Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[plague311]

It would change the democratic election of the president to a direct election.

It also wouldn't solve the problem of not being able to get anything done in a democracy if you're not in the majority. Which was plague311's actual complaint.

In fact - and this is ironic - the 2016 presidential election is exactly a case of something getting done by people who weren't in the majority.

Maybe we should weight Senate impeachment votes slightly, according to how many constituents each Senator has? Of course, this would just bring the Senate closer to representation by majority rule than it currently is. That's kind of the opposite of what plague is complaining about.

In fact, it seems like the current arrangement of the Senate solves exactly the problem plague brings up: it's designed to give the minority a stronger voice than they'd otherwise have.

Meanwhile, the House Dems are able to press impeachment because they have the majority there. Which I guess is part of plague's problem: They had to wait until they had a majority to get this process going. But the flip side of that coin is that House Republicans can't do much to stop it, because they don't have a majority. Does plague really want us to institute a system where a minority of disgruntled GOP Representatives could cock-block impeachment by the majority, before it ever got to the Senate?

Yes, democratic rule by the majority sucks donkey balls. I'm just at a loss to come up with a better system. I think plague is, too. As far as I can tell, plague's preference is something along the lines of: A majority of the House should be able to press impeachment, and a majority of the Senate should not be able to acquit. Which doesn't sound like any kind of democracy or just form of government at all. Might as well abolish the whole thing, institute the Führerprinzip, and install plague311 as head of state, since he seems to know best when to listen to the majority and when to dismiss them.

The ****? I've never been told what I mean in such a long winded post before.

What you've presented is a false dichotomy. In fact, the only thing you've said that's true is I'm not sure what the best method is with regards to this scenario. Wanting something different doesn't mean I want to be installed as a God damn thing. Having both sides perpetually screaming at each other like undignified ******* jackasses doesn't really do anything for anyone. I want progress.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm sure that the so-called Founding Fathers would be aghast at all of this. But they might not find it entirely unexpected. They knew the dangers of opening up democracy to an unintelligent, uninformed and uncaring electorate.

Edited to add: They understood the danger of such an electorate being manipulated by a demagogue.

This pretty much nails it. I think they would be surprised that we have gone this far on the Constitution they wrote with so few Amendments. I'm convinced that we're at the end of the line with it. To begin with the process is becoming more and more undemocratic and the balance of power has become concentrated too much in rural states and Republicans doing everything they can to prevent voter participation. The GOP has no interest in democratic principles. It's all about putting their thumb on the scale.

 

[acbytesla]

I’ve never identified as a Democrat, but certainly find myself rooting for them in this fight.

As such, I think they’re misplaying this very badly.

The bits I’ve heard today have the Republicans emphasizing “There’s not even an underlying crime”. That’s why I still assert that the better play would have been to include at least several of the “real” crimes where Mueller outlined all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice. And at least one or more emoluments violations. Unless the Dems have something up their sleeves, I don’t thing this minimalist tack is working for them.

It's a lie. Bribing a foreign power to smear a political opponent IS a crimel.

 

[theprestige]

The ****? I've never been told what I mean in such a long winded post before.

I'm telling you how I interpreted your meaning, and the conclusions I drew from it. I apologize for implying that I understood what you actually mean.

What you've presented is a false dichotomy. In fact, the only thing you've said that's true is I'm not sure what the best method is with regards to this scenario. Wanting something different doesn't mean I want to be installed as a God damn thing. Having both sides perpetually screaming at each other like undignified ******* jackasses doesn't really do anything for anyone. I want progress.

I'm not convinced you know what you want.

You say you want something other than majority rule in the Senate. But the Senators you're opposed to actually represent a minority of the country.

You say you want something different. Different how, exactly? Do you even know?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm sure you can. But I'm pretty sure anything you say will be regurgitated lies, gaslighting, and other such rhetoric that the republicans have been engaged in.
"

You could have saved yourself about 30 minutes of typing by simply stating this. If you have no interest in seeing another side of the argument and have to resort to what amounts to an ad hominem then I won't attempt any further discussion with you. Its regrettable that you dont have an interest, but I'll leave it at that. Thanks

 

[plague311]

You say you want something different. Different how, exactly? Do you even know?

No, because I haven't claimed I have a resolution. I said as much in my post. I don't need to have a fix to understand there's a problem.

The seat in my car is broken, it won't move back and forth. I don't know how to fix it, but I recognize that something is ****** up with it.

