I certainly hope so!
At least Your admission nullifies Your earlier supposition that there is no one willing to listen to You!
Even a hope is worth fodder to entertain a possible realization of some kind of progress from a perceivable impasse !
I certainly agree that the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” is in need of detailed definition. And an amendment to the Constitution could easily do that. The issue is one of how to get the Americans to get it done.
I am thinking that, for one congressional session, let their Republicans take the House while maintaining the Senate. I don’t suggest that because I think that the Republicans are good guys that do everything right but rather because I can envision 4 things emanating from such a situation. This is the prime time for a pivotal event for the world, not merely the USA.
I imagine the very first concern addressed by a Republican House would be the prevention of this kind of impeachment sham from becoming commonplace. They would have to make an amendment that would define more precisely what is and is not what is impeachable. By that action two things will emerge.
First, the temptation to rush into an impeachment scandal will be thwarted because definitive lines will have been drawn dictating any possibility of success. Secondly, new presidents will tailor their behavior to meet the required standard. Even Mr Trump would behave within the guidelines if they had been well defined. So by this action, presidential behavior (demeanor) will be shaped as well as House impulses.
The third thing that will occur is that division within the Republican party will be reestablished. Currently the socialist/democrat agenda has consolidated the Republican party by forming a very conspicuous and totally unacceptable adversary. Once the adversary is removed, focus will return to inter-party competition in both parties as they rethink their relation to the socialists.
By the next congressional session, business could return to usual. The Democrat party will be the new hope for the people. The socialists will still be trying to insidiously undermine their nation. And the Republican party will lose at least one of the branches. Everything back to normal.
Again, I certainly agree that the US media must be brought to account and confined to better behavior. Again, a unified Republican Congress is likely to do that (a 4th thing that would happen).
I hesitate to blame the citizens as long as there is a media propaganda cabal controlling their worldview. Do you blame the Chinese or Iranian people who believe their leaders are all saintly? Or do you blame their leaders for controlling their media? People have no choice but to accept what they see. And when they see only one side of an issue, they would have to be exceptional people with plenty of investigation time on their hands to discover the true boundaries of their bubble of belief.
Individuals rarely have time to investigate the truth even if they had the wits. The responsibility falls on the media. And you are right, entertainment must be clearly separated from journalism. Again, requiring a unified Congress. The socialists would never agree.
The socialist/democrat party would be fighting against all of those concerns extremely hard because it would seal the fate of their hegemony and domination dreams. People would die in the struggle.
I think that you are being appropriately gracious as a friend. More objectively what I believe is that no one spews out such a long list of unspecific, unsupported accusations without strong emotion being behind it. But he cannot change what has happened to him and I wouldn’t take the responsibility of trying to change it. So he will never change (“never Trumper”).
Kind of you to say. Thank you.
Wait, did I write that? Or someone just reading my mind?
Anything in bold is a response and italics a quote from Obsrvr524:
[i]I certainly agree that the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” is in need of detailed definition. And an amendment to the Constitution could easily do that. The issue is one of how to get the Americans to get it done.
I am thinking that, for one congressional session, let their Republicans take the House while maintaining the Senate. I don’t suggest that because I think that the Republicans are good guys that do everything right but rather because I can envision 4 things emanating from such a situation. This is the prime time for a pivotal event for the world, not merely the USA.
I imagine the very first concern addressed by a Republican House would be the prevention of this kind of impeachment sham from becoming commonplace. They would have to make an amendment that would define more precisely what is and is not what is impeachable. By that action two things will emerge.
First, the temptation to rush into an impeachment scandal will be thwarted because definitive lines will have been drawn dictating any possibility of success. Secondly, new presidents will tailor their behavior to meet the required standard. Even Mr Trump would behave within the guidelines if they had been well defined. So by this action, presidential behavior (demeanor) will be shaped as well as House impulses.
The third thing that will occur is that division within the Republican party will be reestablished. Currently the socialist/democrat agenda has consolidated the Republican party by forming a very conspicuous and totally unacceptable adversary. Once the adversary is removed, focus will return to inter-party competition in both parties as they rethink their relation to the socialists.
By the next congressional session, business could return to usual. The Democrat party will be the new hope for the people. The socialists will still be trying to insidiously undermine their nation. And the Republican party will lose at least one of the branches. Everything back to normal.[/i]
[b]I do not believe that any such amendment would happen because:
1.) It would require both sides to willingly (at least, in part) agree upon something.
