Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

The blocked testimony, which you are basing your argument on, is relevant but unnecessary. They have more than enough evidence without it. There is no credible evidence to the contrary of the witnesses.

Russ: 

We need to clarify something, in this and your recent posts, are you talking about (A) enough evidence to impeach or (B) enough evidence to convict and remove from office.  I do not want to talk past each other.  I've been talking about (B).

If you are talking about (A) then fine, I agree.  If you are talking about (B), then I am dismayed and the charge of Richirvanna stands.  There could be a lot more to the defense side of the case than what you and Rod call the "blocked" testimony¹.  Trump's "Cheryl Mills" has not even had a chance to make arguments.  Most importantly, if you answer (B), you are saying above that the defense side of the case is unnecessary, at least in this instance.  I assume you've never been a juror in a criminal prosecution?

Jim

1.  About that "blocked" testimony... I see that I can never explain privilege in this limited forum.  I believe your stance (and Rod's stance) is "a claim of privilege = hiding guilt"  This is wrong and is exactly the same logical error as the commonplace, but wrong as hell "understanding" that only the guilty exercise their 5th Amendment right to not testify against themselves in a criminal prosecution.  Also, I do not believe that Schiff has ever subpoenaed Bolton etc.  I wonder why not?

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

One question which I haven't heard addressed here is this: when did the Legislative branch decide to give itself subpoena power that has any authority at all in the Impeachment actions they have taken, let alone the courts?

Rich:

The millions of words written by the Supreme court over the last 240 years actually mean something.  It is indisputable that Congress has oversight and the Supremes have repeatedly confirmed that Congress investigators have contempt power.  There are nuanced distinctions between Congressional subpoenas and Court subpoenas, but those nuanced distinctions are a far cry from, "when did the Legislative branch decide to give itself subpoena power that has any authority at all in the Impeachment actions they have taken"

It sounds like you would eviscerate Congress's impeachment power altogether.

This looks like a good primer:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

It defies all reason that lifelong career diplomats and employees, and even Trumps own political appointee would lie. 

Seriously, this is one of the most disturbing thing in the thread, James has said something very similar.  People lie all the time for all sorts of reasons.  Also, as I mentioned yesterday, Trump might be able to exonerate himself without proving that these folks "lied." 

I'm assuming that we are all talking about (B) conviction and removal  (see above).  If so, then assessing the veracity of witnesses is one reason among many why we have to see the defense side before our opinions become unchangeable.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I do not think we are at a point where removal is justified. My personal opinion is that Trump is corrupt, incompetent, and an absolute disaster, but none of that warrants removal. There has been more than enough evidence for impeachment, though, and there is no reason not to let the process play itself out.

Hi James:


This is an interesting and unique position.  I'm not sure I'm cozy with impeachment as a super-censure though.  I'm heading up into the mountains in a few minutes and will be offline for the weekend, and maybe longer!  I have a big week in the office next week.  Have a great weekend.

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Let me just say it this way: The question isn't whether Trump used military aid to pressure Ukraine to get dirt on the Biden's; that is proven by a myriad of testimony by people that even have competing interests. The real question then, as far as I can tell from your writing, is whether or not this is serious enough to remove Trump from office. That would be the intellectually honest position of the Republicans - if they cared. "Yes, he did it, failed at it, but either way it is not worthy of removal from office" is the only legitamate position of the GOP. It is debatable I agree.  Is that your position?

Russ

Hi Russ:

No, my position is that he tried to get dirt, but that is OK if he had legitimate intent (the opposite illegitimate intent being defined as getting dirt just to self-enhance his reelection chances).  I think we need to see his defense before we can properly assess his intent.  I'm certainly much less willing than you to take the "prosecution" witnesses at face value.  That being said, I think that Trump more likely than not did exactly what you think he did.

(1) I am A-OK with removing him from office after a proper showing of corrupt intent.  The law professor from OSU that I linked to yesterday really said it well in my opinion.  (2) If Trump's intent was a mixed bag, I would not vote to remove him from office.  (3) If Trump's intent was in purely the national interest, then the impeachment is ill-advised. 

My only beef with your position is that you are making a final "cast-in-stone" decision on Trump's intent based solely upon the prosecution's witnesses and your pre-existing opinion of Trump's character.  You gotta hear the defense out before a final decision.

Like I mentioned to James, I'm outta here.  Have a great weekend.

Jim

Back from lunch...edited to say my only beef with "your position"  I have no beef with you!  Now, I'm seriously outta here!

Jim 

p.p.s.  I recognize that my arguments are process based and perhaps inapplicable to the "real world."  I still think they are good arguments - read the piece from the OSU prof.  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/06/trump-ukraine-investigate-rival-229341

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Facts First: Trump's claim is false. House Democrats sent Bolton an official request to testify. He declined to appear -- because the White House did not authorize him to do so."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/politics/trump-false-claim-democrats-subpoena-bolton-testify-fact-check/index.html

Hi Rod:

I would rate Trump's claim as incomplete.  From the CNN article:

"On October 30, House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff, House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Carolyn Maloney and House Foreign Affairs Committee Rep. Eliot Engel sent a letter to Bolton's lawyers requesting Bolton's voluntary testimony at a deposition on November 7.

"Your client's failure or refusal to appear at the deposition, including at the direction or behest of the President or the White House, shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry and may be used as an adverse inference against the President," they wrote.

Bolton did not appear. His lawyers said he would not testify voluntarily, since Trump's White House did not permit either current or former officials to participate in the impeachment inquiry. Bolton's lawyers said they stood ready to receive a subpoena seeking to compel his testimony. Democrats decided not to issue a subpoena, explaining that a court fight would allow the White House to delay the impeachment inquiry for months.  Bolton's lawyers said they were "dismayed" at the decision not to subpoena him. They said Bolton and former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman, who are represented by the same lawyers, wanted a "definitive judgment from the Judicial Branch determining their Constitutional duty in the face of conflicting demands of the Legislative and Executive Branches."