 

[acbytesla]

The impeachability aspect hinges on whether or not his intent in making the phone call was purely for his personal gain and whether he bribed the president of Ukraine to force them to investigate the Bidens. They obviously have had trouble making the bribery case if they amended the impeachment articles to the point of in not being the primary offense. By the way, your 'gaslighting' claim is also a strawman. I've said before that trumps call to Ukraine places him in the wrong. Democrats could have gotten some bipartisanship on a censure of him. But the impeachment is political. Pelosi knew this, and for her part she only went this far because of the left wing base in her caucus

What a pile of ****. Every piece of evidence presented shows that Trump was not interested in corruption in the Ukraine, but in smearing Biden. Didn't really care if Ukraine launched a quiet by the book inquiry into Burisma, but that they publicly announce an investigation into Joe Biden.

What does that say to a reasonable juror? What kind of deductions can we make by that?

The Trump administration withheld 391 million dollars in military aid in exchange for a public smearing of his political opponent. Then his administration covered it up. And the President ordered everyone in the government not to assist in the inquiry of his administration's actions.

These are cold hard facts which have not been disputed. This is bribery of a foreign power for his own personal interest. It's also obstruction of Congress.

Not acknowledging that makes one stupid or dishonest. I'm done with people who insist that ice is not cold, steam is not hot or that water is not wet.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I’ve never identified as a Democrat, but certainly find myself rooting for them in this fight.

As such, I think they’re misplaying this very badly.

The bits I’ve heard today have the Republicans emphasizing “There’s not even an underlying crime”. That’s why I still assert that the better play would have been to include at least several of the “real” crimes where Mueller outlined all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice. And at least one or more emoluments violations. Unless the Dems have something up their sleeves, I don’t thing this minimalist tack is working for them.

Impeachment doesn’t even require a crime to have been committed[Lindsey Graham before that day on the golf course where Trump told him that they had video]

 

[Sideroxylon]

What a pile of ****. Every piece of evidence presented shows that Trump was not interested in corruption in the Ukraine, but in smearing Biden. Didn't really care if Ukraine launched a quiet by the book inquiry into Burisma, but that they publicly announce an investigation into Joe Biden.

What does that say to a reasonable juror? What kind of deductions can we make by that?

The Trump administration withheld 391 million dollars in military aid in exchange for a public smearing of his political opponent. Then his administration covered it up. And the President ordered everyone in the government not to assist in the inquiry of his administration's actions.

These are cold hard facts which have not been disputed. This is bribery of a foreign power for his own personal interest. It's also obstruction of Congress.

Not acknowledging that makes one stupid or dishonest. I'm done with people who insist that ice is not cold, steam is not hot or that water is not wet.

Trumps donor and hand picked EU guy gave testimony that what was being sought was a televised press announcement that investigations into his political rival were being launched.

 

[Paul2]

The Republicans surely don't believe what they're saying (for the most part, for most of what they say, and for most of the Republicans). The worst interpretation is that they are craven partisans, putting party above country. At best, they somehow think that they must act like defense attorneys for the President (except they are not).

 

[Stacyhs]

Some guy named Randy Weber from Texas is calling democrats a bunch of "socialists" who don't give a damn about the life of unborn babies.

Trump is being impeached because.... zygotes.

Just heard on the news some nutty Republican Senator (might be the other one) is comparing the calls for impeachment by the Dem's to the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Pretty funny

More like pretty damn crazy. Idiots.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Not acknowledging that makes one stupid or dishonest. I'm done with people who insist that ice is not cold, steam is not hot or that water is not wet.

Which again... is a strawman argument. I have not argued against reprimanding Trump or suggesting he did nothing wrong. The fact that there is an element of personal gain is the reason theres atleast a consensus that he was in the wrong and deserves reprimand. This is an issue of whether or not there is an electoral remedy and whether or not it rises to forcing his removal now.

 

[Stacyhs]

But as it stands the only possible closure is predetermined to be dishonest. I really think that McConnell's statements ought to be considered an announcement that he fully intends to mock the system and to deal dishonestly with the process. Note that I do not say this because of a predetermination that Trump is guilty or that an honest trial would result in his removal, though i suspect that is so. But for an honest trial to occur both sides must agree that they will at least listen to the evidence and judge accordingly, even if they are relatively sure of their opinions, even if they expect to side with the defense throughout, and even if, as is inevitable, their political beliefs color those opinions. To announce before the trial begins that one has reached an immovable verdict and intends to ignore any testimony is, I think, just plain, no-other-word-for-it dishonest and McConnell and his cronies should be ashamed of themselves for it.

