A “high crime or misdemeanor” is whatever the House says it is. If the members of the House think that President Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president meets that definition, the House should vote to impeach. If not they should stop acting as though it did.
Article III Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Decide for yourself whether a charge of treason is reasonable based on the published reports. I think it’s a stretch.
We still dont even know what really happened. However, if both Biden and Trump used their positions to their advantage then I hope both suffer some sort of consequence. In reality, I think this only harms Biden. While in theory impeachment is the answer if Trump broke the law, the reality is that GOP senators will not vote against Trump. They would lose their next primary. The DOJ will not investigate. We really do not have an effective way to deal with bad behavior on the part of POTUS, any POTUS.
Steve
No, definitely not treason. But if the reports are accurate then I think it meets my standard for an impeachable offense.
Ironically, it looks like Joe Biden did the same thing when he was VP. It will be interesting to see how liberals process this, but I think the result will be that Biden’s nomination is likely over and Democrats will nominate one of the progressive candidates.
If no quid pro quo was involved and corrupt motive cannot be demonstrated (which would be required for abuse of power), it wasn’t even against the law. There’s a whiff of history repeating itself as farce here.
From what I’ve read it was the Ukrainians who reached out to the DOJ and were first not allowed to travel to deliver the incriminating documents (refusal to issue visas by a since-fired ambassador), and then ignored when they handed the documents over to an emissary who hand-delivered them to federal authorities (NY DOJ). The phone call between Presidents was after Giuliani personally took possession of the documents and delivered the to DC after an appeal directly to the POTUS. IMO it’s more like an emoluments case rather than a quid pro quo since it sounds like Ukrainians were trying to provide a benefit to Trump to repair what they thought were damaged diplomatic relationships. Yes, Congress has the ability to impeach a hand sandwich, but again IMO there’s very little bread and only a skim of ham grease in that package. The argument being that to expose blatant and obvious (and boasted about) malfeasance because of a perceived electoral benefit (the corruption is old news, HRC used to cow Biden out of the running in 2016) is far more criminal than the actual crime committed. Pretty hard swallow for anybody not terminally infected with TDS. The same argument could be applied to the exposure of any crime; after all, the journalist or private citizen doing the digging expects to get some fame (and maybe a little fortune) from the exposure of wrong-doing.
Agree with Steve, we need facts not rumor, surmise and wishful thinking. The IG’s report needs to be made public and in general folks need make a deposit or get off the pot.
Some thoughts:
The original story was that a “whistleblower†blew the whistle on Trump based on a phone call he listened to in which he heard Trump request an investigation into Biden’s Ukrainian affairs. Find dirt. Further, the original story incorporated the innuendo that Trump threatened to withhold military aid unless said dirt chasing occurred.
Subsequently, a) it turns out the whistleblower didn’t actually hear this conversation, but rather heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend. Hearsay. b) the military aid was released in the absence of any investigation. No quid pro quo. c) most importantly, pointed out by Tsars, it was Ukraine who approached the Administration, not the other way around. Says who? Well, John Solomon and ABC interviewed Ukrainian government officials who told them so. Their version of events is that after the firing of the original prosecutor, at Biden’s request, and who may have been getting close to some uncomfortable Burisma inquiries, the replacement prosecutor reopened the investigation. And as a result of the findings of that investigation requested an audience with Bill Barr due to (perhaps among other things) “external pressures†in the original investigation.
Those are two quite different scenarios.
Trump and Giuliani claim the call tied aid to attention being paid to rampant Ukrainian corruption. Where is our money going?
As for the Biden matter. Hunter Biden has zero PE experience. He has no oil and gas experience. It’s hard to do a deal involving a $100mm tin bender in Elk Grove Village. Doing a multi billion dollar international deal?? This is ludicrous on its face. The fees alone could be $30mm just for fancy lawyers, Goldman Bankers, McKinsey consultants…… Hunter Biden has no clue, but he certainly has a way of extracting money big money from countries in which his then VP father was the point man. Just sayin’.
And I thought you were not going to comment on the scandal de jour.
You know what they say; be careful mud-wrestling with a pig – the pig might like it.
“it turns out the whistleblower didn’t actually hear this conversation, but rather heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend. Hearsay. ”
How do you know this? They have refused to release the whistleblower complaint. (Been working all day. Did they release the complaint today?)
Steve
Steve
As for impeachment, my timeline still looks correct.
Come Dec and Jan, after Democratic Congressman/woman have to vote for upcoming s*** sandwich (for them) of a budget, find out they won’t have legislative achievements for the term, and endure seeing a few of their fellows threatened to be primaried, they will see a vote for impeachment as at least an achievement of sorts.
He/she said it, steve. You are never going to hear his stuff first on MSM or the lefty cables. But now it’s out.
Listen to John Solomon. He must have one hell of a set of sources. He hasnt missed on anything in two years.
