Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Hey, my image of the Coma cluster is in the current issue of the journal Nature!

That's really cool!  Congratulations!

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

He's prepared to testify even though McConnell and Graham are aiding and abetting in the coverup with Trump:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/politics/john-bolton-senate-mcconnell/index.html
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!

Rod,  is there any reason that Schiff can not re-convene his committee and subpoena Bolton?  Why isn't this option under discussion? 

Jim

There are two articles of impeachment - obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.  I've blathered on and on about the illegitimacy of the obstruction article and probably convinced no one.  Hopefully some of you appreciate that my arguments on obstruction are the same whether Trump is guilty or not of an abuse of power.

On the abuse of power, I would argue that all of the following statements amply demonstrate that you guys have made up your minds well before the trial and further that you obviously lack any objectivity.  Same as our guys and gals in Congress.

"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."

"the Dems failed to make their case" would have been a lot simpler than all that beating around the bush you just posted"

"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?"

Sorry to be so jaded, but when everyone who considers Trump's actions makes a half-baked decision on guilt based upon their own predispositions, why even have a trial?

Jim

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

What about the quote from me I highlighted above in any way fits with your somewhat insulting statement I highlighted below it?

There is nothing about what I said that can or should be considered "half-baked. To expound on it a bit, based on what I saw (and I followed it closely), reviewed all the televised footage via C-Span and in my opinion they failed to make their case and the PROOF of that statement is quite evident based on their actions since they voted. I will state for the record if they had hard proof of wrong doing I would be 1st in line to support impeachment. Its NOTHING but political theater.....

Greg:

"Half-baked" because we have not had a trial.  Schiff took lots of evidence in private, stuff you would not have seen on C-SPAN.  For all we know his investigators are still developing evidence.  Maybe he has some really good evidence held back for the trial?  That would be a savvy move on his part.

I suppose you think that Rod and Russ do have half-baked opinions, since they so clearly disagree with you?  But they too have carefully reviewed the evidence we have seen so far.  Their opposite conclusions should give you pause.  They are obviously bright folks too.  

Yes, I was somewhat insulting, or at least I was intentionally provocative.  Seems to have worked somewhat!  Hopefully we'll see what Russ and Rod say.

Jim

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Its hard to take you seriously Jim......impeachment is not about political gamesmanship nor is it nor should it be 100% partisan. Even Pelosi said as much when this started before she was pushed into letting it happen. If there were real evidence at hand there would have been at least SOME republican support for it....Stop playing in the middle of the road all the time, you are eventually going to get run over LOL

As for Rod and Russ? They have proven time and again they are both never trumper idiots who rarely step outside what CNN and MSNBC tell them......

Greg:

You think Rod and Russ are idiots?  And you think it is hard to take me seriously?

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Because it's the only constitutionally mandated way, we have to hold the executive branch accountable. I remember when Hillary's emails were all the rage, and one of the arguments made over and over again was that if Hillary were anyone else, she would already be in jail. In Hillary's case, in hindsight, it looks like that would not be the case, at least concerning her emails. On the other hand,  in Trump's case, it's true. The only thing keeping him from an indictment is that he's a sitting President.

The Founders had in mind when they included impeachment in the Constitution the need to deal with a President who profited from his office and welcomed interference of foreign powers. It seems painfully obvious that Trump did abuse the power of his office for personal gain in precisely these ways. To think otherwise, you would have to believe that the Whistleblower, Vindman, Hill, Sondland, and a whole host of other serious, smart, and deeply patriotic public servants were all lying. Trump's impeachment matters because no other President in our history has so richly deserved it.

Hi James:

I guess it depends on who the "we" is.  I agree of course that impeachment is the only constitutionally mandated way Congress has to hold the executive branch accountable.  We the People have an alternative way to hold Trump accountable, or not, in November.

I would disagree with you on HRC.  In hindsight, I think that criminal prosecution was fully justified.  She got away with it because of who she is, which should surprise no one.  You work with data - imagine the fall out if you bleach-bit deleted large swaths of it after subpoenas had been issued.  Good grief.  I'd be sending you cakes right now.  But this is not about HRC.  We the People already spoke in that instance.

I would add, respectfully, that you have no idea whether the Whistleblower, Vindman, Hill, Sondland, and a whole host of other serious, smart, and deeply patriotic public servants are lying, or more likely re-telling half truths, speculation and legends until the defense presents it's entire side of the story.  

I was not born yesterday, I understand that Rod is likely correct that the R's in the Senate will probably block as much evidence as possible - so we may never get to the bottom of this, at least not through the impeachment process.  

Jim

p.s.  I think I have had one decent and original (to my knowledge) thought in this thread.  Schiff should re-convene his panel and depose Bolton and anyone else on his list.  Schiff should not be a tool, he should allow vigorous cross examination by DJT's representatives.  He can not prohibit the Executive's lawyers.  The Executive will likely assert privilege.  Schiff will have to go to court, where he may or may not win.  Assuming the depositions take place, the deposition testimony can be presented in the trial, using the Clinton impeachment rules that McConnell favored as of a few days ago.

