Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Cain]

Deplorables are repeating the talking point that Democrats SAY they have overwhelming evidence, yet bizarrely insist on witnesses testifying. I know, retarded.

Here's a semi-coherent argument they could make. No president has ever been convicted and removed from office. It's unprecedented. We have an election coming up, so let the people Electoral College decide. There was no question that President Clinton committed perjury, but the Senate did not convict him. The whole process is essentially political, and elections have a lot more legitimacy than Congress. Ukraine still ended up getting aide, so quit yer bitching n' go vote. Unless you're Black.

 

[Stacyhs]

You didn't link to the story, so I have to ask.

Did they actually file suit somewhere to get the articles of impeachment thrown out?

Sometimes I would like to be a fly on the wall where some of these decisions are made. Are they that stupid to think that it could actually happen? Or do they assume that the people seeing it on the news are that stupid that they can score political points by getting it on the news?

This isn't the first time I've wondered what the politicians involved in this are actually thinking. Did the Dems actually think he might be convicted? Did Nancy Pelosi actually think that if she never sent the articles, the Senate could never start the trial?

I have assumed this is all political posturing, but maybe there are idiots on both sides of the aisle that actually believe the bizarre things they are making.

I couldn't link it as it was on Microsoft News which does not give links. That's frustrating. I checked Microsoft News just now and the story is gone, but much of what I quoted is available here:

https://apnews.com/69ef7e8cedb8951dc7995ddb51af79e1

Regarding your question about filing a lawsuit, I don't know.

 

[pgwenthold]

Deplorables are repeating the talking point that Democrats SAY they have overwhelming evidence, yet bizarrely insist on witnesses testifying. I know, retarded.

Here's a semi-coherent argument they could make. No president has ever been convicted and removed from office. It's unprecedented. We have an election coming up, so let the people Electoral College decide. There was no question that President Clinton committed perjury, but the Senate did not convict him.

Yes, the Senate decided that "lying about a blowjob" did not rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" required to remove the President from office.

Now, in this case, they similarly vote to not remove as well, thereby sending the message that using the President's office to call for a foreign nation to try to discredit a political rival is not an abuse of office significant enough to warrant removal if office. They can do that, they just need to own it.

When reporters have asked congresscritters point blank, do you think it's ok for the president to ask a foreign country to investigate a political rival, the response from the GOP has been to run away. Own it, they have not.

 

[Meadmaker]

I couldn't link it as it was on Microsoft News which does not give links. That's frustrating. I checked Microsoft News just now and the story is gone, but much of what I quoted is available here:

https://apnews.com/69ef7e8cedb8951dc7995ddb51af79e1

Regarding your question about filing a lawsuit, I don't know.

The story said "filing", so I assumed a lawsuit. Apparently not. They must be filing something somewhere else. In that case, it may not be nearly as ridiculous.

 

[a_unique_person]

I remember before C-Span was allowed, and there were no cameras in either the House or the Senate.



It was better then. We should go back to those days.







However, since that isn't going to happen, I don't see any reason why this particular proceeding ought to be under different rules than normal Senate business.

I have no idea why. Democracy should be seen to be done. C-SPAN is a great public service.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It was not sarcasm.

There was still press coverage in those days. You could still hear every word that was uttered, just not in the senator's voice. You could still know exactly how every senator or congressman voted on every vote. However, as soon as the cameras were turned on, it became a show. It became all about playing for the cameras. The Senate ceased to be any pretense of a deliberative body, and became a campaign commercial.

While there's merit in what you say, TV and video simply has more reach and more impact than the written word.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Sometimes I would like to be a fly on the wall where some of these decisions are made. Are they that stupid to think that it could actually happen? Or do they assume that the people seeing it on the news are that stupid that they can score political points by getting it on the news?

My guess is the latter. Same as all the "it's a coup" stuff that was seem during the impeachment hearings.

Did Nancy Pelosi actually think that if she never sent the articles, the Senate could never start the trial?

My guess here is that she knew when the Lev Parnas documents were going to drop and knew (or had a fair idea) what was in them. I think she wanted the trial to take place in that context.

Whether that'll actually make any difference to anything remains to be seen, but I think the idea that there will be an actual trial rather than a showboating acquittal seems more credible now than it was a week ago.

