• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The US Presidency 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would help if the scope of what is not "manufactured" were at least narrowed.

The allegation of "obstruction" is held by some to be "manufactured" for the obvious and repeatedly discussed reason that an assertion of legal immunity is something to be tested in court, not decreed to be some kind of offence.  That all of the administration's claims of immunity were unlikely to be upheld is true (based on prior cases of similar natures)...but they still should have gone to court.
 
Brad Sallows said:
The allegation of "obstruction" is held by some to be "manufactured" for the obvious and repeatedly discussed reason that an assertion of legal immunity is something to be tested in court, not decreed to be some kind of offence.  That all of the administration's claims of immunity were unlikely to be upheld is true (based on prior cases of similar natures)...but they still should have gone to court.
Click to expand...

But wasn't it being argued by the administration concurrently that the only "court" that could try these issues was impeachnent?  That they didn't have to respond to the suppeanas due to executive privilege, but the only avenue to challenge executive privilege is impeachment.

However, I do think the whole process was rushed for largely political reasons.  That the smaller questions of process should have been tested in court and in congress properly.

I honestly think that Trump thought the call was perfect.  His pinnacle execution of power is the art of the deal; he was just making a deal.  Given the evidence I've seen including the transcript I think he was however using the powers of his office for personal political gain.  I think he should have been impeached, but then there should have been a fair a proper trial in the senate to determine if he was removed.  There wasn't, because as much as the impeachment was rushed for political gain, the trial was rushed and biased for other political gain.

Underlying this is he believes that businessmen are better qualified to make all decisions than any of the experts, and he is the best businessman so he is the most qualified.  Even setting aside that requires believing money us the most important thing in the world, the assertion businessmen are thus qualified is to me demonstrably false.

What makes me shudder is the amount of damage that is being done to the American democracy, solely because the shadows have found a voice.  Where us the silent majority?
 
Brad Sallows said:
It would help if the scope of what is not "manufactured" were at least narrowed.

The allegation of "obstruction" is held by some to be "manufactured" for the obvious and repeatedly discussed reason that an assertion of legal immunity is something to be tested in court, not decreed to be some kind of offence.  That all of the administration's claims of immunity were unlikely to be upheld is true (based on prior cases of similar natures)...but they still should have gone to court.
Click to expand...

Fair comments, and I agree that it would have been good to see the matter settled in court. I like the relative certainty of a judicial ruling on such a matter. That said I doubt this is the last time Trump will attempt to use executive authority to flout the power of congressional subpoena. But I would have been good to see several of those claims challenged on an expedited basis so that the House hearing would have had the opportunity to compel senior administration officials to testify, and so to get that on the record. I know there have been back and forth s in this thread on the credibility of the ‘trial’, and also on the necessity (or some argue lack thereof) of testimony in the senate. Some of that conversation hinges on the claim that the senate hearing was the opportunity to get things on the record... which opportunity was denied by the executive.

So yeah, all that said- I remain unconvinced that I ‘don’t know what I’m talking about’, whether it be “as usual” or not. It would be good to see him come back and attempt to put some meat on those bones without tryi n’t to reduce it to being ‘what about’ something someone else did.
 
>But wasn't it being argued by the administration concurrently that the only "court" that could try these issues was impeachnent?  That they didn't have to respond to the suppeanas due to executive privilege, but the only avenue to challenge executive privilege is impeachment.

I don't recall that (which doesn't mean it didn't happen).  But whether it happened or not is beside the point.  Court challenges to claims of executive privilege are nothing new.  The Obama administration was famous for stretching executive privilege and the Republicans in Congress did challenge some of those claims; and the Clinton administration fought almost everything during Starr's impeachment investigation.
 
>Some of that conversation hinges on the claim that the senate hearing was the opportunity to get things on the record... which opportunity was denied by the executive.

The House impeachment investigation is the venue for investigating, including challenging claims of immunity.  Everything there is on record, and except for the parts conducted in secret, it happens in the open and is widely discussed in the media.  Presumably the parts conducted by the House in secret would remain secret in the Senate (going by the unwillingness to mention the name "Ciaramella", that's a prudent assumption).  So what it is that people think would be added to the record, except for relevant new information (which doesn't mean the door must be opened to a circus of testimony from butt-hurt members of the "interagency")?

The Senate hearing - like all trials - should just be a presentation of things already known.  The difference is that ordinary criminal investigations are conducted with some amount of confidentiality which precludes potential jurors from knowing the evidence before the trial.
 
Brad Sallows said:
>Some of that conversation hinges on the claim that the senate hearing was the opportunity to get things on the record... which opportunity was denied by the executive.

The House impeachment investigation is the venue for investigating, including challenging claims of immunity.  Everything there is on record, and except for the parts conducted in secret, it happens in the open and is widely discussed in the media.  Presumably the parts conducted by the House in secret would remain secret in the Senate (going by the unwillingness to mention the name "Ciaramella", that's a prudent assumption).  So what it is that people think would be added to the record, except for relevant new information (which doesn't mean the door must be opened to a circus of testimony from butt-hurt members of the "interagency")?

The Senate hearing - like all trials - should just be a presentation of things already known.  The difference is that ordinary criminal investigations are conducted with some amount of confidentiality which precludes potential jurors from knowing the evidence before the trial.
Click to expand...

