Below is my column in the Los Angeles Times on the impeachment of President Donald Trump. The failure to take a little more time to secure additional witnesses (or court orders against the Administration) has already come back to haunt the House. If the Senate now decides to try the President on the thin record of the House, the House will have given the White House an easy avenue to acquittal. If the House was not willing to seek to compel the testimony of these witnesses, it will be in a poor position to demand that the Senate now complete the record that it prematurely closed with its vote. Had they waited just a couple months, they might have been able to secure some of these witnesses, particularly if they had not burned four months without seeking to compel witnesses like Bolton or, bizarrely, withdrew its subpoena for Kupperman before a court could rule.
Here is the column:
Wednesday’s impeachment of President Trump exemplifies the danger of impulse buying during the holiday rush. Despite a record of evidence that is both incomplete and conflicted, the House leadership stuck to its promise to Democratic voters that it would impeach Trump by Christmas.
There is a reason people make impulse purchases — and bring impulse impeachments. A few years ago, professors Juliet Zhu and Grace Chae completed a study of impulse buying and concluded that it increases when shoppers are “surrounded by chaos,” which “ultimately impairs [the] ability to perform other tasks requiring ‘brain’ power.” In other words, holiday crowds in combination with yet another chorus of “White Christmas” could mean you’re at high risk for making bad purchasing decisions.
As one of the four witnesses called before the House Judiciary Committee to discuss the legal issues in the Trump impeachment, I’d say the study explains a lot about Congress’ vote on Wednesday. The crescendo of impeachment noise and the chaos of partisan bickering created a perfect atmosphere for Congress to make a hasty decision.
In my testimony, I criticized four of the possible articles of impeachment for lacking critical elements under the criminal code and case law. I said I thought two articles could legitimately be brought: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, the two articles the House ultimately decided on. But I strongly encouraged the committee to take more time to develop a record to support the claims. Instead, the committee forged ahead.
I suppose the rush should have been expected. We saw a similar move 21 years ago, almost to the day, with Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Politicians just love to check off their to-do lists at year’s end.
What’s most disturbing is that the Democrats know the current record of evidence falls well short of a viable case for conviction in the Senate. Nevertheless, they opted to move the impeachment by Christmas rather than build a stronger case for a vote in early 2020.
Why? The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that finding by Zhu and Chae: A chaotic atmosphere makes for bad decision-making.
Among the worst decisions made by House Democrats is this: They burned through three months of investigating without even attempting to compel the testimony of key witnesses like national security advisor John Bolton. Instead, they based impeachment charges on a record largely based on the inferences of third-party witnesses.
As a result, they’re left with a record that requires a senator to decide every contested fact in the way least favorable to the president in order to establish an impeachable act. However, there are three direct conversations that directly contradict such a conclusion.
For one thing, the language of Trump’s July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky does not state a clear quid pro quo. You have to infer that his request for a favor implied a penalty if it wasn’t fulfilled.
And then there’s the testimony about Trump’s phone calls with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Both contain express denials of any quid pro quo. One can reasonably question the veracity of such an assertion during the calls, and that’s why the testimony of first-hand witnesses would have been so important. Yet the House made no real effort to hear from key administration figures, including Bolton, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Trump counsel Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Not only has the House been curiously passive in seeking to force such testimony; it actually withdrew one of the few subpoenas facing a court ruling in the case of Charles Kupperman, Trump’s former deputy national security advisor. Kupperman was willing to testify and simply wanted court review, but the House strangely withdrew its request that he testify.
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam B. Schiff has said that requesting courts to compel testimony would take too long. But courts can sometimes work quickly. In a critical case involving Richard Nixon’s impeachment, it took just three months to go from a ruling by the District Court to a final ruling of the Supreme Court. Nixon lost and then resigned.
Given the momentousness of impeachment, taking time to build a strong case is worth some delays. Moreover, courts have already agreed to decide other cases involving the president, including the challenge over whether Trump can be compelled to turn over tax and financial records. That puts the House in the awkward position of impeaching a president for obstruction before the Supreme Court rules on key issues.
I vehemently disagree with the sweeping privilege and immunity claims made by the Trump White House. However, presidents including Barack Obama have stood behind the shield of executive privilege and have gone to court rather than turn over evidence. Both Nixon and Clinton were able to challenge such questions and receive final decisions from the Supreme Court (which ruled against them).
In racing to meet its artificial deadline of impeaching by Christmas, the house submitted a case guaranteed to fail. Rather than wait a couple months to move forward with a greatly enhanced case, the House prefers to grab what it’s got on the shelf and run with it. It is the very profile of the impulse shopper — and the impulse impeacher.
Jonathan Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University. He has testified as a constitutional expert in both the Clinton and the Trump impeachment hearings.
“If you want power over other people, you should be a Democrat, whereas if you want to have power over your own life, you should be a Republican…
If you believe in individual liberty, you should be a Republican.”
https://globallibertymedia.com/power-and-the-modern-democratic-party/?fbclid=IwAR0KR1T7UMF_jXzcpiqP0pg18Br_TCqmhQTad6oI35tr7AoqGbFxFdMTan8
Bafflegab. It is the Republicants doing the gerrymandering. It is the Republicants kicking people off the voter rolls. It is the Republicants who openly espose voter supression as the route to staying in power.
DBB:
They kick dead people, felons and illegals off the rolls. Where do they espouse voter suppression?
Read the news.
DBB:
I do. What I see are voter ID laws which require proof of identity before voting. That’s not voter suppression.
David:
1. Citation
2. Are you referring to the partisan news that has managed to get so many things wrong over the years, such as pushing the story that Trump colluded with Russia?
3. When voter rolls are purged of dead people, felons, and double entries, anyone who feels they were removed improperly may verify their identity and be returned to the rolls.
4. Any newspaper article that claims that removing fraudulent or illegal voters from the rolls is voter suppression fails to address voter security.
5. Complaining about foreign interference while refusing to secure the vote is hypocritical. It would be easy for Russian operatives to vote by mail because there is insufficient security measures. When I vote in CA, I just tell them my name. The poll workers ask me for zero verification. I could get a list of every female currently hospitalized or in hospice, and then go from poll to poll, voting for them in CA, and no one would know.
It is racist to claim that blacks cannot figure out how to get ID when poor Latinos and Asians statistically have no trouble.
LOL! Even people in this country illegally have figured out how to get a government issued driver’s license. They’ll even wait in line, in the freezing cold to do so.
Karen, it a fact that requiring photo IDs impact the poor, elderly, students, and people of color most adversely and it is also true that the practice has no measurable effect on voter fraud at the polls (which is not a problem), and that GOP leaders know this and weaponize the practice to stifle the votes of these groups which lean Democratic.
requiring photo IDs impact the poor, elderly, students, and people of color most adversely.
Well isn’t that a statistical oddity; either those voters don’t support the GOP, or those that do have figured out how to get a photo ID. I’m curious to know if any of the illegals lining up to get driver’s licenses recently were poor, elderly, students, and people of color. Maybe they were also ESL. Perhaps they could write a How to get a photo ID for dummies book.
Facts and Karen don’t coexist.
Tony – Karen S backs up her in formation with more links than just about anybody.. You don’t have either facts or links.
links alone do not an effective argument make
go back and revisit her comments about Rocky A$AP
I hear some crazies want convicted felons to vote.
Now, I have known some convicted felons who I liked, but, we’re ok excluding convicted felons, trust me on that, it’s a good idea!
Here’s a pleasant little felon video. Oh only if wishing made it so:
The Republicans openly espouse suppressing bogus votes? Good work Republicans
Next thing you’ll be telling me is that they’re racist because they don’t want illegals from Honduras to vote, either! OK! More good news coming, I hope!
Both parties gerrymander.
Requiring people to prove who they are is not voter suppression; it’s fraud suppression.
If you want to avoid meddling in our elections that you remove foreign nationals from voting.
The only people who should be “kicked off” the voter roles are double entries, the deceased, felons, illegal aliens, legal residents, and all others who are not legally permitted to vote.
