• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

Recommended Posts

A difference that I see here is that Biden bragged about it while the Trump administration tried very hard to cover it up. As with Watergate, the cover-up was a greater crime than the event being covered up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

And yet you see something wrong with the President of the United States indicating that it would be okay for said investigation to resume and he'd be interested in seeing the results, when the President of Ukraine brings up the subject.

I see nothing wrong with the President of the United States indicating that more corruption investigation is necessary.

I do see something wrong with this being done in the form of withholding aid that a bipartisan Congress voted Ukraine and essentially blackmailing the President of Ukraine by telling him that he won't get that aid unless he makes a loud public attack on a current political enemy.

I also wonder at the logic inherent in "The Democrats did something bad, so it is OK for Republicans to do it, too."

You would think that there would be bipartisan agreement among voters that NEITHER side should be allowed to do things like this. Instead it seems to be, "We need to do more of this to the other side, because that is good for democracy, right."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ijuin said:

A difference that I see here is that Biden bragged about it while the Trump administration tried very hard to cover it up. As with Watergate, the cover-up was a greater crime than the event being covered up.

Publishing the transcript of the conversation in question is an odd way to cover it up.

58 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

I see nothing wrong with the President of the United States indicating that more corruption investigation is necessary.

I do see something wrong with this being done in the form of withholding aid that a bipartisan Congress voted Ukraine and essentially blackmailing the President of Ukraine by telling him that he won't get that aid unless he makes a loud public attack on a current political enemy.

I also wonder at the logic inherent in "The Democrats did something bad, so it is OK for Republicans to do it, too."

You would think that there would be bipartisan agreement among voters that NEITHER side should be allowed to do things like this. Instead it seems to be, "We need to do more of this to the other side, because that is good for democracy, right."

There's no evidence that Trump made any threat of withholding aid - in fact the transcript has nothing even vaguely like that, and strong suggestions to the contrary. Nor that Trump specifically desired the investigation implicate Biden. On the other hand, some leftover from prior administrations said that in HIS opinion a withholding of aid was likely.

I don't wonder at the logic inherent in "The Democrats did something bad, so it is OK for Republicans to NOT do it too" - which is what we actually have. On the other hand, "The Democrats did something  and that's perfectly okay, but if the Republicans do the same thing then it's bad so let's pretend they did and maybe fabricate some evidence"... well yeah that's puzzling.

That is, unless the standard of justice has become "guilty until proven Democrat". Which seems to be the case both in the media and in the House of Representatives. 

By the way, I really don't care what motives may lie behind Trump's interest in this investigation. Investigating corruption is part of his job, and I approve of him doing his job. If we had good reason to think that he was refusing to investigate allegations of Republican corruption with similar degrees of supporting evidence, THEN there would be questions - not about why he's investigating Democrats, but about why he isn't investigating said Republicans.

Oh, and "quid pro quo" - which there apparently isn't in this case - is not automatically a big deal either. You give your grocer money, he lets you walk out with food - quid pro quo. Clinton made an agreement with Ukraine about sharing data from criminal investigations when an investigation in one country implicates people in the other, and I bet that agreement has some quid pro quo built into it - at a bare minimum, that the sharing of data be in both directions. When the Ukrainian President brought up the matter of this particular investigation Trump asked that Ukraine share data as provided for in that agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appropriating funds for foreign aid is a function of Congress, not of the Executive branch, so it is not appropriate for ANY President to withhold such funds for any reason without Congressional consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 0:49 AM, Don Edwards said:

By the way, I really don't care what motives may lie behind Trump's interest in this investigation. Investigating corruption is part of his job, and I approve of him doing his job

And investigation of alleged corruption of the President is part of the House of Representatives' job. Regardless of their motives I'm glad they're doing that job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

And investigation of alleged corruption of the President is part of the House of Representatives' job. Regardless of their motives I'm glad they're doing that job.

And so far they've found more evidence of corruption of the investigators.

Seriously, if the lead investigator in a criminal investigation were to write a document himself and then claim that the target of the investigation is the source of that document, that lead investigator would be out of a job and possibly on his way to prison.

When the investigators secretly help someone write a "whistleblower" complaint and then feign surprise when that complaint comes out, denying that there were any meetings with the "whistleblower" prior to filing of the complaint, it's bordering on both perjury (grounds for imprisoning the investigators) and prosecutorial misconduct (grounds for dismissing the charges). It doesn't help at all when it comes out that they know the "whistleblower" could not possibly have witnessed some of the stuff described in the complaint, and it's actually a second- or third-hand account ("hearsay evidence", not admissible in court).

