New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[ponderingturtle]

I feel and share your frustration. I hate to see anyone getting away with misfeasance. But this election could well be the most crucial in decades at least. Do your bit to give every chance to the better Party to flush the scum out of Washington. That mid-term goal trumps any immediate term effort in what could well be a Sysiphean task.

I know. Just like with Nixon, an initial lack of zeal for impeachment among the populace *could* grow as more facts come to light. And more info will spill. Just because it might not crest into an irresistible pressure, let not despair take over. Unless you're really willing to just lay down and die, keep fighting for the good.

I don't know anymore. With fox news and Sinclair there is just so much propaganda out there masquerading as news that it is easy to get people who really believe "The investigation ended because we can't indict a sitting president" is the same as "Totally Exonerated".

 

[kellyb]

Do you not think it would be good to get all of the evidence to the American public before another election? Wouldn't that outweigh any negative aspect, like not actually impeaching Trump?

I'm pretty sure most, if not all of the evidence is already in the public domain.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm going to snip up a few things to try and cut straight to my point for you and Luchog. I am not referring to Kavanaugh specifically and have requested my posts be moved since they are more aimed towards Trump than Kavanaugh. I understand the "perfect is the enemy of good", but I'm not asking for perfection. I'm asking for a political party to do the basic aspects of their job. Oversight in order to hold the POTUS responsible for his actions.

The Democrats in congress are already investigating Trump over multiple issues, both current (such as Emoluments, and his handling of immigration) and past (related to the 2016 election). They are seeking his Tax returns, and have issued subpoenas to Don McGahn, William Barr, Deutsche Bank and he Department of homeland Security (among others).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/11/house-vote-barr-mcgahn-subpoenas
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic.../congress-returns-trump-investigations-resume
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04/politics/house-judiciary-committee-subpoenas-dhs/index.html

They are also investigating the actions of others in the Trump administration, such as Kushner over the use of private email.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-white-house-personal-email-use-idUSKCN1TW3QH

So, the Democrats in congress ARE attempting to investigate potential wrongdoing of the Trump administration.

That they aren't investigating everything the Trump administration has done wrong probably has more to do with the number of crimes they have committed rather than the Democrat's unwillingness to investigate.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The Democrats in congress are already investigating Trump over multiple issues, both current (such as Emoluments, and his handling of immigration) and past (related to the 2016 election). They are seeking his Tax returns, and have issued subpoenas to Don McGahn, William Barr, Deutsche Bank and he Department of homeland Security (among others).

And the administration will ignore them or lie under oath more. And nothing will come of any of it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know the answers to these, but I do believe that impeachment proceedings would garner more attention by the American public than the Mueller report. Firstly, because the Mueller report was a slow, slow drip operation that took a long time. I don't believe an impeachment trial would go the same way. I believe it would be a bit faster paced. Secondly, I think it would hold the American public attention span in a way that would enable people to take in that information more easily. Am I right? I don't know the answer to that either.

The Kavanaugh hearings were fast paced, and while they polarized opinion about Kavanaugh, they didn't really create a net opposition to him. There's really no reason to expect impeachment hearings to be anything other than a repeat. And need I remind you of how Clinton's impeachment worked out for Republicans? And that was a case where his illegal behavior wasn't even in dispute by the time impeachment began. The same cannot be said about allegations against Kavanaugh.

I know that, as Americans, I've never heard of circumstances like this before in politics. I could be wrong.

You identify as plural?

 

[Upchurch]

Once again, it wasn't an opinion.

Her spin, then, or her take. Maybe, her interpretation.

 

[luchog]

Isn't this basically along the same lines of "perfect is the enemy of good"? Do you not think it would be good to get all of the evidence to the American public before another election? Wouldn't that outweigh any negative aspect, like not actually impeaching Trump?

Did you miss the whole Muller investigation and report thing? If so, that's not surprising, since it didn't really get all that much attention in the media compared to what it should have done; and ended up being inconclusive due to the President and GOP's constant stonewalling and misdirection. What came from two years of work?

