Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Belz...]

To be fair, Hillary Clinton kinda was behind the plot to rob Hillary Clinton of the nomination. Not that it was much of a plot, nor much of a conspiracy. But she did bring a certain amount of own-goal-ness to the polls in November.

"Yes, that is exactly what happened, except that everything about it was different."

 

[Belz...]

See post #2612. Trump doesn't do self reflection. But he is obsessed with what people think and say about him. He's not immune to being rattled. In fact, he's easy to rattle.

And how does this affect the election results?

Goal post changes noted.

Given that this is the argument he's been making since the beginning, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Belz...]

Depends on what "winning" means.

Voting him out of office, principally.

However, this will undoubtedly have an effect on congressional elections, and recent polls are pretty pro-impeachment.

A bare majority. Not enough to outweigh jerrymandering and other forms of cheating, I think.

 

[theprestige]

"Yes, that is exactly what happened, except that everything about it was different."

One of these days, I'll come up with an off beat description that amuses rather than confounds you. Thanks for the feedback!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Goal post changes noted.

I would absolutley just love to know what goal post you think I've moved that doesn't amount to some pure bit of argumentative semantics.

Third term aside, this is so not even closely comparable.

Why? Because Trump is Trump and Clinton was Clinton?

Does anyone actually believe the nuances of the impeachment process matters to voters that their votes rest on it? Especially when it happened 8 months before they voted?

So wait now your argument is it's all okay because it doesn't make any real major difference?

Then why bloody do it? An impeachment isn't the kind of thing you do with a "Shrug... can't hurt, let's give it a shot."

Depends on what "winning" means.

An actual real world reduction of Donald J. Trump's political power in some measurable or arguable way, one that is happening now and not at some hypothetical point in the future that's constantly sliding forward to account for the fact that it's never happening now.

Donald Trump is as powerful in his position as President as he as ever been, period. Any suggestion otherwise is a wishful delusion. Like Belz said that's my problem with everyone writing a "Look at us we're winning" narrative right now.

What can Donald Trump not do right now that he could have done 5 seconds after he took office? If you can't name something then you can't argue that he's "getting weaker."

If Donald Trump is right this second signing an executive order to round up all the homeless people in California and put them in camps, what's gonna stop him?

If Ginsburg keels over right now and Trump says he wants Ivanka on the Supreme Court... what's gonna stop him?

If Trump goes on TV this afternoon and looks dead into the camera and goes "I've personally ordered Mitch McConnell to dismiss the charges against me when the Impeachment" what's gonna stop him?

The Democrats jumping up and down screaming "BUT THE RULES SAY YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" some more?

This mythical giant block of invisible silent undetectable voters that don't exist and are never going to show up to make a difference even if they do?

More narrative writing about how it's not hurting him now but it's going to at some point in the future that never seems to get here?

Tipping points happen.

That works both ways. Trump is a lot better at selling the narrative that this is just a partisan witchhunt trying to undue the 2016 election then the Democrats are at selling... whatever narrative they are trying to sell this minute before changing it the next.

 

[dmaker]

An actual real world reduction of Donald J. Trump's political power in some measurable or arguable way, one that is happening now and not at some hypothetical point in the future that's constantly sliding forward to account for the fact that it's never happening now.

Donald Trump is as powerful in his position as President as he as ever been, period. Any suggestion otherwise is a wishful delusion. Like Belz said that's my problem with everyone writing a "Look at us we're winning" narrative right now.

What can Donald Trump not do right now that he could have done 5 seconds after he took office? If you can't name something then you can't argue that he's "getting weaker."

If Donald Trump is right this second signing an executive order to round up all the homeless people in California and put them in camps, what's gonna stop him?

If Ginsburg keels over right now and Trump says he wants Ivanka on the Supreme Court... what's gonna stop him?

If Trump goes on TV this afternoon and looks dead into the camera and goes "I've personally ordered Mitch McConnell to dismiss the charges against me when the Impeachment" what's gonna stop him?

The Democrats jumping up and down screaming "BUT THE RULES SAY YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" some more?

This mythical giant block of invisible silent undetectable voters that don't exist and are never going to show up to make a difference even if they do?

More narrative writing about how it's not hurting him now but it's going to at some point in the future that never seems to get here?

I hate the fact that everything you listed is probably true.

 

[Random]

I have yet to hear a reason what the Republicans are saying the motivation of Democrats were of hacking their own servers. An insurance claim, maybe? It makes no sense at all. Then again, it doesn't have to for the rest of the Right to believe it.

There is an old joke that goes something like:

A man sues his neighbor claiming he was bitten by the neighbor's dog running around the street. In court, the neighbor presents his defense.

"Your honor, my dog could not have bitten this man for several reasons. First, my dog is very well behaved and trained. He does not bite anyone for any reason."

"Secondly, my dog is very old, and hardly active. He spend most of his days just lying around, doing nothing. He is not the sort of dog to run around biting people."

"In the third place, my dog is securely tied up in my yard every day, and cannot get out of the yard to bite people."

"And finally, I don't own a dog."

That's basically the GOP counter-argument here. They have a lot of accusations, assumptions, suspicious-sounding facts, etc., that all sound like the Democrats are dirty and this whole impeachment thing is a con. But when you try to put all of these Republican talking points together into a single coherent narrative, it all turns into contradictory conspiracy theory gibberish.

And the best part is that absolutely none of it changes the answer to the question, "Did Donald Trump abuse his office for his own personal benefit?"

 

[Paul2]

What can Donald Trump not do right now that he could have done 5 seconds after he took office? If you can't name something then you can't argue that he's "getting weaker."

