Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Belz...]

Thanks for this counterpoint. I'll consider the possibility that the Democrats need to be dishonest about the nature of Clinton's impeachment.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If a GOP Senator sincerely believes in constitutional originalism (as they generally claim on their campaign websites) then all it should take to convict someone who has been impeached is a reasonably well-informed understanding of the relevant constitutional meaning of terms such as "bribery," and "high crimes," given a fact pattern similar to the one reported by HPSCI earlier this week.

The public can catch up whenever they get around to it (assuming they didn't catch C-SPAN yesterday) but their opinion has no bearing on what it takes to uphold one's oath.

I don't think we're going to get very far assuming that the Republican Senators are going to approach this with the attitude of seeing justice served, as opposed to doing whatever is best for themselves.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't quite get Turley's argument here.

Yes, we must ensure due process, and that might involve challenging subpoenas in the courts. But from what I see the evidence that has been presented regarding Trump's abuses of power were not subject to subpoenas. (e.g. testimony from Yovanovitch, Vindman, etc., the call transcript, information from the Mueller report that has publicly been released.) From what we know, that should be more than enough for impeachment to proceed.

There are ongoing court cases regarding Trump's financials (which might impact claims of emoluments violations), and certain witnesses (e.g. the subpoena compelling McGahn to testify), and it would certainly be great if those were eventually ruled against Trump. But any evidence they provide would just be icing on the cake.

Its a little like saying "Even though we have someone on video committing murder, plus his fingerprints and DNA all over the scene, and a half dozen witnesses, don't sent it to court until you have just that one more witness.".

It's the thing of everything that's so far been presented being "hearsay". The Republicans keep harping on this, and the concept is that this makes the Democrats' case weak and based on flimsy evidence. In order to make the case, the Democrats need to call first-hand witnesses and have documentation. They can't do this because Trump has instructed everybody not to obey subpoenas.

So the argument is that the Democrats should push for the subpoenas to be obeyed, and to allow the Supreme Court to rule on whether or not they need to be obeyed.

Of course there are two major issues with that - the first being that this is time-sensitive, and the second being that the Supreme Court has been stacked.* Instead we're left with the Republicans saying that the Democrats' evidence is nothing more than hearsay, that the Democrats know their case is weak and a witch-hunt which is why they won't seek to enforce the subpoenas, and that by moving ahead rather than allowing Trump to challenge the subpoenas in the Supreme Court the Democrats are trying to circumvent the law and deny Trump his due process.

Again, I don't think any of this is legally sound, but it's legal-y enough that people can latch on to it. I think the Republicans have done a very good job of muddying the waters and calling the legitimacy of the proceedings in to question. Enough that a layman could easily go "they're right, Trump's entitled to his due process, and if they were sure of their case why are they afraid to let the courts decide?"

I really feel like the Democrats have been outmanoeuvred here. Because, again, it's not really about whether the facts show that Trump is guilty of an impeachable offence - he clearly and obviously is. It's about whether a situation can be engineered in which the Republican-controlled Senate can be forced to actually do what is right - whether what is right and what is self-serving for them can be made to be the same thing. The answer is "not like this, no".

*Incidentally, I thought that one of the Democrat witnesses yesterday landed a good blow by quoting Kavanaugh, because the Republicans can't exactly smear him at this point.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't quite get Turley's argument here.

Yes, we must ensure due process, and that might involve challenging subpoenas in the courts. But from what I see the evidence that has been presented regarding Trump's abuses of power were not subject to subpoenas.

It's the thing of everything that's so far been presented being "hearsay". The Republicans keep harping on this, and the concept is that this makes the Democrats' case weak and based on flimsy evidence. In order to make the case, the Democrats need to call first-hand witnesses....

From a legal point of view, they don't. Circumstantial evidence can be more than enough to convict someone of a crime.

and have documentation.

But they do have documentation... The call transcripts, phone records and text email. They don't have ALL the documentation, just enough to proceed.

