MAGAThread XVIII: The Authority Is Total

[The Black Forrest]

Something she never actually said

True, but what she did say was almost as ridiculous. She implied that Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy expertise.

*touches nose and points*

[Ifreann]

That is neither what Schiff said, nor what FOX reported that he said.

Schiff is making the argument that if Trump cannot be removed from office for this abuse of power, then he could commit any other abuse of power and, by the same logic that Senate Republicans are about to accept in voting to acquit, not be removed from office. Even FOX News understands that this "sell Alaska to the Russians" thing is hyperbole, not Schiff suggesting that Trump will actually do that. You should have understood that even if all you read was the headline.

Yes, and?

And in the future I think we would all appreciate it if you could be honest about the things you post.

Hyperbole not rooted in reality is quite silly, especially considering that selling an entire state to the Russians is a fair bit above trying to get a political opponent investigated.

The same logic that the President's defence team have employed to get him acquitted in this instance could apply equally in the case of him giving Alaska to the Russians if they get him re-elected. That's the point. If abuse of power is permissible, then any abuse of power is permissible.

I'll continue to laugh at Schiff for being stupid if it's all right with you.

You can do whatever you want, but you've demonstrated less integrity than FOX News, I don't think you're really in a position to laugh at anyone.

[United Dependencies]

The US Constitution or impeachment laws process must be changed from politicians of the right and the left impeaching politicians of the right and the left, to a US Court of Law with US Court of Laws rules and regulations. Not laws, rules and regulations the House and Senate political majority of the time can make, who agrees and who disagrees?

There's an easier solution.

Overturn the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that Presidents can't be charged with a crime, and then bring back the old procedure whereby a private citizen or group of private citizens can ask a judge to impanel a Grand Jury to investigate allegations of wrongdoing, with private counsel representing the accusing parties conducting the Grand Jury investigation.

Under this scenario, impeachment would only come after a President's criminal conviction in a court of law. Under those circumstances, the President's political allies would be hard-pressed to let said President remain in office once he'd been found guilty in a court of law.

An interesting solution. However, I wonder how many "private citizens" would step forward to bring charges against a Democratic president in order to empanel jurors and then subpoena documents and parties from the white house in order to keep them off balance and prevent them from working on actual government programs.

[Gravlen]

Yes. We have Biden on tape admitting that he told Ukrainian officials that he would withhold loan guarantees to Ukraine if the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma was not fired..

YOU MEAN? He got the prosecutor who wasn’t investigating Burisma fired? You mean the prosecutor who was known to be overly corrupt? the one who most European governments wanted gone? The banking industry wanted gone? The WTO wanted gone?

I HOPE they do try to impeach him on that.

The one that Republicans wanted gone.

3 Republican senators joined a 2016 push for Ukraine to reform its prosecutor general's office and judiciary, a bipartisan letter uncovered by CNN shows, mirroring the contemporaneous work of then-Vice President Joe Biden.

Why it matters: The letter to former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko illuminates bipartisan support in the U.S. to pursue corruption reforms in the prosecutor general's office. It also undermines claims from President Trump and Republicans that Biden demanded Ukraine terminate Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin and drop its investigation into the company for which Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board.

[Vassenor]

And in the future I think we would all appreciate it if you could be honest about the things you post.

Well, you're welcome then seeing as I already did that.

The same logic that the President's defence team have employed to get him acquitted in this instance could apply equally in the case of him giving Alaska to the Russians if they get him re-elected. That's the point. If abuse of power is permissible, then any abuse of power is permissible.

Yes, and if stealing a bag of chips is permissible then murder must also be permissible.

Stupid hyperbole will always be stupid hyperbole not rooted in reality.

[quote,p

I'll continue to laugh at Schiff for being stupid if it's all right with you.

You can do whatever you want, but you've demonstrated less integrity than FOX News, I don't think you're really in a position to laugh at anyone.

You're not really in much of a position to judge integrity, my friend. I don't think you've ever been.[/quote]

So what makes this abuse of power permissible?

[Zurkerx]

YOU MEAN? He got the prosecutor who wasn’t investigating Burisma fired? You mean the prosecutor who was known to be overly corrupt? the one who most European governments wanted gone? The banking industry wanted gone? The WTO wanted gone?

I HOPE they do try to impeach him on that.

The one that Republicans wanted gone.