This is the lie that Democrat politicians claim, and their followers dutifully repeat – that securing the vote is “voter suppression.” It is fraud suppression. This puts the lie to Democrats complaining about Russia meddling in our elections. They do everything they can to combat any security measures whatsoever, while requiring an ID to enter their own conventions.
If you don’t want Russia to “meddle” in the 2020 election, then first Democrats should accept the result of the 2016 election. Then, they should secure voting against fraud.
Efforts to combat securing the vote enable fraud.
As I’ve said before, I personally know of illegal aliens and legal residents who illegally voted in our elections. When an illegal alien steals an identity to pass as a citizen, they get automatically registered to vote, and mailed voting materials.
I am curious why Democrats are so eager to suspend critical reasoning. Why wouldn’t illegal aliens vote? Why ignore polls that show that 13% of illegals admitted they vote, or studies that showed millions of illegals have voted? Answer: because it suits them politically. At some level, they must know they are spouting untruths, and being hypocrites for opposing Russian meddling in our elections while doing everything in their power to combat voter security.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/
“A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.
“We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections,” wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.
More specifically, they write, “Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”
Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That’s a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it’s not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too.
Critics note that a Harvard team in 2015 had responded to the study, calling it “biased.” But that report included this gem: “Further, the likely percent of noncitizen voters in recent U.S. elections is 0.”
Really? That’s simply preposterous, frankly, as anyone who has lived in California can attest. Leftist get-out-the-vote groups openly urge noncitizens to vote during election time, and the registration process is notoriously loose. To suggest there is no illegal voting at all is absurd.”
David:
Reexamine the quote that I posted. Instead of a non sequitur, give a reason.
Democrat policies increase government power at the expense of individual rights. Just go ask the little pizza shop targeted for destruction because the owner’s daughter said they would not want to cater to a hypothetical gay wedding. Or ask the baker who wouldn’t bake a hail satan cake, or one that’s blue outside and pink inside to celebrate the mental illness of gender dysphoria.
If you disagree or don’t understand that Democrat policies do this, while Republicans seek greater individual autonomy, then make your argument.
“If you want power over other people, you should be a Democrat, whereas if you want to have power over your own life, you should be a Republican…
If you believe in individual liberty, you should be a Republican.”
https://globallibertymedia.com/power-and-the-modern-democratic-party/?fbclid=IwAR0KR1T7UMF_jXzcpiqP0pg18Br_TCqmhQTad6oI35tr7AoqGbFxFdMTan8
Karen S, start over from the top with your quotation, etc. These replies to replies to … are impossible for me to follow on this mobile device.
Do not confuse state and federal actions.
Republicants supress votes:
https://www.salon.com/2019/12/21/trump-adviser-caught-on-recording-discussing-how-gop-traditionally-relies-on-suppressing-votes/
I can only speak for myself. I WANT TO SUPPRESS VOTES! Suppress the bad ones. See only a fool thinks a vote is good just because its a vote. You don’t think that either. You would suppress my vote if you could.
——————————-
Now I’ve signed up two voters for the next round of late but guess what? They’re suitable! they can read! They’re Americans! They have clean records!
I’d be 100% for bringing back literacy tests. I have a hard time understanding how somebody should be able to vote if they can’t even read. Nobody has ever explained that to me. High School diploma or GED equivalent even better. Seriously.
I’d raise it to 21. What now you can’t buy a pack of smokes but you can vote? Talk about dumb and dumber
i can hear it now. boo hooo! That’s racist! They did that down south a hundred years ago! It will have a disparate impact! …… eeek!
I say,
SO WHAT! GET OVER IT! MOVING ON NOW!
David:
From your own article, “As should be clear from the context of my remarks, my point was that Republicans historically have been falsely accused of voter suppression and that it is time we stood up to defend our own voters,” Clark told the outlet. “Neither I nor anyone I know or work with would condone anyone’s vote being threatened or diluted and our efforts will be focused on preventing just that.”
Much has been made of the 1982 consent degree, which came about because of one New Jersey group that tried to fight voter fraud.
The RNC settled a lawsuit in 1982, but admitted no wrongdoing. A New Jersey group called the National Ballot Security Task Force hired off duty police officers to patrol polling places. They posted a sign that read
“WARNING
THIS AREA IS BEING PATROLLED BY THE
NATIONAL BALLOT
SECURITY TASK FORCE
IT IS A CRIME TO FALSIFY A BALLOT OR
TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAWS”
The security measures and signage were accused of intimidating minority voters.
They should not have settled because this limited their ability to question voter fraud, which allowed Democrats to benefit. Since 1982, the Republican Party has been unable to contest an election due to suspected voter fraud due to this settlement.
This was criticized at the time for giving the DNC carte blanche to engage in voter fraud, and to fight efforts at voter fraud prevention.
It is actually the Democrat Party that has a long, well established history of voter suppression. The Klan was the terrorist arm of the DNC that threatened black voters unless they do as they’re told. Even today, we see efforts to intimidate women and minorities who express conservative views. There is a very disturbing video of white Democrat men literally screaming in Candace Owens’ face and throwing water on her head outside a restaurant. Fundamentally, not much has changed in the Democrat Party. If you don’t speak and vote as you’re told, you will be harassed, threatened, intimidated, called vile names, have friends and family threaten to sever relationships…all in attempts to intimidate voters.
Untruths.
David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-one citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-six weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – citation needed, David
In order for investigating Joe Biden to be an abuse of power, a reasonable person would believe him innocent.
Why shouldn’t Joe Biden be investigated? His son was dishonorably discharged from the military, and was roaming homeless encampments to buy crack. He was hired for $83,000 a month by a Ukrainian oil and gas company. His only qualification was that his father set Ukrainian policy. Joe Biden bragged about a quid pro quo in which he withhold $1 billion in aid unless the prosecutor was fired within 6 hours. This prosecutor was investigating Burisma.
What was Burisma paying Hunter Biden $83,000/month for? That’s about 5 times more than Exxon executives with years of experience earn. What were they buying? His experience? No. His skill? No. His knowledge? No. HIs connection to the man who said, on camera, he sets policy in Ukraine? Yes.
This entire thing was because Donald Trump sought to investigate this allegation against Joe and Hunter Biden. Democrats called it abusing his power to get dirt on his political rival. Burisma can pay $83,000 to a drug addict whose only qualification is his father was the VP, who withheld $1 billion in aid to get the prosecutor off their back, but if Trump investigates it, he will be impeached for getting dirt on a rival.
Keep in mind that the Democrat Party used Russian intelligence to create a false dossier, now discredited, that claimed Trump was working with the Russians. False political dirt to meddle in the 2016 election.
Over and over again, the Democrats are themselves guilty of what they accuse Republicans of doing. You have to suspend reasoning at an astonishing level not to acknowledge this.
Whenever a Leftist dictatorship rises, it is with the help of those who suspend their moral judgment and critical reasoning. They gleefully usher in tyranny. We are seeing the attempt now.
What follows is the Ukrainian transcript of a meeting with Bursima’s lawyers, after Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired.
It was an apology for false statements disseminated by US representatives and public figures about the prosecutor’s office.
https://www.scribd.com/document/427616178/Ukraine-PGO-Memo-Translation
Does anyone know why on my end I see a bunch of ping backs after my post? What causes that? Does everyone see this from their computers after their posts?
It’s just when the ping backs are set.
Karen, putting aside your disregard of the facts about Shokin’s firing, – which was IMF, EU, and US State Dept policy, a fact corroborated by a current GOP congressman who was serving there at that time as an FBI consultant to the Ukrainians on corruption, as well as at least 3 witnesses at the recent hearings, including the Republican Amb. Volker – there are proper channels for such investigations which do not include the President leaning on foreign leaders to make public announcements about investigating his primary political rival. Please tell me you understand why as I don’t like wasting time on those unable to grasp simple ethical concepts.
bythebook – You disregard the facts.
Transcript of the meeting with Burisma’s lawyers after Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired, in which they apologize for false statements made by the US representatives and public figures about the prosecutor.
https://www.scribd.com/document/427616178/Ukraine-PGO-Memo-Translation
No one leaned on Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The evidence disproved that. What you have instead was hearsay, and at least one person who admitted he’d made the whole thing up.
