Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Rod:

Actually, the Nixon and Bush v. Gore matters demonstrate that the Federal Courts all the way up to the Supremes can move in a matter of several weeks in these huge high-stakes political cases.  Also, even if the D's were not thrilled with the process for enforcing subpoenas, Why should they expect that they can recover these witnesses and leverage the Senate now, when they chose to short-circuit the process when they were in charge of the House investigation.

Jim

p.s.  I'd like to see the "standing orders" and I'm not talking about reference to some alleged standing orders in the press.  I bet Naglers to Donuts that the "standing orders" are actually the opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel that run 5-10 pages and contains detailed analysis taking an Exec-centric point of view about Executive Privilege and detailing why Exec. staff should not testify, especially given that Schiff refused to let OLC counsel into the room. 

I actually posted Trump and Obama's version of this sort of "standing order" yesterday.  Did you look them over?  This sort of assertion of privilege is typical for all Administrations.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

"Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall"

This is one of those times when principle has to trump expediency. 

Hi Russ:

All of the stuff I've posted so far can be boiled down to a fairly simple thought.  My thought is based in respect for the Constitution, not in any sort of defense of Trump.  The thought is this:  if the House believed that impeachment was justified, they ought to have done a good and thorough job of it.

Jim

  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

My main point is that while the Democrats may pay some price for impeachment, it pales in comparison to the pound of flesh Democrats are going to extract from Trump using his bad behavior.

Understood.  This will play out of course, but I'm skeptical.  J

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I believe though that the Democrats should not fear a political backlash. Instead, they should move forward and follow their conscience. 

Hi James:

I believe you, Russ, Jim M, and others when you say that this is a matter of conscience.  I really do appreciate that. 

I have absolutely zero belief that for Schiff and Pelosi this is a matter of conscience.  For those two operators this is a matter of naked political tactics.  W/N Trump actually did anything wrong or illegal is completely irrelevant to these two.  

I could list dozens of reasons, let me know if you need some, but I think I've been long winded enough.  I'd start with Schiffs three years of lying to the public about Russia, and end with his handling of the impeachment investigation.  Schiff, Pelosi, and Trump are three peas in a pod.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

OK, Richard. I was WRONG. You need to see a psychiatrist, not a neurologist. 

Hi Russ:

I hope that you and your family had a very merry and warm Christmas.  I really appreciate your point that it is mothers, not judges and politicians who will decide whether abortion is a growth industry.  That was well put and a genuinely thought provoking and original comment.  FWIW, I read your original WJC post and believe that you communicated a fairly non-controversial point quite well.

Hi Rich:

I hope you too had a merry Christmas.  Did you stay away from politics with your lefty brother and neighbors?  Hopefully the finger(s) are healing well!  

In the spirit of joy, I am posting our Christmas card "front" picture - I spent an extraordinary amount of time this summer chasing hummingbirds around trying to get that perfect shot.  This was my best - not perfection by a mile, but still, pretty cool, I think!

Jim

 

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Clinton's impeachment trial had several witnesses and it was perfectly fine with Graham and the GOP. Stop the damn cover up and let Bolton testify!

Hi Rod:

I'd personally be fine with live testimony.  I think that allowing live testimony would help bring closure to the impeachment - for better or worse, depending on who you would like to see win of course.  No one's mind on the left or the right will be changed.

I do want to note that Clinton's trial had exactly zero live witnesses.  The testimony was initially video excerpts from Clinton and other's grand jury testimony.  Then, "over three days, February 1–3, House managers took videotaped closed-door depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Clinton's friend Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. On February 4, however, the Senate voted 70–30 that excerpting these videotapes would suffice as testimony, rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial. The videos were played in the Senate on February 6, featuring 30 excerpts of Lewinsky discussing her affidavit in the Paula Jones case, the hiding of small gifts Clinton had given her, and his involvement in procurement of a job for Lewinsky."  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Testimony

I personally think the following is important:  

Clinton was as guilty of perjury as any person has ever been guilty of perjury.  He lied under oath to a grand jury.  There is no doubt about it.  Me or you would have done time.  Still, the Senate acquitted Bill Clinton with a vote along party lines.  Clinton went on to become a Kennedy-like icon of the Democratic party.  This demonstrates what everyone who is somewhat objective about politics should already know; the WJC and DJT impeachment and removal trails were/are political party-line maneuvers, and the facts underlying the charges are irrelevant to the final votes.  Some day, I suppose, a president will commit a serious high crime or misdemeanor and be removed by a majority of his or her own party.  In such an instance, the Constitution will be vindicated.  Until then, impeachment is a political tool that I don't think plays particularly well with the public. 

