Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[acbytesla]

Thanks, I didn't know this.


Edit: As a follow up to this line of thought, why bother with the depositions instead having the witnesses appear in front of the Senate?

So they don't have to sit through them if they don't want to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since the Trump trash in the Senate won't allow Trump to be removed from office, maybe the Dems should be open to a censure option. An official rebuke without removal might bring more vulnerable Republicans on board. An official rebuke still damages Trump going into the election and could give some Republicans who aren't face down in the Kool Aide room to maneuver.

It's a dilemma. One might want them out but they could be primaried by a more alt-right alternative in a strong red state.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's also clear from his demented rambling speeches about "windmills" and stuff that he isn't. Trump is not in control of himself, let alone the situation. It's his handlers who are in control of him: Miller, Grisham, Guliani, etc. And they are in constant touch with Turtle Mitch, who is also shamelessly malevolent but not notably insane yet.

So where Mitch says he is "in synch with the White House", this is true because he is the one running the show, not them. The arrangement seems very much to be that he is telling them what to do. So they are synched.

That is inconsistent with Trump's pathologic personality disorder. Manipulate, sometimes; control, never.

I think Giuliani is digging up Ukraine CTs because it pleases Trump. Miller is no doubt making an effort to influence Trump. But given they are both racists, that may not be hard to do.

As for Mitch, why would he want Trump in this Ukraine swamp? Moscow Mitch would of had a dozen ways to tarnish Biden over Hunter and Burisma without bothering with Zelenski. Mitch and Graham are probably annoyed as hell that Trump created this mess.

Think about it, who had a motive to ask Zelensky for a favor? Only in Trump's warped mind would this have ever made sense.

 

[smartcooky]

I get your point. But the United States is not a young country. It's the second oldest Constitutional democracy on the planet. Some would argue the oldest.

Firstly. I didn't say Constitutional Democracy, I said Country, and I meant it. Great Britain, and all the other countries that were originally part of her Empire and remain part of the British commonwealth are older. France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Hungary, Romania, Holland, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Germany, Austria, Turkey, Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Albania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia et al, are all older, much older; and I haven't even started mentioning South and Central America ... These countries have all been through periods of dictatorship (some in the form of monarchies with absolute power) and lawless, immoral leaders. Its one of the reasons why monarchies in some of those countries have been overturned in revolutions, sometimes quiet, sometimes bloody. America is the NKOTB when it comes to this kind of behaviour from leaders.

Secondly, lawless, out-of-control leaders are not exclusive to Constitutional Democracies, and you don't have to be one for you people to experience what its like to have one.

 

[smartcooky]

It's a dilemma. One might want them out but they could be primaried by a more alt-right alternative in a strong red state.

Even if they were primaried out, that doesn't mean they will be elected.

Centrist and moderate Republican voters might balk at voting for a far-right or alt-right candidate, and either not vote at all, or vote Democrat. Either would be a disaster for the Republicans.

 

[Belz...]

The advantage that might be gained, to a large or small extent, is a change in public opinion away from the Repubs and toward the Dems if Pelosi presses the point that the trial should be fair, and a fair trial is one of those cards that you have, so it should be played.

Yeah but as I pointed out, it's been discussed that the opinion of the general population about impeachment hasn't really changed since the beginning of these proceedings, so I don't expect them to change further down the road.

 

[theprestige]

It you'd actually bothered to say, you missed [fill in the blank] you might be happier.

Probably. I couldn't figure out a clearer way to express it, than was already expressed in the conversation you missed. So I figured your best option was for me to just point you back at that conversation and let it speak for itself.

 

[Paul2]

Yeah but as I pointed out, it's been discussed that the opinion of the general population about impeachment hasn't really changed since the beginning of these proceedings, so I don't expect them to change further down the road.

Because it hasn't changed much recently doesn't mean that it will never change. Water drips on a rock and it doesn't look like change until later. I'm not saying that's proof that it will change, but, again, if those are the cards you have, you might as well play them in the hope that things can change.

 

[acbytesla]

Firstly. I didn't say Constitutional Democracy, I said Country, and I meant it. Great Britain, and all the other countries that were originally part of her Empire and remain part of the British commonwealth are older. France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Hungary, Romania, Holland, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Germany, Austria, Turkey, Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Albania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia et al, are all older, much older; and I haven't even started mentioning South and Central America ... These countries have all been through periods of dictatorship (some in the form of monarchies with absolute power) and lawless, immoral leaders. Its one of the reasons why monarchies in some of those countries have been overturned in revolutions, sometimes quiet, sometimes bloody. America is the NKOTB when it comes to this kind of behaviour from leaders.

Secondly, lawless, out-of-control leaders are not exclusive to Constitutional Democracies, and you don't have to be one for you people to experience what its like to have one.

I don't really want to argue about this because it is a bit pedantic and you and I agree on most things. Your point is accepted.

That said, I think it is almost irrelevant since people forget the historical lessons in a couple of generations if not sooner.

 

[theprestige]

Welcome to Trumpworld!

The idea of passing an agreement about Senate rules into law was purely your own. Blaming it on "Trumpworld" is the Trumpian thing to do. It's your bad idea. Own it.

 

[acbytesla]

The idea of passing an agreement about Senate rules into law was purely your own. Blaming it on "Trumpworld" is the Trumpian thing to do. It's your bad idea. Own it.

