The Trump Presidency

It may be neither here nor there, but it would seem like the emphasis on the public announcement of the investigation kind of gives the game away.
 
Julio3000 said:
It may be neither here nor there, but it would seem like the emphasis on the public announcement of the investigation kind of gives the game away.
Click to expand...

Not if you have a competent lawyer spinning it.

Something like this: "The public announcement requirement was the Trump administration trying to be extremely reasonable with the Ukraine. The administration knew how much the Ukraine needed those funds and so didn't want to delay them anymore than was necessary. So the administration placed only one requirement to obtain the funds, publicly announce the investigation. A public announcement places a degree of accountability on the government of the Ukraine to follow through with the investigation thus ensuring it would happen while not delaying the aid months while the investigation grinds along. It's an excellent compromise"
 
With respect to striker’s thoughtful post, that fact seems to clarify that regardless of what Trump personally believes about Biden, the idea was to solicit this proverbial thing of value from the vulnerable counterparty.
 
Julio3000 said:
With respect to striker’s thoughtful post, that fact seems to clarify that regardless of what Trump personally believes about Biden, the idea was to solicit this proverbial thing of value from the vulnerable counterparty.
Click to expand...

I 100% think this was the case. I think the intent was to leverage the Ukraine into harming Biden's campaign. The act was to threaten to withhold funds to get the Ukraine to launch a corruption investigation into already existing (though likely spurious) allegations against Biden. Based on what's out there right now, you have criminal intent with no criminal act.
 
striker42 said:
Not if you have a competent lawyer spinning it.

Something like this: "The public announcement requirement was the Trump administration trying to be extremely reasonable with the Ukraine. The administration knew how much the Ukraine needed those funds and so didn't want to delay them anymore than was necessary. So the administration placed only one requirement to obtain the funds, publicly announce the investigation. A public announcement places a degree of accountability on the government of the Ukraine to follow through with the investigation thus ensuring it would happen while not delaying the aid months while the investigation grinds along. It's an excellent compromise"
Click to expand...

I’m not disputing that good lawyers can make you think chicken **** is chicken salad. Just underscoring that the non-chicken-**** argument here is increasingly dependent on that kind of abstruse legalism.
 
Julio3000 said:
I’m not disputing that good lawyers can make you think chicken **** is chicken salad. Just underscoring that the non-chicken-**** argument here is increasingly dependent on that kind of abstruse legalism.
Click to expand...

It's definitely increasingly reliant on post hoc justification.
 
Julio3000 said:
With respect to striker’s thoughtful post, that fact seems to clarify that regardless of what Trump personally believes about Biden, the idea was to solicit this proverbial thing of value from the vulnerable counterparty.
Click to expand...

also the client does not agree that there was any sort of conditioning...difficult to lawyer that line of defense when the client denies it happened "I WANT NOTHiNG. I WANT NOTHiNG."
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
also the client does not agree that there was any sort of conditioning...difficult to lawyer that line of defense when the client denies it happened "I WANT NOTHiNG. I WANT NOTHiNG."
Click to expand...

What an honorable man.

First he sacrificed so much profits to serve the country. Then he roots out corruption by telling the new UKR leader to not go down that dark path. So honorable.
 
The Chosen One said:
What an honorable man.

First he sacrificed so much profits to serve the country. Then he roots out corruption by telling the new UKR leader to not go down that dark path. So honorable.
Click to expand...

personally I think its an impeachable offense that he dots his i's while writing out in all caps...what kind of sick person does that
 
Best I can tell, there was a deal that didn’t get closed because the doing of said deal tripped too many internal institutional alarms. POTUS, etc, then tried to backfill the hole they dug for themselves.

R position seems to boil down to the fact that the deal was interrupted before consummation.
 
striker42 said:
If the 25th Amendment was intended only for situations when the President was unconscious or unable to communicate, why have the mechanism for the cabinet to overrule him?
Click to expand...

