Graham refuses to read impeachment transcripts.

[GodLovesCats]

When did I say it is not absolute?

Under no circumstances can a President make quid pro quo demands to a foreign leader for political gain. That is exactly what Donald Trump did.

 

[Kentonio]

Nope. The article defines a unitary executive as “That means that the President can do what he likes with his Executive branch subordinates—hire them, fire them, ignore them, order them to act in certain ways, and the like.”

That is NOT my view. My view qualifies when the President may ask subordinates to do something, which is very different than the meaning of unitary executive in the article. My principle limits when the President can ask for an investigation of a person, including a political rival, and that is different from the limitless definition in the article of “President can do what he likes.” My view is not the “President can do what he likes.”

So, the article isn’t a refutation of my view.



So what. That’s not an issue. Some independence is preferred but as the sagacious author so astutely observed, those entities in the executive branch, such as the DOJ, are not entirely independent of the President. “ But I agree with Davis that it would be a disaster if the DOJ and FBI were unaccountable. Fortunately, they are not.”

He’s right. Those entities are answerable to the President.

And, as the article conceded, some of the independence of those entities is established by practice only, not by the Constitution. Practice isn’t superior to the Constituon. Any other independence the article discusses as arising from practice doesn’t bind Trump.

The constitution does not give him clear authority to personally run every aspect of law enforcement. If it did he truly would be above all law. The practice is all we really have to go on, or probably soon the ruling of the Supreme Court on where the limits of his power lie.

 

[NotreDame]

The constitution does not give him clear authority to personally run every aspect of law enforcement. If it did he truly would be above all law. The practice is all we really have to go on, or probably soon the ruling of the Supreme Court on where the limits of his power lie.

The constitution does not give him clear authority to personally run every aspect of law enforcement.

Besides he point, I’ve never taken this position.

The practice is all we really have to go on, or probably soon the ruling of the Supreme Court on where the limits of his power lie

Practice is not law. Custom is not law. We are a nation of laws, not tradition.

 

[BobRyan]

Graham says he won't read the Trump impeachment transcripts

Lindsey Graham said that IF this thing makes it to the Senate they will call witnesses that Adam Schiff will not allow and that they will not stiffle republicans from asking questions, and Graham stated that Schiff is a material witness to the matter as is the "WB" who also will be unmasked to see just how "biased" and "tainted" the WB is in his own connection to Biden, since even the WB has no first-hand knowledge of the call.

Why would he need to rely on Schiff's admittedly slanted and partisan hatched job when he can get "the full scope" of evidence if it ever makes it to the Senate??

 

[NotreDame]

When did I say it is not absolute?

Under no circumstances can a President make quid pro quo demands to a foreign leader for political gain. That is exactly what Donald Trump did.

It remains to be determined “exactly what Donald Trump did.” I’ll wait to hear and read the testimony from the House inquiry. I’m not in a hurry to rush to judgment like you.

But let’s explore the sensibility of your proposition.

Again, what if it is alleged VP Biden, while in Ukraine, agreed to sell nuclear secrets to Ukrainians if they dropped an investigation into his son for alleged corporate malfeasance, then Trump would be justified in demanding Ukraine investigate to ascertain what happened, what was said. Would Trump be justified to call for an investigation in your opinion?

Now, let’s assume Trump has two motives to call for an investigation in the hypo above. Let’s assume Trump realizes calling for the investigation against Biden, a political rival, would benefit him politically. But simultaneously, Trump is concerned with what Biden said or did, and rightfully so given what Biden is alleged to have done in my hypo.

Is it your view Trump cannot ask Ukraine to investigate on the basis the investigation involves a political rival and he’d benefit from the existence of an investigation? It is your view Trump has to be mute? He can’t ask Ukraine what happened or to investigate what occurred?

 

[BobRyan]

No, his reasons do not “hinge on his credibility.” For purposes of impeachment, something more substantial, palpable, is needed to show he has a false narrative other than “credibility.” And the argument he lied in the past he is therefore lying now is not a good argument, and it is not sufficient for impeachment.

No reliance on credibility is needed now that the call transcript is released to congress.

 

[BobRyan]

I can’t defend Graham’s commentary.

