Trump's main defences to the charges he faces, both before and after the start of the Impeachment trial, have so far consisted of the following...
1. There was no "quid pro quo".
2. This is a frame-up by the Democrats - a witch hunt. There is no truth to this whatsoever.
3. Trump intended to withhold the cash as he was concerned about corruption, and not as a "quid pro quo".
4. If there was a "quid pro quo", then what he did was not a crime, and because persons can only be impeached for committing crimes, Trump cannot be impeached.
And the latest which appears to have surfaced today from one Republican Senator...
5. OK, there was a "quid pro quo", but we should let the American people decide Trump's fate in the next election rather than impeach him.
Of course, if the "let's let the American people decide in the next election" defence wins the day, then there is no reason to have an impeachment provision in the US Constitution, as there will always be another election.
Trump's defence lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, introduced a sixth defence this week.
He advised the United States Senate that the American President was within his rights to try to coerce Ukraine to investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden, in order to gain a political advantage that could see him re-elected, if Trump truly thought his re-election would benefit the American people. This is a "mens rea" type of defence - as long as the intent was to get re-elected in the belief that doing so would benefit Americans, anything goes.
On the issue of what would warrant impeachment, Dershowitz though that only if he committed an outright crime, like taking kickbacks from the building of a hotel, could Trump be impeached.
Given that every leader everywhere would assert that their leadership is for the benefit of the people, the Dershowitz Doctrine would leave the President of the United States largely beyond what we know as modern political ethics.
Let's look at recent attempts at impeachment.
Would Nixon have been impeachable if he could argue that Watergate was OK because he was trying to get re-elected and that his re-election would benefit the American people? It is at least debatable. The break-in was a crime, but no one has ever proven he knew about it.
Clinton would have a hard time arguing against his impeachment by outlining how lying about getting fellacio from his staff in the White House was in aid of getting re-elected for the benefit of the American people. However, if he did actually try to explain it, no doubt millions of people would still believe the silver-tongued devil!
The Dershowitz Doctrine (DD) would really make its mark on those things for which the President has discretion.
Certainly, using the portion of the country's treasury that Congress has allowed the President to spend in his own discretion, in order to pay people who will help him get elected, and to punish those who will not is perfectly fine via the Dershowitz Doctrine.
One is reminded here of Robert Mugabe who starved sections of the country that did not vote for his party by withholding food aid - that could be 100% OK under the DD, if he had simply said this was about getting re-elected for the benefit of the people.
As well, hiring only those who would vote for and support a president, and firing anyone in government employment who did not would also be OK.
Could Trump arrest political opponents as long as he said it was in aid of his re-election which he truly believed as for the benefit of the American people? Well, he is the chief law enforcement officer in the country, now isn't he, and enforcement is a discretionary activity.
The list goes on...
The Dershowitz Doctrine has not been accepted, but if it were, it would represent a revolution in American public life.
Unlike what some have written, I do not think that the DD would put the president above the law and effectively make Trump into a monarch. Dershowitz seemed pretty clear that presidents cannot actually break the law, and monarchs are - by definition - above the law, so the DD would not go that far. But in the murky world of "ethics", just about anything would be OK as long as Trump could say that he thought that his re-election was to the benefit of Americans.
Hmmm...do you think Donald Trump would say that his presidency has benefitted America, and that America needs four more years of him???
It is a distinct possibility.
Friday, 31 January 2020
Monday, 27 January 2020
Bolton Bolts! Giuliani Jolts!
OMG! He wrote a book!
Bolton seems determined to tell what he knows about Ukraine-Gate.
So far, press reports regarding his new book indicate that he has personal knowledge that Trump ordered cash for the defence of Ukraine withheld until an investigation by Ukraine of the Biden's was announced.
Crime or not, this essentially destroys Trump's defence, which is that his phone call to Zelensky was "perfect" and he did nothing wrong.
About 20 other people have confirming the story of "no investigation, no cash" via their sworn testimony, but Bolton is different. He is a conservatives' Conservative. What he has to say matters, which is why Republicans do NOT want him to testify.
Bolton clearly puts something above his loyalty to Trump. That "something" may be respect for tradition, the law, and his love of country - things that used to animate every true conservative.
His book may be available to be read into the record in the Senate. If this is the case, the Republicans may have to call contrary evidence to rebut Bolton, perhaps in the form of testimony from Giuliani.
This Giuliani...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-and-friends-desperately-tries-to-end-rudy-giuliani-interview-repeatedly-fails
I think it is now clear that Trump used his office to try to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival. Given this essentially reality, Trump would have to show that asking for that investigation was legitimate - that the Bidens are corrupt and took massive bribes in Ukraine.
But no one in the US security or criminal investigation establishment is claiming this. Here is what the New York Times says Biden did in Ukraine...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/politics/joe-biden-ukraine.html
Trump will not go down without a fight so get ready for the Rudy Giuliani Show!!!
