Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[Dr. Blutarsky]

If you watch only one part of the Senate impeachment trial, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cGk4BRHckA

[tim_m]

Really this is your best? An accused pedophile defending another?

[tim_m]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics/republican-trump-aid-impeachable/index.html

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Really this is your best? An accused pedophile defending another?

Whatever he may or may not have done in his personal life ( I vaguely heard the rumors) has nothing to do with his knowledge of the law or the constitution. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics/republican-trump-aid-impeachable/index.html

I heard Trump also took steps to improve the economy and help lead us to record low unemployment. This may have also helped him politically. Thats a quid pro quo, lets impeach him over that also 

[pilferk]

If you watch only one part of the Senate impeachment trial, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cGk4BRHckA

Constitutional scholars are literally laughing at him. No matter what their political affiliation.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/alan-dershowitz-wrong-about-impeachments

https://verdict.justia.com/2020/01/22/the-framers-would-want-you-to-know-alan-dershowitz-is-wrong-about-impeachment-and-so-is-the-president

It's an unfounded, "out there" interpretation of the constitution...and NOT one he had  back in the 90's (or even in the 2000's). It has no legal precedent on which to be based. The man says it himself: He is in the vast minority, when it comes to legal scholars, with his opinion on this matter.  That's because he's wrong. Dead wrong. Demonstrably wrong. You can read Washington's own words on the matter, as well as several other signatories of the Constitution. And I mean their actual words, not the ones AD misquotes (several times) in his rant.

Also, Alan argues against himself:
  
https://www.newsweek.com/alan-dershowitz-technical-crime-not-needed-impeachment-1998-interview-1483025

In short, Dershowitz is a shill, with no principals, who will change his mind based on who's cutting his check (or which way he thinks the winds of fortune are blowing).  He's changed his opinion about 4 times on this matter alone....based on who he is talking to, being paid by, or who's newsroom he's sitting in.  

Summary: A proven shill, hypocrit, and flip-flopper, who has reversed himself several times on the topic, made an argument that most constitutional scholars say is contrary to case law, history, precedent and common sense, who acknowledges that his opinion is in the minority (so, consequently, unlikely to become jurisprudence), said some things that sound great (because lies delivered with conviction are what Trump (and his voters) love!) but have no actual foundational substance.

The fact THIS is what the repubs are now hanging their hopes on....aka: what Trump did was wrong, but not impeachable....is the thinnest of thin covers for them to justify a vote to acquit.  And something for their base to cling to so their entire cult of personality doesn't fall down around their ears. As long as it SOUNDS good (and feels good in their echo chamber)...that's good enough for them.

The truth is that Alan's diatribe, while I'm sure it plays well to the base (and the Fox News spinners!), deserves the Billy Madison treatment: At no time did he make any actual (legal) sense.  He is awarded no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.

Oh, and it's in direct contradiction to EXACTLY what the Repubs argued with Clinton.  So, to be clear, you are now WHOLLY against the Clinton impeachment? Right?

[pilferk]

I heard Trump also took steps to improve the economy and help lead us to record low unemployment. This may have also helped him politically. Thats a quid pro quo, lets impeach him over that also 

I assume you're being glib. But it loses any punch when you realize your "glibness" simply demonstrates you don't understand the actual term being used. Cause and effect, in its simplest form (which is really what you're trying to demonstrate, above) is not quid pro quo.

Quid pro quo is a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.

As in: I'll give you aid if you launch investigations.

Not: I'll wash a plate and it will be clean.

If you are conducting foreign policy endeavors (like holding up aid to another country) and their sole purpose, in your mind, is to smear your opponent to better your political position.....that's wrong. Period. End of story.

Its extortion, for one.

It's an abuse of your office, for two.

It does not happen all the time. It is not the normal course of business/politics in our country.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I heard Trump also took steps to improve the economy and help lead us to record low unemployment. This may have also helped him politically. Thats a quid pro quo, lets impeach him over that also  

I assume you're being glib. But it loses any punch when you realize your "glibness" simply demonstrates you don't understand the actual term being used. Cause and effect, in its simplest form (which is really what you're trying to demonstrate, above) is not quid pro quo.

Quid pro quo is a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.

As in: I'll give you aid if you launch investigations.

