House Impeachment Inquiry

[theprestige]

Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ!! What ******* planet are you living on? Have you paid any ******* attention to what has been going on?

1. Blocking people from testifying in, and blocking the release of documents to, a Congressional hearing. This is called obstruction of justice... it is a criminal offence under 18 USC § 1505

2. Blocking people from being interviewed in, and blocking the release of documents to, a Special Counsel investigation. This is called obstruction of justice... it is a criminal offence under 18 USC § 1510

3. Paying off a person to stay quiet in order to not have them affect an election campaign. This is a campaign finance violation, a criminal offence under 52 USC § 301

4. Soliciting a thing of value, to wit, trying to arrange a fake investigation of a political rival in order to try to smear his reputation. This is a campaign finance violation, a criminal offence under 52 USC § 301

5. Soliciting a thing of value from a foreign national. i.e. President Voldemyr Zelensky, in an attempt to arrange said fake investigation. This is campaign finance violation, a criminal offence under 52 USC § 30121.

6. Demanding said investigation by withholding official acts such as a White House meeting and military aid (such aid having been duly approved by Congress in a bipartisan manner). This is extortion, a criminal offence under 18 USC § 878​

Is this not enough for you?

I guess the only question is, is it enough for the House to put the matter before the Senate, argue for removal on this basis, and have the Senate vote on it?

 

[theprestige]

When some members start going back and forth (forever), I’m reminded of this scene from a cute and touching little move a while back.

https://youtu.be/p34j0atQdJo

Kinda scatalogical, but probably work safe.

Funny.

I'm reminded of a bit of public restroom doggerel I once saw:

He who writes upon these walls
Rolls his **** in little balls.

He who reads these words of wit
eats those little balls of ****.

 

[Babbylonian]

With all respect. I don't eat **** even if it is served on fine china.

Sure, but maybe you'd take that plate of **** to an internet forum and try to feed it to others?

 

[dudalb]

"I don't care how corrupt he is, or that he wants to be a dictator, just so long as I get my tax cuts, ban abortion, and see the inferior races put back in their place".
Bottom line for the GOP nowdays.

 

[Craig4]

Belz's post had something to do with theprestige. He addressed a big enough group to avoid infringing the MA, but that group obviously included members of the board.

Clutch the pearls! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that someone would do such a thing!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Noted. I will try not to underestimate the stupidity of your mother.

More seriously, does this motherly advice mean there's a risk you're underestimating the stupidity of the Democrats who are pushing for impeachment?

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
- George Carlin

It takes a special kind of stupid to argue that impeachment lies outside the system of checks and balances put in place by The Constitution of the United States, and it takes a doubly special variety of stupid to argue that one possible result of impeachment, namely conviction in the US Senate, should count as improper overturning of an election in a way that runs counter to the processes countenanced by constitutional law.

I need to qualify that a bit, however. It is certainly true that some few individuals may possess sufficient natural stupidity of the ordinary kind to fall for the stupid hypothetical arguments I described within the previous paragraph. Having seen the Kimmel show interviews cited elsewhere, possibly within this very thread, I must admit that possibility.

In most cases, however, the stupid (but hypothetical!) arguments outlined above are argued not by the naturally stupid, but by individuals who have more or less consciously donned an extraordinary form of stupidity. That special form of stupidity, which I will call willful stupidity, can far exceed the natural limits of ordinary stupidity. A degree of natural stupidity that would lead one to make the (hypothetical!) arguments outlined above would be so disabling that persons who possess those special abilities would not be able to post to Internet fora, and we would know of that degree of natural stupidity only through televised interviews and the Darwin awards.

This forum prohibits insulting individual members directly, but people frequently get around this limitation by simply insulting large groups to which other members belong. This may keep posts within the membership agreement, but the fact that it's still insulting to those members remains.

Throughout the rest of this post, I will explain why none of the above can or should be construed as insulting members of this forum. In particular, I will explain how the hypothetical arguments I characterized as stupid are quite different from actual arguments made by one of my fellow contributors to this thread.

Opposing the president within the framework of checks and balances that comprises our system of government is not overturning an election. Removing an elected official from office is overturning an election. That's my logic. By this logic, removing the president from office is overturning the election.

I have highlighted the most important word of that excerpt. Let's note that, if we adopt the usual meaning of the word "logic", that excerpt implies that impeachment followed by conviction cannot be construed as "removing an elected official from office" or as "removing the president from office":

• "Removing an elected official from office is overturning an election."
• "Opposing the president within the framework of checks and balances that comprises our system of government is not overturning an election."
• Impeachment and conviction clearly lies within the framework of checks and balances that are part of our system of government.
• Therefore opposing the president via impeachment and conviction is not overturning an election.
• Therefore (according to the first quotation in this list) opposing the president via impeachment cannot be construed as overturning an election or removing an elected official from office.

