[Addendum 12/18/19
To MAShow995:
There has been no significant agreement about anything between Dems and GOP in today's House debate of the articles of impeachment.There has been no back and forth exploration of reasonably debatable issues about impeachment or not, and the general tenor of the speakers has been "your side is wrong, our side is right, and there is no reasonably debatable question about whether Trump should be impeached or not, with Dems saying he absolutely must be impeached to save our republic and GOP saying it is an absolute travesty that impeachment is being sought.
I believe there are reasonably debatable issues about impeachment or not, which are deserving of back and forth exploration.
If you agree with me there are reasonably debatable questions about impeachment or not, I would like to explore them with you or others on your show.
Right now I have a particular question in mind that I would like to explore. I will write the same up and add a link here to the same after I do.
Thanks.]
[12/6/19: Note to MAShow995: Per the way things were left in my call in to the show this morning (http://www.talk995.com/podcasts/ Fri. 12/6 Hour 3 at 31:05) please read the Summary at the end of this blog entry and let me know whether there is anything in the Summary that you consider worthy of my calling in next week for discussion. Thanks.]
DRAFT
To Matt Murphy:
To MAShow995:
There has been no significant agreement about anything between Dems and GOP in today's House debate of the articles of impeachment.There has been no back and forth exploration of reasonably debatable issues about impeachment or not, and the general tenor of the speakers has been "your side is wrong, our side is right, and there is no reasonably debatable question about whether Trump should be impeached or not, with Dems saying he absolutely must be impeached to save our republic and GOP saying it is an absolute travesty that impeachment is being sought.
I believe there are reasonably debatable issues about impeachment or not, which are deserving of back and forth exploration.
If you agree with me there are reasonably debatable questions about impeachment or not, I would like to explore them with you or others on your show.
Right now I have a particular question in mind that I would like to explore. I will write the same up and add a link here to the same after I do.
Thanks.]
[12/6/19: Note to MAShow995: Per the way things were left in my call in to the show this morning (http://www.talk995.com/podcasts/ Fri. 12/6 Hour 3 at 31:05) please read the Summary at the end of this blog entry and let me know whether there is anything in the Summary that you consider worthy of my calling in next week for discussion. Thanks.]
DRAFT
To Matt Murphy:
As agreed, here is my perspective about what has led to Trump being impeached.
I start with saying I went crazy against Bill Clinton in the 1998 impeachment against him.
Also, I have had a long time bugaboo about the corrupting influence of money in politics.
After Bill Clinton left the presidency, I gave the Clintons a pass, in part because of the ostensible good works of The Clinton Foundation.
When Hillary Clinton started her 2016 run for President, I became fixated on whether there were conflicts of interest and corrupt use of The Clinton Foundation by the Clintons.
In the first Republican debate in August 2015, candidate Donald Trump touted how much he gave to politicians and that "when I need them, they are there for me," and "that is a broken system."
This was coupled in the 2016 election with whether a Trump Foundation contribution to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi was to shut down an investigation of Trump University. Trump and Bondi denied that happened. I was dubious.
Overall, in the 2016 election, Trump crucified Hillary Clinton for conflicts of interest, pay to play and corruption.
I voted for Trump on the basis of the corruption issue, but I had doubts about Trump's integrity.
Trump had sprawling business interests, and there was question of whether Trump, if elected President, would have conflicts of interest that would lead Trump to being corrupt, as he was accusing the Clintons of having been corrupt.
An important element in this was Trump's motive in running for President, and whether his motive was genuinely for the good he wanted to do for the the American people ("good motive"), or whether Trump's motive was that the Presidency was an ultimate prize to satisfy Trump's vainglorious, narcissistic love of wealth, power and being the center of attention, and, if he did not win, running for President was a monumental "informercial" for his business that would benefit him after the election was over ("bad motive").
If the latter "bad motive" was Trump's motive, that would incline Trump, if he won, to putting personal interests ahead of the country's interests.
Also, if Trump's motive was a bad motive, Trump would keep that hidden in the election and mislead the voters about his motive.
This was coupled in the 2016 election with whether a Trump Foundation contribution to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi was to shut down an investigation of Trump University. Trump and Bondi denied that happened. I was dubious.
Overall, in the 2016 election, Trump crucified Hillary Clinton for conflicts of interest, pay to play and corruption.
