Can you imagine a worse reason to start a civil war?

[Pete F.]

Of all the reasons to start a civil war, preserving slavery is the worst. But keeping President Trump in power is pretty high up on the list.

On Sunday, Trump tweeted the following statement by evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress: "If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal."

Jeffress isn't the only one predicting civil strife. Rudy Giuliani warned that impeaching Trump would risk "domestic tranquillity [sic]." Franklin Graham said that impeachment "could lead to conflict that nobody wants." "This is war," actor Jon Voight proclaimed.

The same people who mocked Hillary Clinton's voters for grieving after the 2016 election now say they will start a civil war if Trump is impeached in accordance with the Constitution.

Their premonitions are a sign of weakness. If you cannot argue your case with logic and evidence, you can appeal to faith or resort to threats of violence. Trump has done both. Prior to the 2018 midterms, Trump told a group of Christian leaders, "This November 6 election is very much a referendum on not only me. It's a referendum on your religion. It's a referendum on free speech and the First Amendment. It's a referendum on so much. It's not a question of like or dislike. It's a question that they will overturn everything that we've done, and they will do it quickly and violently."

As a candidate, Trump implored Americans to "take their country back" by voting for him. As president, he has convinced his base that any attempt to weaken him is an attempt to weaken the country they took back. By exploiting patriotic symbols like the flag and the national anthem, he hopes to make his interests and the nation's appear indistinguishable. He wants Americans to equate keeping their country with keeping him in office. "You're one election away from losing everything that you've gotten," he said last year. Now they're one impeachment away.

Trump reduces everything to a binary choice. You can love America or leave it. You can applaud Trump's speeches or commit treason against the United States. You can accept his abuses of power, or you will instigate a civil war by holding him accountable for them.

Some people on the right yearn for a civil war. "It's Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous," The Federalist's Jesse Kelly has suggested, along with: "America Is Over, But I Won't See It Go Without An Epic Fight." In March, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) posted a meme about a civil war between red states and blue states. King used to hang a Confederate flag in his office despite the fact that he's from Iowa. As it happens, people who claim to love America the most tend to fetishize Confederate memorabilia the most.

Nationalists are not always patriots. Patriots love their country as it is. Nationalists love their country as they imagine it once was, and sometimes not even then. "There seems to be a thin line between violent, extreme nationalism and treason," Harold Ettlinger wrote in The Axis on the Air. "It seems that a man is a fascist before he is an American or a Frenchman or a Norwegian, and that he will betray his country in the interests of fascism. One moment, being a fascist, he is violently nationalistic, working for a political creed which involves exalting his own country above others. The next moment, having been frustrated in his aims, he turns against his country and fights for its downfall, or sees to it, if it has already fallen, that it does not rise again."

This is not to say that Trump is a fascist. He is a narcissist. If Trump is removed from office, is there any doubt that he will root for civil unrest as a way to avenge his wounded feelings? Last week, he said the market would crash without him in the White House. Nothing would please him more. If he suffers, he will try to outsource his suffering to others. In a civil war as in the Vietnam War, Trump will let other people do his fighting for him.

https://theweek.com/articles/869170/...tart-civil-war

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Of all the reasons to start a civil war, preserving slavery is the worst. But keeping President Trump in power is pretty high up on the list.

On Sunday, Trump tweeted the following statement by evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress: "If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal."

Jeffress isn't the only one predicting civil strife. Rudy Giuliani warned that impeaching Trump would risk "domestic tranquillity [sic]." Franklin Graham said that impeachment "could lead to conflict that nobody wants." "This is war," actor Jon Voight proclaimed.

The same people who mocked Hillary Clinton's voters for grieving after the 2016 election now say they will start a civil war if Trump is impeached in accordance with the Constitution.

Their premonitions are a sign of weakness. If you cannot argue your case with logic and evidence, you can appeal to faith or resort to threats of violence. Trump has done both. Prior to the 2018 midterms, Trump told a group of Christian leaders, "This November 6 election is very much a referendum on not only me. It's a referendum on your religion. It's a referendum on free speech and the First Amendment. It's a referendum on so much. It's not a question of like or dislike. It's a question that they will overturn everything that we've done, and they will do it quickly and violently."

