A decorated army officer and the top Ukraine expert on the national security council has reportedly told House impeachment investigators that the White House transcript of a call between the presidents of the US and Ukraine left out important words and phrases.

Grauniad

The logic of fascism is thus: I, the leader, am the true and natural voice of the people and of the nation. Therefore, an attack on me is an attack on democracy, treasonous, and against the natural order.
You must support me because I am your representative.

So to any supporter, the opposition is treasonous, antidemocratic etc. This is a position immune to argument, because the ad hom is the entire argument. 'I'm not listening to some dumb fascist/ remoaner/ deplorable/traitor/etc.

I don't suppose it is inconceivable that a purple heart veteran should be a traitor. But it ought to be a bit troubling for a patriot to claim.

I simply don't believe people are inherently evil and as such it's a mistake to say "he is evil". He did evil and we all share that capacity to do evil. By saying someone is evil we like to pretend we're never capable of the type of acts he committed. But we are. That's not a defense of his actions at all. That's about keeping our eyes open to our own actions so that we may avoid doing evil instead of assuming that since we're the good guys we can't do evil. The man is a cautionary tale. But so is every shooting in the US. Done of course by "bad" guys with guns. Instead of regular people like you and me. — Benkei

Let me first suggest that the mission to hunt down Baghdadi was named after the young woman, Kayla Muller out of AZ, who was trying to not do evil but help other's in the world when she was taken hostage, raped and killed. I am clear that Kayla was not expressing "evil" as you are suggesting that Baghdadi did and not was.

Benkei, you can separate the judgement of an act of evil or helping, from the person who performed the actual act. And you can make the claim that we are all capable of both, to which I would agree, to various degrees.

However, I know, when I look in the mirror that I DO NOT hold a spot in my moral and ethical heart to cage a man and burn him alive for any reason. I would not kidnap your daughter, nor would I support having done to her what was done to Kayla.

As far as "celebrating"? Reread what I wrote. I am proud of what our forces were able to do and I am grateful to the men and women who willingly put their lives in danger to carry out this mission. Many of the people who will be in the theater in a couple of years, are classmates of my son now and I respect their dedication to pursue securing our nation's security.

There is no celebration of Baghdad's death and the fact that he believes he died a hero and got his kids and wives into the afterlife by killing them as well?

My upbringing and morals do not match his thoughts and actions. If it matches yours? Then the fabric of our character is quite different.

Taking the side of the Devil's advocate is a challenge worthy of accepting in most cases Benkei, but this time? Taking the side of the Devil is something that Baghdadi did without any philosophical waxing from "thinkers" like us.

I simply don't believe people are inherently evil and as such it's a mistake to say "he is evil". He did evil and we all share that capacity to do evil. By saying someone is evil we like to pretend we're never capable of the type of acts he committed. But we are. That's not a defense of his actions at all. That's about keeping our eyes open to our own actions so that we may avoid doing evil instead of assuming that since we're the good guys we can't do evil. The man is a cautionary tale. But so is every shooting in the US. Done of course by "bad" guys with guns. Instead of regular people like you and me.

I get it, but I’d argue you’re equivocating between evil in the noun sense and evil in the descriptive sense. We cannot do evil any more than we can do fat or thin or hungry or jealous. Evil isn’t a thing we do.

Speak for yourself because no one else is assuming that because Baghdadi is evil, everyone celebrating his evisceration must be good. It’s just that the adjective “evil” is apt in Bagdhadi’s case—not because of some inherent essence known as “Evil”, but because of the wicked and immoral and evil acts he let loose on the earth.

The Democrat’s impeachment rules resolution reveals the farcical nature of their unjust inquiry.

For example, the house minority will be allowed to subpoena witnesses, but only if Adam Schiff and the house majority agree to them.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/politics/impeachment-resolution-released-rules-committee/index.html

The Dems are running a class in political warfare. This impeachment, essentially a show trial, is more campaign than justice.

Trump, and the GOP, are directly threatening the viability of constitutional law in America, by refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the enquiry, and the power of Congress to hold the President to account.

Instead of arguing on the substance of the charges, which are of considerable gravity, Trump chooses to tell lies about lies, to ignore the rules, and to treat Congress with contempt.

Make no mistake, democracy in America is under threat. Either the rule of law, or the rule of Trump, will survive, but it can’t be both, because they’re incompatible.

