SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49800181
(Note: emphasis in original.)
Why is this important?
Mr Trump's most ardent critics accuse him of using the powers of the presidency to bully Ukraine into digging up damaging information on a political rival, Democrat Joe Biden.
Meanwhile, Mr Trump and his supporters the former vice-president abused his power to pressure Ukraine to back away from a criminal investigation that could implicate his son, Hunter.
Mr Biden is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination to take on Mr Trump next year.
In other words, it is nothing less than the White House at stake.
[...] What happened to the whistleblower's complaint?
After receiving the [whistleblower] complaint, the inspector general informed Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, and said the matter was "urgent". The intelligence community whistleblower law says the director has seven days to pass the complaint along to congressional intelligence committees.
That didn't happen.
Instead, Mr Maguire spoke to a lawyer who told him the issue was not "urgent", at least according to legal standards, according to [T]he New York Times.
As a result, Mr Maguire decided that the members of the congressional oversight committees did not need to see it.
On 9 September, the inspector general informed Congress about the complaint's existence, but not the details. Democrats in Congress have since clamoured for more information - including a transcript of Mr Trump's call - but the administration has refused to co-operate.
And that's where things currently stand.
[...] Did Mr Trump commit an impeachable offence?
The constitutional process for handling a president who committed illegal and-or unethical acts is impeachment by a majority of the House of Representatives and conviction and removal by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate.
The US constitution outlines the grounds for impeachment as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". When it comes down to it, an "impeachable offense" is whatever a majority of the House says it is.
Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Letters to Congressional Intelligence Committees
(Score: 5, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday September 24 2019, @01:24PM (11 children)
Not flamethrower, I hope, but the way I see it:
1. Biden is a political rival. Any such requests for investigation should be handled through normal channels. It is not normal for a President to get into the details of a specific investigation. Even if the allegations are true (by the way, something alleged and not proven by any legal authority), is this affair really such a national priority that the President of the United States needs to make it a point in a call to the President of Ukraine? Is it really that serious? Or should Trump have not left that to the State Department to clearly communicate to both give himself arm's length separation on a political rival and the appropriate use of influence to what the problem is?
1A. What did Biden do that was unlawful? Unethical, yes if it actually happened that way. But unlawful?
2. Trump benefits politically directly from any positive fruits such an investigation entails and loses nothing if nothing comes of it. It takes no brainpower at all to realize that Trump benefits from this as surely as he does when he himself, government workers, or the G8 would stay at a resort he has failed to divest himself of.
3. Trump therefore used the Presidency to benefit himself politically. Not the country. Not his children. Himself. That's impeachable even if this was the first time he's used the Presidency for himself and not the country - but it isn't. This, all by itself, goes well past what they had on Nixon.
As to the Mueller report: What Mueller hinted at, in the broadest terms possible, is that Trump did in fact obstruct the investigation of himself and thus obstructed justice. Regardless of his guilt or innocence on the issue at hand, he willingly did what he could to quash that investigation. Only Mueller felt that he could not prosecute a sitting President for that. Why? Because that's why we have impeachment.
And lest we forget: 8 Americans, 25 Russians (including 12 intelligence officers), three Russian companies, and two others have been charged with various crimes as a result of Mueller. (and if this number is wrong please correct - I didn't fact check the site I got those from). But this includes guilty pleas from his campaign manager, his campaign manager's chief aide, and his personal lawyer. Those are the sorts of people Trump surrounds himself with and feels like they should take care of his political and personal affairs. And the story did indeed involve Ukraine and people connected to Trump previously (Gates). And the Presidency is actually far more about the people he gets to do the jobs than himself, only we've been quite effectively blinded to that. What do his personnel choices say about him as a manager? (And we haven't even gotten to asking that in the case of Omarosa Manigault Newman...)
Trump has literally said that even though he isn't guilty of taking foreign political help to become President, *he would do so anyway*, and believes that is legal. It is exactly equivalent to saying, "I didn't murder anyone but if I pulled out a gun and did it that would be OK anyway." That is virually a paraphrase of something Trump actually said, as well. And this is the person who is OK to judge if his own actions are corrupt? Really?
I do agree with you that I would rather not see Biden as President. I do not want a gun-grabber as President. But it's still not enough to dissuade me from, "Anyone But Trump." Just my .02.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 24 2019, @01:52PM (10 children)
Gun grabber? You make very good and reasoned arguments and statements and you end with "gun grabber"? Under what makeup of the Government can you make any reasonable argument that any guns are going to be grabbed? You'd need a democrat in the whitehouse, and well over 60 democrats in the senate, and even then, you'd need 60 far liberal democrats at that as a bluedog democrat would never support a position like that. So let's say that SOMEHOW all of that happens (because that democrat president would have had to win a general election on a "gun grabbing" platform, which would never happen), the NRA has spent decades redefining the second amendment to be about personal ownership of firearms, so anything that a president and/or congress ever passed to "grab guns" would never pass the courts anyway.
