Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Mike!]

He... does. But it a refreshing... change... from the usual.. hysterical delivery... from the Republicans.

Although, all he's doing is reviewing the previous testimony which serves no purpose I can fathom.

He'll be played by William Shatner in the movie version.

 

[varwoche]

The "Ukraine meddled" drivel more or less hangs on an op-ed written by a Ukrainian official that was unfavorable to Trump. (It's shocking I tell you, that a Ukrainian, under attack from Russia, would oppose a candidate who's in mad love with Putin.)

I wish there was a definitive list of anti-Trump editorials written by officials from countries all over the world.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You think the Dems should resort to "straw-manning, poisoning the well, name-calling"?

No the Dems only do that to themselves in the primaries, never against actual political enemies when it matters.

I'm getting kind of tired of the Dems falling back on moralistic hand-wringing whenever they are just plain ole' fashioned losing.

We're not talking about anything illegal, immoral, or intellectually dishonest, we're just talking basic real world Realpolitik. Nobody is expecting them to go all Littlefinger on us but it would be nice if they could at least go Tyrion. But no they are stuck at Eddard Stark mode.

And the Dems aren't too good to do it, stop pretending like they are. They've gotten their hands a lot more dirty in the past then anything they've done so far over things a lot less important then Trump and didn't lay awake at night worrying about how history would judge them then, so spare me.

Yes I know there are plenty of people who shall remain nameless just waiting in the wings for the Dems to play the first dirty trick so they can clutch their pearls so hard they'll turn into diamonds. Suck it up, politics is dirty.

 

[Craig4]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I just heard a Republican use the phrase "New York Lawyers" while screeching at Goldman. It would be hard to dog-whistle "It's the JEWS" any more clearly.

Well, we know Trump supporters are all racist, it's not a huge stretch to think they're anti-Semites as well.

 

[d4m10n]

Anyone else find two articles a bit underwhelming?

 

[Belz...]

The "Ukraine meddled" drivel more or less hangs on an op-ed written by a Ukrainian official that was unfavorable to Trump. (It's shocking I tell you, that a Ukrainian, under attack from Russia, would oppose a candidate who's in mad love with Putin.)

I wish there was a definitive list of anti-Trump editorials written by officials from countries all over the world.

And that's why he should be removed. There's no telling what he'll do to Canada now.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Can any of you geniuses tell me what the Dem's Plan C is if this one (Plan B) fails in the same way Plan A (Mueller) did?

I mean, they must be well considered strategies because it's not as if the Dems and their water-carriers are idiots who believe you can just keep flinging **** until some sticks and the Whitehouse becomes rightfully theirs, or anything like that.

 

[Belz...]

Anyone else find two articles a bit underwhelming?

No, that's exactly the issue.

I mean, people said the same thing about the Mueller report. You can't expect a media-like clickbait bombshell when talking about serious procedings.

 

[Belz...]

Can any of you geniuses tell me what the Dem's Plan C is if this one (Plan B) fails in the same way Plan A (Mueller) did?

Your question is predicated on a false premise.

Mueller detailed a long list of offenses from Trump and his 'boys'. Did you read it?

Of course you didn't. You believed what other people told you about it because it fit your biases.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Anyone else find two articles a bit underwhelming?

I think they should definitely have gone for perjury re Mueller. That, IMO, had the greatest chance of success.

I don't think obstruction of Congress has a hope in hell, as the Republican rebuttal has already been laid out - Trump was exercising his right to due process by challenging subpoenas in court and/or defying them in the hope that the Democrats would try to enforce them so that he could challenge them in court. I can't see that one sticking at all, even if the Senate were reasonably non-partisan. Certainly not as is.

Abuse of power is one I could see working in a non-partisan Senate, but won't get anywhere in today's climate.

I definitely find it curious, although I'm sure it's based on a more thorough understanding of the law than I have.

 

[Belz...]

I think they should definitely have gone for perjury re Mueller. That, IMO, had the greatest chance of success.

They'd just call it a process crime or a perjury trap or some other nonsense.

You can't win an argument against someone for whom truth doesn't matter.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Anyone else find two articles a bit underwhelming?

Kind of. Trump's list of crimes is long. I believe they made a choice to only use two things that are clearly supported with evidence because Trump muddies the water with everything.

Seems to me to be a calculated decision to deny Trump his army of squirrels.

Schiff said it took 8 months to enforce McGhan's subpoena and if they had gone after all the evidence that is actually out there it would have been years just to get the subpoenas ruled on. Then Trump could just tell his people to ignore them and Trump would pardon them when they were charged with contempt for still denying them.

Right now Trump's lawyers are arguing the emoluments clause only gives Congress the right to pass a law, it doesn't really say Trump can't profit off his position until that new law is passed.

IOW Trump does believe he is above the law. There's a book out on how Trump uses lawsuits to never have to obey the law. He's done it his whole adult life. So the Democrats plan as far as I can see is to simply stop his 'get out of jail free' by sending in the lawyers.

No matter how many charges one lays on Trump, his followers will believe his propaganda. They were calling in this morning on CSPAN regurgitation all the refuted BS Trump has put out: it was in secret, Trump couldn't call witnesses or have his lawyers there.

