financial benefits of being connected to powerful politicians, then there is a lot more going on than just expressing concern. It is an attempt to NORMALIZE Trump by implying that his crimes are just like the legal (but unlikeable) benefits given to relatives of Democrats or relatives of Bernie Sanders. It is right wing propaganda and has nothing to do with “holding Bernie Sanders accountable” because his stepson benefitted from something that is perfectly legal.
NYCPSP,
I hate to say this, but Dienne is a Bernie supporter. I am too. I don’t understand how this makes her characteristic of having right wing GOP leanings.
I don’t defend Dienne. I don’t defend you. I will defend wonderful intellectualism and critical thinking, and both you and Dienne have that going on big time. Which is why I think you’re rivals of one another. It would be best to understand each other’s POV. You’re two powerful women.
Neither of you wants Trump in office. So why not put your heads together and try and get him out with the rest of us?
Is the focus on the “you said, you did, you are”, or is it on the issues at hand?
I loathe Randi Weingarten’s selling out of her constituents over the years, but I will still partner with her to get out of her what we all need to fight this awful reform movement. I won’t battle Randi when I can use her to my advantage. And she won’t mind being used.
Use Dienne. She wants to be used. You should want to be used also . . . . .
Robert Rendo says: “I hate to say this, but Dienne is a Bernie supporter. I am too. I don’t understand how this makes her characteristic of having right wing GOP leanings.”
I’m a Bernie supporter, too. I don’t know what that has to do with the fact that dienne77 posts every single right wing GOP talking point to NORMALIZE Trump’s actions (remember, they are just like Obama’s actions says dienne77) whenever Diane Ravitch posts something critical of Trump or the Republicans. Diane Ravitch started a post about something extremely serious and concerning — whether a President is above the law and can simply break any law at will. Like shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, as Trump would say. Or as Nixon said, when a president does it, it is legal.
The discussion was about ABUSE of power. It was not about what the meaning of “executive power” is since neither Obama nor even George W. Bush has ever argued that there are absolutely no limits on what a president can do. But the purpose of this post was about how William Barr and Trump and the Republicans are now saying there are no limits. So why would dienne77 intentionally conflate the two very different issues when Diane Ravitch wrote a post specifically about Trump believing there are no limits to what he can do, period.
And I strongly doubt that dienne77 will vote for any of the Democratic candidates and I include Elizabeth Warren among them. She may vote for Bernie, but I won’t be surprised if something Bernie does — maybe he will select a VP who is not progressive enough — causes dienne77 to start demonizing Bernie as no better than Trump either.
There is absolutely no reason why anyone concerned with democracy would make it their goal to turn every discussion into Trump’s horrific unconstitutional behavior into a bash of the Democratic party. Trump supporters clearly want to change the subject whenever his wrongdoings are mentioned.
“Biden did NOT “use his position as VP” to get his son that job….”
OMG, you’re refusal to see facts is positively stunning. How else do you think Hunter got that job? Why was he worth $600,000 a year to work in a field in which he had no experience.
The fact is, Biden’s record of corruption and his willingness to allow his family to profit off his political connections is long, well documented and very much in need of airing because you know Trump is going to have a field day with it. https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/joe-biden-donald-trump-corruption-election
It would probably be accurate to say Biden got the job BECAUSE of his father’s position, NOT that Biden stepped in and said, “Hey, if you give my son a job, I will talk you up to the President.” In fact, you know he was not exactly in Burisma’s pocket if you have been following the impeachment trial. It bothers me, too, that wealthy people can get opportunities for their children that are not readily available to others, but frankly the system is one that operates at all levels of society. Opportunities are more often than not based on who you know, especially that first real job.
cx: your refusal….
Biden did not call Bursima and say “hey, can you give my kid a high paying no-show job to make him rich”. Bursima first put Hunter Biden’s business partner on the payroll and then later tried to get Hunter and John Kerry’s stepson on there, too. Kerry’s stepson was too smart to go on the board knowing their history and Hunter Biden was not and he obviously was happy to get the money.