I agree. The GOP love to cry what a hoax the impeachment is when they have made a sham of the resulting trial. At least the impeachment hearings allowed witnesses and questioning thereof by both parties. McConnell and his followers have dropped any pretense of being fair or impartial.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The Republicans surely don't believe what they're saying (for the most part, for most of what they say, and for most of the Republicans). The worst interpretation is that they are craven partisans, putting party above country. At best, they somehow think that they must act like defense attorneys for the President (except they are not).

What has been stark is how most put their own electability before all else. All about how to keep their sweet jobs that bring in power and wealth. This has been a feature of discussion of individual House Democrat support for impeachment right from the start.

 

[Tero]

Senators who will vote to acquit Trump represent between 5 and 10 million fewer voters (and even fewer residents) than those who will vote to convict him. You may well be pleased with the end result of this process, but to call it a democratic expression of the will of the people is innumerate at best.

So despite Trump complaining about Congress, the Founding Fathers were on his side after all.

They had similar confusion in the first few elections, as the president and vp were first elected in an odd manner.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Ok. But in this case, what would "impartial" even mean? The facts are clear and undisputed (except by a few crazy people).

Those "few crazy people" are called "Republican Senators". And it's quite deliberate. McConnell has not only called a request for witnesses to be called "strange", not only has he said that he is not impartial, but he's also said that he is not going to read any transcripts of witness testimony.

So he's called himself biased, he's refusing to look at the evidence, and he's refusing to allow any witnesses to be called, yet he feels entirely at liberty to call the impeachment a hoax, a sham, and a coup.

You can call him crazy, if you like. But I don't think you can say he's without influence in this matter.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That’s why I still assert that the better play would have been to include at least several of the “real” crimes where Mueller outlined all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice.

Yes, I've said that I think they should have gone for obstruction of justice and perjury re Mueller.

I suspect that the reason they haven't, though, is because this is about the upcoming election, so they haven't got time to chase Mueller's grand jury evidence through the courts.

 

[bobdroege7]

I would just like to see one republican show that they understand that the bribe giver and bribe taker are both crooks.

 

[Meadmaker]

I’ve never identified as a Democrat, but certainly find myself rooting for them in this fight.

As such, I think they’re misplaying this very badly.

The bits I’ve heard today have the Republicans emphasizing “There’s not even an underlying crime”. That’s why I still assert that the better play would have been to include at least several of the “real” crimes where Mueller outlined all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice. And at least one or more emoluments violations. Unless the Dems have something up their sleeves, I don’t thing this minimalist tack is working for them.

Here's the problem I have with your reasoning.

To believe what you state above, you have to believe that
1. Donald Trump committed several crimes.
2. There is overwhelming evidence he committed several crimes.
3. Democrats in the House of Representatives decided to go with abuse of power and defiance of Congress as impeachable offenses, and make no mention of the numerous crimes.

How does that make any sense at all? Why would they do that?

I think it is far more likely that this group of Congressmen, most of whom are lawyers, and their counsels, all of whom are not merely lawyers, but very good, highly paid, lawyers, looked at the actual charges and the actual evidence and decided that no crimes were committed, or at the very least that no crimes were provable. I can't see it as a viable strategy to avoid actual crimes and concentrate on things which are unsavory, but legal.

By not alleging actual crimes, they get to skip that whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" portion of a trial, which would inevitably come up even though it isn't actually a standard for an impeachment trial.

They've been beating the "criminal" drum for a long time now, but when push came to shove, they didn't call him a criminal. I can't come up with any explanation of that other than they didn't think they had actually caught him doing anything criminal.


During my drive home I turned on NPR and they had live coverage. Oh, dear. The pomposity coming from those mouths was stunning. There was an awful lot of talk about sacred oaths, and how the other side was breaking them. There were even an awful lot of references to how Congressmen (including Congresswomen) had served in the military, and how a vote for/against impeachment would dishonor those brave comrades who had given their lives. With all that sanctity flowing about, you would think they could agree on just who was desecrating whatever it was they were desecrating.

The one comment I have on that pomposity that is related to the opening portion of this post is that I heard several Democratic representatives say that "No man is above the law." in a grave and serious voice, of course. Uhhh.....fellas...? You didn't charge him with breaking any laws. What gives?


It's political theater.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The Trump administration withheld 391 million dollars in military aid in exchange for a public smearing of his political opponent. Then his administration covered it up. And the President ordered everyone in the government not to assist in the inquiry of his administration's actions.