Trying to be objective here is like looking for a skull of a mind who has been severed by a two edged sword prior to Descartes’ “I am because I think”.
Really,
Wendy, really…
Throughout, I have emphasized the middle ground, advocated by the greatest centrist the world has ever known, Immanuel Kant. He admonished the evil genius , who really put himself in the centerfold of a helpless narcissist, a narcissist who owed his genius not to himself, (although reading him one would think so( but as our very own Peacegirl would have it- he could not help it.)
Now the will not to go go insane from the effects of social constraining derivatives, offering little choice in matters that bifurcirate ideal forms from ego constructs-but wait-I will promise to lighten up, by first de-differentiating the should with the factual is:
And if You think I’m kidding, Wendy, be assured this plays into it per program
The objectives of the well esteemed doctors, and these were esteemed generational men, who planned their livelihood, hoodwinking all the people who were written off …
The point is what followed was rationalizations which disallowed rationality, and the charge that it is the democrats who are trying to diminish Democracy , does give rise to talking points.
But this whole thing is seen as just another day in the life, and needs to inform through media and whatever it takes, including the impeachment.
The people will disallow the Constitution itself , as do nihilists the bible.
To be perfectly real and honest, we are grappling with the ideally real, which is being sold down the toilet with an inherent humanist platform, a non existent idea, that Trump tried to run on, on absentia-( not the platform, but it’s ghost)- and it ran on contradiction, the same as the one pushed by Ecmanu, who sees it as a necessary tableau, for sanitiy’s sake, so the Ameican bible thumpers can understand as they are understood.(Messianic, yea?)
The thing is people don’t know who they really are any more, or what, especially the Southern Anti Be beloomers, who actually do themselves in with vapid, watery issues of the toilets, into which all the garbage should be dumped.
But it ain’t so easy. The baby may be dumped in with the bathwater, and we all know who the baby is.
But the fact, each generarion lives for that blessed child -naivety, innocence, social good will, liberte and justice, and fraternity for all.
But aue contraire, the French supported amexit, now the are verboten Brexit. The party has not changed, it has proceeded non stop, with major players gone through a hundred years’ long myopic amnesia, and to all of them all the reduxes, the deconstruction , don’t mean anything, they still invoke meant masturbatory amnesia, and ww1 & 2, really did not happen
They can retreat back, via the time machine invented by Mr. Wells, who was involved in this way back, before even the decline of the West put western imperialism on notice.
Wendy, the object to it all gives sufficient ground to objectivity, and the philosophers of the mind, realized this -the kundalini of the mind, I think-therefore?- the had to come up with something that meant something.
playing the devil’s advocate, an
, that the precious middle could only be presently effected by some magical system, for even bubbles, nor great schizms could envoke the promise of some Great Compromise.
Was it Henry Clay? Yes I think it was but I will look it up.
.Freud’s analysis worked ok, until the reduction ignored eidectic logic, and opened the gates of societal madness.
This is why clay did and up comic trump can not succeed, because he is by now an emperor disrobed…
Merely comic effecting some temporary relief, kind of like the THE BAPTIST was in the orgasmic days of the Ceasar.
Someone has to become real, and the only reality nowedays stands on relief,
relief of those homeless world wide, who have to bite the bullshit.
The Babtist , of course will be followed by a greater genius, a greater evil genius, who at least has to admit to the farce, and teach the children with a minimum of hypocracy, otherwise? Well, they will start philosophy even before learning to read or rite…
The models of objectivity will mistakenly simulate dolls who even now prefer real men, and not machines.
The ideal will crumble as the grains of sand they were built to live in.
The sea will wash them away, with the coming tide.
Who? What ? It is the antichrist.
POLITICO
WHITE HOUSE
Trump savages impeachment proceedings in letter to Pelosi
“More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials,” the president wrote.
President Donald Trump wrote: “You are declaring open war on American democracy.” | Drew Angerer/Getty Images
By QUINT FORGEY and CAITLIN OPRYSKO
12/17/2019 02:39 PM EST
President Donald Trump on Tuesday savaged House Democrats’ impeachment proceedings in a six-page letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi that read like a collection of his most vitriolic tweets.
The fiery missive, frequently punctuated with exclamation points, came loaded with hyperbolic assertions — including the president’s claim that “more due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials” and his accusation that Pelosi and House Democrats “view democracy as your enemy!”
Trump charged that the current impeachment drive “represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power” by Democratic lawmakers that he argued has been “unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.”
“By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American democracy,” he wrote.
The heated correspondence comes a day before the House is expected to vote on articles of impeachment charging the president with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, likely making Trump the third president in U.S. history to be impeached.
