Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[theprestige]

I think that the Grand Design is aimed at 2022 when there is a real chance to flip the Senate.

I hope not. That seems like a very corrupt and partisan reason to impeach a president.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I hope not. That seems like a very corrupt and partisan reason to impeach a president.

That's not the reason. The reason for Impeachment is because the Constitution says that Trump needs to be Impeached.

2020 is just the earliest best chance to get rid of corrupt McConnell. And both Democrats and Republicans will be relieved to see him gone.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Can any of you geniuses tell me what the Dem's Plan C is if this one (Plan B) fails in the same way Plan A (Mueller) did?

I mean, they must be well considered strategies because it's not as if the Dems and their water-carriers are idiots who believe you can just keep flinging **** until some sticks and the Whitehouse becomes rightfully theirs, or anything like that.

That would depend on how many voters perceive it as Dems "flinging ****" and how many see Republicans as partisan defenders of a thoroughly unfit president. That's one argument for keeping the Articles short and easy to understand. Anyway, Plan C is to get high turnout at the polls next November, which is never good for Republicans.

 

[Segnosaur]

I hope not. That seems like a very corrupt and partisan reason to impeach a president.

No.

All evidence points to the fact that Trump is a corrupt individual and deserves to be removed from office, by any legal means available.

The fact that the Democrats are factoring the impact on future elections doesn't change that fact.

 

[Doubt]

Can any of you geniuses tell me what the Dem's Plan C is if this one (Plan B) fails in the same way Plan A (Mueller) did?

I mean, they must be well considered strategies because it's not as if the Dems and their water-carriers are idiots who believe you can just keep flinging **** until some sticks and the Whitehouse becomes rightfully theirs, or anything like that.

Where to you get the idea that Mueller's investigation was a Democratic plan from? This was an independent investigation by the justice department. Mueller is not a Democrat and the people he reported to were not Democrats.

 

[theprestige]

That's not the reason. The reason for Impeachment is because the Constitution says that Trump needs to be Impeached.

I disagree. The way I read it, the Constitution says that the president can be impeached at any time, at Congress' discretion. It says nothing about need, and leaves that question entirely up to the discretion of Congress.

Thus, the reason for impeachment is because the House majority says he needs to be impeached. Which is perfectly cromulent.

But now you're suggesting that's a misdirection, and the real reason is for the Democrats to pick up some Senate seats in 2022. Which is probably not cromulent.

2020 is just the earliest best chance to get rid of corrupt McConnell. And both Democrats and Republicans will be relieved to see him gone.

The purpose of impeachment is not to oust an unpopular Senate majority leader. If that's the real reason House Democrats are doing this, then I'd say it's an abuse of power easily on par with anything President Trump has been accused of doing.

My advice to you: If you truly believe that this is the real reason, and you approve, you should probably keep it to yourself, and discuss it only behind closed doors, with trusted friends of a similar partisan mindset.

 

[theprestige]

No.

All evidence points to the fact that Trump is a corrupt individual and deserves to be removed from office, by any legal means available.

The fact that the Democrats are factoring the impact on future elections doesn't change that fact.

I make a distinction between your minimized "factoring in" and TGZ's maximized "Grand Design."

The Grand Design of impeaching the president should be removing the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. If impeachment is expected to fail in that Design, but accrue other partisan benefits along the way as it proceeds towards that failure, then the impeachment should not go forward just to accrue those benefits.

My advice to you is the same as to TGZ: If you think impeachment will fail in its principled objectives, but you're looking forward to the partisan advantages you'll gain from the process, keep that to yourself. It's not a good look in public discourse.

 

[d4m10n]

The way I read it, the Constitution says that the president can be impeached at any time, at Congress' discretion. It says nothing about need, and leaves that question entirely up to the discretion of Congress.

Not entirely, no. The term impeachment had a specific meaning and usage in common law (as does high crimes and bribery) and you have to hew to those common law understandings in good faith if you've taken an oath to uphold the constitution itself.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Bug-Eyed Burbank Bolshevik Schiff ...

Awk! Polly want a cracker?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

prestige, that's a horrible way to see it and I tell you why:
Impeachment is the closest thing Congress has to a trial, and if we only hold Trials when we feel like it, not when the conditions for Impeachment are met, we violate the principle of equality before the law. Impeachment creates precedent.
If Clinton got impeached for perjury, Trump needs to be Impeached if he committed perjury. If Nixon would have been Impeached for Obstruction, then Trump needs to be Impeached for Obstruction.
Otherwise you turn the Rule of Law into a popularity contest.

