Just to clarify: Don't confuse abuse of power with overreaching

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Jan 27, 2020.

  1. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,500
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like doing threads that start with "Just to clarify" when a bogus talking point pops up again and again in debates. Just so we don't have to repeat the same explanation over and over. This way I (or anybody who wants to) can point them here for response to these talking points fabricated by the Trump Channel echo chamber.

    The basic argument is that "Trump had the power" to do this or that. Currently, for example, that "he had the power" to ask Ukraine for "help" in an ongoing investigation.

    Obviously, somebody who doesn't have the power to do something, cannot abuse that power. So any references showing how Obama, or Clinton or ... George Washington "did it" go out the window. Having the power to do something is not the same as abusing that power for personal benefit. This is the reason why abuse of power is a high crime. Because only people in a high position can commit it (which is what the expression "high crimes and misdemeanors" refers to in common law)

    If they don't have the power, then it's not abuse of power. It's overreaching. And the remedy can be applied through the courts. Abuse of power cannot be remedied in the courts. Only through impeachment. Trump has used a combination of both. But it's the impeachable High Crimes for which he es being tried right now.

    So if Trump asks Zelenski to help investigate Americans for possible corruption, that is within his power. But if Trump asks Zelenski to investigate Biden for his own personal political gain, that is "abuse of power". In both cases he has the "power" to do it. But in the second he has abused that power for personal gain.

    Now, of course, Trump didn't even want Zolenski to investigate Biden. He just wanted him to publicly announce that he was investing the Bidens. As confirmed by multiple witnesses under oath. So it's even more obvious.

    Another example are his efforts to remove Mueller. Or his firing Comey. Of course he has the power to do it, but doing this to thwart or impede the investigation about himself is abuse of power. He has done this many times since his first days in office. Abuse for his benefit and to benefit his family. And it has only gotten worse.

    But, the main thing is that right-wingers realize that quoting where the law grants some power to the President, or where Obama or ... Abraham Lincoln... "abused power". Those are not a valid precedent that is relevant in Trump's case unless you can demonstrate that they did it for personal gain. Because when they overreach, they are in violation of some law or constitutional provision that limits their power. LBJ is an example of a President whom, in my opinion, did abuse power for personal gain, and should have been impeached. But Trump's constant and almost daily abuse of power is unprecedented.

    I'm not saying that a President abusing power when not for personal benefit is fine. But these can be dealt with in the courts. It's when the "personal gain" factor that, in my opinion, makes it political.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2020
  2. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,396
    Likes Received:
    26,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Also, having the power to do something isn't the same as having the legal authority to do it. Trump had the power to put a hold on aid to Ukraine, but not the legal authority thanks to the Impoundment Control Act.
     
    cd8ed and Golem like this.
  3. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,500
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is very true. But so as not to complicate our right-wing friends I prefer to keep it simple in the explanation.

    Overreach: when a President does something he is limited by law to do.
    Abuse of Power: when a President does something he has the power to do, but does it for personal gain.

    Overreach can be dealt with in courts or through impeachment. Abuse of power can only be dealt with through impeachment.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  4. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,093
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    K. So just need to prove the aid was withheld to benefit Trump2020 but not to prevent the aid from being squandered to suspected corruption.

    The problem is that both can be easily demonstrated, and all claims made one way or the other by anyone but Trump are mere speculation.

    Unless and until a video or document surfaces that forensically proves Trump said something to the effect of 'I know the aid is safe, I just want to demonize the Bidens', this matter is still just voting on speculation.

    As was always going to be the case, it just comes down to whether Senators believe their careers are more likely to be furthered by a vote to acquit or a vote to remove from office.
     
  5. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,824
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This should be reason enough to vote them out of office and why political party ideology has destroyed and will continue to destroy the nation.
     
  6. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,093
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seems to me this dynamic is foundational to representative democracy itself. They are in effect reflecting our will into the system, as they're supposed to. If anything is destroying representative democracy, its the warping of their perception of that will: biased polls, manipulative media, etc.
     
  7. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,824
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The founding fathers almost uniformly feared political parties as they do not reflect the will of the people.

    For instance on an individual level, many topics have broad support reaching 60%+ but because a vocal minority of a party is against it the entire party platform becomes against it.
     
    UprightBiped likes this.
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,500
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What speculation? They are repeating Trump's words.

    That is the complete nonsensical argument that Trump's defense is using. And it's the only defense they have. It goes something like: "unless there is a tape of Trump stating the crime he is committing explicitly, they can't hold him guilty."

    Applying that argument to everybody would empty just about every prison in America. Nobody could be found guilty of anything unless there is a tape in which they are verbally expressing their crime.

    Nonsense beyond belief. But, believe it or not, it's the only defense they have.

