Sounds like Baghdadi was killed or captured tonight

Discussion in 'The Slant Political Board' started by 2000Jayhawk, Oct 26, 2019.

  1. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    So if Trump withheld funding to Ukraine until they gave his company land to build a hotel you'd say that's just business and there's nothing personally beneficial to Trump? He was asking for an investigation into his rival that benefits him personally because it increases his chance of reelection. Would you consider your job something that's personal to you?

    I would call that corruption, because business, while not personal, is also not political. Pushing for an investigation into a political opponent is par for the course anymore. Considering the Dem's push for a new investigation of Trump every Monday morning, You've got some balls acting like there's something wrong with it.

    I consider my career to be personal, but I consider my job to be business.

    Except we're talking about treason, and the plain English of what is written specifically says it has to be an enemy.

    You're right...but we don't have to be at war to have an enemy. We have enemies around the globe and we're not at war with most any of them at the moment...


    What do you think the impeachment process is? That's due process - that's the entire point of how it's set up.

    And if it were being used as intended, I would agree. But its been corrupted by the Dems, used for political attacks instead of its actual intent. With that process corrupted, the only other outlet is the courts.
     
  2. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    I would call that corruption, because business, while not personal, is also not political. Pushing for an investigation into a political opponent is par for the course anymore. Considering the Dem's push for a new investigation of Trump every Monday morning, You've got some balls acting like there's something wrong with it.

    I consider my career to be personal, but I consider my job to be business.

    You're really striving to minimize his actions. For starters, helping someone out with a job is personal if it benefits them personally. It can also be political, business, etc., but Trump personally benefits from being elected to a second term.

    Second, even if it is political, it's still wrong. Do you want Presidents to start predicating foreign policy on how that country can personally benefit the party? So if a D wins in 2020, you don't think it's a problem and impeachable if the Ds start making every foreign policy decision based on what that foreign power - friend or enemy - can do to hurt the REpublicans?

    And no, it's not remotely like what you said with D's investigating. There is a MASSIVE difference between a party fighting another party, and a party holding up foreign aid and enlisting the help of foreign nations.

    You're right...but we don't have to be at war to have an enemy. We have enemies around the globe and we're not at war with most any of them at the moment...


    So two things with that. One, it's how the sentence is read. I don't agree with the conservative argument, but there is an argument both clauses relate back to those we are at war with. Two, define enemy. Is Turkey an enemy? Is Russia? Trump doesn't seem to see either as enemies. Turkey is a NATO ally, and we have billions in trade with Russia, numerous treaties and have never been directly at war with them. You may think it's open and shut, but it would have to go through the courts to define what is an enemy.

    And if it were being used as intended, I would agree. But its been corrupted by the Dems, used for political attacks instead of its actual intent. With that process corrupted, the only other outlet is the courts.

    [

    Explain how it's being corrupted by the Ds? Both sides get to ask questions, both sides have identified and invited witnesses, and the Ds are following the process created by the GOP.
     
  3. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    You're really striving to minimize his actions. For starters, helping someone out with a job is personal if it benefits them personally. It can also be political, business, etc., but Trump personally benefits from being elected to a second term.

    I'm not minimizing anything...I'm trying to get what he's accused of to match what he's done. You and the Dems have been trying since the election to make it into more than it is...it may look like minimizing to you, but its because you're on top of a fictional mountain looking down.

    And yes, I suppose a president does personally benefit from being elected to a second term...but then that's been true of every president since Washington. That doesn't make his moves to further that effort personal. They are still political....and political motivations in these areas have been allowed and heralded for decades. So stop acting like because its Trump that some new standard exists now.


    Second, even if it is political, it's still wrong. Do you want Presidents to start predicating foreign policy on how that country can personally benefit the party? So if a D wins in 2020, you don't think it's a problem and impeachable if the Ds start making every foreign policy decision based on what that foreign power - friend or enemy - can do to hurt the REpublicans?

    How is that not already happening?! Why do you keep acting like this is something new?! Foreign relations decision ALWAYS have a political piece to them.


    And no, it's not remotely like what you said with D's investigating. There is a MASSIVE difference between a party fighting another party, and a party holding up foreign aid and enlisting the help of foreign nations.

    No, there isn't. You're just trying to make it sound like it is.

    So two things with that. One, it's how the sentence is read. I don't agree with the conservative argument, but there is an argument both clauses relate back to those we are at war with. Two, define enemy. Is Turkey an enemy? Is Russia? Trump doesn't seem to see either as enemies. Turkey is a NATO ally, and we have billions in trade with Russia, numerous treaties and have never been directly at war with them. You may think it's open and shut, but it would have to go through the courts to define what is an enemy.

    And if we need to go through the courts to define it, I'm fine with it. Incidentally, how does that argument go? How is the 'or' interpreted to mean 'and'?

    Explain how it's being corrupted by the Ds? Both sides get to ask questions, both sides have identified and invited witnesses, and the Ds are following the process created by the GOP

    Because they're using the impeachment process at all. They investigated Russia for 18 months and didn't bring up impeachment in any significant way. Now, they're doing another investigation and they're including impeachment in the language. What has changed? The proximity of the next election. That makes using the impeachment process a political maneuver. If it truly was not motivated by politics, they would have investigated first and then, if they found something, THEN bring up the impeachment process. But they didn't.
     
  4. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    I'm not minimizing anything...I'm trying to get what he's accused of to match what he's done. You and the Dems have been trying since the election to make it into more than it is...it may look like minimizing to you, but its because you're on top of a fictional mountain looking down.