It’s clearly documented that Biden did not “seek out a job” for his son and was not particularly thrilled. But as a dad of a middle aged son, he let him do what he wanted, which is usually what dads of middle aged sons do. It’s no different than Bernie Sanders clearly not looking to give his unqualified stepson a $100,000/year job running a think tank. But Bernie knew that whether or not his stepson had this job would not influence what Bernie himself did. And Biden knew that whether or not his son had his job would not influence what Biden did.
And the facts show that in both cases that the politician was in no way influenced by whatever his son or stepson did. Even if the appearance was not particularly good. It turns out that Biden’s actions in Ukraine before Hunter was on the board were exactly the same as his actions after Hunter was on the board. And they were the exact same actions that the entire world, including Bernie Sanders, wanted.
You don’t seem to accept that about Biden despite that being the view of Bernie Sanders or of most progressives. Because if you accept that well-documented fact – that Joe Biden did not use his position to help Bursima – then you would have to accept that the fact that Trump held up foreign aid and demanded that Zelensky publicly smear Biden is a criminal and impeachable act. And you refuse to acknowledge that. I challenge you to do so right now. I expect silence.
And that is the reason I am starting to suspect you are a right wing troll and not a real Bernie supporter.
You see, if you accept the incontrovertible fact that Biden’s policy in the Ukraine was not changed because of his son’s position — which has been proven to be true over and over again — then you have to support impeachment. You would have to recognize that Trump’s extorting Ukraine’s help to smear his political rival was a crime.
Trump didn’t want to play fair. Playing fair is offering deserved criticism of a politician without falsely smearing him or her of committing crimes. Bernie Sanders does that when he criticizes neo-conservative Democrats. He does not accuse them of crimes — he says that their policies are wrong and they favor the rich. Bernie offers legitimate criticism of politicians’ relatives being given jobs to try to influence them being problematic. But Bernie has never said that Biden’s policy changed because of Hunter’s position, because it didn’t. That is how an honorable person runs for President.
What Bernie does not say is “vote for me because the Democrat I’m running against is a criminal and he changed Ukraine policy in exchange for Bursima giving his son lots of money”. But that is exactly how Trump campaigns.
So I find it quite revealing that so very often your replies here mimic the Trump method and not the Sanders. You don’t argue that Sanders’ policies are better. You argue that his opponents are crooks. Coincidentally, that’s exactly what Trump does (which is why having Zelensky publicly smear Biden was so very important to Trump). Nothing was stopping Trump from saying it’s wrong for a VP’s son to get a high paying board position. But he wanted to be able to say that Biden was a crook and he needed Ukraine’s help to do that.
Remember, Trump could have been like Bernie Sanders and criticized Biden for his policies. But Trump can’t win on policy. Bernie can, which is why Bernie has never lied and said that Biden was “using his position as VP to get his son a $600,000 job he wasn’t qualified for”.
But you did repeat that right wing lie. Bernie Sanders doesn’t need to lie to win an election. But Donald Trump does. So I find it very interesting that you seem to be embracing the Trump view while pretending you support a politician who does the opposite of what you do.
You never offer an opinion on whether you agree with Bernie Sanders that Trump DID act corruptly and illegally in demanding Ukraine smear Biden in a public announcement before getting their foreign aid. You seem more interested from distracting anyone from talking about that than in expressing any outrage about that, which certainly is very odd for a so-called Bernie supporter.
What makes your posts so suspect to me is that you never actually acknowledge that Trump did something impeachable. Instead you post comments that imply that Biden was corrupt, clearly designed to support the far right wing view that Trump was just concerned about “corruption” when he extorted Ukraine.
If you are starting with the position that Trump’s actions with Zelensky and Biden were legitimate because of Biden’s corruption, then that just “coincidentally” happens to be the right wing position. Is that your belief? Because it is certainly important for readers to understand that you believe Trump did nothing wrong with regards to Ukraine.
“you know Trump is going to have a field day with it…”
LOL!! If that was the case, Trump could simply “have a field day with it”!!! If Trump had so much dirt on Biden to “have a field day” with, he would not have had to mount a serious pressure campaign involving his own lawyers and using US Ambassadors for a POLITICAL ERRAND to extort Zelensky into doing one thing — make a public announcement to smear Joe Biden (with words approved by Trump because the first versions did not properly smear Biden enough).