It's mind boggling as those are blatant, easily refuted lies. And yet people are repeating them ad nauseum.

Long story short, clean irrefutable charges make more sense against this POTUS.

 

[JoeMorgue]

They'd just call it a process crime or a perjury trap or some other nonsense.

That's my fear. If you can't make the core "Here is what the initial crime is" thing stick everything piled on it is going to come across as... I don't have some cutesy poo direct term for it but that feeling you get when the police arrest someone for no reason and still manage to arrest them for "resisting arrest" kind of thing, if that makes any sense. That's how the Trumpers are going to see this.

And since... reality being what it is all this is going to do is start the whole "OH BUT YOU IMPEACHED CLINTON FOR LYING ABOUT A BLOWJOB THAT WASN'T AGAINST THE LAW ISN'T THAT THE SAME" screaming back and forth.

We have to sell the public, enough of the public to matter which is going to be really hard, on the core, basic fact that Trump did something wrong, not that he technically broke some rule and the Democrats do not always seem to have a deep understanding of what the difference is.

 

[d4m10n]

I mean, people said the same thing about the Mueller report. You can't expect a media-like clickbait bombshell when talking about serious procedings.

Volume II of the Mueller report detailed at least five or six well-evidenced, carefully researched examples of obstruction of justice in the course of an investigation into Russia's multiprong cyberwar against American democracy. It seems downright derelict to leave those out now, given Russia's ongoing role in L’Affaire Ukrainienne.

I think they should definitely have gone for perjury re Mueller. That, IMO, had the greatest chance of success.

Exactly. That, too.

Right now Trump's lawyers are arguing the emoluments clause only gives Congress the right to pass a law, it doesn't really say Trump can't profit off his position until that new law is passed.

That is a frivolous argument, but I can see an argument that emoluments are not so clearly defined that we can be confident that payment for services rendered in the course of ordinary business (e.g. as a hotelier) count as such in the constitutional sense of the term. Probably Congress should get on this to prevent future abuse, now that the Presidential norm of putting one's business interests into a blind trust has very much fallen by the wayside.

 

[varwoche]

Anyone else find two articles a bit underwhelming?

I'm disappointed not to see witness intimidation, or whatever charge would address his threats against the whistleblower.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think they should definitely have gone for perjury re Mueller. That, IMO, had the greatest chance of success.

Apparently that evidence is stalled in the courts.

Or do you know of some evidence that isn't?

I don't think obstruction of Congress has a hope in hell, as the Republican rebuttal has already been laid out - Trump was exercising his right to due process by challenging subpoenas in court and/or defying them in the hope that the Democrats would try to enforce them so that he could challenge them in court. I can't see that one sticking at all, even if the Senate were reasonably non-partisan. Certainly not as is.

Abuse of power is one I could see working in a non-partisan Senate, but won't get anywhere in today's climate.

I definitely find it curious, although I'm sure it's based on a more thorough understanding of the law than I have.

The GOP gave Trump plenty of cover for the abuse of power charge as well. Just claim Trump was addressing Ukrainian corruption. It matters not that it's an outright easily refuted lie. All that matters is, if you repeat a lie often enough...

The best the Democrats can do is tie Trump up with this threat to his ego until the election and hope he can't do much more damage than he already has. Can you imagine when he loses the election what he's going to do in those lame duck months?

 

[varwoche]

Volume II of the Mueller report detailed at least five or six well-evidenced, carefully researched examples of obstruction of justice in the course of an investigation into Russia's multiprong cyberwar against American democracy. It seems downright derelict to leave those out now.

I suspect this is due to pushback from moderate dems in purple districts.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Anyone else find two articles a bit underwhelming?

I would have included at least a couple from the Mueller report.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think the point is that things Trump did in response to being impeached can't be sold unless you sell the need to impeach him first. If the core "Misuse of Power" thing doesn't stick the rest will just slide off.

Again it's that whole "I can arrest you for resisting arrest even if I didn't have valid reason to arrest you in the first place" thing.

Regardless of what (g)you personally think of it or how "technically true" it is, that's not gonna sell well to a lot of people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Volume II of the Mueller report detailed at least five or six well-evidenced, carefully researched examples of obstruction of justice in the course of an investigation into Russia's multiprong cyberwar against American democracy. It seems downright derelict to leave those out now. ...

I totally agree. The Democrats just let Trump and Barr walk all over them on this one.

That is a frivolous argument, but I can see an argument that emoluments are not so clearly defined that we can be confident that payment for services rendered in the course of ordinary business (e.g. as a hotelier) count as such in the constitutional sense of the term. Probably Congress should get on this to prevent future abuse, now that the Presidential norm of blind trust has fallen by the wayside.

You would think it was frivolous but that is the actual case Trump's lawyers are claiming if the news report is to be believed.

From the WA Po yesterday*:

Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan said Congress would have to pass a new law if it wanted to prevent the president from accepting payments from foreign governments. The emoluments clause at issue, he said, calls for Congress to affirmatively sign off on such payments.

Of course they are also arguing the Congresspersons bringing the suit have no standing.

*Sorry, can't link from my anonymous view.