Oops, Trump’s defense team just messed up..

[Kentonio]

in answer to a question about whether Rudy Guilliani was in violation of the Logan Act when he was conducting foreign policy with Ukraine, the defense claim that Guilliani was not conducting foreign policy.

The problem here is that if he wasn’t conducting foreign policy, then that means he was merely acting privately in Trump’s personal interest. Which.. oops, is exactly what Trump is being accused of.

Donald really should have gotten better lawyers..

 

[Kentonio]

This of course follows on from the House Managers pointing out that while the defense keep claiming the House should have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas, literally just down the road in a federal courtroom today, Trumps legal team argued that the courts shouldn’t be able to enforce congressional subpoenas, and that the House’s recourse should be impeachment..

The senate burst out laughing.

 

[wing2000]

This of course follows on from the House Managers pointing out that while the defense keep claiming the House should have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas, literally just down the road in a federal courtroom today, Trumps legal team argued that the courts shouldn’t be able to enforce congressional subpoenas, and that the House’s recourse should be impeachment..

The senate burst out laughing.

Yes, I happened to catch that scene live.....surreal.

 

[variant]

This of course follows on from the House Managers pointing out that while the defense keep claiming the House should have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas, literally just down the road in a federal courtroom today, Trumps legal team argued that the courts shouldn’t be able to enforce congressional subpoenas, and that the House’s recourse should be impeachment..

The senate burst out laughing.

If only it were funny in a non dark way.

The white houses official position on the congressional subpoenas is that they don't want the congress investigating their actions.

Republicans, not seeming to care about the implications of that stance are going to allow it.

Republicans in the senate need to take the word "republic" out of their name, they don't deserve to say they stand for one.

 

[Curtis.Hilliker]

TRUMP 2020!!!!!!!!

 

[Kentonio]

TRUMP 2020!!!!!!!!

Is that his prisoner number?

 

[Halbhh]

This of course follows on from the House Managers pointing out that while the defense keep claiming the House should have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas, literally just down the road in a federal courtroom today, Trumps legal team argued that the courts shouldn’t be able to enforce congressional subpoenas, and that the House’s recourse should be impeachment..

The senate burst out laughing.

Yes, I happened to catch that

scene live.....surreal.

Ok, now we want to see a video clip.

 

[Kentonio]

Ok, now we want to see a video clip.

There’s a clip in this article I think.

Senators break into laughter as Schiff points out ironic difference between Trump's legal defense and DOJ arguments

 

[Kenny'sID]

in answer to a question about whether Rudy Guilliani was in violation of the Logan Act when he was conducting foreign policy with Ukraine, the defense claim that Guilliani was not conducting foreign policy.

The problem here is that if he wasn’t conducting foreign policy, then that means he was merely acting privately in Trump’s personal interest. Which.. oops, is exactly what Trump is being accused of.

Donald really should have gotten better lawyers..

Well! That changes everything! lol

I was just watching Fox news and they're giddy, almost to a fault, very funny. Anyway, they're hoping to wrap this up tomorrow, or early Saturday with an acquittal.

TRUMP 2020!!!!!!!!

Is that his prisoner number?

No, it's a promise.

 

[High Fidelity]

I wonder how the right will spin this.

On a sidenote, Schiff has been nothing but a masterclass throughout this. No doubt he will be studied for generations to come.

 

[Justin BT]

The problem here is that if he wasn’t conducting foreign policy, then that means he was merely acting privately in Trump’s personal interest. Which.. oops, is exactly what Trump is being accused of.

Sorry I am not as familiar with US law as you might be? Is the problem that US citizens are not allowed to do things in their own interest? Or US Presidents are not allowed to do things in their own interest?

Don't people do things in their own interest all the time? And anyway, isn't researching into if someone is behaving unethically a good thing? Or can you only research if someone is behaving unethically if they are not related to someone in power? Shouldn't private citizens be allowed to research into if people are being unethical. I would be horrified if it was illegal for people to even look into matters of ethics (for personal or public reasons)

 

[Kentonio]

Sorry I am not as familiar with US law as you might be? Is the problem that US citizens are not allowed to do things in their own interest? Or US Presidents are not allowed to do things in their own interest?

Not if they are using the government’s power to achieve those things. A president can make a million dollars, that’s fine. A president can’t however threaten to use the US military to invade another country unless they personally give him a million dollars.

 

[variant]

Sorry I am not as familiar with US law as you might be? Is the problem that US citizens are not allowed to do things in their own interest? Or US Presidents are not allowed to do things in their own interest?

