shmogie
Well-Known Member
You don't buy actual facts when they disagree with your chosen narrative, either.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Republicans warned they're spreading Russian propaganda
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
Mr Spinkles
Mr
shmogie you did not respond to my post #35. In particular, this question:
To be clear: evidence of what? What is the thing that, if Trump did that, would have been wrong, that you didn't spot evidence for? Because it sounds like you are arguing that the things Trump is being accused of aren't even wrong. If that is accurate (and please correct me if I'm mistaken), then there could not be any evidence that would convince you Trump did something wrong.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Wrong, and a high crime or misdemeanor are not the same things. Provide evidence of a felony, not an imagined felony, but a real one, with all the elements required to established the crime, and I will state he needs to be impeached.
So far, when you cut through the layers of nonsense, there is no firm evidence of a felony.
He does something " wrong " every day , as many of us do, yet the wrongs are not crimes.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
First, Trump does not have to have committed a felony in order to have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors":
Moreover, the founders, both during the ratification period and afterward, identified multiple noncriminal acts they believed to be impeachable. At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison and Wilson Nicholas said abuse of the pardon power would be impeachable. Impeachment, some founders said, would also follow from receipt of foreign emoluments or presidential efforts to secure by trickery Senate ratification of a disadvantageous treaty. During the first Congress of 1789, Madison even argued that presidents could be impeached for “wanton removal of meritorious officers.”
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made the larger point that impeachment is directed at “political” offenses that “proceed from … the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He was echoed by the foremost of the first generation of commentators on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story, who observed in his 1833 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution that impeachable conduct is often “purely political,” and that “no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.”
Thus, one point on which the founding generation would have been clear was that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was not restricted to indictable crimes. Their understanding has been ratified by two centuries of American practice.
...
Finally, and most pertinently, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon: the first for obstruction of justice, the second for abuse of power, and the third for defying House subpoenas during its impeachment investigation. Article 3 obviously did not allege a crime. But even in the first two articles, which did involve some potentially criminal conduct, the committee was at pains to avoid any reference to criminal statutes. Rather, as the committee staff observed in its careful study of the question, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a phrase that reaches far beyond crimes to embrace “exceeding the powers of the office in derogation of those of another branch of government,” “behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function of the office,” and “employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or personal gain.”
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made the larger point that impeachment is directed at “political” offenses that “proceed from … the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He was echoed by the foremost of the first generation of commentators on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story, who observed in his 1833 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution that impeachable conduct is often “purely political,” and that “no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.”
Thus, one point on which the founding generation would have been clear was that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was not restricted to indictable crimes. Their understanding has been ratified by two centuries of American practice.
...
Finally, and most pertinently, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon: the first for obstruction of justice, the second for abuse of power, and the third for defying House subpoenas during its impeachment investigation. Article 3 obviously did not allege a crime. But even in the first two articles, which did involve some potentially criminal conduct, the committee was at pains to avoid any reference to criminal statutes. Rather, as the committee staff observed in its careful study of the question, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a phrase that reaches far beyond crimes to embrace “exceeding the powers of the office in derogation of those of another branch of government,” “behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function of the office,” and “employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or personal gain.”
... Sound familiar? Check, check, check. Source: The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
But, as if that wasn't enough, there are likely federal laws he has trampled upon - to the great alarm of all his staff - including but not limited to:
Contempt of Congress
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
(I'm not sure if this is a "felony" as I'm not a legal expert - but Nixon was impeached for it, in part)
Negotiation by unauthorized persons ("talk to Rudy") with a foreign government:
Logan Act - Wikipedia
Bribery of public officials ("I'd like you to do us a favor, though"):
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
someone has committed bribery if he or she is a “public official” who “directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally … in return for … being influenced in the performance of any official act.”
So I repeat my question to you: what part(s) of the above menu of wrongdoing do you admit would be impeachable? Only after you acknowledge what you would admit is an impeachable offense, can we discuss whether or not there is evidence for it. Let me know.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Speaking of fiscal insanity , anybody know what the impeachment inquiry cost the taxpayers so far?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
At least $400 million, since the announcement of an inquiry frightened His Orangefulness into releasing that amount to Ukraine.
