When people allege that the President abused his power, they do not mean that he violated a statute or a court order. They are saying instead that he was being deeply unfair to the other party--it was not fair play.

He abused his power in various respects and in certain cases a statute (or constitutional provision) is involved. For instance, some sort of attempted bribery. It is not really just "fair play" though in some general sense that covers a lot of it.

I don't know about the rest of it though it sounds a bit too cleanly split into two.
 

It's not just that it's unfair to the other party, it's unfair to the American electorate. It's in principle no different than a Sheriff that has election oversight powers getting election officials under him to mess with the precincts to 'tilt' any challenge to him in his favor.

One of the most telling things about ostensible 'conservatives' and 'libertarians' sticking their head in the ground about Trump is that if a person really has a general skepticism and concern about government then the thing they'd be most worried about is a government official using the power of the government to ensure they retain that power. But of course, as in other matters, it's likely they have other goals than that which they ostensibly put forward.
 

Conservatives tend to trust the government in various respects, and they did in the past, just in different ways than liberals. They at times speak as if they are libertarians (which gets people bothered since they come off as hypocrites) but they are not. Ted Cruz supporters are not likely to be "libertarians," especially since Cruz is a self-labelled conservative. The consistent libertarian is often hard to come by, especially since government tends to be useful, so it tends to be a bit selective.
 

Gerard:

The rule of law requires simply means enforcing the law as written.

Your use of the term "fair play" in your second paragraph refers to the related principle of equal protection of the law, enforcing the law for both the weak and the powerful, the poor and the wealthy.

The Democrats allegation against Trump is that he demanded Ukraine investigate the Bidens in exchange for foreign aid or a meeting with the POTUS.

Putting aside the fact the Democrats have provided zero evidence to support this allegation, what is "deeply unfair" about a POTUS asking Ukraine to investigate evidence suggesting a Russian oligarch owning a Ukrainian business was paying bribes to the family of a US Vice President in exchange for the Vice President's intervention on behalf of the oligarch and his business?

Why should a powerful political family be exempt from criminal investigation merely because the patriarch is running for POTUS against the incumbent?

Both the rule and equal protection of the law would demand an investigation of such evidence.
 

"I do not know why fair play fell into decline as a democratic principle or why the rule of law became the slogan of choice."

It's like that old legal saying: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

If you think the law is on your side, you appeal to the rule of law. If you think you can persuade people you're in the right, but the law isn't on your side, you start talking about fair play. And I suppose if you don't see either on your side, but just want to win, you try to impeach the guy who beat your candidate.

It's like DePalma says: Is Biden above the law, immune from having his corruption investigated, just because he's "important"? Well, a lot of politicians would agree with that idea, because they know they'd be in trouble, too, if anybody looked too closely at their dealings.

So it's quite understandable that Democratic House members are outraged at the idea of Biden being investigated. There but for the limited manpower of the DOJ go they.
 

"The Democrats allegation against Trump is that he demanded Ukraine investigate the Bidens in exchange for foreign aid or a meeting with the POTUS."

The quid pro quo is not necessary for there to be an abuse of power. Using one's office to single out your chief domestic political rival is itself an attempt to subvert democracy and fair elections.

To use a variant on an analogy I've used before, if there were a widespread problem with many companies polluting in a part of a state, and one of those companies had the son of the former governor on its board, for the Governor to call the local DA and ask them to investigate that single company would be fishy to anyone whose not either a total partisan or propagandist for the governor. Those supposedly suspicious of government power would of course be even more generally alarmed and suspicious of the seeming impropriety of the official act by a government official.

Now, if the Governor had just held up much needed funds slated for that prosecutor's office around the time of the request and then only released them when suggestions of the impropriety of the request became public, then it would stink like mackerel in moonlight even more.
 

It's important to note our Birchers would like to shift the issue to questions about Biden because to them means are always justified by ends. Morally and intellectually eroded by their extremism I think they actually cannot grasp that even if Biden were guilty of something (and all that's been fairly debunked) the selective singling out of him as Trumps main political rival reeks of impropriety thus that someone with an honest, non eroded sense of wariness about government power would demand evidence to counteract the seeming impropriety (impeachment is not equivalent to a criminal trial where all the elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the threat of a rogue executive subverting the process is so dangerous and the practicalities of reaching such a burden with the person in charge of the record keeping, investigatory, etc., powers of the state, that something like an inability to prove a technical mens rea requirement cannot be thought to prevent it when everything else about the situation shows abuse).
 

"Putting aside the fact the Democrats have provided zero evidence to support this allegation,"

Of course this is false, there's lots of evidence by officials and records of their communications that this was going on, along with a refusal by others to testify or submit records. Again, this isn't and can't be the equivalent of a criminal trial.
 

"The rule of law says nothing about the substance of the law or about governmental norms. By contrast, fair play is a test that governs all official actions and does speak to the substance of what they do." You avoid by assertion a vigorous debate over the possible substance of the rule of law (e.g., Fuller's "inner morality of the law and the Hart/Fuller debate). It seems to me that attention to this debate (and related inquires into the substance/procedure divide) might add some helpful context to your question about the appeal of the rule of law over the concept of fair play.
 

"Using one's office to single out your chief domestic political rival is itself an attempt to subvert democracy and fair elections."

I'll agree that Trump shouldn't single out one Democrat. It should be all out warfare on multiple fronts.

I want both parties to go at each other's throats in exposing every scrap of corruption on the part of the other, in an orgy of mutually assured destruction. Instead of this current corrupt agreement to overlook each other's crimes.

And then from the smoking rubble we might be able to put together an honest government out of the survivors. We'll never have honest government again so long as everybody is involved in this conspiracy of mutual obstruction of justice.

I thank the Democrats for breaking the deal, and going after Trump with no holds barred; It really looked like he was willing to go along with the corrupt bargain until they proved the bargain was dead.
 

Important one. What counts is to understand that the " rule of law " stands in contrast to the rule of one person, one ruler, one dictator. It is not the capricious and arbitrary wish of one ruler which counts, but, the law, the provisions of the law, as the reference point, as the standard governing the actions and institutions. As such, It does imply also " fair play ", means, when the rule of law reigns supreme, the play must be fair. Wouldn't be as such, capricious and arbitrary. The fair play then, is the practical expression and manifestation of that notion of the " rule of law ".

Also, doesn't really exist in the US, but in many states, it does exist such offense as "breach of trust" by public officer. And then, even if one offense is not concretely prescribed in a statute whatsoever, that doctrine of breach of trust, permits indictment, for conduct, which is not factually and mentally totally illegal, yet, hurts the public trust as such.

Thanks
 

"When people allege that the President abused his power, they do not mean that he violated a statute or a court order. They are saying instead that he was being deeply unfair to the other party"

This is getting close to recognizing what is really going on: Trump is being impeached for not governing as a Democrat. He's not doing anything illegal, he's not "abusing power" in a conventional sense by doing things that aren't normal prerogatives of the office.

Rather, he's abusing it by not using it to do the things Clinton would have done if she'd been elected. Reversing Obama policies, enforcing immigration laws Obama left un or under enforced. Not turning a blind eye to Democratic corruption. Nominating conservative rather than "progressive" judges.

The most honest impeachment charge they could bring would be, "Being elected while not a Democrat."
 

This is getting close to recognizing what is really going on: Trump is being impeached for not governing as a Democrat.

Other people "not governing as a Democrat" were not impeached, including when Democrats controlled the House.

Non-Democrats, including a lifelong Republican head of the FBI (appointed by a someone "not governing as a Democrat" who was not impeached), have spelled out the various specific wrongs Trump did in particular.

Mr. W. didn't vote for Clinton apparently. The guy is a former Pat Buchanan supporter.

People, including someone like Fiona Hill who served in more than one Republican administration, pointed out "being elected while not a Democrat" is not why Trump is being cited here.

This is dishonest stuff. We can then move on to the merits and cover what Trump is doing. Yet again the person voted for in large part because he is different and not going to simply put play by normal rules ("let me make deals, I'll get stuff done, I won't worry about the rules too much" is a basic thing he said) is treated as just the same in relevant part. He is just really being "conventional" here and for some strange reason - unlike every other Republican in office other than Nixon -- the House is holding an impeachment inquiry.