Understand here that I'm not giving any opinion of my own, only parroting the seeming consensus of a number of experts I've seen. But that consensus seems to be that it was meant to be the mechanism for the government to remove and replace a non-conscious President who is not dead, when prior to that no such provision had existed. So by their interpretation, on which I personally make no judgment beyond a general belief that it seems to be a wide consensus and a knowledge that they certainly know more on this than I, it's not a useless provision, but one that was written to address one particular narrow circumstance only.
 
Julio3000 said:
Best I can tell, there was a deal that didn’t get closed because the doing of said deal tripped too many internal institutional alarms. POTUS, etc, then tried to backfill the hole they dug for themselves.

R position seems to boil down to the fact that the deal was interrupted before consummation.
Click to expand...

The timeline is so bleeding obvious. I might be off a day or two here or there, but it was something like this:

The aid is frozen in July.

On or about 9 Sept, the whistleblower account is officially turned over to Congress.

Also on or about 9 Sept, Trump gets on the horn with Sondland and says "I want nothing! No quid pro quo! I know noooothink! I seeee nooooothink!"

On 11 Sept, after almost two months, the aid is unfrozen,.

On 11 or 12 Sept, the Ukrainians cancel Zelensky's appearance on Fareed's show at which he was going to announce an investigation into the Bidens, which I believe had been scheduled for the 13th.

That call is most obvious CYA I've ever seen, and the new defense is basically the Sgt Schultz defense.
 
I found an interested parallel. When Obama was elected President, he had to give up his Senate seat. That meant the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, got to appoint his successor. As we all know, Blagojevich solicited what amounted to payments in exchange for the seat. That, along with several other similar incidents, led him to being convicted.

Some of the charges he was convicted for arose form his offering to appoint Obama's choice for the Senate seat in exchange for Obama appointing Blagojevich to a cabinet position. Blagohevich appealed this conviction and actually got these convictions overturned. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the exchange of official acts between politicians did not qualify as criminal under the Hobbs Act. Essentially, the court determined that this offer to Obama was a form of logrolling and said that holding politicians swapping official acts would criminalize essentially every politician.

If the GOP were smart, they would attack it under this. Just say it was a trade of official acts. It's logrolling that happens all the time. I have to say, it's a pretty convincing legal argument. Not sure it would play well among voters though.
 
striker42 said:
I found an interested parallel. When Obama was elected President, he had to give up his Senate seat. That meant the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, got to appoint his successor. As we all know, Blagojevich solicited what amounted to payments in exchange for the seat. That, along with several other similar incidents, led him to being convicted.

Some of the charges he was convicted for arose form his offering to appoint Obama's choice for the Senate seat in exchange for Obama appointing Blagojevich to a cabinet position. Blagohevich appealed this conviction and actually got these convictions overturned. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the exchange of official acts between politicians did not qualify as criminal under the Hobbs Act. Essentially, the court determined that this offer to Obama was a form of logrolling and said that holding politicians swapping official acts would criminalize essentially every politician.

If the GOP were smart, they would attack it under this. Just say it was a trade of official acts. It's logrolling that happens all the time. I have to say, it's a pretty convincing legal argument. Not sure it would play well among voters though.
Click to expand...

kind of too late in the game to try a new PR strategy.

it would make them look very bad to go from none of this ever happened to yes it did happened but it’s not illegal.

then again they kept moving the goalposts on collusion so there’s that too.
 
striker42 said:
I found an interested parallel. When Obama was elected President, he had to give up his Senate seat. That meant the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, got to appoint his successor. As we all know, Blagojevich solicited what amounted to payments in exchange for the seat. That, along with several other similar incidents, led him to being convicted.

Some of the charges he was convicted for arose form his offering to appoint Obama's choice for the Senate seat in exchange for Obama appointing Blagojevich to a cabinet position. Blagohevich appealed this conviction and actually got these convictions overturned. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the exchange of official acts between politicians did not qualify as criminal under the Hobbs Act. Essentially, the court determined that this offer to Obama was a form of logrolling and said that holding politicians swapping official acts would criminalize essentially every politician.

