Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You keep saying a simple statement is a discussion.

We can substitute "talking about" for "discussion" if you like. Either way, the point is the same. The trial isn't about the Bidens and the Democrats are right not to allow the Republicans to make it about the Bidens.

Since it was you who started this thread, I'd have thought that you understood why you shouldn't allow the right-wing to control the narrative by responding to the bad off-topic arguments that they make.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I do give the WH lawyers credit for pulling the best fix ever on this one.

House Investigation - Hey WH, we want these witnesses to testify, send them over.

WH Lawyers - Your investigation is a sham, we won't allow the witnesses you want to testify because you're not the Senate conducting a trial!

House Investigation - Fine, we don't have 2 years to get this to SCotUS, let's go to the Senate.

Senate Trial - Okay, we're here. Send us the witnesses.

WH Lawyers - Oh, it's too late to ask for the witnesses now, you should have done that back during the House Investigation, it's not the Senate's job to make up for the House's lack of getting witnesses.


Absolute perfectly played.

It's more gaslight-y than that - they're claiming that they weren't allowed witnesses in Congress.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As for whether this situation is sufficiently severe to warrant the very severe step of removing an elected president form office, I think reasonable people could differ.

I honestly disagree - Trump acted against Americas interests in order to benefit himself (an action that has been ruled by the Government Accountability Office to have been illegal), obstructed justice to cover it up, and of which the seeking excuses for before the fact and the obstruction of justice, lack of co-operation, close coordination with supposedly impartial jurors, and straight-up lies used to justify or defend it and ensure that there is no oversight and no fair trial after the fact demonstrate that he and others involved knew that it was malfeasance.

If that's not something that warrants impeachment and removal from office, then nothing is. And I don't think that anybody reasonable who is in possession of the facts (or who refuses to allow themselves to be in possession of the facts, as the Republican senators have done) can honestly come to the conclusion that it doesn't.

 

[turingtest]

The argument that the Senate needs to heed the will of the people is absurd: the long terms of Senators are specifically there to create a distance between Representatives and Voters so that Senators can take decisions which go beyond what's best for the next election cycle.

That's a pretty good point- Republicans who claim to be Constitutional die-hards seem to have forgotten that the provision for Senatorial office terms was specifically set up as it is to insulate Senators from popular passions, not make them kowtow to them.

(Yes, I'm aware that the original provision for their election, by state legislatures instead of popular vote, was also meant to so insulate them; would I return to that? I don't think so, since I think the longer term would be the sufficient insulation it was meant to be if Senators would understand and adhere to the spirit of the idea instead of tossing it aside when politically convenient)

But Republicans switch that "let the people decide" sign on and off as they tactically need it- it's a fine-sounding, sonorous sound-bite, but not an actual principle when it's only trotted out when it's convenient. Is there anyone here who actually thinks that, if RBG (or any other SC justice) were to die between now and the election, the Repubs would hesitate to quickly ram through whoever Trump would pick as a replacement? (My guess- Trump would nominate Dershowitz, since Dershy passed his audition for a job he would probably kill to have)

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Last night, Schiff was tweeting proudly about how, even after the vote to exclude witnesses and documents, he was “forcing” votes on subpoenaing certain individuals. All of which failed, of course, along party line votes.

Just struck me as pointless and sad.

 

[acbytesla]

Last night, Schiff was tweeting proudly about how, even after the vote to exclude witnesses and documents, he was “forcing” votes on subpoenaing certain individuals. All of which failed, of course, along party line votes.

Just struck me as pointless and sad.

It's not pointless and sad. It ties everyone to a position and that makes it harder for a politician to spin. For example CPAC dis-invited Romney because he voted for witnesses.

 

[acbytesla]

The argument that the Senate needs to heed the will of the people is absurd: the long terms of Senators are specifically there to create a distance between Representatives and Voters so that Senators can take decisions which go beyond what's best for the next election cycle.

Which is another reason the Senate is a bankrupt institution.

 

[Ladewig]

That's a pretty good point- Republicans who claim to be Constitutional die-hards seem to have forgotten that the provision for Senatorial office terms was specifically set up as it is to insulate Senators from popular passions, not make them kowtow to them.

(Yes, I'm aware that the original provision for their election, by state legislatures instead of popular vote, was also meant to so insulate them; would I return to that? I don't think so, since I think the longer term would be the sufficient insulation it was meant to be if Senators would understand and adhere to the spirit of the idea instead of tossing it aside when politically convenient)

But Republicans switch that "let the people decide" sign on and off as they tactically need it- it's a fine-sounding, sonorous sound-bite, but not an actual principle when it's only trotted out when it's convenient. Is there anyone here who actually thinks that, [palegreen]if RBG (or any other SC justice) were to die between now and the election, the Repubs would hesitate to quickly ram through whoever Trump would pick as a replacement? [/palegreen](My guess- Trump would nominate Dershowitz, since Dershy passed his audition for a job he would probably kill to have)

Your speculation is too mild.
If President Trump lost the election and Justice RGB died in December, Senator McConnell would unhesitatingly call for a vote.

 

[shemp]

I think Fast Eddie may have meant that Schiff's tweets about it were pointless and sad. If so, I would agree with him.

 

[Tero]

The Senate, and all GOP are stuck with Trump. The Senators with an election 2024 can be somewhat independent. But the Trump voters in red states and battleground states are still there past the 2020 election. The voters want "their money's worth" of Trump, destroying and stripping down evil federal government.

