Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[pgwenthold]

Its often brought up that the electoral college should be discarded. It was configured precisely for the job it does,

It was configured to do the job it does at a time when slaves were a) legal and b) were considered 3/5 of a person.

The job it was intended to do was to appease slave-holding states. I don't consider that either noble or worth defending in modern times.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Would you just hurry up and get the point where you run out of arguments and accuse me of being a secret Trump supporter because I don't spend all day jerking the Democrats off and don't think they are incapable of doing anything wrong?

Did you miss the meaning that you described yourself in your post?

 

[Minoosh]

Currently his minions are carrying the water.

And spin is their prerogative. But how does any defense theory get entered into evidence? Prosecution can say “the evidence indicates ...” But there is no defense evidence. And the only evidence the defense wants is Joe Biden and the whistleblower or maybe Adam Schiff. None of whom can offer any firsthand exonerating evidence, because Trump won’t let any firsthand witnesses testify.

Even calling on Biden etc. to testify is probably not going establish that the impeachment is a conspiracy, witch hunt, etc. It does allow defenders (or prosecutors) to ask questions that are really speeches, but IMO that strategy could backfire. For one thing, it still does nothing to advance the Ukraine-meddling conspiracy. And I doubt it would offer any juicy sound bites to be served up by the news media. Politicians gassing is not really very interesting.

 

[Minoosh]

You were talking about obstructing Mueller, not committing new crimes that could be charged.

True. But it’s not about obstructing Mueller, but about obstructing *justice*. And the House may be anticipating additional evidence to support further Articles. So it got 2 Articles out of the way that depended solely on evidence elicited in the House *so far*.

The bigger question is if the Democrats didn't think the Republicans would rig the trial for Trump, what did they think would happen? Again, the theory seems to be that this is all a huge surprise, rather than what everybody with even an ounce of common sense saw as a foregone conclusion.

Maybe they didn’t foresee senators bragging about how rigged the trial was going to be. It’s possible. Or maybe the House just wanted to get 2 Articles out of the way while it was waiting for other evidence. Which has been subpoenaed, so it’s reasonable that the House expects some sort of update.

 

[Lurch]

I've read this in several places, and I didn't know where it came from. I saw a reference to it yesterday (in this thread) as coming from Sondland's testimony. Is there any other source for it?

If that's the only source, far too much is made of Sondland's comment.

I believe Trump wanted an actual investigation, although he didn't want it badly enough to do anything more than temporarily delay the aid after making his "suggestion" in the phone call. However, if there is evidence beyond the Sondland testimony, I'm open to it.

Your last sentence has you coming across like Graham. He said if other evidence beyond the phone call surfaced about the QPQ, he'd find that troubling.

Well, other evidence soon enough followed, at which point Graham said he'd not look at the evidence. Goal posts moved out of the county.

Will you too pooh-pooh or ignore corroboration of Sondland's testimony? After all, if even Trump's own hand-picked 'fixer' on the diplomatic front can be dismissed by you, then I assume you'll be 'skeptical' of other testimony.

From the start I figured the 'investigation' to be initiated against Biden was not at all required. Just the announcement of such was quite enough for Trump to use in his smear campaign. Indeed, a real investigation could backfire upon the failure to find criminality. Far better to just have nebulous innuendo hanging out there.

Sondland's remarks are in no way unexpected here. He's confirming smear politics 101.

 

[acbytesla]

Its often brought up that the electoral college should be discarded. It was configured precisely for the job it does, it gives smaller states a larger degree of representation where in a popular vote your major metropolitan areas would decide the election hands down.

You could argue some of the smaller states have disproportionate representation also, but considering even in the electoral college theres a bit of a bias (California's 50 representatives going reliably one sided) I dont think the debate over having it or not will end any time soon. It always pops back up on election years

Yes, it does the job it was intended for. I agree. But it was a huge mistake. It is grotesquely undemocratic. And Texas is just as dominated by the GOP as California is dominated by the Democrats.

And it's not just the electoral college that is undemocratic, so is the US Senate. And the fact that the District of Colunbia has no representation in Congress. California has the approximate population of the 20 smallest population states combined. California has two Senators to 40 Senators representing individuals living in the sticks. And the Senate can stop any legislation that might be important to urban America.

630,000 Americans who live in DC have no representation. About the population of Wyoming. Yet it has no voting Senators or Representatives while Wyoming has a Congressperson and two Senators.

