Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[Meadmaker]

So the latest Trump defense:

According to Dershowitz, there is nothing wrong with 'Quid pro quo' because the president thought it was in the country's best interest to get himself re-elected.

From: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/dershowitz-quid-pro-quo/index.html
...a politician trying to win reelection is acting in the national interest, and therefore a quid pro quo aimed at boosting reelection chances cannot be impeachable.

Trump's defense must be some sort of elaborate dare... "Lets put out the dumbest possible argument and see how the GOP reacts".

Some things amaze me.

I read this and though, "No way did he say something that stupid." So I went to the link to see what he really said. He really said that. We are just through the looking glass here.

I honestly expected the argument that Donald Trump was acting in the national interest by asking Ukranians to investigate corruption, and it was just a coincidence that the suspected corruption happened to involve his chief rival for the office. That would be a sensible defense, even if it isn't true.

How old is Dershowitz? Senility? I just can't believe he would say that.

ETA: I've been pretty adamantly against impeachment because I thought it would play well for the Republicans. Between Trump starting a feud with Bolton, and gems like the above, maybe there's a pot of gold at the end of the impeachment rainbow after all.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Some things amaze me.

I read this and though, "No way did he say something that stupid." So I went to the link to see what he really said. He really said that. We are just through the looking glass here.

I honestly expected the argument that Donald Trump was acting in the national interest by asking Ukranians to investigate corruption, and it was just a coincidence that the suspected corruption happened to involve his chief rival for the office. That would be a sensible defense, even if it isn't true.

How old is Dershowitz? Senility? I just can't believe he would say that.

ETA: I've been pretty adamantly against impeachment because I thought it would play well for the Republicans. Between Trump starting a feud with Bolton, and gems like the above, maybe there's a pot of gold at the end of the impeachment rainbow after all.

Why do you object to the assertion?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some things amaze me.

I read this and though, "No way did he say something that stupid." So I went to the link to see what he really said. He really said that. We are just through the looking glass here.

I honestly expected the argument that Donald Trump was acting in the national interest by asking Ukranians to investigate corruption, and it was just a coincidence that the suspected corruption happened to involve his chief rival for the office. That would be a sensible defense, even if it isn't true.

How old is Dershowitz? Senility? I just can't believe he would say that.

ETA: I've been pretty adamantly against impeachment because I thought it would play well for the Republicans. Between Trump starting a feud with Bolton, and gems like the above, maybe there's a pot of gold at the end of the impeachment rainbow after all.

Dershy helped get OJ off. He's just that much of a whore for money/fame and whatever else.

The GOP gave up trying to claim Trump was legitimately investigating corruption in Ukraine. Now they are going with, he did it but it was OK.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm a little bit surprised by the questions. I expected at least some cases where a Democrat would throw an accusatory question at the Republicans, something like, "Why do you think Donald Trump won't stop beating his wife?" Instead, each team is lobbing softballs to their own team. Of the questions I heard on the radio, only Elizabeth Warren tossed one at the Trump Team. (It was a good question, too. Basically, it was, "If a foreign leader offered dirt on a rival in exchange for increased foreign aid, that would be obviously impeachable. Why isn't this situation impeachable?") Even she asked both sides, though. Unfortunately, I thought the House Managers kind of flubbed the answer, while the Trump lawyers handled it pretty well.

I'm waiting for someone to ask the House Managers, "Who do you think is uglier? The Republicans, or their mamas?"

 

[Aridas]

How old is Dershowitz? Senility? I just can't believe he would say that.

I tend to think of it as the partisan hack effect. Just like Barr, Starr, and just about all the Republican politicians. It's probably safe to say that they likely never had actual principle guiding them, just after the fact attempts to justify things as nicely as possible.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Unfortunately, I thought the House Managers kind of flubbed the answer, while the Trump lawyers handled it pretty well.

Unfortunate? I would have pegged you as someone who would be happy to hear an argument you thought was well handled regardless who offered it.

 

[Aridas]

To poke at something a bit tangential...

Parnas Lawyer: Giuliani Essentially Put Lindsey Graham In the Ukrainian Loop

So, we already had Nunes in on this and now, it looks like Graham.