3 Republican senators joined a 2016 push for Ukraine to reform its prosecutor general's office and judiciary, a bipartisan letter uncovered by CNN shows, mirroring the contemporaneous work of then-Vice President Joe Biden.

Why it matters: The letter to former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko illuminates bipartisan support in the U.S. to pursue corruption reforms in the prosecutor general's office. It also undermines claims from President Trump and Republicans that Biden demanded Ukraine terminate Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin and drop its investigation into the company for which Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board.

Ironically, one of those three was Sen. Ron Johnson. We should add more to Forrest's Post, here.

[Zurkerx]

Also breaking: Susan Collins will vote to acquit Trump. She said this:

""I do not believe the House has met its burden of showing that the president's conduct, however, flawed, warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office.”

That's her stance due to additional witnesses being blocked and the fact the House did "speed over finality".

Oh, she's going to have a big target painted on her back for this by Democrats.

[Gormwood]

Also breaking: Susan Collins will vote to acquit Trump. She said this:

""I do not believe the House has met its burden of showing that the president's conduct, however, flawed, warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office.”

That's her stance due to additional witnesses being blocked and the fact the House did "speed over finality".

Oh, she's going to have a big target painted on her back for this by Democrats.

Bent and spread for Kavanaugh, then let Trump grab her and squeeze. Her "moderate" ass needs to get kicked out.

[Gig em Aggies]

Also breaking: Susan Collins will vote to acquit Trump. She said this:

""I do not believe the House has met its burden of showing that the president's conduct, however, flawed, warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office.”

That's her stance due to additional witnesses being blocked and the fact the House did "speed over finality".

Oh, she's going to have a big target painted on her back for this by Democrats.

well if the democrats took there time and waited before sending over the articles they would have called Bolton and others to testify and had they made there case more solid then things would have been different. but there not so I think the target is painted on the backs of the DNC not the GOP

[Gormwood]

Also breaking: Susan Collins will vote to acquit Trump. She said this:

""I do not believe the House has met its burden of showing that the president's conduct, however, flawed, warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office.”

That's her stance due to additional witnesses being blocked and the fact the House did "speed over finality".

Oh, she's going to have a big target painted on her back for this by Democrats.

well if the democrats took there time and waited before sending over the articles they would have called Bolton and others to testify and had they made there case more solid then things would have been different. but there not so I think the target is painted on the backs of the DNC not the GOP

With the catch-22 of the DOJ saying only impeachment is applicable. Trying to have it both ways as usual.

[Myrensis]

Also breaking: Susan Collins will vote to acquit Trump. She said this:

""I do not believe the House has met its burden of showing that the president's conduct, however, flawed, warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office.”

That's her stance due to additional witnesses being blocked and the fact the House did "speed over finality".

Oh, she's going to have a big target painted on her back for this by Democrats.

Bent and spread for Kavanaugh, then let Trump grab her and squeeze. Her "moderate" ass needs to get kicked out.

There is no such thing as a 'moderate' Republican, just a couple who got elected in places where they have to be a bit more circumspect about their cartoon villainy.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Bent and spread for Kavanaugh, then let Trump grab her and squeeze. Her "moderate" ass needs to get kicked out.

There is no such thing as a 'moderate' Republican, just a couple who got elected in places where they have to be a bit more circumspect about their cartoon villainy.

Guess what? If their is no such thing as a Moderate Republican, their is no such thing as a Moderate Democrat, it works both ways.

[The Black Forrest]

There is no such thing as a 'moderate' Republican, just a couple who got elected in places where they have to be a bit more circumspect about their cartoon villainy.

Guess what? If their is no such thing as a Moderate Republican, their is no such thing as a Moderate Democrat, it works both ways.

No. Actually they are not.

The trump party has the evangelical wing which tends to be conservative. They mainly go for the South and the middle states of the country. Those tend to be mainly convservative. Even in the more liberal states, they tend to go for the rural vote which tends to be more conservative.

Moderate republicans are disappearing. Moderate democrats? Not as much.

[Gravlen]

Bent and spread for Kavanaugh, then let Trump grab her and squeeze. Her "moderate" ass needs to get kicked out.

There is no such thing as a 'moderate' Republican, just a couple who got elected in places where they have to be a bit more circumspect about their cartoon villainy.

Oh, there are such things as 'moderate' Republicans these days. However, you'll find them in the Democratic party, not the GOP.

