Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[theprestige]

I don't know. But what if they had? Trump was always going to be a moving target. He may be breaking new laws at this very moment. For whatever reason the strategy that emerged pared back the Articles to what the House "personally" investigated. There were MANY potential charges. If Mitch and Lindsey hadn't bragged about their ability to rig a meaningless "trial" maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. But once they did, what did they think would happen?

If I read you correctly, they should have expected this to happen.

So let's think about that for a moment. They must have known Pelosi would react this way. They didn't need to make a public show of their strategy. But they did, knowing this is what would happen.

So who's really winning this round? Pelosi? Or the people who predicted and intentionally caused Pelosi's reaction?

 

[varwoche]

<snip for brevity>

I agree with carrps ... precisely. Unfortunately this doesn't rebut Meadmaker's point. If the Dems succeed in getting witnesses, we should also expect the Bidens.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree with carrps ... precisely. Unfortunately this doesn't rebut Meadmaker's point. If the Dems succeed in getting witnesses, we should also expect the Bidens.

Biden clarified his statement regarding his possible testimony saying unlike Trump and Pence he has never refused to comply with a subpoena. He said there was no legal basis to subpoena him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with carrps ... precisely. Unfortunately this doesn't rebut Meadmaker's point. If the Dems succeed in getting witnesses, we should also expect the Bidens.

It might be a bargaining-chip trade-off. But it's not a legit witness until Trump establishes his made-up claim this had anything to do with Ukraine corruption.

 

[varwoche]

.Legit? Since when do they play legit?

<Paging JoeMorgue to the red courtesy phone>

 

[JoeMorgue]

That completely misses the point. It has nothing to do with "whataboutism".

Trump will allege that there was strong reason to believe that Joe and Hunter Biden were engaged in corrupt acts that involved US government funds. That's a pretty serious issue, isn't it? Never mind that it's all part of Trump's twisted bizarre mind in which Trump is the center of the universe and everyone who opposes Trump is automatically a bad person doing corrupt things.

No. You are wrong. Completely wrong. Wrong from every angle. Wrong even within the context of how you are wrong. Fractionally wrong. Wronger then wrong. Not even wrong.

No. The President of the United States does not have the right, duty, or responsibility to ask a foreign government to investigate anyone; a political rival or private citizen, even if they "honestly think the person is corrupt."

No, I don't want to hear any alternative fact theory, version, excuse, whatabout, stall, "Hey look a squirrel," "But the other side did..." or anything else.

The President of the United States is not allowed to ask, hit, suggest, "Not saying just saying" or in any way or form instruct a foreign government to get involved in American politics in this way; legally, morally, or hell even logically. This is a fact and it is not up for debate.

And the idea that Trump actually thinks Biden is corrupt is functionally insane.

You are wrong in every possible way, from every possible angle.

Did you mean "would not have changed"?

Yes.

Trump is corrupt. VERY corrupt. He has no respect whatsoever for the Constitution or the rule of law. He only cares about himself: his ego and his financial gain.

What? Trump is corrupt? YOU DON'T SAY! Please stand by a moment while I smack my gob in the absolute astonishment of this fact which was, until you said it, totally and completely unknown to me.

Please tell me you have some plan to let the American public know about this, because obviously they are as ignorant of this information as I am since it's not like IT'S BEEN THE MAJOR NEWS STORY CONSTANTLY AND WITHOUT PAUSE SINCE BEFORE HE EVEN TOOK OFFICE OR ANYTHING.

You can launch into a tirade about hyperbole if you like, but that's still how you're expecting people to react to this information.

You're like a Jehovah's Witness knocking on my door on Sunday Morning acting as if his copy of Watchtower is literally the first time I've ever encountered the gospel of Jesus before and the only reason I haven't given my life over to him is because simple knowledge that was even an opinion had never been presented to me before that moment.

Stating facts over and over isn't going to convince people who have already rejected them.

This mythology that you can... pester the marginal Trumpers or fence-sitters over to our side with repetition seems rather silly to me.

We can't just ignore this and expect this county to go on.

We can't make ineffectual noise at it and expect the country to go on.

That's my biggest issue here. The people complaining that I'm saying nothing is getting done are also saying nothing is getting done.

I'm saying nothing is getting done. You're saying nothing is getting done but let's take the time to praise the Dems on how hard they are trying for no reason just so their fee-fees don't get hurt.

The Dems don't need us to give them participation trophies right now. They don't get credit for just showing up.

And yet, the majority want him impeached and a greater number of persons polled want him impeached and removed than not.

Yeah the majority didn't vote for him for President either. Trump's good at getting power where he needs it so he doesn't need a majority to stay in power.

And his power consolidation in the Federal Government is more stacked then his power consolidation among the general populace.

 

[theprestige]

.Legit? Since when do they play legit?

<Paging JoeMorgue to the red courtesy phone>

Since when does anyone play legit, in politics?

Do you subscribe to the school of thought that the longest running politicians are the cleanest and least corrupt?

 

[acbytesla]

Since when does anyone play legit, in politics?

Do you subscribe to the school of thought that the longest running politicians are the cleanest and least corrupt?

You're kidding right? This is another rationalization for the GOP being corrupt. Suggesting the other side is too with nothing to support it.

