How does the Trump era end?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

And the key here (i.e. in terms of the topic under discussion) is solicit. Trump does not have to have received or accepted anything in order to be guilty. 

Where did I claim otherwise?

My claim was with regard to how broad a brush could be used in interpreting the Law....which puts any interpretation somewhat arbitrary.

18 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Knowingly accept or receive damaging information from a foreign national? Taken literally, this would include pretty much everyone who ever ran for President.

It's a grey area. The line drawing is totally partisan for impeachment.

 

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Where did I claim otherwise?

Where did I say you did? 

All I was saying was that your claim was irrelevant to the situation involving Trump.

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My claim was with regard to how broad a brush could be used in interpreting the Law....which puts any interpretation somewhat arbitrary.

Your still-unsubstantiated straw-man claim.

[J.C.MacSwell]

53 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where did I say you did? 

All I was saying was that your claim was irrelevant to the situation involving Trump.

Your still-unsubstantiated straw-man claim.

 

The irony.

[iNow]

I couldn’t help but notice the massive quote you recently added to your signature:

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

“Look, Donald Trump is corrupt — he is unfit to serve our country as president. He is unqualified to serve our country as commander-in-chief, I’m running for president to defeat him, I just think it’s so important for our country to be able to move forward to bridge these divides that it be the American people that make this decision.”

Tulsi Gabbard, September 2019

 

Thought you might like to know it’s no longer true:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/tulsi-gabbard-supports-impeachment-inquiry/index.html

Quote

"[A]fter looking carefully at the transcript of the conversation with Ukraine's President, the whistleblower complaint, the Inspector General memo, and President Trump's comments about the issue, unfortunately, I believe that if we do not proceed with the inquiry, it will set a very dangerous precedent," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in a statement.

"Future presidents, as well as anyone in positions of power in the government, will conclude that they can abuse their position for personal gain, without fear of accountability or consequences."

 

Interestingly, you also have a giant Yang quote in your sig:

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...if the Democratic message is 'Donald Trump bad! Impeach Donald Trump!' then we're actually increasing the chances of him getting a second term."

Andrew Yang,  September 2019

 

And he also supports impeachment:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/462866-yang-backs-impeachment-effort-there-have-to-be-limits

Quote

“Given the President’s latest actions I think impeachment is the right path forward. Asking foreign leaders for political help in return for aid and then suppressing your own agency’s inquiry is egregious,” Yang tweeted Tuesday. 

“There have to be limits and Congress is right to act,” he continued.

 

You’re welcome.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I couldn’t help but notice the massive quote you recently added to your signature:

 

Thought you might like to know it’s no longer true:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/tulsi-gabbard-supports-impeachment-inquiry/index.html

 

Interestingly, you also have a giant Yang quote in your sig:

 

And he also supports impeachment:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/462866-yang-backs-impeachment-effort-there-have-to-be-limits

 

You’re welcome.

Tulsi's change in position is new. I knew Yang's position was that he supported impeachment. He also recognizes it as a trap (his word).

On 9/9/2019 at 6:23 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Given Trump's mental condition, I suspect Yang will pardon him. It will help heal America.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The irony.

No, and your claim is still unsubstantiated 

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, and your claim is still unsubstantiated 

I gave an example. It was called "trivial". Somewhere between that and an indictable offence lies a grey area for impeachment,

What part, specifically, are you struggling with?

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I gave an example. It was called "trivial". Somewhere between that and an indictable offence lies a grey area for impeachment,

What part, specifically, are you struggling with?

I seem to have missed, what would be grey area situation. I assume that it was a hypothetical scenario?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I seem to have missed, what would be grey area situation. I assume that it was a hypothetical scenario?

If, say, Trump came up with a bona fide National interest reason to justify his request for information on the Biden's, that would make it clearly in a grey area. (since the self interest reason is fairly obvious).

But I was generalizing in response to the particular campaign law with regard to foreign nationals.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I gave an example. It was called "trivial".

You did not establish that anyone considers holding a sign to be a donation. Has anyone ever been arrested for violating the campaign contribution law for holding a sign, and giving the maximum allowed dollar amount?

No? Then one can’t reasonably infer it’s considered something of value.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

You did not establish that anyone considers holding a sign to be a donation. Has anyone ever been arrested for violating the campaign contribution law for holding a sign, and giving the maximum allowed dollar amount?

