bsjkki Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 8 minutes ago, Danzo said: Only presidents of the United states can be convicted on these rules (its not a judicial process, it was never meant to be). Yep, it is a purely a political process. So all the talk of witness and evidence is really just noise.
Bernard Gui Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 18 minutes ago, Danzo said: Honestly, I wish more people would consult God when making these decisions. The problem as I see it is saying, "I consulted God, and God told me thus and so; therefore, my position is the right one." 4
Bernard Gui Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Danzo said: Really? I would think Alma chapter 33 and Nephi 32 would apply to being a juror. In a theocracy or in Zion, maybe, but not in a Senate trial. How do prosecutors and defenders argue the facts of revelation from God in a trial situation? Invoking "a hymn we sing in my Church, an old Protestant hymn...'Do What is Right'" taints his decision by inserting his religious beliefs into his it. He did not have to do that to maintain his position. By doing so, he calls into question the good faith of his fellow Saints who don't agree with his judgement. Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui 2
Bernard Gui Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said: Not at all, but I'm happy to acknowledge and engage it. I can be pretty rhetorical in many cases, but the facts are abundantly clear here, and I'm happy to respond to anyone who wants to try to identify tribalistic blind spots in my reasoning. I've been politically unaffiliated my entire life and have seen these issues through several different sets of lenses. The facts are not abundantly clear. There is no agreement on what the facts really are. Nor even what the charges are. Good people on both sides cannot agree. If there is tribalism involved, it is more evident on the prosecutorial side. Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui 4
Rajah Manchou Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: In a theocracy or in Zion, maybe, but not in a Senate trial. How do prosecutors and defenders argue the facts of revelation from God in a trial situation? What exactly did Romney say about God and prayer in reaching his decision? He had a decision to make, he prayed, he sung a hymn or two in his head, he thought about his CTR ring. What on earth is wrong with that? 1
Dan McClellan Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 8 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said: You mention this as if any of it is in question. For goodness sake, we have the transcript. We know exactly what was said. What is any witness going to say beyond a direct record of the conversation? No, we have a reconstruction of the conversation with unknown gaps. Some have already testified of the transcript missing things, and President Zelensky described comments that are nowhere in the transcript. Irrespective, the transcript clearly demonstrates Trump's desire to have Burisma investigated, and there is simply no rational explanation for that investigation other than to benefit him politically. It is also clearly tied to the aid, since he says, "I would like you to do us a favor, though," in immediate and direct response to Zelensky comment about wanting more missiles. The transcript is not even remotely the only relevant datum, though. We have his secret and totally illegal freeze on the funding that has no rational explanation other than to serve as leverage for his "favor." We also have the testimony of several individuals that Trump engaged in secret back-channel attempts to facilitate the specific kind of announcement that he wanted Zelensky to make. We also have Trump's initial response to the concerns stating that he wanted Burisma investigated, and that he is perfectly justified in withholding defense funding from a country he finds "corrupt." Since he repeatedly, explicitly, and exclusively identified Burisma as the "corruption" in Ukraine, there's simply no rational case to be made that he was concerned with corruption more generally. The fact that he himself is profoundly corrupt, is guilty of every last thing he accused Biden of doing, and that his only real friends around the geopolitical world are also profoundly corrupt leaders, puts the lie to the claim he has any sincere concern for corruption in Ukraine. It's just utterly laughable to pretend he was interested in absolutely anything other than serving his own personal political ends. Quote And regardless of what one things of Trump, it is clear the House failed its responsibility. Had they actually taken the time to do a proper investigation by demanding a special prosecutor (ala Nixon/Clinton) and going through the hard work of going to court to argue against claims of executive privilege -- the same privilege that Clinton/Bush/Obama claimed literally all the time -- then perhaps more Senators would have voted with Mitt. It is absolutely absurd to ask the Senate to go to court when you weren't willing to do it yourselves. What a laughable excuse for the Senate covering up witnesses it knows are devastating to Trump's "defense." Quote You don't have to like Trump to recognize that the case brought by the House was a complete joke. No, you just have to prefer or have some kind of personal stake in the GOP staying in power. 1
bluebell Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I disagree. Invoking the hymn, his promises to God, etc., were not necessary for him to make his point. Inserting his religion into the deliberative process was inappropriate. Most Latter-day Saints would recognize the "bearing testimony" nature of his remarks. A decision like this should be made on the facts in the case, not on religious promptings which cannot be verified, IMO. Everyone has heard the same facts, but people have come to different conclusions. There don't seem to be any facts in this case that aren't subject to personal biases. I think that the Republicans made it harder to judge the facts by refusing to call any witnesses, but that was their choice. I disagree that it was inappropriate for Romney to explain his personal morality when talking about why he decided to vote according to his personal convictions. Whether someone agrees with his vote or not, his beliefs about doing what he believes is right regardless of how people are going to respond are relevant to why he voted as he did. 2
bluebell Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I hope that’s what he means. Again, I’m afraid that won’t come across to some. In this world, there really isn't any way to say something that some won't misunderstand, especially those who disagree with what you said.