That reasoning, however, is justified only by the ordinary usage of the word "logic". The person who used the word "logic" in the quoted excerpt subsequently told us he or she was not using the word "logic" to mean anything that approximates the normal usage of that word:

Your logic is not my logic. The logic Joe was critiquing was also not my logic. I just want to make sure we're clear on those two points.

Consistent reasoning from axioms is not an error. The only error TM is arguing is that I've chosen the wrong axioms. This isn't actually an error.

In a subsequent post, theprestige appeared to clarify that he was using the word "axioms" as a synonym for "beliefs" or "terminology" (depending on which of his/her posts you choose to believe).

Furthermore, theprestige and Ziggurat have explained to us that they are just using different definitions for words such as "logic":

Oh, FFS. This isn't even an issue of logic or reality. It's really an issue of definitions.

The axiom is a definition. It's terminology.

It's pointless to say he's wrong, because he isn't. He's just using a different definition than you.

No. I'm the one who's saying it's about definitions not facts. You object to his definition because of the framing that his definition creates. And that's a legitimate reason to object to it. But that doesn't make it a dispute about facts.

Try not to get bogged down in pointless bickering about terminology.

So none of that involved any kind of dispute about facts, only pointless bickering about terminology. The pointlessness was obvious, I think, but I myself did not understand that the argument being made was unrelated to facts until I saw the clarifications offered later by theprestige and Ziggurat.

The constitution specifically provides for impeachment. You will have to take up your argument with the constitution.

I have no argument with the constitution. Quite the opposite. If you read on, you'll come to the post where I make this clear to someone else who had a similar misunderstanding.

But you'll have to read back, to find my actual argument. You already overshot it.

And so, having read the transcript so to speak, it has become clear that theprestige's argument was "perfect" once you understand that he or she is using his or her idiosyncratic terminology instead of the meanings customarily attached to words such as "logic".

 

[smartcooky]

I guess the only question is, is it enough for the House to put the matter before the Senate, argue for removal on this basis, and have the Senate vote on it?

For any reasonable, law-abiding person, and that would include Republicians in the past (even in Nixon's day) it wouldn't be even be a question. Trump's arse would be goneburger.

However, in the current age of Repugnicans, where...

"I don't care how corrupt he is, or that he wants to be a dictator, just so long as I get my tax cuts, ban abortion, and see the inferior races put back in their place".

... is the bottom line, not a chance.

I believe Trump really could murder someone in plain sight, and it would not move the impeachment needle one millimeter for those scumbags.

 

[theprestige]

It takes a special kind of stupid to argue that impeachment lies outside the system of checks and balances put in place by The Constitution of the United States, and it takes a doubly special variety of stupid to argue that one possible result of impeachment, namely conviction in the US Senate, should count as improper overturning of an election in a way that runs counter to the processes countenanced by constitutional law.

It takes a special kind of stupid to think this has been argued any time, any where, in this thread. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

 

[Minoosh]

I’m trying to decide if obstruction of justice applies in a political process, i.e. impeachment. Is it considered judicial? At the Senate level a judge presides, so it’s at least quasi-judicial. The House is at a stage now that’s no longer analogous to a grand jury proceeding, but nor is it a trial.

I have not been watching testimony. Is this pretty much it for the Ukraine situation? Are more closed-door interviews going to be held on other issues?

I think the past couple of weeks have been good for the country. I’m not really an optimist, but these hearings have struck me as somewhat ... cathartic? The public airing of grievances, complete with Trump’s refusal to “let” certain firsthand witnesses testify, IMO say something about a commitment to at least the appearance of transparency. I’m sure there’s plenty of stuff that isn’t being made public, but I think it’s kind of cool that so much scintillating dialogue has been taking place live on C-SPAN. I’m 100 percent sincere.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yet more sound and fury, I see. More displacement activity.


If successfully impeaching and removing Trump as US president annuls the 2016 election, annul away and cheer as you do it. Ring the bells and raise a toast. The Constitution wins again, and common English usage stops taking such a battering from the likes of theprestige and Ziggurat. An innocent victim, much abused of late.

 

[acbytesla]

Here are some questions.

Did Trump and his administration withhold aid to Ukraine?

Did they ask the Ukraine to announce publicly that they are investigating the Bidens?

Was a meeting with the President and or release of that aid contingent on that announcement?

Did the release of that aid only happen after it was clear that this scheme was going to become public?

Was this for Trump's personal benefit? (Being reelected)

Isn't that the textbook definition of soliciting a bribe and being caught doing it?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It takes a special kind of stupid to think this has been argued any time, any where, in this thread.