AND:
2.) Look how hot politics is these days! Politicians are the new celebrities. Why would they want to make this harder to have happen again? They don’t just have political power, they have star power!
I believe that the Republicans DID control both the House and the Senate in the session prior to this one. I believe the Democrats also did the same at one point post-Clinton, but prior to Trump. Nothing changed after the trial that failed to remove Clinton from office or Johnson before him. Nixon certainly would have been impeached and removed, but that’s why he resigned.
I do not believe that any need has been created, from their perspective, to do what we are suggesting. The current ambiguity involved is REALLY good for, “Business.”[/b]
[i]
Again, I certainly agree that the US media must be brought to account and confined to better behavior. Again, a unified Republican Congress is likely to do that (a 4th thing that would happen).
I hesitate to blame the citizens as long as there is a media propaganda cabal controlling their worldview. Do you blame the Chinese or Iranian people who believe their leaders are all saintly? Or do you blame their leaders for controlling their media? People have no choice but to accept what they see. And when they see only one side of an issue, they would have to be exceptional people with plenty of investigation time on their hands to discover the true boundaries of their bubble of belief.
Individuals rarely have time to investigate the truth even if they had the wits. The responsibility falls on the media. And you are right, entertainment must be clearly separated from journalism. Again, requiring a unified Congress. The socialists would never agree.
The socialist/democrat party would be fighting against all of those concerns extremely hard because it would seal the fate of their hegemony and domination dreams. People would die in the struggle. [/i]
[b]Maybe, but I’m just reporting the news rather than hoping to make it. Discussing what I think is rather than what I think ought be because what I think ought be is completely immaterial and is of interest to nobody.
The media is not going to be brought to account to report more impartially in any meaningful way because that would be very bad for business. It would take all of the attention off of politics and that would be felt in the pocketbooks of both the news stations themselves and on the campaign finance balance sheets. Impartiality does not make money. Simple. Doesn’t make any names, either.
There is no cabal. The citizens are being given what they want. “Change the channel to 34, Bessie!” This so-called, “Cabal,” is easy enough to avoid if one really wants to. I avoid it, for the most part. If enough people were to avoid it, then it would go away, or maybe just become something else.
This isn’t media control, it’s pandering to your target market. Maybe that’s true even in those countries, I’m not there to know and also don’t care.
To the rest, I reiterate that it is good for business for all parties involved. Speaker of the House, 2020: Nancy Pelosi. Speaker of the House, 2004: Hell if I know. [/b]
I think that you are being appropriately gracious as a friend. More objectively what I believe is that no one spews out such a long list of unspecific, unsupported accusations without strong emotion being behind it. But he cannot change what has happened to him and I wouldn’t take the responsibility of trying to change it. So he will never change (“never Trumper”).
My claim is that he does not hate Donald Trump. My claim is not that there is not strong emotion behind what he is saying, I wouldn’t know if there is or is not. Hell, I think he may well hate the situation as he sees the situation, (maybe, maybe not) I just don’t think that he hates Trump on any personal level.
I agree with you here, but my point is that the whistleblower’s testimony isn’t necessary to answer those questions. Every allegation that prompted the investigation has been corroborated by other witnesses who have testified publicly, or by the White House itself in releasing the memo describing what was discussed.
I think I am making a pedantic distinction, and I’m not sure anything turns on it. But I will note that every member of Congress has a chance to vote on either impeachment or removal, and no member of the Supreme Court has that opportunity. Only one member of the Supreme Court plays any role, and he does so as an arbiter. He might be able to influence the outcome by biased referreeing, but I would not go so far as to call that “representation”.
The reaction of the career officers who witnessed it call this into doubt. Civil servants and presidential lawyers who listened to the call immediately recognized it as unacceptable. DoD officials found the withholding of aid very unusual and several of them believed it was illegal at the time. I think it’s fine not to know going in whether or not this is business as usual, but we also need to update our priors in light of evidence and expert analysis. At this poin, believing that it’s no big deal is untenable.
I think the actual reason was that a list of reasons is not poetic: it’s cumbersome and mechanical, and the Founders cared more about style than precision. For a legal document, the Constitution is strikingly florrid. The contracts I work on for piddly little transactions have much more explict language, they are boring and dry and often longer than the Constitution, but they are very, very precise. The Constitution isn’t like that, it’s written for a popular audience, meant to sound grand and elegant.