One can disagree on the merits of the impeachment charges but when Republicans except for him wasn't impeached and a range of non-Democrats, including members of more than one Republican Administration (down to head of the FBI in respect), explain otherwise, making it out as a partisan witchhunt is thin gruel. Fair play and rule of law values warrant a bit more effort than provided.
 

BD: "The Democrats allegation against Trump is that he demanded Ukraine investigate the Bidens in exchange for foreign aid or a meeting with the POTUS. Putting aside the fact the Democrats have provided zero evidence to support this allegation..."

Mr. W: "Of course this is false, there's lots of evidence by officials and records of their communications that this was going on, along with a refusal by others to testify or submit records. Again, this isn't and can't be the equivalent of a criminal trial.

Then, you will have no problem noting the witness who can testify when, where and to whom Trump or one of his agents made this demand and what was said.

Mr. W: The quid pro quo is not necessary for there to be an abuse of power.

It is necessary for the Democrats to prove their slander of bribery against Trump.

The undefined claim of "abuse of power" does not meet the constitutional standard of "Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Mr. W: Using one's office to single out your chief domestic political rival is itself an attempt to subvert democracy and fair elections.

Once again. a law enforcement officer is obliged to investigate evidence of a crime, not the person.

I agree that a POTUS employing law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies to spy on a political rival with no evidence of a crime is at minimum an abuse of power and likely continues multiple felony high crimes. This is why Justice is properly conducting a criminal investigation of the Obama administration spy and dirty tricks operation against Trump.

In sharp contrast, the evidence suggesting bribery against the Bidens is undisputed, not "largely debunked."

(1) Obama did in fact give Joe Biden control over Ukraine policy.

(2) After that transfer of power, a Russian oligarch did in fact pay Hunter Biden to serve as a member on his Bursima board of directors for no known qualification and no known work.

(3) After the Russian oligarch paid Hunter, Joe admitted in detail he withheld US loan guarantees to compel Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating the Russian oligarch and Bursima.

(4) After Joe forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, Bursima dropped Hunter's name in now disclosed emails while lobbying the State Department to stop its investigation of Bursima.

If you substitute POTUS Donald and Don Jr for Joe and Hunter in these facts, then you would have a prima facie case of bribery and I would join the Democrats in their demands for a full impeachment investigation.
 

"I want both parties to go at each other's throats in exposing every scrap of corruption on the part of the other, in an orgy of mutually assured destruction"

When such cynical nihilism (and dishonest at that, because Brett's not cheering the going after of Trump) is the defense it's a truly pathetic one.
 

Joe:

Career bureaucrats generally serve in administrations of both political parties. This hardly makes them bipartisan, objective or more likely to support policies of the elected POTUS with which they disagree.
 

Apart from his continued (willful?) confusion of impeachment with a criminal trial, Bircher Bart doesn't (can't?) address the selective investigation argument at all. He's even further gone (or dishonest) than Bircher Brett who at least acknowledges such a thing stinks in principle but who ostensibly hopes its part of a process of burning it all down.
 

Did anyone see the recent poll that more Republicans say Trump is a greater GOP President than Lincoln?

If only Andy Jackson or Johnson had been eligible!
 

Mr. W: Apart from his continued (willful?) confusion of impeachment with a criminal trial...

Impeachment and removal is indeed analogous to a criminal prosecution by Congress of the POTUS.

The Democrats and not a few Republicans view a House impeachment as analogous to a grand jury. The purpose of a grand jury is to ensure the prosecutor presents evidence there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime.

The Constitution (not I) expressly requires a trial and "conviction" for "Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" to remove a POTUS.

Impeachment and removal is in no way analogous to the British Parliament's vote of no confidence or even the broader British version of removal for "high crimes and misdemeanors." The Constitutional convention expressly rejected impeachment and removal for mere "maladministration" and instead set out the higher standard of "Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
 

Well, he is: How many Americans have the US military killed under Trump? How many opposition newspapers has Trump shut down? How many judges has he had imprisoned for ruling against him?

Just by not being a murderous despot, Trump rates higher than Lincoln.

I mean, sure, freeing the slaves, that was great, even if it was just an incidental benefit of a war Lincoln launched to drag the South back into the Union, and Lincoln offered to drop the whole opposition to slavery thing if they'd just come back voluntarily. But, yes, a point in his favor. Killing 2% of the population directly by military means, and more by famine and disease? Not so much.
 

Brett's nihilism is a natural consequence of the contempt for truth and expertise displayed by the R party over many years now (climate change, evolution, Trump's corruption, etc.). Once it becomes impossible to distinguish between truth and lies, the followers retreat to nihilism or solipsism. Hannah Arendt pointed this out 70 years ago.
 

An impeachment is of course 'similar' to or 'like' a trial and an apple is like a pomegranate, but my kids will eat one but not the other. Administrative hearings are 'like' a criminal trial too, but also different in important ways. The Founders used words like conviction and trial but also used political terms like high crimes and other misdemeanors instead of purely criminal terms.

Of course, even in a criminal trial one need not have a defendant say some magic phrase, mens rea can be inferred from actions, circumstances, etc.
 

Mr. W: ...but also used political terms like high crimes and other misdemeanors instead of purely criminal terms."

High crimes and misdemeanors is not a criminal term? Really?
 

"Brett's nihilism is a natural consequence of the contempt for truth and expertise"

When did not blowing off mass death and starvation, and systematic suppression of civil liberties, become "nihilism"? Lincoln was elected, but he governed as a textbook tyrant.
 

GM tends to say things that a mix of people think "eh" and then it goes sideways. (I will resist the attempt to re-litigate the Civil War here).

I want to in some fashion speak in general terms here somewhat related to the "rule of law" etc. theme. In ancient times, there was something known as a "tyrant" or a "dictator" or some other like term. The terms were used somewhat differently than they are used now. At times, they were seen as a necessary legitimate thing.

But, they acted differently than normal practice, specifically in times like war that were deemed necessary. People realized they weren't just the same. Some honestly (to themselves too) realize Trump isn't just run of the mill. They like that like some thought at certain times a "dictator" was necessary.

But, they at least realized something special was going on. People were not merely concerned with the person because of regular policy disputes. Take Bill Clinton. I don't think what he was impeached over warranted that. But, he didn't just "lie about a bj." If he did the same things he was accused of doing in that sense (with precedent in his governor days; it wasn't some 'one-off' related to one young woman) in this #Me Too era, down to alleged perjury during another sexual related lawsuit, it would be seen to be a serious wrong.

Strongly going after him would be correct as a way to defend fairness and to some degree the rule of law. Multiple people of different political parties have gotten their due in that respect. It isn't just a partisan thing though we can be on the lookout there. Trump is comparable though this is more directly a matter of national significance that touches on multiple things over the years from the beginning were cited as the reason for the impeachment power.

Clinton's impeachment probably tainted Gore and overall put forth a precedent that guided later presidents though not quite so much in 2016. The concern was correct though the means used was suspect. (Popular concern made impeachment halfway credible though the public wasn't really gung ho about impeachment specifically.) Impeachment now will serve as a precedent that hopefully will limit future occupants. Since like Jonathan Turley noted in 1998, once you allow more space for things to thrive, the more things thrive. Some Democratic Trump (if not quite as offensive) is possible. The impeachment power is there with that in mind.
 

I disagree with Joe about Clinton because what Clinton did was not a "high crime or misdemeanor". In British usage, the word "high" in that context means "related to matters of state" (thus, the common law distinction between "high" treason and "petty" treason). Nor do I think Trump should be impeached for his numerous affairs or his general contempt for and various assaults of women.* That's not to condone Trump's misbehavior, any more than it is Clinton's. It's just me being a textualist ("rule of law").

On Joe's more general point about tyrants/dictators, it's important to note that in Rome a dictator was appointed for a fixed period of time (one year) in order to deal with an emergency which the Senate felt threatened the Republic. That is, it was both consistent with the rule of law and a matter of "what's fair under the circumstances".