To me, it's not specifically about impeachment. That's just the tool used to complete the job. It's about holding someone responsible for their actions when they flagrantly break the law\policy ad nauseum without being held responsible.

And how does an ineffectual impeachment proceeding accomplish this in the wake of the Muller investigation? I don't think you understand what impeachment is or how it works. Little hint, impeachment won't even happen unless the Senate wants it to happen, and they quite clearly don't. In order for an impeachment to proceed beyond the request state, the Senate has to accept it and act on it. And "Moscow Mitch" McConnell has already stated quite explicitly that he will not allow any impeachment proceeding to be voted on. The House cannot even begin to impeach until the Senate has accepted the request and voted to proceed with it.

And those things are being ignored because of the individual we have in the White House.

No, it's not. The Democrats in Congress have written and submitted numerous bills; all of which have died in the Senate. The only people who ignoring them are the President's staff and the GOP. The rest of the country is quite well aware of the problem if they listen to any mainstream news outlet other than Fox.

The evidence of Climate Change is out there and blatantly obvious to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention. The rapidly growing cost of healthcare is blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention. The GOP's attitudes toward these things are blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention. How is impeachment going to materially change that? What actual effect would it have that the last three years of journalism and the Muller investigation did not?

Using the impeachment proceedings as a means to get every single piece of evidence out to the American people isn't a negative to me. It's a net gain for the population.

How will impeachment do a better job of this than all the work that the Democrats and others have already done? Everyone knows the that GOP is stonewalling and profiting from these problems. Democrats know it but are powerless to do more than rant about it and write doomed bills while the GOP controls the Senate and Presidency. Republicans know it, and are perfectly happy with that fact so long as their White Christian Values are seen to be promoted.

 

[Ziggurat]

Her spin, then, or her take. Maybe, her interpretation.

Whether or not the book by the authors of the NYT piece indicated that the alleged victim didn't remember the alleged incident isn't "spin", or "her take", or "her interpretation". That's a very factual claim. And it's a true claim. And it undermines the entire accusation against Kavanaugh. But the authors didn't feel like including that information in their NYT piece. That's a rather remarkable omission. And yet that's the one thing you don't want to talk about. You want to talk about how Mollie Hemingway is supposedly someone we should ignore. Except when you forget that's what you said.

 

[plague311]

I'm pretty sure most, if not all of the evidence is already in the public domain.

I'm honestly not sure if that's the case. As Seg has shown there are more than one investigation going on, and I would like to know what those have unearthed so far. I believe it would have to be something, but the snail pace at which everything is moving has probably got me more flustered than anything.

They are seeking his Tax returns, and have issued subpoenas to Don McGahn, William Barr, Deutsche Bank and he Department of homeland Security (among others).

How many years now have we sat and waited for "tax returns" and yet there has been no issues in stonewalling? They seem to be a ******* fable at this point time, something I don't even know if they're real. Those people you listed have been subpoenaed, blew it off and faced absolutely no consequences at all.

They are also investigating the actions of others in the Trump administration, such as Kushner over the use of private email.

He lost his security clearance like a year ago. How can we have no progress in the last year?

So, the Democrats in congress ARE attempting to investigate potential wrongdoing of the Trump administration.

That they aren't investigating everything the Trump administration has done wrong probably has more to do with the number of crimes they have committed rather than the Democrat's unwillingness to investigate.

Trump has undoubtedly committed a myriad of crimes, but if the problem is waiting for him to stop before bringing something then we know that won't happen. I don't doubt the Dems are investigating, but so far those investigations have gotten us **** all. Literally nothing. The complaint I have here is that without any power we can't do anything so we have to wait until the Dems have more power in order to do something. It seems self-defeating. Why aren't the Dems releasing every detail about every possible crimes the orange ass hat has committed and let us sort it out?

And need I remind you of how Clinton's impeachment worked out for Republicans?

No, you don't, in fact it seems to be about the only ******* thing people bring up when impeachment is being discussed.

You identify as plural?