Sorry, huge brain fart when I wrote that. I said a senate hearing and I meant the House. The senate trial did not allow witnesses (which is not how it normally works). Part of the partisan justification for same was that the house was the get everything on the record. But the house was unable to because Trump asserted a claim of executive privilege and ordered members of the executive branch not to comply with congressional subpoenas, so it wasn’t possible to get access to many witnesses that might have had much to offer. That formed in large part the basis of the obstruction charge.

The simple act of Trump ordering noncompliance is one of those things that QV earlier referred to as ‘manufactured’, leading to a minor attack on me when I called him on it. I’m still seeking clarity there.
 
>it wasn’t possible to get access to many witnesses that might have had much to offer.

We can't know that, because the investigators didn't really try.  And they, too, played their own game of evidence suppression (Michael Atkinson's).
 
Trump surrenders, declares it a victory, and goes home
Scott Gilmore: The Afghanistan ‘peace deal’ will see America cut and run. It is the least worst option for the U.S.—and a troubling end for Afghans
by Scott GilmoreMar 2, 2020

There is a peace deal to end the war in Afghanistan. Or, at least, there is something that is being widely described as a peace deal. On closer inspection, that may be stretching the truth a little.

Over the weekend, the United States and the Taliban signed an agreement in Doha that President Donald Trump claimed would bring home the 12,000 American soldiers still stationed in Afghanistan. The broad strokes of the deal are that the Taliban will honour a cease fire, promise to not support al-Qaeda, and release 1,000 Afghan prisoners. In return, the U.S. promises 5,000 prisoners will be released, they will withdraw all western troops, lift sanctions and provide economic support to a new Afghan government that includes the Taliban.

The current Afghan government, however, has responded with a “Say what now?” President Ashraf Ghani was just re-elected in the country’s fourth peaceful democratic election, and he is not entirely happy about the idea of sharing power with the people who have been trying very hard to kill him. And by “not entirely happy” I mean he is very much opposed to it. He has also said that the Afghan government has no intention of releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners, regardless of what the Americans may have promised on their behalf.

Which is a rather important point—this Afghanistan peace deal was negotiated without the Afghans. The U.S. government and the Taliban were the only parties at the table, which in hindsight does seem to be a problem, especially when you consider the Taliban have already called off the cease-fire.

...
Click to expand...

See rest here:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trump-surrenders-declares-it-a-victory-and-goes-home/

:surrender:
 
Brihard said:
We lost the war in Afghanistan years ago. I’m fast to find fault with Trump, but that die was cast long before he came in. Yeah, he’s gonna play partisan politics with the retreat from the country, but that’s unavoidable. Anyone in power would be trying to save face on that.
Click to expand...

What a fu*king waste of life. I'm sure you all know my feelings.

Afghanistan will descend into hell again. Watch for non Islamic cultural stuff to be destroyed (if it hasn't been already). Beheadings and stonings will be held in former soccer stadiums.

This ain't gonna end well for anyone who supported the anti-Taliban forces.
 
That is what the U.S. should have done in around 2002 - picked up and left, with a promise to return if the successor to the Taliban (even if it was Taliban 2.0) decided to sponsor terrorist groups.  Somehow, we got moved from the original objective to building a government to building schools for Afghan girls and building the Dallah Dam, to building the ANSF, to how did we get to almost 20 years here?!?

Selection and maintenance of the aim was not achieved.
 
Infanteer said:
That is what the U.S. should have done in around 2002 - picked up and left, with a promise to return if the successor to the Taliban (even if it was Taliban 2.0) decided to sponsor terrorist groups.  Somehow, we got moved from the original objective to building a government to building schools for Afghan girls and building the Dallah Dam, to building the ANSF, to how did we get to almost 20 years here?!?

Selection and maintenance of the aim was not achieved.
Click to expand...
The kick ass and leave model does not seem to be working out optimally in Libya.  There is probably a middle ground somewhere that allows getting international troops out but not leaving the targeted country in a persistent state of internal violence.
 
If such a middle ground existed AND existing institutions were capable of occupying it, surely it would have been occupied by now.
 
MCG said:
The kick *** and leave model does not seem to be working out optimally in Libya.
Click to expand...

Well, the US isn't involved in in a 20-year standing insurgency again foreign forces, costing a trillion dollars and almost 2,500 dead, so it seems to have worked for them.
 
This should fix everything:
 

Attachments

  • get.jpg
    get.jpg
    51.2 KB · Views: 104
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Blackadder1916
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger dies aged 100
Replies
3
Views
5K
Brad Sallows
Brad Sallows
J
    • Like
Personalities aside.... a good thing for the CAF?
2
Replies
28
Views
7K
Brad Sallows
Brad Sallows
Blackadder1916
    • Like
Former aide to New York governor is charged with being an agent of the Chinese government
Replies
8
Views
621
QV
QV
Retired AF Guy
    • Wow
British Ambassador to Mexico Sacked
Replies
0
Views
1K
Retired AF Guy
Retired AF Guy
Cloud Cover
    • Like
Interesting Falkland Islands Campaign Thread
Replies
14
Views
4K
Cloud Cover
Cloud Cover
Back
Top