2 Burst results for "Emily Democra"

"emily democrat" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

11:39 min | 2 years ago

"emily democrat" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

"To left right and center. You're civilized yet provocative antidote to the self-contained opinion bubbles that dominate political debate. It is the fourth week of January and this week the impeachment trial of Donald Trump got underway. The first day was devoted to procedural questions. Would witnesses be called testify and when the house? Democrats leading impeachment argued with the President's attorneys Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer moved repeatedly seek witnesses and documents. Each of his motions was defeated on party. Line basis a handful of Senate Republicans say they are opened witnesses but they want to wait until after the extensive presentations from the house and the President before they decide whom to call and how. This order of events has precedent. It's how witnesses were handled during bill. Clinton's impeachment twenty one years ago but before we get to that stage. The senators are supposed to sit silently. Listened to forty eight hours of presentation spread over six session days a structure that is keeping the Senate quite unusually session days a week and on Tuesday well past midnight talk about the trial. Let's bring our left right and center panel has always. I'm your center joined by rich lowry editor of National Review on the right and the Left Elizabeth Brunette The New York Times. Hello Hi Josh Josh. Liz have the Democrats been making a compelling case for the president's removal so so Democrats have been making the case that they have and I do think they've been making the most of the evidence that they've been able to pull together. Republicans obviously are not cooperating In fact finding which means that there are some limitations on what? Democrats are able to marshal in their favor and there are other reasons that Democrats are maybe hesitating to pull as much testimony in as they could but that being said Removal is a really high bar And I think the Democrats are going to have to demonstrate a bit more than they have so far to really put that case the top I think the case they're making is compelling but it's not new. It's the same case that we've known in broad strokes in September and October. The president misappropriated the foreign policy of the United States for his own personal purposes. He sent his own personal attorney over to Ukraine to make demands that were explicitly not On behalf of the United States but on behalf of Donald Trump personally and he used resources that are in at his disposal. As president. The ability to host meetings A resource the technically was not even legally at his disposal withholding aid that he was legally obligated to disperse to them because Congress had appropriated it. He nonetheless did that he did it for a personal purpose and so. I think we know this but the case the house managers are making is maybe necessarily diplomative because these facts. I mean we filled in a few details here and there but mostly this stuff. We've known for months so I think it's sort of foreseeable. This is not going to change minds right. I I would say Adam Schiff but I don't have a huge letter regard for as really been quite effective. I mean he's a really good prosecutor head and shoulders above all the other house managers if they just had six hours to make the case all been Adam Schiff. I don't think they would have lost thing. Maybe gained a little because the rest of his pretty numbing. I think they've been strongest making the case for the witnesses. They've been weakest making the case for why they didn't try to go get the witnesses themselves strongest saying that this happened in this was wrong week saying that the the only way you can hold them accountable is to remove him so it's it's a process that doesn't really have much drama at the end of the day because we know what the ultimate outcome is going to be which is why the media is focused on this subsidiary. Question of witnesses were there. There is a little drama. Because we don't know what's going to happen with that and you can count at least three. Republicans you can see voting for witnesses next week but you need four is hard to know who the the fourth would be so. Wouldn't shock me. I don't know how it's going to the witness questions can turn out. But it wouldn't shock me if he's acquitted by the end of next week do you do you have a sense of what those internal politics are among Senate Republicans Because the four names if they're going to be four. Republicans who demand witnesses presumably is going to be Susan Collins. Lisa Murkowski Mitt Romney and Lamar Alexander and Lamar Alexander. Sorta talk about is the biggest wildcard. He's he's very senior politician. A Senate `institutionalised. He's also close with Mitch and Mitch. Mcconnell do you have a sense of I mean because when Susan Collins Talks about this she basically says she wants to hear from witnesses but she wants to follow this process? To what extent is that sincere and to what extent does that really have four? Republicans behind it because it sounds. I mean the White House appears to be acting like they expect that. Republicans may force witnesses to be called. I don't know how sincere it is. The way it's set up it. It quite possibly could have a very senate result to this. Which is don't be a vote on whether they should have witnesses and it's possible you got for Republicans for that. Certainly Susan Collins is going to vote for that but then you actually have to have a vote that can be amended on which regions says you're GonNa have and that's where you can see kind of poison pill amendments to say a measure saying we're GONNA hold we're GonNa have John Bolton you're calling for Hunter Biden or Joe Biden. I would think Democrats should take a hunter Biden John Bolton trade in omitted. I mean hundred sad sack but only knows about Ukraine is that he got paid a lot of money for not really good reason. We know that plus people probably feel sympathy for Emily's Democrats that matter the most for Joe Biden at the moment we're whereas John Bolton was at the center of this and his What he says will be played up as one of the most explosive You know piece of testimony last ten years and you can easily guess he's going to be very harsh about what the president did here is. What have you made of this trade discussion with Joe Biden? Ended up shooting down later in the week. I mean I I I understand the logic of what rich lays out there but I think if this were a court trial