But the broader intent of the letter to the speaker — which appeared to represent little more than a messaging document, rehashing the same grievances Trump has frequently aired mixed with legal defense — was not immediately clear.
White House counsel Pat Cipollone issued a similarly confrontational letter in October to Pelosi and the three committee chairs leading the impeachment probe, writing that their inquiry lacked “any legitimate constitutional foundation” and stating that the administration would not comply with Democratic lawmakers’ requests.
Trump’s letter Tuesday, however, represented his first formal, written rebuke to House Democrats since they launched the process to remove him from office.
In one portion of the letter, Trump falsely accused Democrats of denying him due process throughout the inquiry. The White House has twice been offered the chance to have lawyers present in different phases of public hearings for the inquiry and declined both opportunities. Instead, Trump’s legal team has begun to coordinate with members of the Republican-led Senate for an upcoming trial.
The president also tried multiple times to turn Democrats’ accusations back on them, even as he mocked the two articles of impeachment he’d been charged with: abuse of office and obstruction of Congress. He argued that former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential 2020 rival whom Trump sought a Ukrainian investigation into, was the one who was truly guilty of abusing his office. And he asserted that Democrats were “turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense” while establishing a deeply damaging precedent for presidents to come.
He blasted the charges against him as “completely disingenuous, meritless and a baseless invention of your imagination” and “preposterous and dangerous,” dismissing Democrats’ allegations as “fantasy” despite having hours of testimony to back them up.
Trump also dinged the speaker for what he labeled “your false display of solemnity,” calling Pelosi’s consistent somber demeanor when discussing the inquiry “perhaps most insulting of all.”
He accused lawmakers of harboring “Impeachment Fever,” calling out several key players in the investigation by name, and said that members who vote to impeach are showing “how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America’s Constitutional order.”
Trump railed about the process in person to reporters at the White House moments after the letter was transmitted, but wouldn’t take any responsibility for his behavior, which has been criticized even by some of his backers in Congress.
“No, I don’t take any,” Trump responded instantly when asked whether he accepted any of the blame for the current political storm. “Zero, to put it mildly.” His interaction with reporters functioned as an abridged version of the letter he’d sent to Pelosi, making several of the same arguments as he sat beside the Guatemalan president.
Although Trump wrote that he had “no expectation” Pelosi would bring the impeachment proceedings to a halt, he added: “I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.”
© 2019 POLITICO LLC
Giuliani digs in deeper on Ukraine as Trump is on the verge of being impeached
Trump’s impeachment shouldn’t be the sole worry for aides involved in the Ukraine scheme
A president’s immunity from prosecution while in office has not historically spared his aides from indictment when they’ve acted on illegal directives.
Image: Gordon Sondland and Oliver North
Getty Images
Dec. 3, 2019, 8:56 AM PST
By Michael Conway, Former counsel, U.S. House Judiciary Committee
History teaches that doing the bidding of a president does not shield subordinates from the consequences of breaking the law. Whether in Watergate in the 1970s or the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, a president’s immunity from prosecution for acts while in office has not spared senior administration officials from being indicted for acting illegally in carrying out presidential directives.
That specter complicates the decision faced by current administration officials whose testimony has been sought by Congress in its impeachment inquiry. President Donald Trump’s order that they refuse to testify has had the side benefit of allowing them to hide their own actions from Congress and the public. On the other hand, it exposes them to the Republicans’ talking point that the officials were rogue agents in dealings with Ukraine.
The U.S. ambassador to the E.U., Gordon Sondland, decided to testify. On his third attempt to explain his role in Ukraine to the House Intelligence Committee, he sought to protect himself by swearing that he was acting “at the express direction of the president.” But if Sondland made this assertion in the belief that invoking the president’s role would protect him from potential criminal liability, he is woefully mistaken.
Related
OPINION
Robert Redford: America is in crisis. It’s time to rid ourselves of Trump.
The president’s scheme, Democrats argue, was intended to trade military aid to Ukraine or an invitation to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for a White House meeting with Trump, for Ukraine’s announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter — which could be seen by prosecutors as bribery, extortion or illegal campaign finance violations. If so, Sondland could be prosecuted even if, under existing Department of Justice policies, Trump cannot.
And Sondland is not the only one to face potential legal exposure. According to Sondland, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Office of Management and Budget head Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Guiliani were all “in the loop” on Trump’s plan to have Ukraine investigate a Trump political opponent.
The law, however, has a more formal term for being in a “loop” to obtain an illegal act: conspiracy. And even though Ukraine never announced the investigation, a conspiracy to commit attempted bribery or attempted extortion runs afoul of federal criminal statutes even if the effort ultimately failed.
