Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Paul2]

This is becoming a pattern. I'm asking you if you have any reason to believe that there will be a change. Could you stop dodging that question?

No. But if the cost is low enough, it doesn't matter.

I never said or implied that it is. But it does argue that it doesn't mean much. "You play the hand you're dealt" is almost meaningless, since it's always true. It sounds nice, though.

I don't think it is meaningless at all. Without too close a reading of that expression, it means that you don't fold or do nothing just because it looks like things are stacked against you, because you never know what's going to happen.


This directly applies to Pelosi's situation. I've seen people argue against withholding the articles of impeachment because the outcome of the trial is assured. If Pelosi were not to play the cards dealt her, she'd just send the articles over. But one card she has is to hang onto them, see if that can get under the President's skin, see if the President starts to bug McConnell, etc.

 

[Paul2]

Even a good analogy fails, on this forum, because it is never received in good faith.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This directly applies to Pelosi's situation. I've seen people argue against withholding the articles of impeachment because the outcome of the trial is assured. If Pelosi were not to play the cards dealt her, she'd just send the articles over. But one card she has is to hang onto them, see if that can get under the President's skin, see if the President starts to bug McConnell, etc.

My whole issue with this is that whole reason I keep getting told why we are impeaching Trump when there's a metaphysical certainty that he isn't going to be convicted in the Senate and you can make fair arguments that it's counterproductive is because of some appeal to their "moral duty" to do it.

But now that the plan, or at least one plan being considered, is to sit on it and stall it out via procedural compliance that... doesn't really mesh with that.

I'm not buying that they had some transcendent moral duty to impeach Trump, damn the consequences, to get the process started but are now allowed to play moneyball politics on procedural compliance technicalities to keep the process from ending

If they don't want to send the impeachment to the Senate, they shouldn't have started the process.

And I don't want to hear anything from anyone that even sounds like "Oh but we're only holding the process until the Senate agrees to play fair." You knew the Senate wasn't going to play fair.

If they had some "Moral duty to their office" to start the procedure and the consequences didn't matter then, they have the same moral duty to finish the process now and the consequences don't matter now either.

 

[varwoche]

"Fair" is not binary.

 

[Hellbound]

"Fair" is not binary.

Yeah. There's a difference between knowing the other team is going to use spitballs, and having the referees show up at the game wearing the opposing team's uniform.

ETA: Or more accurately, there's a difference in knowing the other team has bought the referees, and having the refs call the came and declare the other team the winner without a pitch being thrown.

 

[acbytesla]

My whole issue with this is that whole reason I keep getting told why we are impeaching Trump when there's a metaphysical certainty that he isn't going to be convicted in the Senate and you can make fair arguments that it's counterproductive is because of some appeal to their "moral duty" to do it.

But now that the plan, or at least one plan being considered, is to sit on it and stall it out via procedural compliance that... doesn't really mesh with that.

I'm not buying that they had some transcendent moral duty to impeach Trump, damn the consequences, to get the process started but are now allowed to play moneyball politics on procedural compliance technicalities to keep the process from ending

If they don't want to send the impeachment to the Senate, they shouldn't have started the process.

And I don't want to hear anything from anyone that even sounds like "Oh but we're only holding the process until the Senate agrees to play fair." You knew the Senate wasn't going to play fair.

If they had some "Moral duty to their office" to start the procedure and the consequences didn't matter then, they have the same moral duty to finish the process now and the consequences don't matter now either.

And I don't care what you think either.

I think you're a 100 percent wrong. By impeaching Trump they have stained him. That can never be taken back. By not sending the impeachment articles, it keeps the issue pending. It will hang over Trump's head and the Senate for a year. Trump and the GOP cannot declare victory.

I ******* love it!

 

[JoeMorgue]

And I don't care what you think either.

Neither do the Democrats it seems, which is a problem when you're on the losing side of the last election and need to get people to your side.

I think you're a 100 percent wrong. By impeaching Trump they have stained him.

You keep saying that over and over as if it's supposed to mean something. You can't stain a troll who was elected to troll.

Just to piss off the people who don't like them imagine as a metaphor that Trump is currently banging someone else's wife on the desk in the Oval Office on Live TV making no effort to hide it or showing any shame in doing it, all while all the Republicans high five him and tell him what a great job he is doing and when the Democrats sew a Scarlet A into his suit jacket to "shame him" you start creaming yourself over how much that matters and how nothing he can ever do will erase that Scarlet A.

He'll never erase the stain because he wears it with pride. He was elected to break the system. This is the star on that tree.

Can you honestly sit there and say with intellectual honesty that the Trumpers see the impeachment as a "stain" on their demi-god?

By not sending the impeachment articles, it keeps the issue pending. It will hang over Trump's head and the Senate for a year. Trump and the GOP cannot declare victory. I ******* love it!

And it makes the Dems look like a bunch of petty, sore losers who raised the hand but now are scared to flip their cards over and see who gets the pot.

 

[Paul2]

My whole issue with this is that whole reason I keep getting told why we are impeaching Trump when there's a metaphysical certainty that he isn't going to be convicted in the Senate and you can make fair arguments that it's counterproductive is because of some appeal to their "moral duty" to do it.

But now that the plan, or at least one plan being considered, is to sit on it and stall it out via procedural compliance that... doesn't really mesh with that.

I don't see how the moral duty to impeach is inconsistent with playing every angle to ensure a fair trial.

If they don't want to send the impeachment to the Senate, they shouldn't have started the process.

it's not that they don't want to send it over to the Senate, it's that they want to help ensure a fair trial as much as possible.

