Do we have a right to see this thread get back on track? Not that we want to know anything about the trials and tribulations of you-know-who, mind you, until he's actually arrested for or convicted of something.
If I win the election, but don't have a right to hold office, then we've got a problem.
I find it hard to envisage a scenario where a person who is ineligible to hold an office is allowed to stand for election to it.
It happens. I’ve seen it happen, generally when it is learned that someone doesn’t actually live at the address they’ve claimed to live at.
Then they're not eligible for that office. You're playing with words now.
I’m not playing with words at all. You are misreading.
I never said they were eligible for the office. I said ineligible people had been allowed to run. My post was clearly responding to Gee D, who said “I find it hard to envisage a scenario where a person who is ineligible to hold an office is allowed to stand for election to it.” That’s what I said has happened—people who are ineligible being allowed to run for office.
It happened here in the last election. A week before the election, a complaint was filed with the county board of elections asserting that a candidate for a particular office didn’t actually live at the address he had given and didn’t reside in the district he was running in. The county board of elections could not take up the complaint until after the election, at which point it found that he indeed did not reside in the district and was ineligible. In between he won the election, which meant the winner was ineligible to take office and was disqualified.
Again, all I said was that it does happen that ineligible candidates are sometimes allowed to run when their ineligibility isn’t discovered until after they’ve filed to run.
To clarify on “rights,” I was responding to this statement:
If I am a citizen in good standing and meet all the requirements of the constitution, then, yes I have a right to hold a federal office. It is only a matter of having enough money and enough votes.
Note that “having enough votes” were not included among the things—citizenship and requirements of the Constitution—that were said to confer the claimed “right.” And note that many federal offices—judgeships and cabinet secretaries being primary examples—are appointed, not elected.
The requirements enumerated in the Constitution—generally citizenship and age—are requirements of qualification: a person meeting them is qualified to be considered for, elected/appointed to and sworn into the office in question. But that person had no “right” to hold that office simply because they are a citizen and old enough. Otherwise, most adult Americans have a “right” to be president or in Congress.
If they are eligible and they win the election, then yes they have that right. You're arguing against a straw man here.
Not at all. Again, you’re reacting to what you think I said instead of what I actually said. I’m saying the same thing you are.
You say if they’re eligible and are elected, they have the right to take office. I said, in the part of my post you omitted when you quoted me,
For elected office and generally speaking, only when a certificate of election has been issued by the appropriate authority can a person claim a right in any legal sense to that office for the specified term, and at that point they can only be removed from office through the procedures provided for removal.
(My emphasis.) So we agree that once an eligible person is elected, they have a right to office. Not sure where the straw man is.
But that’s not what Gramps49 said that I was responding to. He said:
If I am a citizen in good standing and meet all the requirements of the constitution, then, yes I have a right to hold a federal office. It is only a matter of having enough money and enough votes.
Meeting the constitutional requirements of citizenship, age and residency is not enough to say one has a right to “hold” a federal office. One has to be elected or appointed to that office, which his post seemed to relegate to something beyond the constitutional requirements conferring the right to hold office. (He has now clarified he believes meeting those requirements gives one the right to “stand” for office.)
So we agree that once an eligible person is elected, they have a right to office. Not sure where the straw man is.
In this: nobody ever said otherwise.
Including me. But someone did say, or so it very clearly seemed to me, that the right can exist without being elected, and that’s what I was disagreeing with.
Seriously, I can’t see where the outrage on this is coming from, but whatever.
If I win the election, but don't have a right to hold office, then we've got a problem.
I find it hard to envisage a scenario where a person who is ineligible to hold an office is allowed to stand for election to it.
It happens. I’ve seen it happen, generally when it is learned that someone doesn’t actually live at the address they’ve claimed to live at.
Is not the answer that when that error was picked up, their election was voided? And had the mistake been spotted before the election, their candidature would have been cancelled?
If I win the election, but don't have a right to hold office, then we've got a problem.
I find it hard to envisage a scenario where a person who is ineligible to hold an office is allowed to stand for election to it.
It happens. I’ve seen it happen, generally when it is learned that someone doesn’t actually live at the address they’ve claimed to live at.
Is not the answer that when that error was picked up, their election was voided? And had the mistake been spotted before the election, their candidature would have been cancelled?