To date, THAT IS their evidence: a document falsified by the chief investigator, and a bogus "whistleblower".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

To date, THAT IS their evidence: a document falsified by the chief investigator, and a bogus "whistleblower".

If I may be perfectly honest? I am no longer really worried about any of that. My real worries go something like this.

2016: Presidential election. Big confrontation between Party A and Party B. Massive electoral interference from foreign powers, principally believed to be Russia. Russia decides they would like to own a presidential candidate, so naturally they only focus on candidates of one party.

Naaaaah. They are not stupid. They do the best they can to suborn candidates of both parties. They might or might not succeed. But this leads to...

Candidate of party A, who wins the election, is suspected of aiding and cooperating with foreign power. Whether this is true or not hardly matters. What is important is that the country is divided between those who believe it and those who do not. That, of course, was the real aim of Russia. Not installing an asset as president -- though of course that is a bonus they would not actually object to -- but to sow doubt and dissension, and suspicion of whether the election was fair.

2017+: The Russians happily stir the pot. Now it is a matter of keeping suspicion going and ideally intensifying it. Investigations are already ongoing. Carefully dangle false clues among any real ones, intimating that the situation is even worse than people think (which it, again, might or might not be -- that doesn't matter, irrelevant for this purpose.) Intimate that the president won through a swindle. When bills to strengthen election security are proposed, weaken them by implying they are only being proposed to undermine the President. Succeed well enough that no such bills get through. Again, it does not matter if the responsibile politicians are suborned or not. All that matters is that the part of the population that believes the election was stolen think they are.

The President -- whether through malice or simple unfortunate choices, again, no difference to the Russians -- makes a number of decisions that greatly benefit Russia. Trade war with China. China angrily starts to import grain from Russia instead. Constant arguments with Europe, eroding faith in NATO and harming trade. The former obviously benefits Russia; the latter, in this case, China -- which moves to get trade deals that it can convince the Europeans to give them instead. (Obviously with hook in that bait. We have already seen how China uses such deals with major companies to harm freedom of speech.) Most recently the decision to abandon the Kurds, which deals faith in NATO a near fatal wound it may never recover from.

By now everybody from Party B is firmly convinced that the President and Party A are all traitors. Again, unimportant to the Russians whether they are or not. The true objective is dividing the country.

2020: From here on I have to go into speculation. But...

Russia of course keeps trying to suborn presidential candidates. Let's say that it succeeds in the case of hypothetical candidates Sernie Banders and Welizabeth Arren, and possibly Gulsi Tabbard, too. The latter might make a useful idiot if they want a third party runner tossed into the pot for some reason. For example, Party B somehow manages to pick a candidate that isn't suborned. But for the Russians, Sernie Banders would be ideal because he already acted in ways that made him seem suspicious back in 2016.

So, either Sernie Banders or some other suborned candidate makes the grade. He runs against the President. At some convenient time -- mid-October, for example -- the Russians release a floodwave of kompromat that firmly points the finger at the President. It doesn't matter if the kompromat is genuine or not -- the angry half of the population will swallow it either way. Landslide election win for Banders. And Russia is all set for four more years of division... which, again, is what they really want. If both parties are convinced the other side are all traitors, the US will grow steadily more paralysed. Then flash forward to 2024. Second verse, same as the first, the beat don't stop.

And eventually Russia will have won another world war with many people not even realising one is being fought.

That's my nightmare scenario. If you can imagine a worse one, the Russians probably can, too, and that is the one they are really trying for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The really scary part is that it doesn't actually matter which candidate OR which party wins--the suspicion and division will never end as long as actual bipartisanship (as opposed to "the other party must capitulate to our demands") is absent from the federal government. As long as even one of the two main parties believes that the other must die, there will be no peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it doesn't help that, in the eyes of many, one particular party has repeatedly demonstrated that they consider any lie or cheat acceptable as long as THEY WIN - and most of the media has been caught lying so frequently that if they say something bad about anyone in the other party it's assumed to be another lie.

(It isn't that we trust Kavanaugh or Trump or Republican political figures in general, it's that we distrust the major networks and newspapers that much.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to go a little bit more into partisanship.

Not all partisanship is unreasonable. There are people on both sides who may have good reason to fear the extremists on the other side. Those fears are not easily laid to rest and while there is no communication there cannot be compromise. Worse, some things are impossible to compromise on.