As a candidate, Trump implored Americans to "take their country back" by voting for him. As president, he has convinced his base that any attempt to weaken him is an attempt to weaken the country they took back. By exploiting patriotic symbols like the flag and the national anthem, he hopes to make his interests and the nation's appear indistinguishable. He wants Americans to equate keeping their country with keeping him in office. "You're one election away from losing everything that you've gotten," he said last year. Now they're one impeachment away.

Trump reduces everything to a binary choice. You can love America or leave it. You can applaud Trump's speeches or commit treason against the United States. You can accept his abuses of power, or you will instigate a civil war by holding him accountable for them.

Some people on the right yearn for a civil war. "It's Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous," The Federalist's Jesse Kelly has suggested, along with: "America Is Over, But I Won't See It Go Without An Epic Fight." In March, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) posted a meme about a civil war between red states and blue states. King used to hang a Confederate flag in his office despite the fact that he's from Iowa. As it happens, people who claim to love America the most tend to fetishize Confederate memorabilia the most.

Nationalists are not always patriots. Patriots love their country as it is. Nationalists love their country as they imagine it once was, and sometimes not even then. "There seems to be a thin line between violent, extreme nationalism and treason," Harold Ettlinger wrote in The Axis on the Air. "It seems that a man is a fascist before he is an American or a Frenchman or a Norwegian, and that he will betray his country in the interests of fascism. One moment, being a fascist, he is violently nationalistic, working for a political creed which involves exalting his own country above others. The next moment, having been frustrated in his aims, he turns against his country and fights for its downfall, or sees to it, if it has already fallen, that it does not rise again."

This is not to say that Trump is a fascist. He is a narcissist. If Trump is removed from office, is there any doubt that he will root for civil unrest as a way to avenge his wounded feelings? Last week, he said the market would crash without him in the White House. Nothing would please him more. If he suffers, he will try to outsource his suffering to others. In a civil war as in the Vietnam War, Trump will let other people do his fighting for him.

https://theweek.com/articles/869170/...tart-civil-war

(1) no sane person took that literally. you’ve never noticed he exaggerates? when obama said “republicans have to sit in the back of the bus”, did you take that literally? were you upset he was going to violate our civil
rights

(2) forget about trump. think about the notion that if democrats control the legislature, that they tell the american people that if we elect a president they don’t like, they’ll stop governing and focus fanatically on undoing the election, ignoring the will of the people. look at what they’re doing to kavanaugh still, still calling for his impeachment over a secondhand version of an incident the victim won’t admit ever took place. the idea that a party refuses to allow voters to decide things ( even their own voters, through the use of superdelegates to negate what voters do in a primary), its the exact opposite of democracy, it’s fascist.

that concerns a fair number of people. not you though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(1) no sane person took that literally. you’ve never noticed he exaggerates? when obama said “republicans have to sit in the back of the bus”, did you take that literally? were you upset he was going to violate our civil
rights

(2) forget about trump. think about the notion that if democrats control the legislature, that they tell the american people that if we elect a president they don’t like, they’ll stop governing and focus fanatically on undoing the election, ignoring the will of the people. look at what they’re doing to kavanaugh still, still calling for his impeachment over a secondhand version of an incident the victim won’t admit ever took place. the idea that a party refuses to allow voters to decide things ( even their own voters, through the use of superdelegates to negate what voters do in a primary), its the exact opposite of democracy, it’s fascist.

that concerns a fair number of people. not you though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really? Moscow Mitch brings nothing to the floor for a vote, talk about not governing, perfect example of what you think is going on over in the house.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Really? Moscow Mitch brings nothing to the floor for a vote, talk about not governing, perfect example of what you think is going on over in the house.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you moved the goalposts, but ok. i agree that the republicans in the legislature aren’t doing nearly enough to improve the nation. i agree with you. fair enough? i do love the judges they’re appointing though.