And here is another one. JS interviewed the fired prosecutor, who relates that he was just about to interview Hunter Biden about Barisma when, bam, Joe wants him fired. Now seriously, when does the VP go to a sovereign and tell them to fire a prosecutor? What next, Macron demanding inquiries into Justice K?
In The Hunt for Red October a Russian captain gets out maneuvered and his own torpedo is about to blow him up. His sonar guys says “you arrogant asshole, you’ve killed us.†Meet Adam Schiff.
William Weld’s hysterical declamation persuaded me to remind people of a few facts. He’s a senior member of the bar and knows better.
You really have a man crush on this John Solomon guy don’t you? (Do you just read what he writes or do you make sure to watch him when he is on Hannity?) He is a single source with ideological bias. He writes things you like. I find it pretty telling that you have already made up your mind without the complaint being released. We have already gone through the stages of denial. Didnt talk with anyone, didnt talk with Ukraine, didnt talk about Biden, did talk about Biden but didnt talk about investigation, did talk about Biden AND did talk about investigation but didnt ask for quid pro quo. Let’s just wait and see the whistleblower complaint.
Steve
150+, less then 70 to go.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/growing-list-150-house-members-backing-some-action-trump-impeachment-n1057986
Still going to take 2 months to get there; my guess the final 10 to 218 will require arm twisting.
If Democrats get there too quick; you could mix budget showdown with impeachment — which would be something.
One final observation on the scandal de jour.
Unlike the Russia investigation – reporters; key Congressman already know most of the facts – but they cannot say they do. The complaint, it’s strength and weaknesses are known. The summary of the transcript is known. The only fact that maybe hidden is the actual transcript.
That is how I am observing as reporters reveal their breaking scoops.
To paraphrase Mr. Dooley the House leadership reads the polls. Trump is nearing the highest approval rating and lowest disapproval rating of his presidency. So far Nancy Pelosi has been engaged in brinksmanship—dangling impeachment to entice the membership while also blocking it because she’s unsure of whether it will actually boost Trump’s popularity. She’ll need to commit one way or another before January.
Why is it when a serious investigative reporter like a John Solomon or a Sheryl Atkisson is cited, dealing with evidence they have dug up, they are immediately mocked and discredited? Solomon includes named sources, detailed timelines etc.. Yet, someone like an anonymous whistleblower, with secondhand information, who is now being outed as not even associated with any intelligence agency is viewed as more credible!
It has been repeated many times before, but if all the malfeasance (keeping a private server in order to avoid FOIA oversight, with a POTUS using a false name when communicating with his SOS; destroying emails: politically using the IRS and various intelligence agencies as a means to a political ends, and so on) were ever a part of republican tactics used to stay in power, the country would blow up under the fumes of intense, non-ending scrutiny and media indignation.
BTW, I predict democrats will reach their goal of impeachment proceedings. It’s all a part of their continuing efforts to get rid of this president, who has so confounded their ultimate transformational goals set up under the Obama Administration. The US was on route to be a globally run society, not one inspired by any thread of the rugged individualism that propelled this country during it’s founding days.
Legalese aside, if any American politician sells out their office to enrich their families, allies or foundations, they should be gone. If an American President uses his powers to expose such actors, he should be congratulated.
I hate to break it to you, GS, but with a few very rare exceptions they all do. To “expose such actors” you only need publish the roster of the Congress, White House, appointed officials, and civil service employees. To one extent or another they were all doing so.
And that’s just at the federal level. The number with their hands in the cookie jar at the state and local levels is unimaginably vast.
There is not even a perfect way of limiting it. The best we can do is to limit the scope of government to strictly enumerated powers and enforce that rigorously, which, of course, we will not do.
Sounds like Pelosi favors starting impeachment hearings. Once that train leaves, it is not coming back.
Here are some things to observe.
How much arm twisting will be needed to get 218 votes?
What will become of the budget? Can the infant budget deal survive, or will there be a year long CR. Will there will be a government shutdown?
Will it drive Trump’s ratings up or down or do absolutely nothing.
Will it drive up or down the generic ballot for a Democratic Congress.
Will it drive up or down Biden / Warren / Sanders ratings?
Has the Mueller investigation created a “boy who cried wolf” effect?
“Why is it when a serious investigative reporter like a John Solomon or a Sheryl Atkisson is cited”
You guys don’t accept anyone from any non-right wing source. It is all fake news from anyone who doesn’t support the right wing agenda. So, all I am suggesting that since it is clear that people like Solomon and Atkinson have clear bias in their reporting (and if you remember her reporting on being spied on over her TV, I think Atkisson is either stupid or clinically paranoid) why dont we just look at the actual whistleblower complaint. The only people resisting that, AFAICT, are people on the right.