That's very different from what Trump and his aiders and abettors are seeking now. They want to free Trump from the restrictions of the law (including the Constitution) in order for him to take actions which violate fundamental rules of fairness (e.g. to discriminate on the basis of race and religion; engage in political favoritism and payoffs; lie about his actions; bribe and take bribes; etc.).

In my view, the "rule of law" has to instantiate fundamental fairness. If not, it's just tyranny by another method. Properly construed, there shouldn't be much gap between the two principles.

*Paying off Stormy Daniels in order to influence the election is another matter, and there are rape allegations against Trump also.
 

Clinton DID have his staff collecting and destroying evidence for him, and soliciting perjurious affidavits, though. Employing government resources for private criminality isn't related enough to matters of state?

Though I'll agree that there were better charges against Clinton available to be brought. But after the dirt dump on Livingston, the remaining House managers cut the process short, dumped most of the possible charges, and went straight to the preordained acquittal. Like they were afraid of the same thing being done to them, or something. Clearly Hastert had cause to be afraid, wonder what the others' skeletons in the closet were?

In retrospect Filegate was Clinton's smartest scandal. It really saved his butt in the end.
 

I disagree with Joe about Clinton because what Clinton did was not a "high crime or misdemeanor".

"I don't think what he was impeached over warranted that."

I'm not sure what you disagree with me on. Part of the point there was that some sort of serious consequences was warranted there, even if the primary pressure for some might come from one political faction, and we see that today in a bipartisan basis. Democrats and Republicans have been affected here and like Clinton, it also often overlaps in some fashion with governmental matters.

I probably would disagree with him along the edges on what is impeachment worthy though anyhow the matter did involve government employees, alleged misconduct related to government investigations and all that. I'm not talking about "general contempt" for women or even pre-term acts even of a criminal basis there either.

The detail as to my ancient allusion helps my argument though I was also talking in somewhat broader terms. So, e.g., even if something is not so fixed, rules at times are bent, as a matter of general norms, regarding legitimate authority. But, we still realize that is happening or should.
 

Mark: In British usage, the word "high" in that context means "related to matters of state" (thus, the common law distinction between "high" treason and "petty" treason).

If we adopt the Clinton defense that impeachment and removal is limited to high crimes related to a matter of state, then there is no reason criminal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting POTUS for personal criminal acts. Can't have it both ways.
 

That's fair Joe, sorry for reading over that. I agree that the classical history supports your comment.

 

"If we adopt the Clinton defense that impeachment and removal is limited to high crimes related to a matter of state, then there is no reason criminal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting POTUS for personal criminal acts. Can't have it both ways."

There's no reason criminal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting President for personal criminal acts either way. Impeachment is orthogonal to criminal law, neither precludes the other, and nothing dictates that they must happen in a specific order.

I've pointed this out before: The Constitution explicitly grants members of Congress quite limited criminal immunity. Why then would we assume Presidents get greater immunity without any mention of it in the Constitution, by mere implication?

As a practical matter Presidents have little reason to worry about being indicted while in office at the federal level, because the people who might indict them are subject to the President's lawful orders. But no such practical bar to indictment exists at the state level.

I will grant that the ability of state prosecutors to indict a sitting President creates the opportunity for considerable mischief, and maybe it would have been a good idea for the Constitution to address that. But as a simple matter of the text that was adopted, it didn't. Nothing in the Constitution so much as suggests Presidents have any kind of immunity from prosecution.
 

Brett:

The combination of the long standing principle of sovereign immunity and the remedy of impeachment for all high crimes and misdemeanors (not just those related to matters of state) pretty clearly precludes prosecutors from indicting and very arguably making any demands for evidence against the POTUS.
 

I stand by my reasoning: They obviously knew how to explicitly grant immunity if they wanted to, and there's not one word in the Constitution that so much as suggests Presidents get any sort of immunity. If they meant to grant it, why would they not mention it?

The principle of sovereign immunity might protect Presidents in their professional capacities from prosecution for governmental acts, but would not apply to a President being prosecuted for a private act, like a hit and run. Or shooting somebody of 5th avenue, to pick an example at random.

Now, if you've got some relevant quote from one of the founders to the effect that Presidents have such immunity, I'd be open to changing my mind. I'm unaware of any such.
 

"In retrospect Filegate"

It's always a conspiracy theory with these people. From one to the next to the next.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mark, here's the philosophical problem with the definition of high you give as I see it (note, you probably have a tight argument that that's the textualist definition, I don't know much about the subject and so won't offer an opinion): the executive, especially, has as one of their most important duties that of being a figurehead, a representative of the nation. If a President does something criminal, even if not related to the state, while in office they sully that and tarnish the state and People they represent. Now, impeachment can't be taken lightly and the number of crimes one can technically be said to have committed is absurdly high these days, so the personal crime should be serious enough that the sullying makes the executive unable to fulfill the state matter of representing the nation.

Along those lines, I'd offer for why Clinton didn't warrant impeachment and Trump does a different sense of high and petty, that lying during a deposition, especially lying to avoid revealing a personal affair, is just not high in the sense of serious (I realize it's technically a felony, but we have lots of crimes absurdly classified as a felony). On the other hand using the office to induce a foreign power to engage in a political hit on a domestic opponent, thereby subverting our elections is about as serious as one can get (one could add leaving a declared ally desperately in need in the lurch for indefensible self-serving reasons, but as I've said plenty times here there's no need to even raise the 'quid pro quo' angle to find Trump's behavior impeachable).
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I have to say in re-reading Bircher Brett's comments I gave him too much credit. He didn't say that a Republican officeholder, say Trump, shouldn't use their government position to single out a Democrat, say Biden. No, his problem with the singling out is that it shouldn't be single, that is, Republicans in power should use that power to selectively go after their domestic political rivals (and Brett makes a, surely dishonest, feint about vice versa). In other words, government officials should use their political power to target for harassment, investigation and imprisonment, their political opponents. If the other party somehow wins power under such oppression then they get to do it back.

Brett's political morals are like that on display in Scorce's Gangs of New York...We're dealing with deeply sick people here. No wonder they can't see anything wrong with what Trump did!
 

Brett: Now, if you've got some relevant quote from one of the founders to the effect that Presidents have such immunity, I'd be open to changing my mind. I'm unaware of any such.

My pleasure.

The impeachment provision of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 concludes in pertinent part: "...but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

By stating the POTUS is "subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" after impeachment and conviction, the Constitution implies the POTUS is not subject to the same before.

Sovereign immunity is the Anglo-American legal principle which protects the head of state from "Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" for any offense, not just those related to matters of state.

Thus, the impeachment provision of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 recognizes sovereign immunity while the POTUS retains his office and acts as the head of state and also suggests "high crimes and misdemeanors" extends to personal crimes.
 

It's like he endorses crony capitalism (where those in power use their power to enrich themselves and allies) except it's crony law enforcement (where those in power use their power to prosecute their rivals into political defeat [if anything, the scariest government power is not that of disbursing funds, it's that of law enforcement).

This is a self described libertarian, folks!
 

Mr. W:

"Crony capitalism" is the misnomer for privately owned companies capturing and profiting from the modern totalitarian government choosing economic winners and losers.

This state of affairs is impossible in the free market Brett and I support.
 

"and Brett makes a, surely dishonest, feint about vice versa"

Nothing dishonest about it at all. I loath the Republican party only slightly less than the Democratic. Or maybe not less, just view it as a bit less threatening, because they're less likely to try to take my guns and turn us into a communist dictatorship.

I'm not a Republican because I LIKE the GOP. I'm a Republican because they got together with the Democrats to make third party politics in America a waste of time, to entrench themselves beyond removal. Which is why I left my first political home, the Libertarian party; Because it had been rendered futile, and the futility was corrupting it. I had to pick a major party if I meant for my vote to mean something, and the GOP was the least awful of the two major parties.

If something could kill off both these parties I would cheer. Heck, if something could kill of just one of them, I think I'd prefer that it be the Republican party that fell, so that it could be replaced with a party that honestly stood for what the GOP only pretends to care about. It sits there blocking any chance for a real conservative/libertarian party to develop.
 

Crony capitalism is when government officials use government power to consolidate the economic power of themselves and allies by aiding them and hobbling competitors. What Brett endorses is government officials using government power to consolidate their political power by aiding them and hobbling competitors.
 