Take me, for example. I am a trans woman. The right wing, not only in the US but in Denmark, considers me a threat to society. They make laws designed to protect society from the danger they believe I pose. For example, I might go into a bathroom and commit rape on people there. Or, I should be kept from serving my country in its armed forces. (I am fifty-three, and I served my duty when I was much younger. My identity notwithstanding I engaged in no act of treason nor did I endanger my comrades in arms.) I should not be allowed to have a job purely based on my conviction that I am a woman. What society thinks is more important than me, and it is better than I be destroyed than I be allowed my personal conception of myself.

Which part of that should I be willing to compromise on?

I cannot offhand give examples of similar attitudes on the right wing for obvious reasons, but I am sure they exist and I am equally sure that these beliefs are as valid to them as mine are to me. I don't think that the people who hold their beliefs sacred have any great hope of the other side being willing to listen to them, either.

Now let me speak briefly of a gentleman named Justin Amash. He was a founder of the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives and I suspect I have few political ideals in common with him. And yet he gave me a political gut punch mere months ago. When the Mueller Report came out, he was the only Republican who saw it as concerning enough to question the President's fitness to serve. And yet that was not what stunned me. What stunned me was that he said -- I am paraphrasing, mind you -- "I have spent four days reading this report. I have had my staff help me analyse it and discuss critical issues with me. And yet when I speak with my fellow members of this institution, I get the impression that nine out of ten of them have not even bothered to read it. They have made up their minds based on partisanship alone."

And of course he got me there. I hadn't tried to read it, either. I'd made my mind up on partisanship alone, too.

Now, you could argue that it wasn't my duty to, and that I don't have a staff to help me, but that is not the point. The point is, I didn't even try. With that one remark Mr. Amash cast the entire nightmare of partisanship into stark relief for me and I was deeply shaken for the rest of the evening. He has since been repudiated by his own former caucus and his party, and I honestly doubt that the Democrats will welcome him either. Nor do I think him capable of such a drastic political flip-flop even if they would. Even so, I still deeply respect him for his commitment and his willingness to lay his political life on the line. He is the loyal opposition that any government could only dream of, and were he in the majority he would be the kind of leader I would wish my political adversaries to have. In fact, I would rather have just one Justin Amash than ten million Bernie Sanderses or Elizabeth Warrens. And if it came to picking a political leader of my country and I could choose between a Justin Amash and either of those other two, Mr. Amash would get my vote. That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 1:03 PM, Don Edwards said:

And it doesn't help that, in the eyes of many, one particular party has repeatedly demonstrated that they consider any lie or cheat acceptable as long as THEY WIN - and most of the media has been caught lying so frequently that if they say something bad about anyone in the other party it's assumed to be another lie.

(It isn't that we trust Kavanaugh or Trump or Republican political figures in general, it's that we distrust the major networks and newspapers that much.)

 

On 11/12/2019 at 0:52 PM, Don Edwards said:

And so far they've found more evidence of corruption of the investigators.

Seriously, if the lead investigator in a criminal investigation were to write a document himself and then claim that the target of the investigation is the source of that document, that lead investigator would be out of a job and possibly on his way to prison.

When the investigators secretly help someone write a "whistleblower" complaint and then feign surprise when that complaint comes out, denying that there were any meetings with the "whistleblower" prior to filing of the complaint, it's bordering on both perjury (grounds for imprisoning the investigators) and prosecutorial misconduct (grounds for dismissing the charges). It doesn't help at all when it comes out that they know the "whistleblower" could not possibly have witnessed some of the stuff described in the complaint, and it's actually a second- or third-hand account ("hearsay evidence", not admissible in court).

To date, THAT IS their evidence: a document falsified by the chief investigator, and a bogus "whistleblower".

Don, is it reasonable for a whistleblower of any sort to fear reprisals? Take this out of a political context, and ask yourself, "If you saw your boss at work doing something wrong at work, would you be entirely comfortable reporting him?" What if he had a track record of being demonstrably vindictive?

For your perusal: Search: "Can a whistleblower remain anonymous."

I suspect in spite of the right to remain anonymous, this particular whistleblower is going to have to show him or herself because of these kinds of foolish claims.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't the question. The question is, if I tell you that someone (unnamed) told me someone (ditto) told them that Fred over there did X, can you be a whistleblower against Fred?

Your testimony isn't valid in court, by the way.

As a matter of US law, I believe the answer to that question is no.