I met a rancher in our state, and although we did not talk politics, his entire world is county and state based. Other than he wants to export meat to Japan. There was a vague feel that he did not want our state money spent of "cultural stuff" and "minorities."

People in these counties are 90% Republican. They support county spending. You need three things: roads, water supply and storm water/creek management. Healthcare? You just die and hand over the farm or ranch to kids.

If a rancher were able to control his tax money better, he would pay. Lets say he pays 5% state and 30% federal, he would be happier taking that 30% and sending 20% to the state and 10% to feds. He gets farm insurance, flood insurance, subsidies back. But why route that money through the feds at all? Just keep it here.

 

[Craig4]

Last night, Schiff was tweeting proudly about how, even after the vote to exclude witnesses and documents, he was “forcing” votes on subpoenaing certain individuals. All of which failed, of course, along party line votes.

Just struck me as pointless and sad.

I don't know about that. This could be a good wedge issue for the Dems. The Senate map looks a bit rougher for Trumptrash than it did in 2018. Calling witnesses was wildly popular with the electorate, like in the 70s popular.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

It's not pointless and sad. It ties everyone to a position and that makes it harder for a politician to spin.

To be fair, I felt the same way when, in the House, the Republicans kept bringing to votes amendments that were doomed to failure along party lines.

In the current example, they had already tied themselves to a position of no witnesses or documents. I don’t see how much was gained by additional requests for witnesses once that was established.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I think Fast Eddie may have meant that Schiff's tweets about it were pointless and sad. If so, I would agree with him.

Thank you for that example of the Principle of Charity.

But, no, I did mean that the motions to subpoena witnesses was a pointless and sad exercise once the Senate had voted to exclude witnesses.

 

[acbytesla]

The Senate, and all GOP are stuck with Trump. The Senators with an election 2024 can be somewhat independent. But the Trump voters in red states and battleground states are still there past the 2020 election. The voters want "their money's worth" of Trump, destroying and stripping down evil federal government.

I met a rancher in our state, and although we did not talk politics, his entire world is county and state based. Other than he wants to export meat to Japan. There was a vague feel that he did not want our state money spent of "cultural stuff" and "minorities."

People in these counties are 90% Republican. They support county spending. You need three things: roads, water supply and storm water/creek management. Healthcare? You just die and hand over the farm or ranch to kids.

If a rancher were able to control his tax money better, he would pay. Lets say he pays 5% state and 30% federal, he would be happier taking that 30% and sending 20% to the state and 10% to feds. He gets farm insurance, flood insurance, subsidies back. But why route that money through the feds at all? Just keep it here.

Because he's iving in a bubble. Most people are. Totally ignorant of how other people live. They accept all the modern conveniences as well as the markets provided by urban America, but they don't want to pay for it.

I've lived and traveled extensively throughout the West from LA to Iowa to Seattle and Oregon. But mostly I've lived in the Seattle area where the traffic is as bad as it is anywhere. Yet there are constant complaints from the East side of the state about paying for projects in Seattle and how liberal it is there. But they would be liberal too if they knew these were people living out in our streets and they had to get along with the neighbor who lived 40 feet away as opposed to the neighbors who lived miles away.

Also, don't discount the effect of right wing radio. If you're in the middle of nowhere the car radio stations are incredibly limited. It's usually a choice between religious stations and right wing talk radio.

 

[acbytesla]

To be fair, I felt the same way when, in the House, the Republicans kept bringing to votes amendments that were doomed to failure along party lines.

In the current example, they had already tied themselves to a position of no witnesses or documents. I don’t see how much was gained by additional requests for witnesses once that was established.

Extra ropes in case they get free from one.

 

[turingtest]

Your speculation is too mild.
If President Trump lost the election and Justice RGB died in December, Senator McConnell would unhesitatingly call for a vote.

I have no doubt that that's true of Trump and McConnell. But I still cling to the hope that there would be Republicans in the Senate with honor sufficient to block such a blatant disavowal of not only their own "principle" of letting the people's voice decide, but of the people's voice already heard and the decision made. That could be overly charitable on my part, I guess- but without at least that much hope, there's none at all.

 

[shemp]

Thank you for that example of the Principle of Charity.

But, no, I did mean that the motions to subpoena witnesses was a pointless and sad exercise once the Senate had voted to exclude witnesses.

Ah, sorry, the way it was worded led me to interpret it that way. My parsing skills aren't what they used to be.

And I'd partly agree with you. In my opinion, it's sad but not pointless. But I'm also sad that it's not pointless. This is the kind of politics we're reduced to. Almost everything has become a meaningless dog-and-pony show.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have no doubt that that's true of Trump and McConnell. But I still cling to the hope that there would be Republicans in the Senate with honor sufficient to block such a blatant disavowal of not only their own "principle" of letting the people's voice decide, but of the people's voice already heard and the decision made. That could be overly charitable on my part, I guess- but without at least that much hope, there's none at all.

I know that I hope Trump is a lame duck president starting on November 4, but the idea of Donald Trump sitting bitter and angry in the White House, but still having all the power of the President for three months is a scary thought to me.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's being reported that McConnell's coordination with the White House extended to telling Trump's lawyers what arguments to make on the senate floor in order to keep the wavering Republican senators on-side

 

[shemp]

I know that I hope Trump is a lame duck president starting on November 4, but the idea of Donald Trump sitting bitter and angry in the White House, but still having all the power of the President for three months is a scary thought to me.

In three months he can create enough of a mess that it will take four years for his successor to clean up, if he or she can.

Edited to add: Actually, now that I think of it a little, he's already caused enough damage to require a decade or two of cleanup.