 

[Meadmaker]

My guess here is that she knew when the Lev Parnas documents were going to drop and knew (or had a fair idea) what was in them. I think she wanted the trial to take place in that context.

Whether that'll actually make any difference to anything remains to be seen, but I think the idea that there will be an actual trial rather than a showboating acquittal seems more credible now than it was a week ago.

Could be, and the Parnas documents do alter the political landscape somewhat.

There doesn't appear to be a "smoking gun" there, but I think it shows just how sleazy the whole operation was. It won't result in a conviction, but it makes me less fearful that the whole impeachment thing will be a net win for Trump and the Republicans.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have no idea why. Democracy should be seen to be done. C-SPAN is a great public service.

The thing is, what's on C-SPAN isn't "democracy", it's the public performance of democracy. A role play of sorts. That has always been true to some extent, but it got worse when TV was introduced.

 

[Tero]

I do not get this argument. When would an impeachment ever be invalid?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-lawyers-respond-impeachment-articles.amp
If you get the house to vote on it, no matter how badly they understand high crimes and misdemeanors, it is always legal to vote on it. That is their job. It is then the job of the senate to vote on whether the blow job related obstruction or quid pro quo qualifies. And it is not the job of defense lawyers to interpret the constitution. This is not that court.

 

[Trebuchet]

I do not get this argument. When would an impeachment ever be invalid?

When it's the Great God Trump being impeached of course! Duh!

 

[pgwenthold]

I do not get this argument. When would an impeachment ever be invalid?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-lawyers-respond-impeachment-articles.amp
If you get the house to vote on it, no matter how badly they understand high crimes and misdemeanors, it is always legal to vote on it. That is their job. It is then the job of the senate to vote on whether the blow job related obstruction or quid pro quo qualifies. And it is not the job of defense lawyers to interpret the constitution. This is not that court.

I agree. I don't understand how any impeachment coming from the House is illegal or illegitimate. The constitution explicitly grants them the power to impeach.

 

[acbytesla]

I do not get this argument. When would an impeachment ever be invalid?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-lawyers-respond-impeachment-articles.amp
If you get the house to vote on it, no matter how badly they understand high crimes and misdemeanors, it is always legal to vote on it. That is their job. It is then the job of the senate to vote on whether the blow job related obstruction or quid pro quo qualifies. And it is not the job of defense lawyers to interpret the constitution. This is not that court.

You understand it. It's total bs.This is Trump we're talking about. It fits the narrative that he wants to tell which is the whole proceeding is illegitimate. I have heard throughout the last 3 years the Trump administration and his lawyers make one claim after another that have zero basis in law. They've done it on TV and in courtrooms to stunned judges and legal experts.

I think Trump understands one thing. Selling a story.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Dershy is claiming in an interview that Trump trying to bribe/extort a foreign leader wasn't a criminal offense it was a statutory crime.

That's a stretch.

Is he claiming bribery/extortion is a civil crime or is he claiming the statutory crime occurs when the POTUS misuses his authority?

He seems to be claiming that Trump didn't realize he wasn't following the law. Yeah, that's why he's tried so hard to cover it up.

What crap.

 

[Meadmaker]

I do not get this argument. When would an impeachment ever be invalid?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-lawyers-respond-impeachment-articles.amp
If you get the house to vote on it, no matter how badly they understand high crimes and misdemeanors, it is always legal to vote on it. That is their job. It is then the job of the senate to vote on whether the blow job related obstruction or quid pro quo qualifies. And it is not the job of defense lawyers to interpret the constitution. This is not that court.

That's what I thought at first. I thought the "filing" was a court filing. I didn't know they "filed" anything with respect to the trial. After I realized what it was, it made (somewhat) more sense.

As is often said, the House can impeach the President for eating a ham sandwich if they feel like it. However, if they did, I would expect that the defense team would, indeed, argue that eating a ham sandwich is not an impeachable offense. They would almost certainly say in that case that eating a ham sandwich wasn't a crime, so the President can eat one if he likes. They would probably say that eating a ham sandwich is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor, so he ought not be convicted.