Yes to both. But neither appropriate result changes what happened—that someone ineligible was allowed to stand/run. They were not knowingly allowed to do so, but they were nevertheless allowed to do so.
So we agree that once an eligible person is elected, they have a right to office. Not sure where the straw man is.
In this: nobody ever said otherwise.
Including me. But someone did say, or so it very clearly seemed to me, that the right can exist without being elected, and that’s what I was disagreeing with.
Seriously, I can’t see where the outrage on this is coming from, but whatever.
I find it hard to envisage a scenario where a person who is ineligible to hold an office is allowed to stand for election to it.
You may remember that questions were raised about the eligibility of particular individuals to hold the US presidency. (John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Lots of nonsense was said abut Barack Obama. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, to an American mother and a Cuban father. Nobody is entirely clear what the phase "natural born citizen" in the constitution actually means.
Oh, we're clear enough. It's those who don't want a particular person in the White House who raise stupid objections.
As I see it, I have a right to stand for any public office provided I meet the criteria for that office (as outlined in the constitution), I become eligible for that office if I go through the political process and get nominated.
Then you are using those words in ways that many people would not.
Yes to both. But neither appropriate result changes what happened—that someone ineligible was allowed to stand/run. They were not knowingly allowed to do so, but they were nevertheless allowed to do so.
As I see it, I have a right to stand for any public office provided I meet the criteria for that office (as outlined in the constitution), I become eligible for that office if I go through the political process and get nominated.
Then you are using those words in ways that many people would not.
Please look at my example of the Nineteenth Amendment. In the United States, women did not have the right to stand/run for office until they had the right to vote. Some states did allow women to vote before the 19th and those states had women who became elected officials.
Another example: I have the privilege of driving a car. It is not right.
I believe the common cliche is that it was Mussolini, not Hitler, who made the trains run on time.
Whether or not that was true, I suspect the reason it became such a popular pet-fact is that it played into stereotypes about Italians being disorganized.
As I recall the statement was ironic - the only train that ran on time was Il Duce's own, and that by clearing the tracks so the others were all delayed.
That may well be. But I don't think I've ever detected that as the meaning when I've heard the supposed fact mentioned.
There WAS irony to it, but more along the lines of "He made the trains run on time, so I guess we're supposed to forget about the fact that he was a fascist dictator."
As I see it, I have a right to stand for any public office provided I meet the criteria for that office (as outlined in the constitution), I become eligible for that office if I go through the political process and get nominated.
Then you are using those words in ways that many people would not.
Please look at my example of the Nineteenth Amendment. In the United States, women did not have the right to stand/run for office until they had the right to vote. Some states did allow women to vote before the 19th and those states had women who became elected officials.
Another example: I have the privilege of driving a car. It is not right.
There are 2 problems with your example of the Nineteenth Amendment. The first is that voting is not at all a pertinent example to holding, or standing for office. The second is that language use has changed considerably since 1878 and I am talking about how people use language today, not in the 19th century.
I note that the 19th Amendment copies the language of the 15th Amendment, at least.
EDIT: "Right to vote" also appears in the 14th. I'm not looking back further. The bigger problem is that taking that phrase and using it as evidence of how people talk about holding office doesn't really work.
Sigh. This is absolutely not worth pursuing further. I'm talking about language and you're responding with laws. I can think of several other responses but they are going to be a waste of time.
I believe the common cliche is that it was Mussolini, not Hitler, who made the trains run on time.
Whether or not that was true, I suspect the reason it became such a popular pet-fact is that it played into stereotypes about Italians being disorganized.
As I recall the statement was ironic - the only train that ran on time was Il Duce's own, and that by clearing the tracks so the others were all delayed.
That may well be. But I don't think I've ever detected that as the meaning when I've heard the supposed fact mentioned.
There WAS irony to it, but more along the lines of "He made the trains run on time, so I guess we're supposed to forget about the fact that he was a fascist dictator."
Going back to the ex-President no longer being at risk on two cases about profiting from his office, there's one thing that really puzzles me. How come that because he's left office, that is now 'moot' in the US sense of that word? If he did profit from office, isn't he still liable to repay to the exchequer the profits he made by his abuse? In which case, both whether he did and if so, by how much are not 'moot' in that sense.
Or am I missing something? If you misuse your office are you just told you've been a naughty boy, but get to keep the fruits? That seems indefensible.