Not: I'll wash a plate and it will be clean.

If you are conducting foreign policy endeavors (like holding up aid to another country) and their sole purpose, in your mind, is to smear your opponent to better your political position.....that's wrong. Period. End of story.

Its extortion, for one.

It's an abuse of your office, for two.

It does not happen all the time. It is not the normal course of business/politics in our country.

(
This was a joke. ( I thought that was obvious. )

I'd have a problem with with the withholding of the Ukraine aid if it was solely meant to damage Biden in 2020 .I do not believe that to be true and Ukraine did get the money. Was more about what had already taken place VS trying to influence the outcome of a future election.

 If you suspect someone is going to mismanage money you are giving someone for a designated purpose and their track record makes you question them, I see no issue with withholding that money for a period of time while things get sorted out.  

 I think  foreign aid going to any country needs to start at ZERO dollars and we go from there depending on the need and situation. Foreign aid should never be a given and we already do too much of it.

[pilferk]

This was a joke. ( I thought that was obvious. )

Yes, thats why I said: you were being glib.  And in that glibness, used an anecdote that showed you don't know what quid pro quo is.

Because it's only a joke if the anecdote is remotely appropriate.

I'd have a problem with with the withholding of the Ukraine aid if it was solely meant to damage Biden in 2020 .I do not believe that to be true and Ukraine did get the money. Was more about what had already taken place VS trying to influence the outcome of a future election.

Then you're not actually listening to the evidence, nor did you pay attention during the house hearings.

Every bit of evidence introduced shows that was, indeed, his sole intent: To smear his opponent.

The biggest evidence of this is his insistence on a public announcement of the investigations.  Investigations that had actually already been done and shown no wrongdoing.  He wanted MORE investigations.....or rather he wanted investigations announced...SOLELY because that announcement had political value.  

At no other time, during his entire presidency, has Trump shown ANY concern for corruption.  And the whole "Ukraine/Dem Server" bullshit is laughably debunked nonsense.

Pile on to that the fact that he refuses to let anyone testify to exonerate him?  Or release any documentation that could exonerate him?  If he's innocent, surely there should be someone who could come forward, not perjure themselves, and explain that he imparted his reasoning during the process (and not after he became aware of the complaint against him)?  But we have crickets.

I'm not surprised you want to believe there was another motive and you're ignoring (and likely not watching) the evidence to the contrary, though.  

Ukraine got the aid AFTER the President was made aware of the whistle blower complaint.  And Ukraine had scheduled the announcement of the investigations...and then cancelled it when the aid was released.

Those two things are facts, FYI. They happened.

But I'm sure you totally believe the timing and cancellation are just complete and utter coincidence.

Hey, I got a bridge for sale down in St. Pete......

If you suspect someone is going to mismanage money you are giving someone for a designated purpose and their track record makes you question them, I see no issue with withholding that money for a period of time while things get sorted out.

Congress voted to allocate the aid.  So that would have been an appropriate thing for CONGRESS to be concerned about.  The presidents executive authority, in this case, was a rubber stamp.  Once it was approved....withholding that aid should only have been done either via advisory FROM Congress or with an ADVISORY TO Congress (with reasoning).  Neither happened.

And, funnily enough, all those supposed "concerns" had been addressed already. By Congress.  And by the State Department.  They got all the assurances that corruption was being taken care of.  They got all the documentation they requested.  

Trump held up the aid anyway.  And never told Congress (as he is supposed to) he was doing it, or why.  And never gave ANYONE (who has gone on the record) a reason as to why until AFTER he was made aware of the whistle blower complaint (even though multiple people from multiple agencies asked). At which point he parrotted the language of the complaint, unprompted, saying "There's no quid pro quo".

This is a nice try, and the conservative fall back, that they have zero evidence to support.  You think this because it fits your echo chamber and your inability to entertain even the notion that Trump did something wrong.

I think  foreign aid going to any country needs to start at ZERO dollars and we go from there depending on the need and situation. Foreign aid should never be a given and we already do too much of it.

Great.  You should run for office and try to get that tenet through.  

The fact is, that's not the current law of the land, and it's now how things operate.  And what Trump did with the aid has no relation to that desire or belief.

Congress approved the aid. Period. End of story.

