Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[acbytesla]

If that is the point, then you are right. I'm missing it.

I don't think they want it to end. I know they did a week ago, but I think that's because they never imagined another alternative. I think it's fair to say that no one saw this coming. i.e. no one even really considered the possibility that the House would vote to impeach, but then refuse to schedule a trial.

I guess we'll see if she's right. If it works out for her and the Dems, then she's a genius.

I don't think she thought of it two months ago. I don't think anyone imagined this Senate convicting Trump. But we probably did think there would be at least something approaching a reasonable facsimile of a trial where the evidence could be displayed to the public.

But this is where the founders let us down. The Constitution doesn't say enough about the process. It says the House, impeaches, the trial is in the Senate and the Chief Justice presides and not much more. The rules have been made up since by the various parties. But it's all just vaguely Constitutional. The Senate can change the rules any time it wants.

All Pelosi is asking for is them to agree to conduct a fair trial now. Now the Senate can tell her to go to hell. Or they can agree to change the rules.

I think the strategy is genius. But Pelosi didn't come up with it. I'm just as happy there will never be a trial as opposed to a sham trial.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think she thought of it two months ago. I don't think anyone imagined this Senate impeaching Trump. But we probably did think there would be at least something approaching a reasonable facsimile of a trial where the evidence could be displayed to the public.

The impeachment inquiry was already gathering all the evidence and displaying it to the public. By moving from inquiry to trial, the House Democrats have ceded control to the Senate Republicans. They're trying to play it off as them still having control, but the better play would probably have been to keep it in the House and continue the inquiry.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I've somewhat thought of the idea that they could hold up the trial indefinitely for the chance of forcefully removing him from office after the 2020 elections if he wins a second term, and if they gain control of the senate as well. Or maybe Trump makes a sizable mistake in between? Considering the outrageousness of events thus far... nothing would surprise me

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Economic growth under Trump...

Ok.. "Unprecedented" was a poor choice of word..

Still, the economy has fared well under the Trump administration,

Getting a bit off topic here, but I do think this needs to be addressed...

First of all, as I pointed out, Trump's "growth" has been accompanied by huge deficits (as well as the rollback of financial and environmental regulations that should probably be left in place.) And some of the tax cuts that were put in place by the republicans will expire in a few years. The economy MAY do well under Trump for the next few years, but it makes it increasingly unstable, so when it does crash it will be a disaster.

Secondly, is the economy REALLY fairing well under Trump? Well, lets see: Yes, we do have GDP growth, but lets look at a few facts:

- The Manufacturing sector has been in a recession.

https://markets.businessinsider.com...per-into-recession-ism-pmi-2019-12-1028730787

- Thanks in part to Trump's trade wars, the American trade deficit has actually hit records

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-trump-trade-deficit-20190306-story.html

- Obama actually added jobs at a faster rate in his last years in power than Trump has in his first few years. So, under Trump, job growth has slowed

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-numbers-economy-meet-the-press-a8971181.html

- While Trump brags about stock market records, the fact is the markets did better under Obama. (The best stock market performance for Trump came during the first few months of his presidency, before he actually started implementing his policies. In the past year or 2, markets have largely faltered. Occasionally going up, but also having sharp drops.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-...GtCfpHk7zHlaKjJKFt9h38EzjosSXKXdfS9hBaPfjqKxn

an there is no reason to believe it would not continue to do so for another four years..

Actually, there is plenty of reason to believe that the economy will falter in the next 4 years...

- The economy is cyclical, with regular booms/busts. The current run of economic growth has gone on a long time; it would be expected to take a downturn some time soon. (This would apply regardless of who the president is; however, Trump's policies of protectionism and huge deficits will make the problem worse.)

- certain segments of the economy have already been in recession under Trump (such as manufacturing). All that is needed is for those problem to spread to other economic areas

If we go back to 2007, I'm sure you will probably find people who thought "no reason to think that the good times will end". But then the recession happened (which was caused in part by deregulating parts of the financial sector.) Trump appears to be repeating the same mistakes that lead to the Great Recession.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

I don't think she thought of it two months ago. I don't think anyone imagined this Senate impeaching Trump. But we probably did think there would be at least something approaching a reasonable facsimile of a trial where the evidence could be displayed to the public.