i responded to your post, can you show me the same courtesy? why shouldn’t we be concerned, that the democratic party appears to be telling the nation that they will only accept the results of an election, if
they happen to approve of the outcome. if they don’t approve of the outcome, they will
never stop trying to un-do the results of said election.

i hated obama. but he won fair and square, and he was right when he said “elections have consequences”.

democrats are amazingly sore losers.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you moved the goalposts, but ok. i agree that the republicans in the legislature aren’t doing nearly enough to improve the nation. i agree with you. fair enough? i do love the judges they’re appointing though.

i responded to your post, can you show me the same courtesy? why shouldn’t we be concerned, that the democratic party appears to be telling the nation that they will only accept the results of an election, if
they happen to approve of the outcome. if they don’t approve of the outcome, they will
never stop trying to un-do the results of said election.

i hated obama. but he won fair and square, and he was right when he said “elections have consequences”.

democrats are amazingly sore losers.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seriously, your red MAGA hat is too tight. I'd be the first to say I really despise politics and I wish we could get term limits passed, but I don't see this as the right does. Only Trump and his minions see this as some vendetta, because we lost the election.

I'm not getting back into a debate about what Mueller uncovered or why he "couldn't" bring charges, or the spin that this call was "perfect", the congress is doing it's job of oversight and trying to hold this president accountable. He is abusing his power, he is profiting off the office, he continues to obstruct justice and now has reached out to foreign powers to aid in his bid to win the 2020 election. Spin all that anyway you want, but that's what is happening and he has made us that much weaker globally and endangers our national security.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Seriously, your red MAGA hat is too tight. I'd be the first to say I really despise politics and I wish we could get term limits passed, but I don't see this as the right does. Only Trump and his minions see this as some vendetta, because we lost the election.

I'm not getting back into a debate about what Mueller uncovered or why he "couldn't" bring charges, or the spin that this call was "perfect", the congress is doing it's job of oversight and trying to hold this president accountable. He is abusing his power, he is profiting off the office, he continues to obstruct justice and now has reached out to foreign powers to aid in his bid to win the 2020 election. Spin all that anyway you want, but that's what is happening and he has made us that much weaker globally and endangers our national security.

“he is profiting off his office”

agreed. so did biden’s son.

“has reached out to foreign powers to help his re election”.

so did obama when he asked a russian official to postpone missile talks until after his election. so did senate democrats when they asked ukraine to investigate manafort and trump. so has every president ever. much of what they do is to get themselves re elected. if trump gets a good trade deal with china, that would help him get re elected, so is that an impeachable offense?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(1) no sane person took that literally. you’ve never noticed he exaggerates? when obama said “republicans have to sit in the back of the bus”, did you take that literally? were you upset he was going to violate our civil
rights


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One at a time

Over the weekend, the president sent a tweet that seemed to warn of civil war if he were to be impeached and removed from office:


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews

74.8K
9:11 PM - Sep 29, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
65.3K people are talking about this
Although the president was quoting Pastor Robert Jeffress’s comments on Fox News, he was adopting them as his own.

It might seem tempting to dismiss this language as of a piece with President Trump’s typical Twitter rhetoric. But it is worth paying particular attention to this tweet—because among the people who read it were militia groups enthusiastic about exactly what Trump portended. And while no violence has yet resulted from the president’s tweet, it would be foolish to underestimate the power of Trump’s comments to call rogue militias to action, particularly if there is an impeachment and he continues to use this rhetoric to fan the flames. In the days after his civil war tweet, he went on to use similarly incendiary language, referring to impeachment proceedings as a “COUP.”