    And yes, I suppose a president does personally benefit from being elected to a second term...but then that's been true of every president since Washington. That doesn't make his moves to further that effort personal. They are still political....and political motivations in these areas have been allowed and heralded for decades. So stop acting like because its Trump that some new standard exists now.

    How is that not already happening?! Why do you keep acting like this is something new?! Foreign relations decision ALWAYS have a political piece to them.


    The new standard is how you're applying it. Do you think a President doing something that benefits him and his party over the country is good or bad? (And no, this is not how it's "ALWAYS" done, which is why you even see many Republicans saying it was wrong, but not impeachable.)

    No, there isn't. You're just trying to make it sound like it is.

    So the Ds hiring an opposition researcher is the same to you as the President withholding federal funds until a foreign power investigates his political opponent?

    And if we need to go through the courts to define it, I'm fine with it. Incidentally, how does that argument go?

    Then you should push for the constitution to be changed, because it's intended to allow for Congress to have a quick release valve when a president behaves dangerously.

    How is the 'or' interpreted to mean 'and'?


    Ask your friendly conservative as this was their argument. If I were them, I'd have to argue the enemies part is relating back to the war part. Namely, the person either starts a war with the US, OR helps those fighting the US in a war. The reason that makes sense is the definition of 'enemies'. Again, it goes back to how it was understood at the time of writing and enemies was not just foreign nations, but those actively fighting against the US. For instance, Russia would not be an enemy as defined at the time.

    Because they're using the impeachment process at all. They investigated Russia for 18 months and didn't bring up impeachment in any significant way. Now, they're doing another investigation and they're including impeachment in the language. What has changed? The proximity of the next election. That makes using the impeachment process a political maneuver. If it truly was not motivated by politics, they would have investigated first and then, if they found something, THEN bring up the impeachment process. But they didn't.
    [

    So your argument they are behaving corruptly is they are Democrats, basically, and you don't like Ds.

    The fact they didn't launch impeachment after Russia could also be seen as restraint because the findings of Mueller match what Nixon was impeached for. Here, information came out showing clearly the President behaved corruptly so they followed the process. They didn't create a fake process, they didn't change the rules, they didn't do anything nefarious. They simply followed the rules as created by the GOP under the authority allowed by the US Constitution.
     
  5. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    The new standard is how you're applying it. Do you think a President doing something that benefits him and his party over the country is good or bad? (And no, this is not how it's "ALWAYS" done, which is why you even see many Republicans saying it was wrong, but not impeachable.)

    It's not a new standard...it's the same one we've been using. What's new is how you apply it to Republicans only.

    As for your question, it depends on how you define 'good or bad' and what benefits the country and what doesn't. We have very different ideas about what is good and bad for the country...so for the President to do something that benefits him and not the country is going to be next to impossible to prove.

    Then you should push for the constitution to be changed, because it's intended to allow for Congress to have a quick release valve when a president behaves dangerously.

    It doesn't need to be changed...the language is already in place.


    The fact they didn't launch impeachment after Russia could also be seen as restraint because the findings of Mueller match what Nixon was impeached for. Here, information came out showing clearly the President behaved corruptly so they followed the process. They didn't create a fake process, they didn't change the rules, they didn't do anything nefarious. They simply followed the rules as created by the GOP under the authority allowed by the US Constitution.

    Yeah, no rose-colored glasses here...
     
  6. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    It's not a new standard...it's the same one we've been using. What's new is how you apply it to Republicans only.

    No, it's not picking and choosing, it's a standard line: don't use your position of power for actions intended to specifically benefit yourself. Whether you call it political or not, getting help with a job application (which is essentially what the campaign is) is personal, even if it's for a political position.

    As for your question, it depends on how you define 'good or bad' and what benefits the country and what doesn't. We have very different ideas about what is good and bad for the country...so for the President to do something that benefits him and not the country is going to be next to impossible to prove.

    Actually it's pretty easy: was the request/action done with an intent to advantage or help the country, or was it done to help or advantage a person/party. Ukraine is pretty clear. And if you say, 'no it's not', what is the national advantage to pressuring foreign nations to publicly investigate Americans that have not been shown to have done anything illegal?

    It doesn't need to be changed...the language is already in place.


    Yup, it is. And it does not, as we discussed, require criminal actions.

    Yeah, no rose-colored glasses here...
    [

    Actually it's not. The Ds could have impeached for the obstruction (Nixon's downfall).

    As for the process, again, if they've stepped out of line on what's legal and allowed, you can point to it. What have they done that was not allowed or is not part of a normal process?
     
    206 hill6, Nov 18, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  7. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    No, it's not picking and choosing, it's a standard line: don't use your position of power for actions intended to specifically benefit yourself. Whether you call it political or not, getting help with a job application (which is essentially what the campaign is) is personal, even if it's for a political position.

    Then we need to start indicting every single president that's EVER run for a second term...which is just about all of them. Who do you want to start with after you're done railroading Trump?

    Actually it's pretty easy: was the request/action done with an intent to advantage or help the country, or was it done to help or advantage a person/party. Ukraine is pretty clear.And if you say, 'no it's not',

    And if it it benefits both? And who gets to say whether it is advantageous to the country? And how are you going to prove intent?

    "what is the national advantage to pressuring foreign nations to publicly investigate Americans that have not been shown to have done anything illegal?"

    I'll ask you that question back...because you and the Dems publicly investigated Trump and he had not been shown to have done anything illegal? Or is it only wrong when foreign nations are involved? Because that's some pretty damn specific criteria...so specific that I suspect you're drawing the line where it needs to be drawn to only apply to the GOP.

    Yup, it is. And it does not, as we discussed, require criminal actions.

    You're getting your arguments confused...we're talking about treason, not impeachment. Easy to understand, keeping your arguments straight.