I'm mildly missing the days before Trump when recusals were more of a thing.

 

[Stacyhs]

I predict that, in 20 years, this trial will be regarded in law and text books as a Republican sham and a low point in the Senate's history. Just watching the defense lawyers present their ridiculous positions make me nauseated.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm a little bit surprised by the questions. I expected at least some cases where a Democrat would throw an accusatory question at the Republicans, something like, "Why do you think Donald Trump won't stop beating his wife?" Instead, each team is lobbing softballs to their own team. Of the questions I heard on the radio, only Elizabeth Warren tossed one at the Trump Team. (It was a good question, too. Basically, it was, "If a foreign leader offered dirt on a rival in exchange for increased foreign aid, that would be obviously impeachable. Why isn't this situation impeachable?") Even she asked both sides, though. Unfortunately, I thought the House Managers kind of flubbed the answer, while the Trump lawyers handled it pretty well.

I'm waiting for someone to ask the House Managers, "Who do you think is uglier? The Republicans, or their mamas?"

I think your posts are the most disingenuous bs Imaginable. You criticize everything the Democrats do.

 

[Meadmaker]

Unfortunate? I would have pegged you as someone who would be happy to hear an argument you thought was well handled regardless who offered it.

Well, I will give credit to whoever handles the argument well, and I can distinguish between a good argument versus an argument that favors my side.

However, all things considered, I would prefer seeing a good argument from my team. I try to judge them impartially, but that doesn't mean I'm not rooting for one side.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, I will give credit to whoever handles the argument well, and I can distinguish between a good argument versus an argument that favors my side.

However, all things considered, I would prefer seeing a good argument from my team. I try to judge them impartially, but that doesn't mean I'm not rooting for one side.

My team is the truth and good arguments made for a position.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think your posts are the most disingenuous bs Imaginable. You criticize everything the Democrats do.

Hmmm......In the post you quoted, I singled out a question from Elizabeth Warren for praise.

 

[Stacyhs]

I can't find the post to quote, but earlier someone claimed that the president does not serve at the pleasure of the voter/people. I think it may have been Ziggurat or theprestige but I am far from certain of that. I just heard Dershowitz say exactly that; "We did not want the president to serve at the pleasure of the legislature. We wanted the president to serve at the pleasure of the voters."

 

[newyorkguy]

The naivete about this matter is mindblowing. Trump has been running for reelection since the day he got in office. He may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier but he can definitely smell the coffee. Forget all of his BS. This is reality and nobody knows it better than Donnie knows it-

• He lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
• He won the electoral college by virtue of less than 200,000 votes in two states.
• His approval ratings have been below 50% since the day he got into office.
• His disapproval rates have been above 50% since his second week in office.
• His election was tainted in a way no other presidential election has ever been.
• The media portrays him as a cheat and a liar and he really has no way to counteract that.
• Many people believe he is totally unfit for office, including some Republicans. Many of the Republicans who are 'on his side' now, made it clear during the primaries that they loathed him.

His best bet to getting reelected is to cheat. So he tries to create an aura of corruption around the man he knows is a major rival in 2020. He has a bunch of flunkies and wannabes helping him.

He may get away with another sleazy move because the rules were not made with someone like Trump in mind. For two hundred and thirty-one years it worked. Only now we have the kind of low life in office the Founding Fathers didn't believe could get elected.

Two hundred seventy-eight days and counting.

 

[Meadmaker]

My team is the truth and good arguments made for a position.

When dealing with political parties, it is inconceivable that every utterance from a party will be correct (true) every time. "My team" is the one that I think is true more often than not.

If they are wrong more and more often, eventually I jump to the other team.

And I'm not a party loyalist. On the national scale, I have hardly ever voted for a Republican, but on state and local issues it's quite common.

In this particular impeachment trial, Trump won't be ousted, and I'm pretty ambivalent on the question of whether he ought to be, but I want "my team", the Democrats, to put on a good show, because I want them to do well in November.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm mildly missing the days before Trump when recusals were more of a thing.

Has any Senator ever recused himself in a presidential impeachment case? I know there are only three examples, but I can't recall anyone doing it in 1999. I wasn't around in 1867.

