Republicans struggle to get on message after Bolton rocks trial:


“We’re going to have some new stuff coming out every day. That doesn’t really change anything,” said Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

Odd. It contradicts what Trump's defense has stated explicity. It doesn't change anything for those who already believed Trump was guilty, but it forces Trump defenders to come up with another excuse.

Barrasso, the No. 3 Senate Republican, had a similar response. “I think there’s going to be something new coming out every day,” Barrasso said told reporters. “New information, old information told in a different way, to inflame emotions and influence the outcome.”
Isn't that the job of a prosecutor - to infuence the outcome of a trial?


But in the same press conference, Barrasso seemed to undercut his own argument: “To me the facts of the case remain the same. There is nothing new here to what the House managers have been saying.”
Right - it's consistent with, and adds support for, the charges brought by the House.

Why do we have taxes at all? We have it to pay for the things the government does. Everyone benefits from this, and I'd argue that the wealthy benefit more than everyone else. Money has no intrinsic value; it's de facto value is a social construct - one that is dependent on government to exist.

Lev Parnas seems to be a very forgettable guy. Even Devin Nunes forgot he'd ever talked with him. Maybe Parnas is a Jedi.

The pro-Trump view is that Trump really didn't know who Parnas was. But that implies he decided to fire Marie Yovanovitch on the basis of a stranger claiming she'd been badmouthing him.

Stupidity is not a defence either. — Benkei

Funny you should mention that, because some Republican Senators have argued that Trump's (stupid) belief in the Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory constitutes justifiable reason for him to ask Ukraine to investigate it.

Perhaps Trump doesn't remember telling Bolton he was tying release of the funds to the Biden investigation, so he's' not lying. That's certainly an example where it doesn't matter.

He does seem to have a poor memory, since he doesn't remember meeting Lev Parnas. It's interesting that he decided to fire Marie Yovanovitch simply after hearing Parnas (the guy he doesn't know) tell him she'd been bad-mouthing him.

Would you care to place a small wager on whether or not Bolton's book, and or his testimony, will be consistent with this reporting?

Be careful. They say this is based on multiple sources, and Bolton's attorney has essentially acknowledged it.

As I often say when debating Christians: faith is an obstacle to truth.

Here's what the "failing New York Time" (LOL) reported:

WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.
The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair. The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

The New York Times: Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says.

I wonder how Republicans will justify not calling witnesses now.

Purpura's arguments do not disprove the impeachment charges, at best they just suggest an alternative interpretation of the facts. IMO they don't fit the facts nearly as well, but if they raise serious doubt, that's all the more reason to bring in witnesses.

This event - this one - seems to me to be present. It is, I think, occurring 'now'.

But if time is some kind of wierd soup in which we're all slowly drowning, then there will surely be a lag between some event occurring and the event of my mind representing it to be occuring, occuring.

If that's true, then the mental event of mine that represents this - this now - to be occurring, is representing as occuring now something that has, in fact, already occurred. This event - this one - is in the past, not the present. I perceive it to be in the present - it has presentness to me - but in reality it is past.

If that's true, then doesn't that mean we are subject to a systematic illusion of the present? — Bartricks

The term the present connotes two different, but related, concepts: the mathematical present (that fleeting point on a real number line representing the procession of time), and the colloquial sense of the present, which is rooted in perception.

Our sensory perceptions take time to be integrated by the brain. The physics (sorry!) makes it impossible for each sense to be precisely synchronized, but they are sufficiently synchronized to deliver a reasonably accurate integrated perception of the environment in which we can interact.

Colloquial reference to the present are contextual. At present:
- I'm typing this response (I'm referring to the entire period of time I spend on it);
- The word I'm typing is "present" (which was true only during the brief period of time I was typing those letters).
- Donald Trump is President (I'm referring to the four year period in which that is true).

So its fuzzy semantically and perceptually, but it's precise only in the mathematical sense.

Yes the power of impeachment extends to the full house, not any one individual house member or committee. Therefore any subpoena issued before the house vote for an impeachment inquiry is invalid. This is one of the many arguments in the White House impeachment memorandum, which deserves a read. — NOS4A2

It's interesting that the memorandum does not rebut any of the facts of the case, and instead consists of complaints about the process. This particular complaint rests on treating precedents as binding. That's bogus because the House has sole power of impeachment - they set their own rules.

Adam Schiff is doing an incredible job - clearly the most effective of the House managers. He's changed my mind about the subpoenas. I previously thought the House should have taken Trump to court, but he made an excellent points on the fact that it risked dragging out indefinitely, to the point that justice could not possibly be served. It's interesting that even Lindsay Graham (speaking of hypocrisy...) complemented the job he's done.

The constitution grants the House full power of impeachment, not just select individuals and committees. That’s why the demands for documents were deemed invalid. This is precedent. — NOS4A2

By having the full power of impeachment, no other body has Constitutional authority to deem anything that transpires as invalid. You may judge it unfair, but you can't claim it's unconstitutional.

The fact that due process does not apply is not a good enough reason to avoid giving due process and applying justice. And in fact further proves the naked partisanship, how this is a ploy to influence the next election, and how the case is already doomed in the senate.

When you say it's "not a good enough reason" - are you again talking about fairness? Fairness and constitutionality are two different things, and it seems to me you resort to Constitutionality when it helps your case (defending Trump's expansive use of executive privilege - clearly going beyond past boundaries, ignoring its unfairness), and then shift over to fairness when Constitutionality doesn't give you what you want. What could be more partisan than that?

What if the impeachment inquiry was unfair and unjust, violating due process and the constitution? — NOS4A2

There is no such thing as an unconstitutional impeachment or trial. The Constitution grants the House and Senate sole powers to impeach and try, respectively. The Constitution sets no rules, so they can do whatever they want.

Complaining about fairness in this process seems similar to complaining that a participant in a street fight isn't following the Marquis of Queensbury rules of boxing. But lets consider it anyway. Is it fair for a President to block access to witnesses and documents by asserting executive privilege (and remember, that's the context we're discussing); it's contrary to the rules for discovery in standard cases. That "unfairness" is balanced against the "unfairness" of Congress' powers.

Besides that, there is no such thing as due process in the grand jury process that leads to an indictment. An impeachment is analogous to an indictment. The President is being granted all traditional due process rights in the Senate Trial, so current Republican complaints about that are unwarranted.

No, and please remember that I told you that I think the Dems should have taken Trump to court. I feel that way because it would remove all controversy.

That said, I'm also saying that it isn't really technically necessary, because they are free to interpret the Constitution themselves -and to apply past SCOTUS precedent. In the hypothetical case in which they were to do this, it would serve as a precedent for future Congresses to impeach a President if, and only if, both these elements were present: 1) That President issued a blanket refusal to reject any and all Congressional subpoenas. 2) The subpoenas are associated with investigation of the President's potentially impeachable conduct.

So yes, I think it would be reasonable to impeach any President who exhibited both elements.

Senate could interpret it that way, but they would be stupid to do so, because it would be ruinous to the constitution and any future presidency. It would blur the separation of powers and set up any future presidents (and all past presidents) for impeachment just for asserting executive privilege. — NOS4A2

Trump's invoking privilege to justify a blanket stonewalling of Congress is clearly outside the boundaries set by U.S. v Nixon. Therefore Congress would not be making a "ruinous" novel judgment. Nor is it a disastrous precedent to assert Congress will not tolerate a blanket refusal to comply with any all subpoenas.

Even if it's insane, we need some from the "insane" party to join in a coalition to make meaningful change.

Another bit of insanity I see on the Republican side is a "no-compromise" stance. If Democrats adopt the mirror image of that, then big change cannot happen.

It was never proven because it was never taken to court. That is where matters of executive privilege vs congressional subpoenas are settled. For instance Bolton said he would take the House to court if they subpoenaed him. The court may or may not have allowed Bolton — NOS4A2

The Courts interpret the Constitution, they don't make law. SCOTUS' interpretation is binding for matters that come to them. However, Congress is also free to interpret the Constitution - they do this all the time when passing laws. SCOTUS can overrule their interpretation and throw out laws when (and only when) a case comes to them. However, in the case of impeachment - there is no appeal to the Supreme Court, so the Senate could, in theory, interepret the President's blanket rejection of all subpoenas as unconstitutional and remove him from office for that.

Further, it's a reasonable interpretation. There's zero probability SCOTUS would agree that a President has the authority for a blanket rejection of all subpoenas associated with an impeachment inquiry - it would be contrary to US vs Nixon, which was a unanimous SCOTUS decision. In that decision, SCOTUS directly rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

One party says nice things about what they'll do about it, the other party denies it's happening altogether. — Xtrix

Not ALL Republicans deny anthropogenic global warming. This article mentions some (somewhat) positive things put forward by Republicans. The tone of the article is negative toward what they're doing, but it does at least show that they're accepting that its occuring.

That said, we all know that our current President denies it, and nothing meaningful will pass while he's in office - and his party enables this.

OK. But if Bernie isn't nominated, will you still vote in the general election?

They're fired up anyway. There is no ideal candidate. The Trump people will vote Trump. The swing voters, if there are any, greatly dislike this president. After four years, I think they've given him "a chance" and will now vote blue, regardless of the candidate -- like your wife. — Xtrix

Swing voters (both independents and never-Trumper Republicans) who don't like Trump won't vote for him, but if they also don't like the Democratic candidate - they'll stay home. My top priority is to oust Trump, and that priority is best served by picking the Democrat I feel has the best chance to win - and that entails being palatable to swing voters.

Hmm. Maybe you're right, I'll strike her from my possible vote in the primary. (although I'd certainly vote for her against the incumbent).

I think this misses an important point: we already have the numbers in this country. All we need is to get the vote out. We need organization and enthusiasm. I don't buy the fact that Obama won because he was moderate -- it's because people turned out for him, they were excited about his candidacy (foolishly, in my view, but that's irrelevant). — Xtrix

I don't think we do have the numbers in the swing states, and it's probable Republicans will be fired up if a "socialist" runs. I know Bernie supporters are enthusiastic, but not all Democrats are enthusiastic Bernie supporters. My wife can't stand him, although she'd vote for chicken poop over Trump.

Obama fired up black voters - their turnout was unprecedented. He ran against moderates (McCain and Romney), so there wasn't all that much space between them. There's huge space between Trump and any sane alternative, so choosing sides is pretty easy.

Beyond the incoherency of a dual endorsement, what's absurd about the NYT endorsing Klobuchar is that less than a year ago the Times published a story about how she is physically and mentally abusive to members of her staff and that she has the highest staff turnover rates in the Senate. — Maw

Her alleged abusiveness isn't disqualifying. It's apparently contributed to her problem keeping staff, but if she were President, it probably wouldn't have THAT result - there's prestige and power associated with serving a President, so I think most people would just buck up under the petty complaints she might make. A positive spin on her behavior is that she is singularly focused on getting the work done, and doesn't waste energy fretting about the feelings of her staff.

I want Pete, simply because he's moderate, and he's the most articulate (and possibly the most intelligent) of the bunch. Despite wanting him, I probably won't vote for him when my state (Texas) has its primary. I'll probably vote for Biden, unless Pete, Klobuchar, or Tom Styer, appear to have a good chance. My last choice is Bernie, and 2nd last is Warren, and it's not because I wouldn't be happy with them - it's just that I think they are less likely to win the general election because they'll turn off moderates and never-Trumper Republicans.

I've been challenged before on my opinion that a moderate has a better chance than Warren or Bernie, so I'll try to head that off. The pro-Bernie/Warren folks suggest they'll energize the base and bring more people out. IMO, this will result in them winning Blue states by a bigger margin than Hillary did in 2016 (which doesn't garner any more electoral votes), but it raises the risk of losing the swing states. The result could be an even bigger margin of popular vote victory than Hillary received, but still losing the electoral college. My view on this is consistent with state-specific polling in swing states - which show Biden has the best shot (and maybe the ONLY shot) of beating Trump.

Keep in mind that Incumbents rarely lose, especially when the economy is doing well. The only reason it's looking even CLOSE is because of this incumbent's off-putting behavior (I'll leave it at that, to avoid having this thread merged into the Trump thread).

Nice sentiment, but I don't understand why he's "proclaiming" it a Federal Holiday. Ronald Reagan signed it into law (despite initially opposing it) as a Federal Holiday in 1983.

Original sin isn't even mentioned in the BIble, so it certainly doesn't say this about Mary. I was mistaken about Mary being born without original sin; rather, Pope Pius IX declared that she was cleansed of this sin at conception; I doubt anyone but Catholics accept this. Neverthless, my point was that Jesus having an absence of original sin isn't at odds with him having the absence of original sin, since Adam & Eve were also humans who lacked it.

Perhaps it could be rationaled by assuming the Original Sin gene is on the Y chromosome. Jesus didn't get his Y chromosome from a biological human.

Was Jesus born with Original Sin?
...

If not, then he had no human side and was pure god — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That does not follow. Three other humans are said to have been born without original sin: Adam&Eve (who committed the original sin) and Mary (mother of Jesus).

If any GOP members "betray" the President, doesn't that mean they're setting politics aside and following their conscience? What a nightmare!