This is related to my “legitimacy” argument: a well-drafted contract would make a terrible founding document, not because it’s not clear and precise, but because it wouldn’t be read by the public or quoted in grand proncouncements. A poem makes a better founding document in practice.
Faithful execution of the office requires good faith reporting of facts. It’s true that certain lies may be permissible (e.g. lying about military maneuvers that make citizens safer), but Trumps lying is not of that kind.
This came up earlier in this thread, where Urwrong made a similar argument. He later conceded that arresting a candidate on false charges with the intent to change the ourcome would count as electoral interference. But then your argument still applies: voters can ignore the arrest, can vote how the like despite it. So are you taking a stronger position here and saying that even that would not be foreign interference in an election?
I think you are very very obviously not replying to my points.
Trump solicited foreigh hacking of his opponent, suggested that she should be assassinated, called for violence at his rallies, threatened nuclear war, backed out of agreements, and has left many positions within the executive branch empty.
I mean, I’ve specified and supported my accusations, to which you didn’t respond. If you find fault, let’s hear it.
Obsrvr, do you actually feel that you want to understand why people believe what they believe?
Your worries about the left are a caricature of a fringe element in US politics. Biden is leading in Democratic polling, are you really suggesting that Biden if looking to dismantle the Constitution, cause chaos, etc. etc.? It’s not realistic to think that the Biden-supporting part of the Democratic party, which is at least the plurality and probably the majority, is anything like the left as you describe it.
As an observer, I know better. But from your perspective it should be a bit puzzling as to why the mainstream networks in the US speak the exact same words on all channels every time anything interesting happens. They then fade together only to simultaneously promoted another exact verbiage. They have been doing that for decades it seems. They are in lock-step, never seriously disagreeing, always using the exact same words (a hypnosis technique of repetition and ambiance). What is your rationalization for that?
False.
You made the accusation. Support it (one at a time).
Quotes in bold are from Carleas:
I agree with you here, but my point is that the whistleblower’s testimony isn’t necessary to answer those questions. Every allegation that prompted the investigation has been corroborated by other witnesses who have testified publicly, or by the White House itself in releasing the memo describing what was discussed.
When it comes to Question 3: Does it rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, I think that the testimony is relevant. I want to hear what every single person has to say, and perhaps more importantly, how they are saying it as it would have an impact on my decision-making in this regard. Unlike most politicians, Trump is not a lawyer. I also think that he does not consult lawyers when sometimes he should. The reason why is because lawyers know when it is important to speak in a measured way, how to speak in a measured way…and Trump, you know, doesn’t. I think there are politicians who could convey the same thing that Trump does and get away with it, if for no other reason, because Trump speaks in an extremely direct way.
I also kind of separate explicit quid pro quo from implicit quid pro quo, because the latter is just how most business is done. I think I also separate actual successful quid pro quo from, for lack of a better term, attempted quid pro quo. I think the two things might rise to different levels, in my mind.
I think I am making a pedantic distinction, and I’m not sure anything turns on it. But I will note that every member of Congress has a chance to vote on either impeachment or removal, and no member of the Supreme Court has that opportunity. Only one member of the Supreme Court plays any role, and he does so as an arbiter. He might be able to influence the outcome by biased referreeing, but I would not go so far as to call that “representation”.
I agree with everything said. As you point out, I don’t think it’s central to anything, anyway.
The reaction of the career officers who witnessed it call this into doubt. Civil servants and presidential lawyers who listened to the call immediately recognized it as unacceptable. DoD officials found the withholding of aid very unusual and several of them believed it was illegal at the time. I think it’s fine not to know going in whether or not this is business as usual, but we also need to update our priors in light of evidence and expert analysis. At this poin, believing that it’s no big deal is untenable.
I guess I should have been more clear. I had always assumed that this thing sort of thing happens all the time and that it was not a big deal. I believe it is a big deal now because of the person in question. I believe it would be a big deal in the future because to do otherwise would be academically and politically dishonest. I believe it has become a big deal.
Much less do I think such a thing would have been seen as grounds for impeachment with most, but perhaps not all, prior presidents.
I think the actual reason was that a list of reasons is not poetic: it’s cumbersome and mechanical, and the Founders cared more about style than precision. For a legal document, the Constitution is strikingly florrid. The contracts I work on for piddly little transactions have much more explict language, they are boring and dry and often longer than the Constitution, but they are very, very precise. The Constitution isn’t like that, it’s written for a popular audience, meant to sound grand and elegant.
