honorentheos wrote:... I felt it [today's testimony] left Guiliani much more exposed than previous witnesses have such that it seems problematic to not push for his appearance before Congress as part of the proceedings. But the lawyer did a good job putting buffers around Trump that mitigated his exposure
The ultimate impeachment crime is bribery. In this case the bribe comes wrapped in an authorized expenditure. The mechanism used to thwart the disbursement of that expenditure was the Office of Management and Budget. The more evidence the Democrats produce that can support the idea that the spigot delivering the aid was turned off and on at the direction of the White House, the more clear the cause and effect will be apparent.
Office of Management and Budget official Mark Sandy will testify. It should be interesting.
I'm going to offer you 5¢ head-shrink of Rudy Giuliani: He compartmentalizes the information in his life: His loyalty to the President, his law practice, his work in Ukraine on behalf of the President, his business dealings in Ukraine, and the crushing alimony of divorce #3. He is trying to juggle those 5 roles, and maintains that one area does not influence another area. Rudy is not a narcissist, but he does share the President's talent for absolutely believing whatever he says in the moment. It will become increasingly difficult to maintain juggle those 5 areas without dropping at least one of them.
If Trump kept a day planner, task #1 tomorrow would read: Remember to forget Rudy Giuliani.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
It should make everyone wonder what other things careerists have seen they have begrudgingly not blown the whistle on.
If that's the way the rabbit hole goes sure, but that would be true then all members of congress, the judiciary, and the executive into every aspect of the military and intelligence. And that incompetence could go to the President's intent itself as well, not necessarily sinister or intending actual bribery just dumb and thinking its fighting corruption. When you give human nature for such a large swath a pass like you just did you have give the same to the gander don't you?
I'm not pushing back that hard, I just believe if your going all the way with impeachment of all things it should be crystal, it should be at least a little bipartisan to show a break through of dissonance and group think. Otherwise if it can be made ambiguous it is a bad precedent for the future. That's my 15% doubt anyway.
mikwut
Ordinarily, I think that would be a fair expectation. But the current level of partisanship has resulted in lots of deviation from what we would ordinarily expect of fair minded people.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
One thing for sure is that this saga is not over yet. Given Trump's penchant for shooting himself in the foot, and damaging himself more than the last time, every time he does it, I think it more than likely that he will yet do or say something so outrageous that even his most adamant supporters in Congress won't dare defend it. As the former House Intelligence Chairman, Mike Rogers (a Republican, by the way) said about Trump:
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
I can't find much disagreement. For banter, the abuse of power was to obtain from the announcement more political advantage against Biden, like you should be in jail used against Hillary, than he already had with the publicly known Biden narrative demanding the prosecutor be fired while his son sat on the same board thrown like a frisbee on fox every night?
Because doesn't that risk (I know bumbling idiots and all) a huge backfire of the Biden narrative being reversed publicly here and sustained that Biden was just the mouthpiece for what many countries, leaders etc. were demanding and if it wasn't him it would have been someone else and still happened just as it did? It wasn't in fact what the appearance to Republicans was underneath? Right in the middle of the election heating up?
And if that risk wasn't discussed by the in group abusing power to that end than the alternative is Trump really believed the false narrative and was in fact attempting to look into actual nepotism and corruption, Biden and 2016 elections just being synonymous with "corruption" because those were leading lights fed to him by Guiliani? And then we don't meet an intent, that is I think still necessary for abuse of power?
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Res Ipsa wrote:Ordinarily, I think that would be a fair expectation. But the current level of partisanship has resulted in lots of deviation from what we would ordinarily expect of fair minded people.
I think one of the prices of this impeachment is that Republicans are likely to impeach a Democrat over nothing in the near future. There already was a low hum of chatter around impeaching Clinton before the 2016 election took place. That may devalue impeachment to just what opposition parties do which will make it even easier for future corrupt officials to dismiss it.
It's a necessary evil to doing the right thing in this case. You can't just decide to not impeach even when you have clear impeachable conduct because Republicans fell into authoritarianism. That's already conceding the outcome you are afraid of.
I think one of the prices of this impeachment is that Republicans are likely to impeach a Democrat over nothing in the near future. There already was a low hum of chatter around impeaching Clinton before the 2016 election took place. That may devalue impeachment to just what opposition parties do which will make it even easier for future corrupt officials to dismiss it.
I respect that honesty. That is a heavy price to pay.