I believe not only the electoral college needs to be abolished, but the US Senate as well.

 

[Meadmaker]

Your last sentence has you coming across like Graham. He said if other evidence beyond the phone call surfaced about the QPQ, he'd find that troubling.

Well, other evidence soon enough followed, at which point Graham said he'd not look at the evidence. Goal posts moved out of the county.

Will you too pooh-pooh or ignore corroboration of Sondland's testimony? After all, if even Trump's own hand-picked 'fixer' on the diplomatic front can be dismissed by you, then I assume you'll be 'skeptical' of other testimony.

From the start I figured the 'investigation' to be initiated against Biden was not at all required. Just the announcement of such was quite enough for Trump to use in his smear campaign. Indeed, a real investigation could backfire upon the failure to find criminality. Far better to just have nebulous innuendo hanging out there.

Sondland's remarks are in no way unexpected here. He's confirming smear politics 101.

I'm sorry, but were you in some way answering the question? I didn't see an answer here.


Or, to repeat the question to anyone, what is the source of the "He didn't want an investigation, just an announcement of an investigation." Is there any source other than Sondland?

 

[Lurch]

I'm sorry, but were you in some way answering the question? I didn't see an answer here.


Or, to repeat the question to anyone, what is the source of the "He didn't want an investigation, just an announcement of an investigation." Is there any source other than Sondland?

Sondland was in *direct* communication with Trump. We gather the latter doesn't typically specify exactly what's expected of his fixers and stooges, supplying more oblique directives from which the desired action is inferred. Sondland could well have inferred with confidence that just the announcement of an investigation was sufficient.

The source is likely Trump himself. Now, if only we could get the instigator of all this himself under oath, eh?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I've read this in several places, and I didn't know where it came from. I saw a reference to it yesterday (in this thread) as coming from Sondland's testimony. Is there any other source for it?

If that's the only source, far too much is made of Sondland's comment.

I believe Trump wanted an actual investigation, although he didn't want it badly enough to do anything more than temporarily delay the aid after making his "suggestion" in the phone call. However, if there is evidence beyond the Sondland testimony, I'm open to it.

You are kidding, right?
The only official First-hand witness willing to testify, and you think that is insufficient evidence?

The fact that "only announcement, no actual investigation" has entered the House Record means that it is now up to Trump to bring counter-evidence from other witnesses, or Sondland's testimony stands as the best evidence available.

Don't you realize that you are just moving the goalpost?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It was configured to do the job it does at a time when slaves were a) legal and b) were considered 3/5 of a person.

The job it was intended to do was to appease slave-holding states. I don't consider that either noble or worth defending in modern times.

It's a larger discussion than this thread can handle (aka a derail). So if you plan to argue that any support for it in the modern era equates to supporting an old archaic way of thinking. And that it has slavery written all over it in the modern era it's on you to elaborate. But it isnt that simplistic and you know it full well.

 

[Garrison]

That doesn't stop Clinton haters from calling her a terrible candidate.

Add in uncontrollable events like Comey's last minute move and Trump's getting 100% primetime coverage of his rallies by click-baiting the news media to tape every minute waiting for something outrageous to happen and that is not Clinton who has put Clinton at a disadvantage.

And that's not even counting Trump's Russian bot and troll army flooding social media with lies, which Obama failed to address because he was intimidated by Moscow Mitch.

And throw in Russian campaign funding laundered through the NRA, can't leave that out.

I am not including coordination with Wikileaks leaks dumping hacked material because some of that is the DNC's and Podesta's fault.


So here we are in 2020 still claiming Clinton was a bad candidate and ignoring the popular vote when declaring how wonderful was Trump's win, everyone underestimated him.

That's right, we underestimated the help he would get from Russia, Comey and the mainstream media.

More evidence that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the reality for a lot of people. But I digress.

Trump is not a stable genius. The voting public has had 3 years to see just how corrupt and cruel he is. The Democratic candidate needs to flood the airwaves with clip after clip of Trump reminding voters just how awful he is. Whether they'll do it and whether we get the right candidate are still unknowns.

Yeah people conveniently ignore the way Comey's little bombshell about looking into the e-mails again impacted Clinton's poll lead. I think you can fairly argue that Clinton lost by narrow margins in key states not because Trump rallied people who don't normally vote to go out but because some voters who were unsure about Clinton thought they could safely stay home because they were sure there was no way Trump. In short it was complacency that let Trump sneak a win.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And spin is their prerogative. But how does any defense theory get entered into evidence? Prosecution can say “the evidence indicates ...” But there is no defense evidence. And the only evidence the defense wants is Joe Biden and the whistleblower or maybe Adam Schiff. None of whom can offer any firsthand exonerating evidence, because Trump won’t let any firsthand witnesses testify.