Consider the Oath Keepers group, a far-right armed militia. Calling on its 24,000 Twitter followers to read the president’s whole tweet thread, the Oath Keepers account posted:


Oath Keepers
@Oathkeepers
Here’s the money quote from that thread. This is the truth. This is where we are. We ARE on the verge of a HOT civil war. Like in 1859. That’s where we are. And the Right has ZERO trust or respect for anything the left is doing. We see THEM as illegitimate too.@StewartRhodesOK https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...77539653771264 …

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews

171
1:59 AM - Sep 30, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
868 people are talking about this
Before this tweet, the Oath Keepers account tweeted that, under the U.S. Constitution, “the militia (that’s us) can be called forth ‘to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.’ ... “All he has to do is call us up. We WILL answer the call.” Other Oath Keeper tweets also hint at violence: One states that “their favorite rifle is the AR 15.”

According to the Oath Keepers’s webpage, the organization is “a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to ‘defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,’” while declaring that they “will not obey unconstitutional orders.” The Anti-Defamation League, by contrast, describes the group as “an anti-government right-wing fringe organization” whose members have appeared “as self-appointed armed guards” at various places around the country, in defiance of what they deem to be unconstitutional government action. Last month, the group sought “security volunteers” from their membership and “other capable patriots” to escort Trump supporters attending a New Mexico rally “to protect them from potential leftist violence.” And last year, the Oath Keepers announced its “Spartan Training Group program,” with the goal of “form[ing] training groups in as many states as possible” to create “a pool of trained, organized volunteers who will be able to serve as the local militia under the command of a patriotic governor loyal to the Constitution, or if called upon by President Trump to serve the nation” (emphasis in original).

The Oath Keepers are far from the only militia group that vocally supports deploying potential force in aid of the president. In November 2018, after Trump pledged to send up to 15,000 U.S. troops to the border to deal with the approaching caravan of Central American migrants, the militia group known as “The Minuteman Project” published an “URGENT CALL FOR TEXAS BORDER OBSERVATION DUTY” to cover the 2,000-mile border from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas. According to U.S. Army documents obtained by Newsweek at the time, the military expressed its concern internally about the presence of unauthorized militias along the border, warning that protests occurring at points of entry historically had been peaceful, “unless extreme right or left groups attend.” The Minuteman Project’s co-founder, Jim Gilchrist, cautioned potential volunteers that their adversaries were “US-based PROPAGANDA organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, People without Borders” and many more groups like them. He further warned members to “use extreme caution when confronted by mainstream media” because “they are not your friends.”

Earlier this year, after Trump’s reelection campaign repeatedly ran ads quoting Trump’s references to an “invasion” on the southern border, another group—the United Constitutional Patriots—set up camp at the New Mexico/Mexico border. Without any legal authorization, this group assumed the duty of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop and detain migrants, all while heavily armed and dressed in military fatigues. In March and April 2019, a spokesperson for the group, Jim Benvie, regularly posted livestream videos on Facebook showing militia members chasing and capturing migrants while armed with assault rifles, and detaining them until they could be turned over to U.S. officials. In other posts, the United Constitutional Patriots described themselves as combatants in a “war” raging along the border due to migrants’ “invasion” of the country and actively sought to recruit people with military or law enforcement experience to join them. One such recruit, upon observing migrants while on “patrol” at the border, reportedly grabbed his AR-15 and asked his fellow militia member, “Why are we just apprehending them and not lining them up and shooting them?” In April, after the group’s “national commander” was arrested on unrelated charges and the Union Pacific Railroad ordered the group off of its property, significant media attention exposed the militia’s activities and it reconstituted itself as the Guardian Patriots, decamped to private land with the owners’ consent, and closed its public Facebook account.

Both of these armed militias took action at least in part in response to Trump’s rhetoric about the need to secure the southern border. Now that the president has invoked the idea of civil war, there is a risk that armed groups will take heed of this language too, whenever the president suggests that it is time.

Federal criminal law prohibits “rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,” including incitement or assistance to such rebellion or insurrection. It also prohibits conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government, levy war against it or oppose its authority by force. Based on the organization’s declared mission, there’s little doubt that the Oath Keepers would view any impeachment action by congress as “unconstitutional” and therefore not to be obeyed. Although the group’s current tweets come close to calling for rebellion or insurrection should that happen, there’s been no indication that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating. Are the militias drawing up plans for possible civil war, for example? Are they training? Are they stockpiling weapons? These are things that law enforcement should be investigating, whether under federal law or state law.

