Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[Trebuchet]

You say that dismissively, and maybe it would (will?) happen precisely that way, but I don't think it's rational to simply ignore the possibility that:

Trump refuses to step down, saying he lost only because the election was rigged.

~40% of the population (Trump's usual stable base) agrees with the president.

Maybe some in the secret service, the military, and the federal govt side with Trump, too.



....and all of us get to deal with the ensuing, quite possibly violent, division.

I'm not trying to be all, "The sky is falling" here: It's a simple, observable fact that Trump is a whiny little bitch that could play his part in this quite readily (he already threatened to do precisely that in 2016); you'd be a fool not to at least consider the possibilities.

You've omitted the courts. Trump's been packing them solid, thanks to The Turtle not confirming Obama nominations. Four of the current Supremes will without any doubt vote to overturn any election results that don't favor Trump.
And there's not the slightest doubt that tRump will dispute any election results that don't go his way, in the courts, on Twitter, and in rallies. He's already suggesting he should get two more years because of the Russia investigation. Constitution? What's that to him?

 

[Stacyhs]

I beat you to that by several weeks, because I gave up during the original House hearings.
I agree with whoever said this will guarantee Trump reelection. Well, this and the blatant cheating.

I stopped watching it because I couldn't listen to the Republican defense anymore. I'm sick of hearing their pathetic "Bidens' corruption" diversion which is completely irrelevant to the charges. It makes me want to spew.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

But isn't Paul breaking the law by outing the whistleblower who has federal protection?

I think the only way that would be correct is if the whistleblower was Paul's employee (or a in subordinate position).

It's a First Amendment protection against using disciplinary procedures against those who speak out against their employer. There are no guarantees to conceal identities of whistleblowers.

Trump naming him would be bad. Same for everyone down that chain of command. Paul can do it. I'm not aware of any rulings placing their identity under any kind of judicial or administrative gag order, but hey I've been wrong before. Some departments who conducted internal reviews may consider it confidential in that sense, but at worst they would face, ironically, disciplinary measures from their employer. Could they attempt arguing they were whistleblowing the identity of the whistleblower?

In any case, Paul doesn't work for DOJ, NSA, or whichever alphabet soup the person in question came from.

Civil claims can be made over it and the legal team for the whistleblower has indicated they would be willing to do so. The name is an "open secret" though, as it is mostly press being respectful of process in large part. The "alleged" whistleblower has been named before. I'd be shocked if anyone couldn't find it on page 1 of search results within 5 search string attempts.

ETA:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3517

(3) The Inspector General is authorized to receive and investigate complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity constituting a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety. Once such complaint or information has been received from an employee of the Agency—
(A) the Inspector General shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or the disclosure is made to an official of the Department of Justice responsible for determining whether a prosecution should be undertaken; and
(B) no action constituting a reprisal, or threat of reprisal, for making such complaint or providing such information may be taken by any employee of the Agency in a position to take such actions, unless the complaint was made or the information was disclosed with the knowledge that it was false or with willful disregard for its truth or falsity.

This law can leak like a sieve and everyone can kinda shrug their shoulders. It is the only mention of possible identity protection.

But I also came across that section made recently relevant once again about how the complainant may go about contacting a member (or staff) of the intelligence committees in Congress.

 

[Meadmaker]

Who would that be?

I'm guessing he means Bernie. (I didn't scroll through yet to see if he answered.)


Bernie does indeed scare a lot of people. Warren also scares a lot of people, although not so much as Bernie.

 

[Meadmaker]

This what-if-he-won't-step-down discussion seems inordinately dystopian - until I factor in the load of codswollop that Dershowitz floated in the Senate ... which senators will swallow right up if they think it helps their re-election chances.

Now I feel like anything's possible.

To be honest, I think Dershowitz simply misspoke. I don't think he could even manage to lie and come up with a whopper like that one on purpose.

I suspect that what he meant to say was that it is ok to pursue reelection, and even follow policies or set up deals, in order to help yourself get reelected, and that doing so is not necessarily impeachable. I suspect that's what he meant because what he said was so ridiculous that no one with his knowledge could say it with a straight face even whey they are lying. What he said was that it was not impeachable, and that's just balderdash.

