Fact check: Trump falsely claims whistleblower rules changed just before Ukraine complaint

[Jack Hays]

So did the author of that piece, repeatedly, shamelessly, while complaining about "lies" by Schiff.



That was of course my point with the quote from Maguire.

And you've already posted the piece by Kessler. It was no more meaningful or useful the first time than it is now, which is not at all meaningful. As you said, the facts speak for themselves at this point.

No, I most certainly did not say the facts speak for themselves. The entire debate is the interpretation of those facts.

 

[JasperL]

No, I most certainly did not say the facts speak for themselves. The entire debate is the interpretation of those facts.

Yes, of course. I didn't imply any specific but unstated conclusion there. I can't even agree with you without you objecting..... :roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, of course. I didn't imply any specific but unstated conclusion there. I can't even agree with you without you objecting..... :roll:

Fair enough. My apologies.

 

[dixon01767]

Dems would say the discrepancy is just the rules being changed and not the statue. :roll: Which would be like applying for college tuition credits on your federal tax return even though you didn't pay for college tuition in the tax year...The rules, the regulations qualify someone for being able to apply any statue.

That part, "relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity" wasn't changed. They just ignore the fact that the matter has absolutely nothing to do with an Intelligence activity.

 

[Jack Hays]

'Whistleblower'? Probably Not
Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

 

[JasperL]

'Whistleblower'? Probably Not
Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

Wherein Matt Taibi invents his own definition of "whistleblower," finds this person wanting.... :roll:

Apparently if the person does it legally, and isn't persecuted, he's not a 'real' whistleblower.

 

[Jack Hays]

Wherein Matt Taibi invents his own definition of "whistleblower," finds this person wanting.... :roll:

Apparently if the person does it legally, and isn't persecuted, he's not a 'real' whistleblower.

What struck me most was the take by Bob Baer, an old friend.

BAER: That’s what I find remarkable, is that this whistleblower knew about that, this attempt to cover up. This is a couple of people. It isn’t just one.
BALDWIN: And on the people point, if the allegation is true, Bob, what does it say that White House officials, lawyers, wanted to cover it up?
BAER: You know, my guess, it’s a palace coup against Trump. And who knows what else they know at this point.

 

[JasperL]

What struck me most was the take by Bob Baer, an old friend.

BAER: That’s what I find remarkable, is that this whistleblower knew about that, this attempt to cover up. This is a couple of people. It isn’t just one.
BALDWIN: And on the people point, if the allegation is true, Bob, what does it say that White House officials, lawyers, wanted to cover it up?
BAER: You know, my guess, it’s a palace coup against Trump. And who knows what else they know at this point.

OK.

If the man is unfit for office, then is that a problem? And if what "they know" is true, it demonstrates an unfitness for office, and they reveal it, how is that not whistleblowing?

Taibbi's premise appears to be the "coup" as Baer called it is illegitimate, so therefore not 'real' whistleblowing, and that's a value judgment.

 

[Jack Hays]

OK.

If the man is unfit for office, then is that a problem? And if what "they know" is true, it demonstrates an unfitness for office, and they reveal it, how is that not whistleblowing?

Taibbi's premise appears to be the "coup" as Baer called it is illegitimate, so therefore not 'real' whistleblowing, and that's a value judgment.

"Unfit for office" is an election issue, not an impeachment issue.
Value judgments are indeed at the center of this issue.

 

[JasperL]

"Unfit for office" is an election issue, not an impeachment issue.
Value judgments are indeed at the center of this issue.

It is, or can be, both an election and an impeachment issue.

Impeachment and removal is the ultimate determination of "unfit for office." It really isn't as I see it a "did something wrong" thing but "cannot be ALLOWED to continue in office" thing. That's "unfit for office" sufficient that waiting on an election to possibly remove cannot be tolerated.

From what I've read, this is a good summary of what the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant at the founding:

The Original Meaning of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Part I

For purposes of understanding the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, however, those details are perhaps less important than the broad observation that impeachment specifically for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” – and frequently employing that very phrase – was a familiar political practice under the English constitution with a broad range of meaning marked by 400 years of experience and practice. [1]

Over the years, the English Parliament had developed and deployed the power of impeachment in its historic struggles to check the powers of the King and his ministers. The House of Commons had impeached and brought before the House of Lords for trial officers of the crown, including ministers and judges, that they believed had violated the constitution or laws; subverted the rights of Parliament or the system of government; abused or misused power; failed to perform the duties of office faithfully and competently; engaged in self-dealing behavior or misuse of funds; or were guilty of oppression, corruption, or other misbehavior or “mal-administration.”

