Replies

The similarities between this coup and Watergate are striking (as the similarities with Dallas, thank God, are not - yet).

I wrote quite a bit about this here in October, a lot of FReepers are too young to remember the details or have thoroughly absorbed the narrative.

The one base that Trump hasn’t covered, a mistake Nixon also made, is “never deny what can be proven - remember, you don’t know who the traitors are”.

Trump has acted since August like there would be something wrong with a quid-pro-quo transaction between himself and the President of Ukraine, so he has repeatedly and emphatically denied it.

But, all diplomacy is based on quid-pro-quo, and also, of course, as Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, Trump was completely within his rights to offer Ukraine something, or to threaten them if need be, to get cooperation with his envoy, Rudy Giuliani in the search for proof of bribery, money laundering, and other crimes perpetrated by US citizens with Ukrainian persons.

Why did Schumer go right to “We must hear Bolton”?

It’s because if Trump, stupidly in my opinion, keeps up “The call was perfect, there was no quid-pro-quo”, and the two sides on the Senate floor keep arguing “yes there was” vs. “No there wasn’t”, Bolton’s testimony at the last minute, on nationwide TV, that Trump told him “I’m going to get Biden by talking to Ukraine” (true or false) could be just the thing to collapse the will of 20 already-weak Republicans.

Well said. Some people “think” we should just give taxpayer money to other countries out of the goodness of our heart. My teenagers only got allowances when they behaved in a certain manner.

I think you are exactly right and I think many in the house and the senate expect it to play out as you have described. I have been saying as much for months. I don’t believe that Trump overtly was demanding a quid-pro-quo and I don’t believe he was targeting biden for political reasons. But It would have malpractice to not have at least explore ways of how to uncover the corruption going on in the Ukraine on our dime. bolton is obviously butt hurt and would damage Trump if given the chance. I would not be surprised if bolton has already told many in congress that he is willing to say what they need to convict Trump. But as many here on FR keep telling me, I’m just a troll.

… if Trump, stupidly in my opinion, keeps up “The call was perfect, there was no quid-pro-quo”…

I agree completely and I have been posting since the beginning of this affair that it was foolish to base the defense on absence of quid pro quo because the Democrats whole exercise was to find collateral evidence of a quid pro quo. It matters not whether the evidence was by hearsay, the whole point of the exercise is to damage the president not to actually remove him from office which was always understood by the Democrats not to be a realistic goal.

Even conservative observers on Fox have concluded that there was in fact a quid pro quo but simply observe that it is not important enough to impeach, using the oft repeated line, "does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."

Not only does it fail to rise to that level but it is not an offense at all. The president is fully authorized by his constitutional role as chief executive, as chief law enforcement officer of the nation, under statute governing distribution of funds to foreign powers and under a statute governing distribution of funds to Ukraine to investigate corruption. His article to constitutional power cannot be diminished by statute and certainly not by Congress simply saying that it is-which is what they have done in this article of impeachment.

Joe Biden's own words as well as the dubious position of his son together with evidence unearthed by Rudy Giuliani, are all plausible reasons to investigate. If a president undertakes to investigate a potential political foe, he does not commit an impeachable offense simply because it might advance his political prospects. This remains true even if the president in so doing entertained a desire to advance his own election prospects. To do so would be to handcuff every president and shield corruption everywhere.

As long as the president has a plausible collateral reason to investigate his political enemies or rivals, he has committed no crime, no action against the national interest, no impeachable offense even if he is also motivated to advance his election.

The Senate should immediately move to dismiss the articles of impeachment because they failed to state a constitutionally identifiable offense justifying removal from office. To leave the matter hanging is to leave a pistol pointed at the temple of Donald Trump held in the hand of Nancy Pelosi who will no doubt pull the trigger at the most opportunistic occasion.

Why did Schumer go right to “We must hear Bolton”? It’s because if Trump, stupidly in my opinion, keeps up “The call was perfect, there was no quid-pro-quo”, and the two sides on the Senate floor keep arguing “yes there was” vs. “No there wasn’t”, Bolton’s testimony at the last minute, on nationwide TV, that Trump told him “I’m going to get Biden by talking to Ukraine” (true or false) could be just the thing to collapse the will of 20 already-weak Republicans.

IF Bolton was ready and willing to say that he would have shown up to the fake impeachment inquiries and said it. He would have raised his hand and said "Hey...I got some info...I'll talk"!

"The one base that Trump hasn’t covered, a mistake Nixon also made, is “never deny what can be proven - remember, you don’t know who the traitors are”."

Yeaaaaaah, that's why Trump never released the transcript. *facepalm*

I remember the major developments surrounding WG, not so much the details. In retrospect, I think Nixon could have hung on by Haldeman and others taking the fall, like Reagan remained after Poindexter took the blame. What did Nixon in, was Baker going to the WH to tell him he had no support in the senate.

I think what confused most people about WG is how a president who won a 49 state landslide could be removed from office due to a bungled, so what burglary, that McGovern was touting in his campaign ads.

I agree with you about Trump and his “perfect” phone call. Nothing is perfect. He should simply say there was nothing wrong with the phone call, which is correct. In his mind he received nothing personally from Ukraine and Sondlands testimony and the transcript back this up.

You make a number of dunce statements. But you take a long time to do it.
Lots of speculation.
It might snow tomorrow.

Trump is not going to be removed from office and is going to be reelected. All the rest is talk.