• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Fast Eddie B said:
Yep! It might even lead to Trump being acquitted of 8+ articles instead of 2.

Again, I don’t see that much of a downside.
Click to expand...
Your argument has merit, but streamlining the process keeps it from dragging on forever. The impeachment trial is behind us now and it's on to the next thing.
 
Stacyhs said:
Sen. Susan Collins on saying she'll vote to acquit Trump:

Quote:
I believe that the president has learned from this case.The president has been impeached. That's a pretty big lesson. He was impeached. And there has been criticism by both Republican and Democratic senators of his call. I believe that he will be much more cautious in the future.
Click to expand...

BWAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently Collins has never met Trump.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm betting the lesson he's learned from being impeached but not convicted in a trial where Republicans lined up almost perfectly against calling any witnesses is that he can count on the GOP to mildly criticize but not ever do anything that would actually hold him to account.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Tomorrow, barring a miracle, Donald John Trump will be acquitted of both counts at his impeachment trial.

I still think the Democrats made it way too easy for the Republican majority to paint their case as marginal, and I still hold they blew it.

If I had been in charge, there would have been more articles - make each Republican Senator take a stand on each and every one.

Foe instance:

Article 1: The abuse of power for the Ukraine thing, as written

Article 2: The general obstruction charge for the withholding of witnesses and evidence.

Article 3: Obstruction of Justice, to wit: the firing of James Comey to stop or limit the Russia investigation with the corrupt motive of taking the pressure off himself, in violation of 18 USC 1503.

Article 4: Soliciting a foreign power, Russia, to assist in getting damaging information on his political opponent, Hillary Clinton, in violation of 5 USC 30121. The “Russia, if you’re listening...” solicitation.

Article 5: Soliciting a foreign power to interfere with a U.S. election, to wit: China, to investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden, in violation of 5 USC 30121. His request on the White House lawn in evidence.

Article 6: Obstruction of Justice, to wit: fabricating a knowingly false account of the Trump Tower meeting with the corrupt intent to mislead the public and investigators as to the true reason for that meeting, in violation of 18 USC 1503.

Article 7: Obstruction of Justice, to wit: ordering Don McGahn to produce a knowingly false document concerning an order to fire the Special Counsel, in violation of 18 USC 1503.

Article 8: Failure to Uphold his Oath of Office to “Protect and Defend the Constitution” by violating the Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution. Pick several of the most egregious examples of Trump profiting from his Presidency.

And there could be other Articles for other crimes outlined in the Mueller Report.

Would the Republicans vote to acquit for each and every one of the above? Probably. But much of the public bought Barr’s and Trump’s contention that Mueller’s report concluded “No Collusion. No Obstruction”. Bringing these to light at the Impeachment Trial might at least have informed a portion of the populace as to what was really in the report. And I have trouble seeing much of a downside - more examples of misdeeds and crimes would just reinforce Trump’s pattern of behavior.

But it’s all over but the shouting now, and will be over tomorrow.

So it goes...
Click to expand...
As you say, it's about the public. The public deals better with short, simple messages than with longer, more complicated ones. Acquittal was going to happen regardless. Better that it happen over something simple that the public can understand than over a laundry list that requires effort to understand, and which can be characterised as a fishing expedition.
 
JoeMorgue said:
At this point we should almost be mad at ourselves for falling for her "Oh I'm very concerned... I'm on the fence... lookit how concerned I am... oh I'm soooo on the fence... LOL JUST JOKING I'M VOTING FOR THE THING ANYWAY" routine over and over.
Click to expand...

How many people actually did fall for it, though?

For weeks I've been seeing memes along the lines of "Senator Collins spends 7 hours perusing the menu before deciding that she'll have whatever Mitch McConnell is having".
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The public deals better with short, simple messages than with longer, more complicated ones. Acquittal was going to happen regardless. Better that it happen over something simple that the public can understand than over a laundry list that requires effort to understand, and which can be characterised as a fishing expedition.
Click to expand...

I think many of the 6 additional Articles of Impeachment I proposed have the benefit of being simpler than the 2 charged. For instance, standing on the White House lawn and asking China to investigate the Bidens is pretty clear cut. As is asking McGahn to make a false statement concerning Mueller’s firing.