Those last categories are no more or less than determining the office holder is unfit for that job, and should therefore be removed. From the same source quoting Blackstone:

Significantly, wrongs punishable by impeachment are discussed distinctly in Chapter 9, entitled “Of Misprisions and Contempts, affecting the King and Government.” There, Blackstone employed the term “high misdemeanors” in a specialized sense. The “first and principal” illustration of “high misdemeanors,” Blackstone wrote, is “the mal-administration of such high officers, as are in public trust and employment. This is usually punished by the method of parliamentary impeachment.”

Mal-administration.... I.e. just unable or unwilling to do the job.

 

[justabubba]

"Unfit for office" is an election issue, not an impeachment issue.
Value judgments are indeed at the center of this issue.

The Constitution that I have read deems this to be an impeachment issue

 

[Jack Hays]

It is, or can be, both an election and an impeachment issue.

Impeachment and removal is the ultimate determination of "unfit for office." It really isn't as I see it a "did something wrong" thing but "cannot be ALLOWED to continue in office" thing. That's "unfit for office" sufficient that waiting on an election to possibly remove cannot be tolerated.

From what I've read, this is a good summary of what the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant at the founding:

The Original Meaning of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Part I



Those last categories are no more or less than determining the office holder is unfit for that job, and should therefore be removed. From the same source quoting Blackstone:



Mal-administration.... I.e. just unable or unwilling to do the job.

I personally think that impeaching on the "unfit" basis without a specific crime to which to point would only harm the country by injecting a massive dose of poison into our politics.

 

[Jack Hays]

The Constitution that I have read deems this to be an impeachment issue

Really? Care to quote?

 

[dixon01767]

I personally think that impeaching on the "unfit" basis without a specific crime to which to point would only harm the country by injecting a massive dose of poison into our politics.

Nah. Just highlights the poison that the democrats constantly inject into our politics. And I would prefer that they get on with impeachment as opposed to instead talking about impeachment from now until the next election. They could do the vote tomorrow in the house, they have the votes now.

 

[justabubba]

Really? Care to quote?

Article 2 Section 4
I recommend it to you

 

[JasperL]

I personally think that impeaching on the "unfit" basis without a specific crime to which to point would only harm the country by injecting a massive dose of poison into our politics.

I don't think it's about a specific "crime" though. It is about specific wrongdoings, which may or may not be crimes. What would clearly be abuse of power might or might not be criminal. Selectively directing DoJ to targeting political enemies, and refusing to prosecute political allies, might be totally within a President's legal prerogatives, for example, but it's a violation of trust, abuse of power, and is IMO clearly, and obviously, impeachable. So would directing, say, the Pentagon to reward campaign donors with contracts, and deny contracts to those who supported the opposition.

And even with crimes, it's still ultimately a decision about unfit for office. Clinton committed a crime - lied under oath. Whether that's impeachable in that circumstance is about whether he can be trusted to execute the duties of President. That's subjective. Is he unfit for office.

Bottom line is the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" at the drafting was not intended to include ONLY violations of the criminal statutes, and I see no reason logically or historically to limit impeachment to that.

The only credible argument I've seen in favor of "crimes" as a baseline is essentially that the office holder must have sufficient notice - what behavior can be impeachable. It can't be differences of opinion, policy - like this latest Syria decision. POTUS is elected to make exactly those decisions no matter how much some might disagree. But e.g. using DoJ to target political enemies and protect friends is pretty obviously an abuse of power. That is plenty of notice, and there need not be a "crime" just a failure to "faithfully execute the Office of President."

 

[Jack Hays]

Article 2 Section 4
I recommend it to you

Sorry, but "unfit for office" is not mentioned.

 

[Jack Hays]

I don't think it's about a specific "crime" though. It is about specific wrongdoings, which may or may not be crimes. What would clearly be abuse of power might or might not be criminal. Selectively directing DoJ to targeting political enemies, and refusing to prosecute political allies, might be totally within a President's legal prerogatives, for example, but it's a violation of trust, abuse of power, and is IMO clearly, and obviously, impeachable. So would directing, say, the Pentagon to reward campaign donors with contracts, and deny contracts to those who supported the opposition.