[wdmso]

More of its its just hyperbole ... excuses. when i was in london boris johnson express extending the brexit dead line should be called the surrender act .. parliament went nuts ..they called it incendiary language..

TRUMP claim there will be a civil war (like A strongman would say) the cult of personality minimize it to hyperbole..amazing to watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

More of its its just hyperbole ... excuses. when i was in london boris johnson express extending the brexit dead line should be called the surrender act .. parliament went nuts ..they called it incendiary language..

TRUMP claim there will be a civil war (like A strongman would say) the cult of personality minimize it to hyperbole..amazing to watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so if it’s not hyperbole, where is the war? how many democrats got shot in 5th avenue, when he made that idiotic, but obviously not to be taken literally, comment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

he “seemed to” warn of a civil
war. and even though he didn’t threaten ukraine ( as opposed to Biden), we can infer it, because that what Don Corleone did in the Godfather.

one moment he’s a baby like buffoon, the next moment he’s a cunning, shrewd mafia don. it’s hard to keep up with all the accusations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

he “seemed to” warn of a civil
war. and even though he didn’t threaten ukraine ( as opposed to Biden), we can infer it, because that what Don Corleone did in the Godfather.

one moment he’s a baby like buffoon, the next moment he’s a cunning, shrewd mafia don. it’s hard to keep up with all the accusations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are distracting. Again. There is a transcript. There are documents. The IGIC says this is all credible. Try focusing on that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You are distracting. Again. There is a transcript. There are documents. The IGIC says this is all credible. Try focusing on that.

Yes, do focus on the transcript. There is nothing in it that shows Trump being criminal or impeachable.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, do focus on the transcript. There is nothing in it that shows Trump being criminial or impeachable.

i guess that’s what i’m confused by, what’s the most damning thing he said in the transcript? and i mean what’s actually in there, not Chris Cuomos interpretation of what he said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, do focus on the transcript. There is nothing in it that shows Trump being criminial or impeachable.

A crime is not a requirement of impeachment.
Impeachment is a vote in the House and anything is impeachable.
Look at the reasons proposed for impeaching the last President.

Job offer to Pennsylvania Representative Joe Sestak
Preventing Obama from "pushing his agenda"
Obama administration immigration policy
Libya intervention
Benghazi attack
Impeachment requested by a townhall meeting audience member
False claims of being born outside the United States
IRS targeting conservatives
Debt ceiling crisis
Hearing on "President's Constitutional Duty"
Prisoner swap
Transgender bathroom directive

The Transcript shows bribery as defined by the Founders.
Perhaps the stenographers very professional exact words that Trump claims exist will show more or was he hyperbolizing once again.

In fact, Trump’s conduct almost certainly satisfies the modern statutory standard for bribery. As Randall Eliason has explained, a quid pro quo “need not be stated in express terms; corrupt actors are seldom so clumsy, and the law may not be evaded through winks and nods.” We have little doubt that a prosecutor would be able to establish a quid pro quo based on what was said on the call and the surrounding facts and context. (As an aside, Trump’s conduct also likely qualifies as extortion. As James Lindgren has explained at length, historically there has been a substantial overlap between the concepts of extortion and bribery, and around the time of the Founding, the terms were often used to describe the same conduct.)

But even if Trump’s actions do not satisfy the modern criminal standard for bribery, the argument from Trump’s defenders is misplaced—because the federal statute isn’t the relevant statement of the law in the context of impeachment.

The Founders had no intent of tying the constitutional definition of bribery to federal criminal statutory law. On the most basic level, no federal criminal code existed at the time that the Constitution was drafted. Beyond that, the Framers had no reason to believe that Congress would enact federal criminal statutes in the future. As Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz explain in their comprehensive book on impeachment, “To End a Presidency,” criminal law was understood to be the province of the states, and there was very little federal criminal law at all until the mid-20th century. To the extent there was federal criminal law, it followed the common law model. That is why the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors can’t be limited by federal statutes. The same goes for bribery—as there was no general federal bribery statute at all until 1853.