Giuliani now claims that Biden took $8 Million in bribes in Ukraine. If he can't prove it - and he likely has to prove it in the US Senate - Trump could now be in very big trouble.
Wow....
Bolton seems determined to tell what he knows about Ukraine-Gate.
So far, press reports regarding his new book indicate that he has personal knowledge that Trump ordered cash for the defence of Ukraine withheld until an investigation by Ukraine of the Biden's was announced.
Crime or not, this essentially destroys Trump's defence, which is that his phone call to Zelensky was "perfect" and he did nothing wrong.
About 20 other people have confirming the story of "no investigation, no cash" via their sworn testimony, but Bolton is different. He is a conservatives' Conservative. What he has to say matters, which is why Republicans do NOT want him to testify.
Bolton clearly puts something above his loyalty to Trump. That "something" may be respect for tradition, the law, and his love of country - things that used to animate every true conservative.
His book may be available to be read into the record in the Senate. If this is the case, the Republicans may have to call contrary evidence to rebut Bolton, perhaps in the form of testimony from Giuliani.
This Giuliani...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-and-friends-desperately-tries-to-end-rudy-giuliani-interview-repeatedly-fails
I think it is now clear that Trump used his office to try to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival. Given this essentially reality, Trump would have to show that asking for that investigation was legitimate - that the Bidens are corrupt and took massive bribes in Ukraine.
But no one in the US security or criminal investigation establishment is claiming this. Here is what the New York Times says Biden did in Ukraine...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/politics/joe-biden-ukraine.html
Trump will not go down without a fight so get ready for the Rudy Giuliani Show!!!
Giuliani now claims that Biden took $8 Million in bribes in Ukraine. If he can't prove it - and he likely has to prove it in the US Senate - Trump could now be in very big trouble.
Wow....
Sunday, 26 January 2020
The Problem With A Faux Trial
Here is a brilliant editorial in the Washington Post on the probable outcome and fall-out from the Impeachment "trial".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-impeachment-evidence-will-catch-up-to-republicans-and-trump--whether-they-ignore-it-or-not/2020/01/24/c06e9246-3ec3-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html
The essential problem for the Republicans is the simple fact that the guy is guilty, and they know it.
Clinton was charged with lying under oath and obstruction of justice related to trying to hide the fact that he had sex with a subordinate. What Trump has obviously done makes Clinton's crimes look petty in comparison.
Trump should be removed from office.
For the record, I am not rabidly anti-Trump - I thought Clinton should have been removed from office as well. As guardians of the law, lawyers can't ever lie under oath, and if they are caught doing so, the maximum penalty should be rendered against them. (NB - Clinton was disbarred, and prevented from ever again practising law in Arkansas after the impeachment trial, based on the fact that he lied under oath.)
Presidents like Trump, and Clinton before him, are why the Impeachment Clause exists in the United States Constitution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-impeachment-evidence-will-catch-up-to-republicans-and-trump--whether-they-ignore-it-or-not/2020/01/24/c06e9246-3ec3-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html
The essential problem for the Republicans is the simple fact that the guy is guilty, and they know it.
Clinton was charged with lying under oath and obstruction of justice related to trying to hide the fact that he had sex with a subordinate. What Trump has obviously done makes Clinton's crimes look petty in comparison.
Trump should be removed from office.
For the record, I am not rabidly anti-Trump - I thought Clinton should have been removed from office as well. As guardians of the law, lawyers can't ever lie under oath, and if they are caught doing so, the maximum penalty should be rendered against them. (NB - Clinton was disbarred, and prevented from ever again practising law in Arkansas after the impeachment trial, based on the fact that he lied under oath.)
Presidents like Trump, and Clinton before him, are why the Impeachment Clause exists in the United States Constitution.
Friday, 24 January 2020
Et Tu Fox??
This, on FOX!
https://www.businessinsider.
The only way that any commentator on Fox would be allowed to express a contrary opinion to Trump's standard impeachment line of "this is not a crime"m and he new one "Trump held back the cash because he thought Ukraine was corrupt", is if the people who run Fox are having second thoughts about the man.
And - Shiff's masterful summation of the case against Trump is going viral - he is beating Trump in the world of Social Media, which is a very bad omen for the man.
Trump will still win the Impeachment Trial. But, as noted here previously, he may come out the other side of this so damaged that he cannot win the presidency again - this will separate him from the rest of the corrupt pack of politicians in the USA in the eyes of Americans. and effectively destroy his career.
Fox and Shiff both played a role in bringing this about in the last 24 hours.
https://www.businessinsider.
The only way that any commentator on Fox would be allowed to express a contrary opinion to Trump's standard impeachment line of "this is not a crime"m and he new one "Trump held back the cash because he thought Ukraine was corrupt", is if the people who run Fox are having second thoughts about the man.
And - Shiff's masterful summation of the case against Trump is going viral - he is beating Trump in the world of Social Media, which is a very bad omen for the man.