As I explained clearly and at length in the post whose opening paragraph you quoted.

Why did you agree with me so violently?

In particular, I will explain how the hypothetical arguments I characterized as stupid are quite different from actual arguments made by one of my fellow contributors to this thread.

ETA: It is of course true that some Republicans, including several members of congress, are making the arguments I characterized as stupid, but I am not aware of any members of this forum who have been making those arguments. If you can identify such members, I will happily report my own post for insulting them through my ignorance of their arguments.

 

[dudalb]

I have no hesistation in saying the argument that impeachment is not part of the checks and balances system in the constitution is a stupid argument.

 

[portlandatheist]

Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ!! What ******* planet are you living on? Have you paid any ******* attention to what has been going on?

1. Blocking people from testifying in, and blocking the release of documents to, a Congressional hearing. This is called obstruction of justice... it is a criminal offence under 18 USC § 1505

2. Blocking people from being interviewed in, and blocking the release of documents to, a Special Counsel investigation. This is called obstruction of justice... it is a criminal offence under 18 USC § 1510

3. Paying off a person to stay quiet in order to not have them affect an election campaign. This is a campaign finance violation, a criminal offence under 52 USC § 301

4. Soliciting a thing of value, to wit, trying to arrange a fake investigation of a political rival in order to try to smear his reputation. This is a campaign finance violation, a criminal offence under 52 USC § 301

5. Soliciting a thing of value from a foreign national. i.e. President Voldemyr Zelensky, in an attempt to arrange said fake investigation. This is campaign finance violation, a criminal offence under 52 USC § 30121.

6. Demanding said investigation by withholding official acts such as a White House meeting and military aid (such aid having been duly approved by Congress in a bipartisan manner). This is extortion, a criminal offence under 18 USC § 878​

Is this not enough for you?

Shouldn't contempt of congress, who has the sole power of the purse, be in this list? I know that aid can be suspended or delayed for various reasons but this had no good faith reasons to obstruct the will of congress.

 

[CapelDodger]

Here are some questions.

Did Trump and his administration withhold aid to Ukraine?

An undeniable fact is that Trump stopped the payment of aid to Ukraine, aid which had been extended by Congress on a bi-partisan vote. Trump stopped the payment as a partisan of one.

Some might make reference to the payment being made at a later date, but that would be an irrelevence. Making the payment amounts to un-stopping the stop instigated by Mr. Trump. It did not annul the stopping. In the period between the stopping and the unstopping the payment was, in fact, in a state of stopped, and the Ukrainians were well aware of it. When the money was voted through their friends in Congress (which was most of it) will have told them how long it could be expected to take to get it to them. That expectation naturally did not include the stopping of the payment by Trump, and the discrepancy between reality and expectation, growing, as these things do, day by day, would have prompted questions.

 

[CapelDodger]

Shouldn't contempt of congress, who has the sole power of the purse, be in this list? I know that aid can be suspended or delayed for various reasons but this had no good faith reasons to obstruct the will of congress.

"Good faith" : there's the rub. Things done in good faith are commonly done in the open. What Mr. Trump, Rudi and the Three Amigos got up to was done far from the light of day.

 

[Paul2]

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
- George Carlin

Approximately one-half of all Americans are below average intelligence.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Approximately one-half of all Americans are below average intelligence.

If 'average intelligence' is a world-wide calculation, then...

 

[PhantomWolf]

I have to admit that I would be less likely to push for an Article on delaying the Security Assistance, mostly because there are too many outs, too many reasons that were being given, and no 100% smoking gun of Trump demanding that it be withheld because of the the Investigations.

However, it is entirely clear that Trump was "selling" a meeting at the Whitehouse for the investigations into the 2016 CT and Burisma, and it's become clear that while it was kept close to the chest that "Burisma" was code for the Bidens. And it is also clear that the Ukrainians have never gotten that promised meeting.

This selling of the services of the Office of President for something of personal gain, and that by itself should be enough to impeach.

 

[quadraginta]

I quoted my mother but please point out where I said she was an 'authority'.

It's implied in a citation. If your mom isn't an authority, why bother quoting her?

This is an interesting proposition. That the act of quoting a person is, a priori, presenting that person as "an authority".

I can see some flaws in your 'logic'.

However, if that's what you want to go with, fine.

If your mom isn't an authority, then what exactly is she doing in this thread? Is it a weekend at Bernie's type thing?

Having so obviously failed at a rational response, you follow up with irrational and remarkably tasteless taunting. I suppose that is to be expected.


(NB: In case your confusion persists, just because I quoted you does not mean I consider you to be an authority of any sort. Far from it.)