The Impeachment Thread

[RavinDave]

Much more comfy than a sofa suspended in the air.

Don't knock it if you ain't tried it.

 

[NCFisher]

But that’s not what the treaty that you read does at all. It does not say the president can request that Ukraine open an investigation. In fact, it’s very explicit about who can make that request and does not mention the President.



Heres what you said:
“And unless we're to say that running for office exempts one from scrutiny - which we know NOT to be the case of candidate Trump - then a president can certainly voice that concern.”

Looks like a binary choice to me. Either Trump can request investigations or Biden is exempt. How is that not a binary choice?

I don’t want to be repetitious, so I’ll just refer you back to my last post.

A president can make such a request of any government, with or without such a treaty. The treaty does not preclude presidential inquiry or request, but merely outlines how formal requests will be made, terms & conditions and scope of investigations. Trump clearly defers to our 'Central Authority' (Barr) three times, and belies no intent to kickstart, manage, or oversee such an investigation himself.

The claim from the left is that since Biden is a political opponent - which he is not until he is nominated - Trump is trying to smear his opponent for personal, political gain.

I reject the proposition. We know that a candidate can be investigated because it happened to Trump, and with the opposition party in the WH fully plugged into the investigation. That alone provides any cover Trump may need to ask a candidate be looked at but should require a reasonable level of plausibility.

If, though, as the left seems to imply, Trump cannot legally/ethically do so because "Democrat candidate", then we have to admit Trump should have never been investigated. One cannot have it both ways.
I trust that clears it up.

 

[luthervol]

The president, and president alone, *is* foreign policy. It is logically impossible for HIS policy to differ from "the US's official position", and reckless and untrue to imply he has relied in part or whole with pro-Russian agents, and not his cabinet secretaries. That you believe such things is unflattering.

But you do succinctly encapsulate the entire problem: career bureaucrats who under cross-examination mealey-mouth "serve at the president's pleasure", but actually think they have the right to set policy, run government, and protect their staked-out territories, a Wilsonian relic, now the Resistance! brigade. They should be fired in disgrace for gross insubordination, at the least.

Please with the over the top rhetoric; no one since Reagan has taken a stick to Russia as Trump has. That simply isn't debatable.

Sure it's debatable (as to your last statement)
And no, the president alone *is not* foreign policy.
You love speaking in absolutes, but saying it doesn't make it an absolute....that's an indisputable fact.
It's odd that the Ukrainian diplomats and state department employees had such a differing take on "the US's official position."

 

[Velo Vol]

So what value is an interview discussing security related investigative questions when the subject of the interview refused to reinstate clearance so that they could be answered?
So you know he interviewed Comey? His report appears to indicate otherwise. Post your link, I'd appreciate it.

I distinctly remember Comey saying he had interviewed with the IG, though it was a while ago and I suppose it could have been on the Clinton email investigation.

But had he refused an interview, it would be all over the news.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Sure it's debatable (as to your last statement)
And no, the president alone *is not* foreign policy.
You love speaking in absolutes, but saying it doesn't make it an absolute....that's an indisputable fact.
It's odd that the Ukrainian diplomats and state department employees had such a differing take on "the US's official position."

You're really bad at this.....you're embarrassing yourself but I'm sure you don't care how stupid you look.

 

[Velo Vol]

 

[NCFisher]

Who did not cooperate with the investigation?

I don't have the list. We know Comey declined to temporarily reinstate his security clearance, leaving discussion of classified matters fenced off from Horowitz. Horowitz noted a number of former FBI agents crowded into that fence. Horowitz could talk to current FBI employees, but not other agencies (silos). Durham can. And compel them.

G. Brennan claims he is the genesis of Crossfire Hurricane. I'd not be surprised to see him abstain from reinstating clearance.

 

[NCFisher]

Correct.

Barr is a disgrace. He has undermined the value of the office.

So, you're a "wing man" type of guy?

 

[volfanhill]

Lol that’s funny

 

[Velo Vol]

I don't have the list. We know Comey declined to temporarily reinstate his security clearance, leaving discussion of classified matters fenced off from Horowitz.