I assumed I wasn't the only one. Feel free to assume differently.

 

[ahhell]

Show me the Republicans who are willing to support impeachment against Trump and Kavanaugh. Remember who controls the Senate, and therefore who will be the actual court reviewing evidence and making the decisions regarding its outcome. Remember that this is the same Senate that is constantly sucking up to Trump; and who already confirmed Kavanaugh despite credible rape accusations.

I have never heard or read of any credible rape accusation against Kavanaugh. I would appreciate a link to some such news story.

The only rape accusation I've heard was Avenatti's gang rape ring, which was and remains quite incredible.

 

[plague311]

And how does an ineffectual impeachment proceeding accomplish this in the wake of the Muller investigation? I don't think you understand what impeachment is or how it works. Little hint, impeachment won't even happen unless the Senate wants it to happen, and they quite clearly don't. In order for an impeachment to proceed beyond the request state, the Senate has to accept it and act on it. And "Moscow Mitch" McConnell has already stated quite explicitly that he will not allow any impeachment proceeding to be voted on. The House cannot even begin to impeach until the Senate has accepted the request and voted to proceed with it.

I don't think this is true. The House impeached Clinton without the Senate approving it, unless I'm severely mistaken. Which I obviously have been before.

Judging by this response though, you and I will never see eye to eye on this. So I'll probably respond and then drop it. No sense in continuously hashing on something that neither of us will change our minds on.

No, it's not. The Democrats in Congress have written and submitted numerous bills; all of which have died in the Senate. The only people who ignoring them are the President's staff and the GOP. The rest of the country is quite well aware of the problem if they listen to any mainstream news outlet other than Fox.

Isn't that what I said?

The evidence of Climate Change is out there and blatantly obvious to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention. The rapidly growing cost of healthcare is blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention. The GOP's attitudes toward these things are blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention. How is impeachment going to materially change that? What actual effect would it have that the last three years of journalism and the Muller investigation did not?

How will impeachment do a better job of this than all the work that the Democrats and others have already done? Everyone knows the that GOP is stonewalling and profiting from these problems. Democrats know it but are powerless to do more than rant about it and write doomed bills while the GOP controls the Senate and Presidency. Republicans know it, and are perfectly happy with that fact so long as their White Christian Values are seen to be promoted.

So this all can be summed up in that sentence. At no point can a political party do anything when the opposing party is in charge. I was under the impression that wasn't the case. I've heard about being able to use the sergeant at arms to hold people in custody that refuse to respond to subpoenas, I've heard of more aggressive stances that can be taken using the oversight power of the House. Some of which I can't remember off of the top of my head. It is rather disheartening to know that we're just ****** and there's nothing else that can be done. I was ******* seriously under a different impression and have never heard this before, but ok. Let the Dems sit on their hands then and we can pray to sky daddy something changes next time around.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm honestly not sure if that's the case. As Seg has shown there are more than one investigation going on, and I would like to know what those have unearthed so far. I believe it would have to be something, but the snail pace at which everything is moving has probably got me more flustered than anything.

The Democrats are stuck fighting our much of this stuff in courts. Some of that stuff is simply out of their control. They don't control the courts and have to deal with legal process.

Its understandable to be a bit frustrated. But to me, the solution isn't simply to toss your hands up in the air and say "Its too slow. I give up". Its to try to give as much power to the Democrats in future elections... more Democrats in the Senate so that the GOP can't block any bills. More Democrats in the house to help push their investigations along. And a Democratic administration where the DoJ won't actively stonewall any investigations.

How many years now have we sat and waited for "tax returns" and yet there has been no issues in stonewalling? They seem to be a ******* fable at this point time, something I don't even know if they're real. Those people you listed have been subpoenaed, blew it off and faced absolutely no consequences at all.

Again, they have to deal with the courts, which (given all the appeals) can take months/years to resolve.

They are also investigating the actions of others in the Trump administration, such as Kushner over the use of private email.

He lost his security clearance like a year ago. How can we have no progress in the last year?

