Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well I don't see it that way. Yes there are people who won't change how they see this. But I am not so pessimistic as to believe no one is hearing the evidence and the more it gets air time, the more people are swayed, even if very slowly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

People seem determined over the last couple of days to address comments to me that have no relevance to anything I've actually said.

You didn't say this?

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.

The Democrats are playing by the rules.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Clinton impeachment does form a sort of precedent for this one. Perhaps they should follow the same model: allow three witnesses, but record the depositions so they don't have to face questions.

??? A deposition consists of answering questions from both attorneys.

 

[smartcooky]

In fact, the only entity on the planet today that can actually dictate terms to the Senate is the Senate itself Moscow Mitch

FTFY

Der Trumpenführer keeps referring to the Democrats as the "Do Nothing Dems". This is pure projection. The House has in fact passed over 300 bills and pieces of legislation, much of it bipartisan, and almost all of it sits in an ever-growing pile on Moscow Mitch's desk as he refuses to even allow it to go to the Senate for a vote.... he has literally turned the Senate into the "do nothing Senate".

This is another thing that America needs to put an end to, the power of one man, the Senate leader to block all bills and legislation from being voted on. No other western country has a Parliament with a leader who has so much personal power to effectively prevent the elected representatives of government from voting on the passing of bills and legislation, then very thing goverment's need in order to function properly.

 

[acbytesla]

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


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.

Now you're just playing games with words. Whether you call it dictating terms or negotiating them it doesn't matter. Cause either way the Senate as a body has to agree. This is politics. It's the art of persuasion whether you use a gun or use a bluff. It's political messaging.

And it clearly affects Trump since he tweets about it all the time.

 

[smartcooky]

??? A deposition consists of answering questions from both attorneys.

True, but I guess what Marcus means is that the witnesses won't have to face follow-up questions from Senators.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

SG's post needs some corrections.

How is it a political or social norm for a President to pressure a foreign government to interfere for him in a his US election?

Really? That wasn't obvious? IT WAS IMPLIED that's what I was talking about. Look at the post I was answering.

As long as the President operates still close to the political and social norms, Impeachment is indeed political: Clinton was the obvious case for this.
But at some point it has to become a new non-partisan issue.

Sometimes the pedantry around here gets much too tedious.

 

[acbytesla]

Well I don't see it that way. Yes there are people who won't change how they see this. But I am not so pessimistic as to believe no one is hearing the evidence and the more it gets air time, the more people are swayed, even if very slowly.

Like the email sent by Trump appointee Michael Duffey ordering the Pentagon to withhold rmilitary aid 90 minutes after the phone call between Zelensky and Trump. By the way. For those who say no law was broken. This was a violation of the Impoundment Control Act. Several career officials resigned because they didn't want to violate the law. And Duffey knew it was wrong because in the email he tells the Pentagon to keep it secret.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is a very interesting post. It illustrates one of the ways that Democrats so completely miss the point.

Is the speaker asking for something "fair"? Sort of. I guess. But, who cares?

The point is she has no power. She looks foolish making demands from a position of weakness. .

You sir, are the one missing the point. Democrats are pleased Pelosi didn't just roll over.

As for powerless, that depends on your outcome measure. If you think the only goal here is to get Trump out, you would be mistaken.

 

[theprestige]

Now you're just playing games with words. Whether you call it dictating terms or negotiating them it doesn't matter.

I think it matters a lot what it is. And because it matters what it is, I think it matters what you call it.

 

[acbytesla]

True, but I guess what Marcus means is that the witnesses won't have to face follow-up questions from Senators.

Senators can't ask follow-up questions directly of witnesses. But House Managers can. Senators must write them down and the Chief Justice asks their questions.

 

[acbytesla]

I think it matters a lot what it is. And because it matters what it is, I think it matters what you call it.

A rose by any other name.

 

[smartcooky]

Hunter Biden is allegedly the subject of multiple criminal investigations according to legal filing claims in Arkansas, just in case fake news forgets to mention it:

https://nypost.com/2019/12/23/hunter-bidens-baby-mama-says-hes-linked-to-multiple-criminal-probes/

No, the fake news IS mentioning it, you just posted a link from fake news

Also, we often get Trumpistas and other conspiracy theorists here who post links based on reading the headline and nothing else, and it often turns out the link actually argues against them. However, in your case, you didn't even read the headline properly...

