So, beyond sekulow's faux outrage at a question on how trump's unpaid personal lower who was assigned (instead of the FBI or other official intelligence gathering organization) was getting paid for this global investigation... he pivots to joe biden? Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...orced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/
Yeah that's a good point. Not Mitch McConnell Specifically but the GOP strategy is pretty easy to decipher. The most obvious example is the House impeachment hearings. The goal was obviously to have a strategy of literally shouting, and making the process as obnoxious and angry as possible so normal people tune out, and don't hear the facts that they should care out. That is one example of "un-informing" the electorate as a strategy. There are numerous examples of this, but it's pretty obvious that the goal is to tune people out who are just normal people living their lives, and tune in the die hard crazies that'll bully the other side of the electorate. They get the most done as a party when the middle tunes out, and their hard core base is all jazzed up. Mitch McConnell in the Senate during an impeachment trial knows its not just base politics in play and that's why in a situation like this, he'd probably not have someone like Dershowitz or Trump say the quiet part out loud. Which is that we are trying like hell to expand our power & subvert true Democracy. McConnell's style is more silent assassin, but he's got the same goals and is just as ruthless even though his tactics are a bit different because of his role.
look, my involvement in this conversation began with (and ends with) trying to make sense of a claim that was made about Dershowitz's argument made during the impeachment hearing. Period. Dershowitz offered the example(s) of previous Presidents who acted in outwardly self-interested ways (including but not limited to working toward their subsequent re-elections) but with a *possibility* that those motives of self-interest OVERLAPPED with concerns about the public interest. Most notably, the example of Lincoln was given to illustrate how the naked and outwardly-apparent display of self-interest (i.e., GETTING RE-ELECTED IN 1864 while running against George McClellan) could also be explained, in part, as being motivated by non-exclusively-self-interested motivations as well, i.e., SAVING THE REPUBLIC DURING A TIME OF CIVIL WAR. Period. That argument is neither ridiculous nor absurd. I take it that Dershowitz offered up this analysis to suggest that there is at least a NONZERO PROBABILITY that Presidents of the United States can act upon mixed motivations. Period. What folks here seem to be wanting to do is jump immediately from Dershowitz's abstract hypothetical to the ACTUAL EMPIRICAL CASE OF WHAT IS AND WAS IN DONALD TRUMP'S MIND. I myself am not interested in that discussion. I cannot read Donald Trump's mind. Nobody here can read Donald Trump's mind. All that Dershowitz's argument provides, I believe, is an argument in support of the claim that it is at least THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE THAT TRUMP WAS ACTING FROM MORE THAN ONE (SELF-INTERESTED) MOTIVE. Period. That's my interest in the conversation. I am not interested in Donald Trump per se. I am even less interested (if that is possible) in reading Donald Trump's mind. I wish more people were as not interested as I am about reading Donald Trump's mind. I take it that this was the gist of the questions submitted by Romney et al to the Chief Justice yesterday about making inferences about Donald Trump's mind. Honestly I believe that the uncertainty about the state of Donald Trump's mind is what will lead this thing (hopefully) to a merciful closure tomorrow night.
Right, but in this case we have no idea if him being re-elected is in the public interest since the election has yet to happen...
But Lincoln lived in completely different times, it's really not a fair argument to compare the two at all, it would be just as similar as someone taking Hitler grabbing more power because he too believed he was doing what was best for the people. Most politicians looking to run a country have over large egos. That Lincoln overstepped his bounds to keep a country from dividing completely and freeing people from bondage is completely different context from what Trump is doing now which is merely trying to win an election. To your point about Dershowitz, the issue is that he is using that argument as a case to excuse Trump's actions. Just because Trump MIGHT have THOUGHT he was coming from a good place is irrelevant to what he did or didn't do. Dershowitz argument fails because even if it is true, then it still fails. All it says is that Trump did do a Quid pro quo but that he should be excused simply because he thought it was in the country's best interest. It is a slippery slope and the reason why it got the reaction it did is because it was just a really poor argument and a dangerous one. Dershowitz argument fails because you could apply this same, the very same argument, to Nixon.
I don't believe Dershowitz's argument (his comparison, to be more precise) fails because he makes the case that the comparison extends to virtually EVERY president on edit: what differs now is the extent to which we can now see the behind-the-scenes political sausage-making (including "quid pro quos") and the speed with which such knowledge can be conveyed and communicated. We have unprecedented access to seeing how much and what kinds of political maneuvering occur behind the scenes--all of it virtually instantly communicable through Twitter and the like.
Not sure I don't disagree with any three of his points. He will undoubtedly be acquitted by the senate. I think betting odds are also going towards his re-election. And we have already seen the diminished role of congress and the courts as checks against the executive branch under trump... including what we have heard in the senate trial.
I will add that the bolded is exactly the type of conclusion that Dershowitz is insisting cannot (perhaps ever) be 100% certain. While it is a plausible inference to assume that Trump is simply being Trump and is acting in an unadulterated,100% purely self-interested way, we CANNOT be certain that this is his only motivation. That I take it is the essence of Dershowitz's point here, if not the essence of his entire argument.
None of this has to do with his mind. It has to do with his action. He acted to make conditional aid on a favor to smear his opponent to help his re-election prospect. That is blatant corruption and you don't need a thesaurus to know that. People have gone to prison for this type of action. Dershowitz argument is that it is lawful because it is done for his re-election and therefore in the public interest is nonsensical. Not many constitutional lawyers are backing him up on this. But you seem to be. Why?
then why is Dershowitz saying it's ok for him to act even with the intent of getting re-elected??? Which one is it?
Is anyone arguing that presidential decisions don't involve some reelection calculus in them? People are arguing that 1. president's opinion doesn't necessarily represent opinion of the nation (or even his own base). 2 Hence, his decisions are not necessarily for the good of the country and are subject to scrutiny. 3. And under said scrutiny, electorate (through use of senate) is entitled to deem that a POTUS decision was made with the DRIVING motif (regardless of corollaries) to benefit his own fortune (whether political or material). And then be able to impeach for it. Your apparent argument (if I get it right) is that president is entitled to a benefit of a doubt that his actions are solely for good of the country and senate is not capable to discern his main motif because apparently you are not willing to try to read his mind using direct and circumstantial evidence. In your mind even a slight presence of benevolent/selfless motif is enough to disregard any obvious presence of malevolent intent. This is contrary to the idea of checks and balances and democracy - the ideas this country built itself on. I disagree and think such opinion makes impeachment useless, which is the point of this whole debate
But we know Trump sent to Rudy Giuliani on his behalf, not the DOJ, to investigate a political rival.... You’re arguing in a vacuum and not within the context of impeachment.
Reminiscent of Nixon, "when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal." And Louis XIV, "L'etat c'est moi."
I really hope no one on here thought that Trump was going to get removed.... That was never going to happen. But what the Republicans have done is make things very interesting come November.. Especially for the Senate and House GOP members who will be up for reelection. They have also set a new standard for future Presidents and this is going to come back and bite them big time. T_Man