Brett complains about things like onerous ballot placement laws, but what party in power would need those to strangle third party challenges if you could just launch investigation after investigation against any political threat?
 

As someone who has voted third party more times than I have the big two I also loathe it when the party(ies) in power use their political power for political entrenchment. It's certainly, to point back to the OP, not fair (in some instances I think it also violates rule of law-equal protection). Of course that's *exactly* what Trump is being impeached for (well, one [sense?] of the charges, but the most plain one).
 

•★INTEGRATED HACKS★•


Are You Seeking For A LEGIT PROFESSIONAL HACKER Who Will Get Your Job Done Efficiently With Swift Response?? CONGRATULATIONS, Your Search Ends Right Here.

★ ABOUT US
• We are a Team Of Professional HACKERS , a product of the coming together of renowned Hackers from the Dark-Web (pentaguard, CyberBerkut, Grey Hat and Black Hat,)that have seen how data and information is been stolen and spoofed and are willing to help the helpless. We have been existing for over 8 years, our system is a very strong and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas and directives.

★ JOB GUARANTEE:
Whenever We Are being hired, We typically only take jobs that We find somewhat original, challenging, or especially helpful to the community. We’ve never wanted to sit around defending some video game company’s source code from network intruders – We prefer to help nonprofits, private investigators, Private Individuals, government contractors, and other traditionally underserved populations.
And We’d rather match skills against the best in the field of state-sponsored hackers engaged in economic espionage than put some kid in prison for pranking the phone company. When a company tries to hire Us, the first question we ask is: “Who is this going to help?”
We know INTEGRATED HACKS is Well known for LEGIT HACKING SERVICES, but we always try to make people know that INTEGRATED HACKS isn't just open to big firms, any individual desiring cyber services can contact us via: "integratedhacks@protonmail.com" You Can Reach Out To Us for Your Desired HACKING Services Ranging from:
* Penetration Testing
* Jail Breaking
* PHONE HACKING (Which gives you Unnoticeable Access to Everything that is Happening on the phone such as call logs, messages, chats and all social media Apps .
* Retrieval Of Lost Files
* Location Tracking.
* Clearing Of Criminal Records.
* Hacking Of Server, Database And Social Media accounts e.g Facebook, twitter, Instagram Snapchat etc

★ SOME SPECIAL SERVICES WE OFFER:
* RECOVERY OF LOST FUNDS ON BINARY OPTIONS.
* Bank Accounts Loading ( Only USA Banks)
* Credit Cards Loading (Only USA CC’s)’

★Our Team houses a separate group of specialists who are productively focused and established authorities in different platforms. They hail from a proven track record Called “HackerOne” and have cracked even the toughest of barriers to intrude and capture or recapture all relevant data needed by our Clients. Some Of These Specialist Includes Yassine Aboukir, Oemer Han, Imran parray, Anees Khan, Jobert Abma and many others.

★INTEGRATED HACKS is available to our clients 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. We understand that your request might be urgent, so we have a separate team of allocated hackers who interact with our Clients round the clock. You are with the right people so just get started.

★CONTACT:
* Email:
Integratedhacks@protonmail.com
Integratedhacks@gmail.com

★CONTACT US AND EXPERIENCE CYBER SERVICES LIKE NEVER BEFORE
★
 

No problem, Mark.

I think the issue regarding prosecuting a sitting executive largely seems academic, but not inclined to put forth absolute rules. In most likely cases, even if in theory the person can be prosecuted, the person won't be while the person is in office. The "what about murder" hypos I would leave open. I don't tend to find absolutes stand up to scrutiny when action is involved.

The concerns usually cited are of mixed legitimacy, but I'll leave that open, especially in various instances the president might prefer to plead guilty. For instance, someone commits a minor crime and sees it as politically sensible to plead guilty and you know maybe pay a fine or serve community service or whatnot. The person would at any rate still be open to investigation.

But, the matter is usually going to be hypothetical. For civil suits, I think Clinton v. Jones was rightly decided and would apply it broadly (e.g. state civil suits).
 

"Crony capitalism" is the misnomer for privately owned companies capturing and profiting from the modern totalitarian government choosing economic winners and losers.

This state of affairs is impossible in the free market Brett and I support.

Because there were no such things as cartels or oligopolies or monopolies before, say, the New Deal era. Markets were free and competitive and it was difficult or impossible to establish a dominant position in a market.

Yep.
 

Toad: Because there were no such things as cartels or oligopolies or monopolies before, say, the New Deal era. Markets were free and competitive and it was difficult or impossible to establish a dominant position in a market. Yep.

Yep.

The only way you can achieve a dominant position in a free market is by providing a good or service which a large number of consumers voluntarily purchase. Apart from maybe geographical natural monopolies like utilities, dominant business positions near last. Big business gets overlarge, bureaucratized and lazy.

Progressive anti-trust law was a hot mess from the beginning because the government could never define a monopoly and only broke up two major companies - Standard Oil and AT&T. Meanwhile, businesses with a dominant positions came and went all on their own.

 

The only way you can achieve a dominant position in a free market is by providing a good or service which a large number of consumers voluntarily purchase.

You've mastered the boilerplate, I see. Did you ever think about keeping others out of the business as part of achieving a dominant position? This happens naturally with utilities of course, but can also happen with heavy industry, for example, because of the large capital requirements.


And it's not just monopolies, Bart. Plenty of oligopolies and the like. Even when monopolies broke up they didn't give rise to a large number of competing firms.
 

Toad: Did you ever think about keeping others out of the business as part of achieving a dominant position?

In a free economy, businesses have little power to bar new entrants into the marketplace.

In a free capital market, industrial entrepreneurs could and did assemble the necessary capital to enter any industry.

However, when big business captures a totalitarian government, the resulting alliance grants regulatory relief and subsidies to favored businesses, while erecting regulatory and cost barriers to new entrants. Since the 1970s, small business creation has relentless fallen due to these regulatory and cost barriers until business deaths outpaced births for the first time in American history during the Obama administration.
 

In a free capital market, industrial entrepreneurs could and did assemble the necessary capital to enter any industry.

As I said, you've done a good job learning the boilerplate.

Ever actually tried to raise any capital? And here we're not talking about a software startup, but major money for major capital expenditure. Why would you assume that, given an entrenched player, it would necessarily appeal to investors to provide capital to a new entrant? You are spouting libertarian drivel.


 

You guys are confusing not using prosecutorial abuses to take down your foes, and what's actually going on, which is a corrupt bargain between the parties to not prosecute each other's REAL crimes.

Teddy Kennedy not being prosecuted for manslaughter. Dennis Hastert not being exposed as a pedophile until he retired. Epstein, who had dirt on "important" people in both parties, being murdered in prison while the cameras were conveniently turned off.

We have a remarkably corrupt political class who've agreed to turn a blind eye to each other's corruption so long as a certain decorum is observed. Don't have bags of cash fall out of the ceiling during press conferences, or keep stacks of bills in your office fridge.

It's been going on for so long you're starting to think it's perfectly normal that politicians' relatives magically get well paying jobs that don't require any real work. That drug addicted ne're-do-wells pull down six figure incomes in industries they know nothing about.

You're actually starting to rationalize that the politicians aren't doing anything in return for this. You're getting used to government by kleptocrats!
 

This is silly conspiracy theory. Politicians get investigated and sentenced all the time. But selective prosecution is political entrenchment of the worst kind and a clear abuse of official power.
 

For example, a sheriff who sat on the side of the road he knows his ex wife's new lover travels to work and watches and ignored dozens of speeders and then seeing the lover speed by pulls him is doing something rotten. The politician (or chief law enforcement official if you will) who singles out a political rival in the same way is doing the same thing. Abuse of power.
 

"Politicians get investigated and sentenced all the time. "

I covered that. The conspiracy only protects you if you're reasonably discrete about it. That's why the politicians you see being prosecuted are insanely clumsy about it, like William "Freezer cash" Jefferson. You take stacks of bills where people are watching, you're going down. Your drug addict son who's going to amount to nothing gets millions of dollars for a no work board position in an industry he knows nothing about, in a country whose language he doesn't speak, and an opportunity to rake some off the top while somebody is laundering money? That gets a pass, because it's sort of vaguely deniable. Until your party shines a spotlight on it by picking Ukraine as the basis for an impeachment investigation.

