2020 Presidential Election

[elengil]

I'll add, if the DOJ feels that there was criminal or corrupt activities that occurred, they have the authority to open an investigation into those activities and the people involved. I notice that isn't what happened, nor what was being attempted, nor what anyone had even suggested. DOJ, FBI, no independent counsel assigned, not even a congressional committee thought that it was worth investigating.

So, based on the fact that the only hint of an investigation ever suggested was that of pressuring a foreign nation to publicly state that they were going to open an investigation, the only reason to continually bring up Biden (father or son) isn't about opening legitimate investigations, but about smearing a political opponent.

Meanwhile we have some children of a President being given high level clearances in government positions...

[RoseMorninStar]

Speaking of family members profiting off of the White House, one has to look no further than the Trump family. Trump never divested himself of his businesses as other presidents have and, as I believe is required by law. The Trump family is utilizing their political capital in lining their pockets and creating all sorts of nepotism havoc. There is no way Jared & Ivanka are qualified for the position & power they hold. Trumps doubled their annual fees for Mar-a-lago to $200,000. Rudy Guiliani's son makes $95,000 to be the 'sports liason for the White house '. Ivanka has gotten 16 patents in China she would not have likely gotten otherwise. There's a good article (which also discusses the Biden issue) in GQ.

[Cerin]

I wasn't addressing the issue of criminality. What I'm saying is that Biden protesting accusations of criminality would involve focusing attention on a situation that exposes his egregiously poor judgement, ethical lassitude and glaring hypocrisy in allowing his son to take that board position, and further, I'm saying that I don't think he'd want to focus attention on these things, even in the cause of protesting accusations of criminality. And further, I think that's a good thing because I believe a Senate grilling would expose Biden's weak mental state in a most brutal and pitiful way.

[River]

Out of curiosity, what authority do you think Biden had to stop his adult, legally competent son from taking a job? AFAIK, the US government has no involvement in US citizens taking jobs for foreign companies. Generally speaking, when someone takes a job abroad, that's between the individual and the host country's immigration policies.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I moved some posts to Nan Elmoth.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think this article makes good points, particularly in light of Kellyanne Conway's recent op-ed in supporting Sanders, as well as Trump's own tweet supporting him

Bernie Is the Opponent Trump Wants

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[elengil]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/29/warren- ... nline.html

Warren proposed to combat disinformation by holding big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google responsible for spreading misinformation designed to suppress voters from turning out.

“I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote,” Warren said in a release.

I agree to a point - I think there needs to be very careful and very deliberate specific wording that would prevent people from being charged for frivolous things.

Like, I would support making it a crime to deliberately misdirect people to the wrong day, wrong location, or give wrong information for eligibility (as in, Voting in X county has been moved to Y location, and will happen on Z date) or (If you don't have X you can't vote in this election!) if that is not correct information that may mean people don't go or go to the wrong place or on the wrong day.

But there needs to be very careful wording.

[Faramond]

Elizabeth Warren reveals her character with the question she made Chief Justice John Roberts read in the impeachment trial:

“At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”

The answer, of course, is no. At least regarding the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court. The constitution gives Roberts very little power to actually do anything in the impeachment trial. He can't force the Republican senators to do anything, and if he did, he would be in violation of the Constitution and that would lead to a loss of legitimacy.

Surely Warren knows this. She knows the premise of her question is flawed and she made the Chief Justice ask it anyway. With her question she implied that Roberts is doing something wrong when he's not. She took advantage of Roberts's adherence to the rules in order to humiliate him and score points for herself in the Democratic primary. This is low.

If she had just stuck to a loss of legitimacy for the Constitution, or for the Senate, I might understand the point of her question. But to bring in the Chief Justice and Supreme Court like this is really bizarre and unwarranted. This seems like yet another ham-fisted attempt to score political points, much like her absurd reveal of having trace amounts of Native American DNA.

With her question Warren revealed how little character she has. And showed how poor her judgment is (again). I really hope she does not become the Democratic nominee.

[elengil]

Elizabeth Warren reveals her character with the question she made Chief Justice John Roberts read in the impeachment trial:

“At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”

The answer, of course, is no. At least regarding the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court. The constitution gives Roberts very little power to actually do anything in the impeachment trial. He can't force the Republican senators to do anything, and if he did, he would be in violation of the Constitution and that would lead to a loss of legitimacy.