I note the caution of using the word "asset" (which includes both conscious agents and unwitting dupes) instead of "agent" (meaning he consciously knew what he was doing).
I note the caution of using the word "asset" (which includes both conscious agents and unwitting dupes) instead of "agent" (meaning he consciously knew what he was doing).
I don't think that's caution so much as accuracy. Trump doesn't have the intelligence or skill to pull off being an actual agent of a foreign power without being caught long before getting near the Oval Office. That KGB (and later FSB) agents wound him up and let him go like a Night Goblin Fanatic into US public life is eminently plausible, bordering on likely.
Going back to the ex-President no longer being at risk on two cases about profiting from his office, there's one thing that really puzzles me. How come that because he's left office, that is now 'moot' in the US sense of that word? If he did profit from office, isn't he still liable to repay to the exchequer the profits he made by his abuse? In which case, both whether he did and if so, by how much are not 'moot' in that sense.
Or am I missing something? If you misuse your office are you just told you've been a naughty boy, but get to keep the fruits? That seems indefensible.
I think there's a difference between the question of what you can get impeached for (the argument being that impeachment is only a way of getting rid of you) and what you might get prosecuted for by the regular prosecutorial authorities.
Of course the evidence and standards of proof around an actual prosecution are different to whatever the Senate feels like caring about for an impeachment (the main piece of evidence the latter cares about is which party you're in).
Going back to the ex-President no longer being at risk on two cases about profiting from his office, there's one thing that really puzzles me. How come that because he's left office, that is now 'moot' in the US sense of that word? If he did profit from office, isn't he still liable to repay to the exchequer the profits he made by his abuse? In which case, both whether he did and if so, by how much are not 'moot' in that sense.
Or am I missing something? If you misuse your office are you just told you've been a naughty boy, but get to keep the fruits? That seems indefensible.
I think there's a difference between the question of what you can get impeached for (the argument being that impeachment is only a way of getting rid of you) and what you might get prosecuted for by the regular prosecutorial authorities.
Of course the evidence and standards of proof around an actual prosecution are different to whatever the Senate feels like caring about for an impeachment (the main piece of evidence the latter cares about is which party you're in).
Impeachment is more than just a way of getting rid of you. It is a way of disgracing you, first and foremost--of pointing out to you and the universe that would you did was Not Cool, and Not Okay. Human nature being what it is, even an acquittal after impeachment will not wipe that stain away, particularly when everyone knows the acquittal was motivated by party politics and not by the facts of the case.
The secondary value of impeachment lies in the ability of the Senate to stop you from ever holding public office again. We won't get there without a conviction, if I understand things correctly, which means we probably won't get there at all, given the craven cowardice of certain senators. But that is a second motivation for impeaching Trump, even though he is no longer in office. I believe there have been such cases before, when judges were tried though they were allready out of office.
Going back to the ex-President no longer being at risk on two cases about profiting from his office, there's one thing that really puzzles me. How come that because he's left office, that is now 'moot' in the US sense of that word? If he did profit from office, isn't he still liable to repay to the exchequer the profits he made by his abuse? In which case, both whether he did and if so, by how much are not 'moot' in that sense.
Or am I missing something? If you misuse your office are you just told you've been a naughty boy, but get to keep the fruits? That seems indefensible.
I think there's a difference between the question of what you can get impeached for (the argument being that impeachment is only a way of getting rid of you) and what you might get prosecuted for by the regular prosecutorial authorities.
Of course the evidence and standards of proof around an actual prosecution are different to whatever the Senate feels like caring about for an impeachment (the main piece of evidence the latter cares about is which party you're in).
Impeachment is more than just a way of getting rid of you. It is a way of disgracing you, first and foremost--of pointing out to you and the universe that would you did was Not Cool, and Not Okay. Human nature being what it is, even an acquittal after impeachment will not wipe that stain away, particularly when everyone knows the acquittal was motivated by party politics and not by the facts of the case.
The secondary value of impeachment lies in the ability of the Senate to stop you from ever holding public office again. We won't get there without a conviction, if I understand things correctly, which means we probably won't get there at all, given the craven cowardice of certain senators. But that is a second motivation for impeaching Trump, even though he is no longer in office. I believe there have been such cases before, when judges were tried though they were allready out of office.
I did say "the argument being", because it's exactly the argument that Republicans are making.