[Gravlen]

Also breaking: Susan Collins will vote to acquit Trump. She said this:

""I do not believe the House has met its burden of showing that the president's conduct, however, flawed, warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office.”

That's her stance due to additional witnesses being blocked and the fact the House did "speed over finality".

Oh, she's going to have a big target painted on her back for this by Democrats.

well if the democrats took there time and waited before sending over the articles they would have called Bolton and others to testify and had they made there case more solid then things would have been different. but there not so I think the target is painted on the backs of the DNC not the GOP

I don't quite follow this line of thinking. I mean, several Republican senators are saying they believe Trump did what he's accused of doing. As Alexander says:

"If you have eight witnesses who say someone left the scene of an accident, why do you need nine? I mean, the question for me was: Do I need more evidence to conclude that the president did what he did? And I concluded no."

Why would Bolton have made a difference, when the GOP has decided that abuse of power isn't impeachable?

[Gormwood]

There is no such thing as a 'moderate' Republican, just a couple who got elected in places where they have to be a bit more circumspect about their cartoon villainy.

Oh, there are such things as 'moderate' Republicans these days. However, you'll find them in the Democratic party, not the GOP.

Usually calling themselves Blue Dogs and voting Republican 99% of thre time.

[Gormwood]

well if the democrats took there time and waited before sending over the articles they would have called Bolton and others to testify and had they made there case more solid then things would have been different. but there not so I think the target is painted on the backs of the DNC not the GOP

I don't quite follow this line of thinking. I mean, several Republican senators are saying they believe Trump did what he's accused of doing. As Alexander says:

"If you have eight witnesses who say someone left the scene of an accident, why do you need nine? I mean, the question for me was: Do I need more evidence to conclude that the president did what he did? And I concluded no."

Why would Bolton have made a difference, when the GOP has decided that abuse of power isn't impeachable?

No worries, they'll make up for it by scapegoating and cockblocking any future Democratic President.

[Telconi]

Guess what? If their is no such thing as a Moderate Republican, their is no such thing as a Moderate Democrat, it works both ways.

No. Actually they are not.

The trump party has the evangelical wing which tends to be conservative. They mainly go for the South and the middle states of the country. Those tend to be mainly convservative. Even in the more liberal states, they tend to go for the rural vote which tends to be more conservative.

Moderate republicans are disappearing. Moderate democrats? Not as much.

The fact that modern Republocans strike you as less moderate is due to your changing beliefs, not theirs.

[Ifreann]

And in the future I think we would all appreciate it if you could be honest about the things you post.

Well, you're welcome then seeing as I already did that.

The same logic that the President's defence team have employed to get him acquitted in this instance could apply equally in the case of him giving Alaska to the Russians if they get him re-elected. That's the point. If abuse of power is permissible, then any abuse of power is permissible.

Yes, and if stealing a bag of chips is permissible then murder must also be permissible.

Stupid hyperbole will always be stupid hyperbole not rooted in reality.

If one is acquitted on stealing a bag of chips based on successfully arguing that anything they do in the public interest, the public interest as determined by them, is ipso facto legal, then yes, that same reasoning could apply to murder. This is what is coming to be branded as the Dershowitz Doctrine. Alan Dershowitz argued before the Senate that Donald Trump did exactly what he is accused of, but since he did it in order to boost his own election chances, and since he personally believes that his re-election is in the public interest, he cannot be impeached. And that could apply to anything crime committed in order to be re-elected. And the Senate is about to vote to say "Yes, that's fine, carry on being President".

You can do whatever you want, but you've demonstrated less integrity than FOX News, I don't think you're really in a position to laugh at anyone.

You're not really in much of a position to judge integrity, my friend. I don't think you've ever been.

Maybe not. All I know is that FOX News reported what Schiff actually said, and you lied.

[Ifreann]

If one is acquitted on stealing a bag of chips based on successfully arguing that anything they do in the public interest, the public interest as determined by them, is ipso facto legal, then yes, that same reasoning could apply to murder. This is what is coming to be branded as the Dershowitz Doctrine. Alan Dershowitz argued before the Senate that Donald Trump did exactly what he is accused of, but since he did it in order to boost his own election chances, and since he personally believes that his re-election is in the public interest, he cannot be impeached. And that could apply to anything crime committed in order to be re-elected. And the Senate is about to vote to say "Yes, that's fine, carry on being President".

