I think this is probably the right answer, though I wouldn’t call it bribery or extortion. It certainly looks like there is enough circumstantial evidence to impeach under the intentionally weak evidentiary standard. That said, the impeachment process is a political question, I don’t think the reasonable person test applies. People are going to vote on ideology, not on the bad act or evidence presented
really all we needed to know about kushner was that he had his IT people install Windows on his Mac Pro desktop because he liked Windows more but liked the way Apple stuff looked
At the risk of wading into lawyer talk, impeachment doesn't even know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means, though. As you say, it is a political question. It exists to protect the legitimacy of the office and to remove someone who has gone beyond being an unsavory character that can be dealt with during the next election.
Also it's not like this happened during a photo op where Trump nudged the guy and was like "hey can you take care of this Biden thing for me" and it was accidentally picked up by some hot mic It was during pretty much the most formal type of communication besides a public speech with the two dudes standing next to each other
I just looked at the transcript. If this is the entirety of the record, I would not vote impeachment.
He withheld congressionally approved military aid that Ukraine needs to remain an independent nation prior to the call and it’s been reported that Ukrainian officials understood that if their president wanted to talk to Trump about it, he had to “play ball” with the investigations Giuliani wanted.
You have a situation where there is legitimate dual motive, and nothing but very weak circumstantial evidence to infer improper motive and no evidence in the record to establish any kind of quid pro quo. I haven’t been able to articulate ITT what the standard of misconduct or evidence should be for impeachment, but it needs to be higher than this imo. Impeach here, and republicans will retaliate next time they hold a majority over a sitting democratic pres, and and the dems will return the favor next time around. This type of thing could devolve into something similar to what we have with Supreme Court nominee hearings/votes, and that would be crippling to our system of government and the rule of law. Impeachment proceedings and removal is disruptive to the nation and shouldn’t become a political tool to be used capriciously. Thinking out loud here trying to have a civil conversation
When you speak of “the record,” are you playing dumb and looking only at the memo of the phone conversation? Because, uh, the actual record is replete with intent. The idea that there is a legitimate dual motive in his asks on Crowdstrike and Biden is laugh out loud preposterous
Giving you as much benefit of the doubt as possible, you're being very generous in your interpretation of the facts.
Impeachment proceedings and removal is disruptive to the nation? What do you think ubiquitous corruption and cronyism does to the nation that you’re so seriously worried about?
The President of the United States formally asking a foreign head of state to investigate his political opponent is fucking batshit insane. To believe otherwise opens the most insane pandora's box of election fuckery, that I legitimately cannot fathom how a person can take the position that the President can just go around asking various other countries to launch investigations into whomever he'd like.
If there’s a link here, then that’s an impeachable offense. But you can’t just speculate it from that transcript. I would want to see the information “reported” by Ukrainian officials. I don’t think that’s unreasonable
Hey I’m withholding funds and also maybe look into my political opponent by the way. Totally not a shakedown.
Welp. Accepting that, surely you recognize that the only way for you to see to it that John Cornyn is removed from office is to vote for his Democratic opponent, that is going to be a feel good story seeing you vote for a Democrat. [I presume since Dallas is highly educated, you already have a Democratic representative and your Congressional race is already tilted in favor of the rule of law].
Ukraine: “We want to buy more javelins” Trump: “I need you to do us a favor, though - find Hilary’s emails and investigate Biden.” You can not argue that that is not about personally benefitting Donald Trump nor that it isn’t establishing a quid pro quo. It’s explicit. In the doctored transcript that the president released because he thought is was the one that made him look the best. And ignoring the other actual context that exists for the phone call that I explained to you in my previous post. Any argument to the contrary is a sign of your own bias not a reasonable interpretation of the facts on record
Words are just a social construct that don’t have any inherent value. “Consent” and “sexual maturity” are really just an arbitrary state of mind if you think about it. Debate me coward
I looked at the memo. So I misspoke on “transcript.” It read like one. My bad. What record are you seeing that is “replete with intent? Im playing catch up here Does the Constitution not give the president authority over foreign affairs? Is it not a legitimate function of his office to probe an allegation of undue influence by a US official over a foreign prosecution? This all could be — and probably is —bullshit pretext but there is valid motive if true. It’s not like watergate where there was absolutely no valid presidential purpose (followed by obstruction of justice ). My rambling point is I think separation of powers requires at least some degree of deference to president’s exercise of his constitutional authority in the impeachment context until the evidence tilts the balance more towards bad motive I think I’ve been pretty reasonable throughout this discussion. I’m totally onboaard with impeachment. Just want to see more evidence than what the memo shows
Biden isn’t a current American politician and the president directed the Ukrainian president to contact his personal non-government attorney to discuss the Biden stuff.
It’s awful. But a general allegation of “ubiquitous corruption” isn’t enough to impeach. You need a specific charge with evidence. Again, I’m learning on the fly here, but the only actual evidence I’ve seen so far is the memo.
The discussion of the quid pro quo is kinda ridiculous to me. Obviously there was one necessarily inherent in the memo, but even without that, his actions are utterly crazy town insane. Believing that the presence of a "quid pro quo" is the only mechanism for impeachment is to believe that President Trump can freely ask Somalia tomorrow to investigate Ilhan Omar in order to see if she lied during her refugee/citizenship process in order to denaturalize her and deport her. You're a crazy person if you believe that is acceptable. Trump can ask Netanyahu to investigate the circumstances of Elizabeth Warren's 2014 trip to Israel? Trump can ask Putin to investigate Bernie Sanders' 1988 trip to the Soviet Union? All ok, as long as he doesn't promise anything in return? This is stupid.
I didn’t say ubiquitous corruption had anything to do with this impeachment. I’m just pointing out how absurd your standard is. Beyond laughable that you’re allegedly worried about how disruptive impeachment might be to this nation while ignoring how this administration has completely debased this country, planet, and species.
No one likes the dude who shows up to class having not done the reading but still feels compelled to spout off a bunch of opinions. I don't think you're unreasonable in your opinions, I think you're unreasonable in opining without any real appreciation for the facts beyond what has been directly fed to you ITT as if you're a judge and we're prosecutors. Start here, with the context that this complaint was determined by the Director of National Intelligence's Inspector General to be credible and of urgent concern: https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...elensky/4b9e0ca5-3824-467f-b1a3-77f2d4ee16aa/ The DNI IG's determination is available here, which is also good reading for you: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/read-icig-report-dni-whistleblower-complaint/index.html Then go read any of the publicly available timelines regarding unexplained delays in military assistance to Ukraine. FWIW, I think there has been clear misconduct in the administration's obstruction of justice regarding the whistleblower allegation itself, although it's tough to lump that in with his impeachment because it's unclear what his role was in the cover-up (with the caveat to the caveat that Trump's comments today that his staff members who provided the whistleblower information through their official duties ought to be shot may cross that line again) I'm a huge Article II fan but this conduct is so transparently beyond the authorities and duties of the President, and so clearly for an improper motive, that there is no reasonable case to be made that it's within the President's foreign policy prerogative.