Your claim that Trump “is going to have a field day with it” is a proven lie since if Trump could do that he would have no need to illegally use foreign policy for his POLITICAL ERRAND.
Bernie Sanders is now running against Joe Biden, among others. So are other candidates. Are they “having a field day” with it? Do you think Bernie is too cowardly to do so? Of course he isn’t.
Bernie Sanders doesn’t need to falsely smear Joe Biden with lies — there is plenty of legitimate criticism of his policies for Bernie to use.
But Trump sure does need to falsely smear Biden. And so do you. Which begs the obvious question as to whose side you are really on?
I’m not seeing how Obama probably did “the most to leave the door open for Trump in so many ways.” Yes, absolutely, Obama was a big disappointment as far as education goes, for being too cozy with the economic elites and for his failed (thank goodness) Simpson-Bowles cat food commission that was going to make cuts to Social Security. The Simpson-Bowles panel had enough liberals on the commission to sink any attacks on Social Security, and so it just flopped and went away. On the other hand, Obama did appoint 2 liberals (Kagan and Sotomayor) to the SCOTUS and was blocked from appointing a moderate to the SCOTUS. A moderate is better than Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. Obama inherited a severe recession and two wars of occupation from Bush. Give the guy some credit for navigating us through an incredibly difficult situation. Was he a war monger? Compared to Bush, he was a dove. The irrational hatred for Obama, some of which was fired up by racism, may have triggered a swing to nativism, chauvinism, xenophobia and Trumpism.
“Was he a war monger? Compared to Bush, he was a dove.”
Bush gave us Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which Obama escalated. I know, I know, Obama gets the credit for “ending” Iraq, but the fact is he tried desperately to extend it, but it was the Iraqis who insisted on the U.S. leaving on the Bush administration time table. Obama also gave us Libya and Honduras and he supported the Saudi destruction of Yemen. We just don’t talk about all of that because Obama was “our guy” and a “good liberal”.
But I will give you that compared to Hillary, Obama was a dove. Hillary consistently criticized Obama for being too soft and not going far enough.
There is truly something ugly about your posts, especially your outrageous slurs of HRC who one would think was a “warmonger”.
What I find shocking is your double standard.
Here is Bernie Sanders talking about Obama:
“I think what President Obama would tell you, and he’s a better lawyer than I am, is that using executive power is not the preferred approach. The preferred approach is legislation for all the reasons that you know. It’s more permanent. It cannot be changed by the next administration easily. But I think in terms of President Obama — and I am on the Senate floor, I’ve been there for as long as he has been president — what we have seen is an unprecedented level of obstructionism. I’m not telling you anything I think most of you don’t know.
Literally on the day Obama was sworn in, there was a meeting of Republicans who determined that their best course of action was to obstruct. And that’s what they did. Many people on the outside, you’ve gotta be in the Senate and on the floor to see what that means. It means that minor appointees — I’m not talking about Supreme Court justices, I’m talking about minor appointees — have had to get 60 votes. It was slow down, slow down, slow down. And the Senate was brought to almost a halt. And that was their plan. Their plan was to say to the American people, “See this guy Obama. He couldn’t do anything. Vote for us.”
I think the president finally caught on. I think that was unacceptable. And in immigration areas and in other areas, he used the powers that he had — and I strongly support that.
It’s not the best way. But I think it’s an appropriate response to that circumstance.”
Here is Bernie Sanders talking about the use of force:
“I know sometimes it’s been thrown at me: “Bernie Sanders is a pacifist, he will not use force.” Absolutely not true. I voted, for better or worse, for the support of President Clinton in the Kosovo situation. I voted for the war in Afghanistan because I thought that bin Laden should be brought to justice. So I’m prepared to use force.”
And Bernie Sanders on drones:
“I think, you know, what I said is I don’t want to see men and women in the armed forces involved in perpetual warfare. Now, do I think that air attacks have been helpful in, uh, creating a situation where ISIS has lost, as I understand it, about 20% of the territory it has held in the last year? Of course. The Iraqi Army is beginning, God willing, to show a little bit of gumption and capabilities in taking back Ramadi, which is no small thing. And hopefully they will continue to be aggressive, and we’ve got to use, you know, kind of coordinate with the Kurds and everybody else. So the answer to your question, yes, I think [the U.S. should be] using special forces in the appropriate way.