This is related to my “legitimacy” argument: a well-drafted contract would make a terrible founding document, not because it’s not clear and precise, but because it wouldn’t be read by the public or quoted in grand proncouncements. A poem makes a better founding document in practice.
In that case, it is my opinion that the Constitution should have been cumbersome and mechanical. Laws are meant to be cumbersome and mechanical, most bills go dozens to hundreds of pages. You have the SCOTUS, which theoretically exists only to settle legal matters with the Constitution as a guide to doing so, with the small problem that the Constitution doesn’t say anything.
If the Founders had aspirations to be playwrights, then they should have pursued that occupation instead.
Faithful execution of the office requires good faith reporting of facts. It’s true that certain lies may be permissible (e.g. lying about military maneuvers that make citizens safer), but Trumps lying is not of that kind.
The Constitution speaks nothing of good faith reporting of facts. If faithful execution of office was simply interpreted as, “Do what you think is best for the country,” you can do that whilst also lying. You could lie because you think that the country believing the lie is better than what the truth is.
This came up earlier in this thread, where Urwrong made a similar argument. He later conceded that arresting a candidate on false charges with the intent to change the ourcome would count as electoral interference. But then your argument still applies: voters can ignore the arrest, can vote how the like despite it. So are you taking a stronger position here and saying that even that would not be foreign interference in an election?
1.) That’s not what happened. Trump asked them to announce an investigation into the Bidens. To my understanding, he didn’t even ask them to actually conduct an investigation, just to say that they were.
2.) Trump would not be the one to arrest Biden and Biden would not be arrested in this country, even if arrest were the case.
But, if one President actually orders a political opponent to be thrown in jail on not only false charges, but charges that the President knows to be false, then yes, that would be foreign interference.
I should force you to rationalize describing Fox News as, “Alternative,” and, “Rogue,” before answering your question.
I suppose my, “Rationalization,” is twofold:
1.) No, they don’t.
2.) They would do more to prevent access to alternative forms of media. They would more seriously restrict the internet, for one thing. Perhaps require some sort of Government clearance to even access internet.
Follow. The. Money. What is your rationalization for thinking that the mainstream networks (which, I assume, you would not include Fox News in…even though they definitely are) are not all about that sweet, sweet cash?
Until recently, those were the words of the mainstream anchors. They still use them when referring to Rush Limbaugh and others.
Then you haven’t been watching very closely.
Google, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter are doing exactly that and have been called to Congress to explain themselves. The mainstream cabal doesn’t have total control … yet. They still have to play the game of “it’s just corporations competing for money”.
And yet still they seem to have no real competition between them. They use the exact same words at the exact same time and always in the exact same political direction. They are exposed for anyone bothering to observe. Even Ted Koppel proclaimed that they are unified and biased and that actual journalism is dead. And Fox is a cable network.
The money leads to socialist/democrat agenda. George Soros ring any bells? Bill Gates? Mark Zuckerberg? Sergey Brin? Michael Bloomberg?
Just because someone is making money using a corporation, doesn’t mean they are capitalists. It merely means that the battle has yet to be won.
Saying it doesn’t make it true. They might be the, “Alternative major news network,” which is just to say the one that doesn’t lean left. I believe Limbaugh has the #1 radio program in the country, right? He’s Christina Aguilera to Fox News’ Britney Spears.
I guess I have to grant you that much. I most certainly haven’t. I don’t mind the news, don’t misunderstand, it’s just that none of those things are the news.
No, what those companies do is partially control the narrative on platforms that they themselves own. It’s no different than a hardware store in Peoria, Illinois putting a, “Make America Great Again,” poster in the window…the store just has a much smaller window. I do not dispute that they control the narrative on their own platforms, though.
What do you mean, “No real competition?” Fox is #1 because it has less meaningful competition. Do you mean competition in terms of different messaging? They don’t have competition for that because they are competing for the same target market, except MSNBC, which targets more left than something like CNN. CNN is the channel for you if you want to watch left-leaning media whilst convincing yourself that you are watching moderate and impartial media.
Anyway, they say some of the same things because they have the same target market. They just want to be perceived as better at saying those things than are the other guys.
Marketing 101. News, in its current state, is fundamentally no different than any other product.
The money way well lead to that agenda, but that’s only because that is the political agenda of the majority of the owners/operators of those news outlets. I’ve said that already.