I don't approve of naked politics like the Senate trial of Bill Clinton or the upcoming trial and acquittal of Trump.  But I approve less of blatant hypocrisy.  So, in the historical context of the WJC trial, when Pelosi and company demand "fairness" and and "open mind" before the Trump trail, and when they inevitably scream about the injustice of Trump's acquittal afterward, and when they write editorials claiming that this impeachment is a fight "for the soul of America," I literally want to puke.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/06/joe-biden-democrat-president-iowa-caucus-campaign-column/2826080001/

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Jim, I am totally lost about one thing: Why do you dismiss  what Trump obviously did in Ukraine and his covering it up as no big deal. There is no other explanation for your posts on the matter.

What Bubba did was of no consequence to governing the country. What Trump did just in these two instances has everything to do with governing the nation.

Explain it to me, as Richard would insist, as if I were retarded.

Hi Russ:

But there is.

I'm sure my posts have not been fully communicative.  I've just reviewed all of my posts from December 19, December 20, and today.  I see that I made a lot of over-lawerly points about executive privilege, standing orders and the like with all of these posts supporting my strongly held opinion that the obstruction of Congress article of impeachment is wildly premature.  I genuinely understand why you and everyone else would think that my "defense attorney" position on the obstruction article would necessarily include or signal an underlying belief that what Trump did was "no big deal."  That is incorrect.  I think my arguments against the propriety of the obstruction article are correct even if I think that Trump engaged in an attempted shake-down of Ukraine for personal gain. 

Then, this morning I noted that Pelosi and her ilk are hypocrites with all of their talk of justice and fairness given the historical backdrop of the WJC impeachment and trial.  I hope I can convey the hypocrisy point whether or not I believe Trump is guilty, but I understand that this is a nuance that is difficult to convey in a short (or long) post.  

So the explanation for my posts is not that that I dismiss what Trump "obviously" did in Ukraine and his "covering it up" as no big deal.  On the contrary, since late September, I have only communicated opinions about the process, the inexplicable obstruction articles, and the odious hypocrisy on display.  These opinions and thoughts I expressed in December and today are objectively divorced from my own personal thoughts about Trump's guilt and the proper remedy for his actions.  Think "defense lawyer."  It is hard to communicate these positions without you guys thinking that I am all in for Trump.    

You no doubt note the quoted "obviously" and "covering it up" which gets us to brass tacks.  See my next post.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Russ:

I'm sure my posts have not been fully communicative.  I've just reviewed all of my posts from December 19, December 20, and today.  I see that I made a lot of over-lawerly points about executive privilege, standing orders and the like with all of these posts supporting my strongly held opinion that the obstruction of Congress article of impeachment is wildly premature.  I genuinely understand why you and everyone else would think that my "defense attorney" position on the obstruction article would necessarily include or signal an underlying belief that what Trump did was "no big deal."  That is incorrect.  I think my arguments against the propriety of the obstruction article are correct even if I think that Trump engaged in an attempted shake-down of Ukraine for personal gain. 

Then, this morning I noted that Pelosi and her ilk are hypocrites with all of their talk of justice and fairness given the historical backdrop of the WJC impeachment and trial.  I hope I can convey the hypocrisy point whether or not I believe Trump is guilty, but I understand that this is a nuance that is difficult to convey in a short (or long) post.  

So the explanation for my posts is not that that I dismiss what Trump "obviously" did in Ukraine and his "covering it up" as no big deal.  On the contrary, since late September, I have only communicated opinions about the process, the inexplicable obstruction articles, and the odious hypocrisy on display.  These opinions and thoughts I expressed in December and today are objectively divorced from my own personal thoughts about Trump's guilt and the proper remedy for his actions.  Think "defense lawyer."  It is hard to communicate these positions without you guys thinking that I am all in for Trump.    

You no doubt note the quoted "obviously" and "covering it up" which gets us to brass tacks.  See my next post.