And even with crimes, it's still ultimately a decision about unfit for office. Clinton committed a crime - lied under oath. Whether that's impeachable in that circumstance is about whether he can be trusted to execute the duties of President. That's subjective. Is he unfit for office.

Bottom line is the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" at the drafting was not intended to include ONLY violations of the criminal statutes, and I see no reason logically or historically to limit impeachment to that.

The only credible argument I've seen in favor of "crimes" as a baseline is essentially that the office holder must have sufficient notice - what behavior can be impeachable. It can't be differences of opinion, policy - like this latest Syria decision. POTUS is elected to make exactly those decisions no matter how much some might disagree. But e.g. using DoJ to target political enemies and protect friends is pretty obviously an abuse of power. That is plenty of notice, and there need not be a "crime" just a failure to "faithfully execute the Office of President."

Sorry, but the actions listed in your first paragraph have been done or attempted by quite a few previous presidents. Perhaps most.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I personally think that impeaching on the "unfit" basis without a specific crime to which to point would only harm the country by injecting a massive dose of poison into our politics.

Unintentional irony GOLD!

What's doing harm to our politics, the country and its institutions is the fact that he's unfit for the office and still remains in it. He's already injected massive doses of poison into them, over and over again.

 

[Jack Hays]

[/b]

Unintentional irony GOLD!

What's doing harm to our politics, the country and its institutions is the fact that he's unfit for the office and still remains in it. He's already injected massive doses of poison into them, over and over again.

Yes, Trump is harmful and destructive. The way to get rid of him is to beat him in an election. A removal by impeachment would create the American equivalent of the German dolchstosslegende and be just as harmful.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Yes, Trump is harmful and destructive. The way to get rid of him is to beat him in an election. A removal by impeachment would create the American equivalent of the German dolchstosslegende and be just as harmful.

No, it wouldn't even remotely be the equivalent of that. He's committing crimes using office and its powers while in office. Impeachment was intended for these exact conditions/situations. Waiting around to cut out a cancer is a dumb idea.

The only people who would give any creedence to that actually being a dolchstosslegende would be his MAGA death-cult true believers. And they can choke on that poison all they'd like.

 

[JasperL]

Sorry, but the actions listed in your first paragraph have been done or attempted by quite a few previous presidents. Perhaps most.

Fine, if you don't want to discuss principles, but specific examples that are in fact subjective determinations of what acts are or are not impeachable, I can't have a conversation about that. Bottom line is there is no basis other than your subjective preferences to draw a line at "crimes" or nothing.

FWIW, here's Articles of Impeachment, Article 2 for Nixon: Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

2. He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

That's the rough equivalent of my example, that you say isn't impeachable because everyone does it, which means it's ok so long as they don't get caught I guess...:roll:

 

[JasperL]

Yes, Trump is harmful and destructive. The way to get rid of him is to beat him in an election. A removal by impeachment would create the American equivalent of the German dolchstosslegende and be just as harmful.

If he is in fact harmful and destructive, based on what principle is that not grounds for impeachment? There cannot be an obligation to allow a "harmful and destructive" president to remain in office until the next election. If there is, what's the point of impeachment? It cannot be to only punish criminal acts or the founders would have so limited its use.

Take it out of the case of POTUS, say for judges. What if a judge is found incompetent, shows up late and drunk on a daily basis, makes arbitrary/capricious rulings, is frequently overruled because decisions are not grounded in the law. None of that is illegal, per se, but it's obviously impeachable conduct because he's not doing the job of being a federal judge. It's no different for POTUS.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, it wouldn't even remotely be the equivalent of that. He's committing crimes using office and its powers while in office. Impeachment was intended for these exact conditions/situations. Waiting around to cut out a cancer is a dumb idea.

The only people who would give any creedence to that actually being a dolchstosslegende would be his MAGA death-cult true believers. And they can choke on that poison all they'd like.

The question is whether a crime or crimes was/were committed.

 

[Jack Hays]

Fine, if you don't want to discuss principles, but specific examples that are in fact subjective determinations of what acts are or are not impeachable, I can't have a conversation about that. Bottom line is there is no basis other than your subjective preferences to draw a line at "crimes" or nothing.

FWIW, here's Articles of Impeachment, Article 2 for Nixon: Watergate Articles Of Impeachment



That's the rough equivalent of my example, that you say isn't impeachable because everyone does it, which means it's ok so long as they don't get caught I guess...:roll:

Meh. I've seen nothing alleged about Trump that rises (or sinks) to the level of Nixon's misdeeds.