The KGB finally unleashed their ultimate plan - put a US president in place who would lower taxes and give weapons to Ukraine.
Yes, if Trump's foreign-policy was being dictated from Moscow, it would have been very different from what it was.
And defector testimony is always to be taken with a modicum of suspicion, especially in cases where it seems to line up so clearly with one side of a domestic partisan divide.
That said, Putin HAS openly stated that he favoured a Trump victory in 2016, and it's not hard to see why: DJT talked about withdrawing US troops from around the world, and brazenly insulted the USA's NATO allies. It's also possible that Trump was pushing anti-Russian policies somewhat against his will, while personally trying to include moves that also curried favour with Putin(eg. calling for the G8 to be expanded to include Russia.)
I'm also somewhat suspicious of the claim that Trump ran that ad in the NYT as a result of being fed "KGB talking points" on his then-recent trip to Russia.
As I recall from that era, the Soviet line, as mouthed by both their official spokesmen and by western sympathizers, was more left-wing and internationalistic in its rhetoric, "Can't we all hold hands and be friends" sort of thing. Unless they were using very different rhetoric in the US, I don't see that they'd be encouraging the kind of neo-isolationist rantings that Trump employed in that ad. That all strikes me as very much something that would come out of his own mind.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I think it's quite likely the Soviets would have been happy about that ad, or at least not particularly unhappy. But I don't think it was based on lines they had fed him.
So, 90% of Senate Republicans voted to keep the last president's base inside the tent. Fascism is assured. I always used to hesitate in the right-on use of Fascist! No more.
That said, Putin HAS openly stated that he favoured a Trump victory in 2016, and it's not hard to see why: DJT talked about withdrawing US troops from around the world, and brazenly insulted the USA's NATO allies. It's also possible that Trump was pushing anti-Russian policies somewhat against his will, while personally trying to include moves that also curried favour with Putin(eg. calling for the G8 to be expanded to include Russia.)
I think Trump had a largely transactional view of foreign policy and one that was focused on himself personally, now. So he just didn't see the point of incurring cost - in terms of deployments - unless there was a fairly immediate payoff for him. The idea that deployments abroad were in the service of continuity in American foreign policy was something too abstract for him, and so he was suspicious of people pushing that line.
Nah, you can’t use the F-word. You have to start with something more collective that people can sheeple along with:
National Socialist German Workers or American Patriots.
(Easy to see why that’s popular. You can’t spell “patriot” without a reminder of Jan 6)
That said, Putin HAS openly stated that he favoured a Trump victory in 2016, and it's not hard to see why: DJT talked about withdrawing US troops from around the world, and brazenly insulted the USA's NATO allies. It's also possible that Trump was pushing anti-Russian policies somewhat against his will, while personally trying to include moves that also curried favour with Putin(eg. calling for the G8 to be expanded to include Russia.)
I think Trump had a largely transactional view of foreign policy and one that was focused on himself personally, now. So he just didn't see the point of incurring cost - in terms of deployments - unless there was a fairly immediate payoff for him. The idea that deployments abroad were in the service of continuity in American foreign policy was something too abstract for him, and so he was suspicious of people pushing that line.
Agreed. Two points, though...
I don't think Trump was simply concerned with how things benefitted "himself personally", because his views on military rollback went back to the 80s at least, when he was a private citizen and wouldn't as an individual get anything in return. (Well, maybe a SLIGHTLY lower tax bill, but he probably already had the accounting tricks to attain that, and most rich people weren't pushing for lower military spending).
So, he likely does/did have the ability to think in terms of the collective good, or at least the collective prestige. His viewpoint was actually a fairly common one in that era, the whole "Why should America be the policeman of the world?" line, which followed the assumption that the motivations of US foreign policy were anything as altruistic as those commonly ascribed to police officers.
Secondly...
The Russians wouldn't care if Trump's proposed rollback was humanitarian or isolationist in nature: Fewer troops in Europe would be a point in the Kremlin's column, regardless of the reason. I'll also say that I think Putin probably overestimated the ability of the POTUS to do that on his own.
“If we could learn to look instead of gawking,
We'd see the horror in the heart of farce,
If only we could act instead of talking,
We wouldn't always end up on our arse.
This was the thing that nearly had us mastered;
Don't yet rejoice in his defeat, you men!
Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again.”
― Bertolt Brecht, The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui.