you wouldn't call Hunter Biden because Hunter Biden is not a relevant witness. He doesn't know anything about the president's behavior here and so I think that you know the to the extent. Democrats are taking this seriously as a trial to agree to that. You know for for political reasons. I think it creates a sideshow which is one reason not to do it. It does create a sideshow. But I feel like the Biden's are in a position at this point where there's no way not to have a side show because it also creates a side show To refuse to address What's going on with Hunter Biden in what has happened with Hunter Biden? And you know especially as trial wears on Along with the Democratic primary more and more questions about Biden corruption are gonNA come up. They've already come up. People do have questions about Hunter Biden and the Biden sort of resolutely trying to suffocate this by refusing to address it head on I think only adds fuel to the fire and the sense that there's not a lot of transparency around what's going on with Hunter Biden. So is it sensible to have a biden for Bolton Trade You know I don't really think so for the reasons you point out It's not going to add a lot to the impeachment proceedings but holding Biden back and refusing to address. These issues around corruption directly is also going to have An inflammatory effect. I think in the long run. I don't know about your first. Call Him at the New York Times. The first of all congratulations is is on these these issues and I think you lay out a number of of of good arguments about things that you know. Hunter Biden getting appointed to the Amtrak Board when he had no apparent expertise that was related to that except that his father was the vice president And there there are these issues. The problem is that the stuff that president trump has accused. The Biden's of doing is completely separated from anything. The Biden's actually did. It's basically a made up account of what Joe Biden was up to pressuring people in Ukraine to shutdown investigations win Joe Biden was actually pushing for more robust anti-corruption push in in Ukraine. And so the problem is the well. I think you're right that there are real problems surrounding entre. Biden's lobbying activities. And then you know the you can. We can also talk separately about stuff related to to Delaware banks and that sort of thing when you allow that discussion to be combined with the president's essentially made up discussion about what the Biden's are up to a grants legitimacy to conspiracy theories and nonsense that the president is throwing them. I certainly understand why the Biden's are unwilling to engage in that. I understand that as well and I think that You know Joe Biden has good reasons for not wanting to go down this road but I think the issue is that it's difficult for voters to distinguish between the good reasons for not wanting to Discuss and accusations of corruption and potentially bad reasons. That's one of the successful parts of this campaign of trump's against Biden is that it has introduced the issue onto the record and the issue of Biden's corruption as you point out does have ridiculous and unfounded aspects to it but then it also has aspects. That are much less ridiculous and much more worrying. So for the Biden's it's going to be a matter of Trying to address this I think in a way that helps voters distinguish between those two and at the end the day. I don't think there's An answer that the Biden's can give that's going to clear the whole thing up rich. Do you think the president's getting this to stick. I mean I it seems like an effort to replay the Hillary Clinton playbook the differences that you know Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton had a four decade track record to build on that sort of made it easy to stick accusations of them. I think it's harder Joe Biden. I think that's right. Yeah Hillary had Thir- thirty years of being radioactive there that that made it easier for people to believe the worst certainly for Republicans to believe the worst. I do think we'll hear more about this and I don't think Joe Biden himself is is corrupt or fire this pressure to fire this prosecutor corrupt reasons but he does represent kind of the worst aspects of our public life which is people around famous and prominent people get rich for no very good reason and this is true of hunter. It's true of other people around Joe Biden on on the question of relevance I think there's enough relevance for Republicans to hang their hats on to to say they want hunter because it's become an issue was there any legitimacy in one eight to investigate brisman and house managers. Say No and the the White House team says. Yes so. Hunter has some relevance to that but it but it seems to me the question is not could there have been irrelevant reason to task the. Ukrainians to investigate. The I think the answer. That is still no But the better question is did. Donald trump have valid reason for wanting them to do that and so the idea that Donald Trump did this out of a concern about foreign corruption. Donald trump is literally out there saying that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act should be repealed because it is an unfair disadvantage to US businesses. That they are not allowed to pay bribes abroad. So even if even if you could and I think it would be extremely thin to say that you say that it was appropriate. Us policy priority for the US to pursue push this specific investigation of corruption in Ukraine. That was obviously not Donald Trump's priority. If if he was making that claim it would have been an obvious pretext because the president is objectively pro foreign corruption. Yeah and he focused on this because of Joe Biden That that's obvious but the the what the a White House team is making the case. I think they're wrong. They're saying it has to be crime involved Impeach me can't impeach over abuse of power. That's wrong but they're making the the prudential case. I think is stronger when they say. No presidential impeachment ever has not involved a bright line violations of criminal law. And that's not here and when it's not there you do get into murkier. Area of subjective intent. I I read your column on this this week. You said that removing the president over this would be insane and it seems to be your argument. Here is self limiting. You basically say that you know would be insane to remove the president in part because you know the public opinion about is so close it would be incredibly divisive and poisonous to our politics but those of course are also reasons that the president will not be removed to the.