[Got Stripers]

Spinning must make you dizzy Jim.

[Pete F.]

Trump just committed a felony violation of law by soliciting something of value in connection with a US election from a foreign gov’t on national TV. 52 U.S. Code § 30121. Violating the law isn’t necessary for Impeachment but it certainly warrants it.
The statute requires knowledge your conduct is a crime. After the Mueller investigation, there’s no way Trump was unaware this violates the law. Ukraine/China can you hear me is even worse than Russia, if that’s possible, because it comes from a sitting president.
Campaign finance crimes also require a thing of value be involved. But as FEC Chair Ellen Weintraub recently said, you don’t have to be able to assign a dollar amount. But, in the case of Ukraine, Trump did this. The help he sought was worth $400mil in US aid. That’s a felony
The key here is recalling impeachment doesn’t require a felony. Impeachment is meant, in the immortal words of Lindsey Graham to cleanse the office. But for those who’ve demanded a felony crime before a president can be impeached, here it is in plain view.

We know that Trump has enlisted Pompeo, Ghouliani, Foreign leaders & possibly others to defraud the United States & its campaign laws.

"Russia, if you're listening" is now China, Ukraine, anyone if you're listening, help me and I'll be there for you, not for America.

[Sea Dangles]

The only recent president to not profit from the office is Jimmy Carter. The Clintons sure used it to right their ship. Obama also did pretty well considering he just bought a house that was for sale for 20 million. Which happens to be on the climate change/ global warming watch list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Trump just has no filter, right on the south lawn when asked what he wanted from Ukraine, he admitted he wanted Biden investigated and had the stupidity to ask China do the same. Are you guys ignoring the obvious, this clown will deal out national security in exchange for four more years. The stupid arrogant filterless crap coming out of his mouth never ends and just when we think it can’t possibly get worse it does. I just can’t see republicans holding down this Trump island for long before defections begin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Trump just has no filter, right on the south lawn when asked what he wanted from Ukraine, he admitted he wanted Biden investigated and had the stupidity to ask China do the same. Are you guys ignoring the obvious, this clown will deal out national security in exchange for four more years. The stupid arrogant filterless crap coming out of his mouth never ends and just when we think it can’t possibly get worse it does. I just can’t see republicans holding down this Trump island for long before defections begin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He has no filter, none whatsoever. He also says a lot of stupid, arrogant crap. Does anyone deny this? The remedy for all of that, is winning the next election, not in-doing the previous one.

I don't see him as a national security threat.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He has no filter, none whatsoever. He also says a lot of stupid, arrogant crap. Does anyone deny this? The remedy for all of that, is winning the next election, not in-doing the previous one.

I don't see him as a national security threat.

Favors are a funny thing, once you have a few foreign powers doing you favors, they are going to request you do the same. Most likely those requests will not be in plain sight or public, but could very well impact our national security.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Favors are a funny thing, once you have a few foreign powers doing you favors, they are going to request you do the same. Most likely those requests will not be in plain sight or public, but could very well impact our national security.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Trump is the first President to ask favors, of the kind that would make the person granting the favor, entitled to a favor in return? That doesn't happen every day in politics?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Favors are a funny thing, once you have a few foreign powers doing you favors, they are going to request you do the same. Most likely those requests will not be in plain sight or public, but could very well impact our national security.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Favors" requested through MLAT's are not personal political favors. Wikipedia: "A mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) is an agreement between two or more countries for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information in an effort to enforce public or criminal laws . . . for requesting and obtaining evidence for criminal investigations and prosecutions."

Partners in MLAT are obligated to provide assistance in those specific matters. It's not a scratch my back I'll scratch yours situation. It's a treaty obligation.

[Pete F.]

