Impeachment hearings

[_canpakes]

Trump will leave office

You're sure of that?

If Trump gets a second term after his conduct in his current term, all bets are off as to whether he ever will leave office thereafter. After all, he has the advice (in private, no note takers) of Putin, who seems to have perfected the art of permanent office holding in his country.

Once it would have been unimaginable that this could happen in the US. But now? Not so much ...

Maybe he'll just re-write a few parts of the Constitution to allow himself to hang around longer than two terms, because doing so would be 'in the public interest' of the country in his opinion. ; )

Gotta admit, the Dersh's argument was a brilliant way of ensuring that future illicit or illegal actions taken by Trump are predetermined to be OK, because Trump will merely have to state that they were committed 'in the public interest' in his opinion , and the Senate signed off on and established that precedent during this impeachment trial.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, you’re ostensibly ok with Trump employing an absolute degenerate, who defended a child rapist and ephebophile? Good to know your Christian values are in tact.

The role of a defense attorney as a gateway to protect rights of individuals the government is prosecuting, regardless of the crimes alleged against the accused, is one of the most important and seriously I say it, sacred realms of our system. It is not warranting disgusting acts, it is safeguarding our procedures, the overreaching of government, and the rights that we hold dear. What on earth are you suggesting? That those alleged to be child molesters need only receive degenerates or something as defense counsel? Is this a one-off that defense counsel can just stay away from these crimes or are there others in your subjective judgment of when our government is held to the law?

You remind me of the young, immature and inexperienced that twaddle on, "OMG, how can they defend people like that?" while twirling their hair. Seriously rethink this kind of nonsense.

mikwut

Mikwut,

As usual, you miss the point by a mile to win an argument that was never asserted. My goodness your clown car act is getting more and more bizarre every time you think you’re being clever. I’ll decline to restate the point because you’ve shown a mastery at missing it, and I’m not confident you could generate an honest response even if you were inclined to try.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What a sham of a government we have right now.

The Department of Justice revealed in a court filing late Friday that it has two dozen emails related to President Donald Trump's involvement in the withholding of millions in security assistance to Ukraine -- a disclosure that came just hours after the Senate voted against subpoenaing additional documents and witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial, paving the way for his acquittal.

The filing, released near midnight Friday,

Any of you fuckfaces still defending this admin deserve this government.

- Doc

[Guest]

Doc,

It hits the mark of your posts to point out calling Dershowitz a degenerate even if found within another position your taking.

That thinking is wrongheaded.

mikwut

[_moksha]

Dershowitz was a god for the left when he agreed with them,...

Dershowitz was a ninny who couldn't even come up with "If the Ukraine fits you must acquit" for the Republicans supporting Team Corruption.




The Trump Cult of Personality

https://www.Facebook.com/RBReich/videos/861964857576564/

[_EAllusion]

Seriously, I am not just being contrarian. As good of a writer as you are it is often times missed. You are so naïve.

One of the thing that informs my reading of this smug condescension is that experts on democratic collapse along with a large number of public-facing political scientists consistently seem to believe the US is undergoing a democratic collapse. Opinions differ on what stage it is at and whether it can be reversed, but that's where the disagreement lies. Sure, those people are almost to a person liberals or conservatives who don't like Donald Trump because academics with expertise in political science in general are liberals or conservatives who don't like Donald Trump. Your "naïve" comment, as per usual, is aimed squarely at experts as it is when you go on defending global warming denialism or 9/11 trutherism. It doesn't carry any weight with me.

It isn't close to totalitarian states, where a backdrop far beyond just a leader seeking more power, is at play.

This comment is a cousin to when I described the Trump admin literally arguing for a de facto autocracy, which it was (and is) and you responded to it by complaining that that the US isn't currently an autocracy. The not-so-subtle shift was you changing arguments for autocracy into claim of current autocracy. Here, I make the comment that corrupting elections to gain power to corrupt future elections mirrors totalitarian states and you complain that this is unfair because totalitarianism is more than a "leader seeking power." The specific feature I made a comparison to is corrupt elections to perpetuate the the ability to run future corrupt elections to maintain a lock on power.

Do you think Schiff has just pure motives or do you think he is thinking a Senate seat, a later run for president. Hint. it is the latter.

It doesn't matter if he's thinking about the time Donald Trump called him a pencil-neck. What matters is that he's correct.

Their thoughts are about power.

Cool. I think there are legitimate and illegitimate means to acquire political power. If you don't, then you have abhorrent views. If you do, then you probably need to get off this strawman.

both sides

Yeah. That's about all you offer. "naïve" indeed.