No? Then one can’t reasonably infer it’s considered something of value.

Anything to add that doesn't help make my argument?

[iNow]

On 9/26/2019 at 7:19 PM, iNow said:

This is a good point, but a stronger argument IMO is how several members of the GOP also support this impeachment in various forms, including now the first (of what I suspect will become more) GOP governor.

It’s disingenuous (or at least badly misinformed) for folks like JCM to call a process “totally partisan” when there are clearly lots of people on both sides who support it. 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/phil-scott-impeachment-trump

https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/which-democrats-republicans-in-congress-support-impeaching-trump/

https://www.newsweek.com/30-republicans-vote-impeach-trump-secret-1461389

The first House Republican has now come out in support of impeachment. 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/463471-gop-rep-mark-amodei-comes-out-in-support-of-impeachment-inquiry

Quote

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) on Friday became the first House Republican to voice support for an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

<...>

"I'm a big fan of oversight, so let's let the committees get to work and see where it goes," he said, according to audio of the call released by The Nevada Independent.

"Using government agencies to, if it's proven, to put your finger on the scale of an election, I don't think that's right," Amodei added. "If it turns out that it's something along those lines, then there's a problem."

 

[CharonY]

On 9/26/2019 at 5:22 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you think there are no foreign nationals holding signs at US political rallies?

There is cases law determining issues such as the definition of "value" as well as transmission. Casual information that could be transmitted during the course of normal interactions are not considered of value as there was likely no significant monetary value or other in-kind involved to compile that information. Also there are the volunteer exemptions which could kick in, as long as there is no compensation of any sorts. In neither of these cases could the beneficiary be charged either, as they had not control about the dissemination.

A key aspect regarding the illegality of accepting contributions in general is the requirement that it happened knowingly (i.e. solicitation or any other indications that the recipient was aware of it). 

As whole there is only a fairly limited range where these regulations would actually as quite a few test are in place where one could question whether e.g. the recipient could reasonably know whether the donor was a foreigner or whether the transaction was something of value. There is actually quite a body of literature out there highlighting various situations where transactions were considered to be legal (or not), so it is not like the laws came out of nowhere.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

There is cases law determining issues such as the definition of "value" as well as transmission. Casual information that could be transmitted during the course of normal interactions are not considered of value as there was likely no significant monetary value or other in-kind involved to compile that information. Also there are the volunteer exemptions which could kick in, as long as there is no compensation of any sorts. In neither of these cases could the beneficiary be charged either, as they had not control about the dissemination.

A key aspect regarding the illegality of accepting contributions in general is the requirement that it happened knowingly (i.e. solicitation or any other indications that the recipient was aware of it). 

As whole there is only a fairly limited range where these regulations would actually as quite a few test are in place where one could question whether e.g. the recipient could reasonably know whether the donor was a foreigner or whether the transaction was something of value. There is actually quite a body of literature out there highlighting various situations where transactions were considered to be legal (or not), so it is not like the laws came out of nowhere.

 

...and why would that be necessary? (rhetorical question)

 Because otherwise, if taken literally...

On 9/26/2019 at 7:05 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Knowingly accept or receive damaging information from a foreign national? Taken literally, this would include pretty much everyone who ever ran for President.

It's a grey area. The line drawing is totally partisan for impeachment.

 

Case laws would help define what is criminal, and therefore indictable.

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I gave an example. It was called "trivial". Somewhere between that and an indictable offence lies a grey area for impeachment,

 

I don't know how to make this much clearer. 

Maybe the problem is not in my words so much as a concern that they are true, and Trump may yet again get away with unethical behaviour?

He did promise he would "drain the swamp", so he can make the claim he was after the Biden's for that purpose, however self serving it clearly is as well.

Edited September 28, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

On 9/28/2019 at 1:14 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

..and why would that be necessary? (rhetorical question)

 Because otherwise, if taken literally...

OK, so you are saying that if taken literally it could be an issue, but since it is not it is not? Well, fair enough I guess. But since they have been established previously, I am not sure how that applies to the current situation.

I think it is worth re-iterating that for impeachment indictable offenses are not required (though politically helpful). I suspect that your partisan comment was aimed to convey that impeachment proceedings are generally partisan? It is probably true that a strong impeachment ground (such as an indictable offense) could increase the likelihood of folks voting non-partisan. During the Clinton impeachment a number of Reps voted with Dems, for example. And for Nixon the House Judiciary Committee had no hard partisan line (though clearly a slant), either. Since then partisanship has hardened in US politics, so it is becoming less likely to happen.