    Actually it's not. The Ds could have impeached for the obstruction (Nixon's downfall).

    Yes, it is.


    As for the process, again, if they've stepped out of line on what's legal and allowed, you can point to it. What have they done that was not allowed or is not part of a normal process?

    And AGAIN, not the point and nowhere near the argument. Are you losing track again?
     
  8. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    Then we need to start indicting every single president that's EVER run for a second term...which is just about all of them. Who do you want to start with after you're done railroading Trump?

    Show me another time something like this happened. You are so eager to say, "they all do it" but what Trump did is unique, and not because he's Trump, but because of the actions he's taken.

    And if it it benefits both? And who gets to say whether it is advantageous to the country? And how are you going to prove intent?


    It's pretty easy in this case. Please tell me the national benefit. In fact, it actually goes against nearly the entire history of the US in which the US has actively avoided and intervened to prevent countries from prosecuting/investigating US nationals.


    "what is the national advantage to pressuring foreign nations to publicly investigate Americans that have not been shown to have done anything illegal?"

    I'll ask you that question back...because you and the Dems publicly investigated Trump and he had not been shown to have done anything illegal? Or is it only wrong when foreign nations are involved? Because that's some pretty damn specific criteria...so specific that I suspect you're drawing the line where it needs to be drawn to only apply to the GOP.

    Actually we have numerous laws differentiating between national actions and international. International is seen as FAR worse because we don't want foreign nations feeling free to intervene in domestic politics. The idea being the US may quibble and be political internally, but internationally we are a (semi) united front. Remember when the right used to lose their shit about criticizing the US on foreign soil? It goes along with that ethic.

    You're getting your arguments confused...we're talking about treason, not impeachment. Easy to understand, keeping your arguments straight.

    If your goal is to default in every conversation to being a trite prick let me know so I can include you in the Nipro and BJ realm. If you want to actually continue discussing, let's do it. The fact is your reading of what needs to be done requires either a misreading of the Constitution, or a rewriting of it. That was my response and it includes how to read "enemy" in treason.

    Yes, it is.


    So Nixon wasn't impeached for obstruction and the cover up?

    And AGAIN, not the point and nowhere near the argument. Are you losing track again?[/

    You have been pretty consistent in your point on this. You implied the Ds are not allowing due process because, as you put it, they are doing it for political purposes due to the proximity of the election. The Ds have followed the set out process. They did an investigation, found evidence, and formally launched an impeachment proceeding. Either you aren't paying attention to what is happening, or you refuse to admit it has followed a normal, "investigation, hearings, vote" type of process.

    But again, if you want to default to being an ass, let me know.
     
  9. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Show me another time something like this happened. You are so eager to say, "they all do it" but what Trump did is unique, and not because he's Trump, but because of the actions he's taken.

    "don't use your position of power for actions intended to specifically benefit yourself." Show me a single president running for a second term that didn't use the presidency to benefit the re-election campaign. And since you're defining the campaign as person, not political (which is ridiculous), we would literally need to indict every president that had a second term.

    It's pretty easy in this case. Please tell me the national benefit. In fact, it actually goes against nearly the entire history of the US in which the US has actively avoided and intervened to prevent countries from prosecuting/investigating US nationals.

    Easy. The national benefit is not having a Dem in the WH...we would all benefit from that.

    Actually we have numerous laws differentiating between national actions and international. International is seen as FAR worse because we don't want foreign nations feeling free to intervene in domestic politics. The idea being the US may quibble and be political internally, but internationally we are a (semi) united front. Remember when the right used to lose their shit about criticizing the US on foreign soil? It goes along with that ethic.

    And yet you never had a problem when Obama criticized the US on foreign soil. So you just have a problem this time. Interesting timing...


    If your goal is to default in every conversation to being a trite prick let me know so I can include you in the Nipro and BJ realm. If you want to actually continue discussing, let's do it. The fact is your reading of what needs to be done requires either a misreading of the Constitution, or a rewriting of it. That was my response and it includes how to read "enemy" in treason.

    The fact is, as you already alluded to, there is an argument to be made for how I'm 'reading' it. So it doesn't require a misreading or a rewriting. It requires reading comprehension.

    So Nixon wasn't impeached for obstruction and the cover up?

    The point is that you see the Dems as pure as the driven snow and Repubs as the devil incarnate and it colors your thinking. The Dems can do no wrong and the Repubs can do no right.


    You have been pretty consistent in your point on this. You implied the Ds are not allowing due process because, as you put it, they are doing it for political purposes due to the proximity of the election. The Ds have followed the set out process. They did an investigation, found evidence, and formally launched an impeachment proceeding. Either you aren't paying attention to what is happening, or you refuse to admit it has followed a normal, "investigation, hearings, vote" type of process.

    Except you just said the impeachment IS the investigation. So did they do an investigation first or are they doing it now?

    As for Due Process, you can't have Due Process when the political motivation is driving the whole thing. It needs to be an objective application of the law. The Dems aren't capable of that.


    But again, if you want to default to being an ass, let me know.

    Who's being the ass here? I'm not the one throwing out insults. You've gotten on me in the past for doing this and you were right. Now it's you getting personal. I'm happy to continue the discussion, but not if you're going to be like this.
     
  10. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    "don't use your position of power for actions intended to specifically benefit yourself." Show me a single president running for a second term that didn't use the presidency to benefit the re-election campaign. And since you're defining the campaign as person, not political (which is ridiculous), we would literally need to indict every president that had a second term.

    If it's so obvious, then point to an action Obama or W did that was specifically for themselves and not for the benefit of the entire country.

    Easy. The national benefit is not having a Dem in the WH...we would all benefit from that.

