House Intelligence Committee Draft Impeachment Report

Digressions

Sophomore
Feb 9, 2017
748
667
93
It probably is, I agree. But your side is playing games. Your side is summed up by people like Rudy arguing the President cannot commit a crime. The IG looked at the whistleblower, the AG told the IG to pound sand because it is impossible for the President to commit a crime in foreign affairs. I do not believe Durham is doing what I suggest, but the lack of professionalism by everyone will make that charge happen.

If Obama had called up a foreign leader and said, "hey, can you announce an investigation into Trump" you would have been aplopletic.

An IG found real issues with Fast and Furious, and rightfully so. Imagine your reaction if moments after that was released an investigator hired by Holder released a statement blasting the IG report. I sure bet you would not thought that person an honest broker.
I thought Horowitz was the honest broker? Wasn't his report supposed to be damning? At least the guys on Fox news, GOP strategist, and Republican lawmakers said it was.

I'm trying to have empathy. I'm trying to figure out what drives ordinary people to abandon logic, to abandon reason, and to ignore obvious truths- no matter how it is presented to them.

You were just accused of wearing a tin foil hat, by a man that has spent the last couple days screaming, "RESISTENCE!" " You seem to be very triggered by the idea that certain public officials are under investigation for exceeding their authority and manipulating the legal process in an effort to further the RESISTANCE!" Now, that's just great, until you remember that the FBI publicly announced opening an investigation into Clinton's emails just prior to the election, all while sitting on the fact that the Trump campaign was under investigation for Russian conspiracy efforts. If not for the FBI, there wouldn't be a President Trump.

Now back to the empathy. The only thing I can think of that ordinary people are gaining from acting in this irrational manner, is that they don't have to admit a mistake. Can anyone add to that? Am I missing something?
 
Last edited:

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,142
1,764
113
CoH was extremely critical of Attorney General Eric Holder.

Would appreciate a CoH assessment of Barr.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,176
6,127
113
It's interesting that you've said that you have no intention of reading the IG report and yet you still feel qualified to speak to what it says and offer analysis.
John Turley wrote a thorough review of it. I trust his analysis. I like his Titanic analogy. He also cleared up the threshold question about the investigation predicate.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,176
6,127
113
It probably is, I agree. But your side is playing games. Your side is summed up by people like Rudy arguing the President cannot commit a crime. The IG looked at the whistleblower, the AG told the IG to pound sand because it is impossible for the President to commit a crime in foreign affairs. I do not believe Durham is doing what I suggest, but the lack of professionalism by everyone will make that charge happen.

If Obama had called up a foreign leader and said, "hey, can you announce an investigation into Trump" you would have been aplopletic.

An IG found real issues with Fast and Furious, and rightfully so. Imagine your reaction if moments after that was released an investigator hired by Holder released a statement blasting the IG report. I sure bet you would not thought that person an honest broker.
Nobody has argued that POTUS cannot commit a crime. The argument is that POTUS can’t be prosecuted and he must be impeached and removed before a prosecution can occur. This argument has some traction among legal scholars.

I don’t recall Barr saying anything about the intelligence IG. Maybe you can provide a link.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,176
6,127
113
CoH was extremely critical of Attorney General Eric Holder.

Would appreciate a CoH assessment of Barr.
I think Holder committed misconduct at least three specific times:

1. He told USA’s to follow their conscience when litigating DOMA cases. Public attorneys don’t have the luxury of following their conscience. They represent the will of the people.

2. He directly solicited dirt on George Zimmerman, a private citizen. Any dirt digging is to be done by cops, not prosecutors.

3. He honored POTUS’s requests in exercising prosecutorial discretion. That is forbidden. General government officials don’t get to determine prosecutions. That’s how the third world does it.

if Barr took similar action, I’d be similarly critical.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,176
6,127
113
I thought Horowitz was the honest broker? Wasn't his report supposed to be damning? At least the guys on Fox news, GOP strategist, and Republican lawmakers said it was.

I'm trying to have empathy. I'm trying to figure out what drives ordinary people to abandon logic, to abandon reason, and to ignore obvious truths- no matter how it is presented to them.

You were just accused of wearing a tin foil hat, by a man that has spent the last couple days screaming, "RESISTENCE!" " You seem to be very triggered by the idea that certain public officials are under investigation for exceeding their authority and manipulating the legal process in an effort to further the RESISTANCE!" Now, that's just great, until you remember that the FBI publicly announced opening an investigation into Clinton's emails just prior to the election, all while sitting on the fact that the Trump campaign was under investigation for Russian conspiracy efforts. If not for the FBI, there wouldn't be a President Trump.