 

On 9/28/2019 at 1:14 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

He did promise he would "drain the swamp", so he can make the claim he was after the Biden's for that purpose, however self serving it clearly is as well.

Well, in order to make clear that it is not an abuse of power, more thoughtful folks probably wouldn't have used private lawyers for starters. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

OK, so you are saying that if taken literally it could be an issue, but since it is not it is not? 

 

No. I'm saying since it clearly cannot be taken literally it requires arbitrary interpretation. So it is in fact problematic (plenty of grounds for argument from both sides...which is in fact what is taking place)

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

I think it is worth re-iterating that for impeachment indictable offenses are not required (though politically helpful).

 

Agree...and as I indicated this, impeachment, requires further line drawing...this time a very partisan one (the courts would decide what is criminally indictable)

Thus it will happen in the House (where the bar is set lower), but not get through the Senate...unless it is past the bar set essentially by the GOP (possible but unlikely with what is currently known/admitted)

edited: low to lower

Edited September 30, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

33 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. I'm saying since it clearly cannot be taken literally it requires arbitrary interpretation. So it is in fact problematic (plenty of grounds for argument from both sides...which is in fact what is taking place)

Wait, so you are saying that the law as interpreted by the courts or otherwise are arbitrary?  I mean in very vague and general term, this would apply to many if not most laws. In this case there is precedence on what can be considered to be "of value" as well as what is considered to be "a contribution". So there is much less ambiguity around these issues. There are also other laws that are relevant involving foreign volunteers, so it is not that there is a vacuum around the interpretation of the law.  So what is unclear to me is whether you mean that the specific cases involving Trump are ambiguous or that the law itself is. Some details can be found here and an analysis of the Trump tower meeting is published here, which kind of address both issues.

So I think if we talk about specifics rather than the general law, the question probably boils down to how speech can be interpreted as something of value, which may indeed something that needs to be handled in court. 

That being said and going back to the topic of the thread (I admit I got sidetracked a bit), I think that law might apply to the Trump tower meeting, perhaps also to Ukrainian situation (the soliciting part at least), but I think neither are actually that relevant to the ongoing impeachment procedure. As mentioned before, the proceedings are political in nature the GOP is likely to close ranks regardless of legality of the issue. The Republican voter base has been galvanized to such a degree that reaching across the aisle would probably be political suicide (one can see the consolidation in US politics over the last decades). 

The apparent abuse of power from a sitting president may however sway undecided voters. It would be a bit early to tell, though. I would be interested to see whether folks would lay charges once Trump leaves office, though.

As a side note, I find it interesting that the actual news segment of FOX news has been grilling WH officials on that matter, whereas the rest of the channel just pivots almost immediately after...

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Wait, so you are saying that the law as interpreted by the courts or otherwise are arbitrary?  I mean in very vague and general term, this would apply to many if not most laws.

Yes. Some laws of course much more than others.

Now compare this with impeachment. Much less precedence to go on...and many times the politics.

Edited September 30, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Now compare this with impeachment. Much less precedence to go on...and many times the politics.

As I mentioned, I think they are mostly unrelated (except to fuel arguments). That being said, there have been quite a few impeachment efforts, even if we limit them to the President. For example Jones tried to impeach Obama (mostly due to the drone program) but that resolution did not go above the Judiciary committee. A quick look shows that there were 13 of such including the current one. Essentially every President in the last few decades has faced a resolution, so we could at least rank what we are going to see along the scale, with Watergate probably going the furthest in the pipeline.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

As a side note, I find it interesting that the actual news segment of FOX news has been grilling WH officials on that matter

There are like 2 or 3 who do this out of every personality Fox has on the payroll. They’re legitimate newscasters overall and  their ratings are lower, but they are largely there to provide Fox executives with an easy counterexample (think “air cover”) for people who rightly call Fox News the propaganda arm of the Republican Party and a direct extension of the Trump WH communications team. 

[CharonY]

On 9/30/2019 at 5:42 PM, iNow said:

There are like 2 or 3 who do this out of every personality Fox has on the payroll. They’re legitimate newscasters overall and  their ratings are lower, but they are largely there to provide Fox executives with an easy counterexample (think “air cover”) for people who rightly call Fox News the propaganda arm of the Republican Party and a direct extension of the Trump WH communications team. 