As a practical matter, China will now see investigating Trump’s potential political opponent as a bargaining chip in the ongoing trade negotiations.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A crime is not a requirement of impeachment.
Impeachment is a vote in the House and anything is impeachable.

If you're trying to school me on what it takes to impeach, you needn't bother. I have stated at least two times on this forum that the House could impeach for any reason it wants if it has the votes.

Look at the reasons proposed for impeaching the last President.

Job offer to Pennsylvania Representative Joe Sestak
Preventing Obama from "pushing his agenda"
Obama administration immigration policy
Libya intervention
Benghazi attack
Impeachment requested by a townhall meeting audience member
False claims of being born outside the United States
IRS targeting conservatives
Debt ceiling crisis
Hearing on "President's Constitutional Duty"
Prisoner swap
Transgender bathroom directive

Here we go again. What you do best. Change the subject. Pile on with stuff that has nothing to do with the transcript. As if spouting out a whole lot of words is enough to make it sound that you have a valid point.

The Transcript shows bribery as defined by the Founders.
Perhaps the stenographers very professional exact words that Trump claims exist will show more or was he hyperbolizing once again.

I don't recall how the Founders defined bribery. Perhaps you could refresh. I don't see bribery in the transcript. As for withholding funds, it seems that the Ukraine Pres. didn't know about that till after the phone call. And it has been explained and corroborated, that the temporary fund withholding was to gain leverage in getting the Europeans to pony up more aid for Ukraine than they were giving. As for the Bidens, when Trump asked for help, he directly referred to Ukraine's possible interference in the election. Trump didn't say anything about the Bidens until after the Ukraine President brought it up.

In fact, Trump’s conduct almost certainly satisfies the modern statutory standard for bribery. As Randall Eliason has explained, a quid pro quo “need not be stated in express terms; corrupt actors are seldom so clumsy, and the law may not be evaded through winks and nods.” We have little doubt that a prosecutor would be able to establish a quid pro quo based on what was said on the call and the surrounding facts and context. (As an aside, Trump’s conduct also likely qualifies as extortion. As James Lindgren has explained at length, historically there has been a substantial overlap between the concepts of extortion and bribery, and around the time of the Founding, the terms were often used to describe the same conduct.)

But even if Trump’s actions do not satisfy the modern criminal standard for bribery, the argument from Trump’s defenders is misplaced—because the federal statute isn’t the relevant statement of the law in the context of impeachment.

The Founders had no intent of tying the constitutional definition of bribery to federal criminal statutory law. On the most basic level, no federal criminal code existed at the time that the Constitution was drafted. Beyond that, the Framers had no reason to believe that Congress would enact federal criminal statutes in the future. As Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz explain in their comprehensive book on impeachment, “To End a Presidency,” criminal law was understood to be the province of the states, and there was very little federal criminal law at all until the mid-20th century. To the extent there was federal criminal law, it followed the common law model. That is why the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors can’t be limited by federal statutes. The same goes for bribery—as there was no general federal bribery statute at all until 1853.

OK, so what you're saying is that there is no federal statutory reason here for the impeachment by this federal House of Representatives (there is no evidence of bribery in the transcript). And we both agree that Congress can cook up any grounds it wants to impeach if it has the votes.

This post by you was in response to my saying yes, do focus on the transcript. As usual, you wander on to other possibilities and conjectures. And, in the end, you seem to settle on this impeachment attempt being for whatever the House wants it to be about. The transcript, which I said to focus on (which I thought you wanted to do in your post that I responded to), in substantive fact, has no statutory or criminal reasons for impeachment. It's simply about the House wanting to impeach.

In substantive fact, actually, the transcript does contain a legitimate request, per the treaty with Ukraine, to assist on a matter pertaining to an ongoing DOJ investigation. That is something you, to this point, have avoided talking about. Why?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

OK, so what you're saying is that there is no federal statutory reason here for the impeachment by this federal House of Representatives (there is no evidence of bribery in the transcript). And we both agree that Congress can cook up any grounds it wants to impeach if it has the votes.