Now back to the empathy. The only thing I can think of that ordinary people are gaining from acting in this irrational manner, is that they don't have to admit a mistake. Can anyone add to that? Am I missing something?
The Horowitz report is damning. We should all be concerned that the FBI was led by idiots, starting with Comey. Comey’s infamous Clinton screw up is just one part of the problem.
 

hoosboot

Hall of Famer
Nov 7, 2001
13,361
3,468
113
The Horowitz report is damning. We should all be concerned that the FBI was led by idiots, starting with Comey. Comey’s infamous Clinton screw up is just one part of the problem.
That's interesting. Your analysis of the report you haven't read fails you as the report doesn't in the least implicate FBI leadership in wrongdoing. What do you and Turley know that the IG doesn't?
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,142
1,764
113
I think Holder committed misconduct at least three specific times:

1. He told USA’s to follow their conscience when litigating DOMA cases. Public attorneys don’t have the luxury of following their conscience. They represent the will of the people.

2. He directly solicited dirt on George Zimmerman, a private citizen. Any dirt digging is to be done by cops, not prosecutors.

3. He honored POTUS’s requests in exercising prosecutorial discretion. That is forbidden. General government officials don’t get to determine prosecutions. That’s how the third world does it.

if Barr took similar action, I’d be similarly critical.
This response would be like asking someone to be critical of public statements
made by Jimmy Cater and Donald Trump to a person not fond of Trump.

The response being...

Trump made at least three distasteful public remarks.

1. There was blood coming out of her whatever.

2. Grab them by the pu__y.

3. Some, I assume, are good people.

Jimmy Carter never made public distasteful remarks such as this.
 

Rockfish1

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
36,245
6,768
113
I know Rockfish has been extremely critical of CoH's posts in the past. I would appreciate his assessment of CoH's latest response to Hoot.
CO. Hoosier posts in bad faith, and I have no interest in following him down his rabbit trails. Let me know if there's anything in particular you want to talk about.
 

ButHerEmails

Junior
Sep 28, 2019
1,035
1,007
113
This response would be like asking someone to be critical of public statements
made by Jimmy Cater and Donald Trump to a person not fond of Trump.

The response being...

Trump made at least three distasteful public remarks.

1. There was blood coming out of her whatever.

2. Grab them by the pu__y.

3. Some, I assume, are good people.

Jimmy Carter never made public distasteful remarks such as this.
You’d get the same three examples from someone who supports Trump, only said with pride.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,176
6,127
113
This response would be like asking someone to be critical of public statements
made by Jimmy Cater and Donald Trump to a person not fond of Trump.

The response being...

Trump made at least three distasteful public remarks.

1. There was blood coming out of her whatever.

2. Grab them by the pu__y.

3. Some, I assume, are good people.

Jimmy Carter never made public distasteful remarks such as this.
I don’t agree. Lawyering is a licensed occupation with rules of professional conduct. Being POTUS does not require a license and there is no code of conduct.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,176
6,127
113
You don't think people like Ike would disagree with that do you?
I don’t think he would disagree. Ike had strong personal professional values and lived by a self-imposed code of conduct. That is a lot different from attorneys’ licensing requirements and code of responsibility.
 

meridian

Hall of Famer
Jul 3, 2001
16,953
2,285
113
Seattle
I think Holder committed misconduct at least three specific times:

1. He told USA’s to follow their conscience when litigating DOMA cases. Public attorneys don’t have the luxury of following their conscience. They represent the will of the people.

2. He directly solicited dirt on George Zimmerman, a private citizen. Any dirt digging is to be done by cops, not prosecutors.

3. He honored POTUS’s requests in exercising prosecutorial discretion. That is forbidden. General government officials don’t get to determine prosecutions. That’s how the third world does it.

if Barr took similar action, I’d be similarly critical.
I doubt it.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
27,026
10,085
113
I don’t think he would disagree. Ike had strong personal professional values and lived by a self-imposed code of conduct. That is a lot different from attorneys’ licensing requirements and code of responsibility.
Actually I believe One and others have realized that as POTUS they lose their individual selves. As POTUS they felt a certain obligation to the office. Do you think Trump understands that concept at all?

There is no legal requirement, until Trump it has been more a moral imperative.
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,142
1,764
113
I don’t agree. Lawyering is a licensed occupation with rules of professional conduct. Being POTUS does not require a license and there is no code of conduct.
CoH, think you summed up the Trump philosophy correctly by stating a POTUS has no code of conduct which he is required to follow.