Jim

Actually, I think the underlying abuse of power articles are a big deal.  My opinion on the underlying abuse of power has not changed much since September:  See post #117 at https://astromart.com/forums/commentary-careful-read-the-terms-of-service/politics/really?page=12 

Even so, I would not go nearly so far as you.

(1) I don't know whether or not Trump is "covering up" anything.  It is not his fault that the D's failed to do a proper investigation, including resorting to the courts if they think Trump's assertion of privilege is unfounded.  I think that Trump and his allies in the Senate have no obligation to help the Democrats prove a case to remove him from office.  I believe this strongly even if I think it is more likely than not that Trump engaged in an attempted shake-down of Ukraine for personal gain. 

(2)  I am not as willing as you to claim 100% certainty about Trump's underlying guilt.  As I've mentioned, I think it is more likely than not that Trump did try to shake down Ukraine for personal gain, but Trump's side of the case has hardly been presented.  So, I am still taking a wait and see stance on his guilt.

(3)  Assuming Trump is sufficiently proven to be guilty at some level, I'm not sure he should be removed from office for his actions.  In my opinion, it depends on what the evidence shows.  

If the evidence shows a broad plan to shake down Ukraine along with an active cover-up then yes, I will favor removal.  On the contrary, if the evidence only suggests a one-off, extemporaneous, and unconsummated shake down made during an ambiguous phone call, plus with the assertion of executive privilege, then no, I do not favor removal.  Frankly, I have not given this a whole lot of thought since it is abundantly clear that he will not be removed.  

In summary, You asked in September what I think would justify removal from office.  A well-proved shake down, plus active cover-up would be a yes in my view.  A speculative shake down plus the assertion of privilege would be a no in my view.

Incidentally, refusal to honor a Supreme Court order to produce evidence would be fully adequate justification for removal that might have been relevant to this case, if the D's had not been in such a hurry.  Nixon lost the support of his party and resigned when faced with such a SC order.  I don't think Pelosi and Co. are seriously trying to get Trump removed from office, for all the reasons I blathered about on the 19th and 20th, so it is hard for me to get too worked up about Trump's crime when the Democrats in Congress so obviously do not take it seriously.

Side point - When I read posts from you and James I get the feeling that you both would favor impeachment and removal as a remedy for the accumulated effect of Trump’s many lies and manipulations.  I don't think that is what impeachment was designed for.  We do not have votes of "no confidence."  Removal for the accumulated effect of lies, manipulations, and malfeasance past, present and future is what elections are for.

Jim 

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Jim,
Speaking of hypocrisy, here's Graham screaming about having witnesses at the Clinton impeachment trial:
https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-resurfaced-video-witnesses-clinton-trump-impeachment-1480835
Now, both McConnell and him are doing everything they can to prevent witnesses from presenting testimony, live or recorded, thus actively or passively aiding and abetting in the coverup. There's no doubt Trump was shaking down the Ukraine for dirt on a political opponent and you don't want to hear from Bolton about it?

Hi Rod:

Like I said this morning, I'd prefer to have the testimony.  The D's can't control the trial, so they ought to subpoena Bolton etc. as additional witnesses in the investigation.  I think they could still do that, not sure though.  If the executive asserts privilege, then that is what the courts are for.   

Instead, the Ds prefer to cast this as a cover-up, rather than doing their jobs.  Politics as usual.  I feel crummy posting on this again when our troops just got attacked.  I hope our troops are Ok, and that our response is measured.

Jim  

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Jim.....I think simply saying "the Dems failed to make their case" would have been a lot simpler than all that beating around the bush you just posted

I personally dont believe there was ever any real intent to "make their case" though I am sure they would have been happy for something unexpected to have fallen in their laps making it for them. It was for all intents and purposes nothing but political theater intended to distract and obstruct.

They might possibly have failed to make their case so far.  You see it one way, Russ sees it the other.  I respect both positions.

I am not sure that the Ds can not re-open the impeachment investigation and subpoena some witnesses, if that is what they want to do.  If they choose not to do that, it is on them.

Also, before I agree that they have failed to make their case, I would like to see how the D case unfolds in the Senate trial, with back and forth between the House managers and Trump's defense.  It could be pretty compelling stuff as is.  I was serious when I said to Russ that I am in "wait and see" mode.

Jim