If the GOP were smart, they would attack it under this. Just say it was a trade of official acts. It's logrolling that happens all the time. I have to say, it's a pretty convincing legal argument. Not sure it would play well among voters though.
Click to expand...

And this is why Trump is fighting the various proposed Republican defenses. Telling the public, okay, we did this, but we have a legal argument that says we can get away with it would be disastrous politically, because the vast majority of Americans will understand that regardless of legality, those actions are unethical, corrupt, wrong.
 
Snowman said:
And this is why Trump is fighting the various proposed Republican defenses. Telling the public, okay, we did this, but we have a legal argument that says we can get away with it would be disastrous politically, because the vast majority of Americans will understand that regardless of legality, those actions are unethical, corrupt, wrong.
Click to expand...

The political angle here is much more important than the legal one. There is very little chance the Senate convicts. So spin out the defense that is least damaging. Don't confuse the base by saying we did something shady but technically legal. And the Dems have to focus on the political angle too. The idea is not to convince two-thirds of the Senate to convict. It is to persuade as many voters as possible to vote chosen one out of office.

Both sides are making some mistakes. I think chosen one is sticking to a strategy that helps with the base, but not with the persuadables he is going to need (but that is not a new mistake for him). The Dems have been a bit too legalistic. There are some things they haven't emphasized at all. For example, that the disinformation campaign that chosen one was working on had as its target the American voter and the integrity of our democratic processes. And no one has mentioned the recidivism: there is a line to be drawn from being happy with the Russians doing what they did in 2016 to now trying to get the Ukrainians to also interfere in our elections. Maybe that comes later. But those two things need more emphasis.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so sure the Senate doesn't convict where two weeks ago I thought it impossible.

Up for re-election 2020
Alabama Democratic Party Doug Jones 2017 1.7%
Alaska Republican Party Dan Sullivan 2014 2.2%
Arizona Republican Party Martha McSally N/A 13.7%
Arkansas Republican Party Tom Cotton 2014 17.0%
Colorado Republican Party Cory Gardner 2014 1.9%
Delaware Democratic Party Chris Coons 2010 13.6%
Georgia Republican Party David Perdue 2014 7.7%
Georgia Republican Party Johnny Isakson 2004 13.8%
Idaho Republican Party Jim Risch 2008 30.6%
Illinois Democratic Party Dick Durbin 1996 10.8%
Iowa Republican Party Joni Ernst 2014 8.3%
Kansas Republican Party Pat Roberts 1996 10.6%
Kentucky Republican Party Mitch McConnell 1984 15.5%
Louisiana Republican Party Bill Cassidy 2014 11.8%
Maine Republican Party Susan Collins 1996 36.2%
Massachusetts Democratic Party Ed Markey 2013 22.8%
Michigan Democratic Party Gary Peters 2014 13.3%
Minnesota Democratic Party Tina Smith 2018 10.6%
Mississippi Republican Party Cindy Hyde-Smith 2018 7.2%
Montana Republican Party Steve Daines 2014 17.7%
Nebraska Republican Party Ben Sasse 2014 32.9%
New Hampshire Democratic Party Jeanne Shaheen 2008 3.3%
New Jersey Democratic Party Cory Booker 2013 13.5%
New Mexico Democratic Party Tom Udall 2008 11.2%
North Carolina Republican Party Thom Tillis 2014 1.5%
Oklahoma Republican Party Jim Inhofe 1994 39.5%
Oregon Democratic Party Jeff Merkley 2008 18.8%
Rhode Island Democratic Party Jack Reed 1996 41.4%
South Carolina Republican Party Lindsey Graham 2002 15.7%
South Dakota Republican Party Mike Rounds 2014 20.9%
Tennessee Republican Party Lamar Alexander 2014 30.0%
Texas Republican Party John Cornyn 2002 27.2%
Virginia Democratic Party Mark Warner 2008 0.8%
West Virginia Republican Party Shelley Moore Capito 2014 27.6%
Wyoming Republican Party Mike Enzi 1996 54.8%
............

I count 12 (R) closer than should be's
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top