En juridikprofessor och tidigare statsåklagare tar sig tid att förklara varför bananrepublikanernas envisa försvar av deras helige och himmelske kejsare inte är någonting annat än författningsvidrigt dravel.
GOP: Party before country.
https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/status/1205353357180833792

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/republicans-defending-trump-on-impeachment-should-fear-the-judgment-of-history
GOP: Party before country.https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/status/1205353357180833792
Here are the GOP defenses I have heard so far to articles of impeachmentDetta sammanfattar väldigt väl, och sätter välbehövlig punkt för, de gamla luggslitna talking points som den fanatiska personkulten med jämna mellanrum försöker dra in i tråden, från Infowars eller annan propagandabyrå!
Response: Trump hit the trifecta of impeachable conduct by subverting an election, seeking foreign influence, and putting personal interest ahead of national interest. And he obstructed Congress by refusing to produce any witnesses or documents
- Defense 1: "Trump did nothing wrong."
Response: The aid went through only after Trump was caught. In the meantime, months of delay cost Ukraine lives in its war with Russia. US credibility was harmed and moral authority to fight corruption was eroded.
- Defense 2. "No harm occurred because the military aid went through."
Response: Bribery occurs upon demand for a personal favor in exchange for performance of an official act. If you offer a cop $20 to get out of a traffic ticket, even if he declines, you have still committed bribery
- Defense 3: "Because aid went through, no misconduct was committed."
Response: Impeachable conduct may be criminal conduct, but need not be. A president could be impeached if he watched TV all day and failed to fulfill his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
- Defense 4: "Abuse of power is not even a crime."
Response: If this were legitimate investigation, you wouldn’t need to send your personal lawyer and his henchmen to do it. Witnesses say Trump didn’t want investigation, just announcement of investigation.
- Defense 5: "There’s nothing wrong with asking for an investigation."
Response: Read the transcript! Trump’s request for a “favor” is strong evidence, corroborated by witness testimony, of months-long scheme to get Zelensky to “go to the mic” and announce Biden probe. Aid was leverage.
- Defense 6: "There was no quid pro quo."
Response: It is appropriate for a president or VP to take action to advance the interests of the nation. Trump was advancing his personal interests.
- Defense 7: "As VP, Biden held up aid as leverage to get rid of the Ukrainian public prosecutor."
Response: Rules of Evidence don’t apply. Also, call summary, Sondland testimony are non-hearsay. Trump has barred direct witnesses. You can’t have it both ways. If they had information favorable to Trump, you can bet we would have heard from them.
- Defense 8: "Testimony is hearsay."
Response: Trump sought foreign influence in our election and harmed national security by delaying aid designed to fight Russia, our adversary. We don’t have to accept it. We deserve better.
- Defense 9: "It happens all the time. Get over it."
Response: All impeachments un-do elections. Constitution permits impeachment if president is unfit to serve. When rigging an election is involved, elections are ineffective for removal. Impeachment is not to punish but to protect.
- Defense 10: "Impeachment would un-do an election."
Response: This impeachment has moved slower than Bill Clinton’s and on pace with Richard Nixon’s. For a president who presents a clear and present danger to national security, removal is urgent and can’t come soon enough.
- Defense 11: "Impeachment proceedings are moving too fast."
Response: The whistleblower was a tipster, whose tip led to the investigation. Tipsters do not testify at trial, the witnesses do. We have a duty to protect whistleblowers to encourage them to use proper channels to report abuse.
- Defense 12: "We need to hear from the whistleblower."

Citat:
Vi vet att Donald är er ofelbare ärkebiskop, nedstigen i direkt sändebud från Gud, men för vanliga människor är han ingenting annat än en vanekriminell gammal narcissist. Och hur tror du det kommer se ut för GOP i november 2020, efter att ha gjort allt de kunnat för att stödja och skydda en uppenbart skyldig Quisling?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/republicans-defending-trump-on-impeachment-should-fear-the-judgment-of-history
Citat:
Republicans Defending Trump on Impeachment Should Fear the Judgment of History
For Nixon stalwarts on the House Judiciary Committee, defending the President became an inalterable epitaph.
For Nixon stalwarts on the House Judiciary Committee, defending the President became an inalterable epitaph.
__________________
Senast redigerad av zergrush 2019-12-14 kl. 12:34.
Senast redigerad av zergrush 2019-12-14 kl. 12:34.