Related
OPINION
Impeachment shows Kim Kardashian is a better adviser to Trump than Rudy Giuliani
Prosecuting Trump aides for illegal acts the president requested they perform would not be without precedent. Multiple White House and administration officials serving both Presidents Nixon and Reagan were indicted and convicted for federal crimes committed by them in furtherance of presidential objectives.
In the Watergate cover-up, three key Nixon aides — Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, White House adviser John Ehrlichman and former Attorney General John Mitchell — were indicted and convicted for conspiracy to obstruct justice, including hush money payments to Watergate defendants, obstruction of justice and lying under oath.
In its final report, the House Judiciary Committee found that Nixon had directed those subordinates in the cover-up including his “directive to Haldeman on June 23, 1972, to have the CIA request the FBI to curtail its Watergate investigation.” That directive ultimately led to Nixon’s downfall: Following the Supreme Court decision ordering the release of White House tapes, the recording of the June 23 meeting was called a “smoking gun” that led Republican congressional leaders to persuade Nixon to resign.
Trump faces fight-or-flight moment in Senate impeachment trial
At Haldeman’s sentencing hearing, his lawyer, John J. Wilson, told Judge John J. Sirica that “whatever Bob Haldeman did, so did Richard Nixon.” He added, “I hope that your honor considers whatever Bob Haldeman did, he did not for himself but for the president of the United States.” The court, though, was unmoved: Haldeman was sentenced to 30 months to 8 years in prison; so were Ehrlichman and Mitchell. Haldeman served 18 months before he was paroled.
In the next decade, another set of senior government officials learned the same hard lesson. Acting at the behest of then-President Ronald Reagan, officials became involved in the sale of arms to Iran despite an embargo and used of some of the proceeds — in direct contravention of a congressional ban — to aid guerrillas fighting in Nicaragua. The episode, called the Iran-Contra affair, was investigated by an independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh.
After carrying out Reagan’s orders, and thereby committing acts for which they eventually faced legal liability, 14 officials ended up being indicted in connection with the scandal on charges including perjury, withholding evidence, obstruction of justice, false statements and more. The defendants included national security advisers John Poindexter and Robert McFarlane, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams and White House aide Oliver North.
An internal analysis by a lawyer on Walsh’s staff, which was publicly released in 2011, recounted what Weinberger said to Reagan — who approved the operation — in a White House meeting on Dec. 5, 1985. Weinberger raised the prospect that they might all end up in jail, adding “visiting hours are on Thursdays,” according to the report.
Of the 14, nine defendants were convicted, one case was dismissed and, while North and Poindexter were also convicted, their convictions were reversed on appeal. The final two defendants (Weinberger and a CIA supervisor) were awaiting trial in December 1992 when President George H.W. Bush, having just lost his re-election bid, pardoned the two and four others who had been convicted. In granting these pardons, Bush was acting on the recommendation of his attorney general, William Barr, who is now serving in that role for Trump.
Sondland and others may harbor the hope that the president, perhaps at the urging of Barr, will exercise his pardon power for anyone criminally charged in the Ukraine episode. But before putting their faith in such a prospect, they may want to see how that worked out for former Trump helpers Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn — all of whom were prosecuted and convicted, and two of whom are already serving time.
Michael Conway
Michael Conway served as counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in the impeachment inquiry of President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. In that role, he assisted in drafting the committee’s final report to the House of Representatives in support of the three Articles of Impeachment adopted by the committee.
© 2019 NBC UNIVERSAL
You can’t find common ground with GOP fantasists
OPINION
Republican impeachment lies are protecting Trump, but they could destroy America
Republicans appear intent on extinguishing the most fundamental ingredient of a self-governing republic, the concept of truth. That’s deeply sinister.
Republicans in Congress are avidly denying the obvious truths about President Donald Trump’s serial criminality. Though they lack the votes to stop impeachment in the House of Representatives, they are poised to acquit Trump in the Senate, where they easily can block the necessary supermajority of 67 votes required to evict a president from the White House.
The facts of the case are damning. Not only is Trump on record, in a document released by the White House itself, of engaging in extortion and bribery, but his conversation with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky was the culmination of a plot months in the making. Yet no matter the facts of the imbroglio, the Republican legislators either baldly deny them or interpret them in phantasmagorical ways.
“Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election,” says Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, repeating a baseless Russian propaganda line. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, meanwhile, says flatly that the Democrats “are willing to block witnesses from coming in here and testifying before Congress.”
Never mind that it is Trump himself who has taken the extra-constitutional step of ordering all executive branch officials not to comply with congressional subpoenas, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who now wants to exclude witnesses from the Senate trial.