I can, however, address what, ostensibly, is being ignored, Trump’s proposed reasons for asking an investigation into Biden. .

A president can at his discretion ask any foreign government to investigate corruption within its own government and any criminal activity it may have engaged in with an American citizen. Not that much "breaking news" on that point.

We were not born yesterday

It was no secret that Burisma had been tainted by corruption.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It is not my personal opinion but the facts that have clearly been presented based on the Constitution the U.S. President is not allowed to:

1. Bribe other government officials (which Trump did)
   
2. Use a foreign leader like Zelensky for political gain
3. Conditionally withhold security aid to other nations

In addition Bill Taylor testified in his opening statement timeline the security aid to Ukraine that Congress approved must by law be sent within 45 days and Donald Trump finally did it 51 days later. It therefore is a violation of U.S. law because he failed to meet the deadline - on purpose, based on evidence.

 

[NotreDame]

But illegal isn't necessarily needed, "improper and unethical" is enough for impeachment.



No, and I attempted to correct your impression in my last post. I'd also state that what you "really" wanted is not clear at all, since it seems you are saying something similar to almost everyone else.



I'm conjecturing nothing. I'm noting that there were multiple discussions in the US, even between different branches of the US government, and if Biden's motives were something other than removing a corrupt prosecutor, that it is likely it would have come up, at some point, in those various discussions. Additionally, it is those discussions that are important.

If a joint decision was made in the US that the prosecutor needed to be removed, then any information from Ukraine is likely of secondary importance -- as the decision to insist the prosecutor be fired was not made in Ukraine.



I'm not saying there is no evidence in Ukraine, just that it is secondary to what could be found in the US. And again, other than his political campaign, what is the purpose of knowing if Biden did something that wasn't illegal, but might have been unethical? It wouldn't have made a difference in the $1 billion the US was giving Ukraine for the Javelins -- either because there was no quid pro quo or, if there was, it was only conditional on announcing an investigation.

What makes it even worse is that allegedly the President of Ukraine was going to announce the investigation -- which was cancelled one the whistleblower report went public -- and the Trump campaign had bought advertising attacking Biden for what occurred in Ukraine, that were to air after that announcement.

No, and I attempted to correct your impression in my last post. I'd also state that what you "really" wanted is not clear at all, since it seems you are saying something similar to almost everyone else.

My impression doesn’t need correction. You told me what I was “really” wanting. That was the problem.

Second, what I’ve aked for has been “clear.” I stated unequivocally my view in a prior post to another poster, that subsequently resulted in the progeny of posts you interjected in the middle of with your post. You may have missed what I asked for because you didn’t trace the dialogue back to my post.

I'm conjecturing nothing. I'm noting that there were multiple discussions in the US,

You’re conjecturing ad nauseum. How do you know there were “multiple discussions in the U.S.?” Do you know the content of those dialogues? Did they involve the VP? Any evidence to think VP Biden spoke to any of them about threatening to withhold U.S. aid to protect his son by asking for the head of the prosecutor investigating the company is son sat on as a board member?

if Biden's motives were something other than removing a corrupt prosecutor, that it is likely it would have come up,

More conjecture. The word “likely” refers to probabilities, specifically that it is at least 51% or higher that Biden’s ulterior motive was discussed. Probability must be supported by evidence, in which the evidence shows the likelihood. You have no evidence at all to demonstrate how or why it is likely Biden would discuss his ulterior motive with anyone in the U.S. But Biden had very good reasons not to say anything to anyone in the U.S. about an ulterior motive.

So, you are conjecturing. Your conjectural probability isn’t persuasive.

then any information from Ukraine is likely of secondary importance

This isn’t persuasive because it ignores why Trump said he wanted an investigation. The decision to ask for removal of the prosecutor isn’t the issue, Biden’s reasons for doing so IS, and Trump is alleging Biden did it for the personal gain of protecting his son. Hence, what Biden said to the Ukrainian about the aid and prosecutor while Ukraine isn’t secondary.