But this is where the founders let us down. The Constitution doesn't say enough about the process. It says the House, impeaches, the trial is in the Senate and the Chief Justice presides and not much more. The rules have been made up since by the various parties. But it's all just vaguely Constitutional. The Senate can change the rules any time it wants.

All Pelosi is asking for is them to agree to conduct a fair trial now. Now the Senate can tell her to go to hell. Or they can agree to change the rules.

I think the strategy is genius. But Pelosi didn't come up with it. I'm just as happy there will never be a trial as opposed to a sham trial.

Try to imagine Paul Ryan doing to Obama the exact same thing Pelosi is doing to Trump, writing up no-high crime Articles of Impeachment and then setting them aside indefinitely, ignoring the old saying that "justice delayed is justice denied". Would you say this was a "genius" move by Ryan? How do you think the corrupt mainstream media would have reacted, with the same glee they are cheering Pelosi, or would they have had a complete meltdown and called for Ryan's immediate removal? Would Chuck Todd and that cretin Cuomo be calling Ryan a genius? LOL.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Try to imagine Paul Ryan doing to Obama the exact same thing Pelosi is doing to Trump, writing up no-high crime Articles of Impeachment and then setting them aside indefinitely, ignoring the old saying that "justice delayed is justice denied". Would you say this was a "genius" move by Ryan? How do you think the corrupt mainstream media would have reacted, with the same glee they are cheering Pelosi, or would they have had a complete meltdown and called for Ryan's immediate removal? Would Chuck Todd and that cretin Cuomo be calling Ryan a genius? LOL.

Considering what trump is accused of is a high crime, I would be glad Pail Ryan did it.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Re: Economic growth under Trump...

Getting a bit off topic here, but I do think this needs to be addressed...

First of all, as I pointed out, Trump's "growth" has been accompanied by huge deficits (as well as the rollback of financial and environmental regulations that should probably be left in place.) And some of the tax cuts that were put in place by the republicans will expire in a few years. The economy MAY do well under Trump for the next few years, but it makes it increasingly unstable, so when it does crash it will be a disaster.

But by then there's probably a D in charge that they can put all the blame on. I can picture Donald's tweets from the nursing home already. "Ds don't understand money. We have a market, okay. The bst market. It grew under me, your favorite president! Now with the Do Nothing Democrats as President it has crashed! I tell my nurses every day, because I'm very smart, all the nurses and other residents say so, I tell them every day, it was great under me..."

"Mr. president, you already wrote this tweet five times today."

 

[acbytesla]

The impeachment inquiry was already gathering all the evidence and displaying it to the public. By moving from inquiry to trial, the House Democrats have ceded control to the Senate Republicans. They're trying to play it off as them still having control, but the better play would probably have been to keep it in the House and continue the inquiry.

I like it the way it is. The House can always add impeachment articles.

 

[theprestige]

Try to imagine Paul Ryan doing to Obama the exact same thing Pelosi is doing to Trump, writing up no-high crime Articles of Impeachment and then setting them aside indefinitely, ignoring the old saying that "justice delayed is justice denied". Would you say this was a "genius" move by Ryan? How do you think the corrupt mainstream media would have reacted, with the same glee they are cheering Pelosi, or would they have had a complete meltdown and called for Ryan's immediate removal? Would Chuck Todd and that cretin Cuomo be calling Ryan a genius? LOL.

Keep in mind that Pelosi didn't even want to do impeachment in the first place.

 

[acbytesla]

Try to imagine Paul Ryan doing to Obama the exact same thing Pelosi is doing to Trump, writing up no-high crime Articles of Impeachment and then setting them aside indefinitely, ignoring the old saying that "justice delayed is justice denied". Would you say this was a "genius" move by Ryan? How do you think the corrupt mainstream media would have reacted, with the same glee they are cheering Pelosi, or would they have had a complete meltdown and called for Ryan's immediate removal? Would Chuck Todd and that cretin Cuomo be calling Ryan a genius? LOL.

I don't follow you. Everything is different in a Trump no fact world.