As I've been saying all along, Schiff's failure to issue a subpoena is on him.  A letter requesting cooperation is legally meaningless.  This is what subpoenas are for.  Schiff malpracticed the impeachment investigation for political reasons.  So Trump should have said that that House failed to competently ask Bolton to testify.

Also, as a side point the "cooperate voluntarily on our terms or else it's obstruction" threat quoted above, from Schiff's original letter, is absolute BS.  I suppose this is why the focus seems to be on the abuse of power article of impeachment rather than the obstruction article.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Trump doesn't want to Ban Bolton's book.  Your statement is horseshit.  

Rich - I have no doubt, none whatsoever that Trump "wants" to ban Bolton's book, and every other book critical of him.  Do you actually disagree?  The man, love him or hate him does have a huuuuuge ego - it comes with the job and is a prerequisite to running!

Jesting aside, even though Trump and every other politician, would love to ban criticism, we live in a gloriously free country and the President has no vehicle to actually ban criticism.  Once any top secret info, if any, is removed from Bolton's book, he'll get to publish it.  Trump knows this, even though he would love to ban this book.  Publication will happen soon enough.  I doubt that there will be any surprises or "bombshells" although I have 100% confidence that the press will spend days talking about the supposed "bombshells."

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Jim,
The main points here are that Trump complained about the Democrats not asking Bolton to testify which they did and having selective amnesia in overlooking the fact that his own WH reacted by blocking Bolton's appearance in the first place. You can split hairs on the legal processes at play here but there's no doubt the Democrats wanted Bolton to testify just as they do in the Senate and there's no doubt that Trump and his ilk in the trial want to block it. Trump wants to ban Bolton's book, too. Now we're back to banning books in America...

Hi Rod:

Executive privilege is a real and important part of the separation of powers- not some legal maneuver that merely exists to delay congressional investigations.  I despair of convincing anyone of this.

Still, if Schiff had wanted Bolton's testimony he should have sent a subpoena.  You saw that Bolton's lawyers were "dismayed" when Schiff did not send a subpoena?  That is because Bolton wants to get his story out, but he does not want to face the justice department by voluntarily disobeying an executive order.  He would be safe if a court overruled the executive branch and enforced the subpoena.  Any competent lawyer representing Bolton would have done exactly the same thing his did and would have been dismayed that Schiff did not send the subpoena, since the client so obviously wants to tell his story!

Schiff can whine all he wants about obstruction, but this is on him if Bolton never testifies.  I suppose Schiff can go back to the investigation phase and send out a subpoena - an then litigate the executive privilege claim as he should have in the first place.  Sort of a do-over - bad optics though.

That being said, I think that Trump ought to specifically authorize Bolton's testimony.  I would authorize a deposition with Justice Department lawyers on hand to assert executive privilege as required.  If Bolton does not testify, the political price to pay in the form of "cover-up" allegations is too high, even though the law is on Trump's side here. 

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

You mean just like every other politician would "want" to ban books critical of them, especially those on the Dem side of the aisle. 

Is that what you are implying?  As for your question, yes I actually disagree with you on that assertion.   

I don't believe Trump wants to ban any books, any more than does any other Politician, Republican or Democrat.  

Does Trump believe that Libel laws should be more available to those like himself, certainly, but your implication there sets a sinister connotation about his motives. 

Tell me Jim, if you, your character, and your family were attacked as Trump is by the press on a minute by minute basis, what would your thoughts be with respect to those attacking you and yours? 

My thoughts are that Trump is all for free speech as long as it isn't libelous speech, lying speech about him or anyone else.

Do us all a favor here Jim, and maybe you can address the state of the condition of the Democrat party and the University system these days, with respect to their attempts to squelch FREE speech on campuses and their obvious bias against conservative speech and conservative speakers on their campuses these days.

Why don't you provide your opinion on that subject above?  Rather than ignoring a lot of pertinent questions posed to you, get involved here in the state of the Democrat party and all of their attacks on the 1st amendment.  That might be enlightening.  

P.S. What did you think of Dershowitz's oratory in the Senate the past few days?  

Richard, I think we agree on the first part, but you are agreeing as cantankerously as possible!

If I was attacked like any politician is attacked by his or her opponents I would hate it and react poorly.  I guess that is reason number 376 why I am not a politician.

I am not going to go off on a huge tangent regarding free speech, the condition of the political parties, higher ed and so on.  Good gracious man, I have a life!  It would take volumes to address any one of those issues sufficiently! 

I think Dershowitz did fine, but I can guarantee you that I saw far less of it than anyone else here did.  It was a yuuuge week at work for me, which I am happy to say is now over.  I saw maybe 15 minutes of highlights from both sides.  

Have a great weekend!

Jim

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

A 2/3 Senate vote helps prevent partisan impeachment. Gutfeld says the Dems have come up with nuisance impeachment. Like a nuisance lawsuit the Dems are wearing neck braces and doing slip and fall. Whoever controls the House can do this. This will be ongoing like construction in front of your house. Another one coming soon, thanks Dems.

Hi Mel:

I kind of doubt it.  I think that the impeachment has made Trump more likely to win in November.  Just like Clinton's impeachment made him more popular and arguably launched HRC into the highest echelons of politics.

If this one backfires, like that one backfired, the House will learn it's lesson.

We'll see.

Jim

p.s.  I suspect that James thinks that this impeachment will make Trump less likely to win in 2020 - but, the polls have not moved much either way.  To the extent they have moved at all, it is for Trump.