Explain how Comey not having a security clearance prevents anyone from asking him questions about what he did as FBI director.

 

[NCFisher]

Sure it's debatable (as to your last statement)
And no, the president alone *is not* foreign policy.
You love speaking in absolutes, but saying it doesn't make it an absolute....that's an indisputable fact.
It's odd that the Ukrainian diplomats and state department employees had such a differing take on "the US's official position."

Oh.....damn....
Then I guess you'll be telling me who sets foreign policy.
I'll wait.

 

[NCFisher]

Explain how Comey not having a security clearance prevents anyone from asking him about his conduct as FBI director.

Noting the limits inherent in an inspector general review, including jurisdiction and inability to compel testimony, Barr pointed to Comey as an example where Horowitz's report fell short.

“Durham is not limited to the FBI. He can talk to other agencies. He can compel people to testify,” Barr said. “One of the problems in the IG’s investigation, I think he would agree, is that Comey refused to sign back up for his security clearance and therefore couldn't be questioned about classified matters. So, someone like Durham can compel testimony, he can talk to a whole range of people, private parties, foreign governments, and so forth.” Barr: Comey refusal to reinstate security clearance a 'problem' in FISA investigation

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Why would you post this. It's dumb AF!

 

[ajvol01]

Career experts, many of whom have spent a lifetime in a particular area of expertise, or a TV reality personality with zero knowledge, experience or expertise? Tough call. Talk about disturbing.

The fact you believe this after the past 3 years is telling.

 

[NCFisher]

Career experts, many of whom have spent a lifetime in a particular area of expertise, or a TV reality personality with zero knowledge, experience or expertise? Tough call. Talk about disturbing.

So long as those career experts understand they were elected to nothing, can opine and argue but when the boss says "done", it's done and are there to serve the president's foreign policy, all good.

Now you see the problem.

 

[NCFisher]

Why would you post this. It's dumb AF!

It's what passes for humor in the Resistance!

 

[luthervol]

No, it isn't; foreign policy is constitutionally vested to the president alone. There is no constitutional policy or public stance "supported by the official policy community" that doesn't devolve from the president. If the "policy community" bureaucrats do not like the policy, they are obliged to leave. They do not get to publicly or covertly run their own policy. They serve entirely and sum total at the pleasure of the president.
Presidential policy IS official U.S. foreign policy.

It would be nice if the people in charge of carrying out the official U.S. foreign policy actually knew what policy to carry out.
Having your ambassadors and diplomats carry out what they think is the official U.S. foreign policy because that is what they have been told is the official U.S. foreign policy only to find out later that the official U.S. foreign policy is actually something different that the president has come up with on the side with people who have no official capacity, have not been confirmed by congress, and have gone through little or no security clearance seems like a poor way of building trust among other countries regarding the official U.S. foreign policy.

 

[RockyTop85]

A president can make such a request of any government, with or without such a treaty. The treaty does not preclude presidential inquiry or request, but merely outlines how formal requests will be made, terms & conditions and scope of investigations. Trump clearly defers to our 'Central Authority' (Barr) three times, and belies no intent to kickstart, manage, or oversee such an investigation himself.

The claim from the left is that since Biden is a political opponent - which he is not until he is nominated - Trump is trying to smear his opponent for personal, political gain.

I reject the proposition. We know that a candidate can be investigated because it happened to Trump, and with the opposition party in the WH fully plugged into the investigation. That alone provides any cover Trump may need to ask a candidate be looked at but should require a reasonable level of plausibility.

If, though, as the left seems to imply, Trump cannot legally/ethically do so because "Democrat candidate", then we have to admit Trump should have never been investigated. One cannot have it both ways.
I trust that clears it up.

You should notify DOJ that the president is the chief law enforcement officer, so they can update their website.

“The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government.“

About the Office

Also, the White House:

“The Attorney General is the head of the DOJ and chief law enforcement officer of the federal government.“

The Executive Branch | The White House

Beyond that, I can’t tell if you’re unwilling to acknowledge an independent investigation is an alternative to your binary choice of “trump starts the investigation” or “there can be no investigation” or if I’m just misunderstanding something, but so far it seems like your response to that is to just keep repeating your original opinions and add in new opinions to support your old opinions.