Protecting the rule of law, defending the separation of powers and restoring constitutional order to Washington increasingly seem as though they will require the impeachment, conviction and removal from office of the current president. At the very least, Americans of every political persuasion must demand that the administration take part in the impeachment proceedings, even if the Republicans in the Senate ultimately weigh partisanship over evidence in their vote. So long as the executive and legislative branches respect the procedures and powers outlined in the Constitution, we must all respect their legitimacy—regardless of the outcome. If we fail to agree on and abide by our common democratic principles, our emerging regime cleavage will harden, and the future for American democracy will be bleak.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/31/regime-cleavage-229895

Expert in Constitutional Law at Harvard will be reading the argument and viewing the Poll results contained in this link.

Need as many people to vote in the Poll as possible. Will be greatly appreciated! Gratitude to anyone that takes the time. :)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6965/constitutional-interpretation-usa-article-i-section-3

Modified argument in the link below.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/dqlooo/dear_doj_this_is_how_you_properly_interpret_the/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

For example, the house minority will be allowed to subpoena witnesses, but only if Adam Schiff and the house majority agree to them. — NOS4A2

Isn't that how it always works in the House? When the Republicans were the majority they wouldn't let the Democrats subpoena witnesses.

Republicans block Democrat attempt to subpoena Trump interpreter

And apparently these are the rules that Republicans introduced anyway.

House Republicans Complain About Rules They Approved In 2015

Isn't that how it always works in the House? When the Republicans were the majority they wouldn't let the Democrats subpoena witnesses.

The distinction, I think, is that the Dems are using it to take down the duly-elected president, while the GOP are using it to defend the president.

The distinction, I think, is that the Dems are using it to take down the duly-elected president, while the GOP are using it to defend the president. — NOS4A2

If the GOP is just looking to defend the President then they're not doing their jobs. They should be carrying out their constitutional duty of Congressional oversight. If the Republicans' motive behind their subpoenas is to protect Trump rather than to uncover the facts then perhaps they shouldn't have subpoena power.

If the GOP is just looking to defend the President then they're not doing their jobs. They should be carrying out their constitutional duty of Congressional oversight. If the Republicans' motive behind their subpoenas is to protect Trump rather than to uncover the facts then perhaps they shouldn't have subpoena power.

If they are unjust allegations and the impeachment process is being abused for political gain, it is their duty to defend the president and oppose the unjust process, not to participate in it.

If they are unjust allegations and the impeachment process is being abused for political gain, it is their duty to defend the president and oppose the unjust process, not to participate in it. — NOS4A2

The only way to know if they're unjust allegations is to carry out actual oversight in good faith. If they just assume he's innocent and so try to sabotage the investigation then it's willful ignorance. And that's even if they do assume him innocent. It wouldn't surprise me if they think he's guilty but defend him anyway out of loyalty for the party and because they think that impeachment will hurt their reelection chances or help a Democrat win the Presidency.

The only way to know if they're unjust allegations is to carry out actual oversight in good faith. If they just assume he's innocent and so try to sabotage the investigation then it's willful ignorance.

They have to presume he is innocent as a matter of due process. No crime has been shown to occur.

They have to presume he is innocent as a matter of due process. No crime has been shown to occur. — NOS4A2

When whistleblowers and government officials testify that the President's behaviour is inappropriate and possibly illegal then Congress ought carry out its duty of oversight and look into the matter.

What exactly do you need to happen to accept that an investigation is warranted? Must Trump himself publicly announce that he pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival and threatened to withhold aid if they didn't? That's a ridiculous requirement. Executive misbehavior would then forever be hidden.

When whistleblowers and government officials testify that the President's behaviour is inappropriate and possibly illegal then Congress ought carry out its duty of oversight and look into the matter.

What exactly do you need to happen to accept that an investigation is warranted? Must Trump himself publicly announce that he pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival and threatened to withhold aid if they didn't? That's a ridiculous requirement. Executive misbehavior would then forever be hidden.

The whistleblower has not testified.

A crime would be a good start. We cannot just investigate people because of a whistleblower who provides no evidence and was known to have contacts with the opposition party. There needs to be a reason to investigate: perhaps a crime, for instance.

A crime would be a good start. We cannot just investigate people because of a whistleblower who provides no evidence and was known to have contacts with the opposition party. There needs to be a reason to investigate: perhaps a crime, for instance — NOS4A2

I have no idea what you mean by this. There's an alleged crime (or abuse of power) that Congress now ought investigate. Just as there's an alleged crime re. the opening of the Russia inquiry that the DOJ is now investigating.

You seem to have a hypocritical standard when it comes to investigating potential crimes or other improper behaviour.