    And that pretty much sums up what I assumed you felt.

    And yet you never had a problem when Obama criticized the US on foreign soil. So you just have a problem this time. Interesting timing...


    I have never had a problem with any individual criticizing the US abroad. Did you not read the part in the paragraph that said, "the right"?

    The fact is, as you already alluded to, there is an argument to be made for how I'm 'reading' it. So it doesn't require a misreading or a rewriting. It requires reading comprehension.

    Reading treason? As I asked, who is an enemy of the US? Is Russia? The way it is and was written really points more to enemies in war, given how 'enemy' would be defined, so to clearly articulate the position you want, it requires it to be rewritten. I agree it should be read broadly, but I also agree there's an argument that it's intended only for warring 'enemies'.

    The point is that you see the Dems as pure as the driven snow and Repubs as the devil incarnate and it colors your thinking. The Dems can do no wrong and the Repubs can do no right.


    The point is I'm highlighting where the differences lay, you're saying things like, 'the national benefit is not having a D in the white house,' and you're accusing me of being biased? I don't see Ds as pure, but I also don't immediately jump to the conclusion everything they do is wrong.

    Except you just said the impeachment IS the investigation. So did they do an investigation first or are they doing it now?

    Did you miss the entire deposition component?


    As for Due Process, you can't have Due Process when the political motivation is driving the whole thing. It needs to be an objective application of the law. The Dems aren't capable of that.


    Due process is just that, 'process'. If the Ds have violated Trump's due process, where? They are investigating and will vote, just like any jury (on the voting part). This is the due process that is needed to justify it. An impeachment is and was intended to be political.
     
  11. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    If it's so obvious, then point to an action Obama or W did that was specifically for themselves and not for the benefit of the entire country.

    By your definition, you can reference any speech that happened from the WH or Air Force One that was campaign-related...there are literally thousands of examples.

    And that pretty much sums up what I assumed you felt.

    And which the exact opposite is what you feel.

    I have never had a problem with any individual criticizing the US abroad. Did you not read the part in the paragraph that said, "the right"?

    I did, but it had much more to do with the criticism than the venue, although it didn't help. Regardless, it seems interesting to me that you're up in arms because of the foreign involvement now, but you didn't really have a problem with it back then.

    Reading treason? As I asked, who is an enemy of the US? Is Russia? The way it is and was written really points more to enemies in war, given how 'enemy' would be defined, so to clearly articulate the position you want, it requires it to be rewritten. I agree it should be read broadly, but I also agree there's an argument that it's intended only for warring 'enemies'.

    I agree it points to warring enemies....I don't agree that it points ONLY to warring enemies. I would argue that Russia is an enemy, as is China in some ways, NK, Iran and a few others. It doesn't need to involve tanks and bombs to be in a war. Economic wars are just as real.


    The point is I'm highlighting where the differences lay, you're saying things like, 'the national benefit is not having a D in the white house,' and you're accusing me of being biased? I don't see Ds as pure, but I also don't immediately jump to the conclusion everything they do is wrong.

    You do immediately jump to that conclusion when its a Repub though.


    Due process is just that, 'process'. If the Ds have violated Trump's due process, where? They are investigating and will vote, just like any jury (on the voting part). This is the due process that is needed to justify it. An impeachment is and was intended to be political.

    But Due Process is NOT POLITICAL...its legal.
     
  12. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    By your definition, you can reference any speech that happened from the WH or Air Force One that was campaign-related...there are literally thousands of examples.

    You're creating a massive false equivalency. Giving a speech is the same as pressuring a foreign power to investigate your political rival? Really?

    I did, but it had much more to do with the criticism than the venue, although it didn't help. Regardless, it seems interesting to me that you're up in arms because of the foreign involvement now, but you didn't really have a problem with it back then.

    "didn't have a problem with it back then." When did I not care about pressuring foreign powers to involve themselves in US elections? It's a pretty consistent stance I've taken on that. If it's criticizing the US, I've never had issues with it. So when, exactly, did I not have a problem with it.

    I agree it points to warring enemies....I don't agree that it points ONLY to warring enemies. I would argue that Russia is an enemy, as is China in some ways, NK, Iran and a few others. It doesn't need to involve tanks and bombs to be in a war. Economic wars are just as real.


    But there is going to be virtually no way you can conclusively cite a country as an enemy (if we aren't at war with them) given the friendly relations we have with nearly all of them. That, and there is evidence "enemy" was meant to include on those that we were at war with, per the conservative argument.

    You do immediately jump to that conclusion when its a Repub though.


    No, it's just the violations happened under Trump. I hated W., but it was for his policies. W. was not as blatantly corrupt as Trump is.

    But Due Process is NOT POLITICAL...its legal.
    [

    And due process can be afforded in a political process. It also depends on whether you are talking to strict legal definition, or the more general and commonly used. Either way, due process is not at issue here - not now and not likely in the Senate. If you think it is, what specifically is the violation?
     
  13. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    You're creating a massive false equivalency. Giving a speech is the same as pressuring a foreign power to investigate your political rival? Really?

    No, giving a speech is the same as "...use your position of power for actions intended to specifically benefit yourself."

    "didn't have a problem with it back then." When did I not care about pressuring foreign powers to involve themselves in US elections? It's a pretty consistent stance I've taken on that. If it's criticizing the US, I've never had issues with it. So when, exactly, did I not have a problem with it.

    You didn't have a problem with it when Obama was criticizing the shit out of us in front of European leaders. If we're not supposed to involve foreign countries in our affairs, then why were you okay with that?

    But there is going to be virtually no way you can conclusively cite a country as an enemy (if we aren't at war with them) given the friendly relations we have with nearly all of them. That, and there is evidence "enemy" was meant to include on those that we were at war with, per the conservative argument.