"For example, a sheriff who sat on the side of the road he knows his ex wife's new lover travels to work and watches and ignored dozens of speeders and then seeing the lover speed by pulls him is doing something rotten."

You seem to think that's what I'm advocating, when what I'm advocating is that the sheriff STOPS ignoring speeding by everybody in the town who's "important".

Selective prosecution is why things like the Biden Burisama connection DON'T get prosecuted. We're in a regime of selective prosecution RIGHT NOW, and you've gotten used to it, and have started thinking the crimes happening all around you aren't really crimes, just because they don't get prosecuted if a politician commits them.

You've gotten jaded, can't even recognize corruption right in front of you.
 

Toad: here we're not talking about a software startup, but major money for major capital expenditure.

How do you think the Industrial revolution occurred?

Why would you assume that, given an entrenched player, it would necessarily appeal to investors to provide capital to a new entrant?

What?

Let's say you wanted to create a steel company back in the day. You pitch your project to multiple investors until you gained the necessary capital, regardless of the existence of the "monopoly" US Steel."
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W: Politicians get investigated and sentenced all the time.

Compare these with all of the politicians who become millionaires while in "public service." Actual criminal prosecution and conviction is the exception to the corrupt rule.

But selective prosecution is political entrenchment of the worst kind and a clear abuse of official power. For example, a sheriff who sat on the side of the road he knows his ex wife's new lover travels to work and watches and ignored dozens of speeders and then seeing the lover speed by pulls him is doing something rotten. The politician (or chief law enforcement official if you will) who singles out a political rival in the same way is doing the same thing. Abuse of power.

Once again, exercise of law enforcement power is legitimate when there is evidence of a crime.

If the lover was speeding, law enforcement is well within its power to cite him.

"Everyone else was speeding, why did you cite me?" is not a legal defense.

"You can't cite me because I am your ex-wife's lover and this is an abuse of power" will get laughed out of court.

Law enforcement turns into spying and harassment when there is no evidence the target is committing a crime. This is when groups like ACLU win injunctions against law enforcement.

Telling that you vigorously defend the latter (the Obama administration spy and dirty tricks operation against Trump), but flog the former (the evidence-free Democrat allegation Trump demanded Ukraine investigate the Bidens).For someone who claims to vote third party more than anyone else here, you sure act like a Democrat partisan.
 

Brett's comments are not only not analogous to what's going on right now, they seem naively oblivious. Ukraine is awash with corruption, much of that involves international enterprises many of which have Americans on their boards. Yet he and his flunkies repeatedly single out his chief political rival. This isn't rectifying past selective enforcement, it's selective enforcement. And it's worse in a way that an actual libertarian should realize is key: it's also political entrenchment.
 

I think Brett is right that too many powerful people escape prosecution. But I also think his point is a distraction from this discussion for some very obvious reasons:

1. Trump is the most corrupt president ever, yet his DOJ is running cover for him and the OLC says he can't be prosecuted. Brett's point has never been more applicable, yet Brett has spent months here denying each and all of Trump's crimes.

2. The diplomats in Ukraine were trying to get that country to do exactly what Brett proposes: stop turning a blind eye to corruption. That was Obama policy before and it was continued policy among the diplomatic corps afterwards.

3. Trump was not and is not seeking a generalized crackdown on corruption, let the chips fall where they may. As Sondlund's testimony laid clear, it's doubtful Trump even wanted an actual investigation (and see point 4); he wanted the *announcement* of an investigation. For the publicity. To benefit him personally by corrupting the US 2020 election (while perhaps paying off a debt to Putin along the way). And using public money to do bribe/extort a helpless ally in order to accomplish all this.

4. Not that it matters for purposes of impeachment in light of #3, but the Burisma/Biden issue actually *has* been investigated and there's nothing there. Trump has, for whatever reason -- bribery, obsequiousness, treason, one of his various mental deficiencies -- claimed to believe a Russian black ops fabrication that is now and always has been pure fiction. He doesn't want to "investigate" the facts, he wants to invent them.
 

Also, what MW said.
 

"Compare these with all of the politicians who become millionaires while in "public service."

There are perfectly good, non-criminal reasons why successful politicians often become wealthy. First, economically powerful and successful people like to surround themselves with people that are powerful and successful in other areas (this happens with sports players/coaches, military brass, academic stars), and networking is proven to be key in making money. Secondly, people with a high general intelligence often do well in a variety of areas.

Of course many politicians become wealthy in shady ways, but crimes have to be proven against the powerful just like they do against the less so, and it's harder to do so for the powerful, and that itself explains a lot of non-successful prosecutions. There's no conspiracy needed to explain things here.

"If the lover was speeding, law enforcement is well within its power to cite him."

It is not a legitimate reason for law enforcement to target someone for that reason. There you have it folks, ostensible libertarian Bircher Bart thinks it is fine and dandy for a cop to specifically target someone *because* they are sleeping with their ex-wife. There's really no greater abuse of a government official's power than selective use of it for personal gain, and yet he's ok with it. This, as much as his general partisan erosion of character and intelligence, lies at the heart of his defense of Trump. It's that pathetic folks.

"Telling that you vigorously defend the latter (the Obama administration spy and dirty tricks operation against Trump), but flog the former (the evidence-free Democrat allegation Trump demanded Ukraine investigate the Bidens)."

Propagandists believe in repeating the big lies, regardless of how refuted they are. Those opposed to propaganda must be willing to continue the refutations. There is no evidence of an Obama 'spy and dirty tricks' campaign against Trump. If it were such a thing why would Obama's law enforcement agencies have kept the investigation and evidence so secret during the election (all the while allowing leaks and against protocol press statements about Trump's rival's concurrent nothingburger email investigation)? Additionally, it's a known fact that Trump surrounded his campaign with known foreign agents, many of whom had working ties to the Kremlin and its supporters. That alone would have justified an investigation into those agents.
 

"Brett's point has never been more applicable, yet Brett has spent months here denying each and all of Trump's crimes."

Indeed, it's amazing to watch Brett's double think.

Let's stipulate Bircher Bart's statement of the facts of the Burisma case made at the beginning of the thread. J. Biden is given control of Ukraine policy, H. Biden is hired by Burisma, J. Biden pressures Ukraine to fire prosecutor investigating Burisma.

Well, if you use the *same reasoning* that Brett applies to the Trump case, all you can say is that 'there's impropriety there if you want to find it because you don't like J. Biden.' I mean, just as Trump *could* have been singling out Biden in pushing the Ukrainians but also *could* have just been worried about cleaning up a case of corruption involving Americans, Biden also *could* have been going after the prosecutor for reasons having nothing to do with its investigation of Burisma.

Not only does Brett not seem to recognize the same principle can justly be invoked here, he seems to use his violation of it in the second case (his presumption of Biden's guilt) as the basis for his following it in the first (his presumption of Trump's innocence)!

So here's what Trump's defenders here have to offer: 1. Bircher Bart: it's fine and dandy for government officials to use government power to selectively target people for personal gain as long as there's some evidence the people they target did something wrong and 2. Bircher Brett: I can't assume Trump did anything wrong because I assume Biden, his target did, and that that motivates Trump.

It's pretty sad all the way around. This is the best the GOP has to offer (well, that and whining about how something much more generous than a grand jury to do analogous work is 'unfair!!!')?
 

I'd like to note, I think there is a defense to be made for Trump. Were I a republican interested in defending Trump in this instance I would make this case:

Trump is a political newcomer and didn't realize the impropriety of singling out a political opponent, added to this he was mis-informed/badly advised in a way that downplayed general corruption in Ukraine and played up a possible case of corruption involving his political rival and so he did a naive, dumb thing in the phone call. His flunkies who were pushing the dumb thing more extensively are largely to blame but can be explained by their zeal to defend their boss/president. The President is deserving of criticism for his handling of the affair, he should clean some house and be on his p's and q's more, but he doesn't deserve impeachment, because that will be divisive to the country and such.