That happens to be illegal in the US. They have been given “utility status”, meaning that they are to ONLY provide for communication. Any tampering with content, especially in a bias capacity takes away their utility status and puts them into “media status”. They are allowed to ban for abuse, but that is it. They claim to Congress that they have no bias whatsoever (a clear lie), but their excuse is that an “algorithm” dictates who to ban or shadow ban. That excuse is met with a capitulating, complacent, “Oh, okay. There must be nothing we can do then” by the left wing representatives.
Whoa. I think you might need to brush up a bit on US media. Fox stands alone against the 5 major US leftist media broadcast outlets; MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN plus the newspaper sources; New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Bloomberg, and many others. Recently the Epoch Times has joined forces with the conservatives.
But Fox doesn’t merely get higher ratings. It is also rated as most trustable by the general population (accounting for its higher ratings when anything important occurs), despite the extreme liberal propaganda machine. CNN has become so biased that its ratings have fallen almost off of the chart. Bezos was caught on tape commanding his reporters to report only Trump negativity (similar with Bloomberg). Actual journalism is not allowed.
They are not just “saying the same things”. If they were reporting the exact truth, they would be just saying the same things. Instead, they are saying the exact same words in unison. When the “quid quo pro” issue arose, it was understandable that they all used that same term. But when the DNC discovered that it wasn’t selling well, they ALL, simultaneously changed to “extortion” then to “bribery”. They settled on “bribery” because that is the word used in the Constitution. They were and remain in sync throughout and have for a long time. I think since before I was born.
That is NOT genuine independent news reporting. That is collaborating. And via secret agreement, is called “a cabal”. And is anti-trust illegal in the US. They WILL be broken up or they will conquer the USA into socialism.
Peek outside your bubble of belief for a moment.
Okay, so you have a company operating within the fringes of legality to promote its interests. Is that what you’re suggesting? If so, good, we did Marketing 101 earlier and now we are into Business Management 101. Some businesses operate within the confines of laws and regulations more strictly than others, of course.
You’ll excuse me for not taking the time to list every major news channel. I didn’t discuss newspapers because we weren’t talking about newspapers.
You’ll also forgive me for not giving a sweet fuck what the general population considers most trustworthy. Is that the same general population that believes that the God of Abraham is more likely to be the case than not? Yeah, that’s not going to hold a ton of water with me for anything except a statistical talking point, which is itself fine, I like statistics.
Speaking of, the poll that I assume you are referencing pertained to channels that those polled watched three, or more, times per week. Newsflash: People tend to watch the news stations that they trust the most. I’m shocked. Astounded. You could knock me over with a feather right now.
I made no claim of actual journalism taking place at any of these outlets. If forced to make a claim, I would make a claim to the contrary.
They are literally saying the same exact words verbatim? Are you sure that they are not saying substantially similar things with the exact same keywords? I could buy that. I would expect sources that fundamentally agree with one another to say substantially similar things with the same keywords. I guess you don’t watch sports channels that often if you think this is in any way unique. Do the sports stations also have a cabal?
I made no claim that they do independent genuine news reporting. I believe that my claim was the precise opposite. I believe I said something like:
[b]
[/b]
It’s news based entertainment. They aren’t selling news, they are selling a skewed and biased version of the news to people who are more than happy to buy it with their eyes, ears and time. Every segment, or at least most, is not straight reporting…it’s also an advertising effort to keep people watching.
So, you propose that the agreement is so secret that a random dude posting on a sub-forum on a niche message board knows about it, but most other people do not?
It seems that you are trying to mount an indefensible position without a target. Did you have a saleable point?
I have made my point. If my position is indefensible, then let’s see you prove it wrong or, at a minimum, inconsistent.
The gentleman speaker ‘pavlonianmodel146’ yields, and the gentleman speaker ‘obsrvr524’ is given four minutes and thirty seconds.
And what point was that?
You made statements. I made statements in opposition to your statements. Start there and then come back to me, I see no need to repeat myself.
He did this publicly:
politico.com/story/2016/07/ … hip-226282
This claim is clearly exaggerated and a bit incoherent, but I’ll let you provide support for the claim if you have it. I’ve seen the video of all the ‘local’ anchors saying the same thing, but they were all part of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a company that is generally pro-Trump and has special access arrangements with the GOP. So that seems to weigh against your claims. I challenge you to show something similar from liberal-leaning sources.