In the portions I listened to today, Dems were jumping all over it. I wonder if Dershowitz will "clarify" at some point in the future.



Since Trump won't get convicted, I keep thinking about what effect impeachment will have on the November election. The way I see it, there are plenty of people, the majority of Americans, who already know how they are going to vote, regardless of what happens. It's only the undecideds that matter. So what matters to them?

The way I see it, there are a couple of reasons they might be undecided. One reason is that they hate both sides, so they'll vote against whoever makes them even madder than they started out. If they don't already hate Trump, I can't see anything that has happened so far making them hate him enough to make someone pull the Democratic lever. On the other hand, I think they might be sufficiently disgusted by the whole proceeding that they might blame the people who created the circus.

Another reason they might be undecided is that they are apathetic and uninformed. If that's the case, they aren't the sort that are going to sit through the trial, but they might see some sound bites. I think Dershowitz provided a great Democratic soundbite. In general, I think the Democrats are winning the sound bite battle. Hard to say, but I think there's a chance.

 

[Meadmaker]

Right blog-o-sphere exploding in apoplectic rage at Justice Roberts for being a neoliberal plant from the RINO GWB administration.
.

Huh? For what? What do they want him to do?


As best I can tell, he has made one decision so far. He refused to read a question that named the whistleblower. Surely that's not what has them throwing fits is it?

 

[The_Animus]

I stopped watching it because I couldn't listen to the Republican defense anymore. I'm sick of hearing their pathetic "Bidens' corruption" diversion which is completely irrelevant to the charges. It makes me want to spew.

The disingenuous arguments definitely make it unbearable.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Huh? For what? What do they want him to do?


As best I can tell, he has made one decision so far. He refused to read a question that named the whistleblower. Surely that's not what has them throwing fits is it?

Yes it is.

 

[Stacyhs]

To be honest, I think Dershowitz simply misspoke. I don't think he could even manage to lie and come up with a whopper like that one on purpose.

I suspect that what he meant to say was that it is ok to pursue reelection, and even follow policies or set up deals, in order to help yourself get reelected, and that doing so is not necessarily impeachable. I suspect that's what he meant because what he said was so ridiculous that no one with his knowledge could say it with a straight face even whey they are lying. What he said was that it was not impeachable, and that's just balderdash.

In the portions I listened to today, Dems were jumping all over it. I wonder if Dershowitz will "clarify" at some point in the future.



Since Trump won't get convicted, I keep thinking about what effect impeachment will have on the November election. The way I see it, there are plenty of people, the majority of Americans, who already know how they are going to vote, regardless of what happens. It's only the undecideds that matter. So what matters to them?

The way I see it, there are a couple of reasons they might be undecided. One reason is that they hate both sides, so they'll vote against whoever makes them even madder than they started out. If they don't already hate Trump, I can't see anything that has happened so far making them hate him enough to make someone pull the Democratic lever. On the other hand, I think they might be sufficiently disgusted by the whole proceeding that they might blame the people who created the circus.
Another reason they might be undecided is that they are apathetic and uninformed. If that's the case, they aren't the sort that are going to sit through the trial, but they might see some sound bites. I think Dershowitz provided a great Democratic soundbite. In general, I think the Democrats are winning the sound bite battle. Hard to say, but I think there's a chance.

Or....they just might not vote at all.

 

[Meadmaker]

Or....they just might not vote at all.

Good point. That would be likely for a lot of those people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To be honest, I think Dershowitz simply misspoke. I don't think he could even manage to lie and come up with a whopper like that one on purpose.

Yeah right.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Senator Lamar Alexander has released a statement acknowledging that the Democrats have proven their case, but that he's totally fine with what Trump did, so he will vote against witnesses.

Election rigging is official Republican policy.

 

[DallasDad]

Deleted

 

[Ladewig]

Winning -- it never gets old, although it does on occasion drive your opponents to say some pretty crazy things, as we're seeing in this thread.

Yeah, I’ll concede some of it might be defined as crazy. Not like the-sound-of-windmills-causes-cancer crazy, but kind of crazy.

