never forget that the president once motorboated rudy when he was dressed like a woman...LIKE A BOSS!
It's not the worst arrangement. What I'd actually want, though, is for Justice Roberts to control the process and say which witnesses should testify. So if Republicans want the whistleblower or Hunter Biden to testify, they could make arguments to the judge about why that testimony is relevant. Likewise, if Democrats want to call Trump or his close advisers, Roberts could decide how much testimony is covered by executive privilege. From the precedent of Clinton's trial, though, I don't expect Roberts will take that active a role. Which is too bad because he's the only person that can keep the proceedings from being a circus.
And when the Senate refused to allow Pompeo and Bolton to testify, how much are you willing to bet that he won't care and infact somehow defend it.
The problem with that narrative is that the GOP will try to frame that since there might have been something wrong that Hunter Biden did, Trump was justified in using a personal tv lawyer pundit with no affiliation with the US government at the time rather than proper legal channels to investigate and freeze aid.
This is such an absurd argument. You are essentially asking for a fascist regime where only the word of the president matters over our institutions. You seriously believe this bullshit? The president can simply claim that he is being treated unfairly and ignore all our institutions that checks on abuses of power such as in this instance where a court wouldn't order a proper warrents for an investigation because it's a debunked conspiracy theory and has obvious political motivations. Yes, the president is REQUIRED to go through proper legal channels. It's like if Obama saw a MSNBC segment on Mitt Romney doing some shady stuff in Mexico and then sent Bill Maher to Mexico to find dirt because he knows that there isn't sufficient evidence to go through the proper legal channels to get actually warrents for searches because at the end of the day, Obama's intent wasn't to seek justice but to sella political narrative so "not enough evidence" isn't going to be a hindrance to continue pushing said narrative. What makes it more obvious that Trump did this out of personal political reasons is his CrowdStrike Conspiracy. He calls CrowdStrike a "Ukrainian secret server" and claims the DNC did a false flag operation of stealing their own emails in Ukraine and froze military aid to an ally over it. That is a straight up Russian propaganda angle that is spamed by troll accounts across social media when CrowdStrike is a publicly traded American based company that the GOP hires themselves for IT security. I don't think we've ever had a president who so loosely hip fires cockamamie consipracy theories fabricated by foreign adversaries and uses the theories to base US foreign policy on. Btw, the Horowitz report explicitly stated there was sufficient grounds to investigate the Trump campaign.
It is circumstantial evidence, and it is If I am a Donald Trump supporter, I don't want Rudy Guliani involved in any way with the President and I do not want any influence on the President. A lot of the mess that Donald Trump is in, is because of the Rudy Guliani....
When did this happen? I don't think the issue has been decided. What I'll concede is that it's likely Exec Privilege is asserted which, IMO, would be a shame. I'm all for the whole enchilada.
There is no evidence of this. I hypothetically would agree if this happened, it should be a big deal. It would however be a separate investigation, with separate punishment........ not used as a diversion for what Trump has done.
I wonder if the founders wanted this level of power for a president where a mere term sheilds a president from ever having a serious investigation over his actions that doesn't ever allow testimony from the only people he directly talks to.
What requires him to do so? Is there a law or constitutional provision? Btw... I don't dispute the Horowitz report that there was sufficient grounds to start the investigation. It's the ****show that when on after that might taint his faith in those institutions. If it happened to you, I don't think you'd trust them. You're full of **** if you say you would.
I agree. No evidence. It was hypothetical but not all that far fetched. I'm not saying it would be a diversion. It would be justification for not using the traditional institutions that are tasked with investigations, IMO.