Also note that presenting the same facts is not in itself an indictment; two people reporting the same story truthfully should present the same set of facts, as there will often be general agreement about what facts are relevant and worth reporting.
At some point, that testimony is duplicative. Take a hypothetical where a whistleblower tips off investigators to the existence of a recording of a call, and investigators subsequently obtain that recording and make it the basis of an indictment. What additional information can the whistleblower add? Forcing that person to testify can only dilute good information with worse information, and introduce whatever bias that person has. It doesn’t move anyone closer to truth.
I don’t think we should make that distinction, at least to the extent we can prove them. What matters is the message that’s communicated. If someone threatens to hurt me, it doesn’t matter to me whether they’ve said “I’ll hurt you” or “shame if something were to happen to you, capisce?” If someone intends to communicate X, and successfully communicates X, it doesn’t really matter how the communication was achieved. Indeed, the implicit quid pro quo is, if anything, worse, because it is evidence of a guilty mind (again, assuming we can independently prove that the intent was to communicate X).
But if that’s so, why would so many career civil servants been so shocked by it? These were Republican appointees who have worked through many administrations, they would know if this was business as usual, and they immediately recognized it as crossing lines. That’s inconsistent with it having been acceptable before.
I agree with this with respect to laws, but not with respect to founding documents. Founding documents need to be inspirational, because the instutions they create are only part of the equation: those institutions need popular buy in, they need to represent a grand vision, and such a vision is best communicated through grand pronouncements and flowery prose.
I also think that vagueness is underappreciated. In a pluarlist society, where compromise is hard and opinions differ, a vague clause is often better because it lets people who would disagree on a very precisely worded clause, agree on something. Again, drawing from my legal day job, where there are clauses that are very unlikely to come up and on which we can’t agree, we can sometimes move the negotiation forward by leaving it vague and letting each party have their own pet interpretation, and ‘crossing that bridge if and when we get there’. That’s useful and rational.
But, following on that, I think we agree that it would be better to amend the Constitution to settle down areas where we have arrived at the bridge and we need clarity on which future we’ll choose for ourselves, or where vagueness has allowed interpretations that are bad for society.
(I will also note that I am biased by previous decisions on this question: in writing the founding document for ILP, I intentionally eschewed precision in favor of grand pronouncements and flowery prose.)
Yes. But I don’t think that’s what Trump has done. He’s lied to hide his administrations failures, to exaggerate their successes; in essense, to deprive the people of the information they need to develop an informed opinion on his presidency. That kind of lying is bad faith, it is incompatible with the faithful administration of the office.
But I think I take your general point: I am making a claim based on my interpretation of the oath of office, and it isn’t based on anything other than my reading of the oath and my interpretation of what good faith means.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that. Rather, Urwrong suggested that only fraudulent voting or altering vote counts would qualify as foreign interference in an election. I presented the above hypothetical to show that there are definitely non-voting actions that would qualify. And I think it challenges your assertion that as long as voters are permitted to vote how they like, there is no interference.
My follow-up to Urwrong was a further hypothetical, also not what has happened, but intended to be closer to the current situation to help us draw lines:
I would say that this is foreign electoral interference. Do you agree? If so, step three is imputing vicarious intent, when the foreign country is coerced into starting such an investigation by someone with the intent to affect the election, which is what we have here.
I agree that the testimony can become duplicative, “At some point,” as relates a specific underlying subject matter. I believe the first question that we would have to answer is, “At what point?”
For an unrelated example of a case in which I would agree with the general statement: Suppose Person A shoots Person B in the head in an urban setting and there are fifty people who visually witnessed this event, I quite probably do not need to hear the testimony of all fifty of those people. If there is video evidence of that from beginning to end, then I may well not need the testimony of any of them.
The recording of the call is quite different because the decision to be made here is whether or not something rises to the level of, “High crimes and misdemeanors,” and honestly, I haven’t even determined what I take that term to mean just yet. I would have an easier time with, “Crimes and misdemeanors,” because then I could simply look at applicable statutes and determine whether or not the activity in question fits any of those.
The murder in my example is much clearer. A murder definitely happened.
Instead, I am the left with a qualifier, “High,” which under my interpretation of common language would suggest that it has to be a pretty bad crime or misdemeanor. Other interpretations, including yours, would suggest that it does not have to represent anything on the books that is even a crime or a misdemeanor in the first place.
