***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[frenchbreadbuilds]

I’m still trying to understand what the reasoning is behind not allowing witness in a trial where the body delivering the verdict has already admitted to wrong doing has occurred? Even if the acquittal is all but guaranteed, why would the depth of wrong doing NOT be explored? If it’s not purely partisan damage control

 

[Belgium]

The fallout from the criminal falsification of an official weather report in an attempt to cover up Trump's fabricated claim about the hurricane's path:
"People across agency are hurting... not just those directly involved."
"Some employees have lost their minds [in] fear."

"Crazy"

"My biggest fear is someone will hesitate to issue product for fear of retribution...not good"

NOAA top officials making clear that they did not approve or support the issuing of an unsigned NOAA statement that falsely claimed Trump was correct and criticized the NWS for pointing out that Trump's claim was false.
"You have no idea how hard I'm fighting to keep politics out of science"
"Please do not allow the science and support that we perform on behalf of the American public to be tossed into the trashheap by political expediences"

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

it really is THAT simple of a logic. If the GOP feels Trump is innocent, then let’s have witnesses speak up to exonerate him.

 

[dacomeup]

I’m still trying to understand what the reasoning is behind not allowing witness in a trial where the body delivering the verdict has already admitted to wrong doing has occurred? Even if the acquittal is all but guaranteed, why would the depth of wrong doing NOT be explored?

Because it will expose more damaging and credible information to Trump and the Republican Senators will have to go on record voting to ignore this information and not to remove Trump.

 

[IATT]

 

[dacomeup]

I said the phone call was inappropriate, earlier, when frenchbreadbuilds asked.

Just as others have said Hunter's position on the Burisma board was inappropriate.

Not saying it is "ok." I'm saying it won't be the long-lasting blemish for Trump because people have tons of other controversial things to remember about his presidency. He ran on being controversial.

This false equivalency between Trump and his henchmen creating a false narrative about Ukraine trying to influence our election and the pressure campaign related to investigating a political opponent and Hunter Biden being hired by Burisma is stupid. And you know that. Trying to boil this down to a "phone call" is also misleading. And you know that.

Your shtick is tired, man. It's not about being a Republican. It's about being dishonest, disingenuous, feigning ignorance, etc. But maybe those things are just synonymous with the Republican Party in 2020. It's the epitome of the party of Trump.

 

[Belgium]

Let it sink in that there was a clear panic at NOAA about politicization of weather reports and fears of retribution for telling the truth about the weather

All because Trump didn't want to admit he was wrong about the weather, followed by someone at the WH, likely Trump himself, committing a crime in an attempt to cover up Trump's false claim. The NOAA was also forced to put out a false statement that backed up Trump's fabrication and rebuked the NWS for refuting Trump's false claim.


You can't make up anything this mindblowingly stupid.

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

Reading Dwalk's comments are making my head hurt because he is so full of it.

His argument is now just a false equivalency. Trump showed poor judgment, and so did Biden, but it should somehow be a wash if people admit Biden showed poor judgment.

But let us break down the BS real quick.

First, Hunter Biden showed poor judgment, not Joe Biden. Hunter Biden is not running for president and is not the person Trump tried to smear. If Hunter Biden was running for president I then maybe this nonsense argument would make more sense, but right now, there is no evidence Joe Biden acted inappropriately.

Secondly, Joe Biden was not president, Barack Obama was. So not only would someone have to show a Hunter Biden-to-Joe Biden corruption connection, they would have to find a way to tie Obama to it. There is no such connection even discussed

Third, DWalk is a damn hypocrite to take issue with Hunter Biden. The Trump kids and Jared Kushner and openly using their father's presidency to enrich themselves. Where is Dwalk's objections to Ivanka getting granted patents in China during trade talks? Or foreign governments giving favor to Trump businesses to win favor with Trump and his sons flying over the world, acting like they represent both the administration and the company at the same time. Why hasn't DWalk called for investigations into this potential graft? Yet he requests people take issue with Hunter.