"Private-eye firm claims Hunter Biden is linked to multiple criminal probes "
​

... and if you had bothered to read the article you linked to. you would have found

"The claims were put forward by a Florida-based private-eye firm, D&A Investigations, in Biden’s ongoing case against alleged baby mama Lunden Alexis Roberts, a former Washington, DC, stripper who went by “Dallas.”

Soon after the claims were filed, a judge struck the allegations down because they were filed by an “intervener,” according to court papers.

Biden filed a motion to strike down the claims, arguing “the notice is filed by a non-party simply to make scandalous allegations in the pending suit to gain some media attention.”​

In short, this is all to do with a woman who has a paternity suit against Hunter Biden, getting someone to try to publicly smear him by making frivolous claims about him. The judge saw right through the feeble subterfuge, and threw it out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When I first heard about the strategy, that was my thought as well, and I thought it was interesting, and might work.

What transpired instead was that Pelosi started saying that she would take the case to trial, but only if they did it the way she wanted. That's what I think makes her look foolish.

Why? McConnell wants to get it over with, no witnesses no trial. Pelosi says no and wields that power you can't see that she has.

Either the Articles are withheld and don't end, or if they go to the Senate, they do so with evidence being heard in the court of public opinion. Impeachment hearings get a lot of viewers.

In a public trial a lot of Republicans voting to acquit look bad.

McConnell is so sleazy though, that he could agree to a trial and then rescind his agreement.

I suppose it's so hard to say because analysis like mine above is the sort of thing that only a political junkie would follow, and most political junkies aren't swing voters. I suppose I have to admit I don't know how someone who is only dimly aware that the impeachment is even happening is taking this.

You are not the only political junkie in this forum.

For what it's worth, for you folks not in the USA, I would say that no one is talking about it. We used to talk about the "water cooler talk", i.e. the idle chat and occasional remarks by people in casual conversation, and there's almost none of it. Yes, it's on the news, but people don't pay attention to the news unless they are political junkies, and most of those watch "their" news (i.e Fox for the conservatives, WaPo and NYT for liberals. CNN for....someone, I guess. I think their ratings decline continues. I know I would no more watch CNN than Fox.)

All of this indifference or avoidance makes it hard to figure out what people are really thinking.

People here in the US are paying attention.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

That's not was Pelosi is demanding. She is demanding an agreement to the rules ahead of time.

Now, Trump and the Republicans imagine if only they controlled the trial, the outcome would be different. In their imaginary universe, they would call Hunter and prove Trump had legit reasons to withhold aid. Trump imagines himself giving "perfect" testimony.

It's all fantasy. Trump is guilty, the evidence is overwhelming and anything short of dismissal without testimony would reveal the GOP fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

Just like years and years of fantasizing they had a replacement plan for the ACA when they had no such thing, Republicans and Trump especially, fantasize a lot.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You didn't say this?

Yes, I did. And your post didn't address that. Unless you're a Congresswoman or Senator and haven't told anybody here.

The Democrats are playing by the rules.

That was perhaps phrased a little sloppily, but I thought in context it was reasonably clear that I was talking about what narrative each side can spin to the undecided, uninformed middle.

Whether or not what Pelosi is doing is technically legal or within the rules, it's very easy to convince people that she's being underhand here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Poor widdle Trumpy, wah, they're not playing fair.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think it matters a lot what it is. And because it matters what it is, I think it matters what you call it.

Yep, and you are using the wrong word. Negotiating is the correct term.

 

[theprestige]

Poor widdle Trumpy, wah, they're not playing fair. : sdl :

???

I think the House Dems are playing plenty fair. Not necessarily smart, but certainly fair. Are you trying to reply to what I'm actually saying, or just using my posts as jumping-off points for unrelated rants?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, I did. And your post didn't address that. Unless you're a Congresswoman or Senator and haven't told anybody here.

That was perhaps phrased a little sloppily, but I thought in context it was reasonably clear that I was talking about what narrative each side can spin to the undecided, uninformed middle.
Whether or not what Pelosi is doing is technically legal or within the rules, it's very easy to convince people that she's being underhand here.

I think "a little sloppily" is a gross understatement.

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.

Anyway, now that you say you meant something quite different, my answer's the same. The Democratic legislators can most certainly say they continue to play by the rules.