Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[I Am The Scum]

Did he "interfere int he 2020 election"? Uhh......you lost me there. Digging dirt on your opponents is not interfering in the election. It's conducting a campaign. The fact that he used American foreign policy to do that is bad, and Grizzly Bear said so. Most people agree that it's bad.

How bad? Bad enough to remove an elected President? There is no "fact" that answers that question. That's a matter of opinion, not fact.

Earlier in the thread I asked this question:

2. Should soliciting a bribe for personal gain disqualify one [from] holding public office?

To me, the answer is very obviously "yes."

Agree or disagree?

 

[JoeMorgue]

A while back, you were doing one of your regular "the Democrats aren't accomplishing anything against Trump" rants and I asked you what people who opposed Trump should be doing differently. Your answer was that you didn't know and it wasn't your responsibility to know.

So, given that you've explicitly said that you don't think having a plan to beat Trump is your concern, it seems a little weird to be criticising somebody else for not having a good plan to beat Trump.

I'm not going to explain the difference between a "nothing anyone does matters and I'm better then you for giving up" mentality and anger at the fact that the people in the position of power to do something aren't doing their job just because you jumped at the chance to catch me in a "gotcha."

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Saying "we won't bring the Articles until we're promised a fair trial" would accomplish nothing. Firstly, the Senators could simply lie and say "of course it'll be a fair trial". And, secondly, they have to start the trial by swearing an oath that they will be impartial and fair. So that's the same thing except more meaningful, and which makes them subject to charges of perjury if they are not fair and impartial.

I think that what I would do, were I them, would be to let all the Republicans swear themselves in, and then ask the presiding judge to rule that all those who have given statements to the press about the trial, all those who have said they're co-ordinating with Trump, all those who have said they've already made up their minds, etc. to dismiss them as jurors. Perhaps even see if you can get the ones who haven't made statements like that on record to say something.

The Senators are required by law to be impartial. All those who themselves admit to not being impartial should be recused.

 

[acbytesla]

Seems like it would be the opposite of cathartic. Instead of advancing towards some kind of closure, it defers closure indefinitely.

You're right Prestige. But it also wouldn't be cathartic to send the Impeachment articles to the Senate as long as McConnell and the GOP intend to hold a sham trial. Best to hold onto them until the country can know that the process is above board.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I stand corrected.


That's just weird.

It's not at all weird in this age of "alternative facts".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm not going to explain the difference between a "nothing anyone does matters and I'm better then you for giving up" mentality and anger at the fact that the people in the position of power to do something aren't doing their job just because you jumped at the chance to catch me in a "gotcha."

I think your mistake is in thinking that being philosophical about something is the same thing as giving up. It's possible to be motivated without letting it affect you negatively.

And, if you think it's nothing more than a gotcha, then answer me this - what are you actually doing about Trump yourself?

 

[acbytesla]

Saying "we won't bring the Articles until we're promised a fair trial" would accomplish nothing. Firstly, the Senators could simply lie and say "of course it'll be a fair trial". And, secondly, they have to start the trial by swearing an oath that they will be impartial and fair. So that's the same thing except more meaningful, and which makes them subject to charges of perjury if they are not fair and impartial.

I think that what I would do, were I them, would be to let all the Republicans swear themselves in, and then ask the presiding judge to rule that all those who have given statements to the press about the trial, all those who have said they're co-ordinating with Trump, all those who have said they've already made up their minds, etc. to dismiss them as jurors. Perhaps even see if you can get the ones who haven't made statements like that on record to say something.

The Senators are required by law to be impartial. All those who themselves admit to not being impartial should be recused.

They can't do that. They have to agree to public FACT witnesses ahead of time. As it stands right now, McConnell wants none of that and refuses to subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney and others who can be first hand witnesses.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I'm not going to explain the difference between a "nothing anyone does matters and I'm better then you for giving up" mentality and anger at the fact that the people in the position of power to do something aren't doing their job just because you jumped at the chance to catch me in a "gotcha."

Do it, Joe. Run for Congress! I will cross state lines and illegally vote for you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think your mistake is in thinking that being philosophical about something is the same thing as giving up. It's possible to be motivated without letting it affect you negatively.

And, if you think it's nothing more than a gotcha, then answer me this - what are you actually doing about Trump yourself?

Assuming the stress of living in a swing a county in a swing state doesn't kill me before then, I'm gonna vote against him. Pretty much the only direct form of power I have.

I just don't think we need the whole "Nothing matters..." routine.

If you think that's what my criticism of the Democratic Party's effectiveness is and therefore my criticism of it is hypocrisy, so be it. I acknowledge you have, in accordance with internet law and tradition, sent me official notice of a "Gotcha", as laid out in Chapter 4, Category 2, Revision 3.2 of the Official Internet Argument Handbook and I quote for the record: "The unforgivable offense of using an argument in one scenario but arguing against it another." I will file an appeal with the appropriate third party arbitrator on a date to be announced. I'll have my people stay in contact with your people.

 

[theprestige]

The other option is to advance them and watch them die in a day.

What do you want? A punch in the cock or a kick in the teeth?

How about an ongoing House investigation that functions as a dirt-digging and smear campaign strategy and ultimately gets him voted out of office next year, regardless of whether the impeachment ever actually goes to trial?

Because honestly, that's probably the Democrats' best play right now.

So I can see how deferring the articles indefinitely might be a good tactical move.

 

[The Don]

I stand corrected.


That's just weird.

If your narrative doesn't align with reality, change reality.

Boris Johnson and the Conservatives are doing the same over here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If your narrative doesn't align with reality, change reality.

Boris Johnson and the Conservatives are doing the same over here.

America: "No America is the best at having pasty, bad comb-over, ill fitted suit wearing people turning the country into laughing stock!"