Presidential diplomatic power is not in fact supposed to be used to bully other governments into doing things simply to try to get the president elected.

Don't people do things in their own interest all the time? And anyway, isn't researching into if someone is behaving unethically a good thing? Or can you only research if someone is behaving unethically if they are not related to someone in power? Shouldn't private citizens be allowed to research into if people are being unethical. I would be horrified if it was illegal for people to even look into matters of ethics (for personal or public reasons)

The President has more than adequate normal channels to persue investigations against Americans, bullying, coercing and extorting foreign governments to investigate them is not one the presidents legal options.

 

[TLK Valentine]

in answer to a question about whether Rudy Guilliani was in violation of the Logan Act when he was conducting foreign policy with Ukraine, the defense claim that Guilliani was not conducting foreign policy.

The problem here is that if he wasn’t conducting foreign policy, then that means he was merely acting privately in Trump’s personal interest. Which.. oops, is exactly what Trump is being accused of.

Donald really should have gotten better lawyers..

 

[Justin BT]

Presidential diplomatic power is not in fact supposed to be used to bully other governments into doing things simply to try to get the president elected.

Im sorry, I am not sure I follow. Isn't that's a different topic than the original post? The supposition in the OP is that the defence is problematic:

The problem here is that if he wasn’t conducting foreign policy, then that means he was merely acting privately in Trump’s personal interest.

So that is what my question about. Is the assertion that under US law, US presidents can't act privately in their own personal interest using their own personal resources? Or it is illegal for US presidents to conduct personal investigations that are in their own personal interests? Is there a law against US presidents spending personal resources investigating the ethics of other people?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

So that is what my question about. Is the assertion that under US law, US presidents can't act privately in their own personal interest using their own personal resources? Or it is illegal for US presidents to conduct personal investigations that are in their own personal interests? Is there a law against US presidents spending personal resources investigating the ethics of other people?

The president did not use personal resources for his investigation. He used military aid and taxpayer money that was approved by Congress to go to Ukraine, as leverage to get his investigations. That’s one strike against the president. Then the fact that this was used in furtherance of a corrupt motive to affect the election is two and then the subsequent months long coverup that continues to this day with the obstruction of the impeachment is strike three.

 

[variant]

Im sorry, I am not sure I follow. Isn't that's a different topic than the original post? The supposition in the OP is that the defence is problematic:

It's not off topic.

The defense is problematic because it excuses the presidents actions simply because he was acting in his own self interest.

It doesn't take into account that the actions are WRONG and abusive of the presidents powers.

Essentially the defense here is that the president has the right to abuse his power as he sees fit.

So that is what my question about. Is the assertion that under US law, US presidents can't act privately in their own personal interest using their own personal resources?

He wasn't using his own personal resources, but rather, his presidential powers to block military aid, to get his own personal ends.

Or it is illegal for US presidents to conduct personal investigations that are in their own personal interests? Is there a law against US presidents spending personal resources investigating the ethics of other people?

You've simply missed the point. Having a personal investigation is not what has gotten the president in trouble. Using his power to block US military aid so he could help that investigation is what has done so.

 

[variant]

The president did not use personal resources for his investigation. He used military aid and taxpayer money that was approved by Congress to go to Ukraine, as leverage to get his investigations. That’s one strike against the president. Then the fact that this was used in furtherance of a corrupt motive to affect the election is two and then the subsequent months long coverup that continues to this day with the obstruction of the impeachment is strike three.

It's weird to use a three strike analogy when any one of those things is against us law. You only get one strike.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Im sorry, I am not sure I follow. Isn't that's a different topic than the original post? The supposition in the OP is that the defence is problematic:

So that is what my question about. Is the assertion that under US law, US presidents can't act privately in their own personal interest using their own personal resources? Or it is illegal for US presidents to conduct personal investigations that are in their own personal interests? Is there a law against US presidents spending personal resources investigating the ethics of other people?

The problem is that Trump claims to have been working in the national interest, pursuing a foreign policy goal of ensuring that aid to other countries is being appropriately allocated. However, his primary agent in Ukraine appears to have been Rudy Giuliani, a private citizen. Under the Logan Act, private citizens cannot conduct foreign policy, so either Giuliani was in violation of the Logan Act, or Trump was not, in fact, pursuing foreign policy goals in Ukraine as he has claimed. Trump's lawyers have just said that Giuliani was not conducting foreign policy, which then means that Trump was not either.

 

[wing2000]

On a sidenote, Schiff has been nothing but a masterclass throughout this. No doubt he will be studied for generations to come.

Agreed.