There is no proof Joe Biden did anything illegal. If there was evidence pointing to that, then the GOP could have referred the case to the FBI years ago, they didn't. Instead, Trump broke the law to smear Joe Biden, just because his son showed poor judgment, and he wants to cheat to win the 2020 election.

Hunter Biden's name is not on the ballot. Joe Biden has done nothing to disqualify himself from being president. However, Trump clearly did.

And the only reason he was not removed because the GOP Senate is just as morally bankrupt and bootlicking as our resident fry cook turned lawyer, turned insincere criminal justice activist, turned struggle aspiring real estate mogul, turned economic beggar, turned advocate for conservative sexual deviants, turned sealioning troll.

So please dwalk31 spare us the nonsense.

 

[RustyShackleford]

1. Impeachment for perjury; and
2. Clinton ran as a traditional politician. Trump was elected AFTER a tape leaked of him saying grab em by the p***y.

Obviously the standards are different.

The impeachment won't be as big of a deal for trump because so many other things stand out more (Stormy Daniels, his tweets, etc.).

But he ran on being nonconventional in that way.

Bill Clinton never ran after his impeachment.

 

[Belgium]

dwalk31
What do you make of the following legal arguments concurrently argued by the WH, DOJ and Trump's private attorneys?

-The president can not be impeached for blanket defiance of all congressional subpoenas and should resolve disputes in court (WH)
-Courts have no right to intervene in any congressional subpoena disputes between the 2 branches, impeachment is a remedy (DOJ)
-The entire executive branch has absolute immunity from being compelled to testify or provide documents (DOJ OLC/WH)
-The president can not be subject to any criminal investigation, even if he were to shoot someone on 5th avenue (Trump private attorneys)

 

[Deleted member 42060]

An interesting proposition.

What do you say, dwalk31 ?

I mean, if justice is whatever a majority of Senators says it is, maybe we should just let the people decide.

Does that sound like due process, or are there definitions of offenses that ought to transcend partisanship and smug, self-serving nihilism?

good idea.

 

[gry60]

Just as others have said Hunter's position on the Burisma board was inappropriate.

Inappropriate but irrelevant to the timeline being investigated, which is Burisma during the era of Yanukovitch.

Quote properly or don't quote at all.

 

[AEA18]

A Definitive Timeline Of The Trump-Ukraine Story

The past few weeks have been a firestorm of revelations concerning the DNI whistleblower and Ukraine-Donald Trump-Joe and Hunter Biden stories.

talkingpointsmemo.com

Hunter Biden joins the board after the Maidan revolution, in 2014. The events that are being investigated happened before 2014, under Yanukovitch. While Hunter is on the board, the Ukrainian prosecutor general shelves the investigation on Burisma during Yanukovitch's term, which angers the US and the rest of the international community. Christine Lagarde threatens to withhold funds, and so does Biden (the 1 billion dollars comment) UNLESS they continue investigating BURISMA.

Bad optics to have Hunter on the board when Daddy is VP of the US? Yes.

Now, how would the Bidens benefit from an investigation into Burisma?

This should have been repeated every single time this stupid talking point/argument about the Bidens was uttered by a gop clown.

 

[dwalk31]

Bill Clinton never ran after his impeachment.

I never said he did.

 

[dwalk31]

This false equivalency between Trump and his henchmen creating a false narrative about Ukraine trying to influence our election and the pressure campaign related to investigating a political opponent and Hunter Biden being hired by Burisma is stupid. And you know that. Trying to boil this down to a "phone call" is also misleading. And you know that.

Your shtick is tired, man. It's not about being a Republican. It's about being dishonest, disingenuous, feigning ignorance, etc. But maybe those things are just synonymous with the Republican Party in 2020. It's the epitome of the party of Trump.

Reading Dwalk's comments are making my head hurt because he is so full of it.

His argument is now just a false equivalency. Trump showed poor judgement,and so did Biden, but it should somehow be a wash if people admit Biden showed poor judgement.

But let us break down the BS real quick.

First, Hunter Biden showed poor judgement, not Joe Biden. Hunter Biden is not running for president, and is not the person Trump tried to smear. If Hunter Biden was running for president I then maybe this nonsense argument would make more sense, but right now there is no evidence Joe Biden acted inappropriately.