Trumps withholding that aid was an affront to their constitutionally imbued powers, anyway.  But the quid pro quo was an abuse of those powers. Even many Repubs are now saying or implying that what he did was wrong.  They're not even defending his actions in the trial.  They are arguing process.....because a) it's all they got and b) they know the Repubs are in the tank so they just need to give them the thinnest of reasons to acquit.

Again, I will ask: Given your position, you must be 100% against the Clinton impeachment. Yeah?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

This is why you are no fun to have a political discussion with. 

Because in your mind, your opinion is fact period end of story.

[tim_m]

I heard Trump also took steps to improve the economy and help lead us to record low unemployment. This may have also helped him politically. Thats a quid pro quo, lets impeach him over that also  

I assume you're being glib. But it loses any punch when you realize your "glibness" simply demonstrates you don't understand the actual term being used. Cause and effect, in its simplest form (which is really what you're trying to demonstrate, above) is not quid pro quo.

Quid pro quo is a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.

As in: I'll give you aid if you launch investigations.

Not: I'll wash a plate and it will be clean.

If you are conducting foreign policy endeavors (like holding up aid to another country) and their sole purpose, in your mind, is to smear your opponent to better your political position.....that's wrong. Period. End of story.

Its extortion, for one.

It's an abuse of your office, for two.

It does not happen all the time. It is not the normal course of business/politics in our country.

(
This was a joke. ( I thought that was obvious. )

I'd have a problem with with the withholding of the Ukraine aid if it was solely meant to damage Biden in 2020 .I do not believe that to be true and Ukraine did get the money. Was more about what had already taken place VS trying to influence the outcome of a future election.

 If you suspect someone is going to mismanage money you are giving someone for a designated purpose and their track record makes you question them, I see no issue with withholding that money for a period of time while things get sorted out.  

 I think  foreign aid going to any country needs to start at ZERO dollars and we go from there depending on the need and situation. Foreign aid should never be a given and we already do too much of it.

If that were truly good intention tht way he did it is wrong. He should done it properly, that is with Congress approval like it's been done in the past. See Obama with Egypt.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I heard Trump also took steps to improve the economy and help lead us to record low unemployment. This may have also helped him politically. Thats a quid pro quo, lets impeach him over that also  

I assume you're being glib. But it loses any punch when you realize your "glibness" simply demonstrates you don't understand the actual term being used. Cause and effect, in its simplest form (which is really what you're trying to demonstrate, above) is not quid pro quo.

Quid pro quo is a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.

As in: I'll give you aid if you launch investigations.

Not: I'll wash a plate and it will be clean.

If you are conducting foreign policy endeavors (like holding up aid to another country) and their sole purpose, in your mind, is to smear your opponent to better your political position.....that's wrong. Period. End of story.

Its extortion, for one.

It's an abuse of your office, for two.

It does not happen all the time. It is not the normal course of business/politics in our country.

(
This was a joke. ( I thought that was obvious. )

I'd have a problem with with the withholding of the Ukraine aid if it was solely meant to damage Biden in 2020 .I do not believe that to be true and Ukraine did get the money. Was more about what had already taken place VS trying to influence the outcome of a future election.

 If you suspect someone is going to mismanage money you are giving someone for a designated purpose and their track record makes you question them, I see no issue with withholding that money for a period of time while things get sorted out.  

 I think  foreign aid going to any country needs to start at ZERO dollars and we go from there depending on the need and situation. Foreign aid should never be a given and we already do too much of it.

If that were truly good intention tht way he did it is wrong. He should done it properly, that is with Congress approval like it's been done in the past. See Obama with Egypt.

Agreed, proper channels would have certainly made this less of a mess. ( State dept instead of personal attorney. Could have even made it simple by giving Giuliani some kind of official role thru state dept) But being concerned about giving aid to a corrupt government is the President doing his job. Needed to see if the new Ukrainian PM was more of a straight shooter than his predecessor. They ended up getting the aid in the end.  Not something to be impeached over. They've been trying to find ways to impeach him since January 2017.

[pilferk]

This is why you are no fun to have a political discussion with.  

Because in your mind, your opinion is fact period end of story.

I mean, I actually base my opinion on facts (and history). Which, I know, sucks for you.