Of course there are two major issues with that - the first being that this is time-sensitive, and the second being that the Supreme Court has been stacked.* Instead we're left with the Republicans saying that the Democrats' evidence is nothing more than hearsay

The third major issue should be... hearsay is actually legally admissible in court, depending on the situation.

Its a great sound bite to say "its only hearsay", but apparently its quite common for judges to instruct juries in the U.S. that hearsay can be considered valid evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGluGlQgdA

...that the Democrats know their case is weak...

If that's his actual argument then he is engaging in mind reading, and/or parroting Republican talking points.

The Democrats know their case is strong (at least from a legal point of view) even without the extra evidence that would be provided if/when the subpoenas are ruled valid.

I really feel like the Democrats have been outmanoeuvred here. Because, again, it's not really about whether the facts show that Trump is guilty of an impeachable offence - he clearly and obviously is. It's about whether a situation can be engineered in which the Republican-controlled Senate can be forced to actually do what is right - whether what is right and what is self-serving for them can be made to be the same thing. The answer is "not like this, no".

I don't think Democrats have been out-maneuvered. I think it was a case where they were dealt a losing hand to start with (excessively corrupt GOP, unfavorable senate elections schedule, underlying base of racist Trump supporters) and are simply making the best of a bad situation. You can do everything correct and still come out with the short end of the stick.

Trump supporters were never going to turn on Trump (even if he gave a signed confession) because he gives them the bigotry they crave. GOP senators were never going to turn on Trump because they fear his base, and are corrupt themselves. And Trump's defenders will always accept bogus arguments that support Trump, regardless of how silly those arguments are, because they like them some racism.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

From a legal point of view, they don't.

I've said more than once that I don't think any of this is legally valid. But what it is is very good cover for the Republicans to protect Trump under the guise of being the party that's actually trying to seen justice done in protecting a president who has done nothing wrong against the witch-hunt that's being held against him.

If that's his actual argument then he is engaging in mind reading, and/or parroting Republican talking points.

I'll let you guess which is more likely. Although it should be noted that the actual part of my post you quoted and said this about was explicitly laying out Republican talking points, rather than what Turley said. Turly did say that the case was weak, but that wasn't the information I was conveying in the particular part of my post that you here quoted.

I don't think Democrats have been out-maneuvered. I think it was a case where they were dealt a losing hand to start with (excessively corrupt GOP, unfavorable senate elections schedule, underlying base of racist Trump supporters) and are simply making the best of a bad situation. You can do everything correct and still come out with the short end of the stick.

I don't think they have done everything right, because they didn't make the counter-arguments they could make, and they didn't cross-examine him. I think they fed in to the Republican narrative.

I felt yesterday was in stark contrast to, for example, the Mueller testimony, where the Republicans looked like they were desperately flailing while the Democrats were mostly trying to get at the truth. Instead here the Republicans had a witness who came over very well, who had obviously done a lot of homework, and who made arguments that had enough of a veneer of credibility that they can be leaned on in a way that can be persuasive to the public at large.

Trump supporters were never going to turn on Trump (even if he gave a signed confession) because he gives them the bigotry they crave. GOP senators were never going to turn on Trump because they fear his base, and are corrupt themselves. And Trump's defenders will always accept bogus arguments that support Trump, regardless of how silly those arguments are, because they like them some racism.

I'm not talking about swaying Trump supporters. I'm talking about the unaffiliated, the independent, the people in the middle. Trump supporters are a minority, and even with voter suppression, gerrymandering, foreign help, etc. they can't win with just the hardcore base alone. They need the people in the middle. If they turn to be against Trump - if supporting Trump looks like it will actually harm the careers of Republicans and harm the electability of the Republican party/Republican politicians, then the Republicans will turn on Trump.

Instead the Democrats have allowed there to be a situation where a reasonable floating voter who is loyal to neither party and who hasn't closely followed what is going on can legitimately and honestly think that the case against Trump is unfair and weak - illegal or a threat to American democracy, even. I'm not entirely sure that was avoidable, but I am sure that there was more that could have been done to prevent it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No one can argue that Democrats didn't seek the best evidence - but Trump is blocking everything.
If you follow Turley's logic, you only get to Impeach a cooperating President.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't think we're going to get very far assuming that the Republican Senators are going to approach this with the attitude of seeing justice served, as opposed to doing whatever is best for themselves.

