Bribery

[Matador]

"seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees[/b]"  But there it is, gaping catch-all.  How far back do we have to go where to be judged a criminal one must do a criminal act.  For example, I don't get how a person can be charged with a crime of terrorism if they were, at worst, in the planning stage.  Feels like  'Minority Report' type lawmaking, minus the clairvoyants.

Many federal crimes can only go back around 5 years.  Many terrorism statues have language like this:

(F)for attempting or conspiring to commit an offense, for any term of years up to the maximum punishment that would have applied had the offense been completed; and
(G)for threatening to commit an offense under this section, by imprisonment for not more than 10 years.

 

[boji]

conspiring to commit an offense

As a man thinketh so is he.  ???

Only meant how far back in history do we have to go when it was reasoned that effectual evidence or proof-of-action was necessary to be convicted of a crime.  But thanks for humoring the off-topic question. I didn't know someone's criminal, evil machinations become unusable in court after five years!

Of course we should have an intelligence system that proactively identifies potential threats and detains potential terrorists. However it's easy to imagine circumstances where enforcing charges in this fashion can be used for political gain. 
Btw, isn't it the position of Trump's team that his actions against opponents were done out of his subjective desire to do what's best for the country?  What a wacky defense!

 

[Recording Engineer]

However it's easy to imagine circumstances where enforcing charges in this fashion can be used for political gain. 
Btw, isn't it the position of Trump's team that his actions against opponents were done out of his subjective desire to do what's best for the country?  What a wacky defense!

That’s right. Comments and actions speak louder than any ever-changing, absolutely  terrible defense. Plus, any benefit-of-doubt went out the window the day Trump was elected. I truly was hoping his campaign was all about doing whatever had to be done to get elected. Instead, sadly, he really is that horrible of a human. The only compassion I have is that he’s ill. I’ve been hoping and waiting for him to prove me wrong.

The reality is, I don’t need an expert of any sort to tell me: The left took the political-opportunity Trump gave them; he brought it all on himself.

People talk of the election around the corner, but who actually needed four years to determine if Trump was right for the job? How was his campaign not reason enough? Obviously it wasn’t. We’ll see if they’ve had enough now. But when Trump gets acquitted, that’s the vote that matters to me. By saying just wait until the next election, even if Trump loses the next election, what we’re really doing is sticking our heads in the sand, which invites even worse transgressions.

People say that’s just doom and gloom talk, but that’s still no action. Just waiting for the next election can always be said and is exactly the reason things never truly change. I’m still waiting for the big changes people always campaign on. It takes time, I know, so that we don’t cut off our own legs, but where’s the true bipartisan changes being implemented with reasonable timetables? I see none. Trump or anyone he put around himself was never going to be one to aid that!

 

[Recording Engineer]

You know, thinking more about it, forget the eventual acquittal, that’s unsurprisingly more political anyhow, even if I feel it’s truly a long-term terrible problem we’re not dealing with and not just doom and gloom talk.

It’s also really the refusal to get to the bottom of it for the sake of politics rather than actually trying to fix what’s broken and letting voters vote with the appropriate information. And that’s really going to hurt us in the long run... Talk of letting the voters decide in this coming up election is a joke there.

 

[Matador]

People talk of the election around the corner, but who actually needed four years to determine if Trump was right for the job?

Impeachment, by definition, will always 'override the last vote' when applied to an elected official.  It's the entire point of the remedy.  If elections were the remedy, then there is no point in an impeachment clause.

One thing this impeachment has shown, beyond all doubt, is that impeachment as a remedy in the modern era is officially dead.  No party will control 2/3 of the Senate barring some kind of seismic shift in the populace and where they choose to live.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Impeachment, by definition, will always 'override the last vote' when applied to an elected official.  It's the entire point of the remedy.  If elections were the remedy, then there is no point in an impeachment clause.

Yes, impeachment is the ultimate remedy..... but voting (Indiana primary caucus) has already started so pursuing impeachment now seems more than a little impatient and unnecessary (unless you don't expect your party to win). I do not accept the hyperbolic claims that the 2020 vote will not be fair. 