To be what?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I read the satire too. :0}
Shad
Veteran Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
Ukraine isn't in a dispute with the US. If you want to link someone to the Logan Act that would be Kerry not Rudy.
Ukraine has denied knowledge of the hold and any pressure.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Many legal scholars, including Alan Derschowitz, a democrat, disagree with much of your material. They believe, as do I, that the Constitution means exactly what it says, a high crime, i.e. a felony as defined by legal statute. Hamilton in Federalist 65 strongly decried a strictly political impeachment without bi partisan support, like we have today.
Contempt of congress would exist after a claim of executive privilege is adjudicated by the courts, and denied. This hasn't happened yet for any witness now under executive privilege.
Negotiation by unauthorized persons. What is a negotiation ? The executive branch is in charge of foreign policy. It determines who is authorized, the final authority in the executive branch is the president.
18 US code 201. Where was Trump influenced in the performance of an official act ? In other words can the hold on aid be tied directly to Trump, and where is the nexus with being influenced for a particular act ? Where is the evidence of the influence in the performance of an official act ? Speculation or it seems like doesn't count. Are there memo's, texts, e mails extant that show the president of Ukraine did anything or believed he was to do anything to influence Trump in anything ? Nope. Is it illegal to ask for a favor ? Is it illegal to ask a foreign government to investigate a US citizen ? Apparently not since two democrat US senators asked Ukraine via letter for dirt, i.e. an investigation, on Trump.
So, my response is the same, show me a felony with all the elements present, and I will agree with you.
The house can impeach on anything they choose, a bad haircut, since the can ignore the Constitution, if the majority agrees. However, the president then has a trial in the senate, where 2/3 must vote for removal, which will never happen. The trial will be under the control of the Republicans, they will be able to allow, or deny any witnesses they choose. It won't go well for democrats.
So, I encourage the democrats to waste all the time and all the money on their impossible dream. With all the proceedings under the rigid control of the democrats, they have failed in swaying more public support for impeachment. They knew from the very start they couldn't pull it off.
They will pay in votes for their political exercise. It can only get worse for them.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I’m no legal expert but the text of the law is not confined to countries that are “in a dispute with the US” (not sure how that would be determined anyway). Rather, it relates to a much broader situation in which there is correspondence with a foreign government or officer thereof “in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.”
Was the topic of the holdup in aid a “controversy” between the US and Ukraine? Arguably yes but, if you have a credible legal source arguing otherwise, please share it.
What are you referring to, specifically? Sources, please. For example, Taylor testified that the Ukrainians were aware and were “desperate”. Source:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1082256
No response to the Contempt of Congress charge?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
The Constitution says none of these things. These are opinions.
The Constitution says high crimes, it even lists crimes, crimes by statute before saying "high crimes and misdemeanors".
So your interpretation works this way; specific crimes by statute suddenly becomes whatever Congress decides is a crime.
By listing crimes, they meant crimes in using the word.
The Constitution says high crimes, it even lists crimes, crimes by statute before saying "high crimes and misdemeanors".
So your interpretation works this way; specific crimes by statute suddenly becomes whatever Congress decides is a crime.
By listing crimes, they meant crimes in using the word.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Isn’t Contempt of Congress a felony crime?
The articles of impeachment against Nixon included abuse of power and contempt of Congress and it was a foregone conclusion they were going to pass before he resigned. Do you disagree with the Nixon articles of impeachment too?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
shmogie
Well-Known Member
The house can impeach on anything they choose. There is no remedy when they do not follow the Constitution since it isn't a legal process but a political one.
Contempt of congress is a crime. Executive privilege is a right of the president. After adjudication in a court and losing, the continued refusal to co operate is contempt.
Abuse of power, by committing crimes, is understandable, yet it is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Thanks.
Again: does this mean you also disagree with the articles of impeachment against Nixon?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
We're finding out that more Russian propaganda found its way into Republican/conservative circles...