Drones are a big issue. And drones have done some good things. They’ve been selective; they’ve taken out people who should be taken out. They’ve done some terrible things, which have been counterproductive to the United States. So I would suspect, you know, probably what you need to do is have some kind of commission of sorts to really refine what is a new weaponry: the appropriate use of drones. But would I rule them out completely? No, I would not.”
dienne77 I seriously believe that when Bernie is the Democratic nominee, you will be on here posting over and over again about how terrible and awful he is.
It is very easy to judge foreign policy in hindsight. Many people just like you (white, not Jewish) argued that the US should stay out of Hitler’s war and let him do whatever he wanted to any child he wanted as long as that child wasn’t American.
Many people – not Bernie Sanders – are angry that the “warmongering” (as you keep calling them) Clintons bombed Kosovo. Sanders approved so I guess he’s warmongering, too. In fact, I don’t trust your support of anyone except Trump. I can always count on you to post on here to distract from criticism of Trump by attacking the Democrats as no different and normalizing Trump’s repulsive actions. It won’t surprise me when you do it when Bernie is the primary winner, too. You’ll pull out the same cherry picked “evidence” to smear Bernie that you do every other Democrat who is a danger to the right wing takeover of this country.
Bernie understands the danger, which is why I doubt you are a supporter. Bernie understands, which is why he is stood strong against those who claim that it would be good if the “corrupt” socialist Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro was defeated. Bernie understands that having a far right wing dictator instead of the far from perfect Nicolas Maduro would be much, much worse. From the way you bash the Democrats, I assume you disagree with Bernie on that one. I assume you don’t understand why he isn’t bashing Maduro the way you bash Democrats since getting rid of so-called “corrupt” politicians who oppose completely corrupt, awful far right wing proto-fascists seems to be a major desire of yours. It’s the way to a progressive future, you say. I guess Bernie disagrees with you when it comes to Venezuela, so that probably makes him no less evil than Trump in your eyes. I don’t trust your support for Bernie at all. I will be happy to be proven wrong if Bernie is the nominee but your non-stop normalization of Trump is something that is an anathema to everything Bernie stands for.
This is the truth of what is happening to this country. It is unbelievable that so many people, like my brother, who insist that Trump is the best president this country has ever had. Fox ‘news’ promotes Trump. It is his personal media that lies. It is frightening of what will happen if Trump is not in any way curtailed.
“Dershowitz argues that “abuse of power” is not an impeachable offense, because it’s not a statutory crime and therefore not a “high crime or misdemeanor,” as the Constitution requires. The senators should reject this specious argument out of hand for many reasons but most importantly, because it subverts the spirit of the Constitution, as shown by the Framers’ debates at the Constitutional Convention. The Framers’ overriding conviction was that every person imbued with power would abuse it, and they set up the multiple checks and balances of the Constitution in the hope of stemming tyranny. To put it simply: humans are deeply fallible, and they will twist power to serve themselves.”
The Repubicans are hell bent on ensuring this President is above the law. If you watch the Impreachment proceedings you will see tyranny in action, with a silent assent from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and so far the complete cooperation of every Republican. I see no evidence of guardrails that will save democracy
Give Derschowitz some slack.
He can’t think straight.
He is preoccupied with the charge by two of Epstein’s underaged sexual predation victims that he took advantage of them.
I don’t know where I heard or read it, but someone rightly pointed out that there was no criminal law system established when the constitution was written, so the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors was not referring to established law. Apparently, the Federalist papers make this point quite clear. Don’t ask me where.
“with a silent assent from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ”
Yes, unfortunately.
Are you sure that’s not spelled ass-end?
Fatal flaw in the Constitution
Fatal flaw was there at framing
Fatal flaw that needs no naming
President replaces king
Different faces, self-same thing
I think it is a combination of lust for power and blackmail. Remember that the Russians hacked the RNC’s emails as well as the DNC’s.