Hunter Biden President Donald Trump Joe Biden Biden Senate Republicans Ukraine Senate Hillary Clinton Susan Collins United States John Bolton White House vice president And Chuck Schumer Adam Schiff prosecutor rich lowry
"emily democrat" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

11:42 min | 2 years ago

"emily democrat" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

"Barrow and welcome to left right and center. You're civilized yet. Provocative antidote to the self contained opinion bubbles dominate political debate. Bait is the fourth week of January and this week the impeachment trial of Donald Trump got underway. The first day was devoted to procedural questions. Would witnesses be called testify and when the House. Democrats leading impeachment argued with the President's attorneys Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer moved repeatedly to seek witnesses and documents. Each of his motions was defeated on a party. Line basis a handful of Senate Republicans say they are opened witnesses but they wanna wait until after the extensive presentations from the house and the President before they decide whom to call and how this order of events has president. It's how witnesses were handled during bill. Clinton's impeachment twenty one years ago but before we get to that stage the senators are supposed to sit and silently gently listened to forty eight hours of presentation spread over six session days a structure that is keeping the Senate quite unusually in session six days a week and on Tuesday well past midnight. Talk about the trial. Let's bring in our left right and center panel as always. I'm your center joined by rich lowry editor of National Review on the right and on the left Elizabeth Bruyn Good New York Times. Hello Hi Josh. Hey Josh Liz have Democrats been making a compelling case for the president's removal so so Democrats have been making the case that they have and I do think they've been making the most host the evidence that they've been able to pull together. Republicans obviously are not cooperating In fact finding which means that there are some limitations on what Democrats Democrats are able to marshal in their favor and there are other reasons that Democrats are hesitating to pull as much testimony as they could but that being said Removal is a really high bar And I think the Democrats are going to have to demonstrate a bit more than they have so far To really put that case over the top I think the case they're making is compelling but it's not new. It's the same case that we've known in broad strokes in September and October. The president misappropriated the foreign foreign policy of the United States for his own personal purposes. He sent his own personal attorney over to Ukraine to make demands that were explicitly not On behalf of the United States but on behalf half of Donald Trump personally and he used resources that are in at his disposal. As president. The ability to host meetings A resource technically was not even legally at his disposal withholding aide he was legally obligated to disperse to them because Congress had appropriated it. He nonetheless did that. He did it for a personal purpose and so I think we know this but the case the the house managers are making is maybe necessarily diplomative because these facts I mean we filled in a few details here and there but mostly this is stuff we've known for months so I think it's sort of foreseeable but this is not going to change a lot of minds right. I would say Adam Schiff but I don't have a huge letter regard for as really been quite effective. I mean he's a really good prosecutor is head and shoulders above all the other house managers if they just had six hours to make the case at all Adam Schiff. I don't think they would have lost thing. Maybe gained a little because because the rest of his pretty numbing. I think they've been strongest making the case for the witnesses. They've been weakest making the case for why they didn't try to get the witnesses themselves or strongest saying saying that this happened and this was wrong week saying that the the only way can hold them. Accountable is to remove him. So it's it's a process that doesn't really have much drama at the end of the day because we know what the ultimate outcome is going to be which is why the media is focused on this subsidiary. Question of witnesses where there is a little drama. Because we don't know what's going to happen with that adding you can count at least three Republicans you can see voting for witnesses next week but you need four. And it's hard to know who the the fourth would be so it wouldn't