Secondly, Joe Biden was not president, Barack Obama was. So not only would someone have to show a Hunter Biden to Joe Biden corruption connection, they would have to find a way to tie Obama to it. There is no such connection even discussed

Third, DWalk is a damn hypocrite to take issue with Hunter Biden. The Trump kids and Jared Kushner and openly using their father's presidency to enrich themselves. Where is Dwalk's objections to Ivanka getting granted patents in China during trade talks. Or foreign governments giving favor to Trump businesses to win favor with Trump and his sons flying over the world acting like they represent both the adminstration and the company at the same time. Why hasn't DWalk called for investigations into this potential graft? Yet request people take issue with Hunter.

There is no proof Joe Biden did anything illegal. If there was evidence pointing to that then the GOP could have referred the case to the FBI years ago, they didn't. Instead Trump broke the law just to smear Joe Biden, just because his son showed poor judgement.

Hunter Biden's name is not on the ballot. Joe Biden has done nothing to disqualify himself from being president. However Trump clearly did.

And the only reason he was not removed because the GOP Senate is just as morally bankrupt and bootlicking as our resident fry cook turned lawyer, turned insincere criminal justice, activist turned struggle aspiring real estate mogul, turned economic beggar, turned advocate for conservative sexual deviants, turned sealioning troll.

So please dwalk31 spare us the nonsense.

I’m not saying the actions are equivalent. But I believe both were inappropriate.

I don’t think Trump’s actions rise to the level of removal from office. Full stop.

I also don’t think Hunter being on the board should disqualify Joe from running.

 

[dwalk31]

Inappropriate but irrelevant to the timeline being investigated, which is Burisma during the era of Yanukovitch.

Quote properly or don't quote at all.

People in here have said the actions by Hunter were inappropriate. I will concede whatever you’re adding. The point is that it was inappropriate.

 

[mr s j king]

Your shtick is tired, man.

I don't understand the fascination with going back and forth with someone thats just throwing against a mirror

 

[dwalk31]

dwalk31
What do you make of the following legal arguments concurrently argued by the WH, DOJ and Trump's private attorneys?

-The president can not be impeached for blanket defiance of all congressional subpoenas and should resolve disputes in court (WH)
-Courts have no right to intervene in any congressional subpoena disputes between the 2 branches, impeachment is a remedy (DOJ)
-The entire executive branch has absolute immunity from being compelled to testify or provide documents (DOJ OLC/WH)
-The president can not be subject to any criminal investigation, even if he were to shoot someone on 5th avenue (Trump private attorneys)

This is not a simple question.

Trump’s private attorneys have a duty to Trump. The Department of Justice has a different duty.

In regular everyday world, if someone defies a subpoena you file a motion to compel. The person can respond with a motion for protective order. And you make legal arguments on whether someone has to comply with a subpoena. The idea that a subpoena means you have to comply and can’t oppose it is ridiculous.

To the second point, courts have declined to weigh in on what they deem political questions. This is referred to as the political question doctrine and is a reasonable argument.

To the third point, executive privilege is a viable argument as well, if asserted.

Lastly, this is an extreme hypo that I feel would end in bipartisan impeachment, removal and prosecution following removal. But as he is sitting in office I don’t think he can be indicted for it.

Hope I addressed all of them. And dacomeup knows these are all viable legal arguments. He just chooses to take a different view.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I’m not saying the actions are equivalent. But I believe both were inappropriate.

I don’t think Trump’s actions rise to the level of removal from office. Full stop.

I also don’t think Hunter being on the board should disqualify Joe from running.

You are trying to draw a equivalency because you keep bringing up Hunter Biden when people ask you about Trump's conduct.

And of course Joe Biden would not be disqualified from running for president, he did nothing wrong. Zero.

The Trump did not get get in trouble because of the actions or the poor judgement of his children. He got in trouble for his own direct illegal and corrupt actions.

You bringing up Hunter Biden just shows how full of it you are.

 

[Belgium]

This is not a simple question.

Trump’s private attorneys have a duty to Trump. The Department of Justice has a different duty.