Dan McClellan Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: The facts are not abundantly clear. There is no agreement on what the facts really are. Nor even what the charges are. Good people on both sides cannot agree. If there is tribalism involved, it is more evident on the prosecutorial side. The facts are abundantly clear, but I'd be happy to respond to any you want to identify that you think are not clear. The charges are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and provided one acknowledges that a President is capable of abusing power (some have literally argued otherwise), it's absolutely indisputable he did both. He illegally withheld aid to compel a foreign nation to announce an investigation in a way that would benefit his personal political interests. There are no facts that challenge that account of his actions. He refused to provide legally subpoenaed documents and ordered subordinates to defy legal subpoenas to testify, in direct violation of the Constitution's very clear endowment of the House with sole power to conduct an impeachment. That's why several GOP Senators explained that he clearly did what he is accused of doing, but still shouldn't be removed. Where is the tribalism evident in this? 2
Michael Sudworth Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 6 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said: What a laughable excuse for the Senate covering up witnesses it knows are devastating to Trump's "defense." Why couldn't the House of Representatives call those witnesses and include the testimony with the articles? 1
Dan McClellan Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 24 minutes ago, provoman said: No it is not "indisputably clear". So illegally withholding defense aid to compel a foreign nation to assist your political campaign (indisputably what happened) is not an abuse of power? How do you figure? Defying the Constitution's clear endowment of the House with sole power to conduct impeachment by refusing to provide legally subpoenaed documents and by ordering subordinates to defy legal subpoenas to testify (indisputably what happened) is not an obstruction of Congress? How do you figure? 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: Everyone has heard the same facts, but people have come to different conclusions. There don't seem to be any facts in this case that aren't subject to personal biases. I think that the Republicans made it harder to judge the facts by refusing to call any witnesses, but that was their choice. I disagree that it was inappropriate for Romney to explain his personal morality when talking about why he decided to vote according to his personal convictions. Whether someone agrees with his vote or not, his beliefs about doing what he believes is right regardless of how people are going to respond are relevant to why he voted as he did. The Democrats called 18 witnesses and their testimony, except for one, was read into and referred to in the Senate trial. The prosecutors declared their case solid and unassailable and then wanted more witnesses. To what effect? To make it more solid and unassailable? We will have to disagree on Romney's behavior. I have no problem with his decision, but to support it with an appeal to what he identifies as an LDS hymn and "doing what is right" in a revelatory context and all that is implied with that is inapproriate, IMO. 4
Dan McClellan Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 Just now, Michael Sudworth said: Why couldn't the House of Representatives call those witnesses and include the testimony with the articles? They did call some of those witnesses. Trump ordered them not to testify. Some defied Trump, but most didn't.
Michael Sudworth Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said: The charges are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress How is Trump invoking executive privilege any different than the times it was invoked by President Obama or President Bush? Both (rightly) refused House subpoenas on multiple occasions. 1
Dan McClellan Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said: to support it with an appeal to what he identifies as an LDS hymn and "doing what is right" in a revelatory context and all that is implied with that is inapproriate, IMO. I didn't see the "revelatory context." Where was that indicated?