Consequently traditions and codes of conduct established since George Washington don't apply.

I would argue the body politic has a general idea about whether a candidate fits the mold and traditional demeanor of a POTUS and votes accordingly. Ike fit this mold. So although there isn't a written code of conduct, the electorate has a general perception concerning whether a potential president can conduct himself in what they perceive as being "presidential".

Then if a candidate passes the electorate test of character befitting of a president and is elected, it is up to Congress with its impeachment power to rid us of a rotten apple. A rotten apple being one who is found guilty by Congress of high crimes or misdemeanors.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, without a written code of conduct the Congress has considerable latitude in determining what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.

Even more unfortunate given today's state of affairs, high crimes and misdemeanors are seen mostly through the eyes of which party a Congess person belongs. The exception to this being if and when the body politic has a strong majority wanting to remove a candidate. A strong majority doesn't appear to exist.

So in conclusion we have a president who thinks he can do anything he wants, a divided Congress, and a body politic without a clear majority that wants to send our president back to his gold tower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,176
6,127
113
CoH, think you summed up the Trump philosophy correctly by stating a POTUS has no code of conduct which he is required to follow.

Consequently traditions and codes of conduct established since George Washington don't apply.

I would argue the body politic has a general idea about whether a candidate fits the mold and traditional demeanor of a POTUS and votes accordingly. Ike fit this mold. So although there isn't a written code of conduct, the electorate has a general perception concerning whether a potential president can conduct himself in what they perceive as being "presidential".

Then if a candidate passes the electorate test of character befitting of a president and is elected, it is up to Congress with its impeachment power to rid us of a rotten apple. A rotten apple being one who is found guilty by Congress of high crimes or misdemeanors.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, without a written code of conduct the Congress has considerable latitude in determining what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.

Even more unfortunate given today's state of affairs, high crimes and misdemeanors are seen mostly through the eyes of which party a Congess person belongs. The exception to this being if and when the body politic has a strong majority wanting to remove a candidate. A strong majority doesn't appear to exist.

So in conclusion we have a president who thinks he can do anything he wants, a divided Congress, and a body politic without a clear majority that wants to send our president back to his gold tower.
I disagree with almost all of this, hoot.

First of all, I don’t agree Trump operates from a philosophy about what’s presidential. He is spontaneous, impulsive, and transactional in most things he says and does.

Second, I agree that Trump is largely unconstrained in what he says and says what he wants without much forethought. But he definitely doesn’t feel like he can do whatever he wants. Ukraine is an obvious example. I think he would have loved to have used military aid as leverage in a number of ways, but in the end, he couldn’t and didn’t. He speaks often (as did his predecessors) of not being to take desired actions because of inherent constraints.

No question Trump is highly unorthodox. I think his unorthodoxy worked to our and Europe’s benefit with his blunt confrontation with our NATO partners and their failure to live up to their commitments. Orthodoxy allowed NATO to become a bloated bureaucracy that we paid for.

Speaking of orthodoxy, look at what we have learned about Afghanistan in last few days. The mess there, including the lies and deceit, is a result of too many policy makers steeped in the beltway bubble. The beltway bubble is what defines orthodoxy.

There are many more examples where I think Trump’s highly unorthodox style has been a benefit. I agree it has come at a price. But I think he has set a tone that the beltway bubble, or swamp, should not establish normalcy. Beltway normalcy has costs too.
 

iu_a_att

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 20, 2001
7,868
2,111
113
CoH, think you summed up the Trump philosophy correctly by stating a POTUS has no code of conduct which he is required to follow.

Consequently traditions and codes of conduct established since George Washington don't apply.
You seemed to have thought that because CoH has taken positions in the past (e.g., with Holder) that it must certainly bind him to positions in the present (e.g., with Barr). That is clearly not the case.

You and CoH are engaged in different activities. You are trying to articulate principles that you believe should govern our behavior in the future. CoH is trying to articulate principles that justify past behavior which he approves. For you, the implications of principles for the future is a binding constraint on the principles you endorse today. This is not the case for CoH. Tomorrow, if there is behavior that he wants to endorse that is inconsistent with what he has said today it is not a problem. There are always other principles that can and will be invoked tomorrow. He need only latch onto some irrelevant difference between the current event and the future one to declare that the previous principle no longer applies. If there is a principle at work the principle is this: the law imposes duties but grants no rights to "them" and grants rights but imposes no duties on "us". It is antithetical to civil society, the rule of law and democracy.
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,142
1,764
113
I disagree with almost all of this, hoot.