Extinguishing the concept of truth
Acquittal in the Senate, when it comes, will be an example not of democratic deliberation, of the careful sifting and weighing of facts to arrive at some approximation of truth, but the exercise of raw political power.
This is not how a developed democracy should function. Rather, it has something important in common with tin-pot tyrannies in which the leader manipulates the factions and interest groups beneath him to build unbridled power.
To be sure, the political actors backing Trump in Congress are not acting lawlessly; quite the contrary. They are playing the role allotted to them by the Constitution: representing their constituents, i.e., Trump’s base, which opinion polls show would want to stick with him even if he were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.
Yet there is nonetheless something deeply sinister about the Republicans’ behavior. They appear intent on extinguishing perhaps the most fundamental ingredient of a self-governing republic, namely, the concept of truth.
It would be one thing — semi-respectable — if Republicans were to maintain that Trump’s misdeeds in Ukraine, however deplorable, did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But it is something else entirely to recycle Russian-inspired propaganda, to maintain the wholly incredible narrative that Trump was doing nothing but attempting to fight corruption in Ukraine, or to deny the obvious fact that there was a quid, a pro and a quo when Trump held up military assistance to Ukraine and conditioned its release on the performance of a “favor, though.”
Bedrock threat: Trump impeachment charge on obstruction of Congress will define our future as a nation
These Republicans are propagating blatant lies, just like their incessantly lying leader —who blew past 15,000 “false or misleading claims” on Monday and followed up Tuesday by sending House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a six-page letter crammed with falsehoods. They are insouciantly telling us that white is black and black is white, and never mind the obvious falsity of these propositions because, in the end, no matter the truth, they have the votes to acquit.
Senate on path to reward criminality
This exercise of political power in raw fashion could prove to have profound consequences for the future of human freedom. As the possibility of reason and compromise are destroyed, a venerable constitutional democracy, once the beacon of hope around the world, is coming undone.
William Webster, the only man to head both the CIA and the FBI, someone known to be extraordinarily careful with his words, is warning of a “dire threat to the rule of law in the country I love.”
Fake news tsunami: Denying, ignoring and making up facts are the real Trump-era obstacles to common ground
If the Senate fails to convict and remove Trump, the outcome of our struggles will hinge on an election in which one side will have been effectively granted a license to cheat, a license that can be used again and again. Criminality will be rewarded and law-abiding behavior punished. Grievous injury will have been inflicted on our democracy and with it the cause of democracy around the world.
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, was Mao Tse-tung’s famous aphorism. In our gentler American context, we are witnessing the tragic fact that political power can grow out of a fusillade of lies.
© Copyright Gannett 2019
I don’t believe the founding fathers of this country anticipated the polarity required of party affiliation.
What’s up with truth? And the media is squarely behind one side or the other. Where is our “independent” media?
What do you think about The Epoch Times? I haven’t read it yet myself, I am curious though. It’s interesting that it’s owned by the Chinese.
The proper term is European, referring to the tribes that went westward and south, during the Ice Age, and Indo, refers to those that went eastward and south, into present day India.
Caucasian refers to their common origins, around the Caucasus, prior to the Ice Age forcing them to go southward.
The linguistic family is Indo-European. Many words are shared by all of these tribes. From east to west.
White is not a race…nor a biological designation. It is only one part of how a species and a sub-species is identified.
It is used because of the currents situation of mixing and not knowing one’s own precise origins.
Like how Negroes from different tribes of Africa are simply called Black.
This simplification includes into the Racial the tribes that do not belong to it - see linguistic family trees on the internet.
=D>
When we fall for the more divisive terms of ethnicities and race, we play into others’ hands… time to play a better game… it’s not about race, but a mindset.
Please feel free to disagree…
That’s so naïve and subjectively self-serving, it’s comedic.
Self abnegation is salvation.
Very Abrahamic and Marxist.
…never said I weren’t naïve, but I do like to laugh, and smile, once in a while… allow me that whim, or I’ll allow it myself, because it’s part of me and my genetic makeup. Can’t help who I am… can you?
Abrahamic? Marxist? I think you’re singing from a different hymn sheet than I… I’m right outta the Vatican (not Compton) baby! 
Wanna tell me more about myself? I’m all ears and eyes, but no tongues and lips, bae-bay.
I was actually agreeing with you here, but I guess it got lost in translation… never to be found.
Memes, what you would call values and culture, is transmittable, but when it mixed with a foreign component, it mutates.
See what happened to Marxism and Christianity when it was applied in different cultures by different races - see what happened to Democracy. It is not like the original, and from country to country it differs in some nuances produced by the demeanour of the population.
Laughing and smiling are not race specific, but species specific. The range of what one laughs at and smiles at, is more race specific.