Michael Sudworth Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 1 minute ago, Dan McClellan said: They did call some of those witnesses. Trump ordered them not to testify. Some defied Trump, but most didn't. Why didn't they go to court to force the witnesses to testify? 1
provoman Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said: The facts are abundantly clear, but I'd be happy to respond to any you want to identify that you think are not clear. The charges are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and provided one acknowledges that a President is capable of abusing power (some have literally argued otherwise), it's absolutely indisputable he did both. He illegally withheld aid to compel a foreign nation to announce an investigation in a way that would benefit his personal political interests. There are no facts that challenge that account of his actions. He refused to provide legally subpoenaed documents and ordered subordinates to defy legal subpoenas to testify, in direct violation of the Constitution's very clear endowment of the House with sole power to conduct an impeachment. That's why several GOP Senators explained that he clearly did what he is accused of doing, but still shouldn't be removed. Where is the tribalism evident in this? Your previous post indicate how indisputably UNCLEAR the issue is. You admit to assuming what someone else's motives were; those assumptions demonstrate how unclear things are. Edited February 6, 2020 by provoman 1
Dan McClellan Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 Just now, Michael Sudworth said: How is Trump invoking executive privilege any different than the times it was invoked by President Obama or President Bush? Both (rightly) refused House subpoenas on multiple occasions. Executive privilege is utterly irrelevant if an impeachable act was involved. 1
Dan McClellan Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 1 minute ago, Michael Sudworth said: Why didn't they go to court to force the witnesses to testify? Oh, you mean go to the court that Trump stacked with lackeys for a legal battle that could last years? C'mon, you can do better than this.
Dan McClellan Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, provoman said: Your previous post indicated how indisputably UNCLEAR the issue is. You admit to assuming what someone else's motives were; those assumptions demonstrate how unclear things are. Where did I do that, precisely?
provoman Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 6 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said: So illegally withholding defense aid to compel a foreign nation to assist your political campaign (indisputably what happened) is not an abuse of power? How do you figure? Defying the Constitution's clear endowment of the House with sole power to conduct impeachment by refusing to provide legally subpoenaed documents and by ordering subordinates to defy legal subpoenas to testify (indisputably what happened) is not an obstruction of Congress? How do you figure? Your admitted assumptions show how unclear the issues are. 1
Michael Sudworth Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said: Executive privilege is utterly irrelevant if an impeachable act was involved. Perhaps. But that is for the Judicial branch to determine, no? 3
provoman Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) removed Edited February 6, 2020 by provoman
Bernard Gui Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 4 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said: The facts are abundantly clear, but I'd be happy to respond to any you want to identify that you think are not clear. The charges are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and provided one acknowledges that a President is capable of abusing power (some have literally argued otherwise), it's absolutely indisputable he did both. He illegally withheld aid to compel a foreign nation to announce an investigation in a way that would benefit his personal political interests. There are no facts that challenge that account of his actions. He refused to provide legally subpoenaed documents and ordered subordinates to defy legal subpoenas to testify, in direct violation of the Constitution's very clear endowment of the House with sole power to conduct an impeachment. That's why several GOP Senators explained that he clearly did what he is accused of doing, but still shouldn't be removed. Where is the tribalism evident in this? There are many good and knowledgable people that disagree with your assertions on the "clear facts." They are not as black and white as you seem to believe. This has been building since before he was elected and will not end with this debacle of a trial. There were many remedies to the supposed misdeeds Democrats accused him of that should have been used before resorting to the nuclear bomb. The tribalism is in the monolithic stance taken by his opponents since he declared his candidacy. 3
provoman Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 3 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said: Where did I do that, precisely? Where did you make assumptions as to motive? 18 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said: No, we have a reconstruction of the conversation with unknown gaps. Some have already testified of the transcript missing things, and President Zelensky described comments that are nowhere in the transcript. Irrespective, the transcript clearly demonstrates Trump's desire to have Burisma investigated, and there is simply no rational explanation for that investigation other than to benefit him politically. It is also clearly tied to the aid, since he says, "I would like you to do us a favor, though," in immediate and direct response to Zelensky comment about wanting more missiles. The transcript is not even remotely the only relevant datum, though. We have his secret and totally illegal freeze on the funding that has no rational explanation other than to serve as leverage for his "favor." We also have the testimony of several individuals that Trump engaged in secret back-channel attempts to facilitate the specific kind of announcement that he wanted Zelensky to make. We also have Trump's initial response to the concerns stating that he wanted Burisma investigated, and that he is perfectly justified in withholding defense funding from a country he finds "corrupt." Since he repeatedly, explicitly, and exclusively identified Burisma as the "corruption" in Ukraine, there's simply no rational case to be made that he was concerned with corruption more generally. The fact that he himself is profoundly corrupt, is guilty of every last thing he accused Biden of doing, and that his only real friends around the geopolitical world are also profoundly corrupt leaders, puts the lie to the claim he has any sincere concern for corruption in Ukraine. It's just utterly laughable to pretend he was interested in absolutely anything other than serving his own personal political ends. What a laughable excuse for the Senate covering up witnesses it knows are devastating to Trump's "defense." No, you just have to prefer or have some kind of personal stake in the GOP staying in power.
Recommended Posts