Russian disinformation network said to have helped spread smear of U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
Looks like Putin figured out a while ago that his most effective route into influencing US politics was to generate propaganda and false narratives that would be favorable to Republicans, because they would be the most likely group to accept it uncritically. IMO, he likely realized that US conservatism had become a largely faith-based, conspiracy theory laden movement, and as such would be very susceptible to propaganda. As we found with the fake news farms during the 2016 elections, attempts to target fake news towards liberals generally failed because of higher levels of skepticism and critical thinking in that group. Conservatives OTOH not only lapped up the fake news stories, they also eagerly spread them on social media and even via mainstream media outlets (e.g., Fox News, Breitbart, right-wing talk radio).
Like I keep saying, modern conservatism has effectively become just like creationism....as long as you tell them things they want to hear, they will accept it without question. And as this story shows, targeting propaganda towards this group works quite well.
Russian disinformation network said to have helped spread smear of U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
The story that appeared on The Hill website on March 20 was startling.
Marie Yovanovitch, the American ambassador to Ukraine, had given a “list of people whom we should not prosecute” to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, according to a write-up of an interview Lutsenko gave to the conservative columnist John Solomon.
Five days later, an image of that purported list appeared in a post on the website Medium and on a number of other self-publishing platforms in locations as disparate as Germany, South Africa and San Francisco. In less than a week, the Medium essay had been translated into Spanish and German and posted to other websites.
Now, a social media analysis firm, Graphika, has traced those posts to a Russian disinformation campaign — in the first evidence that a network of accounts involved in spreading disinformation before the 2016 election also participated in circulating the false claims about Yovanovitch that led earlier this year to her recall from the U.S. embassy in Kyiv...
...The Russia-based operation, which also sought to blame Britain for interfering in the 2016 election, represents a warning about the evolving methods and wide-ranging goals of disinformation as Americans enter a volatile election season, four years after Russian actors used social media to sow discord and boost Trump’s candidacy for the White House. The “known Russian operation," as Graphika called it, involved doctored visuals and sought to cover its tracks using single-use accounts on discussion forums and other crowdsourced websites, as well as on the news aggregation site Reddit.
The apparent aims of the digital deception underscore the parallels between Russia’s campaign of disinformation and the GOP’s embrace of debunked theories that paint Trump as the victim of British spooks and deep-state saboteurs.
Marie Yovanovitch, the American ambassador to Ukraine, had given a “list of people whom we should not prosecute” to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, according to a write-up of an interview Lutsenko gave to the conservative columnist John Solomon.
Five days later, an image of that purported list appeared in a post on the website Medium and on a number of other self-publishing platforms in locations as disparate as Germany, South Africa and San Francisco. In less than a week, the Medium essay had been translated into Spanish and German and posted to other websites.
Now, a social media analysis firm, Graphika, has traced those posts to a Russian disinformation campaign — in the first evidence that a network of accounts involved in spreading disinformation before the 2016 election also participated in circulating the false claims about Yovanovitch that led earlier this year to her recall from the U.S. embassy in Kyiv...
...The Russia-based operation, which also sought to blame Britain for interfering in the 2016 election, represents a warning about the evolving methods and wide-ranging goals of disinformation as Americans enter a volatile election season, four years after Russian actors used social media to sow discord and boost Trump’s candidacy for the White House. The “known Russian operation," as Graphika called it, involved doctored visuals and sought to cover its tracks using single-use accounts on discussion forums and other crowdsourced websites, as well as on the news aggregation site Reddit.
The apparent aims of the digital deception underscore the parallels between Russia’s campaign of disinformation and the GOP’s embrace of debunked theories that paint Trump as the victim of British spooks and deep-state saboteurs.
Looks like Putin figured out a while ago that his most effective route into influencing US politics was to generate propaganda and false narratives that would be favorable to Republicans, because they would be the most likely group to accept it uncritically. IMO, he likely realized that US conservatism had become a largely faith-based, conspiracy theory laden movement, and as such would be very susceptible to propaganda. As we found with the fake news farms during the 2016 elections, attempts to target fake news towards liberals generally failed because of higher levels of skepticism and critical thinking in that group. Conservatives OTOH not only lapped up the fake news stories, they also eagerly spread them on social media and even via mainstream media outlets (e.g., Fox News, Breitbart, right-wing talk radio).
Like I keep saying, modern conservatism has effectively become just like creationism....as long as you tell them things they want to hear, they will accept it without question. And as this story shows, targeting propaganda towards this group works quite well.