Catholic?
I think you want to tell me.
All people want to be seen…by someone, not anyone.
Seen as what they are…but most want to be seen as what they think they are, to validate their own judgment of themselves.
Like minded people cross tribes and races…but the percentages differ.
memes are gene specific, because a culture is born out of a specific population within a specific environment during a specific time period.
This triad of specificity cannot be completely transmitted to another form another bloodline. It can, but it is warped…or, as you said, something is always lost in translation.
Like you cannot relate to the Greek joy in defeat, represented by the equivalent of Blues called Rembetiko, and the dance(Zeimbekiko) that accompanies it.
You can enjoy, participate, glean, but not completely relate.
Some visit a place like Greece and think they become so through some kind of osmosis. But this is impossible.
Like I can’t completely relate with Negro Blues, born out of slavery and the American experience, or Bluegrass music…
I can enjoy it, and get a feeling, but not completely relate with it.
Nurture is what I’d call it.
Nature = sum of all nurturing.
Nurture refers to the immediate circumstances, imposing behaviours and adjusting potentials.
an example of nurturing ni nature:
A cub is born to an alpha male lion and a female of the pride, inheriting their median potentials in all traits: strength, speed, intelligence etc.
That’s nature.
But it is born after a drought so there aren’t many herbivores to supply the pride with their nutritional requirements. The cub suffers a reduction of its inherited potentials, and so does not grow to the full potential of tis genes.
That’s nurture.
Nurture among humans can be a product of indoctrination, education, moral enforment of behavioural rules on activity on choices - thinking being an activity.
A meme can enhance or retard genetic inheritance.
In Trumps’s case is the process (psychological-memetic) related to the question of the greater legal process of procedure? Does it enhance or detract ?
Does the meme reflect some continuity between the nexus between political and psychological characteristics/modalities that even a controlled genius can recognise ?
In the case of Trump I believe he can.
The impeachment done, are wider ramifications feaseable? Will the metaphors hold up analogously between the political process as generic forms of the generically built up architecture of structurally adhesive forms?
Question come up about the proper procedural approach to the Senate follow up, occuring in that regard, as to the proper way to conduct it:
Is the polarity unforseen by the founding fathers barely legitamite concerns as even a metaphor in its inception ; in it’s natural unfolding? No, or probably not. Here is an indication of this line of follow up argument-------
The New York Times - the morning after the impeachment:
Opinion
Trump Has Been Impeached. Republicans Are Following Him Down.
Ignoring facts and trashing the impeachment process is no way to protect democracy.
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.
On Wednesday evening, the House of Representatives impeached the president of the United States. A magnificent and terrible machine engineered by the founders, still and silent through almost all of American history, has for only the third time in 231 years shifted into motion, to consider whether Congress must call a president to account for abuse of power.
So why does it all seem so banal? The outcome so foreordained?
Most people say they know what’s going to happen, and who are we to say they’re wrong? The House voted to impeach Donald Trump by a party-line vote, with the exception of three Democrats representing Trump-friendly districts who voted against at least one article of impeachment. In the next month or two, the Senate will almost surely acquit him, also on a party-line vote.
It isn’t supposed to be this way. There’s plenty of blame to go around for the intense — really, infantilizing — degree of polarization that has overwhelmed American politics across the past 40 years. But the nihilism of this moment — the trashing of constitutional safeguards, the scorn for facts, the embrace of corruption, the indifference to historical precedent and to foreign interference in American politics — is due principally to cowardice and opportunism on the part of Republican leaders who have chosen to reject their party’s past standards and positions and instead follow Donald Trump, all the way down.
It’s a lot to ask of Republicans to insist on holding their own leader accountable, just as that was a lot to expect of Democrats during the Clinton impeachment inquiry. But while many Democrats then criticized President Bill Clinton and some voted to impeach him, Republican lawmakers would not breathe a word against Mr. Trump on Wednesday.
Instead, they competed with one another to invoke the most outlandish metaphor of evil — from the attack on Pearl Harbor to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ — and suggest that Mr. Trump is enduring even worse.
Senate Republicans are preparing to follow the example of their House colleagues, though many know better. Not so very long ago, several of them — including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, even the majority leader, Mitch McConnell — warned that Donald Trump was wrong for the country. Lindsey Graham memorably called Mr. Trump “a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” who was “unfit for office.” Now these senators seem eager to endorse the very sort of behavior they feared.
It is not too much to wonder how much of this cynicism and betrayal of principle any democracy can handle.
Every president from George Washington onward has been accused of misconduct of one kind or another, and many have faced calls for their impeachment. But Congress has resorted to the ultimate remedy so rarely because of the unspoken agreement that it should be reserved for only the most egregious and inexcusable offenses against the national interest.