In regular everyday world, if someone defies a subpoena you file a motion to compel. The person can respond with a motion for protective order. And you make legal arguments on whether someone has to comply with a subpoena. The idea that a subpoena means you have to comply and can’t oppose it is ridiculous.

To the second point, courts have declined to weigh in on what they deem political questions. This is referred to as the political question doctrine and is a reasonable argument.

To the third point, executive privilege is a viable argument as well, if asserted.

Lastly, this is an extreme hypo that I feel would end in bipartisan impeachment, removal and prosecution following removal. But as he is sitting in office I don’t think he can be indicted for it.

Hope I addressed all of them. And dacomeup knows these are all viable legal arguments. He just chooses to take a different view.

The second argument nullifies motions to compel. DOJ's argument is that the judicial branch has no right to get involved in congressional subpoena disputes between the legislative and executive branch, period.


The third point is not about executive privilege, the so-called "absolute immunity" is a new argument separate from executive privilege. So far it has been rebuked completely in the courts, though the Supreme Court may see it differently.

 

[dwalk31]

The second argument nullifies motions to compel. DOJ's argument is that the judicial branch has no right to get involved in congressional subpoena disputes between the legislative and executive branch, period.


The third point is not about executive privilege, the so-called "absolute immunity" is a new argument separate from executive privilege. So far it has been rebuked completely in the courts, though the Supreme Court may see it differently.

The problem is that you are conflating arguments made by different groups with different interests.

I will have to look more into the absolute immunity as I thought it was some form of executive privilege

 

[-Red-]

dwalk31
What do you make of the following legal arguments concurrently argued by the WH, DOJ and Trump's private attorneys?

-The president can not be impeached for blanket defiance of all congressional subpoenas and should resolve disputes in court (WH)
-Courts have no right to intervene in any congressional subpoena disputes between the 2 branches, impeachment is a remedy (DOJ)
-The entire executive branch has absolute immunity from being compelled to testify or provide documents (DOJ OLC/WH)
-The president can not be subject to any criminal investigation, even if he were to shoot someone on 5th avenue (Trump private attorneys)

“I make of them whatever Trump and his cronies make of them. But even if I disagreed it wouldn’t at all impact my unwavering support for Trump regardless of whatever happens or comes to light. But that said, reasonable people could reasonably disagree on all this. In any such instance, I would agree to disagree.”

 

[Belgium]

The problem is that you are conflating arguments made by different groups with different interests.

I will have to look more into the absolute immunity as I thought it was some form of executive privilege

The point is that the administration is collectively arguing the nullification of congressional authority and oversight. Under these arguments, the only way Congress can conduct oversight is if the administration and executive branch officials voluntarily comply.

Point 1 has effectively been endorsed by the GOP even as the administration argues point 2 at the same time.

The new so-called ‘absolute immunity’ OLC opinion further nullifies the authority of congressional subpoenas as anyone who works or even used to work in the executive branch (McGahn for example) has absolute immunity from being compelled to testify or provide documents.
It is far broader than executive privilege, which works differently and at least has some exemptions. As the word ‘absolute’ in the OLC opinion suggests, it is as absolute as it sounds.


How are these collective arguments different from an absolute monarchy?

 

[dwalk31]

The point is that the administration is collectively arguing the nullification of congressional authority and oversight. Under these arguments, the only way Congress can conduct oversight is if the administration and executive branch officials voluntarily comply.

Point 1 has effectively been endorsed by the GOP even as the administration argues point 2 at the same time.

The new so-called ‘absolute immunity’ OLC opinion further nullifies the authority of congressional subpoenas as anyone who works or even used to work in the executive branch (McGahn for example) has absolute immunity from being compelled to testify or provide documents.
It is far broader than executive privilege, which works differently and at least has some exemptions. As the word ‘absolute’ in the OLC opinion suggests, it is as absolute as it sounds.


How are these collective arguments different from an absolute monarchy?

I don’t think these arguments can be clumped together as the DOJ is not a collective of Trump’s personal lawyers.

If his attorneys made all of these arguments I would somewhat agree with your point.