I think it would be my inherent character traits to distrust people who investigate me where the conclusion from an investigation of the investigation that there was sufficient evidence for an investigation because that would I do have something to hide the American public because it will harm my political aspirations. Basically I what I'm saying is... I don't give a **** if Trump doesn't trust the people investigating him. It's like saying I should care about someone who murdered their child and their feelings about how they don't like the cops who are investigating him especially when a independent investigation into the investigation found that the investigation found there was sufficient evidence to start an investigation with you being a prime suspect. He dig his own grave. That doesn't give him a right to abuse his authority to shut down aid to a foreign country that has been bipartisanly determined to be at the best interest of US foreign policy for his personal political reasons.
No, that ISN'T a big difference....... the Republicans ARE doing the same thing with the Attorney General. Until these types of absurd proclamations stop on both sides, nothing will be resolved..... when parties use this type of bull **** logic, it sets bad precedent and will be repeated by the future administrations in the future. Look no further than Bill Clinton increasing the power of the FBI..... GW Bush and Obama followed suit........ look at the incredible over reach in Presidential power by GW Bush....... we saw Obama follow suit and now Trump has taken it to a level unseen in nearly 100 years. The Republicans will whine and complain when a Democrat becomes President and abuses the Executive Branch just like Donald Trump has...... likewise Democrats will complain when Republicans move to impeach a future President........ it can be traced back to Bill Clinton. It is all a self serving **** show, and ******* comments about how "Republicans wouldn't do that" or "Democrats not caring if ends justify the means". Anyone that REALLY believes their party would not bend or break the rules and try to cover it up is not being fully honest. I remember years ago there were some Democrats defending Obama sending drones in foreign countries to kill American citizens. That wasn't okay but to them, when the shoe was on the other foot it was fine........ Same with all the Republicans that moaned about it being improper........ this coming off 8 years of GW Bush attempting to walk all over the Constitution.
I think a major difference between what previous president's did and what presidents like Nixon and Trump did that made it more egregious is that they did it for personal grifter reasons to succeed in their future ambitions. For someone like Obama, it was bad policy decisions such as the extrajudicial execution.
Okay, so it really has no value? There is no proof of it happening but you just throw it out there because we live in a period of multiple truths and lies that are said enough, people believe them? If the DOJ, FBI or CIA are being used by a President or political party to destroy another opponent...... then we have SERIOUS problems because that is what Third World rulers do........... it is a BIG deal, as it takes what Trump is accused of and adds an extra level.
Obama protected himself and those next to him....... look no further than Fast and Furious. Did he do it to the degree that GW Bush did with weapons or mass destruction? Not that we know of......... or Trump, which has done it numerous times. The problem is that they all should have been punished for it. I know past Presidents did similar things but they were harder to uncover. We now are at a time where these types of actions CAN be discovered and we are not setting good precedent. We really need to do better.
I'm a little confused about what "that narrative" is referring to. Roberts deciding which witnesses to hear? Anyway, the GOP will frame this story as something shady Hunter and Joe Biden were doing, whether they get called to testify or not. So not sure whether how you conduct the trial will matter in the battle of framing and narratives. It impacts tactics more than strategy.
There is a difference between protecting your administration from bad policy decisions and protecting your administration from investigation of abusing your power for personal gain. Fast and Furious was a policy that had bad results. Do you think Obama did the policy out of a personal self interest? Same with the vast majority of Obama's use of the espionage act. Most of the uses were to prevent classified information of previous events that had nothing to do with the Obama administration from leaking. So obviously they were for what the administration percieved as for the best interest of the country. With Fast and Furious, I agree that Obama did abuse executive privilege in this case.
Honestly, if the Senate asks Cabinet members to testify about their private conversations with the president, I think ethics demand they assert executive privilege. And then all that can be fought out at the SCOTUS if someone wants to push it. Of course, it's those guys that can best speak to Trump's motives which is at the heart of the case, so it's a shame to not hear from them. However, I don't think it's really all that hard to divine Trump's motives from the available evidence for anyone with half a brain. For someone who currently thinks it's debatable what Trump was trying to accomplish, I don't expect hearing Pompeo's testimony would change their mind anyway. Humans are endlessly adept at rationalizing what they already believe (irony of saying so already noted).