And Jeffrey Epstein is dead and his big black book is likely burned. The cockroaches are now left to roam the earth at will and protect the other cockroaches. We can’t rely on conspiracy theories and innuendos at this point. Facts are the only thing that can save us from this circus.
The black book is readily available. It’s all the kompromat that Epstein compiled over the years that has gone into the incinerator at the Ministry of Truth.
The Russians used hacked emails to help one candidate and hurt the other.
In other words, it virtually repeals any possibility of real citizens affecting their government other than issues of very narrow local jurisdiction. Not that we’ve had any in a while, but soon the fiction will no longer be sustainable, not even in propaganda.
Quote: “So far, I’m sad to say, I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup. Voting to deny witnesses and obviously a treacherous vote. A vote against an honest consideration of the evidence against the President. A vote against an honest trial. A vote against the United States.”
– Jerry Nadler.
Trump: “We have all the material, they don’t have the material.”The President admits he is comfortable because the White House is withholding evidence from Congressional investigators.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-admits-to-withholding-evidence-from-impeachment-inquiry?via=newsletter&source=CSPMedition
Wednesday is the first of as many as three days of Democratic arguments, to be followed by up to three days of counterarguments by the president’s lawyers. Senators will then get to ask questions of both sides, and after that the Senate will vote on whether to have witnesses. If the Senate decides not to call witnesses, the trial could be over as soon as next week.
What a crock of __________!!!! What kind of ‘trial’ has no witnesses? The GOP are determined to cover up and hide everything. This whole process is a sham.
What kind of trial has no witnesses?
A KanGOProo trial
In Jan. 2018, Ken Star said that Mueller should investigate Trump for lying to the American people about a possible obstruction of justice case.
Now he says there is no such thing as ‘obstruction of Congress’.
I was just listening to a recording on Frontline about how a daughter of ex-president of Angola made millions, some illegal, off of her position. I thought, “Sounds just like corruption in the US.” Who are we to cast stones at other countries when we can’t clean up our own house? Disgusting times.
………………………………………..
President Donald Trump’s impeachment lawyer, Ken Starr, has said on a podcast there is “no such thing as obstruction of Congress,” a cornerstone of the Democratic case.
Ken Starr Says Mueller Should Investigate Trump for ‘Lying to the American People’
by Alberto Luperon | 11:15 am, January 28th, 2018
Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton, recently said there’s no apparent evidence that President Donald Trump broke any laws in the Russia probe. Now, he doesn’t seem to be so sure. POTUS ordered the firing of special counsel Robert Mueller last June amid news that Mueller was looking into Trump for a possible obstruction of justice case, according to The New York Times. This contradicts the president’s claim that he never did such a thing.“I think lying to the American people is a serious issue that has to be explored,” Starr said in Sunday’s episode of This Week. He later added that “I think that is something that Bob Mueller should look at.”
He stops short of saying Trump broke the law, however. Starr appeared on This Week to debate Law&Crime founder Dan Abrams over whether the reported request was illegal. Abrams argued it could support a possible obstruction of justice case if this were part of a pattern of behavior meant to end the investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded in Russian 2016 election interference.Starr said no, the request was fine because the president only wanted to fire Mueller because he disliked him.“The president’s power is extremely broad as long as he’s not engaged in discrimination or accepting bribes,” Starr said. Abrams agreed that Trump could legally order the firing of Mueller, but argued that “that’s not the relevant question here.”
Clinton should have been like Trump and had an affair with ‘a really beautiful woman of sophistication.” What a disgusting thought to come from our misogynistic president.
………………………….
‘Ken Starr’s a lunatic’: Trump was scathing about his new impeachment lawyer
Jan. 23, 2020
President Trump repeatedly denigrated Ken Starr, whom he appointed to his legal team Friday, during Starr’s time as an independent counsel investigating President Bill Clinton, calling him a “freak,” a “lunatic,” and a “disaster.”
”Starr’s a freak,” Trump said in a 1999 interview with Maureen Dowd. “I bet he’s got something in his closet.”