Can anyone tell me why Schiff does not do this? 

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Because it's the only constitutionally mandated way, we have to hold the executive branch accountable. I remember when Hillary's emails were all the rage, and one of the arguments made over and over again was that if Hillary were anyone else, she would already be in jail. In Hillary's case, in hindsight, it looks like that would not be the case, at least concerning her emails. On the other hand,  in Trump's case, it's true. The only thing keeping him from an indictment is that he's a sitting President.

The Founders had in mind when they included impeachment in the Constitution the need to deal with a President who profited from his office and welcomed interference of foreign powers. It seems painfully obvious that Trump did abuse the power of his office for personal gain in precisely these ways. To think otherwise, you would have to believe that the Whistleblower, Vindman, Hill, Sondland, and a whole host of other serious, smart, and deeply patriotic public servants were all lying. Trump's impeachment matters because no other President in our history has so richly deserved it.

Hi James, Rod, and Russ too:  

I'm going to try to make an important point here relevant to your current positions, as presented by James:

"It seems painfully obvious that Trump did abuse the power of his office for personal gain in precisely these ways. To think otherwise, you would have to believe that the Whistleblower, Vindman, Hill, Sondland, and a whole host of other serious, smart, and deeply patriotic public servants were all lying."

My point, made with the help of Edward B. Foley of the Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, is that Trump can not be guilty of an abuse of power without discerning his actual intent.  This is implicit in James' statement, "for personal gain..."  It is possible and commonplace in criminal matters for witnesses like the Whistleblower, Vindman, Hill, Sondland and others to be telling factual truths but guessing (rightly or wrongly) about intent.  Without hearing the defense evidence, we simply can not fully assess the president's intent.  

I would respectfully add that it is premature for you guys to be 100% certain that Trump's intent was 100% self-serving.  Consider Edward Foley:

"Here’s the big question on which the potential impeachment of President Donald Trump could turn: Is it ever appropriate for a U.S. president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?

Democrats seem to assume the answer is no, that this kind of request could never be proper, given the implications for our electoral system. “Smoking gun” is what they say about Trump’s urging Ukraine—and now also China—to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. Republicans, meanwhile, contend that it is perfectly normal, and justified, for Trump as president to ask the Ukrainians to look into potential corruption that involves Americans and could, in theory, affect U.S. relations with that country.

“This is not about politics. This is about corruption,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Friday.

But the real answer to this question is more complicated. History shows that a president sometimes might be justified in asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival, including a former vice president. So, the mere fact of Trump’s request for an investigation into the Bidens, without considering the circumstances of the request, is not enough to impeach him.

In order to prove Trump abused his presidential powers to the point that he no longer can be trusted in exercising them—the constitutional standard for impeachment— Congress must establish Trump’s intent in making the request. Was it done in good faith, with U.S. foreign or domestic interests in mind, or in bad faith, merely for Trump’s personal and political benefit? To prove the latter, Congress can’t rely on Trump’s words alone; it must show that the charges of corruption against the Bidens are baseless and that Trump’s request to Ukraine is part of a pattern of bad faith demonstrating that the nation no longer can tolerate his incumbency."  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/06/trump-ukraine-investigate-rival-229341

I added emphasis to certain parts of the quote above.  It is not enough for impeachment and removal that the House, the press, and you guys simply "know" that Trump had bad faith intent.  This must be demonstrated, which is why the trial will be so critical.  Maybe bad faith will be demonstrated.  Maybe not.  We need to hear from both sides to know.  Here is a sub-point courtesy of Prof. Foley.   Proving Trump's bad faith intent is going to take a lot of work, and it will require a deep dive into the Bidens too - it is not enough that Biden has been "cleared" by his allies.  The D's apparently have no stomach for this hard work and exposure, which is why, as I stated in September, they have rushed and literally malpracticed this impeachment.

James, Rod, Russ - you may be correct that Trump deserves impeachment and removal.  I personally think it is more likely than not that you are correct.  Professor Foley himself says, "[I]t strains credulity for Trump’s defenders to claim he is acting in good faith, but Congress must make an official judgment as part of any formal impeachment proceedings."  I highly recommend the linked article.  There is a lot of heavy lifting to do before bad faith is objectively proved.  In addition, the President has every right to mount a vigorous defense.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Jim, the prosecution rests.

Ouch!  Good one!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

He's going to get away with it anyway. Despite their oaths to the contrary, McConnell and Graham and others have already declared their conclusions in public. They don't care about intent or anything akin to it. Nor do they care about the facts of the case...

Hi Rod: I’m sorry to say I agree with you. Small consolation, but I think everything you said also applies to Pelosi Schumer and Schiff. Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

It defies all reason...Case closed.

Hi Russ:  I’m afraid you’ve reached Richirvana - a state of divine confidence in your opinion.  Blissful but blinding.  

Although you may ultimately be correct, you’ve jettisoned objectivity.  For example, there are a lot of tactical reasons the executive might assert privilege, other than foreknowledge that Bolton etc. would underbus the boss.  Hopefully we’ll get some defense evidence to discuss one of these days.  J