As an observer of political maneuvering the timing of impeachment seems worth inspection for who benefits and loses from anchoring several democratic senators who are also candidates in the senate when they should be out on the campaign trail in Indiana pressing the flesh. Remarkably they seem to have gained in the polls from not physically being there,  : and Joe Biden does not seem to be doing himself any favors, reminding people that he could die soon so is only the placeholder for a better VP.  He continues to deliver the entertainment but I do not expect it is intentional.

One thing this impeachment has shown, beyond all doubt, is that impeachment as a remedy in the modern era is officially dead.  No party will control 2/3 of the Senate barring some kind of seismic shift in the populace and where they choose to live.

Hopefully it will lose its attraction if the voters respond the way I think they might (but I cannot predict the future of read minds).

It is no accident that the founders made it extremely difficult on purpose.  I am not sure if this was also on purpose but we seem to oscillate between republican and democratic control every several years. My suspicion is that the voters dislike all politicians so elect the party they are least pissed off at each election.

The federal government was designed with limitations so that either party in control could only do so much damage... As politicians are wont to do, they have exceeded the limits, one obvious example is spending money we do not have mortgaging our future.

JR

PS: I saw a good quote this AM... Politicians try to convince us that only they can solve our problems, when in fact they cause the problems (job security).
 

 

[Recording Engineer]

PS: I saw a good quote this AM... Politicians try to convince us that only they can solve our problems, when in fact they cause the problems (job security).

Well the easiest is to lay blame on anyone you politically oppose rather than take to a close look at yourself and publicly admit you’ve been wrong, once you do. The sad things is you’re politically dead if you ever did. On the contrary, that should be a political win! What a twisted world us voters have created and politicians just keep playing the game we allow them to play.

 

[Matador]

Yes, impeachment is the ultimate remedy..... but voting (Indiana primary caucus) has already started so pursuing impeachment now seems more than a little impatient and unnecessary (unless you don't expect your party to win). I do not accept the hyperbolic claims that the 2020 vote will not be fair. 
...
political maneuvering the timing of impeachment seems worth inspection for who benefits and loses
...

I don't understand your timing argument:  impeachment could not have happened before the July 25th phone call, and couldn't have happened prior to the original whistleblower complaint, which was filed Aug 12, but released Sep 26th by the White House, after the impeachment inquiry was announced on Sep 24th.  Would it have made more sense for Trump to commit his acts earlier in the election cycle to better fit a narrative?

Everyone who was willing to testify to the House had done so...what could the Democrats have done, in your opinion, to make it not an issue of 'timing'?  Dragged out multiple subpoena fights over the next two years trying to get the witness Trump instructed not to cooperate to cooperate?  If we had been able to question those people properly then many arguments you have been making would be rendered moot.

Lastly, Trump was impeached for trying to meddle in the very election that is supposed to be arbitrating whether he or someone else gets to be the next President:  can you see how saying 'let the voters decide' is like saying that Tom Brady is the best person to tell us if the ball is properly inflated.

 

[pucho812]

I don't understand your timing argument:  impeachment could not have happened before the July 25th phone call, and couldn't have happened prior to the original whistleblower complaint, which was filed Aug 12, but released Sep 26th by the White House, after the impeachment inquiry was announced on Sep 24th.  Would it have made more sense for Trump to commit his acts earlier in the election cycle to better fit a narrative?

Everyone who was willing to testify to the House had done so...what could the Democrats have done, in your opinion, to make it not an issue of 'timing'?  Dragged out multiple subpoena fights over the next two years trying to get the witness Trump instructed not to cooperate to cooperate?  If we had been able to question those people properly then many arguments you have been making would be rendered moot.

Lastly, Trump was impeached for trying to meddle in the very election that is supposed to be arbitrating whether he or someone else gets to be the next President:  can you see how saying 'let the voters decide' is like saying that Tom Brady is the best person to tell us if the ball is properly inflated.