Did Joe Biden go through proper channels when he said fire the prosecutor or I leave in 6 hours, taking $1 billion in aid with me? No Was he following procedure or the Constitution when he told Ukraine, and then bragged about it on camera that he set Ukrainian policy, not Obama? No.
You seem unable to grasp basic ethics. Repeating untruths as you are wont to do does not make them true. Pretending not to see perfidy because it benefits your political cause is unethical and lacks judgement.
The United States Supreme Court – in a 9-0 holding – unequivocally ruled that no trial is required for the Senate to acquit, or convict, anyone impeached by the House of Representatives.”
https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/12/22/scotus-no-articles-of-impeachment-or-a-trial-are-required-for-the-senate-to-acquit-president-trump/
What’s wrong Bugtussle Weekly Grange didn’t carry the story? Maybe TASS has a better read.
Tony – I had heard of the Nixon case before, but had not read it. Now, having read Nixon, I am changing my vote and backing JT.
New sock puppet, same stupidity.
Helpful to read the Oxford English Dictionary online:
https://www.lexico.com/definition/impeachment
15,000 falsehoods and counting…
“15,000 falsehoods and counting…” by Democrats. Trump is an antisemite. Nope. Trump is a Russian asset. Nope. Trump is mentally incompetent. Nope. Trump has heart disease. Nope. Trump tried to kill the Japanese imperial koi. Nope. Trump praised Neo Nazis. Nope. Trump praised white supremacists. Nope. Trump called all Mexicans animals. Nope – that was MS-13 and their policy of rape, kill, control. Trump tried to bribe Ukraine. No.
Over and over and on and on, the lies keep rolling.
Karen needs to find some friends. Yep.
If Turley cared about the facts of the impeachment case and their vetting, he’d stop harping on perceived errors by Democrats dealing with an obviously self serving and constantly lying president being defended by Republicans doing their best to avoid the evidence and begin asking the Senate Republicans to request the testimony of those 1st person witnesses Trump is hiding. Since most Americans want to hear these witnesses, including Republicans, maybe Turley should put down the Trump water and catch up with his countrymen on how to resolve the crisis.
By the way, asking a foreign leader to publicly smear the Presidents strongest rival for office is reason enough for removal whether there was threat and QPQ or not. In this case the evidence, including the most recent revelation about how quickly after the 7-25 phone call the aid was put on hold, all indicates there was a QPQ of a base and scurrilous nature, other than the denials of the accused and of the victim with obvious motive to lie low. One must either be trying to not see the obvious here, or notably dim . Which is Turley?
Turley seems overly caught up in legal niceties. This is the real raw for the incisors.
asking a foreign leader to publicly smear the Presidents strongest rival for office is reason enough for removal whether there was threat and QPQ or not.
LOL! So never mind what he did was proper, he should be impeached because you feel Trump committed elder abuse.
“So never mind what he did was proper”
Was it?
Proper, yes. As in, within his constitutional authority.
No, an abuse of power.
Impeached for it.
Investigating Joe Biden for alleged criminal activity is not an abuse of power. This is obstruction of an investigation.
The evidence showed that aid was not linked to any investigation.
The President, and ambassadors, all agreed that the President of Ukraine should make a public statement against corruption prior to meeting President Trump. This seems obvious, as president Zelensky ran an anti-corruption plan. Considering Ukraine’s ties to Russia, requesting assurances it was fighting corruption was responsible.
This entire case has crumbled, like all the other false allegations that no one seems to talk about anymore.
Shameful.
The aid was turned off after the phone call.
As was right and proper.
Wrong. The media breathlessly reported that the aid was frozen immediately after Trump’s now-famous July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president. That all sounds terribly incriminating – if only it were true.
It’s reckless to tie the hold of funds to the phone call. As has been established and publicly reported, the hold was announced in an inter-agency meeting on July 18,” the agency’s Rachel Semmel told CNN.
That statement – which happens to be a true and accurate reflection of established fact
David, just stop. You can’t have a quid pro quo if the other party doesn’t know about it. That’s literally not a quid pro quo. The Democrats’ own witnesss confirmed Ukraine knew nothing about it.
That alone destroyed their entire argument.
The Democrats are abusing power to obstruct an investigation into their presidential candidate running in the primaries.
Why do you support this abuse of power?
No, an abuse of power.
Name the abuse of his legitimate authority and cite the evidence. Maybe you don’t want our President to be concerned with where our tax dollars are going in foreign countries, but I and many millions of Americans do. I am 100% confident you would want your choice of president to demand Burisma be fully investigated, if Don Jr. was on their board and President Trump had ordered Zelensky to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma, or else they wouldn’t get aid.
And no, Burisma and the Bidens have not been fully investigated and cleared. If they had, you would see the evidence that proved them on the up and it would be national news. You would see Joe Biden talking about it to anyone that would listen. No, instead he keeps trying to bury it as a nothingburger. That ain’t gonna happen, regardless of the number of times Democrats want to impeach this president for exercising his proper authority to take care of effing money.
Olly, there is nothing proper about asking a foreign leader to make a public announcement to investigate your primary political rival, and if Obama had done such a thing, your hair would rightly be on fire.
I notice you also avoided my main poinr which was that the GOP Senate – as well as the President – should be the target now of any complaints about 1st person witnesses not testifying.
You want to hear them, right?
there is nothing proper about asking a foreign leader to make a public announcement to investigate your primary political rival,
Well it’s a good thing he didn’t demanded Zelensky investigate his political rival. Now if he suggested in any way that he wanted Zelensky to examine corrupt acts allegedly committed by our previous VP involving (QPQ) the firing of the prosecutor general investigating alleged corruption at Burisma, then that is what we would want the president to do. The fact Biden is running for the Democrat nomination is irrelevant. And no, it’s never been fully investigated, because if it had, and Biden was cleared, he would have that all over the national news.
I notice you also avoided my main poinr
Whining is not a point. The House failed and the Senate does not have to do their work for them.
Olly, given your admitting that you don’t care to learn the facts about the allegations – obvious to anyone reading your posts – I don’t care to debate the also obvious abuse of office involved in forcing foreign leaders to publicly slander ones primary political opponent. I just did that with Karen and you can read that post if you care.
given your admitting that you don’t care to learn the facts about the allegations – obvious to anyone reading your posts –
You have this unscrupulous habit of stating your feelings as facts. Now if you have evidence that I’ve ever said I don’t care to learn the facts about the allegations, then I will correct the record. Similarly, if you have evidence that President Trump forced a foreign leader to publicly slander his primary, secondary or whatever political opponent, then produce it. And no, producing an Adam Schiffesque parody as evidence is not evidence.
Yes it is proper if the rivals are corrupt
And we know from indisputable fact that they were
so there, end of story
Rival (singular), and there is no evidence he is corrupt, except the statement of the prosecutor he got fired with the backing of virtually the entire western world, and who a sitting GOP congressman, an FBI advisor in the Ukraine at the time has verified is a crook.
with the backing of virtually the entire western world, and who a sitting GOP congressman, an FBI advisor in the Ukraine at the time has verified is a crook.
Have you seen all the evidence proving this to be true? If there were, you’d expect Biden to cite it every time he’s questioned about it. He’d be a national hero on his way to the presidency.
Olly, I have heard the GOP congressman being interviewed about Shokin, heard Amber Volker, Amb Marie V., and current State Dept official George Kent, all of whom were there, attest to Biden’s blameless work in the Ukraine, and have read State Dept, IMF, and EU policy positions on Shokin getting fired. Make it worth my while and I’ll post the links, or you can search it yourself. In short, if Biden was acting corruptly to protect his son, so where all these people, some of whom (Volker for sure) are republicans , and others – the IMF and EU – don’t know Hunter Biden from rock salt.
Of course, none of this is relevant to whether we want our presidents using the power of their office to lean on foreign leaders to announce investigations of their primary political opponent.
…of their primary political opponent.
You keep saying that as if that’s in evidence. There is evidence he wanted him to look into corruption. Never did he mention helping him personally for anything to do with an upcoming election. That is the black hole that has sucked in all the anti-Trumpers, from which they will never escape.
Investigating allegations of criminal wrongdoing is not “asking a foreign leader to publicly smear the President’s strongest rival”.
Do you think that running for office as a Democrat is some kind of shield against investigations? Ironic, since Trump was investigated as candidate and President.
This is also not what Trump asked. The transcript shows that Trump asked for Zelensky’s cooperation in the investigation into interference in the 2016 election. There was no threat. No bullying. No leverage.
The acrobatics that Democrats are contorting themselves with is astounding.
If the President was Obama, and the person in question to investigate was Trump, whose son got paid by a Ukrainian oil and gas company $83,000 a month with no experience other than roaming homeless encampments looking for drugs, while his father set Ukraining policy, would you support the House impeaching Obama over this?
Be honest. No. You would not. Because this isn’t justice. It’s dirty politics, and too many people have flexible morality if it benefits their political cause.
If Trump really did commit a high crime and misdemeanor, such as assassinating Trudeau for mocking him, then there would be bipartisan support to remove him. That is why the only bipartisan aspect of this entire affair is the handful of Democrats who defected against impeachment.
Karen S – I think when you mock the President, you mock the office and the United States. I am not sure you would have votes to convict him for killing Trudeau. 😉
Paul C. Schulte,
I’m not even sure that’d be a high crime or misdemeanor.
It would depend upon whether or not he was in blackface at the time…
(Kidding! I’m kidding!)
At this point, there have been so many false accusations that there would be a Cry Wolf Syndrome. It’s been years of false allegations. If Democrats finally leveled a truthful one, I’m not sure anyone but their base would believe them, at this point.
Karen, I’m happy to debate the known facts of this event, but you have not addressed my main point, which is if Turley – or anyone else – is serious about resolving what is undeniably a stain on the presidency, if not reason for his removed, he should focus on the GOP Senate leadership to ask for the first person witnesses, on whose testimony he has repeatedly placed so much emphasis. Attacking the Democrats again is beating a dead horse. The ball is no longer in their court.
You’d like to hear those witnesses confirm.your faith in the president and his word – “no QPQ” – right?
bythebook:
“Karen, I’m happy to debate the known facts of this event” – then perhaps you should start doing so.
Karen, the President did not ask Zelensky for renewed investigations of corruption in his country – a long standing problem which Biden worked on as VP, as attested to by the IMF, the EU, our State Dept, and recent witnesses Volker, Amb. Marie V, and George Kent. He asked for a public announcement of an investigation of an issue and a person with direct consequences on his 2020 election efforts. You understand that, right?
btb:
Only in your pint-sized mind is asking for an investigation of obvious corruption worse that the corruption itself. Progressiveness truly is a mental disorder.
Mespo, as an alleged lawyer you make so little effort to mount compelling arguments. Perhaps the comfort zones are too high for you here.
PS:
It is a classic argument to show you have no sense of perspective or proportion in your charges. In short, it says you have no discernible judgment and, coupled with your highly partisan stance, that you have no integrity either.
Phillip:
You tell us, if you can, without an ad hominem. Make your argument.
Why shouldn’t Joe Biden be investigated? His son was dishonorably discharged from the military, and was roaming homeless encampments to buy crack. He was hired for $83,000 a month by a Ukrainian oil and gas company. His only qualification was that his father set Ukrainian policy. Joe Biden bragged about a quid pro quo in which he withhold $1 billion in aid unless the prosecutor was fired within 6 hours. This prosecutor was investigating Burisma.
What was Burisma paying Hunter Biden $83,000/month for? That’s about 5 times more than Exxon executives with years of experience earn. What were they buying? His experience? No. His skill? No. His knowledge? No. HIs connection to the man who said, on camera, he sets policy in Ukraine? Yes.
This entire thing was because Donald Trump sought to investigate this allegation against Joe and Hunter Biden. Remember? They called it abusing his power to get dirt on his political rival. Get it? Burisma can pay $83,000 to a drug addict whose only qualification is his father was the VP, who withheld $1 billion in aid to get the prosecutor off their back, but if Trump investigates it, he will be impeached for getting dirt on a rival.
Keep in mind that the Democrat Party used Russian intelligence to create a false dossier, now discredited, that claimed Trump was working with the Russians. False political dirt to meddle in the 2016 election.
Over and over again, the Democrats are themselves guilty of what they accuse Republicans of doing. You have to suspend reasoning at an astonishing level not to acknowledge this.
Whenever a Leftist dictatorship rises, it is with the help of those who suspend their moral judgment and critical reasoning. They gleefully usher in tyranny. We are seeing the attempt now.
What follows is the Ukrainian transcript of a meeting with Bursima’s lawyers, after Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired.
It was an apology for false statements disseminated by US representatives and public figures about the prosecutor’s office.
https://www.scribd.com/document/427616178/Ukraine-PGO-Memo-Translation
PS fake jive talking turkey. Mesp is a lawyer. and a good one
Phillip, I’m afraid Menlo makes compelling points as it is well know that he is not partisan and therefore of the highest integrity and has previously stated that he will not waste time insulting me. We must therefore take his comments as pure and well intended to help us find our way. The man is brilliant, even if he sounds like a stupid a.shole.
btb:
“The man is brilliant, even if he sounds like a stupid a.shole.”
*********************
I suppose Vivaldi sounds like squealing tires to the apes.
bythebook – why do you think that people get banned for constantly violating the civility rule, only to return with a new sock puppet?
I’ve often wondered…
Wondering implies thinking, thanks for the chuckle.
Byethebook, who said that somebody said that Trump said he wanted Zelensky to publically announce a Biden investigation?
I’ve been able to track most of these “I heard it through the grapevine” third and forth hand accounts as they passed from person to person.
But not this allegation about a public announcement from Zelensky. I think Holmes was said to have made that claim in his testimony, but I reviewed his testimony, too. d
And I can’t find anything about that in his testimony.
This is an open question , so if anyone knows the source of that allegation, I would appreciate the information.
Anonymous – that turned out to be another misrepresentation. Zelensky ran on an anti-corruption platform. Trump and his ambassadors all agreed that Zelensky should make a public declaration about fighting corruption, in line with his campaign promises, before meeting with Trump.
There was no mention at all of Biden. It was a meeting, not aid.
This was all perfectly normal statesmanship. This is another false accusation, proven wrong. Democrats are trying to kneecap trump prior to 2020 because they don’t have confidence that any of their candidates can win fair and square. It’s cheating.
Thanks, Karen S.
Given the large cast of characters, hearsay piled upon hearsay, and many hours of testimony, it’s takes some work to sort things out.
I can review the transcripts and track down “who said what”, at least in most cases.
I can’t track down something that was not said, and I became curious about the source of this alleged ( public announcement) request that Trump made of Zelensky.
I had to keep pausing the video of testimony to work out a flow chart of who said what and when.
“This was all perfectly normal statesmanship. ”
And Karen would certainly know, given her vast amount of experience.
And Karen would certainly know, given her vast amount of experience…supporting truth with evidence.
There, fixed it for you.
Right. Because some guy who calls himself “OLLY” says so.
The truth is in short supply these days. And “evidence” isn’t always what it seems to be.
Yup, prove me wrong.
The truth is in short supply these days. And “evidence” isn’t always what it seems to be.
You have that backwards. Evidence is in short supply, making the truth not what it seems to be.
Anonymous:
So, you oppose my statement that asking for a public confirmation of Zelensky’s anti-corruption platform was not normal statesmanship.
Why? Why would you support giving money to a nation with ties to Russia, and a long history of corruption, without even asking for a statement confirming they are going to fight corruption? The aid was not tied to such a statement. It was requested prior to a meeting with Trump, and the ambassadors agreed it was in the best interests of both countries.
You do not agree, so explain your reasoning.
Also explain why Joe Biden should not be investigated.
Sondland said that is worn tesgimony, and he also said that the investigation did not matter, only the announcement. You can Google it.
byethebook, I did Google it. I found no statement by Sondland or anyone else claiming that Trump made that request of Zelensky.
Anonymous, the relevant testimony is quoted here:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/20/20974201/gordon-sondland-impeachment-hearing-testimony-biden-show-trump
Sondland is clear: “He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.” There was never an ask for an actual investigation, just an announcement:
So let me see if I understand the controversy correctly. President Trump asked President Zelensky, who ran on an anti-corruption platform, to make a public statement (go on the record) that he was going to investigate corruption, but President Trump’s crime was that he never asked him to follow through with the investigation? I’m still trying to find evidence that he told Zelensky he was not going to receive aid until he went public and still trying to find evidence Zelensky believed he was not getting aid without meeting preconditions.
The release of the July 25th call transcript made public the ask of Zelensky and the answer:
I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor .general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and
will start. as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you
mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the
case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to µs, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich.
I’m still trying to find evidence that proves President Trump ever asked anyone, including Zelensky, to dig up dirt on his political rival; investigate his main political opponent; or anything regarding getting foreign assistance to benefit him personally in the 2020 election.
If everyone in the Western world, EU, IMF, LGBTQ and whatever other batch of letters you want to piece together already knew an investigation was concluded into allegations of corruption in Ukraine, it’s quite odd President Zelensky would win on an anti-corruption platform. It’s quite odd he would win with a promise to waste public funds investigating something that didn’t need investigating. And quite odd he didn’t provide President Trump the assurance (evidence) of the outcome of prior investigations.
Olly, Trump and his aides all requested an investigation of Biden. Trump never said “corruption” in his conversation with Zelensky. No one has said that corruption was cleaned up in the Ukraine and Zelensky ran and won on a platform of anti-corruption. Our UkrainiAn diplomats and experts all testified that he was a legitimate anti-corruption leader with the backing of the majority of his parliament. He did not need the supposed moral leadership of Trump.
Trump never said “corruption” in his conversation with Zelensky.
He also never said anything regarding his main political rival, helping him personally, 2020 election, QPQ, withholding funds until…, etc. He didn’t even describe that or even hint at that. But what you’re saying then is President Trump’s impeachable offense is that while he described investigating corruption, he failed to use the actual word corruption?
Thanks, bythebook. I combed through the testimony of Sondland, Holmes, and about 10 others and I couldn’t find it.
So Sondland testified that Guiliani told him that Trump told Guiliani that he wanted the public announcement.
That was evidently not conveyed to Zelensky, and I don’t think there’s any documentation to show that Trump or Guiliani or anyone else told that to Zelensky.
I guess you failed Google 101.
No humour this blog.
No humor on the blog? I beg to differ…
https://babylonbee.com/news/this-hip-portland-coffee-shop-will-only-hire-you-if-you-fail-a-drug-test
That’s not Jonathan Turley’s blog.
*density beyond lead*
David – a humorous comment post on Turley’s blog means there is humor on the blog. Literally.
Perhaps your complaint that there was not enough levity on a legal blog about politics filled with quarrels just fell flat, but if you want a satire website, try the Onion or the Babylon Bee. It might improve your disposition.
Come on, David, we laugh at you all the time.
You exaggerate, Mespo. I only laugh at Benson most of the time.
Tulsi Gabbard:
“2,400 Americans & countless Afghans have been killed in Afghanistan War that our leaders have known for 18 yrs is unwinnable. They’ve lied about progress in that war to get the $4bn/month it costs. My new bill calls for congressional investigation. It’s time for accountability.”
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1208729146349608961
I appreciate Tulsi’s outrage about this but it’s easy to understand in retrospect, that the US was playing for a stalemate all along. and we still are. Basically the Taliban are permanent masters of the barren countryside and the US is permanent master of Kabul. Unless the US leaves. Which will mean what? the taliban takes control of Kabul again and the things the US really cares about are cut off.
So the solution is, make a deal with the Taliban that secures access to Kabul airstrips and stuff like that. rare earths or whatever the US was really in there for in the first place.
you get to be a certain age and it all starts to look like resource competition after a while and all the nonsense fades away, stuff like getting women in burkas to vote and all that sort of phony propaganda, not that I ever believed an ounce of it. in retrospect there’s no joy in seeing that your cynicism was essentially right
This was all political maneuvering. Mise en place.
The facts exonerate Trump, which is why the House did not allow Trump to call whatever witnesses he wanted. It’s why they pushed forward, as their hearsay witnesses’ testimony crumbled, and one even admitted he’d made the whole thing up as an assumption.
Their intent appears to be to wound Trump for 2020, barring some miracle with never Trump Republicans giving them enough votes for removal.
Pelosi is demanding control over the Republican Senate’s procedure. While voicing insincerities about upholding the Constitution, she demands to circumvent the Constitution and dictate to the Senate how they do their end of the process. She is withholding the bill of impeachment, because once she releases it, the Senate can clear Trump’s name. So she delays, demanding control. If they won’t give it to her, then after the facts clear Trump, she will claim it wasn’t a fair trial. Their voters have become conditioned to accept without question one false allegation after another, forgetting all about them on cue and moving on to the next. This has gone on for years, and yet their ability for total acceptance and amnesia is holding remarkably strong.
This will be their rallying cry to try to hurt Trump’s chances, claim he would have been removed if there had been a “fair” trail. And by fair, she means ignoring exculpatory evidence and witnesses, and not allowing Trump’s team to question witnesses or call their own list.
The Democrats have obstructed an investigation into Joe Biden, a Democrat presidential hopeful, denied Trump due process, ignored the evidence, all in order to meddle in the 2020 election.
This is shockingly dirty politics. I wonder how many Democrats are getting that bad feeling in the pit of their stomach, that something isn’t right. Perhaps not, if they only get their news from the mainstream media.
I had many problems with Trump as a candidate. I did not know much about him and found his flaws off-putting. He has done far better than I thought he would. I have found myself constantly defending Trump from dishonest allegations, which was surprising considering that he does deserve honest criticism at times. Rather than focus on his missteps or where he could improve, in any sort of constructive dialogue, there has been one false allegation after another piled on him. The Left has made a nasty industry out of leveling false accusations against conservatives for decades (Republicans want to throw Grandma off a cliff, etc). It has reached a fever pitch with Trump. Trump did not make Democrats behave this way. They have been treating us this way for many years, long before Trump was elected. It has only increased. Objecting to his win was deemed an excuse to “resist” and not accept the outcome of a lawful election. This has dragged on for 3 years. It’s trench warfare. It’s divided the country. It’s false attacks meant to inflict death by a thousand cuts.
The economy is booming. Minorities have the lowest unemployment in history. Democrat candidates are eagerly presenting plans that will ruin the economy and get those minorities back into Welfare, where they will remain dutiful Democrat voters. Everyone will be worse off.
Falsity after falsity. The Donald was invited but refused. Etc., etc. ad nauseum.
David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-five weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. -wasn’t Trump in Europe meeting with NATO? Would his attending the hearing weaken the defense of the US?
David, why have you not exerted any effort into researching this? We have already told you that the House has denied Donald Trump due process. That is why he has not participated. He would be denied executive privilege, denied the right to bring whatever witnesses he wants, or to question whatever witnesses he wants.
Nadler would allow Trump to participate, but only if he waived privilege. Then it would become yet another data mining opposition research mission for 2020.
This whole thing is a farce. You know this, because I’ve already given you links to where Republicans were gaveled down and denied the right to ask questions.
Yawn.
The House did what the Constitution requires.
The Constitution does not require the House to ignore exculpatory evidence.
David – you do not address any point given to you.
Karen S.,
Benson does not exert himself. He scatters one or two short, empty sentences here and there, and that’s about it.
I do not like Pres. Trump or the job he is doing, and thus disagree sharply with your closing paragraph, but I am totally with you in your characterization of the Dems’ impeachment posturing. It’s a publicity stunt, designed to get their base mad so they will turn out for the 2020 election–and also a publicity stunt to distract the Democratic primary process away from substantive issues and ensure the nomination of “Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden” (a phrase I am sick of hearing) or someone like him, who will continue the same policies that turned so many Obama voters into Trump voters.
I laughed every time they said Biden was “Trump’s main political rival”. He is not in it to win it. He’s a terrible candidate. Even at the debates, HIS Democratic rivals don’t lay a finger on him. Why?
Prof Turley writes as if he thinks this was anything but a political smear concocted by the media and the Democrats.
The truly sad part is that the House has shown disrespect for the Constitution, the other two branches of government, and the other half of the Legislative branch by their actions.
They seem to think the Executive is subordinate to their will, the Courts are irrelevant, and the House gets to tell the Senate how to exercise its sole power to try impeachment’s.
The slack jawed imbeciles in the media nod their heads in unison as Pelosi alternately tells them there is no time to gather facts as Trump is actively attacking our elections and at the same time refusing to transmit the Articles until she can dictate how the Senate conducts the trial.
The executive branch is to provide congress with necessary information on their performance.
Indeed, the courts are irrelevant; read the Constitution.
No, the House cannot tell the Senate how to conduct it’s affairs.
Jonathan: In your opinion piece in the LA times (12/9/190) you use art metaphors to say the House impeachment inquiry was “an exercise in pointillism” which failed in connecting the dots. If art metaphors apply “pointillism” in the hands of Georges Seurat, and his progeny, nevertheless depicted reality even though up close all you see are points of color. Continuing the art metaphors what I see from the House impeachment hearings is a rich mosaic of individual pieces that, taken together, paint a picture of a craven President intent on using a foreign power to interfere in the 2020 election to dig up dirt on his probable political opponent. That’s an abuse of power. What could John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney add to the picture already painted by countless witnesses in the impeachment inquiry? Except to delay the process into next year to the benefit of Trump and Republicans. I say the picture is already complete. Even an artist knows not to over paint!
Micro-pointillism?
More like a smear than a painting. By you standards both Barack Obama and Joe Biden should have been impeached and removed from office.
Is that what you’re saying?
“We said we wanted peach and mint by Chistmas, you stupid suckers.”
Yes, yes!
We are witnessing Democrats in Congress and the FBI abuse their power and authority. Do not give them more of it.
Balderdash.
We already know your speciality, Benson.
There’s no point in you bragging about the balderdash that you post here.
There’s no shortage of balderdash here, of course. Plenty to go around.
For one thing, it’s overly optimistic to assume that no one would exploit these deficiencies in monitoring the voting rolls.
For another thing, there is very little cross- checking of the dead and the undead, of those registered in multiple states, etc.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/10/cracking-down-on-people-who-vote-twice.html
“If it was wrong to vote twice, why didn’t they tell me?”
“The Myth of Voter Fraud—and the Truth About What’s Threatening Our Elections”
“Congress needs to update the Voting Rights Act to prevent states from suppressing votes.”
BY ROBERT REICH NOVEMBER 28, 2019
https://prospect.org/civil-rights/voter-fraud-myth-and-truth-about-US-elections/
If you don’t have to prove your identity, why wouldn’t people commit voter fraud? It defies reason to simultaneously state that Democrats remove all security measures to verify voters’ identity, and yet voter fraud doesn’t happen. Why wouldn’t it?
I personally know, and know of, illegal aliens and legal residents who voted illegally. Of course it’s not a myth. A poll showed that 13% of illegal aliens admit they vote. When illegal aliens commit identity theft to pass as citizens, they get automatically enrolled to vote. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/
A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.
“We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections,” wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.
Is it suppression of minorities to require ID to cash a check, use a credit card at some stores, open a bank account, rent an apartment, notarize a document, board an airplane, drive a car, enter a federal building, or any of the myriad other ways that ID is required to function in society?
No. It does not. Either requiring an ID suppresses minorities in all cases, or none of them.
It is racist to claim that black people cannot figure out how to get an ID. This is not said of Latinos or illegal aliens. In fact, the most common crime committed by illegal aliens is identity theft. This is not said of poor Asians. They get ID just fine, and their kids statistically outperform most demographics in schools. This is only said about black people, which is racist. Black people have ID.
States have programs that waive fees for ID for the poor.
The most common demographic without ID is the elderly who no longer drive. They need an ID to get medical advanced directives and powers of attorney, and so it is in their interest to help them get ID. Therefore, there are programs that help the elderly get ID, too.
Karen’s working hard these days. Oh, yeah, it’s the holiday season.
Note here how Anonymous does not address any point, and instead makes a snide ad hominem.
This is typical of the Saul Alinsky strategy to avoid debate. When you don’t have the facts to win an argument, go for the speaker.
The only problem is that it becomes painfully obvious to the most casual observer that they have no answer to my argument.
No, Karen. It’s just a waste of time.
Again, Anonymous addresses no point. Just makes a desultory insult.
This has become quite the trend with the Democrat Party, the legacy of Saul Alinsky. Time to expose it.
Right. Karen, they just want to waste YOUR time.
So, keep the replies short because most fools have their minds made up anyways
We’re probably going to have to settle this the medieval way in the end
Karen’s obviously a gal with plenty of time to waste…or something… Wink, wink.
Robert Reich is a liar on this topic.
Down here on the ground we know voter fraud exists.
I personally have proved it myself, and the Democrat boosters here always ignore the information, because, surprise surprise, its the DEMOCRATS WHO DO IT BEST! it’s practically their specialty
i have heard this: one is the evil party and the other one is the stupid party.
“How the Case for Voter Fraud Was Tested — and Utterly Failed”
“From a new Supreme Court ruling to a census question about citizenship, the campaign against illegal registration is thriving. But when the top proponent was challenged in a Kansas courtroom to prove that such fraud is rampant, the claims went up in smoke.”
by Jessica Huseman
June 19, 2018, 3:40 p.m. EDT
https://www.propublica.org/article/kris-kobach-voter-fraud-kansas-trial
KEEP ON IGNORING THIS ONE DEMOCRATS
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/election-fraud-the-2008-indiana-presidential-campaign-case-study
Opponents of electoral reform continue to insist that, despite all evidence to the contrary, election and voter fraud are a nonexistent problem in America.[1] This myopic view is wrong not only because numerous cases show that these problems do exist, but also because of the deep implications that unchecked election fraud can have for American politics. As the Supreme Court of the United States said in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, “not only is the risk of voter fraud real but … it could affect the outcome of a close election.”[2]
In fact, the conviction of local party officials and election workers involved with the 2008 Indiana Democratic primary provides a recent example of the warning sounded in Crawford. This fraud was not uncovered until well after the 2008 presidential election, so Americans will never know what impact it might have had on the heated contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President if it had been discovered at the time.
One thing, however, is certain: Had this fraud been discovered, Barack Obama would have been disqualified from the primary ballot in a major state, and Hillary Clinton would have won all of the Democratic Party delegates in Indiana.
Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda >>
2008 Indiana Democratic Primary
In the spring of 2008, the Democratic primary season was in full swing. Then-Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were relatively even in the number of delegates each had received.[3] Going into the May 6 primaries, Senator Obama had a slight lead over Senator Clinton.[4] According to a New York Times calculation, Senator Obama had 1,474 delegates to Senator Clinton’s 1,377—a difference of less than a hundred delegates.[5]
However, Senator Clinton had an edge in superdelegates,[6] a special category of additional Democratic Party delegates who are not elected through the normal primary and caucus process. Instead, these delegates are automatically designated as delegates by party rules and include elected officials and party committee members. As of May 2, Clinton had 260 pledged superdelegates, while Obama had only 241. Thus, Obama was ahead of Clinton by only 78 delegates.
On May 6, Indiana and North Carolina held their primaries. Clinton won Indiana by 50.6 percent to 49.4 percent, and Obama won North Carolina by 56.1 percent to 41.6 percent.[7] The two candidates were fighting over 187 delegates—72 in Indiana and 117 in North Carolina.[8]
Under Democrat Party rules for these two states, Clinton and Obama split the delegates according to the proportion of their vote totals. As a result, Clinton walked away with 37 delegates from Indiana and 48 from North Carolina.[9] Obama fared better, winning 34 delegates in Indiana and 67 in North Carolina.[10] Obama’s thin victory was a disappointment for the Clinton campaign, which had hoped to use a big victory in those two states to mount a successful comeback.[11] At the conclusion of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Obama had captured a total of 1,575 regular delegates to Clinton’s 1,422, increasing his lead to 153 in regular delegates.[12]
If Barack Obama had been disqualified from the Indiana ballot, however, Clinton would have won all 72 of the delegates in Indiana instead of just 34. She also would have had a new total of 1,497 regular delegates, compared to Obama’s new total of 1,541—a difference of only 44 delegates[13]—and with the addition of the superdelegates, her deficit would have been reduced to a mere 25 delegates.
With six primaries left totaling 217 delegates, Obama’s lead would have been in dire jeopardy.[14] Instead, on May 10, Obama took the lead in superdelegates with 275 to Clinton’s 271,[15] and he never relinquished it.[16] Obama won the Democratic nomination for President soon thereafter and went on to win the presidency.
The above narrative is typical of American politics: two candidates vying for the nomination (and campaign funds) in a very close race. Yet the story did not end with President Obama’s election. Rather, revelations of election fraud and abuse by election and local political party officials continue to cast a pall over the nomination process in Indiana.
Fraud
The allegations of electoral fraud first emerged in 2011 when a Yale University undergraduate student looked through the signatures of the petitions that were filed with Indiana election officials to get Barack Obama qualified for the Indiana Democratic primary ballot.[17] Ryan Nees, a former Obama White House intern, pored through the “byzantine and complicated” petition signatures.[18] Page after page of the voter names and signatures in St. Joseph County turned out to be complete forgeries.[19]
Nees said the fraud was easy to detect “because page after page of signatures are all in the same handwriting.” A close inspection also revealed their similarity to signatures from a petition for a previous gubernatorial election. Even worse, some of the names appeared on the list several times.[20]
Erich Speckin, a forensic document specialist, confirmed the forgeries, concluding that 19 of the ballot petition pages for Obama filed with election officials were illegitimate.[21] Nees uncovered the fraud while working as an intern for Howey Politics Indiana, a nonpartisan political news website, and later published his findings through the South Bend Tribune.[22]
In the wake of these revelations, the state chairman of the Indiana Republican Party wrote to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, David Capp.[ 23] Mr. Capp was nominated to serve as the U.S. Attorney by President Obama in 2009.[24] The letter requested that federal officials investigate the allegations of election fraud.
Although Mr. Capp refused to act, state officials ultimately charged four people with conspiracy and forgery.[25] In an ironic twist, the state trial court had to appoint a special prosecutor, Stanley Levco, because St. Joseph County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak could not press charges since his signature was one of the ones forged, making him a victim of the crime.[26] Dvorak was not the only Indiana official with that problem: Former Governor Joe Kernan’s name was forged on a petition as well.[27]
The ringleader of the election fraud was Butch Morgan, chairman of the St. Joseph County Democratic Party.[28] Morgan conspired with three other local officials to duplicate signatures from a previous petition for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Jim Schellinger.[29] In Indiana, the authenticity of the ballot petitions must be reviewed by the Republican and Democratic members of the county Board of Voter Registration, with the signatures of the board members executed on the ballot petitions to evidence their review.[30] In this case, Morgan and his coconspirators illegally used a rubber stamp of the signature of a Republican member of the St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration, Linda Silcott, to forge her approval of the ballot petitions when she was out of the office due to the loss of her husband.[31]
Former Board of Voter Registration worker and Democratic Party volunteer Lucas Burkett revealed the details of the fraud.[32] Burkett confessed that “there were meetings at which several people explicitly agreed to forge these petitions” and that his job was to “forge petitions for candidate Barack Obama.”[33] Furthermore, Board of Voter Registration worker Beverly Shelton “was assigned to forge petitions for candidate Hillary Clinton,” while former County Board of Voter Registration worker Dustin Blythe “was assigned to forge petitions for candidate John Edwards.”[34] John Edwards dropped out of the race at the end of January 2008, and at that time, Burkett had a change of conscience and refused to participate further in the scheme. Consequently, Morgan instructed Blythe to forge signatures on the remaining Obama petitions.[35]
In June 2013, the fraud trials concluded,[36] and the group’s ringleader, Butch Morgan, was convicted of conspiracy to commit petition fraud and felony forgery.[37] Morgan was sentenced to one year behind bars, the only defendant to receive prison time.[38] Former St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration worker and Democratic volunteer Dustin Blythe was also convicted of conspiracy to commit petition fraud and felony forgery, receiving one year of probation.[39] Former St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration Democratic board member Pam Brunette and board worker Beverly Shelton pleaded guilty and testified against Morgan. They received two years of probation.[40]
Following the convictions, St. Joseph Superior Court Judge John Marnocha stated: “The defendants who were saying, ‘I was just following orders,’ or ‘I was just doing my duty,’ that’s no excuse. Through history a lot of evil has been done by those saying they were just following orders.”[41]
In this case, the very people meant to be ensuring the fairness of the election were engaged in a scheme to subvert it. For example, Brunette was the Democratic member of the St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration. Her signature on the petitions was meant to signal that she verified the authenticity of those signatures. According to evidence produced at trial, the officials falsified 90 names for Barack Obama and 130 for Clinton.[42]
These numbers are critical because, in Indiana, each candidate must obtain 500 signatures from registered voters in each congressional district in order to be placed on the ballot. After the fake names were removed, Obama had only 444 actual voter signatures, falling short of the statutory minimum in St. Joseph County. Hillary Clinton, however, would have remained qualified for the ballot because there were still enough authentic voter signatures on her petitions to meet the 500-voter minimum threshold.[43]
Had the election officials been doing their job, or had Clinton challenged Obama’s ballot petition signatures and the fraud been discovered, then according to prosecutor Stanley Levco, “Barack Obama wouldn’t have been on the ballot for the primary.”[44] Thus, Clinton would have won all 72 of Indiana’s delegates. The systemic election fraud on the part of local Democratic Party officials allowed President Obama to appear on a ballot for which he did not legally qualify. As a result, he was awarded 34 delegates to whom he was not entitled.
Implications
Clinton would ultimately win Indiana, but only by a narrow margin. Consequently, Obama received close to half of Indiana’s delegates—34 to Clinton’s 38.[45] Four days later, Obama took the lead in superdelegates.
It is not difficult to see how the course of the campaign—and history—could have changed if Obama had been kept off the ballot in Indiana.
“The ringleader of the election fraud was Butch Morgan, chairman of the St. Joseph County Democratic Party.[28] Morgan conspired with three other local officials to duplicate signatures from a previous petition for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Jim Schellinger.[29] ”
The “problem” you’ve laid out is corruption. The guys should have been thrown in jail.
And gee, guess what?
https://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Butch-Morgan-gets-prison-time-for-election-fraud-211893851.html
“Butch Morgan gets prison time for election fraud”
I hope that other three people received similar treatment.
From the article cited above:
“In the end, the judge reasoned that the forgery scheme made no difference in the 2008 Indiana Primary. At worst, Barack Obama may not have made the ballot without the fake names, but he lost the primary anyway.”
Nope, the others didn’t get any prison time.
Kurtz, your examp!e has nothing to do with voter fraud at the polls and picture IDs would have done nothing to discourage it.
“The Myth of Voter Fraud”
“Extensive research reveals that fraud is very rare. Yet repeated, false allegations of fraud can make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to participate in elections.”
https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud
Overview
It is important to protect the integrity of our elections. But we must be careful not to undermine free and fair access to the ballot in the name of preventing phantom voter fraud.
Politicians at all levels of government have repeatedly, and falsely, claimed the 2016 and 2018 elections were marred by millions of people voting illegally. However, extensive research reveals that fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent, and many instances of alleged fraud are, in fact, mistakes by voters or administrators.
The Brennan Center’s seminal report The Truth About Voter Fraud conclusively demonstrated that most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless and that most of the few remaining allegations reveal irregularities and other forms of election misconduct. Numerous other studies, including one commissioned by the Trump administration, have reached the same conclusion.
Voter fraud is unacceptable, but we must find solutions that address actual problems instead of imposing policies that make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to participate in our democracy.
-Brennan Center
The Myth that Voter Fraud is a Myth
When I vote in CA, I just tell them my name. I am not asked to provide anything – not an ID, not a bill with my residence…nothing.
If I did not vote, but someone else did in my name, I would have no idea. I’m not mailed anything that confirms I voted. No one verifies the identity of anyone who votes in my name.
It’s like when someone steals the handicapped placard of their deceased relative, also something I witnessed. They used it to get the best parking. Unless a cop asks them for proof of a medical disability, there would be no record of this illegal parking. They were both overweight, so it’s unlikely anyone would ask for proof. The fact that they were not ticketed does not mean it didn’t happen. Rather, there is not much of a system in place to combat handicap placard fraud.
I know illegal aliens and legal residents who voted. I know of a Canadian who was appalled, because he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to vote, and was worried it would impact his application for citizenship. When an illegal alien commits identity theft to pass as a citizen, they are automatically enrolled to vote and mailed voter materials. For anyone to say that voter fraud does not happen with regularity is incredibly naive.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/
“A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.
“We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections,” wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.
More specifically, they write, “Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”
Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That’s a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it’s not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too.
Critics note that a Harvard team in 2015 had responded to the study, calling it “biased.” But that report included this gem: “Further, the likely percent of noncitizen voters in recent U.S. elections is 0.”
Really? That’s simply preposterous, frankly, as anyone who has lived in California can attest. Leftist get-out-the-vote groups openly urge noncitizens to vote during election time, and the registration process is notoriously loose. To suggest there is no illegal voting at all is absurd.”
I make up for it by voting once each for myself and my long-gone father.
https://youtu.be/OQ04YdyQPAc?t=62
the voting scams of yesterday were less subtle, but, voting fraud persists you can be sure of that
Harvey is a suburb of Chicago. It’s a colorful place
Voter fraud in Harvey investigated — 2019
https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/ct-sta-voting-fraud-harvey-investigation-st-0308-story.html
wait, same election cycle, 25th ward of Chicago had voter fraud too. lol
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/2/26/18348000/state-attorney-general-s-office-investigating-alleged-vote-buying-in-25th-ward
NEVER HAPPENS! DEMOCRATS JUST SAY SO
Kurtz – since these facts run contrary to their narrative, they will just ignore you. They will cling to the ridiculous belief that if there is no security measures to verify identity at voting places, there would be virtually zero voter fraud.
Why would illegal aliens vote? Sure, identity theft caused voting materials to be mailed to them. But these are paragons of virtue who paid thousands of dollars to violent drug cartels because they wanted to skip the lengthy process of legal immigration! Their first act in our country was to break its laws. They would never, ever, be so rude as to vote. Impossible!
Those who defend lax security in voting benefit from voter fraud.
Are you all talk, Karen S? Or is there something that you’re actually doing to try to fix what’s broken? (Commenting on JT’s blog doesn’t count.)
Anonymous at 9:28 PM,
She could encourage California to require more documentation from voters than just asking their name.
And then be accused of “voter suppression”.
A friend has property in three different states, and resides at all of them at some point each year.
She decided to vote in one of those states in the 2012, showed up with a utility bill, and was OKed to vote in that state.
She was “officially” a resident of another state, as her driver’s licence, license plates, and declared “primary residence” would indicate.
She voted in the state where she presented a utility bill; she has utilty bills from three different properties in three different states.
If those standards are that lax in the two other states, it’s not difficult to see how she could have voted three times.
Additionally, there are millions of Americans registered to vote in more than one state.
It’s easy to forget to change voter registration when moving from one state to another, so if the person did not have his name purged from the list of registered voters in the previous state, it’s likely that he’s still an “eligible” voter in his both his previous state and his current state.
I don’t think we know the true extent of voter fraud; there’s not enough coordinating between the states to monitor this, not a serious effort to track it, and not an inclination to prosecute even when a voter casts multiple ballots.
What’s clear is that the system is wide open to fraud. It probably would not be that difficult for me to vote in several different states in the same election, if I were determined to do so.
I think that my vote should count for at least 3or4 votes due to my knowledge and my judgement🤓🧐, so I would certainly have justification for doing so.
If you have 50 states managing elections, no uniform requirements from state to state, insuffient communication and tracking between the states, it’s easy to see how the system could be exploited.
You are absolutely right about multiple addresses registered for the same person. It’s quite common for perfectly innocent reasons to explain multiple voter registrations.
I don’t need a utility bill to vote in CA. I just register through the DMV. I’m not asked for any verification whatsoever at the polling place.
This would be easy to exploit for fraud.
Say a doctor voted in her residence area in CA. No one asks her for any identification. Let’s say she’s also still registered in the state where she went to college, and the state where she went to med school, and the state where she did her residency. It would be so easy for an unscrupulous person to vote for her in all of those places. Who would know?
In CA, it’s deep blue. I think the most common voter fraud is illegal aliens, both from concerted efforts at get out the vote to get in more and more lush benefits for illegal aliens, as well as those who simply don’t know they are not supposed to vote. The signage around here in Spanish makes no mention of requirements. Actual, deliberate voter fraud to sway an election would target swing states, or localities where they want to flip the vote. Aside from the regular occurrence of illegal aliens voting, I think that deliberate fraud would target purple states or districts. Democrats in CA have a super majority. They don’t even have to negotiate with Republicans. Once that level is achieved, there is little inducement for deliberate fraud.
I anticipate that 2020 will be a strong inducement for Democrats to cheat. They took a huge risk to damage Trump for 2020 with this waste of time impeachment based on false allegations. They must not believe any of their candidates are a sure thing against him.
Democrats have whipped their base into a frenzy. Years of brainwashing them to believe that Republicans are evil have come to a head, with Antifa assaulting the elderly and peaceful journalists, Maxine Waters telling crowds to mob Trump administration officials and make sure they aren’t welcome anymore anywhere. The inducement is there. The temptation is there. Activists seem willing to go pretty far, believing that Trump is Hitler incarnate.
Democrats have also fought hard to ensure there are no security measures in place to prevent voter fraud. They have linked proving your identity to racism, which is ironic since they require ID to participate in their own conventions.
https://www.tulsi2020.com/issues/protect-our-democracy
Protect our democracy
As your president, I will make it a priority to guarantee a government of, by, and for the people by strengthening campaign finance laws, protecting voting rights for every American, and ensuring our elections are protected against all forms of interference. My Securing America’s Elections Act ensures either a paper ballot or voter-verified paper backup, so no foreign countries or individuals can skew results. If we lose faith in our elections, democracy crumbles. -Tulsi Gabbard
More from Tulsi2020:
Quotes
“This is the huge vulnerability that threatens our next election, that so far, unfortunately, has not been addressed. The fact that there are still many states in this country who don’t have paper ballots or any kind of auditable paper trail; to make sure that whether it’s another country, or an individual rogue actor, that comes in and tries to manipulate our votes, tries to change our votes to change the outcome of this election; our system is vulnerable to those hacks and attacks today.
So I’ve introduced legislation in Congress called The Securing America’s Elections Act. Very simply put, it solves this problem by making sure that every single state either uses paper ballots, or has a voter-verified paper backup so that we in this country have an auditable paper trail to protect our democracy.” (Quote)
Legislation
H.R.1 — For the People Act of 2019 to expand voter registration and voting access, makes Election Day a federal holiday, and limits removing voters from voter rolls.
H.R.51 — Washington, D.C. Admission Act to provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. into the Union.
H.R.727 — Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Process Act to provide for a vote on Puerto Rico’s admission into the Union as a state.
H.R.712 — John Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act to prevent gerrymandering
H.R.540 — Presidential Tax Disclosure Act of 2017 to require the disclosure of the Federal income tax returns of the President.
“Are you all talk, Karen S? Or is there something that you’re actually doing to try to fix what’s broken?”
I vote.