I voted for Trump on the basis of the corruption issue, but I had doubts about Trump's integrity.
Trump had sprawling business interests, and there was question of whether Trump, if elected President, would have conflicts of interest that would lead Trump to being corrupt, as he was accusing the Clintons of having been corrupt.
An important element in this was Trump's motive in running for President, and whether his motive was genuinely for the good he wanted to do for the the American people ("good motive"), or whether Trump's motive was that the Presidency was an ultimate prize to satisfy Trump's vainglorious, narcissistic love of wealth, power and being the center of attention, and, if he did not win, running for President was a monumental "informercial" for his business that would benefit him after the election was over ("bad motive").
If the latter "bad motive" was Trump's motive, that would incline Trump, if he won, to putting personal interests ahead of the country's interests.
Also, if Trump's motive was a bad motive, Trump would keep that hidden in the election and mislead the voters about his motive.
Trump's nature, and past history and conduct, did not provide confidence about his motive in running for President.
Regardless, Trump's voters in 2016 had to trust that Trump had a "good motive" and not a "bad motive" in running for President.
While Trump's motive was opague in the 2016 election, if Trump won, Trump's actions and conduct after he became President would shed light on his motives and whether he would put his personal interests ahead of the public interest.
Given how Trump crucified Hillary Clinton for conflicts of interest, pay to play and corruption, an early tell about Trump's motives was how Trump chose to deal with his conflicts of interest after he was elected.
Conflicts of interest present a stark choice for whether a public official will serve the public interest or whether the public official will serve his or her personal interest. The mere existence of conflicts of interest can undermine trust in a public official, distract from tending to the public's business if investigations need to done to determine whether the public official is serving his private interests, and otherwise impair the public official's ability to perform his job and particularly, as to the political supporters of the public official, impair the public official's ability to carry out the agenda that such supporters voted for the public official to carry out.
Where a public official has conflicts of interest, it takes an assiduous conscience for the public official to separate in his or her mind his or her private interests from the public interest and make decisions and take actions that the public official can honestly tell himself did not take into account the private interests.
In November 2016, after Trump had won, Trump publicly announced decision that the investigation of Hillary Clinton should not continue. While the United States does not want to be a "banana republic" in which the winners of elections seek to jail their political opponents, Trump could have embarked on a "heart to heart" with the American people related to the charges Trump had leveled against Hillary Clinton and could have launched a significant initiative for new rules for dealing with conflicts of interest to lessen corruption, including better vetting procedures regarding conflicts of interest (perhaps citing inadequate Congressional vetting of the Hillary Clinton and Clinton Foundation situation). Such an initiative by Trump might have exposed for public consideration the then relatively recent events of the withholding of loans to the Ukraine while Joe Biden was Vice President and Hunter Biden was on the board of directors or doing consulting for a Ukranian corporation.
My conclusion about why Trump chose not to use his Hillary Clinton as a reason to undertake a serious initiative about conflicts of interest and corruption in Washington was that Trump had his own conflicts of interest and corruption that he was going to pursue as President and he did not want any interference with that.
When Trump announced in February 2017 how he was going to handle his conflicts of interest, it was immediately recognized that the same was not adequate (see Wall Street Journal op/ed piece A Real Fix for Trump’s Conflicts of Interest), and that, over time, the problem of Trump's conflicts of interest and of his putting his own personal interests over the country's interests, would grow.
This problem was abetted by Republicans in Congress controlling the House of Representatives at the start of Trump's presidency and not conducting proper Congressional oversight. It can be speculated that the pass Trump was given regarding his business conflicts of interest encouraged him to put his personal interests ahead of the public interest in other ways.
The record of Trump's Presidency presents a case that Trump has egregiously put his personal interests over the country's interest. See Trump Team’s Conflicts and Scandals: An Interactive Guide.
Following their taking control of the House of Representatives in 2018, the Democrats started to make up for two years of failed oversight by the Republicans.
During ten months of Democratic control of the House, Trump has been adamant that he has the right and power to pursue his conflicts of interest and profit from the Presidency however he chooses.
Perhaps the most significant instance is the Trump Tower Moscow matter. The details of this were hidden from the American people for two years, and information about it, and the consequences from it, are still unfolding.
My conclusion about why Trump chose not to use his Hillary Clinton as a reason to undertake a serious initiative about conflicts of interest and corruption in Washington was that Trump had his own conflicts of interest and corruption that he was going to pursue as President and he did not want any interference with that.