Democrats have only held the house since January. In that time you also had a transition period, a summer recess, and stonewalling from the Trump administration (which again slows down the process.)

Trump has undoubtedly committed a myriad of crimes, but if the problem is waiting for him to stop before bringing something then we know that won't happen.

Nobody said they had to wait for him to stop committing crimes to investigate. I'm just saying that they won't have a lot of time to investigate to SOME crimes while they're investigating others.

I don't doubt the Dems are investigating, but so far those investigations have gotten us **** all. Literally nothing. The complaint I have here is that without any power we can't do anything so we have to wait until the Dems have more power in order to do something. It seems self-defeating. Why aren't the Dems releasing every detail about every possible crimes the orange ass hat has committed and let us sort it out?

Some stuff is tied up in courts. Some stuff may actually be protected. (Not that I think everything Trump/Barr have claimed is privileged actually is, but there are some things that may actually be legally prevented from disclosure.)

 

[luchog]

I don't think this is true. The House impeached Clinton without the Senate approving it, unless I'm severely mistaken. Which I obviously have been before.

You are severely mistaken. The Senate at that time was GOP controlled, and had the votes to begin impeachment proceedings.

So this all can be summed up in that sentence. At no point can a political party do anything when the opposing party is in charge.

If the opposing party has a veto-proof majority, then yes, that is definitely the case. The only reason that the GOP did not manage to kill the ACA and other programs when they had a majority in the House and Senate is that they couldn't agree on how far to go. The "freedom caucaus" wing wanted to kill the whole thing entirely, and the moderate wing wanted to only roll bits of it back until they got their own version in place. That's the only reason, factional infighting. Even so, they still rammed through both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh over Democrat objections, rolled back some of the oversight functions of the House, and gutted so many other departments and programs. The only thing that kept them from more wholesale destruction of social programs and protective legislation is that some of it required a supermajority, which they did not have.

I was under the impression that wasn't the case. I've heard about being able to use the sergeant at arms to hold people in custody that refuse to respond to subpoenas, I've heard of more aggressive stances that can be taken using the oversight power of the House.

There are limits to what the House can do. Especially after the GOP reduced its oversight power when they held the majority.

It is rather disheartening to know that we're just ****** and there's nothing else that can be done. I was ******* seriously under a different impression and have never heard this before, but ok.

Yeah, it is definitely disheartening; that's what so many of us have been complaining about for so long.

Let the Dems sit on their hands then and we can pray to sky daddy something changes next time around.

Or maybe certain Dems can stop being such a bunch of whiny spoiled children blubbering about how they can't have any ideologically pure candidates and get everything they want right when they demand it, get off their butts and start doing grassroots campaigning and lobbying on the local level, put their support behind candidates who will push them in the right direction (even if those candidates don't pass arbitrary purity tests), and work hard to ensure that the GOP scum is ousted and held accountable in the future.

 

[plague311]

You are severely mistaken. The Senate at that time was GOP controlled, and had the votes to begin impeachment proceedings.

So the House can't impeach at all without GOP approval?

Or maybe certain Dems can stop being such a bunch of whiny spoiled children blubbering about how they can't have any ideologically pure candidates and get everything they want right when they demand it, get off their butts and start doing grassroots campaigning and lobbying on the local level, put their support behind candidates who will push them in the right direction (even if those candidates don't pass arbitrary purity tests), and work hard to ensure that the GOP scum is ousted and held accountable in the future.

You can't get much more thinly ******* veiled than that, eh? Thanks for the **** talking, I'll keep it mind.

 

[luchog]

So the House can't impeach at all without GOP approval?

The "House" doesn't impeach, Congress does. The House can begin impeachment proceedings and is responsible for investigation and evidence-presentation, but it's the Senate that functions as the Court, that's where the impeachment "trial" proceeding actually takes place. The House is the prosecution, and the Senate are the judges.