Mr. Trump himself drew this distinction in 2008, arguing that President George W. Bush should have been impeached for lying about the reasons for the Iraq war, while at the same time rejecting the Republicans’ impeachment of Mr. Clinton for lying about sex as “nonsense,” done for something “totally unimportant.”
By any reasonable measure, Mr. Trump’s own conduct in office clears the bar for impeachment set by the founders. The case against him is that he solicited foreign interference to help in his 2020 re-election campaign, that he used hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to do it, that his administration tried to hide the evidence and that he then blocked Congress from performing its constitutionally mandated role of checking the executive branch. Multiple government officials, some appointed by the president himself, have confirmed all of these facts.
There may be no better illustration of what the Constitution’s framers considered to be impeachable conduct. And that’s leaving to the side strong evidence that Mr. Trump has committed other impeachable offenses, including taking foreign money at his personal businesses, obstructing justice and violating campaign-finance laws — the latter two of which are also federal crimes.
Through it all, Mr. Trump has had the opportunity to rebut the charges. By his account, he could have extinguished both articles of impeachment by allowing top administration officials to testify under oath. If he really did nothing wrong, the testimony of these officials would exonerate him of the charge of abusing his power, and simply their appearance under oath would dissolve the charge of obstructing Congress.
And yet when given the opportunity to defend himself, the president has refused to participate, defying all of the House’s subpoenas for witnesses and documents, effectively declaring himself unaccountable.
His defense has consisted of sending all-caps tweets accusing the Democrats of perpetrating a “hoax” and trying to overturn an election. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump delivered an unhinged, error-ridden six-page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in which he called the impeachment inquiry “an illegal, partisan attempted coup” and claimed that the Salem witch trials provided more due process. Tell that to the women and men who were hanged in Massachusetts.
The president’s letter demonstrated again his complete failure to offer a substantive defense. His refusal to admit he did the slightest thing wrong, or to offer witnesses who could affirm his innocence, left the House with no choice but to impeach him. By the sworn testimony about his actions, and by his own public statements calling on China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, he has shown not only that he tried to cheat to win the 2020 election, but that he is continuing to do so.
The case now moves to the Senate for a trial, which will be presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts. The chief justice will have the power to rule on any disputes that arise, but his rulings can be overturned by a majority of senators. Though he may be reluctant to be dragged into what might seem political disputes, Chief Justice Roberts has the authority and the duty to make this process more than a partisan farce.
Ideally, many of those disputes would be hammered out by Senate leaders before the trial begins, and would include rules that allow for compelling the production of documents that the White House has withheld, as well as requiring the testimony of witnesses whom Mr. Trump blocked from appearing before the House, including John Bolton, the former national security adviser; Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff; and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Unfortunately, the Senate is led by Mr. McConnell.
Mr. McConnell, who like all senators will swear an oath to “do impartial justice” at the start of the trial, has already vowed to violate that oath. “I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process,” Mr. McConnell said on Tuesday. “The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate.” He has also vowed to coordinate directly with the White House on all aspects of the trial.
No one is suggesting that House Democrats are above playing politics, but at least they held hearings, considered evidence and did their best to get at the truth. Mr. McConnell won’t even promise that much.
The bottom line is that impeachment in the House is unlikely to protect the country from Mr. Trump’s abuse of power, because his fellow party leaders prize their power more than the principles they say they stand for. The only way to protect American democracy is for those who value it to put it to work, and vote these people out.
Follow The New York Times
{*But is that it,?. No by a long shot. Arminius and St.James indicated before they left , and an editorial I came across - indicating the danger of the amount of nuclear weapons power Russia possesses, makes one wonder the possible effects of dissolving the Russian-U.S. collusion may have.
Is a post KGB operative vs. the U.S.'s dishonored CIA engender the hidden security trails?
Going back to MAFIA utilization against the Wermacht intelligences is a pretty reasonable assessment of prioritizing of powers , to be, among shifting alliances, - of moral sentiments overcoming ethical largess consoderations.
I would think factoring this on may moderate the diminution of constitutional process considerations.}*
- indicates personal opinion
Putin on Trump Impeachment: ‘Your Members of Congress Should Know Better’
Paul D. Shinkman • Dec. 19, 2019, at 9:38 a.m.
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday criticized Congress for its pressure on President Donald Trump hours after the House of Representatives impeached the American leader, describing the partisan vote as “the continuation of the domestic political strife.”
“Your members of Congress should know better,” Putin said Thursday morning during his annual, wide-ranging press conference. His remarks came less than a day after the House impeached Trump on two articles almost exclusively along party lines: abuse of power, with a vote of 230-197, and of obstruction of Congress, with a vote of 229-198.