This is all well and good and all, but it's still just theoretical and hyperbolic and not rooted in any sort of actual reality. We didn't devolve into a dictatorship after Clinton was acquited for perjury despite breaking the law. I sincerely don't believe the same will happen here. Silly fanaticism will always be silly fanaticism.

Did Clinton's legal team argue that the President is allowed to abuse his power to get re-elected? No? Then you can see why Clinton was not emboldened to abuse his power after having been acquitted. Trump's legal team is arguing that Trump is allowed to abuse his power to get re-elected.

Maybe not. All I know is that FOX News reported what Schiff actually said, and you lied.

Yeah, but I didn't though.

You presented Schiff as having made a prediction about what Trump might do, when in fact Schiff was describing a hypothetical situation in order to make a point. If you were not lying then you grossly misunderstood the article you posted.

[Eahland]

The fact that modern Republocans strike you as less moderate is due to your changing beliefs, not theirs.

Back in 2001, Senator Jim Jeffords, who had been serving in various offices as a Republican for 35 years, left the party to caucus with the Democrats. His comment on the matter:

"Increasingly, I find myself in disagreement with my party... I understand that many people are more conservative than I am and they form the Republican Party. Given the changing nature of the national party, it has become a struggle for our leaders to deal with me and for me to deal with them."

I'm thinking Jim Jeffords is a more reliable source on the matter than you are.

[Gormwood]

The fact that modern Republocans strike you as less moderate is due to your changing beliefs, not theirs.

Back in 2001, Senator Jim Jeffords, who had been serving in various offices as a Republican for 35 years, left the party to caucus with the Democrats. His comment on the matter:

"Increasingly, I find myself in disagreement with my party... I understand that many people are more conservative than I am and they form the Republican Party. Given the changing nature of the national party, it has become a struggle for our leaders to deal with me and for me to deal with them."

I'm thinking Jim Jeffords is a more reliable source on the matter than you are.

Jim Jeffords didn't go to sleep every night checking under his bed for the BATF that's for damn sure.

[Idzequitch]

No. Actually they are not.

The trump party has the evangelical wing which tends to be conservative. They mainly go for the South and the middle states of the country. Those tend to be mainly convservative. Even in the more liberal states, they tend to go for the rural vote which tends to be more conservative.

Moderate republicans are disappearing. Moderate democrats? Not as much.

The fact that modern Republocans strike you as less moderate is due to your changing beliefs, not theirs.

I was a Republican until 2015. And while my views have evolved aomewhat over the years, the thing that drove me out of the Republican Party was the way the likes of Cruz, Carson, Huckabee, and others raced to see who could run the furthest to the right. Guys like Kasich and even Rubio (who's pretty damn conservative himself) were accused of being "RINOs" and Democrats in disguise. That's what happened to the moderates. They were chased out by Cruz, and now they're often actively opposed in primaries by Trump. Look no further than Justin Amash, whose Freedom Caucus allies all deserted him to join in the Trump circlejerk. And then he left because he, a fairly conservative man, no longer had anything in common with the Republican Party. Just like me. Like almost all the moderates. If you truly believe that the GOP hasn't shifted hard to the right, that it hasn't labeled moderates as unwelcome pests, then you're either blind to or willfully ignorant of the goings on of your own party.

[Idzequitch]

There is no such thing as a 'moderate' Republican, just a couple who got elected in places where they have to be a bit more circumspect about their cartoon villainy.

Guess what? If their is no such thing as a Moderate Republican, their is no such thing as a Moderate Democrat, it works both ways.

Not how That works at all actually. Exhibit A is Joe Manchin. He quite often votes against his fellow Democrats, as he is indeed quite possibly poised to do in the impeachment vote. Romney, Collins, and Murkowski all act like they're these moderate swing votes. But when push comes to shove, they almost always side with their conservative colleagues, just as they're doing in this current impeachment process.

[Gravlen]

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) tells Norah O'Donnell she will vote to acquit Trump in the Senate impeachment trial, adding that she believes "the president has learned from this case."

However, when he was asked about Sen. Susan Collins saying he had learned a lesson during impeachment, he did not agree and said he’d done nothing wrong: “It was a perfect call.”

Nice slap in the face of a political opponent.

Same party, you say? Huh.