That's what someone with some intellectual and moral integrity would say. Not 'well, it's fine for government officials to selectively go after people they don't like for personal gain reasons as long as they're bad guys, which I will assume they are using logic I won't apply to the government official in question if I like them!'
 

BD: "Compare these with all of the politicians who become millionaires while in "public service."

Mr. W: There are perfectly good, non-criminal reasons why successful politicians often become wealthy.

Sometimes legal, never good.

People buy influence by paying politicians absurd amounts to speak or pay members of their family for little to no work..

Additionally, people buy lavish travel, lodging and dining for politicians either directly on "investigatory trips" or indirectly through donations to "foundations," which buy lavish travel, lodging and dining for politicians on "foundation" business. Money is fungible. Cash the politician is not spending while enjoying the lavish travel, lodging and dining goes into their pockets.

Another scam is the politician ghost writes a book and the people seeking influence buy large lots of the book.

Then there are the less legal means of buying influence like tips and other assistance to make equity and land investments.

The swamp is wide and deep.

BD: "Telling that you vigorously defend the latter (the Obama administration spy and dirty tricks operation against Trump), but flog the former (the evidence-free Democrat allegation Trump demanded Ukraine investigate the Bidens)."

Mr. W: If it were such a thing why would Obama's law enforcement agencies have kept the investigation and evidence so secret during the election (all the while allowing leaks and against protocol press statements about Trump's rival's concurrent nothingburger email investigation)?

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are hardly going to publicize their spying against a political opponent and this gang has fought tooth and nail every attempt by Congress and FOIA to obtain evidence of the spying.

As for evidence, the Obama administration never found any proof Trump was a Russian agent or committed any crime.
 

Mr. W: I'd like to note, I think there is a defense to be made for Trump. Were I a republican interested in defending Trump in this instance I would make this case: Trump is a political newcomer and didn't realize the impropriety of singling out a political opponent...

When there is no evidence of an allegation, the defense should NEVER admit to it.

Instead, the defense should hammer the false allegation to cast doubt on the veracity of other allegations where the prosecution does have evidence. If the Democrats lied about X, why should the jury believe Y and Z?
 

"When there is no evidence of an allegation"

The evidence of the allegation 'Trump has singled out his chief political rival for calls for investigation' are demonstrable.
 

"J. Biden is given control of Ukraine policy, H. Biden is hired by Burisma, J. Biden pressures Ukraine to fire prosecutor investigating Burisma."

I know you said this for the sake of argument, but I think it should be stated expressly: each and every statement here is false. The whole Trump defense is predicated on lies.
 

"The evidence of the allegation 'Trump has singled out his chief political rival for calls for investigation' are demonstrable."

Indeed, they are admitted.
 

"People buy influence by paying politicians absurd amounts to speak"

The most famous examples of this are, of course, *after* the politician has left office. That's totally explainable by the fact that people are interested in what the (formerly) powerful have to say. No conspiracy theory needed.

"the Obama administration never found any proof Trump was a Russian agent or committed any crime"

This is totally irrelevant as to whether they should have investigated the many members of the Trump campaign/admnistration that were, subsequently, convicted of being agents and crimes.

In fact, it's too their credit that they never leaked stories suggesting Trump himself was the target of the investigation. Unlike Trump himself, they seem to have been acting with a great deal of integrity. In the true 'every accusation is a confession' of deranged partisans, Bircher Bart is obsessed with this case but not the current one where much less apparent integrity can be seen.
 

"Yet he and his flunkies repeatedly single out his chief political rival."

Look, point out the evidence of somebody on the Republican side being part of this gravy train, and being ignored, and you've got something.

But my point here is that, while it would be GOOD if Republicans policed Republicans, and Democrats policed Democrats, as a matter of human nature, it's stupid to rely on it. Democracies work best when you're relying on political interest and the right thing lining up, not being diametrically opposed.

Count on Republicans to police Democrats, and visa versa. If you're not going to allow THAT, you're not allowing policing at all.
 

"each and every statement here is false"

Yes, I haven't looked into the matter much, but it's likely that the facts that form the premise for Bircher type conspiracies are ultimately false and misleading. That's how they work. As you recognize, my point is that even accepting them arguendo you can't get where they want to go.
 

BD: "When there is no evidence of an allegation"

Mr. W: The evidence of the allegation 'Trump has singled out his chief political rival for calls for investigation' are demonstrable.

Stop repeating this lie.

I asked you yet again upthread to note "the witness who can testify when, where and to whom Trump or one of his agents made this demand and what was said," you again failed to do so because none exist.
 

"point out the evidence of somebody on the Republican side being part of this gravy train, and being ignored, and you've got something."


That's as silly as saying 'well, if you can point out that some of the Sheriff's friends/relatives were speeding as well as the ex-wife's lover, then you've got something.' If the Sheriff passed over all the other speeders and then pulled *just* his ex-wife's lover then that stinks to high heaven (and does whether he was speeding or not of course).

"Count on Republicans to police Democrats, and visa versa."

This ignores the political entrenchment angle.

Let's say Libertarians actually were a threat to Republicans. According to Brett the Republicans are ok to and *should* use their position of power to kneecap Libertarian opponents until they are no longer seen as a threat to them. That seems fair and right to him. That's his defense of Trump's actions.
 

""J. Biden is given control of Ukraine policy, H. Biden is hired by Burisma, J. Biden pressures Ukraine to fire prosecutor investigating Burisma."

I know you said this for the sake of argument, but I think it should be stated expressly: each and every statement here is false."

What color is the sky in your universe? All three of those statements are public record.

 

"That's as silly as saying 'well, if you can point out that some of the Sheriff's friends/relatives were speeding as well as the ex-wife's lover, then you've got something.'"

Yes, it's exactly as "silly" as demanding that, if you're going to assert selective prosecution, you need to demonstrate that it was selective. I'm asking you to establish the existence of the other speeders who supposedly got passed over. Rather than just assuming they exist.

"Let's say Libertarians actually were a threat to Republicans. According to Brett the Republicans are ok to and *should* use their position of power to kneecap Libertarian opponents until they are no longer seen as a threat to them. That seems fair and right to him. That's his defense of Trump's actions."

I am, in fact, fine with Libertarians being prosecuted where actual crimes can be identified. The Libertarian party's problems never stemmed from its candidates being prosecuted for this or that, let alone fraudulently. It stemmed from the rules being altered to disadvantage third parties, like replacing the League of Women Voters as the debate sponsor when they had the nerve to decide our candidate qualified for the debate. Or requiring us to run expensive ballot access campaigns to get on the ballot, while the major parties got on the ballot by filing a form, and even that requirement would be waived if they forgot to file it.
 

"you need to demonstrate that it was selective"

UKRAINE IS AWASH WITH CORRUPTION. MUCH OF IT INVOLVES MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS WITH AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT. TRUMP AND HIS FLUNKIES ONLY FOCUSED ON THE BIDENS.

I hate putting it in all caps, but sheesh, repeating oneself and pointing out the obvious over and over is actually less boorish.

"I am, in fact, fine with Libertarians being prosecuted"

Selectively? Because and when they were seen as a threat to the party in power?
 

Mr. W: UKRAINE IS AWASH WITH CORRUPTION. MUCH OF IT INVOLVES MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS WITH AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT. TRUMP AND HIS FLUNKIES ONLY FOCUSED ON THE BIDENS. I hate putting it in all caps...

Repeating a lie in CAPS hardly makes it more credible.

Per the Trump transcript and Mike Mulvaney's public admission, the investigation the Trump administration asked Ukraine to assist on is the Justice Department criminal investigation of the Obama administration spy and dirty tricks campaign.

The investigation Ukraine apparently restarted targeted the Russian oligarch and his company Burisma. It is unknown whether Ukraine has cooperated with the Justice Department criminal investigation because this US Attorney is keeping a close lid on his investigation and not leaking like a sieve to the Democrat media like Mueller's merry band of Democrats.

There is ZERO evidence Trump asked for or Ukraine provided an investigation of the Bidens.

Stop lying. Its not a good look on a blawg.
 

""I am, in fact, fine with Libertarians being prosecuted"

Selectively? Because and when they were seen as a threat to the party in power?"

Again, the LP's problem was never its candidates being prosecuted, let alone selectively. The problem was laws being passed to disadvantage us, and private institutions being pressured to discriminate against us.