If they had some "Moral duty to their office" to start the procedure and the consequences didn't matter then,

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[acbytesla]

Neither do the Democrats it seems, which is a problem when you're on the losing side of the last election and need to get people to your side.

You keep saying that over and over as if it means something. You can't stain a troll.

The hell you can't. Trump is obsessed with this. I have no idea what side you're on. But I seriously doubt your vote has anything to do with what I think or whether or not there is a trial.

Can you honestly sit there and say with intellectual honesty that the Trumpers see the impeachment as a "stain" on their demi-god?

i definitely think it matters to Trump and I could care less if it matters to Trumpers. I care what matters to independents and undecideds.

And it makes the Dems look like a bunch of petty, sore losers who raised the hand but now are scared to flip their cards over and see who gets the pot.

And that is your opinion. You're entitled to that opinion. And my opinion is your opinion is not shared beyond Trumpers.

 

[Belz...]

Say the answer is, "no indication yet". What then? Do you need to hear it from Paul?

Well I did ask him, not you, so yes.

And now I have it:

No. But if the cost is low enough, it doesn't matter.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the hope that things will change. That should be clear from what I said earlier.

 

[Belz...]

Trump and the GOP cannot declare victory.

Of course they can. And they can just say that the Democrats are refusing to send it to the Senate because they know they'll lose.

And they'd be right to say it.

I don't see how the moral duty to impeach is inconsistent with playing every angle to ensure a fair trial.

That's not what Joe is saying. He's saying that it's inconsistent with playing a game with the Senate. That it doesn't make it appear as if the Democrats are just doing their duty. Whether or not that's true is up for debate, but that's the perception.

 

[Paul2]

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the hope that things will change.

Neither am I. One can hope separate from an evaluation of the likelihood that what you're hoping for will happen when the cost of doing so is minimal.

 

[acbytesla]

Of course they can. And they can just say that the Democrats are refusing to send it to the Senate because they know they'll lose.

And they'd be right to say it.

That's not what Joe is saying. He's saying that it's inconsistent with playing a game with the Senate. That it doesn't make it appear as if the Democrats are just doing their duty. Whether or not that's true is up for debate, but that's the perception.

I disagree.
The investigation lives on. More evidence will continue to be released like Duffey's email telling the pentagon to withhold the aid. Nothing is over. The public will continue being exposed to the facts. They will continue being exposed to the reality that the GOP doesn't want a real trial.

 

[Paul2]

I don't see how the moral duty to impeach is inconsistent with playing every angle to ensure a fair trial.

That's not what Joe is saying. He's saying that it's inconsistent with playing a game with the Senate.

Not sure what the difference is.

 

[Belz...]

Not sure what the difference is.

It's the part that you didn't highlight that was important, Paul.

The Democrats can't ensure a fair trial because I don't believe that the GOP cares about the delay. They know that. So it appears that they are not doing things solely because it's their moral imperative.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If that were the case, then what you were saying would be relevant to what I was saying. That it continues not to be, despite attempted clarifications, tells me that it's unlikely that it ever will be and is therefore not worth the effort of trying to engage with you.

I'm not the only one that disagrees with your position that Democrats would view Pelosi as being unfair or whatever.

Democrats are pleased she is standing up to Moscow Mitch. And it is well within her rights as Speaker of the House to do so. There is no requirement she has to rush the Articles over to the Senate so they can quash the Impeachment. There is no requirement she needs to roll over and accept Moscow Mitch's dictatorial rules. There is no requirement that once the Impeachment Articles are written the House has no more involvement.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump Tweets

The Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats said they wanted to RUSH everything through to the Senate because “President Trump is a threat to National Security” (they are vicious, will say anything!), but now they don’t want to go fast anymore, they want to go very slowly. Liars!

Brad Blakeman “I happen to believe as a lawyer that the charges are defective, they don’t meet the Constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, so I would like to see a Motion to Dismiss. At least 51 Republican Senators would agree with that-there should be no trial.”

“Nancy Pelosi has no leverage over the Senate. Mitch McConnell did not nose his way into the impeachment process in the House, and she has no standing in the Senate.” Brad Blakeman.
Crazy Nancy should clean up her filthy dirty District & help the homeless there. A primary for N?

This is so delicious.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

And I don't want to hear anything from anyone that even sounds like "Oh but we're only holding the process until the Senate agrees to play fair." You knew the Senate wasn't going to play fair.

IOW: the nation's government is irretrievably broken at this point.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

I did. See? Neither of us understands your posts.

Here it is again. See if you understand it the 2nd time around. I was responding to you saying Pelosi has executed a "genius" move.

Try to imagine Paul Ryan doing to Obama the exact same thing Pelosi is doing to Trump, writing up no-high crime Articles of Impeachment and then setting them aside indefinitely, ignoring the old saying that "justice delayed is justice denied". Would you say this was a "genius" move by Ryan? How do you think the corrupt mainstream media would have reacted, with the same glee they are cheering Pelosi, or would they have had a complete meltdown and called for Ryan's immediate removal? Would Chuck Todd and that cretin Cuomo be calling Ryan a genius? LOL.

 

[Paul2]

It's the part that you didn't highlight that was important, Paul.

I don't get your reply about the part I didn't highlight, but I'm OK moving on from it, because perhaps the larger point is here:

The Democrats can't ensure a fair trial because I don't believe that the GOP cares about the delay. They know that. So it appears that they are not doing things solely because it's their moral imperative.

I agree that the Dems probably do not have a single motivation of a moral imperative. What is the significance of that?