Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[theprestige]

McConnell has said that he's not going to look at any of the evidence. He's also said that he's coordinating with the accused in order to do what Trump wants him to do.

Do either of those things, in your mind, fit in with judging the case according to its merits rather than according to political considerations.

The merits of the case are political merits. That's why the Founders put the responsibility on the political representatives of the people and the states. If they thought impeachment were a legal question, they would have given the Supreme Court sole power to try.

This is also the basis for my reasoning that the House Democrats aren't undermining the process nor acting unfairly. It's also the basis for my reasoning that the Senate Republicans aren't acting unfairly either. It's a political process.

The question isn't, "did the President commit crimes?" The question is, "is it a good idea to remove the president right now, for these reasons?" That's a political question, about which the country is sharply divided. It should come as no surprise that the process is bogged down in political slapfighting. But that's all it is.

--

And for the record, I have no objection to the Democrats removing Trump -- If they can pull it off.

I do object to Democrats not grasping or not admitting that it's a political act. And I object to the Democrats not being honest about how partisan political advantage factors into their impeachment calculus.

 

[Paul2]

The merits of the case are political merits. That's why the Founders put the responsibility on the political representatives of the people and the states. If they thought impeachment were a legal question, they would have given the Supreme Court sole power to try.

This is also the basis for my reasoning that the House Democrats aren't undermining the process nor acting unfairly. It's also the basis for my reasoning that the Senate Republicans aren't acting unfairly either. It's a political process.

The question isn't, "did the President commit crimes?" The question is, "is it a good idea to remove the president right now, for these reasons?" That's a political question, about which the country is sharply divided. It should come as no surprise that the process is bogged down in political slapfighting. But that's all it is.

--

And for the record, I have no objection to the Democrats removing Trump -- If they can pull it off.

I do object to Democrats not grasping or not admitting that it's a political act. And I object to the Democrats not being honest about how partisan political advantage factors into their impeachment calculus.

By "political" do you mean the only consideration is power - who can grab how much power, by whatever means, and how to use that power? That is, whether the House can exert its power to impeach, or not, and whether the Senate can exert its power to convict, or not?


If it's really just about power, then it makes no sense that the Constitution would lay out criteria for impeachment (bribery, treason and high crimes and misdemeanors). If it was just about power, then those criteria would not be needed and the President would merely be serving at the whim of half of the House and 2/3 of the Senate.


Maybe that's not what you mean by "political," though.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the U.S. Congress, and now she is crying for fairness in the Senate, and breaking all rules while doing so. She lost Congress once, she will do it again!

The Democrats and Crooked Hillary paid for & provided a Fake Dossier, with phony information gotten from foreign sources, pushed it to the corrupt media & Dirty Cops, & have now been caught. They spied on my campaign, then tried to cover it up - Just Like Watergate, but bigger!

 

[Marcus]

I'm pretty sure they weren't played to the Senate but made available for them to see the depositions.

Okay. You mean they viewed them privately, at home or in their office? I really don't know.


Edit: According to Squeege's excerpt, they were played to the Senate, not that it makes that much difference. The main thing is that they didn't have to face questions by the Senators. Is this the kind of thing Pelosi is aiming for or does she want witnesses to testify live?

 

[acbytesla]

Okay. You mean they viewed them privately, at home or in their office? I really don't know.


Edit: According to Squeege's excerpt, they were played to the Senate, not that it makes that much difference. The main thing is that they didn't have to face questions by the Senators.

I thought they had a room where Senators could view the depositions.

 

[acbytesla]

I highly recommend watching the following link about the impeachment trial.

It provides a step by step process for a Senate impeachment trial. It's not biased, so don't freak out just because it's MSNBC and the YouTube headline.

https://youtu.be/nzqKN431Nes

Or just watch it in this window.

 

[Minoosh]

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

No, she didn't. Senators watched excerpts from depositions.

 

[Minoosh]

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

But, going from memory, that was the case in the Clinton trial as well. The ultimate vote IIRC has a dual purpose: to decide if the charge is true, and to vote on removal. It took some denial of facts to acquit.

That doesn't make acquittal *right* in either case, but it happens.

If it gets this far it will be fun to see what one of my state's senators will do. They face an election where either choice is risky. On balance I think a vote to convict would be worse than a vote to acquit. But then there's be harassment from Trump and others who would call the vote treasonous. Very unpleasant people.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm pretty sure they weren't played to the Senate but made available for them to see the depositions.

Now I'll have to go look it up. I "remember" testimony during the trial, but I'll have to check my memories against the record.

 

[Minoosh]

Newly declassified email shows Trump ordered withholding of Ukraine aid money 90 minutes after the Aug. 25 Zelensky call and the Pentagon comptroller was told to keep it hush hush:



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...nsky-biden-omb-documents-latest-a9256666.html

Can't wait to see how the Trumpers spin this one...cuz you now they will.

Why on earth do they declassify this stuff? Do they think nobody reads "document dumps"? Or is it a brazen move that offers certain facts as if they don't matter - that it was fine for Trump to do this?

 

[theprestige]

By "political" do you mean the only consideration is power - who can grab how much power, by whatever means, and how to use that power? That is, whether the House can exert its power to impeach, or not, and whether the Senate can exert its power to convict, or not?


If it's really just about power, then it makes no sense that the Constitution would lay out criteria for impeachment (bribery, treason and high crimes and misdemeanors). If it was just about power, then those criteria would not be needed and the President would merely be serving at the whim of half of the House and 2/3 of the Senate.


Maybe that's not what you mean by "political," though.

It's kind of depressing that you would go through all the trouble to refute that idea, without even bothering to find out if it's actually the right idea first.