When Trump announced in February 2017 how he was going to handle his conflicts of interest, it was immediately recognized that the same was not adequate (see Wall Street Journal op/ed piece A Real Fix for Trump’s Conflicts of Interest), and that, over time, the problem of Trump's conflicts of interest and of his putting his own personal interests over the country's interests, would grow.
This problem was abetted by Republicans in Congress controlling the House of Representatives at the start of Trump's presidency and not conducting proper Congressional oversight. It can be speculated that the pass Trump was given regarding his business conflicts of interest encouraged him to put his personal interests ahead of the public interest in other ways.
The record of Trump's Presidency presents a case that Trump has egregiously put his personal interests over the country's interest. See Trump Team’s Conflicts and Scandals: An Interactive Guide.
Following their taking control of the House of Representatives in 2018, the Democrats started to make up for two years of failed oversight by the Republicans.
During ten months of Democratic control of the House, Trump has been adamant that he has the right and power to pursue his conflicts of interest and profit from the Presidency however he chooses.
Perhaps the most significant instance is the Trump Tower Moscow matter. The details of this were hidden from the American people for two years, and information about it, and the consequences from it, are still unfolding.
While Trump had a legal right to pursue his business interests during the time he was running for President, this was a precursor "conflict of interest" that, in the course of two years, morphed into a huge trust problem for Trump and the country.
The precursor "conflict of interest" was that Trump as a candidate may have been secretly doing and saying things to curry favor with Putin in order to advance his Trump Tower Moscow project, and those things were damaging to the country while Trump was helped personally.
For example, Trump alone in the summer of 2016 was questioning national intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election. The country's intelligence apparatus is important for national security, and it is important that the country have a legitimate faith in the apparatus so that actions taken based on the apparatus have the support of the country. If Trump undermined that faith by what he said in the 2016 election in order to serve his private interests, that would be very bad for the country and it would engender huge distrust of Trump if this was found out after he became President.
To the extent Trump was currying favor with Putin before the election, after Trump won, he was potentially compromised and subject to blackmail by Putin by reason of what Trump did before the election.
This then gets immensely exacerbated by Trump getting Cohen to lie to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project.
The upshot of the foregoing is huge damage to the country's trust in Trump, and, if Trump is willing to do the foregoing in service of his private interests and to protect himself, the distrust spills over to many other actions of Trump and what other things Trump may be willing to do to protect himself.
It spilled over to Trump obstructing the Mueller investigation.
It spilled over to Trump's nonstop calling the Mueller investigation a hoax and a witch hunt, when it served legitimate purposes.
It spilled over to Trump dangling pardons.
The day after Mueller gave his testimony, it spilled over to Trump asking Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election for the personal political benefit of Trump.
It has spilled over to Trump's 12,435 false or misleading statements that he has made to the American people since he becoming President. https://washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/…
It has spilled over to Trump stonewalling Congress in the Ukraine investigation.
All of the foregoing feeds into and supports articles of impeachment against Trump for abusing his powers and putting personal interests over the public interest in many ways and instances during Trump's presidency.
Impeachment becomes especially necessary because Trump's adamantly saying he has done no wrong evidences either that Trump does not understand that he cannot use his powers to serve his personal interests or that he understands but he nonetheless will do so. In either case, there is grave risk that Trump will continue to abuse his powers and impeachment is needed to stop Trump from abusing his powers.
Summary
Public officials are supposed to serve the public's interests and not to abuse their public position and wrongfully use their powers to serve their private interests.
Americans are learning from the Trump impeachment that the crux of the impeachment is that Trump has abused his public position and wrongfully used his powers to serve his private interests and failed to serve the public interest in numerous ways.
The public or national interests that Trump has failed to properly serve have been various.
Regarding the Ukraine abuse of power, the national and public interests that Trump failed to serve properly are the extremely important interests of national security and the integrity of our elections.
In other instances, the consequences of Trump putting personal interest ahead of public interest have been less significant individually, but are cumulative in considering the case for impeachment
As the Democrats are emphasizing currently, there has been a patter ofTrump abusing his powers by putting personal interest ahead of public interest, and this did not suddenly happen with Ukraine.
In the impeachment, the American people will learn much about this has been happening ever since Trump took office and it started with how Trump kept and pursued his business conflicts of interest.
Certain explanations for Trump's record of putting personal interests ahead of public interest need to be considered,
One explanation is Trump's extreme narcissism, which is characterized by the narcissist seeing everything through the lens of him or herself. A narcissist such as Trump views everything that is contrary to himself as evil and wrong, and everything that favors the narcissist is right and good. Such a narcissist is unable to tolerate facts and reality that are contrary to him and he endeavors to create his own reality and facts.
Another factor explaining Trump putting personal interest ahead of the public interest is Trump's business history that he was never was accountable to anyone, such as a board of directors or shareholders, and Trump did whatever he wanted.
As President, Trump has acted in many ways not to be accountable to the American people and not to recognize the separation of powers and checks and balances, and that Article 2 does not give Trump the power to do whatever he wants.
Impeachment becomes especially necessary because of Trump so absolutely saying he has done no wrong. This evidences either that Trump does not understand that he cannot use his powers to serve his personal interests, or that he understands but he nonetheless will use his powers serve his private interests as he chooses. In either case, there is grave risk that Trump will continue to abuse his powers and use them to serve his personal interests, and impeachment is needed to stop Trump from abusing his powers.
The totality of the above is what has led to Trump's impeachment. The totality of the above needs to be considered by the United States Senate and by the American people.
It has spilled over to Trump stonewalling Congress in the Ukraine investigation.
All of the foregoing feeds into and supports articles of impeachment against Trump for abusing his powers and putting personal interests over the public interest in many ways and instances during Trump's presidency.
Impeachment becomes especially necessary because Trump's adamantly saying he has done no wrong evidences either that Trump does not understand that he cannot use his powers to serve his personal interests or that he understands but he nonetheless will do so. In either case, there is grave risk that Trump will continue to abuse his powers and impeachment is needed to stop Trump from abusing his powers.
Summary
Public officials are supposed to serve the public's interests and not to abuse their public position and wrongfully use their powers to serve their private interests.
Americans are learning from the Trump impeachment that the crux of the impeachment is that Trump has abused his public position and wrongfully used his powers to serve his private interests and failed to serve the public interest in numerous ways.
The public or national interests that Trump has failed to properly serve have been various.
Regarding the Ukraine abuse of power, the national and public interests that Trump failed to serve properly are the extremely important interests of national security and the integrity of our elections.
In other instances, the consequences of Trump putting personal interest ahead of public interest have been less significant individually, but are cumulative in considering the case for impeachment
As the Democrats are emphasizing currently, there has been a patter ofTrump abusing his powers by putting personal interest ahead of public interest, and this did not suddenly happen with Ukraine.
In the impeachment, the American people will learn much about this has been happening ever since Trump took office and it started with how Trump kept and pursued his business conflicts of interest.
Certain explanations for Trump's record of putting personal interests ahead of public interest need to be considered,
One explanation is Trump's extreme narcissism, which is characterized by the narcissist seeing everything through the lens of him or herself. A narcissist such as Trump views everything that is contrary to himself as evil and wrong, and everything that favors the narcissist is right and good. Such a narcissist is unable to tolerate facts and reality that are contrary to him and he endeavors to create his own reality and facts.
Another factor explaining Trump putting personal interest ahead of the public interest is Trump's business history that he was never was accountable to anyone, such as a board of directors or shareholders, and Trump did whatever he wanted.
As President, Trump has acted in many ways not to be accountable to the American people and not to recognize the separation of powers and checks and balances, and that Article 2 does not give Trump the power to do whatever he wants.
Impeachment becomes especially necessary because of Trump so absolutely saying he has done no wrong. This evidences either that Trump does not understand that he cannot use his powers to serve his personal interests, or that he understands but he nonetheless will use his powers serve his private interests as he chooses. In either case, there is grave risk that Trump will continue to abuse his powers and use them to serve his personal interests, and impeachment is needed to stop Trump from abusing his powers.
The totality of the above is what has led to Trump's impeachment. The totality of the above needs to be considered by the United States Senate and by the American people.
"We should have policy discussion about how to stop governmental officials from using their positions to get money or favors."
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) March 21, 2024
I think both sides are massively guilty of influence peddling and only circus hearings can be expected.
For filing in https://t.co/C1p5dLtQie#alpolitics https://t.co/ItrS810Whe
No comments:
Post a Comment