And in an interview with Matt Lauer of NBC, Trump said, “I think Ken Starr’s a lunatic. I really think that Ken Starr is a disaster.” Trump’s comment, in a transcript unearthed by CNN, came in response to a question of whether he thought Clinton should be impeached…
Trump, then a New York real estate mogul with vague presidential ambitions, was frank in his assessment of Clinton’s dalliances. “He handled the Monica situation disgracefully,” Trump said. “It’s sad because he would go down as a great president if he had not had this scandal. People would have been more forgiving if he’d had an affair with a really beautiful woman of sophistication.”…
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/starrs-a-freak-trump-brutal-in-1999-assessment-of-defense-teammate
This comes from Senator Mike Braun [R-IN] who is an avid Trump supporter. I wrote a letter to him earlier today saying, [topic] “WHAT TRUMP DID WAS CRIMINAL!!! HE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR BREAKING THE LAW!! Why are Trump and the GOP so adamant about keeping knowledgeable people from testifying?” Notice that this form letter doesn’t answer my question.
………………….
January 23, 2020
Dear Ms. Ring,
Sincerely,
Mike Braun
U.S. Senator
P.S. This message was sent by email to save taxpayer dollars.
Remember when we had a president who could do more than lie and Tweet?
…………………………….
Trump sets record for most tweets in a single day since he took office
Though Trump smashed the record for his presidency, he came up 19 posts short of his all-time record of 161. That record was set was Jan. 5, 2015.
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump reached a milestone Wednesday, posting the most tweets and retweets from his Twitter account in a single day since taking office, according to a site that monitors the president’s online presence.
Trump shattered his record of 123 Twitter posts in a day – which was set Dec. 12 as the House Judiciary Committee debated two articles of impeachment against him – with 142 tweets and retweets, according to data compiled by Factbas.se.
The president got an early start on posting from his Twitter feed because he began the day in Davos, Switzerland. The time is six hours ahead of Washington, where his Senate impeachment trial got underway later. Trump knocked off early after leaving the World Economic Forum, posting his last tweet – a retweet of Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., criticizing lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. – at 6:18 p.m. EST.
Most of Trump’s posts Wednesday consisted of similar retweets of Republican lawmakers deriding the impeachment process. He shared posts from the Republican National Committee and campaign videos that were tweeted from the account of Dan Scavino, Trump’s social media director who handles many of his posts.
“No, Twitter’s not broken. We’re at 3 1/2 hours without a @realDonaldTrump tweet,” Factba.se tweeted at 9:49 p.m. after the tweet storm subsided. “That’s the longest stretch since midnight ET. We’re holding at 142 total,(124 R/T, 18 original).”
Check out this story on USATODAY.com: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/23/trump-record-most-tweets-since-taking-office/4551815002/
Without actual evidence of a quid pro quo, (Ukraine got the Congressional authorized $ on 9/11/19, while no investigation was ever even initiated by Zelensky on Burisma or the Bidens) there can be no guilty verdict. The House has the sole power to impeach and the sole responsibility for gathering evidence. Having said that, the President, like each one before him, does have built in, inherent executive privilege to not share information that could possibly be used against him in this type of situation. Maybe it makes him “look” bad or looks like a “cover up.” I can see that being a valid assumption. Balance of powers go several ways, 3 ways and directions, not just favoring the Congress or House solely. Checks and balances go all 3 directions (3 branches). Both sides seem to want the maximum leverage in order to win. The House would typically try methods like going to court to make a most valiant effort to get what they perceive to be the smoking gun. Nancy Pelosi chose the faster, pressured type route. However, she then held up the 2 articles for 33 days before submittingto the Senate. To me, using reason, it would appear a bit contradictory. Rushing, then stalling a month? Odd and unprecedented in history on her end. But putting that to the side, evidence gathering falls squarely on the House, not the President (right to due process) nor the Senate. The case factually is weak, circumstantial at best and only for Article 1. Article 2 is 100% not applicable since the President reserves the right to not release info under written inherent executive branch priveledge. So, assumptions and feelings of the one sided witnesses will be the deciding factor for Article 1. Putting the shame and blame on Senate Republicans is insulting to one’s intelligence when one really understands the full scope of balance of power among all 3 branches of government. This is my feedback with due respect.