 

[TragicMonkey]

prestige, that's a horrible way to see it and I tell you why:
Impeachment is the closest thing Congress has to a trial, and if we only hold Trials when we feel like it, not when the conditions for Impeachment are met, we violate the principle of equality before the law. Impeachment creates precedent.
If Clinton got impeached for perjury, Trump needs to be Impeached if he committed perjury. If Nixon would have been Impeached for Obstruction, then Trump needs to be Impeached for Obstruction.
Otherwise you turn the Rule of Law into a popularity contest.

Now, now, partisanship is a terrible evil when Democrats do it. It's standard procedure when Republicans do, but pointing that out is itself a terrible partisan Democrat move. Impeaching a criminal president? Dreadful partisanship! Blocking all SC nominations before they're even made? Totally acceptable.

 

[theprestige]

Not entirely, no. The term impeachment had a specific meaning and usage in common law (as does high crimes and bribery) and you have to hew to those common law understandings in good faith if you've taken an oath to uphold the constitution itself.

I think that Congress is expected to weigh the trade-offs of different courses of action, and that's why the Constitution doesn't mandate necessity, but leaves that option open to Congress should they deem it necessary. Which they may not.

The Senate was not required to remove Clinton from office for perjury. By the same token, the House was not required to impeach him for perjury. Even though perjury is a crime, and even though the Constitution gives them the authority.

 

[varwoche]

That's just as stupid as calling Trump a Nazi, which I'm sure you're entirely ok with.

To add insult to insult, it's not even funny. As for wittiness, 50% yes 50% not so much.

 

[Horatius]

My guess is that the core audience for the House impeachment hearings is voters in states whose GOP Senators might be worried about reelection, if they don't vote to remove.

Either that, or the core audience is swing voters in the 2020 presidential election. In which case, impeachment isn't so much about removing the president for high crimes and/or misdemeanors. Rather, it's a DNC campaign strategy.

The problem here is you keep acting like this is all just politics as usual, and the only reason anyone cares about the upcoming elections is because they're hoping to win more seats for the usual reasons.

But it really isn't politics as usual. Trump has shown himself to be unfit for the office, and he deserves to be ousted. The entire system of "checks and balances" that the US government is based on is supposed to act to limit the damage that is done to the country under such circumstances.

But those very same checks and balances can't work if the people in office with the power to check the President simply refuse to act. In doing so, they are derelict in their duty to the country and its citizens. Unfortunately, the only way to fix this is to vote the bastards out, which necessarily involves voting the non-bastards in. The Dems need to win big in the next couple of elections, or the damage to the US may be irreversible. They need to keep winning big until the GOP gets its head out of its ass far enough to see what they're doing to the country.

This isn't politics as usual, and every time you try to act as if it is, you're making things worse.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If it makes you feel better to believe that the Dems will only do the Right Thing because it is advantageous for them - fine.
That shouldn't in any way stop you from supporting them in doing the Right Thing.

 

[acbytesla]

You do realize this comment is based on nothing except your own speculation? And people wonder why I don't wait with bated breath for responses to my comments.

It's a pretty good speculation. Zelensky doesn't want to lose the United States as an ally. He's already seen that Trump won't hesitate to screw Ukraine to help his Russian benefactors.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Nadler just said that I “pressured Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 Election.” Ridiculous, and he knows that is not true. Both the President & Foreign Minister of Ukraine said, many times, that there “WAS NO PRESSURE.” Nadler and the Dems know this, but refuse to acknowledge!

WITCH HUNT!

Shifty Schiff, a totally corrupt politician, made up a horrible and fraudulent statement, read it to Congress, and said those words came from me. He got caught, was very embarrassed, yet nothing happened to him for committing this fraud. He’ll eventually have to answer for this!

Read the Transcripts! “us” is a reference to USA, not me!

 

[Cabbage]

But I think corrupt politicians are like money, and police: If we didn't have them, the first thing we'd do is invent them.

The part where you lose me is where you evidently think that it is therefore justified to elect the most corrupt candidate possible.

That doesn't follow.

 

[Segnosaur]

Ok, lets see a show of hands... who here is disappointed that the articles of impeachment did not include a charge of violating 18 U.S. Code 2074.

For those interested: That is the law that makes it illegal to give fake weather reports. This was the case when Trump warned Alabama about a hurricane that was not expected to affect it. (a.k.a. Sharpiegate.)

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-may-have-broken-law-by-altering-hurricane-dorian-map-2019-9

 

[theprestige]

Ok, lets see a show of hands... who here is disappointed that the articles of impeachment did not include a charge of violating 18 U.S. Code 2074.

For those interested: That is the law that makes it illegal to give fake weather reports. This was the case when Trump warned Alabama about a hurricane that was not expected to affect it. (a.k.a. Sharpiegate.)

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-may-have-broken-law-by-altering-hurricane-dorian-map-2019-9

Well, now I'm disappointed!