First of all, I don’t agree Trump operates from a philosophy about what’s presidential. He is spontaneous, impulsive, and transactional in most things he says and does.

Second, I agree that Trump is largely unconstrained in what he says and says what he wants without much forethought. But he definitely doesn’t feel like he can do whatever he wants. Ukraine is an obvious example. I think he would have loved to have used military aid as leverage in a number of ways, but in the end, he couldn’t and didn’t. He speaks often (as did his predecessors) of not being to take desired actions because of inherent constraints.

No question Trump is highly unorthodox. I think his unorthodoxy worked to our and Europe’s benefit with his blunt confrontation with our NATO partners and their failure to live up to their commitments. Orthodoxy allowed NATO to become a bloated bureaucracy that we paid for.

Speaking of orthodoxy, look at what we have learned about Afghanistan in last few days. The mess there, including the lies and deceit, is a result of too many policy makers steeped in the beltway bubble. The beltway bubble is what defines orthodoxy.

There are many more examples where I think Trump’s highly unorthodox style has been a benefit. I agree it has come at a price. But I think he has set a tone that the beltway bubble, or swamp, should not establish normalcy. Beltway normalcy has costs too.

Actually, CoH, I don't think we disagree all that much.

I say Trump feels uncompelled to follow what you call "beltway normalcy". You say he is "impulsive", "highly unorthodox" and "largely unconstrained".

You say Trump's unorthodox style has benefits to the country. Where I draw the line is when his style is for his own benefit and contrary to the interests of the country.

Finally, I would argue that any president who continually violates beltway normalcy runs the risk of impeachment. Furthermore if that president refuses to cooperate with a Congressional inquiry into his conduct, then that president is subject to being accused of obstruction.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,176
6,127
113
You seemed to have thought that because CoH has taken positions in the past (e.g., with Holder) that it must certainly bind him to positions in the present (e.g., with Barr). That is clearly not the case.

You and CoH are engaged in different activities. You are trying to articulate principles that you believe should govern our behavior in the future. CoH is trying to articulate principles that justify past behavior which he approves. For you, the implications of principles for the future is a binding constraint on the principles you endorse today. This is not the case for CoH. Tomorrow, if there is behavior that he wants to endorse that is inconsistent with what he has said today it is not a problem. There are always other principles that can and will be invoked tomorrow. He need only latch onto some irrelevant difference between the current event and the future one to declare that the previous principle no longer applies. If there is a principle at work the principle is this: the law imposes duties but grants no rights to "them" and grants rights but imposes no duties on "us". It is antithetical to civil society, the rule of law and democracy.
Agree and disagree. I admit that I split hairs. I think that is a good way to think about issues. Finding and appreciating nuance is important. I also admit that this is how I justify opinions that might seem inconsistent to others. But I disagree with the idea that this is only situational. I strongly disagree with conservatives and the RR in a number of ways.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,176
6,127
113
Actually, CoH, I don't think we disagree all that much.

I say Trump feels uncompelled to follow what you call "beltway normalcy". You say he is "impulsive", "highly unorthodox" and "largely unconstrained".

You say Trump's unorthodox style has benefits to the country. Where I draw the line is when his style is for his own benefit and contrary to the interests of the country.

Finally, I would argue that any president who continually violates beltway normalcy runs the risk of impeachment. Furthermore if that president refuses to cooperate with a Congressional inquiry into his conduct, then that president is subject to being accused of obstruction.
The .branches of government are intended to obstruct each other. There are limits to that, but I don’t see any limits that apply to the article of impeachment about obstruction. Congress never exhausted its available remedies for the so-called obstruction.
 

Cream&Crimson

All-American
Apr 15, 2003
5,190
2,903
113
The .branches of government are intended to obstruct each other. There are limits to that, but I don’t see any limits that apply to the article of impeachment about obstruction. Congress never exhausted its available remedies for the so-called obstruction.
That's not true. Provide checks and balance, yes. Obstruction, no.
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,142
1,764
113
Alan Dershowitz takes the CoH approach below:

The .branches of government are intended to obstruct each other. There are limits to that, but I don’t see any limits that apply to the article of impeachment about obstruction. Congress never exhausted its available remedies for the so-called obstruction.
This link backs up C&C's position which I share.