I'm not sure where you're reading that into the Constitution, but here is the text:

6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

There is absolutely nothing in here that limits the Chief Justices power the way you are implying. There is so little said in the Constitution about impeachment and subsequent trial that almost nothing (barring the very specific details given) can violate the actual Constitution, only the Senate rules, and I don't know that they limit the CJ's power. From what I understand, previous CJs have chosen themselves not to wield any such power, and others have followed in those footsteps but not using a power you have is not the same as not legally having it.

I do find the question to be in bad taste, though. Many of the questions I have seen from both sides aren't so much questions as "answers in the form of a question" ala Jeopardy. They want to make a statement but can only ask a question, so they make question-like statements to make a point rather than to actually genuinely seek an answer.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The answer given by Adam Schiff, as I suspect Warren knew it would be, emphatically was that it did not reflect poorly on the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court, because he was doing a an exemplary job overseeing the trial. It was the rest of his answer that was the real point of the question.

[Faramond]

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

I did everything I could to emphasize that, because *that* is what limits the Chief Justice's power.

The Chief Justice may preside but he can't change the rules the Senate itself sets out for impeachment, because the Senate has the *sole* power to try the damn thing. He can't make them change their rules. He can't make them hear witnesses. All he can do is make them follow the rules *they* set out. And Warren knows this. Or she should.

[Faramond]

The answer given by Adam Schiff, as I suspect Warren knew it would be, emphatically was that it did not reflect poorly on the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court, because he was doing a an exemplary job overseeing the trial. It was the rest of his answer that was the real point of the question.

You think so???

I would like to believe that, given the real chance that Warren is our next president.

But trust me a lot of people on the internet ( I know, I know ) are taking the question as a legitimate attack on the Roberts and the court and they LOVE it. I think the question itself has ( to a small degree ) undermined the Supreme Court and Roberts, intended or not.

Even if she somehow meant to point out that Roberts was not at fault, that the Republican senators are ( and they are! ) I think she picked a really really poor way to do it.

Bravo to Schiff, in any case.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I actually do agree that the question was in bad taste, and if the point was to allow Schiff to make the point that he did about the example that the U.S. has always presented to the rest of the world and the damage that Trump's actions have done to that, it could have been done in a better way.

[Inanna]

Yes, she should definitely have left Justice Roberts out of it. Bad move.

[yovargas]

Without knowing or understanding the full context of any of this, I gotta agree that the "question" comes off as icky political grandstanding. Gross.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I saw a clip of Nancy Pelosi saying that Trump's lawyers should be disbarred which I thought was much worse. I was downright embarrassed by it.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And then there is Trump himself:

As his impeachment trial continued into the night, President Trump in Iowa attacked Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager from the House.

"Shifty Schiff is a very sick person,” the President told the crowd in Des Moines.

“He lies awake at night shifting and turning. Shifting,” Trump said, turning his arm in circles. “Shifting and turning in his bed, sweating like a dog.”

Trump then launched into a very animated impression of Schiff, crying, “‘How am I going to get him? How am I going to get him, he didn’t do anything wrong!’”

“Oh what a sick guy he is,” the President said to cheers and laughs from the crowd.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[River]

Well at least he's not faking an orgasm this time.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Without knowing or understanding the full context of any of this, I gotta agree that the "question" comes off as icky political grandstanding. Gross.

I now believe that the purpose of the question was to put pressure on Roberts to break a 50/50 tie to allow witnesses, which certainly he could do, but most don't believe he will do. At this point the vote is either 50-50 or 51-49, depending on what Lisa Murkowski does.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If I was right about that, it backfired spectacularly.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/31/poli ... index.html

I don't necessarily agree with Faramond that this "reveals her character" but it definitely showed a lack of judgment, similar in my mind to her failed attempt to address Trump's digs at her by releasing her DNA results. I actually am beginning to consider casting my vote in the California primary for Biden. I still think that Warren has the best-thought out plans for addressing the nations problems, but I do have some questions about her judgment. And, frankly, I think voting for Biden in the California primary may be the best thing I can do to lessen the possibility of Sanders becoming the nominee, which I continue to believe would be a disaster, both because I think that he ultimately would not be able to get past the "socialist" label and defeat Trump, and because I think he has repeatedly "revealed his character" in ways that lead me to believe that he would not make a good president, beginning with his bizarre rape fantasy writingswhen he was in his 30s (yes that was a long time ago, but it is not like he was not already a mature adult).