Ambassador Sondland, a Trump appointee, testified under oath that there was a quid pro quo. So did many others. Why won’t Trump allow anyone testify if he is innocent? Bolton? Mulvaney (who said in public, we do this all the time)? The GAO said that withholding aid appropriated by Congress, was a crime.
patrina925: “Putting the shame and blame on Senate Republicans is insulting to one’s intelligence…”
My Senator Braun [R-IN] says the following:
“Having read both the whistleblower report and the transcript of the conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, I believe that the impeachment proceedings can only be characterized as a politicized attack on the Trump Administration….
It seems to me that career politicians, distressed by President Trump’s election in 2016, have sought from the day after the election to undermine his ability to effect change. Instead of working on issues that the American people care about, like healthcare reform and infrastructure, the Democrats have instead decided to continue harassing the Trump Administration with flimsy and unsubstantiated claims.”
Patrina, do you support such ‘logic’? Is this political harassment? Do you really believe what the Democrats are saying is ‘flimsy and unsubstantiated”?
I have asked Braun to tell me why Trump and the GOP refuse to let knowledgeable people testify and got no answer. Why won’t the Senate let Bolton testify? If Trump has done nothing wrong, he should be wanting people close to him to tell all that they know. He should want them to exonerate him. Trump has worked overtime to not allow testimony. The House put out subpoenas and Trump told people not to come and be questioned? WHY?
People who are innocent do not act this way. Why didn’t Trump offer to testify, to prove his innocence? Even his lawyers are afraid of doing that because he would incriminate himself.His lawyers know ‘he would incriminate himself”!! That doesn’t say much for Trump’s intelligence.
Trump has now made over 16,241 partial or full lies. Expecting the truth from the Trump administration is impossible because he is putting out a disinformation campaign. There is no such thing as alternative facts. We must put up resistance to the most powerful man in the world who cannot be trusted.
Trump told more than 22 lies each day in 2019. Last year’s surge in October and November was largely due to the controversy surrounding the July phone call when Trump urged Ukraine’s president to announce an investigation of former vice president Joe Biden, ultimately leading to the impeachment inquiry. Nearly 1,000 of the false and misleading claims made by the president deal with the Ukraine investigation.
If Trump for some reason is now telling the truth, why is he working to keep people knowledgeable from testifying?
Furthermore, we know the man cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the country. I cannot understand how anyone who has watched the Senate proceedings can doubt Trump’s inability to put the country’s interests above his own. What he did was seriously wrong; he not only has endangered the lives of Ukrainians but of all coalition forces in Europe who will be wondering what Russia will do next. He has damaged the reputation of the United States worldwide; no one can count on the word of the U.S. He has no understanding of the presidency nor the co-equal roles of Congress and judiciary, which he has been doing his best to subvert. Executive privilege is not a license to do whatever he wants in spite of what he thinks. He cannot claim privilege for his lies and cheating.
Wow, the Republicans and Russia must feel very desperate to be sending trolls like patrina925 to come to blogs to post right wing talking points. patrina925 hit every single one.
Too bad patrina925 does the Democrats’ work for them when he posts that there wasn’t a quid pro quo because aid was released and the investigation wasn’t announced. It’s actually funny because the entire patrina925 post admits freely that Trump WANTED to do that and tried to do that but since the whistleblower prevented it and Trump’s improper actions became public, his crime was not successful and he had to release the aid.
Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way in America, patrina925. A criminal doesn’t get to take out a gun and push it in someone’s face and
“suggest” that the person give them all their money, but when a policeman comes by and sees the criminal and arrests him, the criminal can’t say “but the guy didn’t give me any money (yet) before the policeman arrested me, so I didn’t commit a crime yet.”
FYI, in America, someone who attempts a crime and gets caught before their payoff is not “innocent”. Attempting a crime – even when you aren’t successful – is still a crime.
Maybe it works differently in the country where patrina925 lives.
Get out your hankies and cry. Boo-hoo! [Jerk!] He always has to call people foul names.
……………………..
Trump wrote: “After having been treated unbelievably unfairly in the House, and then having to endure hour after hour of lies, fraud & deception by Shifty Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer & their crew, looks like my lawyers will be forced to start on Saturday, which is called Death Valley in T.V.”