Also, there is an error in your reasoning. It is not President Trump winning the election that is making people crazy. It is President Trump’s contempt for facts and ignorance of how the government works that drives us to say somewhat crazy things.

Like telling members of Congress to go back to their districts to solve problems despite their having absolutely no power to work on any aspect of those problems. A member of the House cannot introduce or pass bills on a state or local level. A member of the House cannot issue executive orders or raise taxes or make spending decisions on a state or local level. How can we have a president so ignorant that he could not score 100% on an eighth-grade US civics exam?

And even worse, how can we have a president who makes this same mistake over and over. Surely there must be someone on his staff who could explain his error well enough that he would not repeat it?

 

[Sideroxylon]

So you Americans going to hit the streets? This ******** cannot stand.

 

[Stacyhs]

Senator Lamar Alexander has released a statement acknowledging that the Democrats have proven their case, but that he's totally fine with what Trump did, so he will vote against witnesses.

Election rigging is official Republican policy.

Of course not. After all, as long as Trump believes it will help him get re-elected and he thinks that's good (or, in Trump's mind; GREAT) for the country, it's not an impeachable offense.

Does this surprise anyone?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Of course not. After all, as long as Trump believes it will help him get re-elected and he thinks that's good (or, in Trump's mind; GREAT) for the country, it's not an impeachable offense.

Does this surprise anyone?

Of course the GOP love this idea. Now they can wipe out whole sections of the voter rolls on the basis that "it's best for the country" and it won't be an offence.

 

[Sideroxylon]

RIP, democracy.

 

[Aridas]

Well, Dersh suggested that you ought to have mixed motivations.
For example, arresting all Democrat Senators before a vote to Convict to alleviate D.C. traffic would be unimpeachable.

To go by his later "clarification," if I read it right, there are three categories of reasons. The national interest, personal political interest, and personal financial interest. The only one of those that's a problem is the money motive. So... mixed motives would be wrong here. It would only be wrong if he was being paid to have people about to convict him arrested.

Is it possible that Dershowitz is really anti-Trump and is slyly attempting to use an Reductio ad Absurdum argument from within to undercut Trump's defense? Or has the Trump administration some incredibly nasty dirt on him (perhaps obtained from the Ukraine government) and is extorting him into mounting a defense no matter how absurd?

Otherwise it is hard to understand how someone well respected in his career so far is willing to throw his reputation away in this manner. Imagine what his legal colleagues think of him now. Imagine how history will treat him.

Umm... this is giving me flashbacks to Barr. My advice? Accept that these people have had some crystal clear signs of being partisan hacks that don't actually care about honesty for quite a while now. Dershowitz, for example, has been spouting massive amounts of utter BS on Fox throughout the Trump Presidency.

To be honest, I think Dershowitz simply misspoke. I don't think he could even manage to lie and come up with a whopper like that one on purpose.

That might be more believable if Trump's lawyers didn't already have a history of actually using the argument that Trump could commit murder on 5th Avenue and he would still be immune to both investigation into it and prosecution for it. It's been smacked down by the courts repeatedly, but the appeal to the Supreme Court isn't done yet.

I suspect that what he meant to say was that it is ok to pursue reelection, and even follow policies or set up deals, in order to help yourself get reelected, and that doing so is not necessarily impeachable. I suspect that's what he meant because what he said was so ridiculous that no one with his knowledge could say it with a straight face even whey they are lying. What he said was that it was not impeachable, and that's just balderdash.

And that sounds fair enough... until one recognizes that Dershowitz has spent a bunch of time on Fox News for the past few years pushing lies and nonsense about Trump's legal matters. And that that's exactly why he's up there defending Trump now.

And even worse, how can we have a president who makes this same mistake over and over. Surely there must be someone on his staff who could explain his error well enough that he would not repeat it?

It might be easier to understand if one takes into account that the validity of the argument itself generally just doesn't matter to his intended audience.

 

[Cain]

So you Americans going to hit the streets? This ******** cannot stand.

**** you. Super Bowl is next week. REAL football. The Trump economy is great, so buy a bigger TV!