Get something through Congress without having to negotiate with the Democrats.

 

[I Am The Scum]

An actual real world reduction of Donald J. Trump's political power in some measurable or arguable way, one that is happening now and not at some hypothetical point in the future that's constantly sliding forward to account for the fact that it's never happening now.

That's an unrealistic expectation. You might as well bemoan the fact that Nancy Pelosi has not invented a perpetual motion machine.

 

[Paul2]

[Pelosi's] "sins" consist of representing San Francisco, being highly effective, being practical, and being old.

And being a woman.

 

[Meadmaker]

I see that Joe Biden has said he won't comply with any Senate subpoena to testify during an impeachment trial.


Well now isn't that interesting? I can't say I blame him, but if there are witnesses called, he will certainly be one of them. How can he say no? One of the articles of impeachment is that Trump told people not to comply with subpoenas. Having Biden testify is, of course, just a political stunt, so it serves no real purpose, but if you are going to demand witnesses, you can't exactly restrict which witnesses, can you? Can a witness just refuse to testify like that?

I think executive privilege might extend beyond the end of the term, so he might be able to avoid answering some questions, but not the ones about "Did you know of anything your son was doing with Burisma?"

In short, be careful what you wish for. You want witnesses? You may very well get witnesses.

ETA: And, it's all hypothetical at this point. And, it's always risky to bring witnesses up. I remember we were all certain that Reagan was going down with Iran-Contra, and Ollie North's testimony would surely sink him. Alas, it didn't work out that way, and Ollie North is still making a living off of the fame he received from that position.

 

[acbytesla]

I see that Joe Biden has said he won't comply with any Senate subpoena to testify during an impeachment trial.


Well now isn't that interesting? I can't say I blame him, but if there are witnesses called, he will certainly be one of them. How can he say no? One of the articles of impeachment is that Trump told people not to comply with subpoenas. Having Biden testify is, of course, just a political stunt, so it serves no real purpose, but if you are going to demand witnesses, you can't exactly restrict which witnesses, can you? Can a witness just refuse to testify like that?

I think executive privilege might extend beyond the end of the term, so he might be able to avoid answering some questions, but not the ones about "Did you know of anything your son was doing with Burisma?"

In short, be careful what you wish for. You want witnesses? You may very well get witnesses.

ETA: And, it's all hypothetical at this point. And, it's always risky to bring witnesses up. I remember we were all certain that Reagan was going down with Iran-Contra, and Ollie North's testimony would surely sink him. Alas, it didn't work out that way, and Ollie North is still making a living off of the fame he received from that position.

That's a stretch. But a subpoena has to be relevant. How is an investigation into Trump justify questioning of Biden?

 

[Meadmaker]

That's a stretch. But a subpoena has to be relevant. How is an investigation into Trump justify questioning of Biden?

I think you might have a bit of a narrow focus here. Expand your mind to the possibilities of how Joe Biden might be relevant in a case where Trump is accused of asking someone to investigate Joe Biden.

 

[theprestige]

And being a woman.

And San Francisco being a literal **** hole.

 

[Paul2]

And San Francisco being a literal **** hole.

Isn't that issue one that city/county officials address, and isn't a federal one that Pelosi would be directly involved in? Maybe it is a federal issue, I don't know, I'm just working off background knowledge.

 

[theprestige]

Isn't that issue one that city/county officials address, and isn't a federal one that Pelosi would be directly involved in? Maybe it is a federal issue, I don't know, I'm just working off background knowledge.

Pelosi's district is at the epicenter of one of the most extreme cases of income inequality on the entire West Coast. These local problems may not be her responsibility, but they are definitely her milieu. And of course she does bear some responsibility for the problems in her district. She's her district's elected representative in Washington, after all.

 

[acbytesla]

Pelosi's district is at the epicenter of one of the most extreme cases of income inequality on the entire West Coast. These local problems may not be her responsibility, but they are definitely her milieu. And of course she does bear some responsibility for the problems in her district. She's her district's elected representative in Washington, after all.

Sure she does.

Prestige. You're just not this stupid. . What exactly is an individual congress-person supposed to do to alleviate homelessness in their district?

Get back to me when you have an answer.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Pelosi's district is at the epicenter of one of the most extreme cases of income inequality on the entire West Coast. These local problems may not be her responsibility, but they are definitely her milieu. And of course she does bear some responsibility for the problems in her district. She's her district's elected representative in Washington, after all.

I can tell you really care about this. Start a thread.

 

[Trebuchet]

Sure she does.

Prestige. You're just not this stupid. . What exactly is an individual congress-person supposed to do to alleviate homelessness in their district?

Get back to me when you have an answer.

As Speaker of the House, she could get legislation passed to raise taxes on the rich, using the money to assist the poor, especially in housing. I'm sure Trump, the Senate Republicans, and conservative posters here would be all in favor of that, right?

 

[theprestige]

Sure she does.

Prestige. You're just not this stupid. . What exactly is an individual congress-person supposed to do to alleviate homelessness in their district?

Get back to me when you have an answer.

What is an individual congressperson supposed to do to alleviate any problems in their district?

The purpose of the Senate is to represent the States' interests in questions that affect the union as such.

The purpose of the House is to represent the interests of the citizens in their districts. Pelosi's main job is literally to influence federal policy in a way that improves the lives of her constituents. During Pelosi's tenure as their representative, the homeless situation has gotten worse. The income inequality situation has gotten worse. She's busy impeaching the president, which is a good and noble pursuit, but quite frankly won't make any difference to the problems in her district.