It's a necessary evil to doing the right thing in this case. You can't just decide to not impeach even when you have clear impeachable conduct because Republicans fell into authoritarianism. That's already conceding the outcome you are afraid of.
It's only clear to one side. And Republicans believe the authoritarianism is on the other side, seemingly just as sincerely. Doesn't bumbling fools and an authoritarianism at least on the surface seem a bit blurred? If a pointing north compass of principle is how your deciding this matter, damn, you should be president because I don't know how such a clear principled position rises above all the other in such a bipartisan issue, and just so happens to land totally with one party. I don't like narratives of white hat and black hat, they just aren't satisfactory to me in this climate. But, you at least putting all your chips in.
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
I worked in an organization that had a serious problem with favoritism from the regional head. She overtly treated her friends much better than other employees. Those in her inner circle could do pretty much whatever they wanted. And her "friends" including those people underneath her she slept with. This favoritism resulted in a particularly incompetent and unethical person she was sleeping with receiving a promotion. I regard that person as a true psychopath. Trump-esque, if you will. Both prior to and after that promotion, this person engaged in some very serious misconduct, including unlawful behavior, that the regional head helped cover up.
Everyone at my level knew about this. We all had different pieces of the picture. Some of us knew of some things first hand, other things second hand, and some things not at all, while others knew different parts of the puzzle. But everyone knew about serious misconduct. Everyone. To my knowledge, only two people acted as whistle blowers. Myself and one other person. People who remember our chatroom may remember me discussing this. The person besides myself was passed up for a promotion by this person and was very hurt by it. My personality happens to combine strong scruples with a complete disregard for authority qua authority in a way that probably made it easier for me to report. And when I did, my heart was beating like a hummingbird. Our reports went nowhere, though they may have contributed to the regional head being forced to resign a few years later. The coverups worked.
Nobody else reported, even they all knew what was going on. Anyone not receiving favorable treatment was incensed by it. It was a frequent topic of conversation at work. Numerous people quit the organization in disgust over it. But they did not blow the whistle.
I think this experience is fairly normal. I know whenever I hear reports about whistleblowers, a common theme is that they were one reporter in a group of people who knew about the problem, but didn't act on it. Seems to be human nature. That nature can be abused by people with the will to do it.
mikwut wrote:It's only clear to one side. And Republicans believe the authoritarianism is on the other side, seemingly just as sincerely.
Yeah, the thing is this isn't a "who is to say?" situation.
Doesn't bumbling fools and an authoritarianism at least on the surface seem a bit blurred?
Not really. Authoritarians are not infrequently bumbling fools. Take a look around the world at autocrats and tell me what you see. It's a common Achilles heel.
I think the witnesses are bipartisan, which fact alone should count for something.
The reason I believe we have the witness pool we do here is because the harm was being done to Ukraine rather than the political foe behind the demands.
In that sense, incompetent or otherwise the consequences were considered serious enough by multiple witnesses to testify such was the case even if through supoenas rather than coming forward as whistleblowers themselves.
The bipartisan ship bolsters my argument because it would lessen the strain not greater it to come forward in a blatantly criminal project that is as obvious as it supposedly is. My second concern is getting into the President's head. Bribery is a mens rea crime.
mikwut
I suppose there is an argument in Trump's willingness to put out the transcript that suggests he wasn't "knowingly" committing a crime or attempting to solicit a bribe. But given this is an impeachment not a criminal trial, I'm not sure the Republic should take the legal threshold for guilt as the correct one for impeachment. All the better if it can be met, but incompetence in a president that only missed being criminal due to the extreme degree of incompetence involved is...well. it's an argument anyway.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Res Ipsa wrote:Ordinarily, I think that would be a fair expectation. But the current level of partisanship has resulted in lots of deviation from what we would ordinarily expect of fair minded people.
I think one of the prices of this impeachment is that Republicans are likely to impeach a Democrat over nothing in the near future. There already was a low hum of chatter around impeaching Clinton before the 2016 election took place. That may devalue impeachment to just what opposition parties do which will make it even easier for future corrupt officials to dismiss it.
It's a necessary evil to doing the right thing in this case. You can't just decide to not impeach even when you have clear impeachable conduct because Republicans fell into authoritarianism. That's already conceding the outcome you are afraid of.
I agree, although the Democrats already paid for impeaching Nixon by having the impeachment threshold lowered to "lying about a blowjob." How much lower can the threshold actually go? Impeachment for wearing a tan suit?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951