Trump will still win the Impeachment Trial. But, as noted here previously, he may come out the other side of this so damaged that he cannot win the presidency again - this will separate him from the rest of the corrupt pack of politicians in the USA in the eyes of Americans. and effectively destroy his career.
Fox and Shiff both played a role in bringing this about in the last 24 hours.
Thursday, 23 January 2020
REPO!!!
Here is the continuing REPO madness explained...
Guys like Harry Dent are always wrong until the aren't, and when they aren't, the world bends and breaks almost exactly as predicted.
Wednesday, 22 January 2020
Definition of Trial and Farce
Simple definition of "Trial"...
"The purpose of a criminal trial is to shed light on the circumstances surrounding a crime. At the trial, evidence is presented to a judge, or sometimes to a jury, to determine if the accused person committed the crime."
Simple definition of "Farce"...
"...a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations."
There is a cave. You are in it and you cannot leave. The Puppet Showmen are busy in the Senate. Look at the shadows on the wall. Call it the truth. KAG!!
"The purpose of a criminal trial is to shed light on the circumstances surrounding a crime. At the trial, evidence is presented to a judge, or sometimes to a jury, to determine if the accused person committed the crime."
Simple definition of "Farce"...
"...a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations."
There is a cave. You are in it and you cannot leave. The Puppet Showmen are busy in the Senate. Look at the shadows on the wall. Call it the truth. KAG!!
Tuesday, 21 January 2020
Trump's Non-Defence Defence
The Trial is ON!
The acquittal is almost guaranteed. Trump's defence is that he cannot be impeached as he has not been found to have broken any laws. WTF?
The standard for impeachment is that the President of the United States is as follows..
"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
When the Framers of the United States' Constitution crafted this section, the only precedent they had to look to was British Common Law. According to Common Law "...other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." related to, other than actual crimes, misdeeds in office sufficiently corrupt and disreputable to warrant removal from office. This has been the law in both British Common Law jurisdictions and in the United States literally for centuries.
This impeachment trial may change this, and rewrite this incredibly important section of the United States Constitution. This is because if Trump is acquitted because he did not commit an actual crime, this defence will effectively become the new standard for impeachment. This would be a much higher bar to hit for impeachment than the Framers intended, and this change would move the impeachment section from being extremely difficult to implement to being essentially irrelevant, as securing a criminal conviction through this process may be impossible.
There is one other insidious problem with Trump's defence.
By saying he can only be impeached if a crime has been proven, he is essentially conceding the point about the possible quid pro quo. In other words, if he had a defence to the charge that he tried to use his office to gain an advantage over a political opponent, surely he would reveal that defence now....
...but he didn't reveal that mystery defence for the simple reason that he doesn't have one.
By trying to rewrite constitutional law by way of his defence, and by essentially admitting that he abused his office in offering this non-defence defence, Trump is telling one and all what we already know - the man is unfit for office, and he always has been.
But he cannot do this alone. His Republican allies make his continued dismemberment of America's traditions and legal framework possible every single day.
Every great nation may be fated to die a thousand deaths at the hands of its own citizens long before these nations are ever diminished by outside competitors and enemies.
The USA that emerges from the Trump years will be unrecognizable to those of us who grew up admiring that great nation.
KAG KAG KAG!!
The acquittal is almost guaranteed. Trump's defence is that he cannot be impeached as he has not been found to have broken any laws. WTF?
The standard for impeachment is that the President of the United States is as follows..
"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
When the Framers of the United States' Constitution crafted this section, the only precedent they had to look to was British Common Law. According to Common Law "...other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." related to, other than actual crimes, misdeeds in office sufficiently corrupt and disreputable to warrant removal from office. This has been the law in both British Common Law jurisdictions and in the United States literally for centuries.
This impeachment trial may change this, and rewrite this incredibly important section of the United States Constitution. This is because if Trump is acquitted because he did not commit an actual crime, this defence will effectively become the new standard for impeachment. This would be a much higher bar to hit for impeachment than the Framers intended, and this change would move the impeachment section from being extremely difficult to implement to being essentially irrelevant, as securing a criminal conviction through this process may be impossible.
There is one other insidious problem with Trump's defence.
By saying he can only be impeached if a crime has been proven, he is essentially conceding the point about the possible quid pro quo. In other words, if he had a defence to the charge that he tried to use his office to gain an advantage over a political opponent, surely he would reveal that defence now....
...but he didn't reveal that mystery defence for the simple reason that he doesn't have one.
By trying to rewrite constitutional law by way of his defence, and by essentially admitting that he abused his office in offering this non-defence defence, Trump is telling one and all what we already know - the man is unfit for office, and he always has been.
But he cannot do this alone. His Republican allies make his continued dismemberment of America's traditions and legal framework possible every single day.
Every great nation may be fated to die a thousand deaths at the hands of its own citizens long before these nations are ever diminished by outside competitors and enemies.
The USA that emerges from the Trump years will be unrecognizable to those of us who grew up admiring that great nation.
KAG KAG KAG!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)