But, even assuming I come to my own conclusion (itself a problem) as to what a High Crime and Misdemeanor is or could be, we are still left with Question 3 as to whether or not the call rises to that level. Assuming that the call, in and of itself, is not sufficient (based on a reading of the transcript) to rise to that level, now I have to get into thought processes and related evidence. That is where the whistleblower could come in handy. Because he has awareness of the event in question (the call) it is not unreasonable to believe that he could have awareness of the thought processes involved (via discussion) both before and after the call. He might also have awareness or evidence of other matters directly related to the subject of the call. Not least of which is whether or not Trump actually intended to withhold the aid until such time that his purported demands were met.
He did not withhold the aid until his purported demands were met, this much we know, but what we cannot know is whether that was because outside influences changed his decision-making process in this regard or if it was simply a true bluff. We can’t know either of these things absent Trump telling us directly, and that’s only assuming one decides to believe him.
And, like it or not, who the whistleblower is could add credence. Who precisely thought that this was such a big deal and reported it? Is it unacceptable to suggest that Mike Pence being the whistleblower would carry with it more weight than the whistleblower being some random staffer neither of us has ever heard of?
It does matter because the first instance in your example is undeniably a threat and, I believe, could constitute menacing at a minimum. The second statement, on the other hand, could be explained away as something else entirely or as legitimate concern for your well-being. In the second statement, it is being suggested that something could happen to you, and it would be a shame if it did, but it does not in any way even suggest that the speaker would also be the actor. Even if you want to argue that there is definitely an implied threat, it is not necessarily the actor threatening you, but instead suggesting that you should feel threatened.
I do agree with you about the intent, but then you get into that keyword: prove. With the first statement, the clarity is such that the proof exists in the statement itself. I believe I have read the transcript of the call, but who knows, I might have found a fake transcript or something. To me, the call didn’t strictly prove much of anything.
I have two things in response to this:
1.) Does something always cross a line because of what it is, or can it cross a line because of how it was done? That kind of gets into what we talked about above.
2.) The fact that they were Republicans is irrelevant. Unless for strictly political reasons, (which I believe, but also believe that is why the Impeachment happened in the first place) the fact that ZERO Republican Representatives voted for Impeachment fails to give the fact that the staffers were Republican any weight whatsoever. In the procedural sense, the appointees are tasked with suggesting that the activity may have crossed a line, they did that, those tasked with making the decision vis-a-vis Impeachment (on the Republican side) said, “No, it did not cross a line.” The Representatives (as far as Republicans go) can be assumed to be a greater authority as to the position a Republican should take.
All of this also gets back to the fact that the Democrats telegraphed a partial intention and inclination towards Impeachment prior to Trump even taking office. Had the telegraphing not occurred, then I think that it is fair to say that these events would potentially carry more perceptive weight with people, particularly on the Republican side. As it stands, many people fairly (in my estimation) conclude that the Democrats would happily take any excuse to Impeach that they could get. Does that mean Impeachment is wrong? No, not by itself, but it does change the perception.
If the founding documents carried no more or no less weight than the Mission Statement of a business, then I would be inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately, the founding document itself declared its absolute importance not only as an inspiration, but also the absolute law of the land and further tasked (and limited) the highest Judicial body in the land to be bound only to making decisions based upon their interpretation of the founding document. The whole thing was screwed from the word go.
That is to say that they did not need to make the founding document simultaneously the incontrovertible (absent amendment) legally-binding document in the land to accomplish all of that other stuff that you said that it does. The founding document and the ultimate legal document of the land could have existed separately, or you could just not have the latter thing and instead focus on laws.
The Constitution made no effort to build as many bridges as possible, and therein lies the difference. With your contracts, you essentially say, “Let’s come to an agreement that allows us to build as many bridges over this divide as we possibly can now, and then any bridges that are too cumbersome to build now, we will build later if it is determined that a bridge is needed in that particular spot of the divide.”
Not only does The Constitution fail to itself build very many bridges, those that it does build are not structurally sound. The SCOTUS, as an entity, often has to commit great leaps in logic to untie its own hands of The Constitution while simultaneously, and with only limited success, giving the appearance of the strictest possible adherence.
Let’s ask this: If The Constitution was at all definitive, would the perceived political leanings of potential appointees to SCOTUS Justice be perceived of as being at all relevant?
Let’s start with, “He’s lied to hide his administration’s failures.”
—Okay, one thing that accomplishes is that it, in intent, gives the perception of rightness to the American people as well as to those abroad, which could include enemies. The lie, as it were, is only detrimental if found to be a lie which, I think we could agree, is not the goal of a lie.