    Republicans Senators will vote not guilty. All 53 of them. They made up their minds months ago, no matter what. Some of them will go through the motions. To "appear" as if they were actually considering the evidence seriously. They aren't. But they will be making a mockery of Congress, of the Presidency and of the Constitution. I don't think Americans will easily forgive them for that.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2020
    Lucifer likes this.
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,093
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apples and oranges. What Trump did is only a crime if his intent was personal gain. Very few laws that effect the rest of us are written so subjectively.
     
  10. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,093
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't like parties either. How do you propose we get rid of them?
     
  11. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As far as I can tell the Bidens were never investigated. I have yet to see proof Trump actually asked for an investigation into the Bidens only. So that makes all this just a bunch of made up crap.
     
  12. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,824
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don’t know if it is possible to get completely rid of party but we could limit their influence tremendously.
    • Fast and painless would be to remove political affiliation on ballots
    • Further down the line we need to eliminate FPTP and implement a type of approval voting — this would allow for people to vote for a candidate they support instead of just voting against who they hate
    • Limiting political ad’s like most other nations do and eliminating false ad’s entirely would also allow individuals from lessor parties to have a voice
    There are numerous other ways but would require a constitutional amendment to fix. Proportional representation should be the end goal.
     
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,500
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The law may be subjective, but the abuse of power is clear. If it weren't for personal benefit in his campaign, why else would Trump demand Zelensky made an anouncement that Biden was being investigated, but couldn't care less if they actually did investigate him. Why would he be pushing stories that he knows are conspiracy theories like the Burisma and the Crowdstrike ones? Both of which have been amply debunked. You won't hear about it on Fox, though.
     
    Lucifer likes this.
  14. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,093
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah, the 'witness testimony'. I don't believe it. Too much time spent rehearsing in the dark.
     
  15. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,500
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes! Finally somebody on the right says something accurate. Neither of the Bidens was ever investigated. Hunter was never investigated by Ukranian prosecutors. Because he wasn't even in Burisma when the corruption episodes happened.

    Really???? Wow!

    Trump (to Zelensky): There's a lot of. talk about Biden's son,. that Eiden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
    Looks like Fox doesn't tell you much, does it!
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2020
    Lucifer likes this.
  16. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you define "abuse of power" and "overreaching" in legalese? Can you explain why your definition should carry any weight in either criminal court or impeachment?
     
    Badaboom likes this.
  17. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's where your-their argument falls apart.

    "Trump asks Zelenski to investigate Biden for his own personal political gain"

    There is absolutely no evidence of this charge and so called witnesses that in reality witnessed nothing are basing their testimony on projection, speculation, assumptions and conjecture.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2020
  18. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,500
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean other than the fact that the President's own Chief of Staff admitted it publicly, that all witnesses confirm it, that all documents including a Memo with a partial transcript of a call show it, and that the President has refused for no stated reason to not allow other witnesses who also witnessed the call from testifying under oath...

    If you leave all that aside, yeah... there is "no evidence". And I'm sure you would never listen to any source that does not leave that aside, right?

    There is a word that encompasses all this devotion to a person that makes certain people cherry-pick facts so as to not "see" any that would damage their idol. But I'm not allowed to use that word.
     
  19. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And again witnesses witnessed nothing. Neither the transcript nor documents confirm the allegations and the chief of staffs comment confirms nothing more than the fact that at least some of the Ukrainian corruption Trump wanted investigated involved democrats.
    Your research is incomplete, flawed and biased.
     
  20. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,870
    Likes Received:
    17,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey guys! Quid pro quo didn't work, let's go with abuse of power. Oh wait! Hold up! Abuse of power isn't working so let's change it to "overreaching".
    Oh so clever!
     
  21. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,500
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you not been paying attention? Yes they witnessed! They heard Trump on the phone!

    And you're saying Mulvaney doesn't know what Trump does?

    Now, if you want further confirmation. That's easy: ask Bolton under oath.

    But that won't matter, of course. Because you will just trash him. The mantra is: believe anything that helps Trump. And don't believe anything that hurts him even if it comes from Trump. So, what are you doing here? You aren't interested in facts! If you are trying to find here any type of reassurance that there are facts that actually exonerate your idol, you won't find them. All you will do is agree with other Trump loyalists, and disagree with anybody who brings facts. Even if they are Trump's own people. Even if it's Trump himself.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2020
    Lucifer likes this.
  22. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The so called witnesses testifying against Trump were not on the phone call. Even the so called whistleblower wasn't on the phone call and nowhere on the phone call did Trump demand Biden be investigated before additional funding was released.
    Maybe you haven't heard but Shif for brains reading if the transcript was full of manufactured false statements.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2020
    RodB likes this.
  23. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,500
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They weren't "on" the phone call. They just heard what the loud mouth in chief was saying.
     
  24. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Ukraine" is a great 30 second attack ad for the Dems this fall. But impeachment? Ummm, no.
     
  25. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As quoted by Charlie Mazerack who they commandeered from 5th Avenue.
     

Share This Page