The KGB finally unleashed their ultimate plan - put a US president in place who would lower taxes and give weapons to Ukraine.
You mean the military aid implemented by a Ukrainian-friendly Congress and delayed by the Trump administration at a critical time? The arms granted with a restriction that they don't get deployed anywhere near Crimea? The weapons whose delay formed the basis of the first Trump impeachment? (Wikipedia now has a disambiguation page for the impeachment of Donald Trump, which is its own kind of accomplishment I guess.) I know a lot has happened since then, but that was only a year ago.
Yeah, can't see why the FSB would be interested in any of that. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, a lot of the pro-Trump apologetics with regard to Russia seem to rest on fatuous claims that ignore important details, like attributing actions by others (like Congress or NATO) to Donald Trump specifically.
"In June, the Pentagon announced plans to provide $250 million to Ukraine in security cooperation funds for additional training, equipment and advisory efforts to build the capacity of Ukraine’s armed forces. The U.S. State Department separately planned to provide $141 million in aid."
"One irony is that the Trump administration was going further with its aid than the Obama administration by deciding to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons. In 2017, Trump announced his intent to provide the Javelin, and Congress approved an assistance package of 210 missiles and 37 launchers, together worth $47 million.
“When Trump was elected, the first thing they did was send in the Javelin. It wasn’t exactly high-end, but we were very happy, and they built on a very firm foundation,”
“The Javelin is the best anti-armor system anywhere in the world. It goes out to 2 kilometers and it will destroy any armored vehicle, any tank,” said retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former U.S. Army Europe commander. “It’s powerful and easy to use, so it was a powerful increase in Ukrainian capabilities.”"
“The Javelin is the best anti-armor system anywhere in the world. It goes out to 2 kilometers and it will destroy any armored vehicle, any tank,” said retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former U.S. Army Europe commander. “It’s powerful and easy to use, so it was a powerful increase in Ukrainian capabilities.”"
But while there is evidence that the Javelin sale has been a powerful gesture of support for Kyiv, the missiles’ military application has been far more limited. Under the conditions of the foreign military sale, the Trump administration stipulates that the Javelins must be stored in western Ukraine — hundreds of miles from the battlefield.
“I see these more as symbolic weapons than anything else,” said Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at Rand Corp. Experts say the conditions of the sale render them useless in the event of a sustained low-level assault — the kind of attack Ukraine is most likely to face from Russia.
Trump’s claim about supplying far more critical military aid to Ukraine than Obama is hyperbolic at best in other ways. The Obama administration did draw criticism for its refusal to approve lethal assistance to Ukraine, including the Javelin missile sale Trump cited. But it did commit to Kyiv more than $600 million in security assistance and equipment, including armored Humvee vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, countermortar radars, night vision equipment, and medical supplies.
I think "hyperbolic at best" is as good a summary of the Trump administration* as I've come across. Thanks, Foreign Policy magazine!
But while there is evidence that the Javelin sale has been a powerful gesture of support for Kyiv, the missiles’ military application has been far more limited. Under the conditions of the foreign military sale, the Trump administration stipulates that the Javelins must be stored in western Ukraine — hundreds of miles from the battlefield.
“I see these more as symbolic weapons than anything else,” said Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at Rand Corp. Experts say the conditions of the sale render them useless in the event of a sustained low-level assault — the kind of attack Ukraine is most likely to face from Russia.
And yet going back to the first article you provided:
Col. Andrii Ordynovych, Ukraine’s military attache in Washington, said that when Ukraine’s military began using U.S.-provided Javelin anti-tank weapons, Russian tanks and armored personnel carriers that once operated with devastating impunity had backed off.
“If we could learn to look instead of gawking,
We'd see the horror in the heart of farce,
If only we could act instead of talking,
We wouldn't always end up on our arse.
This was the thing that nearly had us mastered;
Don't yet rejoice in his defeat, you men!
Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again.”
― Bertolt Brecht, The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui.
I hear on the news (BBC radio and Aljazeera) that trump has parted ways with more of his legal team (lawyers quit).
That poor man! How can such an upstanding individual who only ever wanted to do good to the world and those around him ever get a fair trial if people keep abandoning him?
Apparently he wants his defence to focus on his claims of a "stolen election" and the legal people don't like that (presumably because it's so very obviously a load of made up trumpshite).