Maybe it is because I have not have watched Fox enough. While I agree that the news segment provides cover for the rest, I always found that at least pre-Obama, the news part was always a bit of a reinforcement, occasionally picking things up from the other shows and then report it as news. Now it seems that there is a bit of a break, mostly because the shows have gone all-in being propaganda pieces without really any pretense of objectivity and addressing the  President with a level of submissiveness that is more fitting to an authoritarian state. 

[MigL]

Maybe he'll have a mental breakdown, and his Presidency will end with him being carted off in a straight-jacket.
( I assure you I'm not trying to be insensitive to the plight of the mentally ill )

Did anyone notice how he lost control during the press conference with the Finnish President?
"That he would unleash a blizzard of lies is by now to be expected, but perhaps more important was how angry, aggrieved and petulant he was, lashing out at his opponents and the assembled reporters alike." ( MSN news feed description )

And his response for the impending impeachment, for his abuse of the Office's power to have a political opponent investigated, is to ask another foreign state ( China ) to also investigate the Bidens.

I think he's starting to come undone.
( wait, did I say 'starting' ? )

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe he'll have a mental breakdown, and his Presidency will end with him being carted off in a straight-jacket.
( I assure you I'm not trying to be insensitive to the plight of the mentally ill )

Did anyone notice how he lost control during the press conference with the Finnish President?
"That he would unleash a blizzard of lies is by now to be expected, but perhaps more important was how angry, aggrieved and petulant he was, lashing out at his opponents and the assembled reporters alike." ( MSN news feed description )

And his response for the impending impeachment, for his abuse of the Office's power to have a political opponent investigated, is to ask another foreign state ( China ) to also investigate the Bidens.

I think he's starting to come undone.
( wait, did I say 'starting' ? )

He's come undun
He didn't know what he was headed for
And when He found what he was headed for
It was too late!

 

He's come undun
He found a mountain that was far too high
And when he found out he couldn't fly
It was too late

 

It's too late
He's gone too far
He's lost the sun

 

He's come undun

We wanted truth but all we got was lies
Came the time to realize
And it was too late

 

He's come undun

He didn't know what he was headed for
And when we found what he was headed for
PUTUS, it was too late

 

It's too late

He's gone too far
He's lost the sun
He's come undun

 

Too many mountains, and not enough stairs to climb
Too many churches and not enough truth was found
Too many people with enough eyes to see
Too many lives to end and not enough time dig

 

It's too late
He's gone…

[iNow]

53 minutes ago, MigL said:

Did anyone notice how he lost control during the press conference with the Finnish President?

Swarm of bees strategy. Release as many bees as possible so we keep swatting at them instead of focusing on the important things. 

55 minutes ago, MigL said:

And his response for the impending impeachment, for his abuse of the Office's power to have a political opponent investigated, is to ask another foreign state ( China ) to also investigate the Bidens

Turns out he already brought this up on a call with Xi in June and only admitted it today openly to make it look more normal. 

[iNow]

On 10/2/2019 at 3:29 PM, CharonY said:

Maybe it is because I have not have watched Fox enough. While I agree that the news segment provides cover for the rest, I always found that at least pre-Obama, the news part was always a bit of a reinforcement, occasionally picking things up from the other shows and then report it as news. Now it seems that there is a bit of a break, mostly because the shows have gone all-in being propaganda pieces without really any pretense of objectivity and addressing the  President with a level of submissiveness that is more fitting to an authoritarian state. 

I think you’re correct and we seem to agree. I was snaking a slightly peripheral point, and I suspect it’s one where you also agree. 

Basically, Fox News is a propaganda network with isolated pockets of reality. There are 2 or maybe 3 newscasters who stray occasionally from the party line and do actual reporting of actual reality. It’s rare, but happens  

Those pockets seem do to be shrinking, but I believe they remain somewhat protected by management to ensure they have something specific to point to when accused of spreading bullshit and being biased. 

There’s then also a parallel issue where they “pretend” fight with Trump to manufacture evidence against claims that they’re little more than state TV for the right. They dramatize fake skirmishes to make it look like they have beef with each other, much like we see in entertainment wrestling, but it’s basically coordinated and scripted for specific intent. 

Edited October 5, 2019 by iNow