 

[Stacyhs]

The naivete about this matter is mindblowing. Trump has been running for reelection since the day he got in office. He may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier but he can definitely smell the coffee. Forget all of his BS. This is reality and nobody knows it better than Donnie knows it-

• He lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
• He won the electoral college by virtue of less than 200,000 votes in two states.
• His approval ratings have been below 50% since the day he got into office.
• His disapproval rates have been above 50% since his second week in office.
• His election was tainted in a way no other presidential election has ever been.
• The media portrays him as a cheat and a liar and he really has no way to counteract that.
• Many people believe he is totally unfit for office, including some Republicans. Many of the Republicans who are 'on his side' now, made it clear during the primaries that they loathed him.

His best bet to getting reelected is to cheat. So he tries to create an aura of corruption around the man he knows is a major rival in 2020. He has a bunch of flunkies and wannabes helping him.

He may get away with another sleazy move because the rules were not made with someone like Trump in mind. For two hundred and thirty-one years it worked. Only now we have the kind of low life in office the Founding Fathers didn't believe could get elected.

Two hundred seventy-eight days and counting.

 

[Steve]

Has any Senator ever recused himself in a presidential impeachment case? I know there are only three examples, but I can't recall anyone doing it in 1999. I wasn't around in 1867.

Were you around in 1974?

 

[Aridas]

Has any Senator ever recused himself in a presidential impeachment case? I know there are only three examples, but I can't recall anyone doing it in 1999. I wasn't around in 1867.

I think that that's a wrong question to ask from the start. Still, if you want to explore further, one should ask whether and how deeply any of the Senators were involved with the actions that led to said prior impeachments. None were involved with Clinton's impeachable actions, so of course there wouldn't be cause, rendering that impeachment worthless as a guide. 1867 might have had some, much more indirectly, but that President's abuses of power were substantially different in nature, IIRC, and thus not particularly useful as a guide, at best. Tradition is worthwhile to consider - but is not always of value.

 

[Cain]

I can't help thinking Trump has blackmail material on multiple people. In Dershowitz's case, it'd be evidence he was with little girls on Epstein's island. Or for Lindsey Graham, that he's gay.

Dershowitz is a scumbag. That's not to say he's without principles. If Trump were anti-Israel, then Dershowitz would be calling for impeachment and removal.

As for Graham, I always suspected he was gay, but he could just be celibate/more interested in power than sex. Here's an excellent profile in Rolling Stone.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/lindsey-graham-senate-trump-928948/

[Regarding his theatrical performance during Kavaungh's confirmation] Sincere or not, the moment had its desired effect. Trump loved the show, and Graham received credit for turning the tide of the hearing in Republicans’ favor. More important, GOP voters in South Carolina, along with potential primary rivals — Graham is up for re-election in 2020 — took notice. Will Folks, the political blogger in South Carolina, describes Graham’s Kavanaugh defense as both “all playacting” and “the crowning moment of his latest ideological reorientation.” Prior to the hearing, Folks tells me, “not only do I think Graham would have had a serious primary challenger, but he would have lost. I wrote an article in 2017 called ‘Dead Senator Walking.’ The polling was that bad. They would not piss on him if he was on fire, as the expression goes down here. There was a visceral hatred for the man.”

And Steve Schmidt's colorful metaphor:

“People try to analyze Lindsey through the prism of the manifest inconsistencies that exist between things that he used to believe and what he’s doing now,” Schmidt says. “The way to understand him is to look at what’s consistent. And essentially what he is in American politics is what, in the aquatic world, would be a pilot fish: a smaller fish that hovers about a larger predator, like a shark, living off of its detritus. That’s Lindsey. And when he swam around the McCain shark, broadly viewed as a virtuous and good shark, Lindsey took on the patina of virtue. But wherever the apex shark is, you find the Lindsey fish hovering about, and Trump’s the newest shark in the sea. Lindsey has a real draw to power — but he’s found it unattainable on his own merits.”

Franken recalls a joke he says betrays Graham's very real cynicism:

Franken said yes, in fact, they’d be vacationing in Puerto Rico. Without missing a beat, Graham said, “Do two fundraisers while you’re there: one for the pro-statehood people and one for the anti-statehood people. They never talk to each other!”