Graham refuses to read impeachment transcripts.

[timothyu]

they will not stiffle republicans from asking questions,

Just from answering them it seems.

 

[timothyu]

God, since the Garden, has told mankind not to put personal interests first. Mr Trump and others like him, do nothing but put personal interests first. It is the way of leaders and business, especially financial. So why do so many Christians still defend this way of thinking? God is no doubt kept busy with His whiteout and the Book.

 

[GodLovesCats]

God, since the Garden, has told mankind not to put personal interests first. Mr Trump and others like him, do nothing but put personal interests first. It is the way of leaders and business, especially financial. So why do so many Christians still defend this way of thinking? God is no doubt kept busy with His whiteout and the Book.

I started a thread about this in the appropriate forum (Christians Only General Politics). Apparently, most Christians who voted for Donald Trump think although he is a very bad man, tackling the issues that they agree with him on the way he promised everyone to is good enough for them. I cannot agree with that at all and will forever remember him as the worst President ever because of his behavior. Only God is above the law.

 

[KCfromNC]

So why are the President's lawyers arguing that he is above the law, that he could even murder someone and not be investigated or prosecuted?

Seems like behavior consistent with knowing that the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that their client broke the law.

 

[Kentonio]

Only the U.S. Constitution determines that. Of course, that document says nobody is above the law, which includes the President. That is explicit. Did you take any American history and government classes in high school? If so, you know this.

Since Nixon the DoJ have followed a policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office. That policy is absolutely toxic and leads to situations such as the Mueller investigation where a President was found to have broken the law by obstructing justice in multiple instances yet the DoJ found themselves unable to prosecute.

That means the President is above the law. He broke the law, they investigated and found sufficient evidence to hand out indictments and yet were unable to do so.

All Mueller could do was hand it over to congress (which Barr interfered with, again obstructing justice) and for political reasons congress were unable to do anything about it. Again, the President was above the law.

Now don’t get me wrong, the constitution was written with the very clear intent of ensuring even a president is not above the law. The debates of the time make that crystal clear. But the way the constitution has been either interpreted or simply ignored since has left you in a position whereby in practical terms the president has been above the law for at least 45 years.

If you guys want to finally fix that by having SCOTUS deliver clear constitutional guidance on the situation then great. But until then the president remains above the law.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Kent, this proves my repeated claims that no matter what was in the Rober Mueller report, we know for a fact Donald Trump broke laws and should have been thrown out of office two years ago.

 

[NotreDame]

We are talking about domestic political gain to win a future election (just in case Biden is his opponent). I always read this is on the list of "high crimes or misdemanors" throughout the impeachment inquiry. This is not about devloping a foreign policy to help ourselves at all, but counterproductive.

That is the allegation. You are presently treating an allegation as a fact.

I always read this is on the list of "high crimes or misdemanors" throughout the impeachment inquiry.

What you read could not possibly be incorrect.

 

[timothyu]

If anything all this shows is that government is a business and consumers have little say unless of course they refuse to buy any of it.

 

[NotreDame]

So basically you are just calling me a liar, never even addressing what I stated.





And, if you notice, the above points to "multiple discussions" in the US -- this was a government decision that Biden conveyed, not something he came up with on the spot.

Additionally, it appears to have been fairly well known in the US government, the IMF, and allegedly our European allies, that Shokin was corrupt and had stopped investigating Burisma. Additionally, since Shokin was removed, statements from those that worked with Shokin confirmed that he was not investigating Burisma (or any other corruption). The facts don't support Biden removing Shokin to stop the investigation -- if anything it was to get the investigation started again.

Last, the investigation into Burisma was based on events that occurred around 2010, four years before Hunter Biden joined the board. So Hunter Biden was never being investigated, and there is little reason to believe that Joe Biden should care about stopping an investigation into events that did not involve his son. Not to mention, it has been stated that Ukraine found no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.



If it wasn't known within the US Government that Shokin was corrupt, if this was Joe Biden merely trying to protect his son, you don't think he ever would have mentioned it to anyone? And since you don't believe he did it in the US, why would he have done it in Ukraine -- particularly since the evidence I've seen shows there were far more conversations about it in the US?