I don't disagree with this at all, as an appropriately cynical model of how to predict senatorial behavior. What I'm getting at, though, is that the entire point of oath-taking is to bind oneself to specified principles even (perhaps especially) when doing so is bad for you personally, e.g. reducing one's chances at re-election. Elected officials who wax on about the wisdom of the founders (e.g. Oklahoma Senators) can set aside their solemn promise to defend the constitution whenever doing so runs against popular opinion back home (e.g. Okies) but they cannot expect us to take them seriously as men of integrity thereafter.

 

[Stacyhs]

Lying under oath is a clear violation of law. The abuse of power that Trump is accused of is not as clearly a violation of law. It's a stretch to call it bribery in the usual sense. Whether ignoring subpoenas is obstruction of Congress is unclear until court cases are settled. And so on.

I see no inconsistency in Turley's position. I don't agree with it, but it's not a matter of whether lying is worse or not. Lying under oath is a clear violation of law. Abuse of power is more vaguely defined. If one thinks that every violation of law (or at least every significant violation, and I regard perjury as significant) is impeachable, but that we should be careful in applying vague principles in impeachment, then Clinton's act would be impeachable while Trump's may not.

Of course perjury is a clear violation of law, but is lying about getting a blowjob serious enough to warrant removing a president from office? Clinton was guilty as hell and should have been censured but removed from office? No.

 

[smartcooky]

I wish there was a detailed timeline at hand. I'm constantly dissatisfied with the timelines I find online regardless of topic. I've been threatening to write a timeline app almost since the day I joined the forum. One of these days... ?

Well, here is a start start for you, gleaned from posts by This is the End, myself et al

Late 2018: Rudy Giuliani sends his two (now indicted) associates, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas to Ukraine to search for information to undermine the Special Counsel's investigation, and to try to find dirt on Trump's political opponents. They begin a smear campaign against Ukraine Amb Marie Yovanovich, who they see as a roadblock in their attempts encourage corruption to keep taking place in Ukraine.

March 5: Amb Marie Yovanovich gives a speech to the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, decrying the lack of progress to combat corruption, saying: "It is increasingly clear that Ukraine's once-in-a-generation opportunity for change has not yet resulted in the anti-corruption or rule of law reforms that Ukrainians expect or deserve."

March 12: Joe Biden gives his first strong signal yet that he will soon get into the 2020 presidential race.

Mid-march: The smear campaign by Giuliani and his associates, Parnas and Fruman begins to ramp up.

April 21: Volodymyr Zelensky elected President of Ukraine.

April 24: Trump recalls Amb Yovanivich.

April 25: Joe Biden formally announces that he is running for POTUS in 2020.

July 25th: The crime. (The extortion phone call to the Ukraine for help setting up Biden.)

Aug 12th: The whistle-blower complaint.

Aug 28th: News breaks about the extortion phone call and aid being withheld.

Sept 9th (Day): Investigations Begin.

Sept 9th (Night): Trump finds out about the investigation and then makes the "I WANT NOTHING. I WANT NOTHING. NO QUID PRO QUO!" coverup phone call.

Sept 11th: Aid to Ukraine released.

Sept 24rd (Morning): Impeachment inquiry leaked.

Sept 24rd (Afternoon): Trump phone call to Pelosi asking if she and he can "work something out" to "do something about this whole whistle-blower thing". He even tells her that he is prepared to put gun control on the table in exchange. (Her response to him was only that "He and his people should start obeying the law").

Sept 24th (Evening): Impeachment inquiry is announced.​

 

[Stacyhs]

I am certain that Trump named him Barron exactly because it evokes a sense of nobility.

He named him Barron because Prince was already taken.

It's certainly good material for a shrink, whether he used his son's name as an alias or named his son for his alias.

He named his son after his alias which gave him another chance to name a son after himself. Pure narcissism.