That's not true. Provide checks and balance, yes. Obstruction, no.
 

iu_a_att

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 20, 2001
7,868
2,111
113
Actually, CoH, I don't think we disagree all that much.
I think you disagree a great deal. You think that we should adhere to norms and traditions (in addition to law). CoH disagrees--for now. In fact the actual practice of democracy and the rule of law depend upon adherence to norms and traditions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoot1

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
17,615
14,599
113
Second, I agree that Trump is largely unconstrained in what he says and says what he wants without much forethought. But he definitely doesn’t feel like he can do whatever he wants. Ukraine is an obvious example. I think he would have loved to have used military aid as leverage in a number of ways, but in the end, he couldn’t and didn’t.
Because he got fxcking caught.
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,142
1,764
113
I think you disagree a great deal. You think that we should adhere to norms and traditions (in addition to law). CoH disagrees--for now. In fact the actual practice of democracy and the rule of law depend upon adherence to norms and traditions.
Att, I thought my post outlined my disagreements with CoH pretty well (in addition to the areas that you pointed out above).

Heck, I even disagreed with CoH's observation indicating we were mostly in disagreement o_O.

By the way, I find the Cooler to be a much more interesting place when CoH participates..
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
27,026
10,085
113
By the way, I find the Cooler to be a much more interesting place when CoH participates.
I like CoH, and I am glad he is back. But sometimes I think he uses us to practice his "arguing for his client". I will confess to frustration if it seems someone is arguing to argue.
 

iu_a_att

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 20, 2001
7,868
2,111
113
I like CoH, and I am glad he is back. But sometimes I think he uses us to practice his "arguing for his client". I will confess to frustration if it seems someone is arguing to argue.
CoH reinforces my understanding that a great deal of lawyering is post hoc rationalizing for stuff you want. It makes me think we should dispense with attorneys entirely and just have people go before judges and simply ask for the crap they want. Similarly, judges could be relieved of doing anything besides deciding the question. Dispensing with legal argument by both attorneys and judges seems efficient because: (1) the rationalizations provided by attorneys don't and couldn't persuade anyone; and (2) the justifications provided by judges have no implications either for explaining their current choice nor for providing any clue about how they will judge in the future. I suspect that it is the desire by the board's legal eagles to avoid such an unfortunate development that explains their antipathy to CoH's approach. After all, that approach is really the destruction of the law.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
17,615
14,599
113
So what? If one of his advisors said “Mr. President, you can’t do that” and he doesn’t do it, I don’t see the problem. Isn’t that why POTUS has staff?
He was told that and he had OMB do it anyway. He only released the military aid once the hold became public.
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,142
1,764
113
So what? If one of his advisors said “Mr. President, you can’t do that” and he doesn’t do it, I don’t see the problem. Isn’t that why POTUS has staff?
Given that Trump will not allow members of his staff and their comuniques to be part of a Congressional inquiry how can it be determined it was an advisor who told Trump he "couldn't do it".
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid

IUclover

Sophomore
Nov 19, 2015
947
705
93
Given that Trump will not allow members of his staff and their comuniques to be part of a Congressional inquiry how can it be determined it was an advisor who told Trump he "couldn't do it".
According to House Republicans in the hearing tonight, they are not considered fact witnesses. I'm sure that guidance was delivered by the WH and supported by my fellow Coloradan, Co. Hoosier - If you read this Co. Hoosier, I know you have your positions but you repeat so much of their BS.

And as I type this, Republicans are LYING in the current impeachment hearings. Yes, they are lying.

No ethics and no integrity from the Republican representatives. This is pathetic. Republican elected officials rely on and repeat their personal "opinions" yet they claim opinion and hearsay. Their argument is opinion and hearsay. Why not argue Trump and, in the least, Rudy G. are in the wrong or at least recognize it?

Trump's corrupt and the Republican Party is corrupt. I can't believe so many people here that are likely nearly twice my age are potential IU graduates and are this ignorant. Godspeed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iu_a_att

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,176
6,127
113
Given that Trump will not allow members of his staff and their comuniques to be part of a Congressional inquiry how can it be determined it was an advisor who told Trump he "couldn't do it".
I don’t think why Trump didn’t extort a promise from Zelensky matters. It never happened. In the light most favorable to the Democrats, the evidence shows Trump wanted to extort a promise to investigate Biden and he even talked about it. But the extortion never happened. Nothing to see here.

Several Democrats are now on record that impeachment is proceeding because they don’t trust that the 2020 election will be honest. That is totally nuts on many different levels. Nobody in my memory has undercut an election 11 months before it happens. The real Putin stooges are Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi. The Democrats got nuthin. The Democrats are ending themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa