the 45th is The Fourth US President to officially Face Impeachment.

[Agema]

So, how is this screwball comedy of errors progressing?

In terms of the impeachment, no idea, it's not worth following. The Republican Senators have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in even a diligent investigation, never mind considering Trump may be guilty. As a result it's a pointless load of hot air.

* * *

Outside impeachment proceedings, Parnas or Fruman released an audio purporting to have Trump railing against the ambassador to the Ukraine and telling an aide to get rid of her in April 2018, which perhaps might indicate Trump was more aware of what was going on in Ukraine than some of his defenders want to pretend. Trump evidently has lots of temper tantrums: I suspect he says a lot of this sort of shit but doesn't put effort into following up, and the aide quietly shelved it as one of these moments to not take literally. It might have been passed on and the root of why Yovanovich was told to conspicuously praise the president, of course.

When Trump says he doesn't know Parnas, I have mixed opinions. Trump is incredibly flexible about how he accepts knowing or not knowing people: if news about them is positive then he knows them, if it's negative then he doesn't. He's clearly met Parnas and talked with him a few times, but the likes of Trump spend lots of time glad-handing the party faithful and influential people: meeting people at those sort of functions isn't the same as really knowing them. I suspect Trump would be aware Parnas is working with Giuliani in Ukraine (even if Giuliani hadn't informed Trump Parnas was working on the Ukraine stuff, I find it hard to believe Parnas wouldn't tell Trump in these chats), although this again isn't really the same as Trump "knowing him" in any personal sense.

 

[tstorm823]

Outside impeachment proceedings, Parnas or Fruman released an audio purporting to have Trump railing against the ambassador to the Ukraine and telling an aide to get rid of her in April 2018, which perhaps might indicate Trump was more aware of what was going on in Ukraine than some of his defenders want to pretend.

Purporting to have Trump rail against the ambassador because they told him in that same conversation that Yovanovich was telling Ukrainian officials to wait Trump out because he was going to be removed from office. No sense leaving out the details that make me right.

 

[Agema]

Purporting to have Trump rail against the ambassador because they told him in that same conversation that Yovanovich was telling Ukrainian officials to wait Trump out because he was going to be removed from office. No sense leaving out the details that make me right.

Make you right about Trump having toddler tantrums and trying to sack public employees over mere rumours?

I mean, you've spent over two years defending Trump from claims of being actively corrupt by effectively having to argue he is temperamentally unfit and incompetent. From which the rationale to vote for him is that so far the rest of the government have managed to prevent his ignorant, irascible flailings wrecking something really important to the USA.

 

[tstorm823]

Make you right about Trump having toddler tantrums and trying to sack public employees over mere rumours?

I mean, you've spent over two years defending Trump from claims of being actively corrupt by effectively having to argue he is temperamentally unfit and incompetent. From which the rationale to vote for him is that so far the rest of the government have managed to prevent his ignorant, irascible flailings wrecking something really important to the USA.

You really just don't get it. Donald Trump is not a dictator or a mafia boss, nor is he a toddler throwing tantrums. None of your ways of judging Trump consistently explain his actions. You're not trying to understand the character of the man, you're just trying to demonize him.

Donald Trump is, at all times, a crowd-pleaser. That's it. That explains him at every moment. He desperately wants to be liked, so he plays to the present audience in everything he does. If a crowd says build the wall, Trump says build the wall. If Billy Bush praises Trump for "scoring", Trump says he could "grab em by the..." If Parnas says the ambassador to Ukraine is badmouthing him and needs to go, he says "get her outta there." If a whole gallery of politicians tell him the same thing, he actually recalls her. The man isn't a puppet run by blackmail, nor a tool bought off with money, his only meaningful motivation is the attention and admiration of others. If you try and explain his actions by any other metric, you're never going to understand what's happening and why.

 

[SupahEwok]

Make you right about Trump having toddler tantrums and trying to sack public employees over mere rumours?

I mean, you've spent over two years defending Trump from claims of being actively corrupt by effectively having to argue he is temperamentally unfit and incompetent. From which the rationale to vote for him is that so far the rest of the government have managed to prevent his ignorant, irascible flailings wrecking something really important to the USA.

You really just don't get it. Donald Trump is not a dictator or a mafia boss, nor is he a toddler throwing tantrums. None of your ways of judging Trump consistently explain his actions. You're not trying to understand the character of the man, you're just trying to demonize him.

Donald Trump is, at all times, a crowd-pleaser. That's it. That explains him at every moment. He desperately wants to be liked, so he plays to the present audience in everything he does. If a crowd says build the wall, Trump says build the wall. If Billy Bush praises Trump for "scoring", Trump says he could "grab em by the..." If Parnas says the ambassador to Ukraine is badmouthing him and needs to go, he says "get her outta there." If a whole gallery of politicians tell him the same thing, he actually recalls her. The man isn't a puppet run by blackmail, nor a tool bought off with money, his only meaningful motivation is the attention and admiration of others. If you try and explain his actions by any other metric, you're never going to understand what's happening and why.

...you realize that's a form of being mentally unfit and incompetent, right?

(It also doesn't explain his massive firing rate; as nothing more than someone who wants to be liked, why does he throw out so much of his staff instead of buttering them up?)

 

[tstorm823]

...you realize that's a form of being mentally unfit and incompetent, right?

Yes, it is a character flaw. A major character flaw. But if flawed people can't do good, you may as well blow us all off the planet.

(It also doesn't explain his massive firing rate; as nothing more than someone who wants to be liked, why does he throw out so much of his staff instead of buttering them up?)

He appointed most of these people. That is buttering them up.

 

[SupahEwok]

...you realize that's a form of being mentally unfit and incompetent, right?

Yes, it is a character flaw. A major character flaw. But if flawed people can't do good, you may as well blow us all off the planet.

(It also doesn't explain his massive firing rate; as nothing more than someone who wants to be liked, why does he throw out so much of his staff instead of buttering them up?)

He appointed most of these people. That is buttering them up.

A) maybe people with major character flaws that are so easy to see and exploit that random commentators on the internet can figure them out should't be in charge of the executive branch of the world's superpower?

B) I'm not sure where to begin pointing out how much that's a nonanswer, and how it doesn't explain Trump alienating career people in places like the Pentagon and the State Department who were hired by past administrations.

 

[Agema]

You really just don't get it. Donald Trump is not a dictator or a mafia boss, nor is he a toddler throwing tantrums. None of your ways of judging Trump consistently explain his actions. You're not trying to understand the character of the man, you're just trying to demonize him.

No, his desire to be a crowd pleaser is just one aspect of his personality. It is absurd to reduce someone to a single character trait.

It doesn't explain his laziness in office, spending his time watching Fox & Friends, golfing or partying in Mar-a-Lago and compulsively tweeting rather than working on government business. It doesn't explain him bullying people and flying into rages behind closed doors, or demanding cabinet ministers carry out patently illegal policy. It doesn't explain his stuffing the WH with cronies and family members. It doesn't explain his unwillingness to work with the state apparatus, instead preferring to pursue conspiracy theories and only listen to close advisors irrespective of whether they're competent or not, or his clear admiration and preferences for foreign authoritarians.

He appointed most of these people. That is buttering them up.

No, that doesn't make sense. He could employ anyone: he'd be buttering them up whoever they are. I think he picks them primarily on the grounds he perceives them to be loyal, subservient and fawning.

 

[tstorm823]

A) maybe people with major character flaws that are so easy to see and exploit that random commentators on the internet can figure them out should't be in charge of the executive branch of the world's superpower?

There is no politician alive who would pass this test.

 

[Asita]

A) maybe people with major character flaws that are so easy to see and exploit that random commentators on the internet can figure them out should't be in charge of the executive branch of the world's superpower?

There is no politician alive who would pass this test.

And it is your contention that Trump is no worse than the average politician in this respect?