Why is it a bad idea? Trump says he wants witnesses. He wants a trial. This is what it's going to take.

Are you saying Trump really doesn't want that? That the Republicans are incapable of negotiating in good faith?

All of this insane. I agree. Everything since Trump came onto the political scene is insane.. Lying non-stop and gaslighting everyone is insane. So is extorting a foreign country to smear your political opponent. So is this no fact world of Trump's. So is the sycophantic nature of the GOP Senate. I use to think I understood how people would react if they knew a person lied to them over and over again. I was wrong.

I'm just saying a deal is to be had unless people are lying they want one.

This is Trumpworld. If it is insane, it could and often does happen.

 

[theprestige]

Why is it a bad idea? Trump says he wants witnesses. He wants a trial. This is what it's going to take.

Your logic - your logic, not Trump's - is all twisted.

Passing a law has nothing to do with with the problem.

If Trump and the Senate agree with the House on witnesses, no law is necessary. If they don't, no law is possible.

Your idea of passing a law is bizarre and irrelevant. And it is your idea, not Trump's. It's not going to take a law to have witnesses. In fact, it can't. Wherever you got this idea from, it's a bad idea. Stop blaming your bad ideas on Trump.

 

[acbytesla]

Your logic - your logic, not Trump's - is all twisted.

Passing a law has nothing to do with with the problem.

If Trump and the Senate agree with the House on witnesses, no law is necessary. If they don't, no law is possible.

Your idea of passing a law is bizarre and irrelevant. And it is your idea, not Trump's. It's not going to take a law to have witnesses. In fact, it can't. Wherever you got this idea from, it's a bad idea. Stop blaming your bad ideas on Trump.

Whatever.

It's not bizarre. If they come to an agreement, they can write it into law. All they really need is to get McConnell, Trump and Pelosi to agree. Can be done in a single day. Almost no Senator or Congressman is going to vote against that agreement.

 

[theprestige]

Whatever.

It's not bizarre.

It's entirely bizarre.

If they come to an agreement, they can write it into law.

If they come to an agreement, they don't need to write it into law.

All they really need is to get McConnell, Trump and Pelosi to agree. Can be done in a single day.

For a law, they'd need to have a floor vote in the House, a floor vote in the Senate, and a bill signing by the president. All for something that's completely unnecessary if they already all agree.

Almost no Senator or Congressman is going to vote against that agreement.

This is speculation on your part.

Further, it's unnecessary speculation, since if the agreement is that solid, no vote is necessary, other than the Senate vote on rules for the trial.

What is your obsession with passing an unnecessary and improbable law on this?

 

[Meadmaker]

Whatever.

It's not bizarre. If they come to an agreement, they can write it into law. All they really need is to get McConnell, Trump and Pelosi to agree. Can be done in a single day. Almost no Senator or Congressman is going to vote against that agreement.

Not really. The Constitution says the Senate makes its own rules. There could be a public agreement, and the Senate could vote those into its rules, but it can't be a law.

 

[Belz...]

Because it hasn't changed much recently doesn't mean that it will never change.

Another platitude.

Of course it doesn't mean that. But I'm asking you specifically why you think things will change if they haven't already? If there is no evidence that it will change, where do you get this idea? Hope?

 

[acbytesla]

Not really. The Constitution says the Senate makes its own rules. There could be a public agreement, and the Senate could vote those into its rules, but it can't be a law.

You're mistaken. The Constitution says the trial takes place in the Senate. It says nothing about the rules. Those rules could be written into law permanently or say for POTUS in 2020.

 

[acbytesla]

It's entirely bizarre.


If they come to an agreement, they don't need to write it into law.


For a law, they'd need to have a floor vote in the House, a floor vote in the Senate, and a bill signing by the president. All for something that's completely unnecessary if they already all agree.


This is speculation on your part.

Further, it's unnecessary speculation, since if the agreement is that solid, no vote is necessary, other than the Senate vote on rules for the trial.

What is your obsession with passing an unnecessary and improbable law on this?

I have no obsession. I don't think it will happen. I seriously doubt that an agreement will be made, let alone a law.

That said, if Pelosi thought that McConnell or the GOP Senate might be untrustworthy, a law would solve that problem. Senate impeachment rules allows 51 members to change almost anything so even if McConnell made an agreement, his fellow Senators could easily overrule whatever agreement he might make.

 

[theprestige]

I have no obsession. I don't think it will happen. I seriously doubt that an agreement will be made, let alone a law.

That said, if Pelosi thought that McConnell or the GOP Senate might be untrustworthy, a law would solve that problem. Senate impeachment rules allows 51 members to change almost anything so even if McConnell made an agreement, his fellow Senators could easily overrule whatever agreement he might make.

I thought you said all that was needed was Trump, McConnell and Pelosi having an agreement.

If 51 Senators have a different opinion on what should be done, why would they vote for rules they don't like in the first place? Why would they then vote for a law they don't want, that prevents them from changing the rules they don't want?

Conversely, I thought McConnell was supposed to be the boss of the Senate. Why can't he just reach an agreement, force a vote on new rules, and then block any more votes?

Etc.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Even if they were primaried out, that doesn't mean they will be elected.

Centrist and moderate Republican voters might balk at voting for a far-right or alt-right candidate, and either not vote at all, or vote Democrat. Either would be a disaster for the Republicans.

You would think. And yet we have a Republican Senate in lock-step with Trump with few exceptions.