Since the GOP currently controls the Senate, mostly have their noses stuck firmly up Trump's rear end, and violated their own rules to ram Kavanaugh's nomination through; well, I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

Little hint, if you're going to complain about how things work, you should at least make an effort to understand how things work.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 0

You can't get much more thinly ******* veiled than that, eh? Thanks for the **** talking, I'll keep it mind.

I wasn't talking about you specifically, more about the "Never Hillary" Democratic voters of the last presidential campaign who helped Trump get elected, whinged endlessly (and are still whinging) about how Bernie Sanders was the only candidate they considered worth voting for, and decided "let it burn" was a higher and more noble principle than "lesser evil". But hey, if the glove fits...

 

[Brainster]

The "House" doesn't impeach, Congress does. The House can begin impeachment proceedings and is responsible for investigation and evidence-presentation, but it's the Senate that functions as the Court, that's where the impeachment "trial" proceeding actually takes place. The House is the prosecution, and the Senate are the judges.

Since the GOP currently controls the Senate, mostly have their noses stuck firmly up Trump's rear end, and violated their own rules to ram Kavanaugh's nomination through; well, I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

Little hint, if you're going to complain about how things work, you should at least make an effort to understand how things work. Educate yourself and you'll look like less of an idiot.

Your irony meter just exploded.

In fact the House does impeach. Both Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached.

Your confusion arises from not understanding what impeachment means. It is roughly comparable to an indictment; a finding of probable cause that a crime has been committed and that a trial needs to take place.

 

[luchog]

Your irony meter just exploded.

In fact the House does impeach. Both Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached.

Your confusion arises from not understanding what impeachment means. It is roughly comparable to an indictment; a finding of probable cause that a crime has been committed and that a trial needs to take place.

Yes, I'm aware of that; but in context that was not what was being discussed. It's not even at the level of a full indictment, but more a proffering of charges in the form of a House resolution. And nothing actually happens with those charges unless the Senate accepts the resolution to impeach and moves on it to begin "trial" proceedings; which is where the "accountability" in the posts I was replying to came in, and what was clearly being discussed. The House can make as many resolutions as it wants to, but none of them are anything more than hot air unless the Senate agrees to accept and act on them.

 

[Craig4]

I think this is great news. These new allegations will make Judge Rapist's life in the DC area (a very blue region) even more difficult. His school age daughters will have to hear about how they can't have sleepovers because parents rightly don't want their children to be raped. The can probably count on someone asking to be reseated if they are too close to the judge with wife and family when they eat out. In short, there is nowhere for judge rapist to go from here and he has the rest of his lifetime to be the guy who gets drunk and assaults women and wears a robe at work.

There's a good possibility that he will face the choice of leave the bench or get divorced. These new allegations may prove to be a true gift to the nation and those still loyal to it.

 

[Minoosh]

Yes, I'm aware of that; but in context that was not what was being discussed. It's not even at the level of a full indictment, but more a proffering of charges in the form of a House resolution. And nothing actually happens with those charges unless the Senate accepts the resolution to impeach and moves on it to begin "trial" proceedings; which is where the "accountability" in the posts I was replying to came in, and what was clearly being discussed. The House can make as many resolutions as it wants to, but none of them are anything more than hot air unless the Senate agrees to accept and act on them.

Nothing about context requires you to make statements that are just plain wrong - and to serve up those statements with personal digs at another poster.

ETA: I would also argue that senators function more as jurors than judges.

 

[Cabbage]

Yes, I'm aware of that; but in context that was not what was being discussed. It's not even at the level of a full indictment, but more a proffering of charges in the form of a House resolution. And nothing actually happens with those charges unless the Senate accepts the resolution to impeach and moves on it to begin "trial" proceedings; which is where the "accountability" in the posts I was replying to came in, and what was clearly being discussed. The House can make as many resolutions as it wants to, but none of them are anything more than hot air unless the Senate agrees to accept and act on them.

It makes absolutely no difference whether the senate ignores the impeachment or which way they may decide the trial, but the House is the sole authority on actual impeachment. The trial comes later and follows the impeachment process but is not part of the impeachment process.

You're Welcome!