The ballot box should always win over a partisan vote in either the House or the Senate.

Speaking of naïve, I refuse to believe you are so naïve as to not understand how illicit manipulation of an election prevents the ability to have a legitimate decision occur through an election.

[_honorentheos]

Hi Honor,

ikwut wrote:
So can any of you articulate, granting for the time that Trump is completely guilty of the impeachment articles, what is the standard for a National Security Advisor to break with Presidential privilege? Or is it just an intuitive thing.

mikwut

Considering John Dean was working with Senate investigators while still Nixon's attorney and testified less than two months after being fired by Nixon let's assume zero days. Call it intuitive but it seems like privilege - attorney/client, executive, or whathaveyou - isn't under an obligation to extend for any length of time past the point Congress wants to hear from them. As to Bolton making statements, it seems the standard is only until the Senate declines to take interest in what said person knows that they view to be in the interest of the nation. You know, the new standard where feelings one holds regarding ones own value to the nation Trump's rule of law and justifies ones actions regardless of what they are? That standard?

I am seriously interested in your thoughtful ideas. Please read my two posts above one to Doc, and one To E. This is really a pattern I see on this board where a smearing of our individual rights opposed to government power grabbing is misunderstood within some intuitive moral backdrop that is assumed to be shared by all, at least intelligent people.

The privilege's we have whether lawyer, priest, spouse and up to the executive office are of the utmost importance for our Constitutional system. Where I disagree with E the most respecting his totalitarian fears is that we should not fear that politicians are power hungry folks, but rather, that some other coloring, costumed as moral and right takes the place of rights protecting us from that innate corruption found in all men especially those in power, from the government that is made up of those men. When the government tramples against those, then god help us all. When a president gets a blowjob, when a president is not convicted in a partisan hearing regardless of his dark motives for more power, these power struggles will fade into the process of history and mere process. When we disregard rights for what we believe is a moral high ground, a fact pattern we think overrides those rights, is when totalitarian fears should really lie.

mikwut

At it's heart, society is held together by the glue of trust. Banks lend money assuming they will get it back with interest, and prefer societies where those interests are protected. When there is doubt they will get repaid, economies tend to dive into the red. I read your comment in that same light, arguing that privileges such as attorney-client or executive privilege must be protected such that certain functions of society can occur based on the trust that protection provides. So when that trust is damaged, it fundamentally damages society.

As such it seems like your question pits two issues undergirded by trust against one another. On the one hand, if I understand correctly you are arguing that executive privilege should protect the executives ability to have trusted advisors in order to operate in the messy world of reality as a leader in an imperfect world. Bolton should remain constrained because if he produces a tell all book or holds a news conference that accuses Trump of gross wrong doing it does damage to the office of the President. Is that fair?

I'd argue the opposing issue is that of the trust needed for Western liberal democracy to hold back the tide of authoritarian rule. For the government to operate as agent of the people, it needs to do a reasonable job showing the people's trust in said government isn't misplaced. So in the case of gross misconduct, the trust of the executive towards their advisor is in conflict with the trust of the people in their leadership and government. Of those, I think the latter deserves priority.

[_subgenius]

What a sham of a government we have right now.

The Department of Justice revealed in a court filing late Friday that it has two dozen emails related to President Donald Trump's involvement in the withholding of millions in security assistance to Ukraine -- a disclosure that came just hours after the Senate voted against subpoenaing additional documents and witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial, paving the way for his acquittal.

The filing, released near midnight Friday,

Any of you fuckfaces still defending this admin deserve this government.

- Doc

your life must be so hard.
prayers.

[_mikwut]

Hi honor,

Thanks for the reply.

I'd argue the opposing issue is that of the trust needed for Western liberal democracy to hold back the tide of authoritarian rule. For the government to operate as agent of the people, it needs to do a reasonable job showing the people's trust in said government isn't misplaced. So in the case of gross misconduct, the trust of the executive towards their advisor is in conflict with the trust of the people in their leadership and government. Of those, I think the latter deserves priority.

So are you saying that gross misconduct could be hid within the umbrella of privilege? And this could lead to authoritarian rule?

Was Bolton a tipping point that if he would not have revealed anything, even in the manner he did, we would then have staved off these fears of authoritarian rule? Don't these subjective ideas of exceptions to these rules of law, such as privilege as we are discussing, allow for more authoritarian leanings?

mikwut

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

your life must be so hard.
prayers.

I seem to have hit a Fuckface Von Nervestick.

- Doc