 

[varwoche]

Since when does anyone play legit, in politics?

Do you subscribe to the school of thought that the longest running politicians are the cleanest and least corrupt?

No. I wasnt even aware it was a school of thought.

"Legit" isn't binary by the way.

@Joe readers are apt to think we colluded here. No collusion!

 

[JoeMorgue]

You'll have to forgive theprestige's "Everything sucks, everyone sucks equally, nobody is better then anyone else, and if you think anyone should be better I'm going to mock you for not giving up like me" faux-nihilism whenever anyone points out that his side is corrupt to the core.

 

[Minoosh]

Trump will allege that there was strong reason to believe that Joe and Hunter Biden were engaged in corrupt acts that involved US government funds.

*How* is he going to allege this? In sworn testimony? Or is he going to submit his Twitter oeuvre as Defense Exhibit 1? That might be interesting. There was that one where he trashed the reputation of a witness as she was testifying in the House.

So, we are left playing politics.

So what? That's what politicians are for.

Trump didn't want an investigation of the Bidens. He wanted an announcement of an investigation. He doesn't give a damn about corruption in Ukraine. How is he going to argue otherwise?

Your question about who decides who will testify: Any 51 senators can pass their preferred rules, as far as I can tell. To be sure, conviction and removal is a very long shot. But a number of senators may hesitate to go on record in favor of calling no witnesses and considering no evidence. But say that happens. The prosecution will talk about what witnesses said under oath, and the defense will say, but Joe Biden! Joe's kid! Burisma! The server! Crowdstrike! Ukraine! Team Trump doesn't even have that much: None of this is even on record. It's all just tweeting and bleating on Fox News. Then rinse and repeat for closing arguments.

I don't know how that will play on TV, but I have a feeling Team Trump should be thanking the House for giving them time to get their **** together.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... What? Trump is corrupt? YOU DON'T SAY! Please stand by a moment while I smack my gob in the absolute astonishment of this fact which was, until you said it, totally and completely unknown to me.

And yet you question, why impeach him?

... You're like a Jehovah's Witness knocking on my door on Sunday Morning acting as if his copy of Watchtower is literally the first time I've ever encountered the gospel of Jesus before and the only reason I haven't given my life over to him is because simple knowledge that was even an opinion had never been presented to me before that moment.

I'm only responding to your post.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

*How* is he going to allege this? In sworn testimony? Or is he going to submit his Twitter oeuvre as Defense Exhibit 1? That might be interesting. There was that one where he trashed the reputation of a witness as she was testifying in the House.

Currently his minions are carrying the water.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And yet you question, why impeach him?

Yes.

How does this story end to you? Because I don't buy this "We impeach him, the Senate obviously laughs it out of the building as soon as it is passed to them, but a whole bunch of people are going to be so impressed they'll switch sides" narrative.

Trump will sell this as him surviving an impeachment, that the Democrats threw everything, up to and including the biggest, strongest legal/political action you can take against a sitting President, and they still couldn't take him down.

He will come out of this stronger, not weaker. No before you start I can't "know for sure" but I think it's at very least as likely as your scenario.

 

[Norman Alexander]

The right to contest subpoenas is a well-established principle of US jurisprudence. You're already witnessing the outcome: Trump and Biden contesting subpoenas. They are, in fact, exercising the same right that you yourself enjoy - that all people enjoy, and may want to exercise.

Actually, no I don't enjoy that US right at all. But anyway...

I think this is a very good outcome. I think that it is a very good thing that subpoenas can be contested.

Trump isn't contesting the subpoenas at all. He's outright ignoring them. His basic response is "Go whistle".

 

[Minoosh]

So who's really winning this round? Pelosi? Or the people who predicted and intentionally caused Pelosi's reaction?

Too soon to tell. But ultimately I hope it’s a victory for the American system of checks and balances. I’m rather fond of it.

 

[Venom]

I think a lot of Americans don't know what corruption in the U.S. is supposed to look like. They've heard of it. They just don't see it when they see Trump.

As long as you say it out loud or in the open, it's not a crime or corrupt.

 

[Meadmaker]

But Trump denies doing that, now doesn't he?

Quite the Catch 22 all around.

Huh? No he doesn't deny it. He's mighty darned proud that he did it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Trump didn’t/doesn’t give a poop and a half about Biden possibly having been corrupting around in Ukraine. All he was trying to wrangle was for Zelensky to simply make a little announcement that his government intended to “investigate” Biden/Burisma (whether they then did or not being of no concern). Then Trump would be off to the “but her emails” races once again, happy as a dog in a sea of legs.

You are going with the theory that Trump was engaging in a plot to create a bad public image by saying that Biden is under investigation for corruption.


I'm going with the theory that Trump is a lunatic who believes whatever fits in better with his own narrative.

I don't know how to resolve the difference, but I'm sticking with lunatic.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think a lot of Americans don't know what corruption in the U.S. is supposed to look like. They've heard of it. They just don't see it when they see Trump.

As long as you say it out loud or in the open, it's not a crime or corrupt.

This is common with authoritarians and their supporters. The supporters almost never acknowledge or realize how corrupt their dear leader is.