Impeachment defenses

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,193
Reaction score
1,174
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
This is great. Lindsey Graham says that Trump couldn't have tried to bribe Ukraine to affect our election because his White House staff is too incompetent to carry it out! I guess Graham hasn't read the part of the Federalist Papers that says impeachment and removal is there to remove grossly incompetent presidents as well as the criminals.

And of course it isn't true. Any kindergartner can make a trade, or bribe mom and dad.

"What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward Ukraine: It was incoherent, it depends on who you talk to, they seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo, so no I find the whole process to be a sham and I'm not going to legitimize it," Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, told reporters Wednesday.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,193
Reaction score
1,174
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Meanwhile, in a surprising move, our nations AG declined an offer to have a news conference where he would state that the President committed no crimes regarding our dealings with Ukraine. The AG, who is deeply implicated in the political attempts to discredit the Mueller Report, decided that that was one public liefest too many.

Host a news conference. . . where have I heard that request from Trump before? Oh yes, it was the quo in the quid pro quo Trump offered Ukraine.

Trump asked for Barr to host news conference clearing him on Ukraine

President Donald Trump asked that Attorney General William Barr hold a news conference clearing him of legal wrongdoing with regard to his phone call pressuring the Ukrainian President to investigate Democrats -- but Barr refused, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
Citing people familiar with the matter, the paper reported that Trump's request came sometime around the White House's September 25 release of a transcript of the call. It was conveyed to White House officials and then the Justice Department. Trump has brought up Barr's refusal to aides over the past few weeks and how he wishes the attorney general had held the news conference, Trump advisers told the Post.
 

DWPetros

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
155
Reaction score
441
Country
llUnited States
I think he asked for not only a news conference, but a parade afterwards with conquering soldiers and chained fake new reporters.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,193
Reaction score
1,174
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
That guy is going to make a fortune from the government.

10778
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,392
Reaction score
3,374
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
In other news, Betsy DeVos got hit with a $100,000 fine for contempt of court (and a warning of jail next time) for continuing to collect student loans taken out by students of one of the fraudulent for profit colleges, contrary to a May '18 court order.
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,998
Reaction score
725
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
Betsy DeVos's name is on the Department but she will not pay the fine. It says something about her when they are proving, time and again, that these students were truly ripped off and the Dept. of Education is still trying to make them pay for the school loans.

I don't know why the government cannot offer these student loans at a modest 2 or 3% instead of the 5-6%. The private sector gouges them even worse. These students are our countries future after all.
 

JimWhite

Senior Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
375
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
I don't know why the government cannot offer these student loans at a modest 2 or 3% instead of the 5-6%. The private sector gouges them even worse. These students are our countries future after all.
Some thoughts about student loans:

1. The government does not pay for these student loans...the taxpayers do.

2. The only reason the private sector can "gouge" them is BECAUSE of taxpayer-funded loans. These schools know that if a student wants to attend said school said student can get a taxpayer-funded loan to do so. So there is no incentive on the part of the schools to lower tuition. In other words...there is no real competition between the schools to lower their rates to attract more students.

3. I agree that students are our future. With that said...many (most?) Democrats say college should be free (well free in their minds...it will still have to be paid for by the taxpayer...but that's a different topic). Anyway...I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with providing a FREE (still taxpayer-funded though) college education for fields of study that give something back to the society which paid for it. Fields of study such as medicine, math, engineering, technology, science among others. On the other hand...I will NEVER agree with providing taxpayer-funded tuition for worthless (to society) degrees. If somebody wants to get a Bachelor of Arts degree in Central American, Transgendered Studies then more power to them. But do it with your money.
 

JimWhite

Senior Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
375
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
I agree with that. But Republicans are trying to out him (or her) and that was the point of my post. Just another contempt for the law I suppose.
Serious question. What law prohibits a private citizen (i.e., a reporter for instance) from outing a whistleblower?
 

RandyT0001

Senior Member
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
526
Reaction score
381
Location
Memphis, TN
First name
Cary
Country
llUnited States
“We should follow the law,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. “And I believe the law protects whistleblowers.”
November 6, 2019
 

JimWhite

Senior Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
375
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
“We should follow the law,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. “And I believe the law protects whistleblowers.”
November 6, 2019
So you don't know what the actual law is?
 

JimWhite

Senior Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
375
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
I agree with that. But Republicans are trying to out him (or her) and that was the point of my post. Just another contempt for the law I suppose.
Here is an article from NPR...

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776481504/can-trump-legally-out-the-whistleblower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law

"There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal law," said Dan Meyer, a lawyer and the former executive director of the intelligence community whistleblower program. "Congress has never provided that protection."
 

RandyT0001

Senior Member
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
526
Reaction score
381
Location
Memphis, TN
First name
Cary
Country
llUnited States
So you don't know what the actual law is?
Not going to pay a lawyer to find specifics. Standing in the whistleblower's shoes, I would not want anybody to publish or state my name, endangering me and my family. What if the assumed named individual is found not to be the whistleblower, an innocent man would be endangered. Deranged individuals may attempt to inflict harm, there was one that sent bombs to media outlets and members of Congress. Maybe my sense of civility differs from yours.
 

DWPetros

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
155
Reaction score
441
Country
llUnited States
Agreed. Civility and common sense would say that you don't out the whistle-blower. A well functioning society needs them and wouldn't want to scare future ones away. Once you start down that road, checks and balances lose strength. The GOP cares only about winning - not about the greater good of the country. That's clear.
 

JimWhite

Senior Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
375
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
Not going to pay a lawyer to find specifics. Standing in the whistleblower's shoes, I would not want anybody to publish or state my name, endangering me and my family. What if the assumed named individual is found not to be the whistleblower, an innocent man would be endangered. Deranged individuals may attempt to inflict harm, there was one that sent bombs to media outlets and members of Congress. Maybe my sense of civility differs from yours.
So if you were accused by somebody (i.e., a whistleblower) of committing a crime...you wouldn't invoke your 6th Amendment right to face your accuser? I know I would.

Maybe my sense of justice differs from yours.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,392
Reaction score
3,374
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
IF the whistleblower's complaint is upheld then you will face a criminal or disciplinary trial where your accuser will be your local DA, etc. The whistleblower only triggers an investigation by others. The relevant authority then investigates and gathers evidence (or lack thereof) and decides to prosecute or not. That authority will be your accuser in a court/tribunal and you will have the right to face it.

The equivalent is a resident's anonymous phone call saying "gunshots heard at X". The police then investigate and if someone is shot will try to gather witness statements and other evidence. The DA, not the phone caller, then prosecutes/accuses.
 

Morbii

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
471
Location
Gilroy, CA
Country
llUnited States
So if you were accused by somebody (i.e., a whistleblower) of committing a crime...you wouldn't invoke your 6th Amendment right to face your accuser? I know I would.

Maybe my sense of justice differs from yours.
While we all know that Trump is committing criminal acts in general, impeachment isn’t a criminal trial. The 6th amendment is irrelevant.
 
Top