The League being replaced with a "Bipartisan" commission on Presidential debates, which changed the rules on us every time our candidate qualified. The media putting together a group to pool election night results, which had a policy of not counting third party votes. Being left out of polls and campaign coverage.

But most of all being forced to exhaust ourselves on ballot drives just to make the ballot, when the major parties got on automatically even if they forgot to comply with the nominal rules.

Heck, having our candidate falsely prosecuted would have been a coverage bonanza.
 

"laws being passed to disadvantage us, and private institutions being pressured to discriminate against us"

But officials using their power to enact investigations of LP candidates would not 'disadvantage or 'discriminate' against them?

Just Wow.
 

"There is ZERO evidence Trump asked for or Ukraine provided an investigation of the Bidens."

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/20/cuomo-rudy-giuliani-ukraine-biden-sot-cpt-vpx.cnn
 

"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html#
 

"Along those lines, I'd offer for why Clinton didn't warrant impeachment and Trump does a different sense of high and petty, that lying during a deposition, especially lying to avoid revealing a personal affair, is just not high in the sense of serious (I realize it's technically a felony, but we have lots of crimes absurdly classified as a felony). On the other hand using the office to induce a foreign power to engage in a political hit on a domestic opponent, thereby subverting our elections is about as serious as one can get (one could add leaving a declared ally desperately in need in the lurch for indefensible self-serving reasons, but as I've said plenty times here there's no need to even raise the 'quid pro quo' angle to find Trump's behavior impeachable)."

I missed this yesterday. I agree with your distinction. I think it's basically the distinction I'd make between "high" and "petty".
 

Thanks Mark. So you think 'high' and 'petty' should have less to do with historical ideas of state related and more to do with modern ideas of serious and not-serious?
 

"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it."

And to note again: Trump's statements here are *lies*. Biden, personally, didn't do anything. He was the messenger for Obama's policy. Biden didn't go to Ukraine to *stop* a prosecution, but to force out the corrupt prosecutor who refused to investigate Burisma.
 

"But officials using their power to enact investigations of LP candidates would not 'disadvantage or 'discriminate' against them?"

If our candidates were guilty, or even looked guilty until the trial, how would we have any valid complaint about their being prosecuted? And if our candidates were obviously innocent? You can't buy publicity like that.

You seem to keep avoiding a key point here, which is that Hunter Biden's job with Burisma stank on ice.

Which is why I wonder if making Ukraine the centerpiece of the impeachment push wasn't covertly a way to tank Biden's run for the nomination. They did him no favors by shining the spotlight there, and making proving Biden guilty Trump's best defense.
 

"Thanks Mark. So you think 'high' and 'petty' should have less to do with historical ideas of state related and more to do with modern ideas of serious and not-serious?"

Not from a textualist standpoint, no. But the 2 ideas are likely to be closely related and in your 2 examples I think they overlap. I've toyed with some other distinctions -- say, between common law crimes and statutory ones, or malum in se versus malum prohibitum* -- but I'd like to have a textual basis and I don't think these rest on one.

*Legal jargon meaning "wrong in itself" and "wrong because prohibited".
 

"If our candidates were guilty, or even looked guilty until the trial, how would we have any valid complaint about their being prosecuted?"

Uh, the *selective focus for personal gain*?

It's amazing our Birchers can't even grasp this fault.

In the words of the OP, they have no sense of fair play, like someone who is colorblind can't see certain colors.
 

The usual government official justification for abuse of power is 'well, that guy deserves it!'

Brett is prone to the most common government abuse of power. 'Libertarian' folks!
 

The complaint of selective prosecution has never much impressed me, unless coupled with evidence that the prosecution was not just selective, but objectively unjustified. If you're guilty as Hell, and the offense really is something that should be illegal, the injustice is the people NOT being prosecuted, not that you didn't skate, too.
 

Reference was made by someone who claimed to "slightly" like Democrats less than Republicans. This is someone who most of the time clearly shows disdain for one side, not both. The Republicans might not be an ideal "conservative/libertarian" party but this is akin to some sort of frozen food not being like fresh food. The basic category of food liked is apparent. The level of feeling is apparent. Some, if one had their druthers, ideal is duly noted. The "slightly" is not seen in years of experience.

It is also again quite different to be a 'conservative' and a 'libertarian' and this is not an expression of my personal support of the issues here. It is just that it is clear from multiple examples that the person has a range of conservative value choices. The support of Ted Cruz, a self-proclaimed conservative, over other options is but an example. The person supports Trump and what he promotes in a variety of ways. This might even be seen down to expressed respect that he has an attractive wife. Trump not being ideal in certain ways is noted. But, it is not like Trump is only a smidgen better than some other Dem or Republican either.

There is not a steady concern for government power. Concern for Trump being treated unfairly is more personally shown to be an issue repeatedly. Certain types of power, both federal and state, are acceptable to advance conservative ends. Which is fine in principle. It's just not really "libertarian."

Mark Field and Mr. W., who have very different political views to some extent, provide factual details on how Trump's wrongdoing is apparent and is selectively ignored by some. I cited Bill Clinton to show how both parties over the years have people who deserved some checks. I have seen it in my own state, both Democratic and Republican leaders were forced out or even prosecuted. A consistent concern here would apply to Trump. Not "Republicans." Trump is particular.

It is noted by Mr. W. that something used against Bill Clinton was bogus, but hey, Bill Clinton was still impeached. I don't think he should have though especially in the #MeToo Era, his actions very well deserved sanction. I say this as someone who liked his appointments to the Supreme Court. Likewise, a non-Democrat, as thankfully some (if not in Congress much at all) do, should see what Trump is doing is wrong.

On the merits, the two are different, but in a wider way there is a steady principle. A person who is not just on Team Trump should recognize this.
 

"If you're guilty as Hell, and the offense really is something that should be illegal, the injustice is the people NOT being prosecuted"

Brett joins those that can't even grasp why selective prosecution is wrong (or course, reversed, he'd be howling, principals though, not principles). This is Trump defenders, friends.
 

Possible defense: "Trump is a political newcomer and didn't realize the impropriety of singling out a political opponent"

This goes against Trump's basic belief of his special abilities and if they have to do a lot of gymnastics of the sex of a dog, I see it as a tough sell for the party leader.

It also is a bit weak given his long term practices. The impeachment counts should (see, e.g., Michelle Goldberg's recent column) be careful to spell this out. See, e.g., Rep. Schiff pointing out the Mueller Report matters show a pattern. One that on a big picture level goes back over his whole career on some level.

Trump shows signs of knowing legal right and wrong here too (the whole "no notes!" thing in the Mueller Report is a sign here). He was elected for a higher purpose though (see evangelicals) and thinks certain rules shouldn't apply to him. Anyway, at some point, not knowing what is right and wrong should still lead to consequences.

I think given who we are dealing with here the best approach would be to run out the clock and harp on how he was elected (as if that is an absolute rule above and beyond anything else), tossing in that the election is coming up. Of course, taint the other side and probably treat the whole process as a sham. On some level, though it is worthy of disgust, their clown show tactics have pragmatic value.

If the facts and law are not on your side, bang the table.
 

I do think, at least for a few Republicans in Congress, mixing in a bit more of "yes, what he did was not ideal ... just not impeachment level" would make sense. That sort of thing seems reasonable on some level to people. But, Republicans these days are "ALL IN!." So, I guess it's hard for most of them.

Long term, I wonder about that. But, who am I to offer the party strategy?


 

"Brett joins those that can't even grasp why selective prosecution is wrong"

No, I'm quite clear on it: If the thing you're being prosecuted for is a legitimate crime, selective prosecution is wrong because of the people who weren't prosecuted.

This is, of course, distinguishing "selective" from "fraudulent" prosecution. If you're prosecuting somebody you have no basis for thinking guilty, just to mess with them, that's wrong, period. But if it's a real offense, and you have reason to think them guilty, the wrong in selective prosecution is the people you didn't prosecute.
 

Brett, your position would be more persuasive if we lived in a world in which prosecutors actually had the resources to prosecute all the guilty. They don't, which makes the risk of selective prosecution much greater.
 