Trump’s pressuring the newly elected government in Ukraine to investigate his political rivals earlier this year served as the central tenet of Democrats’ criticism and subsequent investigations in recent months. Moscow continues to support separatist rebels in Ukraine, which remains an active and deadly war zone in its eastern reaches. His campaign was also the subject of an investigation into allegations, ultimately disproven, that it coordinated with Russia during the leadup to the 2016 election.
The Russian leader on Thursday defended Trump – with whom he has maintained an amiable relationship since the embattled American leader became president – against what Putin considered Democrats’ attempts in the aftermath of the election to “achieve results through others means, accusing Trump of colluding with Russia.”
“Later on, it turned out there had been no collusion, so this cannot be the basis for impeachment,” Putin said. “Now they are referring to alleged pressure on Ukraine. I don’t know what it is all about.”
Putin’s statements mirrored arguments from Trump’s Republican defenders, insisting the impeachment proceedings that have dominated domestic politics in recent weeks represent little more than an attempt to undo the results of the contentious 2016 election.
Trump and his allies have, since impeachment proceedings began, repeated debunked claims that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election – a conspiracy theory that mirrors propaganda from Moscow.
Democrats’ criticism of Republicans’ apparently repeating Russian talking points turned into one of the most fiery exchanges during the impeachment floor debate on Wednesday. Texas Republican Louie Gohmert referenced the debunked theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, prompting House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York to express criticism that the Texas Republican would “spew Russian propaganda.” The comment infuriated Gohmert, whose subsequent outburst was shut down by the presiding chairwoman of the House. Gohmert later walked over to the Democratic side and privately yelled at Nadler.
The U.S. intelligence community concluded that Russia attempted to intervene in the 2016 election through sophisticated and concerted cyber attacks and information warfare. Its aim was to boost support for Trump and undermine the candidacy of Hillary Clinton as part of a larger effort to sow division in the United States. Analysts also believe Putin sought revenge against Clinton since she supported pro-democracy protesters in Russia in 2011 while serving as secretary of state
Copyright 2019 © U.S. News & World Report L.P.
Some foundementalists are changing tracks:
Evangelical magazine founded by Billy Graham calls for Trump’s removal
An editorial published Thursday by Christianity Today, a magazine founded by the late Rev. Billy Graham, called for President Trump’s removal from office in the wake of his impeachment, deeming him “grossly immoral.”
“We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. … To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence.”
Why it matters: Christianity Today is an influential mainstream magazine for evangelicals, with 4.3 million monthly visitors on its site and hundreds of thousands of print subscribers. President Trump won 81% of the evangelical vote in 2016, a group that makes up about 25% of the electorate, according to the Pew Research Center.
Billy Graham’s son, Franklin, is an ardent supporter of President Trump. He told “Axios on HBO” in November that he supports the president because he “defends the faith.”
Highlights: The editorial calls Christianity Today’s stance a moral choice — similar to how the magazine reacted when former President Bill Clinton was impeached.
“[T]he facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.”
“Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. … None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.”
“That [Trump] should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.”
Go deeper… Josh Harris: Evangelical support for Trump “incredibly damaging to the Gospel”
{The Democrats demand for a trial which does not try to circumvent the Constitution, by not admitting Wire House witnesses, is seen as a tool to shorten a process that will delimit public encryption come the November election.
Can the Dems, project an ulterior expectation to the converse of this process?
Can they plead lack of procedure, thus use a magnified image con cave such attempt by the Republicans in the pre-trial of the impeachment?
Or, will demands for clarity be the only focus that can be obfuscated upon?
Through a glass darkly, the moral intent be understood for what it is, now, and 11 months from now?
Will it sustain the feel of divided loyalty, or, independent partisanship corresponding frequent measure of watershed national polling, to utilize the long and short end of it for less then national causes? These are the keystones signs digging into the motherload of reverting to test basic intelligence comprising of public awareness.}
BBC News
Trump impeachment: President demands immediate Senate trial
20 December 2019 US & Canada
US President Donald Trump has demanded an immediate impeachment trial in the Senate, amid an impasse among Democrats and Republicans over when it may start.
On Wednesday, the House impeached Mr Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
But Democrats have yet to embark on the next stage, arguing the Republican-controlled Senate is refusing witnesses and will not hold a fair trial.
The Senate’s numbers mean Mr Trump is almost certain to be acquitted.
The impeachment process - only the fourth time it has happened in US history - has been a bitter partisan fight dividing Washington. The House impeachment vote earlier this week split almost totally along party lines.
A US state divided by impeachment
How will Senate trial work?