 

[varwoche]

<snip for brevity>

Thank you! What I'm wanting to see is more detailed though. Including:

(1) Phone calls between Rudy and White House and -1
(2) Phone calls between Nunes and Rudy, Nunes and Parnas
(3) The dates that the various state dept witnesses claim that Ukraine was aware the aid was on hold

Etc. I'm not asking this of you though. I'll hopefully have time to work on it over the weekend.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

The Do Nothing Democrats had a historically bad day yesterday in the House. They have no Impeachment case and are demeaning our Country. But nothing matters to them, they have gone crazy. Therefore I say, if you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast, so we can have a fair....

.....trial in the Senate, and so that our Country can get back to business. We will have Schiff, the Bidens, Pelosi and many more testify, and will reveal, for the first time, how corrupt our system really is. I was elected to “Clean the Swamp,” and that’s what I am doing!

The Do Nothing, Radical Left Democrats have just announced that they are going to seek to Impeach me over NOTHING. They already gave up on the ridiculous Mueller “stuff,” so now they hang their hats on two totally appropriate (perfect) phone calls with the Ukrainian President....

....This will mean that the beyond important and seldom used act of Impeachment will be used routinely to attack future Presidents. That is not what our Founders had in mind. The good thing is that the Republicans have NEVER been more united. We will win!

 

[Segnosaur]

Trump Tweets

The Do Nothing Democrats had a historically bad day yesterday in the House. They have no Impeachment case and are demeaning our Country. But nothing matters to them, they have gone crazy. Therefore I say, if you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast,

But weren't we told (by the republican-picked expert) that the impeachment inquiry should take time and go slower?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think we're conflating "clearly against the law" with "how bad you broke the law."

Stealing an apple is clearly against the law, but it's not that bad of a law to break.

I like to think we all (outside of our resident try-hard edgelords who have no point to their existence beyond "well technically"ing the country into oblivion) understand that it is possible to do things that are much, much, much worse then stealing an apple but for defining exactly what lay was broken or other esoteric questions are much harder to answer.

And again this isn't a traditional trail, it's impeachment. This is not a game of proving whether or not Trump committed the dictionary definition of one specific crime.

 

[Segnosaur]

Here's an argument against impeachment that I'm surprised the GOP has not picked up on.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Wiles
(Wiles) said on TruNews that the impeachment of Donald Trump is a "Jew coup" in November 2019, claiming "That's the way the Jews work. They are deceivers. They plot, they lie, they do whatever they have to do to accomplish their political agenda" and asserted the United States would reach a state of civil war before Christmas

Of course, its easy to dismiss TruNews as a bunch of nobodies. But, they have received white house press credentials before. (And Trump has taken questions from them during his press conferences.)

 

[Lurch]

If a GOP Senator sincerely believes in constitutional originalism (as they generally claim on their campaign websites) then all it should take to convict someone who has been impeached is a reasonably well-informed understanding of the relevant constitutional meaning of terms such as "bribery," and "high crimes," given a fact pattern similar to the one reported by HPSCI earlier this week.

The public can catch up whenever they get around to it (assuming they didn't catch C-SPAN yesterday) but their opinion has no bearing on what it takes to uphold one's oath.

Truth. The very moniker, "lawmakers" would suggest that Senators should take a leadership role in matters of law and the Constitution. Not follow the braying of a basket of deplorables who comprise (so far) a minority of the populace.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

She did nothing wrong.

Correct.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Here's an argument against impeachment that I'm surprised the GOP has not picked up on.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Wiles
(Wiles) said on TruNews that the impeachment of Donald Trump is a "Jew coup" in November 2019, claiming "That's the way the Jews work. They are deceivers. They plot, they lie, they do whatever they have to do to accomplish their political agenda" and asserted the United States would reach a state of civil war before Christmas

I have since been informed that the correct term is a Jew d'état .

 

[varwoche]

She did nothing wrong.

Wrong no. Unwise yes.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Did Piglosi say the lies in the articles of impeachment are going to involve Russia and not Ukraine? If so, that's hilarious. Oh, Trump's approval at Rasmussen is up to 52% today, which is probably why she rushed out and made the announcement.