The timing of the impeachment was for the phone call. There was no mention of anything else but the phone call, all the last couple of years with the mueller report and they pinned it on a phone call. No more no less, no collusion, which is not  a crime, no obstruction of justice, just the phone call.
The house could have easily had any witness they wanted.  They choose to not have some and then blame it on  the guy they are trying to impeach purely  to wild up their base. As much as trump may or may not said not to comply with a subpoena,  legally a person would have to.  Anything to the contrary is just saber rattling.  But no they choose to rush things because it was so important. After all if they didn't rush things, then they couldn't blame the senate for not having witnesses.  By the very document Schiff, Pelosi and others swore to uphold, the house investigates and brings that investigations to the senate. Then the senate does the trial. I would think someone who has been in government as long as Pelosi would know such things.  But I am a cockeyed optimist when it comes to people knowing what their roll is.

Finally trump was not impeached for meddling in there election,  what was there to meddle about?  it would have been one thing if Biden was the nominee but he is not at this time, unless.. unless.... has the DNC already made their plant,  are they doing all these debates for show? If you believe trump was trying to get dirt on a political opponent then you have to admit the DNC already has their candidate they want to run against him.  other wise Biden is no more a political opponent than I am. 

 

[Recording Engineer]

If you believe trump was trying to get dirt on a political opponent then you have to admit the DNC already has their candidate they want to run against him.  other wise Biden is no more a political opponent than I am.

This is here nor there. I don’t believed anyone has said anything for, against, or otherwise, other than you; but sure why not. I most certainly wouldn’t put anything like that past the DNC or GOP. Still, Trump’s continued comments, from the time he started his 2016 campaign and up to plenty prior to Biden’s announcement for 2020, doesn’t line up any logic there.

I think the question is, after all this, is there anyone who actually believes Trump didn’t? I mean we can argue whether or not it’s an impeachable offense all day long since the language is so unclear, but are we really debating whether he did it or not? If so, wake up. His defense team is no longer even arguing that and coming up with even more absurd defenses because luckily, there’s still enough people who believe the world is round.

 

[Matador]

The timing of the impeachment was for the phone call. There was no mention of anything else but the phone call, all the last couple of years with the mueller report and they pinned it on a phone call. No more no less, no collusion, which is not  a crime, no obstruction of justice, just the phone call.

Ok...then we agree, I think?  What does Mueller have to do with anything related to the phone call with Zalinsky?

The house could have easily had any witness they wanted.  They choose to not have some and then blame it on  the guy they are trying to impeach purely  to wild up their base.

Please provide a list of witnesses that the Democrats called that could have 'easily' shown up despite Trump instructing them not to.  The right answer apparently is that the House should have locked themselves into a multi-year court battle?

As much as trump may or may not said not to comply with a subpoena,  legally a person would have to.  Anything to the contrary is just saber rattling. 

This isn't what happened.  Bolton and Mulvaney said they would not appear unless a court arbitrated whether or not executive privilege applied.  Both were subpoenaed by the House and neither testified.

Finally trump was not impeached for meddling in there election,  what was there to meddle about?  it would have been one thing if Biden was the nominee but he is not at this time, unless.. unless.... has the DNC already made their plant,  are they doing all these debates for show? If you believe trump was trying to get dirt on a political opponent then you have to admit the DNC already has their candidate they want to run against him.  other wise Biden is no more a political opponent than I am.

Sigh.

Polls at the time in July 2019

Former Vice President Joseph Biden reverses his slump following the first Democratic presidential debate and now leads the pack with 34 percent of Democrats and independent voters who lean Democratic, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has 15 percent, with 12 percent for California Sen. Kamala Harris and 11 percent for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

An NBC article from March 2019:

Trump asked top political advisors whether he should worry about running against Joe Biden
Trump asks whether he should be concerned about Biden potentially capturing the Democratic nomination, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter. Biden still hasn’t said whether he is running.