    Actually its pretty easy...call it like we see it. the 'friendly relations' we have are more like necessary evils. And the 'evidence' can just as easily explain that we don't have to be at war. That's your interpretation of it.

    No, it's just the violations happened under Trump. I hated W., but it was for his policies. W. was not as blatantly corrupt as Trump is.

    It's just the violations happening under Trump THIS TIME.

    And due process can be afforded in a political process. It also depends on whether you are talking to strict legal definition, or the more general and commonly used. Either way, due process is not at issue here - not now and not likely in the Senate. If you think it is, what specifically is the violation?

    I don't agree that it can...not anymore. Everything is a partisan hack fest now...there is no objectivity.
     
  14. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    No, giving a speech is the same as "...use your position of power for actions intended to specifically benefit yourself."

    Sorry, thought it would be understood that actions in the normal course of business and accepted as part of the position would not be impeachable, as has always been the case.

    To ask again, do you think what Trump did was a normal action by a President? If so, show another President who did it. And are you okay with Presidents asking foreign countries - ones that have a history of corruption - to investigate US citizens who have not been shown to have done anything illegal and who are their political rivals?

    You didn't have a problem with it when Obama was criticizing the shit out of us in front of European leaders. If we're not supposed to involve foreign countries in our affairs, then why were you okay with that?

    And I don't have a problem with Presidents criticizing past US actions. But criticizing US actions and actors is a far cry from asking foreign leaders to intervene in our domestic affairs.

    Actually its pretty easy...call it like we see it. the 'friendly relations' we have are more like necessary evils. And the 'evidence' can just as easily explain that we don't have to be at war. That's your interpretation of it.

    So is Russia an enemy, yes or no? (And it's not a colloquial 'they're an enemy', but a legal question.)

    It's just the violations happening under Trump THIS TIME.

    Correct, he has a plethora of violations. He's an unfit president who has behaved as expected. W. had professionals around him (which is why so many of them have blasted Trump).

    I don't agree that it can...not anymore. Everything is a partisan hack fest now...there is no objectivity.
    [

    Then push for the Constitution to be amended. Until then, the Constitution allows for the Congress to investigate and potentially remove the P. At this point, there really haven't been any clear violations by the Ds in how they have operated. They are following the process set out by the GOP and utilized in previous impeachments. The minority is allowed to call witnesses. The minority asks questions of the witnesses. The people being questions are oftentimes still employed under Trump, have relevant information, and are sticking to that information. They aren't pulling in unrelated actors for no reason.

    You can say it's a hackfest because you hate Ds, but point to where they have behaved poorly? Just being Ds doesn't mean this isn't a legitimate process. That's what the GOP said about the Nixon impeachment, until they went for the greater good and behaved professionally.
     
  15. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Sorry, thought it would be understood that actions in the normal course of business and accepted as part of the position would not be impeachable, as has always been the case.

    But you just said that an action in furtherance of the campaign is by definition benefitting the president personally and therefore corrupt. Is that true or are you changing that stance?


    To ask again, do you think what Trump did was a normal action by a President? If so, show another President who did it. And are you okay with Presidents asking foreign countries - ones that have a history of corruption - to investigate US citizens who have not been shown to have done anything illegal and who are their political rivals?

    I do think it is a normal in that its within whats considered appropriate. I can't show another president that's done it, but then I don't have access to all of our diplomatic correspondence, so there's no way for me to know whether its happened or not.

    As for "to investigate US citizens who have not been shown to have done anything illegal," this can be said of every single person ever investigated...until they've been investigated. In fact, Trump had not been shown to have done anything illegal regarding the Russian Collusion...we investigated anyway didn't we?

    And I don't have a problem with Presidents criticizing past US actions. But criticizing US actions and actors is a far cry from asking foreign leaders to intervene in our domestic affairs.

    Except the actions being asked to investigate were not domestic affairs. Biden and family were involved in Ukrainian companies, by definition, NOT domestic companies. If he suspects corruption within that family group, is it not appropriate to suggest a Ukrainian president investigate possible corruption within Ukrainian companies?

    So is Russia an enemy, yes or no? (And it's not a colloquial 'they're an enemy', but a legal question.)

    I would say yes. But we still have to deal with them.

    You can say it's a hackfest because you hate Ds, but point to where they have behaved poorly? Just being Ds doesn't mean this isn't a legitimate process. That's what the GOP said about the Nixon impeachment, until they went for the greater good and behaved professionally.

    I don't hate Dems, I just don't trust them. They've repeatedly given me reason not to.
     
  16. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    But you just said that an action in furtherance of the campaign is by definition benefitting the president personally and therefore corrupt. Is that true or are you changing that stance?

    It has to do with what is considered normal in the course of the job. I assume most people would recognize that there's a stark difference between pressuring foreign leaders to do personal favors, and giving a speech. I'm not changing my position, I just made an incorrect assumption on what you would see as understood in the statement.

    I do think it is a normal in that its within whats considered appropriate. I can't show another president that's done it, but then I don't have access to all of our diplomatic correspondence, so there's no way for me to know whether its happened or not.

    If you can't point to other Presidents doing it, how do you know it's normal? Just an assumption that Trump is right?

    So the people testifying who work for Trump who said it is nothing they have ever seen in their decades of experience. And past administration officials who said it is something they've never seen. Are they all lying?

    When the IG said this was a serious allegation by the whistleblower, was he overreacting because everyone else has been doing it too?


    As for "to investigate US citizens who have not been shown to have done anything illegal," this can be said of every single person ever investigated...until they've been investigated. In fact, Trump had not been shown to have done anything illegal regarding the Russian Collusion...we investigated anyway didn't we?