 

[Silvanus]

Donald Trump is, at all times, a crowd-pleaser. That's it. That explains him at every moment. He desperately wants to be liked, so he plays to the present audience in everything he does.

He doesn't seem to be very good at it, given how unprecedentedly unpopular he is, according to polls.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Yes, it is a character flaw. A major character flaw. But if flawed people can't do good, you may as well blow us all off the planet.

Only the ones who claim to NOT be flawed and lie about how good they are need to be blown off. The rest of us acknowledge it and try to work around or with it.

 

[Agema]

A) maybe people with major character flaws that are so easy to see and exploit that random commentators on the internet can figure them out should't be in charge of the executive branch of the world's superpower?

There is no politician alive who would pass this test.

I'm not sure that's true. We can deduce aspects of people's personality and we certainly should be able to work out their ideology, but you can find plenty of political commentators, even after decades in the public eye, unsure what someone like Hillary Clinton thinks. Arguably of course those may be the ones we can trust less precisely because they are more of an unknown.

Also, please bear in mind you have previously said that Trump is run or told what to do by one or more other people. This would suggest someone knows how to play him, and if so there's no reason foreign leaders can't manipulate him either. In fact - and I again refer to you to the fateful conversation he had with Erdogan that resulted in the betrayal of the Kurds - there is evidence consistent with the idea. Trump gave away far more than he should, and it resulted in a mad scramble by the rest of the US government to minimise the damage. Although I'd grant you that's not necessarily because Trump is easily manipulated, but because he's too lazy, careless and ignorant to realise the likely consequences of what he's saying.

 

[Agema]

And just for the record:

https://www.businessinsider.com/bolton-book-confirms-trump-ordered-continued-ukraine-aid-freeze-nyt-2020-1?r=US&IR=T

So no guesses why the WH was so aggressively blocking testimony and documents and why Senate Republicans didn't want any other witnesses called. This impeachment looks a demonstration of raw power and moral bankruptcy in its full glory, pushing through a cover up even in the full glare of public attention.

 

[tstorm823]

And just for the record:

https://www.businessinsider.com/bolton-book-confirms-trump-ordered-continued-ukraine-aid-freeze-nyt-2020-1?r=US&IR=T

So no guesses why the WH was so aggressively blocking testimony and documents and why Senate Republicans didn't want any other witnesses called. This impeachment looks a demonstration of raw power and moral bankruptcy in its full glory, pushing through a cover up even in the full glare of public attention.

I'm not taking the New York Times word for it. I'll take Bolton seriously when his actual words come to light, but this story is coming from leaks to the New York Times without even a single quote of the actual source language. The last time I read a Times story in that sort of circumstances, they had gotten an early draft of an executive order declaring Jewish people a protected class and rephrased it to claim Trump was declaring Jews un-American. The New York Times has zero credibility on this.

Also, the "additional witnesses" controversy is the most fabricated piece of crap in this whole thing. They haven't gotten through opening statements yet, they'll vote on more witnesses after that. The media and Democrats are making it a controversy on purpose, so that any Republican voting against witnesses is branded as a Trump crony and any that vote for witnesses are agreeing that Schiff's case is good. If they had just let things play out without throwing a fit, there'd almost certainly be witnesses called. The only reason that might not happen now is because they've made it stupid on purpose. It has nothing to do with the trial and everything to do with future senate races. That's the politics going on right now: the Democrats never had any hope of removing Trump, the articles of impeachment are complete jokes, this whole charade is campaigning for 2020.

Edit: To clarify, a couple months ago things were literally reversed. Democrats were questioning whether it was a good idea to send the articles to the Senate at all, because that would give Republicans the opportunity to call witnesses, and they didn't want any Biden or whistleblower under oath. They have made the issue of witnesses a Democrat initiative instead specifically because they want Republicans to vote against it.