—Lying to exaggerate successes, if accurate, also accomplishes the same goal.
Therefore, I would counter-argue that it could very well be not only compatible with faithful administration of the office, but more than that, could actually be beneficial to the country provided the lie is not discovered to be a lie.
The other thing to understand is that is just how Donald Trump conducts business. He exaggerates. He uses grandiose terms even when most people would think that those terms do not apply.
I appreciate our differences in the interpretation. And, again, if The Constitution intended for the President to always be truthful in everything that he says aloud and to the American public, then The Constitution should have said that.
The Oath of Office is 35 words long and whether or not the second half of the Oath is fulfilled could only really be decided by the Speaker himself. It’s abysmal.
I do not agree for several reasons:
1.) France can announce whatever it wants to announce.
2.) France cannot interfere in our elections without actually being on our soil, or if they could, it would take more than making an accusation.
3.) Government is an entity made up of entities, namely Government officials. Any person can make an accusation. In my view, no accusation (absent evidence) carries with it any more automatic weight than any other…and people accuse Trump of various things all over the place. Do the Americans who accuse Trump of various things (if there is nothing to indicate those things are true) also commit electoral interference?
4.) While I recognize it may not be true for everyone, absent proof, I care nothing about a mere accusation. That is especially true when the accuser himself or herself faces no possibility of punishment for making the accusation. Granted, if France made such an accusation about Trump, then Trump could retaliate both now and if he wins the election with unfavorable action against France, but such action does not necessarily harm the speaker of the accusation.
5.) Same thing, but I really want to stress that I only care for proof, so I am saying it twice.
—Now, for the purposes of your example, let’s suppose for a second that France actually fabricated evidence of this non-event, or suppressed exculpatory evidence…then I think you might have an argument for electoral interference.
Did you actually watch the speech? He was doing his very typical sarcasm to introduce Hillary’s criminal 30,000 emails missing issue. Anyone with half a brian not corrupted immediately knew that he was not making any serious plea to Russia. It was a joke that only malignant people would spin into a Russia collusion hoax.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kxG8uJUsWU[/youtube]
The question is, why did you take it seriously? Did you merely hear about it from leftist media? Or did you witness it directly and failed to see the obvious truth of it?
If that is all you had as evidence of this accusation, next accusation please?
I started to display all of the research on this issue yesterday but I don’t know enough about how to get youtube to display. I suspect that Fox News Channel being blocked in certain countries prevents easy transport of their videos. And in addition there are many videos displaying montages of the exact effect that I mentioned. It is nothing new. But searching videos is extremely time consuming. I decided that for sake of someone who argues before doing any research and insultingly presumes that “some random dude on a sub-forum” couldn’t possibly know anything that he hadn’t been fully inform about was impossible, it wasn’t really worth it.
One video from Tucker Carlson, “Tucker: No One Is Above The Law Except Democrats” contained a short montage displaying the effect. Perhaps you can look it up if you care. He has run several in the past months concerning different verbiage (yes “verbatim”). Sean Hannity ran others. And I think Laura Ingraham ran one or two. So counting their investigation and production teams, there are at least a dozen people who were aware of this besides that one random dude on a sub-forum (not to even mention 100’s of psychologists and mass media professors and students). How Pav was left out of the loop will remain a mystery.
I am more interested in your litany of accusations. I have observed Mr Trump intimately for years and I believe that I know him and his intentions and motivations very well. But unlike others on your board here, I like to research things before I make serious accusations. Such research incentive leads to asking people like yourself to yield whatever evidence they have concerning any issue of interest to me.
And since I first signed onto this board and began interacting with these people, I have been mystified why James S Saint (my research subject) stayed here for so long. It was an unanswered question that has been plaguing me while I was poking around for clues. I mention that because as I began to respond on the subject of your accusations, I believe that I finally discovered the answer. The answer, I feel certain about now, is simply, “is there anything that I have missed”.
And that is what I am looking for with your reasoning - is there possibly anything that I have missed?
On your first count, it seems not unless you have further evidence for that charge.
Was your argument going to be that the other side does the same thing? Or was it to be the highly typical liberal tactic of hypocritically accusing the opponent of their own guilt?
Either way, I am not really interested in getting into that discussion because it would take far too much time to bring the facts forward to people who seem to not really care to find them or hear them.
Next accusation, please.