Maybe I am just overlooking it somehow.

 

[luthervol]

TRUMP! - impeached by the House radical House Democrats on some day, back then for having the temerity of defeating the bestest, most qualified candidate with breasts, ever.

yawn

Cute, but talk about your yawn.
That's the lamest of all of the right wing talking points.
We all know that none of this would have happened had any of the other 16 rep candidates beaten Hillary.
It actually has nothing to do with Hillary and everything to do with Trump being horrendously despicable and unfit for office.
The right would love to convince more than just the 36 percenters that it's a response to Hillary losing and not to Trump being pathetic, but it just ain't so.

 

[Velo Vol]

Noting the limits inherent in an inspector general review, including jurisdiction and inability to compel testimony, Barr pointed to Comey as an example where Horowitz's report fell short.

“Durham is not limited to the FBI. He can talk to other agencies. He can compel people to testify,” Barr said. “One of the problems in the IG’s investigation, I think he would agree, is that Comey refused to sign back up for his security clearance and therefore couldn't be questioned about classified matters. So, someone like Durham can compel testimony, he can talk to a whole range of people, private parties, foreign governments, and so forth.” Barr: Comey refusal to reinstate security clearance a 'problem' in FISA investigation

That doesn't explain anything. It's Barr's spin to undermine the report.

Given all that is now public knowledge, give an example of something specific that Horowitz would be unable to ask about without disclosing classified information to Comey?

 

[luthervol]

Correct.

Barr is a disgrace. He has undermined the value of the office.

The value of every one of Trump's appointed positions has been undermined; from press secretary, to attorney general, to ambassadors, to Secretary of State, to cabinet positions, etc...

 

[Velo Vol]

I reject the proposition. We know that a candidate can be investigated because it happened to Trump, and with the opposition party in the WH fully plugged into the investigation. That alone provides any cover Trump may need to ask a candidate be looked at but should require a reasonable level of plausibility.

If, though, as the left seems to imply, Trump cannot legally/ethically do so because "Democrat candidate", then we have to admit Trump should have never been investigated. One cannot have it both ways.
I trust that clears it up.

So is it within his powers for a president to request/direct specific citizens be criminally investigated? Or not?

 

[ajvol01]

That doesn't explain anything. It's Barr's spin to undermine the report.

Given all that is now public knowledge, give an example of something specific that Horowitz would be unable to ask about without disclosing classified information to Comey?

All of the FISA applications are classified.

Are you gonna seriously die on this hill?

It’s absolutely ridiculous. Refusing to reinstate his clearance is nearly the same as Comey pleading the fifth.

 

[0nelilreb]

All of the FISA applications are classified.

Are you gonna seriously die on this hill?

It’s absolutely ridiculous. Refusing to reinstate his clearance is nearly the same as Comey pleading the fifth.

Velo is just being disingenuous, he’s not that dumb . ( mostly)

 

[luthervol]

Oh.....damn....
Then I guess you'll be telling me who sets foreign policy.
I'll wait.

Hope I didn't keep you waiting.
U.S. Foreign Policy Powers: Congress and the President
The U.S. Constitution parcels out foreign relations powers to both the executive and legislative branches. It grants some powers, like command of the military, exclusively to the president and others, like the regulation of foreign commerce, to Congress, while still others it divides among the two or simply does not assign.
“The Constitution, considered only for its affirmative grants of power capable of affecting the issue, is an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy,” wrote constitutional scholar Edward S. Corwin in 1958.
The periodic tug-of-war between the president and Congress over foreign policy is not a by-product of the Constitution, but rather, one of its core aims.
Article I of the Constitution enumerates several of Congress’s foreign affairs powers, including those to “regulate commerce with foreign nations,” “declare war,” “raise and support armies,” “provide and maintain a navy,” and “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” The Constitution also makes two of the president’s foreign affairs powers—making treaties and appointing diplomats—dependent on Senate approval.