    It has nothing to do with the investigation, and everything to do with outsourcing our investigative efforts to foreign countries. The US has constantly pushed to not allow foreign countries to have domain over Americans. Obviously if you're in a foreign country and are a suspect and break the law, that's one thing. But it's the reason we avoided joining things like the ICC. So this is a massive change of course from decades (over a century) of US policy.

    Hell, just this year Trump raised a fit about A$AP Rocky being arrested in Sweden. He was opposed to Sweden stepping in on a US citizen there, but suddenly he wants corrupt nations investigating Americans - or rather Americans who are his political rivals?

    Except the actions being asked to investigate were not domestic affairs. Biden and family were involved in Ukrainian companies, by definition, NOT domestic companies. If he suspects corruption within that family group, is it not appropriate to suggest a Ukrainian president investigate possible corruption within Ukrainian companies?

    Totally okay to ask for investigations into corruption, completely inappropriate to specifically call for investigations into political rivals who have shown no hint of impropriety.

    I would say yes. But we still have to deal with them.

    And do you have any legal justification for how enemy should be defined?

    The answer is no. Look, I don't disagree with you that I would consider Russia an enemy, but the treason law has been used both ways. It's not open and shut and the right had valid arguments for why it's only enemies we are at war with (they used that for defending Trump's giving up state secrets to Russia).

    I don't hate Dems, I just don't trust them. They've repeatedly given me reason not to.
    [

    That's fine, but point to where they have not followed the process as laid out by the GOP and repeated through the years?
     
  17. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    If you can't point to other Presidents doing it, how do you know it's normal? Just an assumption that Trump is right?

    Can you show it's not normal? I guess I should amend my statement to say it's appropriate.


    It has nothing to do with the investigation, and everything to do with outsourcing our investigative efforts to foreign countries. The US has constantly pushed to not allow foreign countries to have domain over Americans. Obviously if you're in a foreign country and are a suspect and break the law, that's one thing. But it's the reason we avoided joining things like the ICC. So this is a massive change of course from decades (over a century) of US policy.

    Which the President is allowed to do. Can't say I agree with it but its within his purview right?


    Hell, just this year Trump raised a fit about A$AP Rocky being arrested in Sweden. He was opposed to Sweden stepping in on a US citizen there, but suddenly he wants corrupt nations investigating Americans - or rather Americans who are his political rivals?

    Or he opposes corruption and thinks the Bidens were being corrupt in their relationship with UKRAINIAN companies. Where's the line when Americans are in relationships with foreign companies?


    Totally okay to ask for investigations into corruption, completely inappropriate to specifically call for investigations into political rivals who have shown no hint of impropriety.

    How do you know there's not hint if you don't investigate? And given Trump thought to ask for the investigation, wouldn't that imply that there IS a hint?


    And do you have any legal justification for how enemy should be defined?

    The answer is no. Look, I don't disagree with you that I would consider Russia an enemy, but the treason law has been used both ways. It's not open and shut and the right had valid arguments for why it's only enemies we are at war with (they used that for defending Trump's giving up state secrets to Russia).

    I agree it's not open and shut. But when you said, "The fact is your reading of what needs to be done requires either a misreading of the Constitution, or a rewriting of it," I took that to mean you do think it is open and shut.

    That's fine, but point to where they have not followed the process as laid out by the GOP and repeated through the years?

    The Filibuster rule?
     
  18. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    Can you show it's not normal?

    So you're wanting me to prove a negative? As for evidence it's not normal, nearly every person who has testified said it was something they'd never seen before and considered it inappropriate. A whistleblower filed a report that the IG considered serious. No one has brought up an example of it being common practice.


    I guess I should amend my statement to say it's appropriate.


    That's where I guess we disagree. I don't consider it appropriate that the President strong-arm foreign nations to help his reelection campaign. I consider that the definition of corruption a serious breach of public trust, not to mention an extremely dangerous precedent to set for the nation.

    Which the President is allowed to do. Can't say I agree with it but its within his purview right?


    Technically yes, it is his right. But it's also a massive change of policy for the US because it's not in the national interest.

    Or he opposes corruption and thinks the Bidens were being corrupt in their relationship with UKRAINIAN companies. Where's the line when Americans are in relationships with foreign companies?


    Then push for investigations into corruption. Singling out two people and pushing for investigations into those two people reeks of corruption when there's not only no indication they were behaving illegally, but are personally connected to the President as political rivals. It's like the difference between a police chief saying, "I want this part of town cleaned up," and "I want my ex-wife personally investigated."

    How do you know there's not hint if you don't investigate? And given Trump thought to ask for the investigation, wouldn't that imply that there IS a hint?


    That's not proof of anything. I could call for an investigation into you. That doesn't mean I know of anything you did wrong. People have looked through the Biden's actions in Ukraine and there's nothing credible anyone has come up with. You have indicated that's why you do an investigation, but that's not how it works. You don't just pick someone and say, "I'm going to investigate them." People are investigated when there's an indication something may have been done that was illegal or corrupt.

    The Filibuster rule?
    [

    But we're talking about the impeachment process. Have the Ds done anything during this process where you've said, "that's not the way it's supposed to be done." and was outside the bounds of how it's normally done?
     
  19. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Technically yes, it is his right. But it's also a massive change of policy for the US because it's not in the national interest.

    I don't agree it's not in the national interest....it's not in your view of the national interest.

    Then push for investigations into corruption. Singling out two people and pushing for investigations into those two people reeks of corruption when there's not only no indication they were behaving illegally, but are personally connected to the President as political rivals. It's like the difference between a police chief saying, "I want this part of town cleaned up," and "I want my ex-wife personally investigated."