I hear on the news (BBC radio and Aljazeera) that trump has parted ways with more of his legal team (lawyers quit).
That poor man! How can such an upstanding individual who only ever wanted to do good to the world and those around him ever get a fair trial if people keep abandoning him?
Apparently he wants his defence to focus on his claims of a "stolen election" and the legal people don't like that (presumably because it's so very obviously a load of made up trumpshite).
To be precise, CNN say that it was the lawyers that left - apparently there is nothing there that can be defended, just as you say.
And, the good news is, The Proud Boys are even abandoning him, calling him a shill and extraordinarily weak.
Well, there's one thing (and only one thing) they can actually be proud of.
Or is it something Trump can be proud of?
come on. Mostly, Lawyers quit a week out from trial when their bill has gone unpaid. That makes it merely a matter of business for both of them. Trump should instruct Sidney Powell and the shrieking horror who even Giuliani tried to shut up.
If the lawyers quit because they were surprised by Trump's instructions, I for one wish they had stayed on.
Marvin: Are you saying that people leaving his employ feeds into his (self-) image that he's very much his 'own man' who won't compromise to fit in with other people's ideas, and that if others won't work with him his way then he'll follow his own path towards the (his) truth? I can see some (trumpian) sense in that.
And, the good news is, The Proud Boys are even abandoning him, calling him a shill and extraordinarily weak.
Well, there's one thing (and only one thing) they can actually be proud of.
Or is it something Trump can be proud of?
come on. Mostly, Lawyers quit a week out from trial when their bill has gone unpaid. That makes it merely a matter of business for both of them.
Yes. I am pretty sure that if I were a lawyer, I could come up with an argument in defense of Trump that would be about as tenable as any other argument made in an incitement case.
And with probably a greater chance of winning, since the bar for an impeachment conviction is a lot higher than for a regular trial.
So, no, the reason for their quitting is likely not that they can't think of anything to say in his defense. More plausibly it's money, or Trump wasn't listening to their counsel. (I have the idea that he would make Larry Flynt look like the very model of a co-operative client.)
I saw an interview yesterday with an American lawyer/pundit (?) who said that trump's legal team would be able to make a case 'good enough' if they could mount his defence their way. They would focus on the doubt as to whether what he said was sufficient proof of incitement for sedition and riot to not lose 17 crucial Republican Senate votes. However, if trump does as he's considering, which is to mount his own defence in person, his behaviour and patently false claims would lose him support and some or enough of those 17 votes to lose the case.
She’s also being sued by Dominion Voting Systems, so he’ll have to find someone else.
Maybe Lindsey Graham? He’s already asking Democrats not to call the QAnon Shamen as an impeachment witness so, why not him?
Since the Republicans are going to vote against impeachment come hell or high farce, the Dems might as well swear in the guy with the horns. I’m sure MTG will follow his every word in all seriousness.
Comments
I never said they were eligible for the office. I said ineligible people had been allowed to run. My post was clearly responding to Gee D, who said “I find it hard to envisage a scenario where a person who is ineligible to hold an office is allowed to stand for election to it.” That’s what I said has happened—people who are ineligible being allowed to run for office.
It happened here in the last election. A week before the election, a complaint was filed with the county board of elections asserting that a candidate for a particular office didn’t actually live at the address he had given and didn’t reside in the district he was running in. The county board of elections could not take up the complaint until after the election, at which point it found that he indeed did not reside in the district and was ineligible. In between he won the election, which meant the winner was ineligible to take office and was disqualified.
Again, all I said was that it does happen that ineligible candidates are sometimes allowed to run when their ineligibility isn’t discovered until after they’ve filed to run.
Not at all. Again, you’re reacting to what you think I said instead of what I actually said. I’m saying the same thing you are.
You say if they’re eligible and are elected, they have the right to take office. I said, in the part of my post you omitted when you quoted me, (My emphasis.) So we agree that once an eligible person is elected, they have a right to office. Not sure where the straw man is.
But that’s not what Gramps49 said that I was responding to. He said: Meeting the constitutional requirements of citizenship, age and residency is not enough to say one has a right to “hold” a federal office. One has to be elected or appointed to that office, which his post seemed to relegate to something beyond the constitutional requirements conferring the right to hold office. (He has now clarified he believes meeting those requirements gives one the right to “stand” for office.)
In this: nobody ever said otherwise.