You could give an anonymous tip to investigators, and if the investigators find actual evidence things might go to court... but in the case at hand, it might be some people involved in getting the information to you who face charges, as Presidential conversations with foreign dignitaries are classified by default and leaking classified information to persons not authorized to have it is a felony.

On the other hand, if you give an anonymous tip to investigators, and the investigators find nothing of substance, it won't show up in the newspapers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

You could give an anonymous tip to investigators, and if the investigators find actual evidence things might go to court... but in the case at hand, it might be some people involved in getting the information to you who face charges, as Presidential conversations with foreign dignitaries are classified by default and leaking classified information to persons not authorized to have it is a felony.

It was determined by the republicans' own department of justice that the whistleblower followed proper procedure and provided substantive and verifiable material. This much was made clear from the very beginning. They violated no laws and provided real information that they were authorized to submit. Any other statement is just white noise intended to drown out the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ProfessorTomoe said:

It was determined by the republicans' own department of justice that the whistleblower followed proper procedure and provided substantive and verifiable material. This much was made clear from the very beginning. They violated no laws and provided real information that they were authorized to submit. Any other statement is just white noise intended to drown out the truth.

Is this the same Department of Justice that won't punish people - and the same intelligence community that won't revoke security clearances or flat-out fire people - for leaking classified information to the press if that information is embarrassing to Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh by the way, what would you think if Trump publicly acknowledged that he didn't have authority to make a certain policy that is incompatible with the law and such a policy would never hold up in court, arranged for legislation to be submitted in Congress that would authorize the policy, watched that legislation fail, and then established the policy by executive order?

Shredding the Constitution, maybe?

That actually happened at least twice... by Obama. One result is commonly known as DACA. The other was known as DAPA - until it was terminated by court order, having been found unconstitutional due to the manner of its creation and its being contrary to laws enacted by Congress.

DACA, seven years after its probably-unconstitutional creation and two years after Trump ordered its phase-out (with six months written into the plan - explicitly - for Congress to do its job) is still not authorized by Congress, is still running, and is still in the court system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Is this the same Department of Justice that won't punish people - and the same intelligence community that won't revoke security clearances or flat-out fire people - for leaking classified information to the press if that information is embarrassing to Trump?

I dunno, maybe they are hung up on weird little details like whistleblower laws and not actually being allowed to act on hearsay.

5 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Shredding the Constitution, maybe?

That actually happened at least twice... by Obama.

Odd, I thought it was still there. Though maybe not, Trump seems to ignore it completely.

Yes, DAPA was overturned. So why hasn't DACA been overturned by the court? Odder still, why hasn't Trump done away with DACA by executive order? He doesn't seem to have trouble doing EOs otherwise.

So what does all this have to do with witness intimidation, attempting to extort Ukraine into smearing Biden, betraying allies and doing Putin's bidding, and sacrificing US international standing at every turn?

And if giving executive orders 'shredded the Constitution', why didn't Republicans impeach Obama and fire him back when they controlled both House and Senate? Don't tell me they wouldn't have if they could have proven he violated the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

So what does all this have to do with witness intimidation, attempting to extort Ukraine into smearing Biden, betraying allies and doing Putin's bidding, and sacrificing US international standing at every turn?

Hear, hear. Enough deflection. Back to the topic at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Yes, DAPA was overturned. So why hasn't DACA been overturned by the court? Odder still, why hasn't Trump done away with DACA by executive order? He doesn't seem to have trouble doing EOs otherwise.

The executive order that you're wondering why it doesn't exist was issued Sept 5 2017, to take full effect March 5 2018. See, Trump thinks something-like-DACA would be good policy but he objects to the unconstitutional way it was created - a rather mixed position shared by quite a few other people on the political "right". So, even though Congress had already had five years to enact some legislation, and he had been asking them to do so for some time, he wanted to give them another six months.

Trump's executive order is STILL hung up in the court system. It seems that when Trump wants to uphold and defend the Constitution, Democrat politicians object and file lawsuits against him.

And no, Congress - in spite of now having had another two years since Trump issued the order to end DACA - still hasn't gotten around to enacting any legislation. This failure is in no way Trump's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem. Enough deflection, already. Back to the topic at hand.

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

So what does all this have to do with witness intimidation, attempting to extort Ukraine into smearing Biden, betraying allies and doing Putin's bidding, and sacrificing US international standing at every turn?

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Trump's executive order is STILL hung up in the court system. It seems that when Trump wants to uphold and defend the Constitution, Democrat politicians object and file lawsuits against him.