The testimony so far has seemed to outline a clear quid pro quo, even without quid pro quo a sitting president SHOULD NOT be requesting political dirt on domestic rivals from a foreign power! The transcript released by the White House and the whistleblower both match up. A crime has been committed and he can be criminally indicted by the DOJ or the state judicial branches.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6965/constitutional-interpretation-usa-article-i-section-3

There is zero room for any interpretation that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The DOJ is wrong and the memos relating to the question of indicting a sitting president are based on no arguments that fall in line with any of the methods of constitutional interpretation applied.

Indictment is NOT hindered or obstructed by impeachment, at all!

Do you believe we should investigate every allegation of wrong-doing? Let’s say I accuse you of abuse of power, should authorities be allowed to investigate you?

You, like everyone else, do not have access to the testimonies, only the opening statements that have been leaked by one side.

At no point did the president ask the Ukrainian president to find political dirt for the purpose of influencing any election. Yet that is the allegation.

The Republicans are so far up Trump's ass now, it would take an enema to extract them. I'm just going to amuse myself as they and the rest of Trump's minions ditch all pretence of self-respect and intellectual honesty defending him while he carries on not giving a crap and throwing them under new buses.

The latest is many GOP senators accept there was a quid pro quo for dirt on Biden and it's just a matter of time before they change strategy and start claiming that's absolutely fine i.e do a Mulvaney. Watch the rest of the professional (and amateur) bootlickers follow suit when Trump gives them the nod.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-gop-senators-consider-acknowledgingtrumps-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine/2019/11/01/72084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html

Uhm the White House transcript of the call is accessible to anyone

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

(S/NF) President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that. purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have, friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/25/us/politics/trump-ukraine-transcript.html

Pretty much starts with “Do us a favour”.

Are the opening statements going to change just because the rest of the testimony hasn’t been divulged? No, and they are pretty damning. I’d love to know what mental gymnastics you’d employ to deny the full testimony when it is available.

Unless they say anything other than “I lied in my opening statement” (which would be a crime) I doubt the rest of the testimony is going to divulge anything else. The opening statements are pretty much just summaries of what is going to be detailed in the testimony and that may only cover a small portion of it as testimony will largely be in the form of answers to questions in regards to the opening statements from the committee members.

Have you ever read the constitution? All the way through? I have, multiple times and I’ve done volumes of research on different interpretation methodologies used by the judicial branch and I’m frankly shocked no one has indicted a sitting president before. Nothing forbids it whatsoever, no forbidding language or details about timeframes allowed at all.

Probably because no one ever really expected such a corrupt menace to American democracy to be allowed into the Whitehouse. If the Judicial branch had any shred of honour decency left they’d have opened up their own investigation the moment the whistleblower report on Ukraine hit their desks.

Not to mention, a lot of members of Trumps government have willingly committed obstruction of justice by refusing to submit to subpoenas.

This entire thing is an absolute farce and I’ve yet to see one intelligent or thought out argument from you and not a single source for where you’re getting your ridiculous claims.

Republicans on 'civil war if Trump impeached' - a number of GOP reps (e.g. Louie Gohmert). It's another example of how the Trump-owned GOP is threatening the democratic process. It's basically 'hey, we don't like the rules, we're not going to play by your rules (those rules being The Constitution). How this passes for debate, or defense, is yet another appalling example of the depths that the Trump presidency continues to plumb.

I’ve yet to see one intelligent or thought out argument from you.... — Mark Dennis

You should realise the pointlessness of engaging with Trump trolls.

Yes, he asked the president of Ukraine to work with Barr, the attorney general, to look at the 2016 election and Ukraine’s hand in it. As you might know (or not) there is a massive DOJ criminal investigation occurring on that very topic.

No formal impeachment proceedings have occurred, so the White House is not obligated to participate, and your accusations of obstruction of justice is nonsense.

Since you’re an expert, perhaps you can tell me which crime Trump committed.

All the talk of recession in recent months was born of propaganda and fear. The economy added another 128000 jobs alone. People are working and buying, the stocks are raising, the S&P is at record levels, quieting those fears.

Sure, and you've now got a trillion dollar deficit and record debt because Trump bought a continuation of Obama era progress with tax cuts for his rich friends. Patting him on the back for that is like complimenting some poor fool who buys a Mercedes on credit card debt he can never pay back.

Needless to say when it all comes crashing down, Trump and the Trumpets will always have someone else to blame. Absorb all the praise, disown all responsibility. Business as usual.

Record employment and SNP? Thanks Obama. Future recession, deficit and debt? Thanks Trump. Anti-Trumpism in a nutshell.

I don't know what SNP is but assuming Trump is responsible for employment levels how does that release him from his dismal budget policy. Plus, income levels have dropped and income inequality has increased, which is to say employment levels give a rather incomplete picture.