It astounds me how people so easily get scared into the "THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!" histrionics that LaPierre has been spouting for decades. That chicken little routine still scares people and I can't understand why.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday September 24 2019, @02:56PM (7 children)
History is a good guide here. It's not like we don't have half a century of bad gun control law, some backed by Biden, to look at.
Just because someone hasn't been able to crack down on a right, doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned about their capabilities in the future, particularly, if they're running for US President which greatly increases their ability to do such crackdowns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 24 2019, @04:11PM (6 children)
But that's the problem, ever since the NRA turned itself into a congressional lobbying corporation they (LaPierre specifically) cry the same "they're coming for you!!!!!" because it seems to be a good fund raiser. History is a great guide and it tells you that it never happens, so if you want to go with history, look there, not to the shrill cries. The blood is never even cleaned up after a mass shooting and they're out with "they're going to use this as an excuse to TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!" and there's a run on assault weapons, in particular. When their membership drops, "they're coming for your guns!" When they need to purchase a $6M house, "they're going to kick in your doors and take your guns!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 24 2019, @07:43PM (4 children)
They are coming for them. Right now the idea is Red Flag laws -- laws which turn due process on its ear and require people to prove before elected judges that they aren't a danger after someone with an axe to grind rats them out. Good fucking luck. It's pretty crazy how Democrats are willing gut the 1A (*), 4A, 5A, 6A, and 8A at least, just to wage a culture war.
And yeah, blah blah blah, 40k dead (2/3 suicides though) and no useful purpose right? Well potable alcohol kills 88k per year and lets be honest, it has no useful purpose at all. It might be fun (like guns), but it can't hunt nor can it defend you (Obama's CDC research found hundreds of thousands to millions of defensive gun uses per year (most involve no shooting)). They're all calling for alcohol prohibition right (**)? Of course not, alcohol is part of their culture so its safe, despite being far more dangerous and deadly than guns are, and despite the fact that there is no constitutional right to drink (just mere silence on the topic).
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm [cdc.gov]
* file sharing
** Because that never had worse unintended consequences now did it? /sarc
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @12:22AM (3 children)
I guess you need a reminder that Trump literally said to take their guns and worry about due process later. You idiots prop up the very nightmare you lose sleep over.
Sorry, shouldn't call you idiots. Informationally challenged.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday September 25 2019, @01:23AM (2 children)
You seem under the misimpression I like Trump. I do feel sympathy for him based on the unrelenting unprecedented level of hate spewed at him by the media, but let us not forget, he was originally a NY Democrat. It is thus unsurprising he has a warped view of the 2A or 5A.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @07:33PM (1 child)
You spew propaganda and try to mitigate. Trump is a criminal and a traitor, so having any sympathy for him makes you not look good to put it mildly. Sorry reality has you so turned around, drop your political filters and wake up.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday September 26 2019, @07:08PM
The problem with Dems today is that they can't respect honest differences of opinion. When you treat everyone with derision, and browbeat or bully to get your way, you remove the only peaceful means of resolving differences available to us (compromise) and set us up for more than a war of words in the future. Terribly short sighted.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:18AM
A great counterexample to that was the Washington, DC ban on handguns from 1975 or 1976 which was one of the crises that created the present political focus of the NRA.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday September 24 2019, @05:31PM
Is Beto O'Rourke still a running candidate for President? [huffpost.com] Then there you are.
Until the last three years I would have soundly agreed with you that it was all Chicken Little. And I really do not object to some of the ideas suggested as common sense measures to address gun violence, just as there are some that I don't feel are common sense or would solve it (but that is a debate for another day). I thought the previous "assault weapons ban" came dangerously close to that. But for things to reach a point where a viable Presidential candidate is openly advocating confiscation or mandatory buyback? Well, the epithet is deserved and every candidate can declare themselves to which side they now stand on because one has certainly drawn his line in the sand. I don't worry about what's happening next November nearly as much as where we will be five years from now.
But I could be wrong.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @05:10PM
That's some crazy-ass logic there. I don't believe that Biden is actually a gun-grabber, but if he was it doesn't matter what the makeup of the government is, he would still be a gun-grabber. The makeup of the government would only affect his ability to actually grab guns, and as anyone with more brain cells than you have would know, that can easily change in a 4 year term.