Besides the above, which I think is pretty obvious, everyone on the right wing (that I have seen) is leaving out context and what was going on over the last 4-5 years.
“the rugged individualism that propelled this country during it’s founding days.”
For the GOP this means tax cuts for the rich. Special laws and rules for the wealthy. If that is what you mean by rugged individualism, then you are correct, the GOP is the correct team to join.
Steve
This is something of a digression but IMO “rugged individualism” as a description of what “propelled” the United States is something of an exaggeration—mythology based on the movies. It isn’t what deTocqueville described. What he described was towns, communities.
Take my great-great-grandfather Wagner who arrived in this country around 1830 for example. Not only did he arrive with his whole extended family, he arrived with an entire community from the Palatinate in Germany.
I think you will find that is more the rule than the exception. It was certainly true of Jamestown, the Plymouth, the Massachusetts Bay colony, and many, many more.
Here in Illinois much closer to the present the village of Highwood north of Chicago Italian immigrants, most from a couple of villages in Modena, moved to what had largely been a settlement of outlaw bars. That’s why the town has so many Italian restaurants.
I think that what we’re seeing in our politics today is a basic conflict between those small town, community roots and large scale centralized governments.
From memory, so I may be wrong, but as I recall we became the world’s most productive economy in the 30s (GDP per capita). Not so much from the rugged individuals taming the West, but because we became a manufacturing power. That doesn’t happen unless you have a lot of infrastructure in place, a decent work force, supply chains and some (at least) semi-decent kind of govt.
Steve
Well, let’em have at it. Impeachment by the house will only illuminate Biden’s issues. So on to Warren, shrill, shallow, deceptive, and a card carrying, Harvard one world elitist.
On RealClearPolitics; Trump’s job approval rating is 45.3 today. That’s higher then everyday in his Presidency except Feb 2-4, 2017. Let see how low it gets once he is impeached.
As I’ve mentioned before there are competing theories. One theory is that the constant revelations during the impeachment hearing will drive Trump’s approval rating down and improve the Democrats’ electoral chances. The competing theory is that due to the rally ’round effect or whatever impeachment hearings will actually cause Trump’s approval rating to increase.
If the first theory is right, the Democrats will not only hold the House and win the White House in 2020 they could also capture the Senate. If the second is right Trump will be re-elected (possibly with a majority of the popular vote) and the Democrats could lose the House.
I have no idea which theory will hold and I don’t think anybody else does, either.
I was nonplussed reading the comments by those regarding their perspective of “rugged individualism.”
For Steve, it meant, “tax cuts for the rich. Special laws and rules for the wealthy, “ benefiting only those on Team GOP. For Dave, the term “rugged individualism” sparked an association with ” towns and communities” as being the propellant behind the founding of this country, and (I guess) rejecting other notions as being more “mythical” than reality-based.
I’ve always thought of rugged individualism much differently, similar to how Merriam and other sources describe it: “the practice or advocacy of individualism in social and economic relations emphasizing personal liberty, and independence, self-reliance, resourcefulness, self-direction of the individual, and free competition in enterprise.“ Furthermore, such characteristics of rugged individualism are considered virtues, rather than being seen contemptuously motivated by greed.Â
Even in the early days of colonial settlements, experiments with equal division of goods, no matter the labor expended by individuals, was a failure and soon changed. Yes, cooperating as a community of neighbors was definitely a positive quality cultivated in this country. However, so was the tenaciousness and hard work of individuals, who oftentimes had left an easier life in order to embrace one far more challenging but free from too much government interference or restraints.Â
The phrase “rugged individualism” was coined by Herbert Hoover in the 20th century and is frequently associated with laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism was not abandoned due to some socialist impulse but because it wasn’t working. It was resulting in food that people couldn’t eat, drugs that killed them, and crony capitalism. Perhaps “mythical” was the wrong description to use. I think “ahistorical” might be more along the lines I was thinking of.
You will search in vain for anything resembling rugged individualism in the Mayflower Compact, any of the antecedents of the U. S. Constitution, or the writings of the Founding Fathers. It is more Teddy Roosevelt than it is Thomas Jefferson or James Madison.
“The US was on route to be a globally run society, not one inspired by any thread of the rugged individualism that propelled this country during it’s founding days.”
I may have used the reference to “founding days” too casually, in that it was construed as something directly attributed to the founding fathers. My application was purely as a descriptive flourish, characterizing what traits were generally associated with rugged individualism. I won’t re-list what was earlier posted. However, tenacity of spirit associated with grit, hard work and accountability for your actions, non-actions or reactions, to me, imbue how I picture a rugged individualist. With this in mind I think it would also be fair to hypothetically say such individuals would probably possess more self discipline, self direction, be more self-sufficient and entrepreneurial — personality skill sets which, when you are a new transplant anywhere in the world, let alone a rugged frontier in the 16-1700’s, are important and life-sustaining features.