Trumpkins think that diplomats are just garden variety bureaucrats, no better than the grouchy employee down at the DMV. They have a simplr de facto rule that if someone who works in the government opposed Trump, they’re just a Deep State malcontent with an unjustified attack on Dear Leader.
Of course, that’s a stupid rule because they’re (all) not - especially the diplomats. That job is hard, high stakes, and technical - and requires really smart people who are devoted to their country. They are very much like the Military.
But now they are the enemy - they’ve questioned both the strategy and tactics of Trump, and now they’ve witnessed corruption and a forsaking of American honor with respect to international affairs.
And now the only good diplomat is a diplomat who is pro-Trump. Ain’t government by cult fantastic?
As an attorney, do you believe these hearings are being conducted in a manner that allows the public make a determination based on full disclosure of the witnesses?
I’m not interested in this is political not legal, or debating whether Trump could be impeached for wearing the wrong color socks. The Constitution is ambiguous enough to allow that as a high crime.
Allows? Yes. I’m not sure the way the information is being presented is the best way, but I haven’t seen anything in the process that it is a problem.
We’ve yet to get much first-hand info, but that’s because Trump wants to hide behind executive privilege. If Trump didn’t do anything wrong, he should waive privilege and send Bolton and Mulvaney (and anybody else) to testify and wrap this up.
I see that executive privilege as a counterweight to a process that heretofore, has been one sided in its execution. President is supposed to stand alone against an onslaught of accusations, that have been shown to be based on hearsay or conjecture as to his motives?
Throw in an easily seen cloak of darkness from Dems, in the form of: secretive testimony (not sure the correct term), selective partial briefing of these testimonies,
unwillingness to accord calling witnesses, cross examine, or all legal counsel under an umbrella " This is a political, not legal matter."
If Trump is guilty of being more than just an ass, let it shine.
The moderates will turn away and he won’t be elected.
My 2 cents haven’t been changed, lmpeach and Senate do its part.
It hasn’t been one sided - not in an unfair way. Presidents don’t get a say during the investigation part.
There’s more to the evidence than conjecture, and you know it - but if there is exonerating information being withheld by privilege, why on Earth claim privilege? That makes no sense.
What you suggest is weaponizing privilege to “punish” Democrats through non-cooperation - ok, whatever, but you play this game even though the information you’re withholding proves you’re innocent of the allegations? Huh?
If you’re talking about pre-impeachment proceedings, I keep hearing this complaint, but this is how investigations are conducted. Ask your local LEO.
Are you watching the impeachment hearings? Cross examination is being allowed. What exactly are you complaining about?
Agreed, might as well. It’s unlikely the spineless GOP will put country over party, but at a minimum the public will benefit from seeing all the available information.
And the GOP and the right KNOW that if this was a certain other President (who shall go unnamed); thousands would be protesting on the Mall, prepared to hang him from the Washington Monument; Fox News would be going more insane than they already are; and the end of the Republic as we know it would be declared.
This is proven by the glee and “Hell YEAH”! attitudes that I am seeing daily as Trump and the Trumpublicans appear to “destroy” and/or “annihilate” individuals that have shown more dedication to Country than Trump, and many of them, ever will in two Lifetimes.
But that isn’t a function of his slickness or skill - it’s a function of the idiocy of his hardcore supporters. What Trump says or does is irrelevant, it won’t move the needle with them - seriously, it’s a cult.
In related news, an ex-NSC official testified today and said aid was conditioned on a public announcement of an investigation into Biden, etc.
I keep waiting to hear from the cult members on why a president legitimately interested in rooting out corruption would insist on Ukraine making a public announcement. Guess what? They won’t answer.
If Biden wasn’t running in 2020, would there be anything wrong with requesting his/Hunter’s corruption being investigated before giving aid to a country? We are talking about lethal aid, even.
I find it odd that so many libs are pissed that a president said mean things about a diplomat but don’t care at all that one was left to die in Benghazi.
I never heard any governmental official (or any individual, for that matter) say or even imply that “they didn’t care” about the death of John Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi. And certainly not the President of the United States…
In fact; ten Benghazi investigations; led first by the Republican-controlled House IntelligenceCommittee; and eventually by a committee specifically formed by Republicans to investigate Bengazhi “did not conclude that any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people,” when it came to the Benghazi attack.
If you were watching the hearings, you’d notice that Trump wasn’t interested in investigation per se, but public statements from Ukrainian officials (requested by WH to be issued on CNN of all places), with specific phrases thrown in - “investigation” “Clintons”, “Burisma” “Bidens” so that it could be played in a constant loop on Fox News, becoming a cult chant much like “Benghazi”.
Also, another thing - Burisma, an extremely shady company, tried to appear more respectable by hiring as a figurehead an useless cokehead son of a VP.
I’m yet to hear any specifics about what crimes this figurehead allegedly committed. Even the Russian propaganda had problems in inventing even a mildly plausible narrative to be picked up by their friends in Breitbart and Fox.