Seriously, I can’t see where the outrage on this is coming from, but whatever.
Is not the answer that when that error was picked up, their election was voided? And had the mistake been spotted before the election, their candidature would have been cancelled?
I can't see any outrage. But whatever.
Oh, we're clear enough. It's those who don't want a particular person in the White House who raise stupid objections.
Then you are using those words in ways that many people would not.
I had read "knowingly" into the "allowed to".
Please look at my example of the Nineteenth Amendment. In the United States, women did not have the right to stand/run for office until they had the right to vote. Some states did allow women to vote before the 19th and those states had women who became elected officials.
Another example: I have the privilege of driving a car. It is not right.
So you want your privilege revoked, then?
That may well be. But I don't think I've ever detected that as the meaning when I've heard the supposed fact mentioned.
There WAS irony to it, but more along the lines of "He made the trains run on time, so I guess we're supposed to forget about the fact that he was a fascist dictator."
There are 2 problems with your example of the Nineteenth Amendment. The first is that voting is not at all a pertinent example to holding, or standing for office. The second is that language use has changed considerably since 1878 and I am talking about how people use language today, not in the 19th century.
I note that the 19th Amendment copies the language of the 15th Amendment, at least.
EDIT: "Right to vote" also appears in the 14th. I'm not looking back further. The bigger problem is that taking that phrase and using it as evidence of how people talk about holding office doesn't really work.
Oh, and a short summation of Connecticut law (read the last sentence) https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt\olr\htm/98-R-1215.htm
Sigh. This is absolutely not worth pursuing further. I'm talking about language and you're responding with laws. I can think of several other responses but they are going to be a waste of time.
An early example of Poe's Law, perhaps.
Or am I missing something? If you misuse your office are you just told you've been a naughty boy, but get to keep the fruits? That seems indefensible.
I note the caution of using the word "asset" (which includes both conscious agents and unwitting dupes) instead of "agent" (meaning he consciously knew what he was doing).
I don't think that's caution so much as accuracy. Trump doesn't have the intelligence or skill to pull off being an actual agent of a foreign power without being caught long before getting near the Oval Office. That KGB (and later FSB) agents wound him up and let him go like a Night Goblin Fanatic into US public life is eminently plausible, bordering on likely.
I think there's a difference between the question of what you can get impeached for (the argument being that impeachment is only a way of getting rid of you) and what you might get prosecuted for by the regular prosecutorial authorities.
Of course the evidence and standards of proof around an actual prosecution are different to whatever the Senate feels like caring about for an impeachment (the main piece of evidence the latter cares about is which party you're in).
The KGB finally unleashed their ultimate plan - put a US president in place who would lower taxes and give weapons to Ukraine.
Impeachment is more than just a way of getting rid of you. It is a way of disgracing you, first and foremost--of pointing out to you and the universe that would you did was Not Cool, and Not Okay. Human nature being what it is, even an acquittal after impeachment will not wipe that stain away, particularly when everyone knows the acquittal was motivated by party politics and not by the facts of the case.
The secondary value of impeachment lies in the ability of the Senate to stop you from ever holding public office again. We won't get there without a conviction, if I understand things correctly, which means we probably won't get there at all, given the craven cowardice of certain senators. But that is a second motivation for impeaching Trump, even though he is no longer in office. I believe there have been such cases before, when judges were tried though they were allready out of office.
I did say "the argument being", because it's exactly the argument that Republicans are making.
Yes, if Trump's foreign-policy was being dictated from Moscow, it would have been very different from what it was.
And defector testimony is always to be taken with a modicum of suspicion, especially in cases where it seems to line up so clearly with one side of a domestic partisan divide.
That said, Putin HAS openly stated that he favoured a Trump victory in 2016, and it's not hard to see why: DJT talked about withdrawing US troops from around the world, and brazenly insulted the USA's NATO allies. It's also possible that Trump was pushing anti-Russian policies somewhat against his will, while personally trying to include moves that also curried favour with Putin(eg. calling for the G8 to be expanded to include Russia.)
As I recall from that era, the Soviet line, as mouthed by both their official spokesmen and by western sympathizers, was more left-wing and internationalistic in its rhetoric, "Can't we all hold hands and be friends" sort of thing. Unless they were using very different rhetoric in the US, I don't see that they'd be encouraging the kind of neo-isolationist rantings that Trump employed in that ad. That all strikes me as very much something that would come out of his own mind.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I think it's quite likely the Soviets would have been happy about that ad, or at least not particularly unhappy. But I don't think it was based on lines they had fed him.
I think Trump had a largely transactional view of foreign policy and one that was focused on himself personally, now. So he just didn't see the point of incurring cost - in terms of deployments - unless there was a fairly immediate payoff for him. The idea that deployments abroad were in the service of continuity in American foreign policy was something too abstract for him, and so he was suspicious of people pushing that line.
National Socialist German Workers or American Patriots.
(Easy to see why that’s popular. You can’t spell “patriot” without a reminder of Jan 6)
Agreed. Two points, though...
I don't think Trump was simply concerned with how things benefitted "himself personally", because his views on military rollback went back to the 80s at least, when he was a private citizen and wouldn't as an individual get anything in return. (Well, maybe a SLIGHTLY lower tax bill, but he probably already had the accounting tricks to attain that, and most rich people weren't pushing for lower military spending).
So, he likely does/did have the ability to think in terms of the collective good, or at least the collective prestige. His viewpoint was actually a fairly common one in that era, the whole "Why should America be the policeman of the world?" line, which followed the assumption that the motivations of US foreign policy were anything as altruistic as those commonly ascribed to police officers.
Secondly...
The Russians wouldn't care if Trump's proposed rollback was humanitarian or isolationist in nature: Fewer troops in Europe would be a point in the Kremlin's column, regardless of the reason. I'll also say that I think Putin probably overestimated the ability of the POTUS to do that on his own.
“If we could learn to look instead of gawking,
We'd see the horror in the heart of farce,
If only we could act instead of talking,
We wouldn't always end up on our arse.
This was the thing that nearly had us mastered;
Don't yet rejoice in his defeat, you men!
Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again.”
― Bertolt Brecht, The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui.
You mean the military aid implemented by a Ukrainian-friendly Congress and delayed by the Trump administration at a critical time? The arms granted with a restriction that they don't get deployed anywhere near Crimea? The weapons whose delay formed the basis of the first Trump impeachment? (Wikipedia now has a disambiguation page for the impeachment of Donald Trump, which is its own kind of accomplishment I guess.) I know a lot has happened since then, but that was only a year ago.
Yeah, can't see why the FSB would be interested in any of that. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, a lot of the pro-Trump apologetics with regard to Russia seem to rest on fatuous claims that ignore important details, like attributing actions by others (like Congress or NATO) to Donald Trump specifically.
From your link:
Context:
I think "hyperbolic at best" is as good a summary of the Trump administration* as I've come across. Thanks, Foreign Policy magazine!
And yet going back to the first article you provided:
Well, there's one thing (and only one thing) they can actually be proud of.
Boy is that apropos.
That poor man! How can such an upstanding individual who only ever wanted to do good to the world and those around him ever get a fair trial if people keep abandoning him?
Apparently he wants his defence to focus on his claims of a "stolen election" and the legal people don't like that (presumably because it's so very obviously a load of made up trumpshite).
Or is it something Trump can be proud of?
To be precise, CNN say that it was the lawyers that left - apparently there is nothing there that can be defended, just as you say.
come on. Mostly, Lawyers quit a week out from trial when their bill has gone unpaid. That makes it merely a matter of business for both of them. Trump should instruct Sidney Powell and the shrieking horror who even Giuliani tried to shut up.
If the lawyers quit because they were surprised by Trump's instructions, I for one wish they had stayed on.
Yes. I am pretty sure that if I were a lawyer, I could come up with an argument in defense of Trump that would be about as tenable as any other argument made in an incitement case.
And with probably a greater chance of winning, since the bar for an impeachment conviction is a lot higher than for a regular trial.
So, no, the reason for their quitting is likely not that they can't think of anything to say in his defense. More plausibly it's money, or Trump wasn't listening to their counsel. (I have the idea that he would make Larry Flynt look like the very model of a co-operative client.)
She’s also being sued by Dominion Voting Systems, so he’ll have to find someone else.
Maybe Lindsey Graham? He’s already asking Democrats not to call the QAnon Shamen as an impeachment witness so, why not him?
Since the Republicans are going to vote against impeachment come hell or high farce, the Dems might as well swear in the guy with the horns. I’m sure MTG will follow his every word in all seriousness.