Even failing to move the needle on conviction in the Senate, I’d personally rather have had history reflect a wider web of corruption and illegal acts than the paltry 2 presented.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
Another problem I can see: The republicans in the senate probably wouldn't have given any more time, so the House managers would have only a limited amount of time to make their case for each article.
Click to expand...

I actually see that as a plus.

The trial became unwatchable for me due to the droning repetition of the same facts and defenses over and over and over again, ad nauseum. None of the 6 additional Articles of Impeachment I presented would have needed more than an hour or two to present in their entirety. For the Mueller assertions, he already spelled out the 3 elements needed for each crime - making for a streamlined presentation.

And while I’m at it, how about one more...

Article 9: Violation of Campaign Finance laws concerning hush money payments. Trump is already known to be “Individual 1”, and there are tapes showing he was part of the illegal scheme that Michael Cohen pled to and is current serving time for.

But after today’s acquittal, it’s all Monday Morning Quarterbacking anyway. On to the next shiny thing!
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I think many of the 6 additional Articles of Impeachment I proposed have the benefit of being simpler than the 2 charged. For instance, standing on the White House lawn and asking China to investigate the Bidens is pretty clear cut. As is asking McGahn to make a false statement concerning Mueller’s firing.
Click to expand...

But they're not simple when added to everything else. 2 articles fit into a soundbite. 8 don't. Therefore the reach is much less.

Even failing to move the needle on conviction in the Senate, I’d personally rather have had history reflect a wider web of corruption and illegal acts than the paltry 2 presented.
Click to expand...

If the aim is to remove Trump, then "history" is irrelevant. What's relevant is the upcoming election. For that, you need to convince the public that he needs to be removed (since the Senate was never going to convict). And to convince the public you need to have a message that they will a) listen to without switching off halfway, and b) understand. 8 Articles about various events does not do that. 2 about a single event does.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
The trial became unwatchable for me due to the droning repetition of the same facts and defenses over and over and over again, ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

That was the point - not everybody is going to be watching all the time. Have a simple message, and repeat it. That's the best way to get that message across to the general public, which is the whole point of the exercise.
 
It didn't recieve much attention yesterday, but Rand Paul doubled down on insisting that the whistleblower be outed, eventually reading the name into the congressional record during a speech in the Senate.

The cynic in me is thinking he's probably hoping for a "second amendment solution", so as to scare off other potential whistleblowers.
 
Stacyhs said:
Sen. Susan Collins on saying she'll vote to acquit Trump:

Quote:
I believe that the president has learned from this case.The president has been impeached. That's a pretty big lesson. He was impeached. And there has been criticism by both Republican and Democratic senators of his call. I believe that he will be much more cautious in the future.
Click to expand...

BWAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently Collins has never met Trump.
Click to expand...

turingtest said:
Yeah. I'm betting the lesson he's learned from being impeached but not convicted in a trial where Republicans lined up almost perfectly against calling any witnesses is that he can count on the GOP to mildly criticize but not ever do anything that would actually hold him to account.
Click to expand...

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1224862178131554304
Quote:
Asked about Sen. Susan Collins saying he’d learned a lesson, Trump told the anchors he did not agree. He had done nothing wrong. “It was a perfect call.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, there ya go- lesson learned, I guess.
 
KDLarsen said:
It didn't recieve much attention yesterday, but Rand Paul doubled down on insisting that the whistleblower be outed, eventually reading the name into the congressional record during a speech in the Senate.

The cynic in me is thinking he's probably hoping for a "second amendment solution", so as to scare off other potential whistleblowers.
Click to expand...
Anybody who wanted to know the name of the whistleblower, can find it out now. It's not like it's a secret. I'd forgotten his surname and just Googled it now.
 
Belz... said:
"I've learned a valuable lesson, today: I can do whatever I want." - Trump, probably.
Click to expand...

I think it's worse then that. Trump... might actually be starting to believe his own hype.

I fear Trump might start to shed the troll persona and actually turn into someone who thinks he can do no wrong (as oppose to someone who is just a hollow shell with a personality but no psyche projecting the image of someone who can do no wrong) under the same "Well nobody stopped me yet so I must be doing something right" mentality his defenders slyly use.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Even failing to move the needle on conviction in the Senate, I’d personally rather have had history reflect a wider web of corruption and illegal acts than the paltry 2 presented.
Click to expand...
History will reflect it. It's right now that's disappointing (to most people here). With any luck as ancillary prosecutions go on and Trump keeps being Trump more facts will come out.