shock me I don't know how it's going to the witness questions can turn out. But it wouldn't shock me if he's acquitted by the end of next week do you do you have a sense of what those internal politics are among Senate Republicans Because I mean the four names if there are going to be four Republicans who demand witnesses presumably is going to be Susan Collins. Lisa Murkowski Mitt Romney and Lamar Alexander and Lamar. Alexander is sort of talk. Talk about the biggest wildcard. He's he's very senior politician. A Senate `institutionalised. He's also close with Mitch and Mitch. McConnell deal I mean because when Susan Collins Talks about this she basically says has your wants to hear from witnesses but she wants to follow this process. To what extent is that sincere. Into what extent does that really have. Four Republicans behind it because it sounds I mean the White House appears to be acting like they expect. Republicans may force witnesses to be called. I don't know how sincere it is. The way it set up it. It quite possibly could have a very senate result to this. which is they'll just? Let's be a vote on whether they should have witnesses and it's possible you got for Republicans for that. Certainly Susan Collins is going to vote for that but then actually have to have a vote that can be amended on on which regions says you're GonNa have. And that's where you can see kind of poison pill amendments to say a a measure saying we're GONNA hold we're GonNa have John Bolton Neo calling for under after Biden or Joe Biden. I would think Democrats should take a hunter Biden. John Bolton Trade in omitted hundred sort of a sad sack but only knows about Ukraine is that he got Tade a lot of money for not really good reason. They know that plus people probably feel sympathy for Emily's Democrats matter the most for Joe Biden at the moment we're whereas John Unbolt was at the center of this and his what he says will be played up as one of the most explosive A piece of testimony last ten years and and you can easily guess he's GonNa be very harsh about what the president did here. Look what have you made of this. This trade discussion with Joe Biden ended up shooting down later in the week. I mean I I I I understand the logic of what rich lays out there but I think if this were a court trial you wouldn't call Hunter Biden because Hunter Biden is not a relevant witness. He doesn't know anything thing about the president's behavior here and so I think that you know the to the extent Democrats are taking this seriously as a trial to agree to that. You know for for political reasons. I think you know it it. It creates a sideshow which is one reason not to do it. It does create a side show but I feel like the Biden's are in a position at this point where there's no way not to have a sideshow oh because it also creates a side show To refuse to address What's going on with Hunter Biden? What has happened with Hunter Biden especially as has the trial? Where's on along with the Democratic primary more and more questions about Biden corruption are gonNA come up? They've already come up. People do have questions about Hunter Biden and the Biden sort of resolutely trying to suffocate this by refusing to address it head on I think only adds fuel to the fire and the sense that there's not a lot of transparency around what's going on with Hunter Biden. So is it sensible to have a Biden Bolton Trade You know I don't really think so for the reasons as you point out It's not going to add a lot to the impeachment proceedings but holding by back and refusing to address. These issues around corruption directly is also going to have An inflammatory effect. I think in the long run. I don't know about your first column at The New York Times. The first of all congratulations Is is is on these these issues and I think you lay out a number of of of good arguments about things that you know. Hundred Biden getting appointed to the Amtrak Board when he had no apparent expertise that was related to that except that his father was the vice president And there are these issues. The problem is that the stuff that president trump has accused. The Biden's of doing is completely separated from anything that the Biden's actually did. It's basically a made up account of what Joe Biden was up to pressuring people in Ukraine to shut down investigations when and Joe Biden was actually pushing for a more robust anti-corruption push in in Ukraine. And so the problem is the well. I think you're right that there are real problems surrounding counter Biden's lobbying activities. And then you know the you can. We can also talk separately about