Great Britain: "Oh please. You Yanks couldn't beat us in a pasty, bad comb-over, ill fitted suit wearing person turning the country into a laughing stock contest on your best day!"

America: "Well see about that you tea sipping island dwellers!"

Great Britain: "Bring it on you Imperial Measurement system using colonials!"

*Spongbob Announcer* A few years later...

Great Britain and America: "WHY DID WE AGREE TO THIS CONTEST?"

 

[The Great Zaganza]

How about an ongoing House investigation that functions as a dirt-digging and smear campaign strategy and ultimately gets him voted out of office next year, regardless of whether the impeachment ever actually goes to trial?

Because honestly, that's probably the Democrats' best play right now.

So I can see how deferring the articles indefinitely might be a good tactical move.

why not both?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

no, it doesn't. Not that there's any rational doubt what his intent was, and Trump and his goblins have made that very clear after the fact. The fact is, he asked a foreign government for an "investigation" into his potential political opponent in the next election, and that was exactly what the original purpose of impeachment was for.

Democrats believe it's for his personal gain because it targets the bidens and benefits him for the 2020 elections. Most conservatives believe that his actions do not constitute abuse of power in his self interest because part of his campaign promise was to root out corruption, which is tied to a conflict of interest with biden. The third angle is that he was compelling Ukraine to investigate the bidens conflict of interest, and dealing with whether or not the leadership in ukraine was getting its own corruption under control; that he is in the wrong regardless but that there is enough ambiguity surrounding his justifications to not warrant an impeachment.

So YES there are rational doubts about his intent that are not answerable through simple partisan hackery. Much of the bribery component is predicated on the witness testimony they acquired rather than on the transcripts of the phone call which is publicly available.

There was never a "bribery case". What Trump did was A: he solicited foreign interference in a US election and B: When caught he covered it up and obstructed congress.

Bribery was floated by pelosi and other house democrats multiple times as the defined constitutional offense... and while it did not get written as an impeachment article, the money aspect was amended as a tenant of the "abuse of power" article.

The rest dealing with obstruction of congress. The president had no control over the house inquiry beyond his refusal to testify. They may have a case here but out of the two charges it's the weaker of them.

No, it's not. It's what you and other Republicans are doing.

If this is what you think of my position then you're going to have to back this up. If not...You can keep peddling this red herring if you want but it does not address my points and therefore I can care less that you think this going forward.

 

[theprestige]

You're right Prestige. But it also wouldn't be cathartic to send the Impeachment articles to the Senate as long as McConnell and the GOP intend to hold a sham trial. Best to hold onto them until the country can know that the process is above board.

It's a political process, being run by politicians for political ends. "Until the country can know"? I think you may be the only person in the country who hasn't already concluded that "above board" is a moot point when it comes to impeachment.

Talk about principles all you want. At the end of the day, it is what it is. The Democrats are always going to try to get rid of Trump. The GOP is always going to try to cockblock them. I think you're probably underestimating the number of Americans who see it that way, and are getting impatient for the House Dems to take their best shot and accept the consequences.

We all knew the playing field was tilted, before the game started. The House Dems decided to play the game anyway. Insisted on it. For them to take a knee now and complain that the playing field is tilted, after they won the coin toss and chose to kick off, isn't going to increase public support for impeachment.

 

[acbytesla]

How about an ongoing House investigation that functions as a dirt-digging and smear campaign strategy and ultimately gets him voted out of office next year, regardless of whether the impeachment ever actually goes to trial?

Because honestly, that's probably the Democrats' best play right now.

So I can see how deferring the articles indefinitely might be a good tactical move.

It's not only that. It's the right thing to do. The country deserves to watch and hear fact witnesses testify. Bolton, Mulvaney and Giuliani must testify. The DOD and the State Department must produce all relevant documents.

Otherwise Democracy in America is a joke.

 

[theprestige]

why not both?

It's a have your cake and eat it too kind of thing. Either you push for a timely verdict on the articles of impeachment, or you defer the verdict indefinitely to prolong the dirt-digging campaign ahead of the 2020 general election. You can't really do both. Once you start deferring, you're deferring, not pushing for timely resolution.

 

[acbytesla]

It's a political process, being run by politicians for political ends. "Until the country can know"? I think you may be the only person in the country who hasn't already concluded that "above board" is a moot point when it comes to impeachment.

Talk about principles all you want. At the end of the day, it is what it is. The Democrats are always going to try to get rid of Trump. The GOP is always going to try to cockblock them. I think you're probably underestimating the number of Americans who see it that way, and are getting impatient for the House Dems to take their best shot and accept the consequences.

We all knew the playing field was tilted, before the game started. The House Dems decided to play the game anyway. Insisted on it. For them to take a knee now and complain that the playing field is tilted, after they won the coin toss and chose to kick off, isn't going to increase public support for impeachment.

Just hold a fair trial. Let the chips fall where they may. Are the facts too frightening to Republicans? God forbid that the nation get to see actual facts as opposed to political spin.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Just hold a fair trial. Let the chips fall where they may. Are the facts too frightening to Republicans? God forbid that the nation get to see actual facts as opposed to political spin.

There's a stock phrase in legal dramas "These are the facts and they are not in dispute" used by a lawyer to cut through the crap when the other side is employing spin and distraction instead of arguing the facts because the facts are so strong they cannot be disputed. For example see every political discussion that has ever happened.

But what do you do when the facts are not in dispute... and the other side still disputes them and there's no judge to make them stop?

 

[Meadmaker]

Earlier in the thread I asked this question:

To me, the answer is very obviously "yes."

Agree or disagree?

Yes. Obviously. Now, let's see if you twist the meaning of "bribery" to match what happened. Be advised that it didn't play well on the focus groups, so the Dems dropped it from the articles of impeachment.