As for the rest: have you looked in the mirror lately?  

I'd suggest the reason you aren't having fun is because I hold that mirror up...and what you see makes you a little uncomfortable....

[pilferk]

If that were truly good intention tht way he did it is wrong. He should done it properly, that is with Congress approval like it's been done in the past. See Obama with Egypt.

That's part of the problem.  

What he did was him end arounding congress and usurping their constitutionally levied powers.  That's BEST CASE scenario, even if his intentions were pure gold.

Again, that's not an opinion.  It's a fact, and an established bit of jurisprudence.

And he did it in as sneaky and as obfuscating a way as he possibly could. And his intentions were not pure gold. Anyone who thinks they were is hitting the bong too hard (and has not paid attention to this guy for the past 40+ years).

Also, again, the prime minister of Ukraine had provided those assurances, when it came to corruption, and documentation, to CONGRESS....who actually had oversight here.

They also provided the State Department with everything they asked for.  And the State Department let the President know (upon which he fired the ambassador...for no good reason).

AND Ukraine had also previously DONE the investigations and found zero evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.  So did our justice department (the proper channel for this type of thing, after all).

Trump had zero role to play, here.  He inserted himself into the situation purely to get a favor (in his own words). The fact he used the royal "we" (or a tense of it) isn't much of a defense.

Just the fact that he dipped his toe in the water is a violation of the constitution.  Likely not an impeachable one, but one that should have garnered rebuke and maybe censure.

That he did it wholly to smear his political opponent is an abuse of power...something specifically mentioned by the founders when it came to impeachable offenses.

And if you ask the Trumpers if a Dem can do the same thing for 2020...well, the outrage is overwhelming.

But you know the Trumpers will never ever admit Trump did anything wrong.  Even if, as he said, he shot someone in the middle of fifth avenue.  They've traded their brains, and their morals, for MAGA hats. Party > Country.

Again, witness the good Senator refusing to comment on his stance on the Clinton impeachment.  He avoids the topic because he can't answer without contradicting his current position.  Because, the truth is, if Obama had done this.....he would be screaming bloody murder.

How do we know this? "I'll have more flexibility after the election."  

[Dr. Blutarsky]

This is why you are no fun to have a political discussion with.  

Because in your mind, your opinion is fact period end of story.

I mean, I actually base my opinion on facts (and history). Which, I know, sucks for you.

As for the rest: have you looked in the mirror lately?  

I'd suggest the reason you aren't having fun is because I hold that mirror up...and what you see makes you a little uncomfortable....

This is the shit I'm talking about.  The condescending part isn't needed nor the personal bullshit.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

If that were truly good intention tht way he did it is wrong. He should done it properly, that is with Congress approval like it's been done in the past. See Obama with Egypt.

That's part of the problem.  

What he did was him end arounding congress and usurping their constitutionally levied powers.  That's BEST CASE scenario, even if his intentions were pure gold.

Again, that's not an opinion.  It's a fact, and an established bit of jurisprudence.

And he did it in as sneaky and as obfuscating a way as he possibly could. And his intentions were not pure gold. Anyone who thinks they were is hitting the bong too hard (and has not paid attention to this guy for the past 40+ years).

Also, again, the prime minister of Ukraine had provided those assurances, when it came to corruption, and documentation, to CONGRESS....who actually had oversight here.

They also provided the State Department with everything they asked for.  And the State Department let the President know (upon which he fired the ambassador...for no good reason).

AND Ukraine had also previously DONE the investigations and found zero evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.  So did our justice department (the proper channel for this type of thing, after all).

Trump had zero role to play, here.  He inserted himself into the situation purely to get a favor (in his own words). The fact he used the royal "we" (or a tense of it) isn't much of a defense.

Just the fact that he dipped his toe in the water is a violation of the constitution.  Likely not an impeachable one, but one that should have garnered rebuke and maybe censure.

That he did it wholly to smear his political opponent is an abuse of power...something specifically mentioned by the founders when it came to impeachable offenses.

And if you ask the Trumpers if a Dem can do the same thing for 2020...well, the outrage is overwhelming.

But you know the Trumpers will never ever admit Trump did anything wrong.  Even if, as he said, he shot someone in the middle of fifth avenue.  They've traded their brains, and their morals, for MAGA hats. Party > Country.