Another from Politico:

President Donald Trump has publicly expressed confidence that he could easily best Joe Biden in a 2020 battle. But behind closed doors, the president has fixated on Biden, while top aides have tried to assure their boss that the former vice president is doomed.

In recent weeks, Trump has peppered aides on more than one occasion for updates on how Biden is faring in early Democratic primary polls — a sign of just how seriously Trump takes the potential candidacy. Indeed, Biden has topped several recent battleground state polls, as well as a national survey released Monday, marking him as an early Democratic presidential front-runner.

Sounds like Trump was preparing to do battle with Biden in the months leading up to asking Zalinsky to announced public investigations?  Maybe the simplest explanation is the correct one?

 

[pucho812]

Ok...then we agree, I think?  What does Mueller have to do with anything related to the phone call with Zalinsky?
Please provide a list of witnesses that the Democrats called that could have 'easily' shown up despite Trump instructing them not to.  The right answer apparently is that the House should have locked themselves into a multi-year court battle?
This isn't what happened.  Bolton and Mulvaney said they would not appear unless a court arbitrated whether or not executive privilege applied.  Both were subpoenaed by the House and neither testified.
Sigh.

Polls at the time in July 2019
An NBC article from March 2019:
Another from Politico:Sounds like Trump was preparing to do battle with Biden in the months leading up to asking Zalinsky to announced public investigations?  Maybe the simplest explanation is the correct one?

The mueller report has nothing to do with the impeachment. We agree. 

The right answer for their house was to do their job.  So yes they should have gone to court over this.

As for meddling in the election and impeachment Pelosi and others have often said trump was getting dirt on a political opponent. See my notes above about meddling.

 

[JohnRoberts]

i'm glad I deleted my response several hours ago...  I felt better after writing it and figured you guys would feel better if I didn't share it.  :

Enjoy the state of the union speech.  It's tomorrow but I don't know if they'll show it on TV.

JR

 

[boji]

feel better if I didn't share it.

I always enjoy reading your aged wisdoms.  ;D

So..I herd Iowa caucus wuz pretty bad.  Biden barely had enough votes to be viable?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I always enjoy reading your aged wisdoms.  ;D

So..I herd Iowa caucus wuz pretty bad.  Biden barely had enough votes to be viable?

Biden was somewhere in the mid teens... 4th IIRC. Not bad considering.  Bernie and Warren should do well in NH, their back yard.

It is always disappointing when voters are given any reason to question the integrity of the process.... I don't think there was actually any funny business just your basic incompetence (new ap not vetted for handling the volume of traffic).  One liberal pundit said they couldn't pull off a 3 car funeral procession. Of course I didn't say that (but kind of funny).

It is looking better for Bloomberg to buy his shot at the golden ring, I think they changed some rules to let him in sooner. I am seeing ( not watching but seeing) lots of TV and social media ads from Bloomberg here in nowhere MS. He must really have too much money, and I heard he was doubling his spending again after seeing what happened in Iowa.

It seems unusually quiet around the internets. I hope everybody is OK. 

Not that quiet here, tornado watch until midnight, but down here we just call that weather.  8)

[update- tornado touched down miles due south of me, tracking north-east. Any miss you can measure in miles is a good thing. /update]

JR

 

[boji]

It seems unusually quiet around the internets.

Round these parts?  I've been banging away at panels, sorting out dimension mistakes, coronavirus fear porn cycling in the background. 

 

[fazer]

hey boji,  you had a cool picture of your meter bridge thats missing now.  did you take down?  I guess it was a thread diversion.  I like diversions from politics.

 

[boji]

did you take down?  I guess it was a thread diversion.  I like diversions from politics.

Yeah, off topic, but thanks for mention. Been meaning to start a thread in mixers/monitoring systems for some time now. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yeah, off topic, but thanks for mention. Been meaning to start a thread in mixers/monitoring systems for some time now. 

Please feel free to veer from politics anytime.... (this is the basement after all).

We may have had enough sturm and drang for now....

I prefer looking at mixer pictures.  8)

JR