Even calling on Biden etc. to testify is probably not going establish that the impeachment is a conspiracy, witch hunt, etc. It does allow defenders (or prosecutors) to ask questions that are really speeches, but IMO that strategy could backfire. For one thing, it still does nothing to advance the Ukraine-meddling conspiracy. And I doubt it would offer any juicy sound bites to be served up by the news media. Politicians gassing is not really very interesting.

This is the reason McConnell is so anxious to sweep it all under the rug with no trial.

 

[tyr_13]

Why would they think that? The three most common terms used to describe it by the Republicans are "sham", "witch hunt", and "coup". Why would anybody think it was leading up to anything other than being hand-waved away? Especially after Kavannaugh, Mueller, the bills sitting on McConnell's desk, etc. have amply demonstrated that the Republicans' #1 priority is protecting them and theirs.

I mean it when I say that any politician who genuinely thought that the Republicans would even try to give the appearance of playing fair on this is only demonstrating that they're bad at their job.

They don't have to genuinely believe they didn't know the GOP wasn't going to do their lawful duty to even a small degree for there to be utility in making statements as if that were the case.

That is to say, they are tailoring their message to perform best to a much lower information audience than you are in. They are well aware that far too much of the obvious criminal/corrupt behavior of the administration gets lost in the noise even though so much of it has zero reasonable defense. They're therefore simplifying the message, repeating the theme, and picking the argument that swing voters are most receptive too. That is Trump's personal corruption. Even if Dems know the GOP is going to be Trump's willing underlings, that doesn't mean they are going to pass up the chance to repeat and highlight that corruption. Mitch being openly corrupt gets to be banged on.

Other corruption can be written off as 'fake news/partisan/not from a Trump supporter doublebad' and gains no traction. With impeachment even if those things are invoked, it is 'doublebad' claims that can't be just ignored. The Dems arguments get air. They get discussed. They get called all sorts of things, but they get noted.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes, it does the job it was intended for. I agree. But it was a huge mistake. It is grotesquely undemocratic. And Texas is just as dominated by the GOP as California is dominated by the Democrats.

And it's not just the electoral college that is undemocratic, so is the US Senate. And the fact that the District of Colunbia has no representation in Congress. California has the approximate population of the 20 smallest population states combined. California has two Senators to 40 Senators representing individuals living in the sticks. And the Senate can stop any legislation that might be important to urban America.

630,000 Americans who live in DC have no representation. About the population of Wyoming. Yet it has no voting Senators or Representatives while Wyoming has a Congressperson and two Senators.

I believe not only the electoral college needs to be abolished, but the US Senate as well.

After several pages of (hopefully respectful) arguing you'll be glad to hear this is something we're 100% in agreement on.

The exact numbers vary a little but both the Senate and the Electoral College commit the same unforgivable sin, trying to find some way of making

Kamala Harris and Diane Fienstein each represent 19.78 million[/quote] people.

John Barrasso and Mike Enzi each represent 288,868.

19 million people is the population of Romania or Chilie.

288,868 is about 110,00 fewer people then you can fit into the Indianapolis Motor Speedway when they open the infield for seating.

These people should not have equal political power in any sanely run system and this should not be a controversial opinion.

And no the Senate/House compromise is not the answer. The answer to unfairness is not to make two equal systems, one fair and one unfair so everybody wins.

 

[Meadmaker]

You are kidding, right?
The only official First-hand witness willing to testify, and you think that is insufficient evidence?

The fact that "only announcement, no actual investigation" has entered the House Record means that it is now up to Trump to bring counter-evidence from other witnesses, or Sondland's testimony stands as the best evidence available.

Don't you realize that you are just moving the goalpost?

I went and listened to some of the testimony, and read articles at the time, and it's interesting that the spin at the time is quite different.

As for what he actually said, he was, in my opinion, prevaricating. He had said that the aid was contingent on the investigation, and that everyone was "in the loop" about that, but as he realized the implications of that, he was saying, "Well.....uhhhh…..it wasn't really.....because ….uhhh….there didn't even have to actually be an investigation. All they had to do was announce one and....uhhhh...yeah....That's the ticket." (paraphrased)



And what's with "up to Trump to......" Do you not get this? It is "up to Trump" to do what public opinion dictates, assuming he wants to keep his job until November and then for another four years, the requirements for which might be different.