The two charges passed on Wednesday follow accusations that Mr Trump pressured Ukraine to dig up damaging information on Democratic rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and then refused to co-operate with a congressional inquiry into the matter.
What has Mr Trump said?
In a series of tweets, the president accused the Democrats of not wanting to go to trial because their “case is so bad”.
He tweeted: “So after the Democrats gave me no Due Process in the House, no lawyers, no witnesses, no nothing, they now want to tell the Senate how to run their trial. Actually, they have zero proof of anything, they will never even show up. They want out. I want an immediate trial!”
The president said the Democrats did not want Congressman Adam Schiff, who led the impeachment process, the Bidens and a CIA whistleblower who sparked the inquiry to testify.
The Democrats have argued that it is Mr Trump’s Republicans who are balking at the appearance of witnesses. The House did also invite the president to testify before its investigators but he declined to do so.
Why is there deadlock over the start of the trial?
To start the next stage, the Democrat-controlled House must send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is refusing to do so until the rules of the Senate trial are acceptable to the Democrats.
The Senate’s Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, will determine the terms of the trial and the Democrats want him to provide details on which witnesses and what testimony will be allowed.
He has so far refused to do so. “We remain at an impasse,” he said, after a brief meeting with the Democrats’ Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer.
Mr McConnell leads the majority in the Senate, with 53 Republicans in the 100-seat chamber. Convicting Mr Trump would require two-thirds of the Senate to vote in favour.
The Democrats hope the delay will both move public opinion in favour of a fuller trial and deny Mr Trump - only the third US president to be impeached - a swift acquittal.
The Democrats want at least four current and former White House aides with knowledge of the Ukraine affair to testify.
They say the trial has to be fair, with senators acting as impartial jurors, and that Mr McConnell’s comments show he has no plans to do this. He earlier said Republican senators would act in “total co-ordination” with the president’s team.
What is the president accused of?
He is accused of having withheld $400m (£307m) of military aid to Ukraine already allocated by Congress, and a White House meeting for Ukraine’s new president, until Ukraine looked into potentially damaging material on Joe and Hunter Biden.
Hunter worked for a Ukrainian company when Joe Biden was US vice-president.
The Democrats say this amounts to an abuse of presidential power, using the office for personal political gain and to the detriment of national security.
Mr Trump is also accused of obstructing Congress by refusing to
GO DEEPER
Trump impeachment and a US state divided
19 December 2019
Copyright © 2019 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
At a subversive undertaking, somewhere East (East London, that is) yesterday, together with a group of other disparate individuals… all there for a common purpose, we ended up all huddled together in a big black tent to take shelter (kinda) from the wind and the rain and started cracking jokes and telling funny tales of other subversive undertakings we had attended. About an hour or so later, we all started laughing at differing tales, ending in only one or two laughing at the same tale or just our own, so what we laugh and smile at is most definitely group/ethnic-specific, I agree.
On observation, we were definitely selected for our look… some for their sky-blue eyes, others for their green to hazel glowing eyes, and others for their big-baby-brown almond-shaped cat-like eyes… all having a focused (but not intense) gaze, of that of perceiving but not judging, and so being but not becoming… any one thing. Everyone agreed on my observation, once pointed out.
Non-practicing Roman Catholic, but one cannot escape or deny the moulding effect that such an environment has on the psyche, combined with (Bengali) meditation, that forms the mind into an East meets West mentality… but we all have our own individual combination of formative-moulding, when those windows of formative-opportunity open up throughout our lives.
Are we not a combination of the two… of how we appear to others and how we perceive ourselves? the external/appearance, and the internal/physiological, confirming the I/of who intrinsically are.
The mind can accommodate/make concessions, but too many beyond one or two and it becomes a big ask, and who’s got time for that in one lifetime? no-one, that’s who.
Rembetiko sounds very Middle-Eastern/Arabic, no? We can all relate I’m sure, but not feel what the other feels, and we have our own inherited feels to deal with, so anything else becomes a system overload on the (over)burdened.
I, myself, am brown, but I cannot identify with all whom are brown, so I identify with that of my last past ancestry, or a combination thereof… that of being Caribbean. This does not stop me from having compassion for and/or interacting with others, but I prefer mine Organic, not Forced, like days of yore. There is such a thing as too much, and so self-optimisation/adjustments becomes not do-able within one lifetime… it’s a big and unthinkable ask.
I had compiled my reply earlier this afternoon, but it got lost… never to be re-trieved.
Exactly. Distinguishing and calculable differences are synthesized in fact, rather then approximated by indifferentiable polls of primary identifiable set of criteria.
As such a means. are opinion based reality reification are based, and objectively and premordially jumped to.