 

[SupahEwok]

And just for the record:

https://www.businessinsider.com/bolton-book-confirms-trump-ordered-continued-ukraine-aid-freeze-nyt-2020-1?r=US&IR=T

So no guesses why the WH was so aggressively blocking testimony and documents and why Senate Republicans didn't want any other witnesses called. This impeachment looks a demonstration of raw power and moral bankruptcy in its full glory, pushing through a cover up even in the full glare of public attention.

I'm not taking the New York Times word for it. I'll take Bolton seriously when his actual words come to light, but this story is coming from leaks to the New York Times without even a single quote of the actual source language. The last time I read a Times story in that sort of circumstances, they had gotten an early draft of an executive order declaring Jewish people a protected class and rephrased it to claim Trump was declaring Jews un-American. The New York Times has zero credibility on this.

I think it's pretty clear that Bolton leaked this himself to try to push getting himself called to testify. If it weren't true in substance, he could absolutely call on the Times to retract it, and would have done so by now. He can't just come right out and say it for the sake of propriety and his book deal with his agent and publisher.

Also, the "additional witnesses" controversy is the most fabricated piece of crap in this whole thing. They haven't gotten through opening statements yet, they'll vote on more witnesses after that. The media and Democrats are making it a controversy on purpose, so that any Republican voting against witnesses is branded as a Trump crony and any that vote for witnesses are agreeing that Schiff's case is good. If they had just let things play out without throwing a fit, there'd almost certainly be witnesses called. The only reason that might not happen now is because they've made it stupid on purpose. It has nothing to do with the trial and everything to do with future senate races. That's the politics going on right now: the Democrats never had any hope of removing Trump, the articles of impeachment are complete jokes, this whole charade is campaigning for 2020.

You know that the rules for the trial were voted on before opening statements, right? The rules that Mitch McConnell submitted, which the Democrats tried to hang on for 12 hours to get calling witnesses into the rules, and the Republicans as a body froze them out of it?

I've long come to the conclusion that you're trolling here, but at least don't be so disingenuous. Unless you want to proceed to claim that a major aspect of running this trial should only properly be set in the middle of the trial rather than at the onset, which is a sentiment that flies in the face of most legal precedent and good practice, and against all good sense.

 

[tstorm823]

I think it's pretty clear that Bolton leaked this himself to try to push getting himself called to testify. If it weren't true in substance, he could absolutely call on the Times to retract it, and would have done so by now. He can't just come right out and say it for the sake of propriety and his book deal with his agent and publisher.

It only takes like a 10% twist to make the statement a non-issue, so it might be a thing that's close enough to mislead people without being factually wrong. Like, they phrased it as "until Ukraine helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens. Which could really be as dumb a misdirection as "yes, the Bidens are Democrats, Trump wanting to investigate Democrats in Ukraine would in fact include the Bidens even if Trump never said anything about them specifically". Bolton is also claiming it was leaked by the White House while he had it submitted for review for classified information, so revealing any of the contents could potentially get him in trouble for revealing classified information.

You know that the rules for the trial were voted on before opening statements, right? The rules that Mitch McConnell submitted, which the Democrats tried to hang on for 12 hours to get calling witnesses into the rules, and the Republicans as a body froze them out of it?

McConnell is explicitly following identical procedure to Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. Where they did opening statements by the managers before deliberating on witnesses. It's not some unprecedented cover-up.

Unless you want to proceed to claim that a major aspect of running this trial should only properly be set in the middle of the trial rather than at the onset, which is a sentiment that flies in the face of most legal precedent and good practice, and against all good sense.

You think good sense would be if the deliberative body deciding to remove the president or not should determine the course of the trial before hearing the case? Isn't the issue at play of denying witnesses that the Senators have made up their minds and aren't considering new evidence? Now you want them to lock all the rules in place before even hearing the case? Even if they're all well informed of the impeachment hearings, the defense hasn't presented a case yet when they're deciding those rules, and you want them to start locking in witnesses without even hearing that? That's not good sense at all.

A real trial has discovery. A real trial has witnesses determined before the trial. But a real trial doesn't have witnesses picked by the jury. This is a different trial. If what witnesses and how many should be called were decided by the jury, would you have them make that decision before opening statements?