 

[NotreDame]

It is not my personal opinion but the facts that have clearly been presented based on the Constitution the U.S. President is not allowed to:

1. Bribe other government officials (which Trump did)
   
2. Use a foreign leader like Zelensky for political gain
3. Conditionally withhold security aid to other nations

In addition Bill Taylor testified in his opening statement timeline the security aid to Ukraine that Congress approved must by law be sent within 45 days and Donald Trump finally did it 51 days later. It therefore is a violation of U.S. law because he failed to meet the deadline - on purpose, based on evidence.

Yeah, still some serious flaws in your argument.

Bribe other government officials (which Trump did)

No, it is alleged this is what Trump did. You are treating allegations as fact.

Use a foreign leader like Zelensky for political gain

What constitutional provision forbids this? I’m dubious because foreign diplomacy and foreign policy inherently involves political gain. And foreign leaders use each other for political gain all the time. Reagan built a relationship and used his relationship with Gorbachev to develop a foreign policy and achieve some gains from that foreign policy that he then could use for political gain with the American people.

Conditionally withhold security aid to other nations

Where is this forbidden in the Constitution?

It therefore is a violation of U.S. law because he failed to meet the deadline - on purpose, based on evidence

Shift goal posts much? This isn’t the essence of the impeachment inquiry.

 

[GodLovesCats]

What constitutional provision forbids this? I’m dubious because foreign diplomacy and foreign policy inherently involves political gain. And foreign leaders use each other for political gain all the time. Reagan built a relationship and used his relationship with Gorbachev to develop a foreign policy and achieve some gains from that foreign policy that he then could use for political gain with the American people.

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.

 

[SimplyMe]

My impression doesn’t need correction. You told me what I was “really” wanting. That was the problem.

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

Second, what I’ve aked for has been “clear.” I stated unequivocally my view in a prior post to another poster, that subsequently resulted in the progeny of posts you interjected in the middle of with your post. You may have missed what I asked for because you didn’t trace the dialogue back to my post.



You’re conjecturing ad nauseum. How do you know there were “multiple discussions in the U.S.?” Do you know the content of those dialogues? Did they involve the VP? Any evidence to think VP Biden spoke to any of them about threatening to withhold U.S. aid to protect his son by asking for the head of the prosecutor investigating the company is son sat on as a board member?

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.

More conjecture. The word “likely” refers to probabilities, specifically that it is at least 51% or higher that Biden’s ulterior motive was discussed. Probability must be supported by evidence, in which the evidence shows the likelihood. You have no evidence at all to demonstrate how or why it is likely Biden would discuss his ulterior motive with anyone in the U.S. But Biden had very good reasons not to say anything to anyone in the U.S. about an ulterior motive.

So, you are conjecturing. Your conjectural probability isn’t persuasive.

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?

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.

This isn’t persuasive because it ignores why Trump said he wanted an investigation. The decision to ask for removal of the prosecutor isn’t the issue, Biden’s reasons for doing so IS, and Trump is alleging Biden did it for the personal gain of protecting his son. Hence, what Biden said to the Ukrainian about the aid and prosecutor while Ukraine isn’t secondary.

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?

 

[Kentonio]

Practice is not law. Custom is not law. We are a nation of laws, not tradition.

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.

 

[GodLovesCats]

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.

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.

 

[Kentonio]

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.

I’d argue that you really aren’t a nation of laws if the fair application of those laws depends on how powerful your friends are.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I’d argue that you really aren’t a nation of laws if the fair application of those laws depends on how powerful your friends are.

The term nation of laws has a strict definition: we have a Constitution and laws that must be followed. No political insanity makes America any less a nation of laws.

 

[Kentonio]

The term nation of laws has a strict definition: we have a Constitution and laws that must be followed. No political insanity makes America any less a nation of laws.

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.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The president is never above the law. You know that, right?

Don't pretend you are stupid. I know you are smarter than that.

 

[SimplyMe]

The president is never above the law. You know that, right?

Don't pretend you are stupid. I know you are smarter than that.

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?

 

[GodLovesCats]

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.

FYI I never tolerate people saying anything that is not true if they know it is not true. If you know what the Constitution says, there is no excuse for acting like you don't.

Answering your question the way I want to would get me a warning. Basically they are doing everything possible to avoid having a trial in the Senate, despite the fact that Democrats already have proof one must occur.