Basically, Biden's motivations are important -- and rate an investigation into wrongdoing by Ukraine but not in the US (despite a former Ukrainian Prosecutor who allegedly did investigate found no evidence against the Bidens -- but Trump's motivations don't matter? Is that seriously what you are trying to claim?

No, I've seen interviews with Obama era cabinet and sub-cabinet officials on the subject, where they talk about why the US government required Shokin to be removed. They are the ones saying he was being removed because he was corrupt, because he was not investigating Burisma, and that Biden was not the leader in calling for Shokin to be removed. It was a joint decision agreed on with the full support of agencies such as the CIA and State Department. For that matter, we have the letter, signed by Republican Senators, that agreed with the conditions Ukraine needed to meet to issue the loan.

And, if you notice, the above points to "multiple discussions" in the US -- this was a government decision that Biden conveyed, not something he came up with on the spot.

Additionally, it appears to have been fairly well known in the US government, the IMF, and allegedly our European allies, that Shokin was corrupt and had stopped investigating Burisma. Additionally, since Shokin was removed, statements from those that worked with Shokin confirmed that he was not investigating Burisma (or any other corruption). The facts don't support Biden removing Shokin to stop the investigation -- if anything it was to get the investigation started again.

Last, the investigation into Burisma was based on events that occurred around 2010, four years before Hunter Biden joined the board. So Hunter Biden was never being investigated, and there is little reason to believe that Joe Biden should care about stopping an investigation into events that did not involve his son. Not to mention, it has been stated that Ukraine found no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.

Edifying, but none of this establishes Biden could not have had an ulterior motive, as professed by Trump. Neither do these facts demonstrate Biden could not have said to the Ukrainians he wanted the prosecutor fired to protect the company his son sat on as a board member.

To highlight a few points.

there is little reason to believe that Joe Biden should care about stopping an investigation into events that did not involve his son.

"Little reason" to who? You? Maybe Biden saw it differently. Maybe Biden's perceptions were wrong, which led him to care about the company his son sat on as a board member. Maybe VP Biden, whose son had already been discharged from the military for drug use, and the appearance of impropriety for sitting on the board, worried about the potential damage to his son's image if the company he sat on was ultimately found to be corrupt.

The facts don't support Biden removing Shokin to stop the investigation -- if anything it was to get the investigation started again.

Doubtful. The advocacy for removal of Shokin was not necessarily to have the Burisma investigation develop but instead a necessary step towards a prosecutor who would actively pursue corruption.

If it wasn't known within the US Government that Shokin was corrupt, if this was Joe Biden merely trying to protect his son, you don't think he ever would have mentioned it to anyone?

It is plausible he would not and understandable why he would not. I did not say I "do not think he ever would..." I never made such a reckless, absolute statement. Furthermore, my remark it is plausible he said nothing to anyone in the U.S. was made to repudiate this silly idea that unless an investigation was underway in the U.S., then Trump was acting superficially. That is a tenuous argument on account of what we know.

And since you don't believe he did it in the US [/

Thank you for the Strawman argument. I did not say, "don't believe he did it in the U.S.."

why would he have done it in Ukraine -- particularly since the evidence I've seen shows there were far more conversations about it in the US

Is this a rhetorical question. He might have communicated his ulterior desires in Ukraine since it was a Ukrainian company, a Ukrainian prosecutor, an investigation in Ukraine, and it just made sense to communicate it directly to the Ukrainians as opposed to calling the Portuguese and telling them why he has a desire to have the prosecutor in Ukraine removed.

And you can reference discussions taking place in the U.S. to the point of ad nauseum, none of those discussions in the U.S. means there is any evidence of Biden's alleged ulterior motive or him discussing such a motive to anyone in the U.S.

Your version seems to force us to believe that Biden would be perfect at hiding his real motivations within the US, but then blurt out his "real reasons" to Ukraine in the hours he spent there. It just isn't logical.