---

What I mean by political is the hard problem of deciding policy in a democracy, which ostensibly governs by the consent of its citizens. The problem of honoring the will of the majority while still protecting the interests of the minority. This is not a problem that can be solved by appeal to systems of formal logic. It's not even a problem that can always be solved by appeal to legal statute and precedent. Jury nullification exists for a reason. The Supreme Court refers some legal questions back to the Legislature. The Constitution gives the Legislature sole power to impeach the president and try him for removal.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But, going from memory, that was the case in the Clinton trial as well. The ultimate vote IIRC has a dual purpose: to decide if the charge is true, and to vote on removal. It took some denial of facts to acquit.
.

Jesus Christ how much damage to this country is enough to make up for fact that Clinton wasn't properly punished for his blowjob?

You know what, somebody go get Bill Clinton, and throw him in jail for that blowjob. Do it now. Lock him up and throw away the key. Tar and feather him and parade him down Pennsylvania Avenue. I don't care anymore, it would be worth it if that is what will finally lets us talk about, react to, or otherwise acknowledge Donald Trump's continued high speed destruction of the country.

 

[Belz...]

Absolutely outplayed. The Republicans thought they could dispose of this in two weeks, declare victory and have this in their rear view mirror. Instead, they're in purgatory, not sure what happens next.

it stays in the news cycle week after week.

Yeah now they have to wait weeks or months before they claim victory and dispose of this. What's the difference, in the end?

 

[Trebuchet]

Jesus Christ how much damage to this country is enough to make up for fact that Clinton wasn't properly punished for his blowjob?

You know what, somebody go get Bill Clinton, and throw him in jail for that blowjob. Do it now. Lock him up and throw away the key. Tar and feather him and parade him down Pennsylvania Avenue. I don't care anymore, it would be worth it if that is what will finally lets us talk about, react to, or otherwise acknowledge Donald Trump's continued high speed destruction of the country.

Absolutely correct. You can lock up both Clintons and Trump will still be a moron who is harming the nation and the world.

 

[Paul2]

It's kind of depressing that you would go through all the trouble to refute that idea, without even bothering to find out if it's actually the right idea first.

That was how I interpreted what you wrote (and, this idea has been rolling around in my head for a few days, which is probably why I interpreted what you said in that way).

Sorry that I didn't find out first, but at least I did check to see if my interpretation was correct, so you could have been more depressed. That's my job in life, to depress people not as much as they could have been (I count that as a win!)

What I mean by political is the hard problem of deciding policy in a democracy, which ostensibly governs by the consent of its citizens. The problem of honoring the will of the majority while still protecting the interests of the minority. This is not a problem that can be solved by appeal to systems of formal logic. It's not even a problem that can always be solved by appeal to legal statute and precedent. Jury nullification exists for a reason. The Supreme Court refers some legal questions back to the Legislature. The Constitution gives the Legislature sole power to impeach the president and try him for removal.

I don't understand how "deciding policy in a democracy," and "honoring the will of the majority while protecting the interests of the minority" applies to impeachment at all. Impeaching a president is not (or should not) be about policy disagreements. And, implementing the will of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority similarly are not what impeachment is about. Obviously, impeaching and convicting a president runs counter to the will of the majority (who voted for him, given that we have an electoral college).

So when you say that an impeachment is political, what does "political" mean separate from deciding policy and the will of the majority and the rights of the minority?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"I haven't lost because I'm still stalling the discussion on technicalities and in doing so I'm totally convincing the neutral jury that's watching, just trust me" is how Jabba was going about proving immortality.

How is it that the Democrat's best plan to deal with Trump is the exact same thing and at this rate is going to take the exact amount of time?

 

[theprestige]

Why on earth do they declassify this stuff? Do they think nobody reads "document dumps"? Or is it a brazen move that offers certain facts as if they don't matter - that it was fine for Trump to do this?

"The email, which was one of many released in a 20 December document dump in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the Centre for Public Integrity,"

Apparently a court ordered them to do it, and they complied.

 

[plague311]

"The email, which was one of many released in a 20 December document dump in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the Centre for Public Integrity,"

Apparently a court ordered them to do it, and they complied.

To piggy back on this, I believe they have to justify anything that they with hold or won't provide. I can't remember, but I also think the information that's included is decided on by an arbiter. I'm open to being wrong about that though.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Pelosi is now blaming Trump for her refusing to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. it's Mitch's fault, too, according to her. Actually, it's her neverending lust for power that caused her to cave to her Squad of Morons and dig the hole she's currently wallowing in, and none of us really cares if she ever manages to dig herself out or not. Like Mitch said, she has no leverage in threatening to withhold something they didn't want to begin with.


Nancy Pelosi
✔
@SpeakerPelosi
The House cannot choose our impeachment managers until we know what sort of trial the Senate will conduct.

President Trump blocked his own witnesses and documents from the House, and from the American people, on phony complaints about the House process. What is his excuse now?

 

[Shalamar]

Pelosi is now blaming Trump for her refusing to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. it's Mitch's fault, too, according to her. Actually, it's her neverending lust for power that caused her to cave to her Squad of Morons and dig the hole she's currently wallowing in, and none of us really cares if she ever manages to dig herself out or not. Like Mitch said, she has no leverage in threatening to withhold something they didn't want to begin with.


Nancy Pelosi
✔
@SpeakerPelosi
The House cannot choose our impeachment managers until we know what sort of trial the Senate will conduct.

President Trump blocked his own witnesses and documents from the House, and from the American people, on phony complaints about the House process. What is his excuse now?

Whats the complaint here? That Pelosi is correct and stating facts?