    He IS pushing for investigations for corruption. But because he suggested where to start, it's corruption? That's one hell of a thin hair to split. If a police chief thinks his ex-wife is breaking the law, I have zero problem with him opening an investigation into her...I would applaud it. it means no one is protected from the law

    That's not proof of anything. I could call for an investigation into you. That doesn't mean I know of anything you did wrong. People have looked through the Biden's actions in Ukraine and there's nothing credible anyone has come up with. You have indicated that's why you do an investigation, but that's not how it works. You don't just pick someone and say, "I'm going to investigate them." People are investigated when there's an indication something may have been done that was illegal or corrupt.

    So, because you're not aware of any indications, you assume there are none? Do you have access to Trump's inner sanctum and aware of everything they see? It's very common for us to not know all the details. And you don't need proof of anything to investigate...at least you haven't needed it up to now. Why should we be required to have it now?!

    But we're talking about the impeachment process. Have the Ds done anything during this process where you've said, "that's not the way it's supposed to be done." and was outside the bounds of how it's normally done?

    The only part that I don't think it should be that way is bringing up impeachment before the investigation. They've done multiple investigations without bringing up impeachment. Now they're bringing it up before they've even investigated. They should have left it out until they actually had something.
     
  20. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    I don't agree it's not in the national interest....it's not in your view of the national interest.

    What national interest is served by pushing corrupt governments to investigate Americans that have not been shown to have done anything illegal?

    He IS pushing for investigations for corruption. But because he suggested where to start, it's corruption? That's one hell of a thin hair to split. If a police chief thinks his ex-wife is breaking the law, I have zero problem with him opening an investigation into her...I would applaud it. it means no one is protected from the law

    If there's no evidence the ex did anything wrong? I can almost guarantee that would be viewed as inappropriate.

    Volker in his opening statement said this: "In hindsight, I now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian company, “Burisma,” as equivalent to investigating former Vice President Biden. I saw them as very different. The former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. In retrospect, I should have seen that connection differently, and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections.”

    Volker is someone who joined the government recently at the behest of Tillerson, and has experiences dating back to the 80s and includes working for McCain, CIA, Foreign Service, and as a US rep to NATO.

    So, because you're not aware of any indications, you assume there are none? Do you have access to Trump's inner sanctum and aware of everything they see? It's very common for us to not know all the details. And you don't need proof of anything to investigate...at least you haven't needed it up to now. Why should we be required to have it now?!

    It's almost always required, otherwise it's harassment.

    No, I don't have access to Trump's inner sanctum, I also know they've offered no indication of illegality by Biden and people very familiar with the situation say there is no indication of impropriety. Also, why not go through US law enforcement if he's that sure Biden was corrupt? Why go to a corrupt country?

    The only part that I don't think it should be that way is bringing up impeachment before the investigation. They've done multiple investigations without bringing up impeachment. Now they're bringing it up before they've even investigated. They should have left it out until they actually had something.
    [/

    Except they held weeks of closed door depositions and acquired information on what occurred before launching impeachment. And technically this is how the process is supposed to work. The 'trial' doesn't start until the Senate. This is more the grand jury to see if there's enough evidence to impeach.
     
  21. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    What national interest is served by pushing corrupt governments to investigate Americans that have not been shown to have done anything illegal?

    Again, you assume there's nothing illegal going on. You don't know that. Investigating Americans that are breaking the law in other countries and adding to the corruption is in our national interest.

    If there's no evidence the ex did anything wrong? I can almost guarantee that would be viewed as inappropriate.

    Again, you assume there's no evidence. You don't know that.


    It's almost always required, otherwise it's harassment.

    And you don't know that it's not present.


    No, I don't have access to Trump's inner sanctum, I also know they've offered no indication of illegality by Biden and people very familiar with the situation say there is no indication of impropriety. Also, why not go through US law enforcement if he's that sure Biden was corrupt? Why go to a corrupt country?

    Because the company is in Ukraine...US law enforcement wouldn't have jurisdiction, would they?
     
  22. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    Again, you assume there's nothing illegal going on. You don't know that. Investigating Americans that are breaking the law in other countries and adding to the corruption is in our national interest.

    In our national interest, but if you know a country is corrupt, would you rather have US law enforcement investigate, or leave it to the corrupt nation to investigate? And do you want to set the precedent that corrupt nations are encouraged to go after US citizens?

    Again, you assume there's no evidence. You don't know that.

    And you don't know that it's not present.


    Then provide it. The GOP and Trump have not been shy to lay waste to anyone they think is corrupt, often bringing up debunked conspiracies to attack someone. Yet with Biden they are strangely tight lipped? Please. You're smart enough to know there's nothing there, otherwise it would have been provided to derail the impeachment.

    Further, not a single witness who would be privy to the information has said the Bidens were corrupt in any way. In fact, one of the GOP's requested witnesses, Volker, just completely destroyed the GOP's talking points and said not only was it a quid pro quo, but it was wrong (he was asked by the GOP because they were hanging their defense on his testimony).

    Because the company is in Ukraine...US law enforcement wouldn't have jurisdiction, would they?

    [/

    Depends on the situation, but if Biden was behaving corruptly in the Ukraine absolutely the US could investigate and possibly prosecute.
     
    222 hill6, Nov 19, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2019
  23. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    In our national interest, but if you know a country is corrupt, would you rather have US law enforcement investigate, or leave it to the corrupt nation to investigate? And do you want to set the precedent that corrupt nations are encouraged to go after US citizens?

    I don't agree Ukraine is a corrupt country...they have corruption, just like every other country out there including us. And yes I do want other countries to be allowed to pursue corruption within their own borders. Why would you argue that Americans should be exempt from the laws of the countries they are in?!

