Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Belz...]

The Mueller Report said no one in the U.S. colluded with Russia to fix the election and that included Trump.

That's not what the report said.

Everything you read in fake news about pee pee tapes and Trump colluding with Russia is a lie

The only thing I've read in the news about the pee pee tape is that it's unconfirmed. Are you now saying that such a tape exists?

Biden bragged about doing exactly what fake news is lying about Trump doing by extorting Ukraine and the left SIMPLY DOESN'T CARE.

Speaking about believing what you see in fake news, that's one.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You're leaving out public opinion. 52-54% currently want Trump out.

The majority (in the 70s) want witnesses at the trial.

Those are different metrics.

The point is that before now it was clear that the Democrats were playing by the rules and that the Republicans weren't. Now that has switched round.

 

[Belz...]

Slight majority? 232 to 198. Surely ye jest.

54% isn't a large majority, no.

Here we see the Republicans whining like stuck pigs because Pelosi outplayed them.

Outplayed? Trump's not going to be convicted. How is that a loss?

So, how many votes in the U.S did Russia change in the U.S. with their aggressive actions? I need a number and a source, or it's simply as nonsensical as it sounds.

See, this is how we know you don't believe a word you post.

People who say outrageous things just to get a rise usually don't say things all that distant from what they really believe. They're just more outrageous about the way they say it.

The ones who are saying offensively outrageous things are saying them because it's not that far from what they really believe, and they're just taking advantage of the "Oh. I'm just joking." duck-and cover.

And you know this how?

No, I'm not buying that excuse.

 

[Belz...]

Bzzzzt. Wrong!

"Senate trial

The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his or her own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence."

Which of course, means absolutely squat. The GOP can say anything and still claim it's honest and giving the matter due diligence, and no one can legally said otherwise.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Which of course, means absolutely squat. The GOP can say anything and still claim it's honest and giving the matter due diligence, and no one can legally said otherwise.

Except that two of them have already publicly stated in advance they will NOT be "fair jurors". They fully intend to defy their oaths. Further, the GOP leader in the Senate, their top man in that house, has said he is totally getting his legal advice and marching orders from the "defendant" in this trial, Trump. His lips are stuck limpet-like to Trump's arse.

So under no interpretation of any applicable oaths or Senate rules is this honest behaviour or due diligence. And it is known about already because they have said so! The proper course of action is they must be made to recuse themselves immediately (the easy way out), or be admonished in some way for violating their oaths, IMMEDIATELY WHEN THEY SWEAR THEMSELVES IN AS IS REQUIRED. They are trying to say up front "I'm not going to be fair" and then swear an oath that "I AM going to be fair". If Jesus heard that he would kick them in the balls right out of the chamber.

It really opens up a question: What happens to a Senator who knowingly and willfully lies to the Senate about his behaviour as a Senator? Isn't there a procedure for their removal from the Senate for such behaviour? Yes, there is.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There is no rule, in either the Senate or the House, that requires any member of Congress to be impartial at any point in time.

If you search upthread, I posted the relevant rule, as laid out in official documents. You are 100% wrong about this.

In fact, here you go

Form of oath to be administered to the members of the Senate sitting in the trial of
impeachments:
I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial
of the impeachment of _______ _______, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the
Constitution and laws: so help me God.

 

[Meadmaker]

Pelosi's Masterplan: wait to vote on House Managers until the Courts determine that Pompeo and other "1st hand witnesses" must testify; then demand that McConnell lets the Managers call them as witnesses before the Senate Trial.
This way, all arguments about the Dems not giving Trump a fair trial are gone.


Well, that's my guess.

I think the plan that involves the giant badger has more chance of success.

 

[Minoosh]

Why should there be evidence and witnesses at a trial? It's just supposed to be a vote by jurors who already made up their minds.... unless it's a Democrat on trial, then there needs to be witnesses and evidence.

In Clinton's trial there was at least some video to be watched. Much like the current situation, the facts were not seriously in dispute; just the question whether those facts warranted removal.