Another one of the fabled "I say so, therefore it is" approaches. To the contrary, Biden not disclosing his alleged ulterior motive in the U.S. makes perfect sense. His ulterior motive, being improper, would risk him not being sent at all if U.S. officials discovered he was going to disclose to the Ukrainians they had to fire the prosecutor out of a personal interest to protect the company his son sat on as a board member. Of course, given how corrupt Ukraine was, VP Biden may have reasoned he could make such a disclosure to the Ukrainians and have plausible deniability of his word verses the word of a corrupt government and corrupt nation. That is a logical explanation of what could have happened.

but Trump's motivations don't matter? Is that seriously what you are trying to claim?

No.

 

[NotreDame]

A nation of laws where the president can’t even be indicted for crimes and the rich walk free of crimes that the poor receive long sentences for? Ok then.

A few points. First, the conventional wisdom is a "sitting president" cannot be indicted. That is hardly an umbrella of impunity.

The second part of your phrase is so ambiguous and abstract as to not merit any serious consideration. Where is the evidence for your assertion of "the rich walk free of crimes that the poor receive long sentences for."

 

[NotreDame]

If the Senate was blue we would have no doubt the President will be convicted. It is not that he can't be - his friends just don't want to do the right thing.

Oh? The right thing according to you? Can you not take seriously the fact that it is possible some people might not genuinely share in your devout, religious like belief to what is the "right thing." You are so convinced the outcome you characterize as the "right thing" such that anyone who could possibly be in disagreement with the outcome cannot be right, so you come up with a nifty little phrase no one would dispute of "right thing."

 

[NotreDame]

Laws that must be followed except if you’re the president and are apparently above the law. Or if the president’s DoJ decide they don’t want to apply the law in certain cases. Or if you’re very rich and your sentence magically becomes a slap on the wrist for a crime that a minority poor person would receive decades for. Or a constitution that the president can simply ignore (emoluments clause comes to mind) and describe as ‘phony’.

America is many good things, but a ‘nation of laws’ is kind of pushing it.

This would be persuasive if the remarks had even a remote attachment to reality.

 

[Kentonio]

A few points. First, the conventional wisdom is a "sitting president" cannot be indicted. That is hardly an umbrella of impunity.

The second part of your phrase is so ambiguous and abstract as to not merit any serious consideration. Where is the evidence for your assertion of "the rich walk free of crimes that the poor receive long sentences for."

Would you like some examples?

 

[GodLovesCats]

That is the allegation. You are presently treating an allegation as a fact.

If you can't prove I am wrong, you are wrong. Allegations are based on facts.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Oh? The right thing according to you? Can you not take seriously the fact that it is possible some people might not genuinely share in your devout, religious like belief to what is the "right thing." You are so convinced the outcome you characterize as the "right thing" such that anyone who could possibly be in disagreement with the outcome cannot be right, so you come up with a nifty little phrase no one would dispute of "right thing."

It is possible for people to have their heads stuck in the sand. The people who do pay attention know that the released call transcript is a summary; Trump prevented first-hand witnesses from testifying; a variety of other witnesses with first-hand information agreed to testify under oath; and Trump broke federal laws that are impeachable acts. So there is only one possible "right thing" to do, not subject to opinions, which is throw him out of the White House.

 

[timothyu]

As you may know I really don't see any purpose in either side, but these hearings are entertaining, one side being so determined to gain and the other absolutely so snarky with their cute mockery it is embarrassing.

It says a lot why the human race fell into disfavour with God.

 

[GodLovesCats]

There is obviously a purpose: to obey the highest law of the land, the U.S. Consitution, which states after the President commits "high crimes or misdemeanors" he must be impeached and tried for conviction. No one who has been paying attention can deny Donald Trump has broken laws and therefore Democrats are doing what we pay them to do.

 

[timothyu]

My point is nothing about the whole process or government or world serves the Kingdom so it is hardly worthy immersing oneself into that which God condemned (except perhaps for the amusement afforded in seeing how rebellious we can be to God's will... it should give us a better understanding of what to avoid).

 

[GodLovesCats]

America is by Constitutional law not permitted to have a state religion. So their job has never been about immersing itself into God's Kingdom. Only the Constitution matters when talking about the highest laws - never the Bible. So the highest law of the land must be followed by going through impeachment hearings.

 

[timothyu]

America is by Constitutional law not permitted to have a state religion. So their job has never been about immersing itself into God's Kingdom.

Understood. Why do those of God's kingdom immerse themselves then in the ways of man?