    Then provide it. The GOP and Trump have not been shy to lay waste to anyone they think is corrupt, often bringing up debunked conspiracies to attack someone. Yet with Biden they are strangely tight lipped? Please. You're smart enough to know there's nothing there, otherwise it would have been provided to derail the impeachment.

    Do I look like the NSA to Trump? What part of "I don't have access" are you having problems with?


    Further, not a single witness who would be privy to the information has said the Bidens were corrupt in any way. In fact, one of the GOP's requested witnesses, Volker, just completely destroyed the GOP's talking points and said not only was it a quid pro quo, but it was wrong (he was asked by the GOP because they were hanging their defense on his testimony).

    Were they even asked that question? And if so, what makes you think they would be privy to it?

    Depends on the situation, but if Biden was behaving corruptly in the Ukraine absolutely the US could investigate and possibly prosecute.

    I'd like to hear how that works if the crime is committed in Ukraine and the laws of Ukraine are on point, but the US could override their sovereignty? That makes no sense.
     
  24. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    I don't agree Ukraine is a corrupt country...they have corruption, just like every other country out there including us. And yes I do want other countries to be allowed to pursue corruption within their own borders. Why would you argue that Americans should be exempt from the laws of the countries they are in?!

    I'm not saying Americans are exempt, and Ukraine has more corruption than most allies (hence the call for the previous AG to resign). But do you trust our law enforcement or Ukraine's to investigate an American?

    Do I look like the NSA to Trump? What part of "I don't have access" are you having problems with?


    I meant, "then (they should) provide it."

    Were they even asked that question? And if so, what makes you think they would be privy to it?

    Volker was one of the point people for the US government on Ukraine. If something was known and going on in the Ukraine as it relates to US interests, he would know it. Today he said the claim that Bidens needed to be investigated was, "self-serving", a "conspiracy," and "not credible."

    Volker was a witness the GOP viewed as favorable to their position.

    I'd like to hear how that works if the crime is committed in Ukraine and the laws of Ukraine are on point, but the US could override their sovereignty? That makes no sense.
    [/

    They wouldn't "override their sovereignty." A crime committed in a foreign nation by a US national - given the complexity that would be inherent in corruption as a board member of a large corporation - would violate numerous laws and be valid for being prosecuted in numerous jurisdictions. This happens all the time. Most often what happens is the country that captures the suspect first charges and prosecutes and the other country requests extradition - or the countries reach an agreement on who prosecutes. You also get prosecution in abstentia in some locations/situations.
     
  25. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    I'm not saying Americans are exempt, and Ukraine has more corruption than most allies (hence the call for the previous AG to resign). But do you trust our law enforcement or Ukraine's to investigate an American?

    If the American is in Ukraine or committed a crime in Ukraine, it's not our battle. That American made his own bed. It's not about trust.

    I meant, "then (they should) provide it."

    Agree with that. But you can't blame them if they're holding it back for a reason...say, right in the middle of the impeachment process?
     
  26. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    If the American is in Ukraine or committed a crime in Ukraine, it's not our battle. That American made his own bed. It's not about trust.

    Except the US consistently investigates its own in their interactions. Partly because it investigates crimes, and partly because of a deference to keeping things 'in house.' The US tends to try to take over investigations into citizens because of a fear of unfair prosecution of US citizens (see: Iran).

    Agree with that. But you can't blame them if they're holding it back for a reason...say, right in the middle of the impeachment process?

    [

    Actually this is precisely the time they should be presenting the information. Does Trump strike you as someone strategically withholding information that would greatly help his impeachment defense? And what of the various witness who would be the prime people to know all saying there is no evidence of malfeasance. They are saying that under oath.
     
  27. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Except the US consistently investigates its own in their interactions. Partly because it investigates crimes, and partly because of a deference to keeping things 'in house.' The US tends to try to take over investigations into citizens because of a fear of unfair prosecution of US citizens (see: Iran).

    If it was Iran, then I would agree with you. Ukraine is nowhere near Iran, IMO. They have a legal system in place based on European Common Law rules. I'll concede its not as stable and fair as ours but its pretty far from Iran.

    Actually this is precisely the time they should be presenting the information. Does Trump strike you as someone strategically withholding information that would greatly help his impeachment defense? And what of the various witness who would be the prime people to know all saying there is no evidence of malfeasance. They are saying that under oath.

    Trump does not strike me as being a strategic thinker, not even close. But he's surprised in the past. Not holding my breath though...
     
  28. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    507
    If it was Iran, then I would agree with you. Ukraine is nowhere near Iran, IMO. They have a legal system in place based on European Common Law rules. I'll concede its not as stable and fair as ours but its pretty far from Iran.

    Right, but the possibility of other countries creating fictional charges is why the US doesn't trust most other countries. Hell, we even pressure the best of allies to turn over people that are American and only 'coordinate' with them on investigations involving them. I can't think of any time we said, "it's an American but we don't want to investigate. You do it." The reason for the Iran example is it's why we draw a hard line across the Board to protect Americans, we don't want to get into a debate of "are they a good country or a bad one." Ukraine is certainly better than Iran, but they are also ripe with corruption and have more than a few assets of Russia.

    Trump does not strike me as being a strategic thinker, not even close. But he's surprised in the past. Not holding my breath though...[/

    He's definitely not, which is why I think he would reveal the info if he had it. And if it were there, why would every single expert on the subject that has been called not mention legitimacy in investigating Biden? And why did many of them say it was complete BS? Why was the push for Ukraine to simply "come to the microphone" to announce the investigation?
     

Share This Page