A sham trial isn't about justice. It's about having different kinds of justice for different people. . This is a game where the rules are made up as we go along.

Who'd a thought that McConnell would refuse to conduct hearings on Obama's judicial nominees or refuse to send more than 300 house bills to his fellow Senators?

Complaining that Pelosi isn't playing fair while insisting at the same time that it's ok for the GOP to play unfair is humorous to watch.

 

[Minoosh]

The impeachment inquiry was already gathering all the evidence and displaying it to the public. By moving from inquiry to trial, the House Democrats have ceded control to the Senate Republicans. They're trying to play it off as them still having control, but the better play would probably have been to keep it in the House and continue the inquiry.

How is that different than what's already taking place?

 

[theprestige]

How is that different than what's already taking place?

It doesn't involve Pelosi saying "no trial unless you do it my way" and McConnell saying "lol, okay".

It does involve Pelosi saying, "no trial, because the trial was never the point. Investigating and documenting the sins of Donald Trump, ahead of the 2020 elections, was the point."

 

[Beelzebuddy]

How is that different than what's already taking place?

He gets to beg that Pelosi ceded control instead of dictating terms.

 

[theprestige]

He gets to beg that Pelosi ceded control instead of dictating terms.

The Speaker of the House literally can't dictate terms to the Senate. It would be an abuse of power, if there were actually any power to abuse.

 

[Paul2]

It doesn't involve Pelosi saying "no trial unless you do it my way" and McConnell saying "lol, okay".

It does involve Pelosi saying, "no trial, because the trial was never the point. Investigating and documenting the sins of Donald Trump, ahead of the 2020 elections, was the point."

Having a trial and documenting the sins of Donald Trump are not mutually exclusive. Both can be the point.

 

[acbytesla]

The Speaker of the House literally can't dictate terms to the Senate. It would be an abuse of power, if there were actually any power to abuse.

The House negotiates with the Senate all the time. The idea that Pelosi "negotiating" terms with the Senate is an abuse of power is risible.

Keep in mind that Pelosi isn't alone on some island. There are 47 members of the Senate right there with her.

 

[Minoosh]

It doesn't involve Pelosi saying "no trial unless you do it my way" and McConnell saying "lol, okay".

It does involve Pelosi saying, "no trial, because the trial was never the point. Investigating and documenting the sins of Donald Trump, ahead of the 2020 elections, was the point."

It's not all that unusual for prosecutors to withhold charges pending receipt of new evidence.

Besides which, "documenting the sins of Donald Trump" is a wholly worthwhile endeavor. Yes, it's ahead of the election - so what? Should it have been after the election?

Pelosi didn't want to impeach at all. I don't think she was faking that. Then Trump asked an ally for personal favors before he would release critically needed, congressionally approved military aid to fight off an invasion, which kind of forced her hand, IMO.

 

[Minoosh]

Partial credit for a lame attempt at reciprocating using a cigar.

I keep wanting to answer this, but it's probably way TMI.

 

[theprestige]

The House negotiates with the Senate all the time. The idea that Pelosi "negotiating" terms with the Senate is an abuse of power is risible.

Beelzebuddy said dictate terms. Negotiating is something you do when you can't dictate terms. That's why Pelosi is negotiating, not dictating terms.

Keep in mind that Pelosi isn't alone on some island. There are 47 members of the Senate right there with her.

And maybe this gives her some leverage in negotiations, but it still doesn't mean she can dictate terms to the Senate. Telling the Senate what to do is flatly a power she does not have. Her options are: ask, or offer quid pro quo and hope her offer is attractive enough for them to accept.

In fact, the only entity on the planet today that can actually dictate terms to the Senate is the Senate itself. Sorry, Beelzebuddy. I can see where acbytesla is coming from, with his ideas about strategic advantage from this maneuver. But if you think Pelosi is dictating terms to the Senate, you're badly mistaken about how this works. Go back to speculating how this affects Trump's inner life, and how it's going to play with voters over the coming months.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump tweeted

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that Republicans in the Senate should handle the Impeachment Hoax in the exact same manner as Democrats in the House handled their recent partisan scam? Why would it be different for Republicans than it was for the Radical Left Democrats?

Bwahahahaha... it's bothering him.