Impeachment hearings

[_honorentheos]

Irrelevant. The comment was made in the context of Democrats needing to take up the issue so as to correct the public conversation around it. To hypothesize a universe where the facts are inverted is just that, a universe where the facts are inverted. To discuss it in any other way is irresponsible.

[_EAllusion]

Irrelevant. The comment was made in the context of Democrats needing to take up the issue so as to correct the public conversation around it. To hypothesize a universe where the facts are inverted is just that, a universe where the facts are inverted. To discuss it in any other way is irresponsible.

In a universe in which Donald Trump is a moral paragon, his actions would be fine because if you suppose that, then you might as well suppose he did things differently too.

Your argument was that everything changes if Biden is actually guilty, so the question of his guilt is relevant. This was in service of an argument that Trump's behavior is certainly not impeachable and possibly sensible if Biden was engaged in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin to assist his son. That's not true, though. Trump's actions, the ones he actually took, are improper even if that is the case.

[_honorentheos]

There is no reconciling the ideas. Ambassador Yanokovoch would be impossible to insert in the impeachment drama in the same way, nor would Vordman or any number of other key witnesses in this alternative universe.

What Biden did does matter. It matters to the substance of the impeachment discussion. It is simply not reasonable to argue otherwise. You want to talk about the Millennium Falcon taking on the Enterprise, I'm sure there are forums for that. It's a dumb discussion typically framed to favor the bias of whomever is arguing for what. You like Star Wars more than Star Trek? No mystery on what you will say about the fictional within a fiction. But it is irrelevant to reality.

If you want to argue about a universe where the wrong doing on Bidens part is not a Republican smoke screen, it's one where the investigation of Joe would be of a major scandal. It would be impossible to imagine one simply handwaving it away as, "Yeah but Trump didn't follow proper channels when he wanted it investigated."

That's just worse optics for Democrats to put that out into the public discourse. He can't be seen doing something that would harm a potential political opponent that benefits him even if there was legitimate wrong doing of a grave nature? You need to reexamine your support of impeachment. This is politics. The Democrats would benefit from Trump being impeached. You have argued they should use the power of impeachment to undermine Trump. You justify it because you sincerely believe he has committed wrongs that justify impeaching him, but the motive and benefits are political.

[_EAllusion]

There is no reconciling the ideas. Ambassador Yanokovoch would be impossible to insert in the impeachment drama in the same way, nor would Vordman or any number of other key witnesses in this alternative universe.

What Biden did does matter. It matters to the substance of the impeachment discussion. It is simply not reasonable to argue otherwise.

You don't get to extort foreign allies by withholding lawfully appropriated aid to work with your personal attorney to announce a prewritten statement of investigations into your political opponent (tainting any real fact finding that could occur in the process), even if that opponent did illicit things. That you don't get this is wild. That's an egregious abuse of office regardless of whether the person is guilty. You do understand that, "but the defendant is guilty!" isn't a valid defense of bribing people to find that outcome, right?

While Donald Trump is more likely than not to win reelection, it is possible to imagine a world in which he does not. In that world, we are faced with the reality that there is a whole range of people from the Trump admin that belong in prison. This does not mean the gloves are off and President Democrat can abuse their office however they like so long as they are pursuing the noble goal of putting guilty people behind bars. They are still beholden to both the rule of law and moral propriety in the administration of their powers.

It would be impossible to imagine one simply handwaving it away as, "Yeah but Trump didn't follow proper channels when he wanted it investigated."

Ah, when being a "moderate" means the sheriff has every right to bust your tail light out if you're guilty.

[_EAllusion]

And none of this addresses that Trump was after two things when he was using the powers of the presidency to pressure Ukraine for personal gain. He also wanted them to "investigate" a quixotic conspiracy theory that Ukrainian people helped Democrats frame Russia for criminal espionage against them. Which is, uh, a little weird given that Donald Trump has privately told Russian officials he was aware of Russian interference into the election and is unconcerned about it.

Biden's guilt has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is appropriate for the President of the US to unlawfully withhold Congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine and otherwise lean on them to pressure them "investigating" a conspiracy theory that tries to create confusion around Russia's role in aiding Trump's election in 2016.

Trump was looking for Ukraine to help launder propaganda against a potential political rival, yes, but he was also looking for them to help launder propaganda to run inference for his Russian backers.

But I guess being "moderate" is saying the latter is fine now. Totally cool for the President of the United States to use his office's influence over another country's security to coerce them into pushing a conspiracy theory that aids a hostile foreign power's cheating for him in elections.

[_mikwut]

Biden's guilt has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is appropriate for the President of the US to unlawfully withhold Congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine and otherwise lean on them to pressure them "investigating" a conspiracy theory that tries to create confusion around Russia's role in aiding Trump's election in 2016.

It goes straight to the heart of the President's state of mind and intent. And your own theory is a conspiracy theory too so why do you orwellian-ly use that phrase? You can call it whatever you want but Schweitzer's Secret Empires was published just months prior the whole phone call and affair. I don't know of those facts to have been completely proven to be without any warrant.

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

It goes straight to the heart of the President's state of mind and intent.

It isn't exculpatory to argue the President really believed Joe Biden was guilty when he abused his office to extort a foreign nation into announcing an investigation against Joe Biden then systemically obstructed investigation into the same.

And your own theory is a conspiracy theory too so why do you orwellian-ly use that phrase?

Conspiracy theory has a particular connotation, as you are aware, which is why it is used more frequently the context of global elites being lizard people than Nixon attempting to coverup a break-in at the Watergate even though involve assertions of conspiracy. The crowdstrike / missing server conspiracy theory Trump was pushing is in the lizard people range. I'm not even sure what to call it outside of conspiracy theory in this case.

You can call it whatever you want but Schweitzer's Secret Empires was published just months prior the whole phone call and affair. I don't know of those facts to have been completely proven to be without any warrant.

mikwut

Cool.

[_mikwut]

E

It isn't exculpatory to argue the President really believed Joe Biden was guilty

Yes it is. Because he isn't abusing his power if his intent is not to smear a political opponent.

mikwut

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Bull. crap.

In Mikwut’s world all a criminal has to do is just state they thought they were doing the right thing and they’re free to commit a crime.

Holy fuckballs I’ve never seen such willful ignorance in my life.

BREAKING NEWS: President Trump not charged with murder for shooting a man in broad daylight on 5th avenue. President’s reason? He thought the man might’ve committed murder in Mississippi. Rudy Giuliani recently came back from MS with a briefcase full of documents proving President Trump’s intuition was spot on.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Yes it is. Because he isn't abusing his power if his intent is not to smear a political opponent.

mikwut

That's not correct at all. The President still has to operate within the rule of law and use powers of office appropriately to achieve aims. He abused his office even on the theory that Biden deserved investigation.

Do you think you get to bribe police officers to investigate someone (or at least hold a press conference about investigation) if you sincerely believe they are guilty?

Do you believe the President can threaten to launch a nuclear strike at Ukraine unless it announces an investigation against his political opponent involving an allegation he sincerely believes? How about threaten to assassinate family members of Ukrainian leadership? Or how about arrest Joe Biden, put him in Gitmo, and assert a national security interest to hold him indefinitely without trial as an enemy combatant?