Of course with no intention of calling witnesses the GOP Senate can determine that the facts so far don't support removal. And though I don't think what Clinton did was as serious as Trump's transgressions, there was a pretty cut-and-dried set of facts that were also not enough to get Clinton tossed out of office.

The fact that minds were made up before the trial began doesn't scandalize me in either case. I don't think either side was announcing their partiality in the Clinton case, but I haven't researched that and I could be wrong.

ETA: Knowing more about the oath they take, I see the problem Team Trump will have reconciling the oath with previous statement announcing bias. But they can probably change the oath on a simple majority. Promise not to be "unduly biased" or something like that. It wouldn't look good, but I'm not sure the general public would really pick up on that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There were no witnesses in the Clinton trial, but there were depositions, IIRC.

 

[Meadmaker]

There is no rule, in either the Senate or the House, that requires any member of Congress to be impartial at any point in time.

If you search upthread, I posted the relevant rule, as laid out in official documents. You are 100% wrong about this.

In fact, here you go

Form of oath to be administered to the members of the Senate sitting in the trial of
impeachments:
I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial
of the impeachment of _______ _______, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the
Constitution and laws: so help me God.

Ahh, my favorite named fallacy. The fallacy of equivocation.


Ziggurat says "be impartial". The oath says "do impartial justice". SB (and many, many, others) say they mean the same thing.


It's weird. One senator can say, "I am not impartial", and there are howls of "OATHBREAKER!". Meanwhile, three senators who happen to want to be the next president can publicly declare that Donald Trump should be removed from office, and there are a few such shouts, but when you listen carefully, it seems that the shouting is coming from a different corner. No one who condemns one is condemning the other.

Before anyone says something stupid about "whataboutism", let me head this off at the pass. "Whataboutism" is jargon that occurs when one side says that a certain behavior is ok because the other side is as bad or worse. That is absolutely, unequivocally, NOT, what I'm doing.

I'm saying that neither side is doing anything bad here. The requirement to "do impartial justice", doesn't mean that no senator can have an opinion, or that no senator can express that opinion publicly. It means that each of us, with a special emphasis on senators, needs to judge the case according to its merits, not according to polticial considerations.

Have you all done that? Well I would hope that you at least did your best, and yet, it seems that both public opinion and senators' statements are strongly divided along party lines. So it often is. It's human nature. And yet, each will say that party affiliation has no influence on their judgment.

I, for one, cannot look at either side and say the people on side A have made a fair and impartial judgment based on the facts and/or the law, while the other side is a bunch of partisan hacks who are simply interested in the political consequences of the outcome. To me, both sides seem pretty political in this.

 

[Meadmaker]

There were no witnesses in the Clinton trial, but there were depositions, IIRC.

Monica Lewinsky gave personal, and quite powerful, testimony during the Clinton trial.

I don't recall if there were others.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Ahh, my favorite named fallacy. The fallacy of equivocation.


Ziggurat says "be impartial". The oath says "do impartial justice". SB (and many, many, others) say they mean the same thing.


It's weird. One senator can say, "I am not impartial", and there are howls of "OATHBREAKER!". Meanwhile, three senators who happen to want to be the next president can publicly declare that Donald Trump should be removed from office, and there are a few such shouts, but when you listen carefully, it seems that the shouting is coming from a different corner. No one who condemns one is condemning the other.

Before anyone says something stupid about "whataboutism", let me head this off at the pass. "Whataboutism" is jargon that occurs when one side says that a certain behavior is ok because the other side is as bad or worse. That is absolutely, unequivocally, NOT, what I'm doing.

I'm saying that neither side is doing anything bad here. The requirement to "do impartial justice", doesn't mean that no senator can have an opinion, or that no senator can express that opinion publicly. It means that each of us, with a special emphasis on senators, needs to judge the case according to its merits, not according to polticial considerations.

Have you all done that? Well I would hope that you at least did your best, and yet, it seems that both public opinion and senators' statements are strongly divided along party lines. So it often is. It's human nature. And yet, each will say that party affiliation has no influence on their judgment.