*scratches head* I don't get it. Obama issues an executive order, and when Republicans file lawsuits against it, they are upholding the Constitution. Trump issues an executive order, and when Democrats file lawsuits against it, they are tearing the Constitution down. The logic seems to be that Democratic actions and lawsuits are inherently unconstitutional.

7 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

And no, Congress - in spite of now having had another two years since Trump issued the order to end DACA - still hasn't gotten around to enacting any legislation. This failure is in no way Trump's fault.

So, the Republicans controlled House, Senate and the Oval Office for two years and still couldn't manage to end DACA. It wasn't Trump's fault. Therefore, the GOP itself couldn't manage to uphold the Constitution even while holding all the cards. That's not a good look.

I have some simple yes or no questions I would like answered.

Is it acceptable for a US president to react to a Russian offer to 'take charge of' US citizens and 'get them to tell the truth' by calling it 'incredibly generous' on TV transmitted across the world?

Is it acceptable for a US president to hand platforms to dictators and strongmen while disparaging democracies and alienating democratic allies?

Is it acceptable for a US president to sit in meetings with a dictator without his own staff and Secret Service in attendance?

Is it acceptable for a US president to unilaterally and without warning withdraw support of an ally, ordering US forces to depart in such haste that Russian troops are now using US military facilities left intact behind and flying the Russian flag over them, having not paid even a penny for them?

Is it acceptable for a US president to employ witness intimidation during an impeachment inquiry?

Is it acceptable for a US president to solicit bribes and employ extortion to promote his own personal agenda at the expense of that of the US?

Are we to believe that your intent is that all these actions are okay for a Republican President to take because past Democrat Presidents might hypothetically have done the same?

Rick Wilson quite presciently wrote that the Republicans who cheer on Trump are failing to realise that it will take no more than a left wing statist to win an election to put the jackboot on the other foot. Do you think that no Democrat would even consider using the precedents Trump will have successfully set if the GOP keeps protecting and enabling him? I have no such optimism. I may be doing them an ill turn, but I can mention at least two Democratic candidates this election I am convinced will gleefully turn the presidency's newly enlarged power and independence from its formerly co-equal branches against Republicans if they win. And I will not be cheering if they do.

By the way, since you ignored it the last time -- if Obama was shredding the Constitution, why did the Republicans not launch impeachment inquiries against him when they held both House and Senate during his presidency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

Rick Wilson quite presciently wrote that the Republicans who cheer on Trump are failing to realise that it will take no more than a left wing statist to win an election to put the jackboot on the other foot. Do you think that no Democrat would even consider using the precedents Trump will have successfully set if the GOP keeps protecting and enabling him? I have no such optimism. I may be doing them an ill turn, but I can mention at least two Democratic candidates this election I am convinced will gleefully turn the presidency's newly enlarged power and independence from its formerly co-equal branches against Republicans if they win. And I will not be cheering if they do.

Of course they realize it--that is exactly why they know that they need to rig the elections in order to ensure that no such Democrat is elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Of course they realize it--that is exactly why they know that they need to rig the elections in order to ensure that no such Democrat is elected.

That is irrelevant. The point is that no matter what party subsequent presidents might belong to, they will only be further empowered to do whatever they like and Devil take the law and Constitution. And if Democrats show the same "The Republicans did it, too, so it is OK" attitude, the US as we remember it will soon be no more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally, they assume that they can ensure that only THEIR chosen people ever get into the seat of power, therefore it is irrelevant that the power could be used against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/11/2019 at 6:43 AM, ijuin said:

Naturally, they assume that they can ensure that only THEIR chosen people ever get into the seat of power, therefore it is irrelevant that the power could be used against them.

Again not the point. What happens if a Democrat does get into power in spite of this and decides that all's fair in love and war? I assure you, the results will not be any better for the US as a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Again not the point. What happens if a Democrat does get into power in spite of this and decides that all's fair in love and war? I assure you, the results will not be any better for the US as a nation.

Because of Trump's efforts to roll back encroachment on the Constitution, the Democrat President will start with a bit less power than Obama ended his term with.

How far Trump will succeed in rolling things back, and how much (if any) of it will stick... to be determined.

One thing I can say with confidence is that the notion that it's okay - or desirable,  or mandatory - to leave questions of constitutionality to the Supreme Court is dead wrong. Read the President's oath of office, and that of the members of Congress - they all swear to defend the Constitution. For one of these people to approve and support a law or bill or executive order that they believe violates the Constitution is a violation of their oath of office and ought to be grounds for removal from office - even if said law or bill or order is otherwise a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now