And the Ukrainian foreign minister. His recent interview pretty much refuted the entire case against Trump. No quid pro quo, no pressure, implicit or otherwise, refutes Sondland, says everything was routine... I wonder if they would be able to testify. — NOS4A2

Asking for an investigation of a political opponent is wrong even if there's no quid pro quo.

The foreign minister's comments suggest Ukraine wasn't aware of Trump conditioning release of aid on the announcement of an investigation, but the case doesn't hinge on that. There is a good bit of evidence that Trump did hold up aid to get an investigation announced, and that still constitutes an inappropriate quid pro quo (something for something). Ukraine was beholding to the US and its President and wanted to please him, and Trump appears to have tried to take advantage of that.

What's the point of testimony by Hunter and the whistleblower?

They are the start of this whole mess and would be useful to the defense. — NOS4A2

That's what I don't understand. They won't refute any of the facts, so how is it useful to the defense? Or are you just saying it's politically useful because it will be an opportunity to play to the base, like when they had Peter Strozk testify?

From the Ukrainian side there is exculpatory evidence that there was no pressure, that hold ups on the American side are routine, and that nothing amounted to any quid pro quo. This is direct evidence considering it involves people on the phone call, the supposed victims. It’s a shame their words were not even considered in the inquiry, but that’s to be expected in such a partisan inquiry. — NOS4A2

Are you referring to Zelensky' statements? That is something, but it is at odds with testimony by the diplomats. It would be risky for Zelensky to say he felt pressured, and to his benefit to convey to Trump that "he loves your ass". On the other hand, the diplomats took a risk by testifying, and they corroborate one another.

I do not think there was an explicit quid pro quo, but the nature of the relationship (they need our money) creates an implicit one, and makes it all the more inappapropriate.

I actually would like to hear Bolton’s testimony, and also Hunter Biden’s, Lev Parnas’, and the whistleblower’s. Let the chips fall where they may.

What's the point of testimony by Hunter and the whistleblower?

I’m glad we can agree it is deserving of scrutiny. Luckily there was no pressure, nor any call for criminal investigations from the president. — NOS4A2

There is testimony evidence of pressure, and documentary evidence the aid was held up illegally. If the requested investigation was not for criminal purposes, what else could it be other than simply digging up dirt on an opponent? The fact that Trump's position that his call was "perfect" is troubling, because it suggests we can expect more of the same.

Recall that I'm not convinced his action is necessarily worthy of removal from office, but that it was important to send him the message that it's wrong. My hope is that a fair number of Republicans will send him that message - voting to acquit solely because it doesn't rise to the level of "high crime" but noting that he shouldn't have done that.

I think where we disagree is whether Trump abused the power of his office. Considering that abuse of power is one of the articles of impeachment hopefully more facts will come to light in the upcoming trial. — NOS4A2

Yes, it would be great to have more facts. Do you agree it would be good to hear Bolton's testimony?

What about your standard, avoid any action that could potentially be perceived as unethical or illegal? Sounds like it’s not so much a standard anymore, at least when applied to the Bidens. — NOS4A2

I apply the same standard to Hunter: it looks wrong on its face, and he shouldn't have taken the job.
It does raise questions, and its worthy of scrutiny. But it's not probable cause for a criminal investigation. Trump's case is different: it's an abuse of his considerable power (he's arguably the most powerful person on the planet) and contrary to his oath of office to faithfully execute.

On the other hand, I don't see that Joe did anything wrong: he's not responsible for his 40+ year-old son's actions. Nevertheless, it makes sense to question Joe's getting the prosecutor fired in light of his son's job. When I first heard about it, I was concerned, so I looked into it and saw that the context of the action (which I've already described) doesn't seem problematic at all. The only things I've read that try to make a case against Joe for this have ignored that context.

Biden threatened to withhold over a billion dollars if the top prosecutor wasn’t fired. — NOS4A2

You're ignoring the fact that this prosecutor was widely regarded as corrupt, by US Intelligence, our allies, and by anti-corruption activists in the Ukraine. Further, he was not actively investigating Burisma.

Still I do not understand the argument that a Democratic Party candidate’s son cannot be investigated by Ukraine because he’s running for office. “It looks wrong” does not seem an adequate enough explanation, and in fact it looks like grasping for straws. — NOS4A2

I didn't say there was necessarily anything wrong with Ukraine investigating. I said there's something with Trump pushing an investigation of a political opponent.