Now, someone could counter, well yes, but it doesn't have to be either a high crime or a misdemeanor, as commonly understood, in order to be a high crime or misdemeanor under the constitution, and we don't want no stinking ham sandwich eaters in the White House. If 67 senators agree, he's gone.

What the President is saying in this case is that withholding aid to Ukraine is a lot like eating a ham sandwich. The senators get to decide if they agree. They will do so based on a strict evaluation of precedent and follow their conscience to see if this conduct is sufficiently grave to constitute a high crime or misdemeanor as understood by the authors of the constitution whether or not they think the voters who will re elect senators in November want them to throw out Donald Trump.

 

[Stacyhs]

You understand it. It's total bs.This is Trump we're talking about. It fits the narrative that he wants to tell which is the whole proceeding is illegitimate. I have heard throughout the last 3 years the Trump administration and his lawyers make one claim after another that have zero basis in law. They've done it on TV and in courtrooms to stunned judges and legal experts.

I think Trump understands one thing. Selling a story.

Agreed. Trump and his team know their claim is bs but they also know that his supporters (or a large percentage, at least) will swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[acbytesla]

That's what I thought at first. I thought the "filing" was a court filing. I didn't know they "filed" anything with respect to the trial. After I realized what it was, it made (somewhat) more sense.

As is often said, the House can impeach the President for eating a ham sandwich if they feel like it. However, if they did, I would expect that the defense team would, indeed, argue that eating a ham sandwich is not an impeachable offense. They would almost certainly say in that case that eating a ham sandwich wasn't a crime, so the President can eat one if he likes. They would probably say that eating a ham sandwich is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor, so he ought not be convicted.

Now, someone could counter, well yes, but it doesn't have to be either a high crime or a misdemeanor, as commonly understood, in order to be a high crime or misdemeanor under the constitution, and we don't want no stinking ham sandwich eaters in the White House. If 67 senators agree, he's gone.

What the President is saying in this case is that withholding aid to Ukraine is a lot like eating a ham sandwich. The senators get to decide if they agree. They will do so based on a strict evaluation of precedent and follow their conscience to see if this conduct is sufficiently grave to constitute a high crime or misdemeanor as understood by the authors of the constitution whether or not they think the voters who will re elect senators in November want them to throw out Donald Trump.

It's not that withholding aid is an impeachable offense. It's using the threat of and the withholding aid for his own personal political objectives that is the offense. The GAO was clear about that when it said the impoundment was illegal.

IMV, it comes down to one thing. Is it OK for the President to use the powers of his office to damage others and/or advance his own position?

If you think that is an acceptable, and there is no such thing as an abuse of Executive power then vote for acquittal. If you think the President is a custodian and should be accountable for his actions then you vote to impeach.

Frankly, I think it is beyond dangerous to give the Executive such unlimited power.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not that withholding aid is an impeachable offense. It's using the threat of and the withholding aid for his own personal political objectives that is the offense. The GAO was clear about that when it said the impoundment was illegal.

IMV, it comes down to one thing. Is it OK for the President to use the powers of his office to damage others and/or advance his own position?

If you think that is an acceptable, and there is no such thing as an abuse of Executive power then vote for acquittal. If you think the President is a custodian and should be accountable for his actions then you vote to impeach.

Frankly, I think it is beyond dangerous to give the Executive such unlimited power.

It's too bad a few Republican Senators can't be charged with accepting bribes as well. And Trump's control over the RNC money isn't even the half of it.

One of Trump's attorneys, Bondi, knows all about that.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's too bad a few Republican Senators can't be charged with accepting bribes as well. And Trump's control over the RNC money isn't even the half of it.

One of Trump's attorneys, Bondi, knows all about that.

If that were a crime, then most politicians would be in jail, across party lines.


I think that steps ought to be taken to change that, but the problem with changing election laws is that the changes have to be voted in by the people who successfully used the status quo to get elected. The people who get elected don't have a lot of incentive to change the way people get elected.

 

[acbytesla]

If that were a crime, then most politicians would be in jail, across party lines.


I think that steps ought to be taken to change that, but the problem with changing election laws is that the changes have to be voted in by the people who successfully used the status quo to get elected. The people who get elected don't have a lot of incentive to change the way people get elected.

Yet year after year Democrats push for reforms and Republicans want nothing to do with them.