stuff related to to Delaware banks and that sort of thing when you allow that discussion to be combined. With the President's presidents essentially made up discussion about the Biden's are up to get grants legitimacy to conspiracy theories and nonsense that the president is throwing them. I certainly understand why the Biden's are unwilling to engage gauge of that. I understand that as well and I think that You know Joe Biden has good reasons for not wanting to go down this road food but I think the issue is that it's difficult for voters to distinguish between the good reasons for not wanting to Discuss and discount accusations of corruption and potentially bad reasons. That's one of the successful parts of this campaign of trump's against Biden is that it has introduced the issue onto the record the issue of Biden's corruption as you point out does have ridiculous and unfounded aspects to it but it also has aspects that are much less ridiculous and and much more worrying. So for the Biden's it's going to be a matter of Trying to address this I think in a way that helps voters distinguish between those two and at the end the day. I don't think there's An answer that the Biden's can give that's going to clear the whole thing up rich. Do you think the president's getting this to stick I mean I I it seems like an effort it to replay the Hillary Clinton playbook the difference is that you know Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton had a four decade track record to build on that sort of made it easy to stick accusations of them. I think it's harder with Joe Biden. I think that's right. Hillary had thir- thirty years of being radioactive there that that made it easier for people to believe the worst certainly for Republicans. Consider to believe the worst. I do think we'll hear more about this and I don't think Joe Biden himself as a is corrupt or fire this pressure to fire this prosecutor corrupt reasons reasons but he does represent kind of the worst aspects of our public life which is people around famous and prominent people get rich for no very good reason season and this is true of hunter. It's true other people around Joe Biden on the question of relevance. I think there's enough relevance for Republicans to hang their hats on to say they want hunter because it's become an issue was there any legitimacy in one eight to investigate Brisa and house managers say no and the White House team says yes. So Hunter has some relevance to that but it but it seems to me the question is not could there have been irrelevant reason to task the Ukrainians Ukrainian to investigate the that is still no But the better question is did. Donald trump have valid reason for wanting them to do that and so the idea. Donald Trump did this out of a concern about foreign corruption. Donald trump is literally out there saying that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act should be repealed because it is an unfair disadvantage to. US businesses. Mrs They are not allowed to pay bribes abroad. So even if even if you could and I think it would be extremely thin to say that you say that it was appropriate. US policy priority for the US to to pursue push this specific investigation corruption in Ukraine. That was obviously not Donald Trump's priority. If if he was making that claim it would have been an obvious pretext because the president is is objectively actively pro foreign corruption and he focused on this because of Joe Biden that. That's obvious but the the what the at a the White House team is making the case. I think they're wrong. They're saying it has to be crime. Involved in impeachment can't impeach over piece of power that's wrong but they're making the prudential case. I I think a stronger when they say. No presidential impeachment ever has not involved a bright line violations of criminal law. And that's not here and then when when is not there you do get into murkier. Area of subjective intent. I I read your column on this this week. You said that removing the president over this would be insane and it seems to me that your argument here is self limiting. You basically say that you know it would be insane to remove the president in part because you know the public opinion about is so close it would be incredibly divisive given poisonous to our politics but those of course reasons that the president will not be removed the because the public opinion is so divided..

Hunter Biden President Donald Trump Ukraine Hillary Clinton Senate Susan Collins United States vice president And White House Chuck Schumer Adam Schiff Barrow prosecutor rich lowry Congress The New York Times