 

[Silvanus]

Also, the "additional witnesses" controversy is the most fabricated piece of crap in this whole thing. They haven't gotten through opening statements yet, they'll vote on more witnesses after that. The media and Democrats are making it a controversy on purpose, so that any Republican voting against witnesses is branded as a Trump crony and any that vote for witnesses are agreeing that Schiff's case is good. If they had just let things play out without throwing a fit, there'd almost certainly be witnesses called. The only reason that might not happen now is because they've made it stupid on purpose.

Subtly laying the groundwork here, so that if/when they refuse to hear witnesses, you can say its everybody else's fault.

A real trial has discovery. A real trial has witnesses determined before the trial. But a real trial doesn't have witnesses picked by the jury. This is a different trial. If what witnesses and how many should be called were decided by the jury, would you have them make that decision before opening statements?

Right, so you do have a problem with McConnell's rules? Because above, you seemed to be arguing that since there's precedent, the rules controversy is much ado about nothing.

 

[tstorm823]

Subtly laying the groundwork here, so that if/when they refuse to hear witnesses, you can say its everybody else's fault.

I expect there to be witnesses. But the media has been working very hard to make people think that if they don't call witnesses, it's because they know Trump is guilty and are covering it up, where if they call witnesses, it's because they are now being convinced that Trump is guilty. You could spin either of those things the other way, that having or not needing witnesses expresses confidence in the president's innocence, but they're putting a lot of effort into making witnesses a win for the Democrats so that Republicans will hesitate to give them the PR victory.

It basically the same as with Kavanaugh, if they just voted him in, they'd be branded as not caring if he's a rapist, where if they let the investigation continue, it's because they're clearly worried he's a rapist. They weren't worried he was a rapist and went with the latter, I expect the same to play out here. We'll have witnesses, they'll change nothing, Trump gets acquitted, and Democrats continue to believe every lie the media says that isn't about Bernie Sanders.

Right, so you do have a problem with McConnell's rules? Because above, you seemed to be arguing that since there's precedent, the rules controversy is much ado about nothing.

I'm not particularly opinionated about whether the rules are good or bad. I just know McConnell deferred to precedent to tamper down accusations of cheating, and throwing a hissy fit about when to vote on witnesses is just political theater.

 

[Agema]

I'm not taking the New York Times word for it. I'll take Bolton seriously when his actual words come to light, but this story is coming from leaks to the New York Times without even a single quote of the actual source language.

I'm not taking the NYT's word for it either (although I might note Bolton's representatives have not denied the claim), the point is merely that this emphasises the need for key witnesses and documents. You have argued consistently there is nothing (absolutely) directly and unambiguously tying Trump to the Ukraine misdeeds, and rejected attempts to even look at it. But the rumour of Bolton's book makes that stance look very uncomfortable.

Also, the "additional witnesses" controversy is the most fabricated piece of crap in this whole thing. They haven't gotten through opening statements yet, they'll vote on more witnesses after that. The media and Democrats are making it a controversy on purpose, so that any Republican voting against witnesses is branded as a Trump crony and any that vote for witnesses are agreeing that Schiff's case is good. If they had just let things play out without throwing a fit, there'd almost certainly be witnesses called.

I've looked through what the Republicans have been saying about the impeachment trial they're overseeing with their 53-47 majority, they don't merit an assumption of trust over rigour.

Edit: To clarify, a couple months ago things were literally reversed. Democrats were questioning whether it was a good idea to send the articles to the Senate at all, because that would give Republicans the opportunity to call witnesses, and they didn't want any Biden or whistleblower under oath. They have made the issue of witnesses a Democrat initiative instead specifically because they want Republicans to vote against it.

Damn straight they should have been concerned, because the only aim of the Republicans calling the Bidens is to abuse their Senate majority to make the impeachment a de facto trial of the Bidens instead of the president, dragging their presence out with exhaustive slander and insinuations.