I, for one, cannot look at either side and say the people on side A have made a fair and impartial judgment based on the facts and/or the law, while the other side is a bunch of partisan hacks who are simply interested in the political consequences of the outcome. To me, both sides seem pretty political in this.

Deerstalker cap = no deerstalker cap, okay

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It's weird. One senator can say, "I am not impartial", and there are howls of "OATHBREAKER!". Meanwhile, three senators who happen to want to be the next president can publicly declare that Donald Trump should be removed from office, and there are a few such shouts

This sounds a bit like the claim that teachers aren't neutral and objective if they say we know evolution or global warming is real.

If a person is caught robbing a house, the judge can comment on the case while remaining impartial, especially if it's cut-and-dry. If they or someone in the jury, however, say they will do their utmost to support the robber, that can and should cause howling. That's not about subconscious prejudices and fallacies, but about someone openly admitting/declaring they are not going to do their job.

It means that each of us, with a special emphasis on senators, needs to judge the case according to its merits, not according to polticial considerations.

Have you all done that?

And as I said, this is irrelevant since neither of us are in the Senate. I get your point, but there's a difference between being subjective because you're human and declaring that you're partisan and intend to just vote along party lines.

 

[Belz...]

Except that two of them have already publicly stated in advance they will NOT be "fair jurors". They fully intend to defy their oaths.

In the oath, does it say "fairly"? You know those asshats will play semantics, right?

So under no interpretation of any applicable oaths or Senate rules is this honest behaviour or due diligence.

Of course it's "honest": he flatly said what he's going to do, and he can claim that the due diligence was to acquit.

That's the problem Joe keeps bringing up: bringing up the rules doesn't do jack **** when dealing with rule-breakers.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's the problem Joe keeps bringing up: bringing up the rules doesn't do jack **** when dealing with rule-breakers.

As time go on I think it's even scarier then that. I just realized in the last day or so that I might be looking at it wrong and I'm kind of mad at myself it took me so long to look at it this way.

"These are the rules" is just another fact, and at this point the fact (no irony intended) that the Republicans main strategy is to drag us into a post-fact world is unquestionable.

If Mitch McConnell says it's his job as an impartial juror to protect the President, then indeed reality itself will rewrite itself around him to make that true.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I, for one, cannot look at either side and say the people on side A have made a fair and impartial judgment based on the facts and/or the law, while the other side is a bunch of partisan hacks who are simply interested in the political consequences of the outcome. To me, both sides seem pretty political in this.

There's only one side that's in denial of the facts.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"I am 100%, positively sure that 2+2=4 and nothing will change my mind."
"I am 100%, positively sure that 2+2=5 and nothing will change my mind."

Raise your hand if you don't understand why, on a practical level, the second statement is more of a problem then the first?

Nobody? Okay we scan stop this stupid "Oh but both sides are biases and impartial" stalling hijack.

 

[acbytesla]

1) The Senate is playing by the rules.

Its own rules which can be changed at any time.

And it's not even playing by those rules. Those rules clearly state that the jurors take an oath to be fair and not biased.

2) The rules aren't always fair.

That DOESN'T mean they can't be fair.

3) Republicans didn't consider the House's rules to be fair.

Funny. Considering those rules were written by the Republican majority House three years ago. The Democrats did not change those rules at all.

 

[acbytesla]

They don't take oaths to be jurors. They aren't jurors. They are Senators. They have a role roughly analogous to jurors, but the process isn't the same.

They ABSOLUTELY DO.

 

[varwoche]

...It's weird. One senator can say, "I am not impartial", and there are howls of "OATHBREAKER!". Meanwhile, three senators who happen to want to be the next president can publicly declare that Donald Trump should be removed from office, and there are a few such shouts, but when you listen carefully, it seems that the shouting is coming from a different corner. No one who condemns one is condemning the other.

The system is built-in partial and there's no getting around that. But that doesn't preclude a senator from doing the best they can. McConnell and Graham aren't even trying. They're wallowing in their pre-determination as if that was a positive thing, without so much as a gratuitous interest in the facts. God bless Dear Leader. He enjoys tea bagging and McConnell aims to please.