Again, witness the good Senator refusing to comment on his stance on the Clinton impeachment.  He avoids the topic because he can't answer without contradicting his current position.  Because, the truth is, if Obama had done this.....he would be screaming bloody murder.

How do we know this? "I'll have more flexibility after the election."  

So glad you are here to tell me what I think.  I hope this isn't who you are off the board for your sake. Better to hide those traits behind the keyboard.

[tim_m]

I heard Trump also took steps to improve the economy and help lead us to record low unemployment. This may have also helped him politically. Thats a quid pro quo, lets impeach him over that also  

I assume you're being glib. But it loses any punch when you realize your "glibness" simply demonstrates you don't understand the actual term being used. Cause and effect, in its simplest form (which is really what you're trying to demonstrate, above) is not quid pro quo.

Quid pro quo is a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.

As in: I'll give you aid if you launch investigations.

Not: I'll wash a plate and it will be clean.

If you are conducting foreign policy endeavors (like holding up aid to another country) and their sole purpose, in your mind, is to smear your opponent to better your political position.....that's wrong. Period. End of story.

Its extortion, for one.

It's an abuse of your office, for two.

It does not happen all the time. It is not the normal course of business/politics in our country.

(
This was a joke. ( I thought that was obvious. )

I'd have a problem with with the withholding of the Ukraine aid if it was solely meant to damage Biden in 2020 .I do not believe that to be true and Ukraine did get the money. Was more about what had already taken place VS trying to influence the outcome of a future election.

 If you suspect someone is going to mismanage money you are giving someone for a designated purpose and their track record makes you question them, I see no issue with withholding that money for a period of time while things get sorted out.  

 I think  foreign aid going to any country needs to start at ZERO dollars and we go from there depending on the need and situation. Foreign aid should never be a given and we already do too much of it.

If that were truly good intention tht way he did it is wrong. He should done it properly, that is with Congress approval like it's been done in the past. See Obama with Egypt.

Agreed, proper channels would have certainly made this less of a mess. ( State dept instead of personal attorney. Could have even made it simple by giving Giuliani some kind of official role thru state dept) But being concerned about giving aid to a corrupt government is the President doing his job. Needed to see if the new Ukrainian PM was more of a straight shooter than his predecessor. They ended up getting the aid in the end.  Not something to be impeached over. They've been trying to find ways to impeach him since January 2017.

It's so much more then that, you also got his two henchmen Parnass and Fruman, who Trump still denies even knowing stalking an ambassador, smearing her good name and life's work because she wouldn't have gone along with the crap.

[pilferk]

This is the shit I'm talking about.  The condescending part isn't needed nor the personal bullshit.

Truth hurts, eh?

As  for the "personal bullshit".....I didn't say anything in my post you didn't say in your post that I responded to.  I LITERALLY pointed out you do the same thing you were accusing me of.

Looked in the mirror lately?

[pilferk]

Again, witness the good Senator refusing to comment on his stance on the Clinton impeachment.  He avoids the topic because he can't answer without contradicting his current position.  Because, the truth is, if Obama had done this.....he would be screaming bloody murder.

How do we know this? "I'll have more flexibility after the election."  

So glad you are here to tell me what I think.  I hope this isn't who you are off the board for your sake. Better to hide those traits behind the keyboard.

I mean, describing your actions/posts, both current and historic, and describing the obvious motives doesn't take any levels of great insight. You certainly have had the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise....and you haven't.

And using those actions as an anecdote for Trump supporters seems pretty apt.  It's especially poignant for pointing out the double standard here, and in other cases.

I'm pretty comfortable with who I am.  Thanks for your personal assessment.  I'll give it the weight it deserves.

What was that about "personal bullshit"?

Mirror, mirror, on the wall.

[sandman]

I made a rare winter visit to my place at the Jersey shore this week. Trump came to wildwood for a rally - a shore town I spend my summers in and have been visiting my entire life. could not believe he had a rally there. me and about 10 friends and family made the trip down for a few days (not all are trump supporters). the atmosphere was incredible! such a great time. met tons of really cool people. 

then he signs USMCA! huge win.

and those photos of the wall are beautiful. great times to be alive!