If there is evidence of Hunter having committed crimes, it would be perfectly legitimate for Ukraine to investigate this. What crimes has he been accussed of? Do you understand the nature of the corrupt acts of Burisma? What reason is there to think Hunter was involved?

I get that it looks bad for Hunter to have taken the high paying job, but he's hardly the first person to profit from a name and connections (e.g. Giuliani; Trump's kids). You need something more than the mere fact that he worked for Burisma.

This doesn’t look bad? As someone who wants to be an informed voter it is in our best interest to sort out these conflicts of interest. — NOS4A2

Sure, information (even dirt) is valuable to voters, but that doesn't make it appropriate for a President to use the power of the office to dig for this valuable dirt. Merely looking bad is insufficient justification.

Remember that he only asked Zelensky to look into it if it’s possible—Burisma is a Ukrainian company—“so whatever [Zelenski] can do with the Attorney General would be great”. The attorney General is the head of the DOJ, which is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States. — NOS4A2

Asking for investigation into the Bidens looks wrong on its face, which puts the burden on him to make a case for this being essential. He hasn't. He's thrown gasoline on the flames, by attacking those who criticized him, and stonewalling the collection of evidence. Further he has appealed to partisan loyalties, even "defending" his action based on rationale that seems purely partisan (e.g. Trump's referring to Biden's bragging about getting the prosecutor fired appears pure partisan, given the fact that his ouster was desired by so many).

Evidence that HAS come out adds even more reason to regard it as an act of partisanship, and that it harmed Ukraine (Zelensky looks like a fool).

So what about congressional Democrats pursuing investigations into their political opponent, POTUS, who is the man to beat in the upcoming election?

Congress has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to hold the President accountable for misdeeds. The partisan nature of the process is inescapable.

I use the standard I was taught during by 33 year career at <Major Oil Company*>: avoid any action that could potentially be perceived as unethical or illegal. Like with politicians, MOC always had a target on its back and knew that perceptions impact reputation. You could be fired for violating the standard even if nothing illegal or ethical was actually involved.

So under no circumstances should a President,
acting in his official capacity, pursue investigations into a political opponent. If the President has good reason to believe a crime was committed, the FBI, other investigative agency, or a well-regarded independent investigator can be appointed. But his hands should be off of it; the subject should be treated as radioactive.

This doesn't make it illegal for a President to push a rival's investigation, just like an MOC employee has not necessarily committed a crime. But it is grounds for suspicion, warrants scrutiny, and imposes a burden to show that the action was necessary and appropriate.

*note: I originally stated the name of the major oil company I worked for, but edited it out. It's against company policy to use their name. If I still worked there, I could be fired for it.

He didn’t do anything wrong seems a sufficient standard to me — NOS4A2

That's not a standard, that's a judgment. If you can't show that your judgment is based on some objective standard, then it would appear to be purely partisan.

You still aren't getting it. What should be the basis of pursuing an investigation? Is a hunch that's rooted in animosity sufficient?

I know you don't believe Trump was doing this for political gain, but would it be OK if some future President actually did something analogous for personal political gain? If not, then on what principle do you allow the just investigations while disallowing the unjust?

— Relativist

The basis is the evidence. — NOS4A2

I'm asking you do define a principle you would apply - in general. The principle should apply to this case, of course, but I'd like to know what that is. If you don't have a general principle, it just seems a partisan judgment. One possible principle might be the same sort of standard that would be used to decide to conduct a criminal investigation. Would that work for you? i.e. A president should only use the power of his office to directly influence a foreign power to investigate a political opponent if there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed to warrant an investigation. You don't have to agree with that, but I'm asking you to provide the standard you consider appropriate.

There is a huge switch. Switching to a belief may be a switch to a bad belief. — god must be atheist

Ok, that's a good point that negates the bet. But we do not switch on beliefs.

I think there's a bit of a logic flaw in Pascal's wager. You have to not only believe in God, you have to believe in a God that condemns you to eternal hell or promotes you to eternal heaven, based on whether you've been bad or good. In effect, God is conflated with Santa Claus. "He knows when you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake" is an expression of Pascal's wager! — fishfry

The wager isn't a logic flaw. If one could form a belief by flipping a switch, it would make sense for anyone who thinks there's at least a small chance of a god who rewards us after death for believing in him. Switching to believer costs you nothing, and it at least has that small chance of benefitting you. So the problem is that beliefs don't work that way.

The identity of an animal is determined by billions of base pairs of DNA. A creature's identity, once composed, is fixed — Bitter Crank

Not true. An individual's DNA mutates over time.(reference)