Even in the absence of sufficient resources to prosecute every apparently guilty party, assuming nobody gets prosecuted who wouldn't be prosecuted given unlimited resources, it isn't the people who do get prosecuted who are subject to injustice. It is the people who aren't.

Suppose you've got 50 potential Republican defendants, and 50 potential Democratic defendants, and only resources to prosecute 50 total. If you only prosecute the Democrats, your wrong is that you didn't prosecute those 50 Republicans. Because, we're assuming everybody who DID get prosecuted was a legitimate prosecution, the only injustice is the criminals who were allowed to skate.

Sure, you could complain that it should have been 25-25, not 50-0, but none of the 50 themselves have been wronged. But, fine, only prosecuting the Democrats would be an offense in itself, though not against the guilty parties being prosecuted. Against the public's interest in impartial justice.

So, to make what Trump is accused of here a real offense, you need to either,

1) Establish that a fair system with unlimited resources wouldn't have investigated the Biden Burisma connection. Kind of hard to do, it stinks big time.

or

2) Establish that there were other American political figures involved in Ukraine who should have been investigated, but weren't. I mean, besides Kerry, of course, I doubt you're complaining about him not being investigated. Establish that there were Republicans dirty with Burisma money.

I'm waiting on a list.
 

BD: "There is ZERO evidence Trump asked for or Ukraine provided an investigation of the Bidens."

Mr. W: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/20/cuomo-rudy-giuliani-ukraine-biden-sot-cpt-vpx.cnn

There is still ZERO evidence Trump asked for or Ukraine provided an investigation of the Bidens.

Giuliani was telling CNN he requested Ukraine investigate the Obama administration spy and dirty tricks operation, confirming what Malarkey told the press concerning what the administration was requesting.

Giuliani then told CNN he asked Ukraine to look into the prosecutor Joe Biden forced the country to appoint. Seeing an opening, Cuomo than followed up with, “So, you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?” and Giuliani responded, “Of course I did.” Giuliani immediately clarified on CNN and in subsequent statements that Biden was only involved in context of the prosecutor.

We already knew this from the transcript of the Trump/Zelensky second call. Zelensky's comments on pages 3-4 of the call transcript suggest Giuliani had previously spoke with a Zelensky aide about Ukraine's intent concerning the corrupt prosecutor Biden forced Ukraine to appoint and reopening an investigation into "the company," which is certainly Bursima. Neither Trump or Zelensky mentioned the Bidens.

As I noted several days ago, it appears Ukraine did indeed replace the prosecutor Biden forced the country to appoint and reopened the investigation of Burisma, allegedly producing a written "suspicion," the term Ukraine uses for indictment. There is no evidence Ukraine targeted the Bidens.
 

Nobody's going to bother to respond no matter how long you "wait" because you've set up the issue fraudulently.

If prosecutors lack the resources to prosecute all the guilty, then every selective prosecution means that a guilty person skates. But wait, you say: that will be true for any prosecution at all. Not really. A system of selective prosecution means that those in on the game will understand what they can get away with, while those who aren't, won't. If Republicans understand that a prosecutor will never prosecute them, then they can act with impunity.* Democrats will be faced with a choice of switching parties or trusting to luck. And the problem is worse if the "selection" process involves immutable characteristics such as skin color or ethnicity or religion (not technically immutable, but pragmatically so).

Plus, of course, the entirely innocent victims suffer as well.

In these circumstances, the only fair -- to get back to the OP's mention of fairness -- is to prosecute impartially (essentially, randomly among the guilty). That will lead to less crime in the long run, rather than more, and will avoid corruption of the process.

*This is in fact the R view: the law must protect certain people while not binding them, and must bind the rest without protecting them.
 

Nobody's going to respond with a list of Republicans who should be investigated, too, because the complaint isn't selective investigations, so you don't feel the need to prove the investigation "selective".

Your complaint is that Biden potentially being your nominee should have placed him beyond the reach of the law. You just don't want to baldly state it that way.
 

There is some selective prosecution discussion going on here but it was also alleged in a basic way that Trump himself is selectively being targeted.

But, he's not. It has been noted that it is not that Democrats just went after in this fashion against "Republicans." This was so even when Nancy Pelosi was their leader in the House. It isn't that only Republicans deserve restraint. I have pointed out how in state and federal cases it wasn't one way.

Basic fairness and rule of law principles are being followed. As to Ukraine, which yet again is not some stand alone instance of Trump behavior in any fashion, it has be noted how political opponents are being arbitrarily targeted. It is not like there is some evidence of some neutral effort to fight corruption that can only be done so much with limited resources. Mr. W. has covered this regularly by now.

There actually have been over the years some real attempt by multiple administrations of different political parties to target corruption, including by bringing prosecutions. I'm somewhat reassured by how many people (both locally and nationally) have been penalized and checked to some degree.

But, there is a lot of evidence of selective political targeting here for illegitimate means. Someone (I speak totally theoretically) who isn't just biased to one side would see that the impeachment of Trump would be an important precedent of a wider war against corruption, including given the specific constitutional provisions and interests some conservatives (and there are some) and liberals honor.
 

It's amazing that Brett, an ostensible libertarian who says he thinks most politicians are bad because they're self serving, can't, and I mean cannot, see that the problem with the reality and examples in this thread is the *self aggrandizement* of government officials. Or, he can, when he wants to. So it's plainly bad to him that Biden (supposedly) used his position to tilt things in his favor, but it's plainly not bad for Trump to do the same. Any injustice, he says, is that there might be other Bidens, perhaps Republican ones, that don't get focused on. The plain and obvious political entrenchment of the government official *doesn't even register* for this 'libertarian.'

This is why so many people think libertarians are bullsh*tters.
 

"There is still ZERO evidence Trump asked for or Ukraine provided an investigation of the Bidens."

"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it."

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

Mark, I think our Birchers, being hopeless partisans, cannot imagine anything like a professional class that tries (no one is perfect) to adhere to objective, impartial professional norms. That's foreign to them, everything they do and think all day and night is partisan warfare, so certainly everyone else does this, right? This is where the 'deep state' and the 'mainstream media' and 'left wing academic bias' memes come from for them. Anything that doesn't exactly reflect their own extreme biases must then be biased itself. It's all a massive projection, or mirrored inversion.

I remember living in areas and voting for representatives (senators) that were conservative Republicans but who had some sense of intellectual and moral integrity (Danforth and Warner). That's pretty much gone now.The GOP has become a party of conspiracy theory extremists.
 

Mr. W: "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it."

You continue to bang your head against the barrel.

Trump was responding to Zelensky pledging to replace the prosecutor and reopen the Burisma investigation.

Trump made no request for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens nor did Ukraine do so.

Mark, I think our Birchers, being hopeless partisans, cannot imagine anything like a professional class that tries (no one is perfect) to adhere to objective, impartial professional norms.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, whether those exercising power are certified "professionals" or not. No credential can confer honor. Honor is something a person gives him or herself through integrity of act and speech.
 

"Trump made no request for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens"

"so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it."

We have always been at war with Oceania! Lol.
 

"Honor is something a person gives him or herself through integrity of act and speech."

This from a person who stated explicitly they'd support someone who they knew murdered someone.

Parody is dead.
 

""Trump made no request for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens""

“So, you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?” and Giuliani responded, “Of course I did.”


 

Mr. W:

"so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

Referring back to his opening request Ukraine cooperate with Justice concerning the Obama administration operation. Justice was not investigating the Bidens.

Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."

Referring back to the prosecutor and the Bursima investigation Zelensky raised. There is nothing Ukraine can investigate concerning Biden's holding aid hostage to coerce Ukraine into changing prosecutors that Old Joe had not already bragged about in public.

If you haven't noticed over the past three years, Trump rambles.

I doubt Zelensky was able to follow very well through a translator, which is why he appears to be sticking to a script.
 

Mr. W:

Sometimes the honorable thing to do is to ensure the most evil alternative does not occur.
 

I see a few familiar names so far that signed this letter to Congress from Legal Scholars supporting impeachment including Sandy Levinson:

https://medium.com/@legalscholarsonimpeachment/letter-to-congress-from-legal-scholars-6c18b5b6d116