This post by you was in response to my saying yes, do focus on the transcript. As usual, you wander on to other possibilities and conjectures. And, in the end, you seem to settle on this impeachment attempt being for whatever the House wants it to be about. The transcript, which I said to focus on (which I thought you wanted to do in your post that I responded to), in substantive fact, has no statutory or criminal reasons for impeachment. It's simply about the House wanting to impeach.

In substantive fact, actually, the transcript does contain a legitimate request, per the treaty with Ukraine, to assist on a matter pertaining to an ongoing DOJ investigation. That is something you, to this point, have avoided talking about. Why?

Detbuch, do you know if the Europeans did, in fact, pony up more?

Is there legitimate, credible evidence to suggest aid was withheld to get the Europeans to help more, rather than to pressure them on Biden? Or is it all he said / she said?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Detbuch, do you know if the Europeans did, in fact, pony up more?

Is there legitimate, credible evidence to suggest aid was withheld to get the Europeans to help more, rather than to pressure them on Biden? Or is it all he said / she said?

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, EU institutions top the OECD’s list of the top 10 donors of official development assistance to Ukraine, with $425.2 million contributed on average for 2016-2017. The U.S. was second with $204.4 million in assistance, closely followed by Germany, which contributed $189.8 million on its own, in addition to contributions it would have made through the European Union.

CSIS’ King, a former U.K. defense and foreign conflict specialist, detailed the aid the U.S. and other countries have provided to Ukraine in a Sept. 26 report. U.S. Agency for International Development figures King cited show the U.S. has contributed between $272 million and $513 million annually since 2014. As for military assistance, the U.S. has contributed about $800 million, “which includes small arms, counter-narcotics efforts, training programs, and military advisers to support and improve the Ukrainian forces, among others,” King wrote.

Those are sizable numbers, but the EU has given more. “The European Union is the largest donor to Ukraine” King wrote, estimating that the EU has given almost twice as much on average per year than the U.S. since 2014.

Maja Kocijancic, EU spokesperson for foreign affairs and security policy, told us in an email, “The European Union’s support to Ukraine is unprecedented. In these five years, we have put together for Ukraine the largest support package in the history of the European Union.”

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

OK, so what you're saying is that there is no federal statutory reason here for the impeachment by this federal House of Representatives (there is no evidence of bribery in the transcript). And we both agree that Congress can cook up any grounds it wants to impeach if it has the votes.

This post by you was in response to my saying yes, do focus on the transcript. As usual, you wander on to other possibilities and conjectures. And, in the end, you seem to settle on this impeachment attempt being for whatever the House wants it to be about. The transcript, which I said to focus on (which I thought you wanted to do in your post that I responded to), in substantive fact, has no statutory or criminal reasons for impeachment. It's simply about the House wanting to impeach.

In substantive fact, actually, the transcript does contain a legitimate request, per the treaty with Ukraine, to assist on a matter pertaining to an ongoing DOJ investigation. That is something you, to this point, have avoided talking about. Why?

Show me the legitimate request in the memo, per the treaty.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Show me the legitimate request in the memo, per the treaty.

Are you for real? The whole nonsense is about Trump's request for aid from a foreign government. That request, per the MLAT treaty was valid and treaty members are obliged, per treaty, to assist when asked.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Are you for real? The whole nonsense is about Trump's request for aid from a foreign government. That request, per the MLAT treaty was valid and treaty members are obliged, per treaty, to assist when asked.

And legitimate requests are typically hidden on that server?

Presidential conversations with a foreign leader are circulated among the members of the administration that are affected by them.
No one saw it.
They buried it.
They buried the whistleblowers report.
They are stonewalling the investigation.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And legitimate requests are typically hidden on that server?

Presidential conversations with a foreign leader are circulated among the members of the administration that are affected by them.
No one saw it.
They buried it.
They buried the whistleblowers report.
They are stonewalling the investigation.

Trump released the transcript. It is not hidden. If you don't know what is on the server, how can you definitively accuse Trump of bribery, treachery, high crimes and misdemeanors?