I know what you mean by "if you're listening, Russia" and all, but it's a flimsy case that would have been hand-waved away. No corrupt intent etc. I think there will be a tipping point but I can't predict when. Before November I hope. Trump dodged the tip of the iceberg but there's quite a lot left under the water line.
 
KDLarsen said:
It didn't recieve much attention yesterday, but Rand Paul doubled down on insisting that the whistleblower be outed, eventually reading the name into the congressional record during a speech in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Rand Paul didn't out the whistleblower. They were outed a long time ago. This pretense of continuing to protect their anonymity is a farce. Schiff pretends he doesn't know who the whistleblower is, but everyone who is even the slightest bit interested knows, and there isn't a chance in hell that doesn't include Schiff. The fact that Roberts refused to read the question doesn't protect his identity, it simply demonstrates that Roberts already knows his identity.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I think it's worse then that. Trump... might actually be starting to believe his own hype.

I fear Trump might start to shed the troll persona and actually turn into someone who thinks he can do no wrong (as oppose to someone who is just a hollow shell with a personality but no psyche projecting the image of someone who can do no wrong) under the same "Well nobody stopped me yet so I must be doing something right" mentality his defenders slyly use.
Click to expand...
How would that look any different than what we see now?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I think many of the 6 additional Articles of Impeachment I proposed have the benefit of being simpler than the 2 charged.
Click to expand...
I do think hat some of your proposed articles of impeachment do have problems that would prevent them from getting traction.

For example:
Article 3: Obstruction of Justice, to wit: the firing of James Comey to stop or limit the Russia investigation with the corrupt motive of taking the pressure off himself, in violation of 18 USC 1503.

Article 4: Soliciting a foreign power, Russia, to assist in getting damaging information on his political opponent, Hillary Clinton, in violation of 5 USC 30121. The “Russia, if you’re listening...” solicitation.
Click to expand...
The problem with those are that they rely quite heavily on the Mueller report. The issue here was Mueller's habit of avoiding any sort of forceful condemnation (his whole "I did not exonerate" rather than a more direct "There is evidence of X").

Not saying Trump was innocent... just harder to make a case to the public over it.

Article 5: Soliciting a foreign power to interfere with a U.S. election, to wit: China, to investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden, in violation of 5 USC 30121. His request on the White House lawn in evidence.
Click to expand...
In an ideal world that would have been a problem with the president. But without any sort of transcript/summary it wouldn't play as well.

Article 6: Obstruction of Justice, to wit: fabricating a knowingly false account of the Trump Tower meeting with the corrupt intent to mislead the public and investigators as to the true reason for that meeting, in violation of 18 USC 1503.

Article 7: Obstruction of Justice, to wit: ordering Don McGahn to produce a knowingly false document concerning an order to fire the Special Counsel, in violation of 18 USC 1503.
Click to expand...
Again, making those allegations stick would depend on a certain degree on Mueller, who, as I suggested before, fumbled badly at the end.
Article 8: Failure to Uphold his Oath of Office to “Protect and Defend the Constitution” by violating the Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution. Pick several of the most egregious examples of Trump profiting from his Presidency.
Click to expand...
These charges are tricky for a couple of reasons:
- Many of the subpoenas for Trump's financial records are tied up in courts.
- I have no problem believing that Trump is benefiting from the office of the presidency. But, he doesn't seem to be receiving direct bribes. And if its a case of "foreign people stay at a Trump hotel", how exactly do you prove that they did so because they wanted to influence Trump, or just because they like the particular type of bedbugs they have.

There are other potential abuses of power that could have been included: Right now, there is an investigation (brought on by another whistleblower) that there was political interference in the government audits of Trump's and Pence's tax returns.

https://www.salon.com/2020/01/31/in...meddling-with-audit-of-trump-or-pence-report/

If you REALLY wanted to pile on the charges, why not include Sharpiegate? It is technically illegal to issue a false weather report, and Trump could in theory be subject to fines and/or a prison term if he were not the president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom