The Impeachment Trial

[rogue06]

Declassification isn't that easy. The president can't just snap his fingers and say, "Declassified!" There's a process that must be followed with all relevant agencies having a say in whether or not it's safe to do so.

To go through proper channels and procedure which this pretty much has too. Although Obama and Trump both have instantly declassified stuff by mentioning it publicly.

[KingsGambit]

Declassification isn't that easy. The president can't just snap his fingers and say, "Declassified!" There's a process that must be followed with all relevant agencies having a say in whether or not it's safe to do so.

[DivineOb]

BTW, here's the actual letter sent to Bolton.

[Mountain Man]

Question is then why didnt Zelensky announce investigations to keep Trump happy?

Because Trump isn't a mob boss strong-arming subordinates who are obligated to keep him happy.

[Mountain Man]

From here

"There’s no question that the president has broad authority to declassify almost anything at any time without any process, [trimmed irrelevant discussion of something else].

And whatever that process allegedly is, he's had 3 days during the single event which will most define his presidency to get it done.

"Broad authority" does not mean unlimited authority.

[firstfloor]

So, either Barr or Bolton is lying, about when Barr knew about the infamous phone call. Are you a Barrist or a Boltonist?

[Sam]

Declassification isn't that easy. The president can't just snap his fingers and say, "Declassified!" There's a process that must be followed with all relevant agencies having a say in whether or not it's safe to do so.

Trump revealed classified information to Russian officials in the Oval Office in May 2017 and the defense was that the President can declassify anything he wants at any time. So either that's true or Trump violated classification laws at the beginning of his term.

--Sam

[Sam]

Er, no. It makes a lot of sense. Bolton's book is being vetted to make sure he's not saying anything that's unsuitable for release to the public. Until that process is complete, he can't know what he may or may not say - that's why the book is being vetted!

And, as previously noted, the whole point is moot, because the funds were released prior to the deadline without any quid pro quo having taken place. Feel free to keep screaming about it, however. All that crying "Wolf!" is bound to do some good, right?

The question is whether or not Bolton can deny the reported content in his book. If, for example, I say that Bolton accuses Trump in his book of murdering the Last Unicorn to serve at a celebratory dinner for Franklin Graham, Bolton can release a statement denying that his book contains any such allegations.

"The bank robber walked out of the bank before the clerk handed him the bag of money" is one heckuva defense you got there.

--Sam

[DivineOb]

"Broad authority" does not mean unlimited authority.

It seems hard to believe he doesn't have the authority to declassify a letter from Bolton stating "I categorically deny the claims made about the contents of my upcoming book."

[firstfloor]

Impeachment has been weaponized to attempt to get rid of anybody "the other side" doesn't like. Impeachment has become a joke, as prophesied by the honorable Chuck Schumer many moons ago.

I see no evidence for that.
Certainly, the two party system does not play well with some aspects of the constitution, including impeachment. The problem is not abuse of impeachment so much as a failure of Senators to do their duty when confronted by a lawless POTUS.

[oxmixmudd]

Which is denied by everyone directly involved, including Ukraine.

This is simply false. We've seen multiple testimonies that many people saw clear evidence this was all about hitting out at Biden. And that has only one motive - 2020. And that is a personal motive.

Again, this is a case where the evidence is all around you, but because you don't have an actual recording of Trump saying "I want dirt on Biden, and I'm not letting that money go till Zelinsky gives it to me" you hold up this fantasy 'there could be some other reason' as if it had any possibility of existing, which it doesn't.

And the hard evidence from YEARS of interacting with all of you, there is not another political figure on this planet you would even consider extending that sort of 'benefit of the doubt' to given the circumstances.

And that is why it all goes south and there is an impasse. Extending that sort of 'benefit of the doubt' to such a person boggles the mind. This is not the Pope, not Billy Graham, not Mother Theresa. And even they, given the evidence we see, would not deserve it.

[Cow Poke]

I see no evidence for that.

You're calling Schumer a LIAR?!?!

Certainly, the two party system does not play well with some aspects of the constitution, including impeachment.

Which is why it should only be employed in EXTREME cases where there is substantial bipartisan and public support.

The problem is not abuse of impeachment so much as a failure of Senators to do their duty when confronted by a lawless POTUS.

Rachel told you to say that, didn't she?

[oxmixmudd]

You're calling Schumer a LIAR?!?!



Which is why it should only be employed in EXTREME cases where there is substantial bipartisan and public support.



Rachel told you to say that, didn't she?

Well, that doesn't work so well either when one or both sides are willing to allow a rogue president to go unchecked so they can preserve their own power base. Impeachment exists to get rid of a president that is out of control, abusing his power, flaunting the law. But if a substantial part of those charged with hold such a president accountable are willing to tolerate his deeds in order to keep themselves in power, because, say, there is large contingent of the population that is also willing to tolerate such abuses because of promises he made to them (one argument, BTW, for a republic rather than a democracy being that the representatives - hopefully - are well educated and up standing members of the society capable of recognizing when the populous is being duped by a con).

Bottom line, as Benjamin Franklin said:

Source: Franklin

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

© Copyright Original Source

And we are well on our way.

[firstfloor]

You're calling Schumer a LIAR?!?!
Which is why it should only be employed in EXTREME cases where there is substantial bipartisan and public support.
Rachel told you to say that, didn't she?

Val Demings was great. She represents what Republicans ought to emulate, to the best of their ability.

[Mountain Man]

Trump revealed classified information to Russian officials in the Oval Office in May 2017 and the defense was that the President can declassify anything he wants at any time. So either that's true or Trump violated classification laws at the beginning of his term.

--Sam

I didn't say anything about laws, I said there were procedures in place.