 

[tyr_13]

It's a larger discussion than this thread can handle (aka a derail). So if you plan to argue that any support for it in the modern era equates to supporting an old archaic way of thinking. And that it has slavery written all over it in the modern era it's on you to elaborate. But it isnt that simplistic and you know it full well.

The argument is that the Founders original intent for the Electoral college still holds today. The Founders' argument for it was to appease slave states. There wasn't enough of a 'rural/urban' divide to speak of. So pointing out that the original is tied to slavery and not what modern supporters assert refutes that argument completely. The appeal to the Founders intent is wrong.

Even sans that modern supporter's argument, the difference in populations were never so great, and the House wasn't capped to also support this giving the minority power. As is, 18% of the population can have a President and the majority in the Senate. This is moronic. It only is allowed to go on because the majority till now would have been bothered more to change it than by problems it causes. But now unless the reactionary minority starts finding ways to compromise with the majority, that calculation will change.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The argument is that the Founders original intent for the Electoral college still holds today. The Founders' argument for it was to appease slave states. There wasn't enough of a 'rural/urban' divide to speak of. So pointing out that the original is tied to slavery and not what modern supporters assert refutes that argument completely. The appeal to the Founders intent is wrong.

Even sans that modern supporter's argument, the difference in populations were never so great, and the House wasn't capped to also support this giving the minority power. As is, 18% of the population can have a President and the majority in the Senate. This is moronic. It only is allowed to go on because the majority till now would have been bothered more to change it than by problems it causes. But now unless the reactionary minority starts finding ways to compromise with the majority, that calculation will change.

I once saw a meme on the internet that put it thusly (paraphrasing from memory)

*Takes a time machine back to talk to one of the Founding Fathers*
Me: Founding Father the Electoral Collage is causing some issues in our days...
Founding Father: Well I appreciate that, but we put it in place for good reasons.
Me: Did you ever consider how it would work in a country where 40 million people live in California alone?
Founding Father *Spits out tea*: 40 million people live in where now?

 

[smartcooky]

Its often brought up that the electoral college should be discarded. It was configured precisely for the job it does, it gives smaller states a larger degree of representation where in a popular vote your major metropolitan areas would decide the election hands down.

You could argue some of the smaller states have disproportionate representation also, but considering even in the electoral college theres a bit of a bias (California's 50 representatives going reliably one sided) I dont think the debate over having it or not will end any time soon. It always pops back up on election years

AIUI, as it currently stands, many if not most states allot their electoral college votes on who wins their election... e.g. if a state has 20 EC votes, and the Republican candidate beats the Democrat candidate 55% to 45%, then all 20 EC votes go to the Republican candidate.

IMO, what should happen is that the EC votes should be allotted proportionally, so in the example above, the Republican candidate would be allotted 11 EC votes and the Democrat would be allotted 9. I understand that some States actually do it this way.

 

[acbytesla]

AIUI, as it currently stands, many if not most states allot their electoral college votes on who wins their election... e.g. if a state has 20 EC votes, and the Republican candidate beats the Democrat candidate 55% to 45%, then all 20 EC votes go to the Republican candidate.

IMO, what should happen is that the EC votes should be allotted proportionally, so in the example above, the Republican candidate would be allotted 11 EC votes and the Democrat would be allotted 9. I understand that some States actually do it this way.

Two states allot electoral votes that way. But it only really makes sense if that kind of system is adopted nationwide. For example the GOP in California wants to do it that way but they have no interest in that being implemented in Texas. It also doesn't address the issue of small states being over-represented.

 

[JoeMorgue]

At least with the Electoral College we have a potential, and while maybe not likely it's at least realistically possible and worth discussing, solution.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. An agreement where states agree to give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. 15 states and DC have already agreed to it and, theoretically, there's enough states with bills/proposals in the pipeline to give us a defacto popular vote by 2020.

Probably won't happen by 2020, but it's not some crazy insane slim chance either.

Sure the first time it actually happens I'm sure we're in for a court battle, but how would that even work? What would the argument be?

"The system we put in place to protect us from the popular vote by not trusting us to make the decision is making a decision we don't like?" Either you're arguing against the EC or arguing the EC isn't needed.