The Tyrannical Minority

[_EAllusion]

That unitary executive theory both functions as a defense of Nixonland and took off in movement conservativism after Nixon is not coincidental. Nor is it coincidental that ardent followers of it like Bill Barr assist in fostering Presidential impunity for gross misconduct.

Honor: Whatever qnon conspiracy theorists.

[_EAllusion]

I don't think it deserves the time. Turning the proceedings into a subpoena fest for everyone who ever sat in on a call between Trump and pretty much anyone else would be disasterous

Yeah...

How about just the ones he violated the law to conceal with nations that he publicly called on to assist his attempts to manipulate an election. How about those?

I mean, the one of those calls we know the most about, that direct witnesses to remained silent on until called in to testify, just involved the President extorting a vulnerable nation into participating in a electoral disinformation campaign, so I am sure it’s fine.

[_EAllusion]

Gates apparently alleged that Manafort had Stone keep him updated on Wikileaks hacks/releases so he could keep the campaign and Trump informed.

That sounds totally legal and totally cool. Good thing Democrats won’t investigate it. It might lead to demonstrating a pattern of working with foreign power cutouts to influence elections with disinformation then engaging in obstruction of justice to cover up the same. That’s far too removed from what happened with Ukraine to look into. Think of the precedent. Future, and current, candidates might have to think twice before doing the same thing.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't think it deserves the time. Turning the proceedings into a subpoena fest for everyone who ever sat in on a call between Trump and pretty much anyone else would be disasterous

Yeah...

How about just the ones he violated the law to conceal with nations that he publicly called on to assist his attempts to manipulate an election. How about those?

If it was a violation of a law passed by Congress, then there would clearly be something to investigate. But is the determination of what goes on the secure server law or is it executive branch policy? If it's just policy, then an investigation would look more like a fishing expedition.

[_EAllusion]

If it was a violation of a law passed by Congress, then there would clearly be something to investigate. But is the determination of what goes on the secure server law or is it executive branch policy? If it's just policy, then an investigation would look more like a fishing expedition.

It’s a violation of the controlling executive order interpretation of how to execute Congressional legal authorization. Abuse of the classification system in order to conceal politically derogatory information falls within Congressional purview and should be investigated when there is reasonable suspicion, which there is in this case. It should be investigated in an impeachment inquiry when that reasonable suspicion concerns impeachable conduct, which it does in this case. The manner in which the classification system was used to conceal the Ukraine call was an abuse of the public trust. That’s what a high crime is. It is valid and adviseable to see how far that abuse goes given the current state of evidence.

Fishing expedition is a term appropriate for when you attempt to gather as much information as possible to catch wrongdoing you have no evidence of. It is not appropriate for when you attempt to investigate examples of wrongdoing you have evidence of to learn more about it.

[_Maksutov]

Fishing expedition is a term appropriate for when you attempt to gather as much information as possible to catch wrongdoing you have no evidence of. It is not appropriate for when you attempt to investigate examples of wrongdoing you have evidence of to learn more about it.

Whitewater was a fishing expedition. This is not that.

[_Dr. Shades]

Ugh, Dr. Shades. Those were different posts. You are ruining the logical separation by combining them.

One should never double-post. One should especially not double-post when a paragraph break will accomplish the same design.

[_Some Schmo]

Ugh, Dr. Shades. Those were different posts. You are ruining the logical separation by combining them.

One should never double-post. One should especially not double-post when a paragraph break will accomplish the same design.

Justify this rule for us. What is your reasoning (assuming it's not some capricious silliness)?

[_moksha]

The GOP argument about Trump's state of mind is interesting. Was he too deranged and incompetent to form the requisite intent for a criminal quid pro quo and international extortion? If he was unable to distinguish right from wrong in seeking for Ukraine to manufacture evidence against his opponent, how can he be impeached?

The Senate Republicans can bring in a load of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals to swear to Trump's deficits. How can the Democrats hope to argue against that?

[_EAllusion]

Ugh, Dr. Shades. Those were different posts. You are ruining the logical separation by combining them.

One should never double-post. One should especially not double-post when a paragraph break will accomplish the same design.

You too often mistake different posts intended to express different thoughts as being part of the same coherent comment. Paragraph breaks aren't accomplishing what you think.