Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Fast Eddie B]

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

I know.

I just think firing Comey to stop “the Russia thing” and then bragging to the Russians that the pressure was off him with Comey gone, is more clearcut.

As were the actions that put Cohen in jail that “Individual 1” took part in.

As was asking his Chief Of Staff to write a false account to mislead investigators.

As was dictating a false account on Air Force One of a Trump Tower meeting to mislead the public and investigators.

Not to mention the numerous violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

I just can’t imagine why the Democrats are ignoring ALL of those offenses in a rush to charge what I think have a weaker fact pattern

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Nothing strawman about it. The facts are not in dispute. To deny them is also dishonest or stupid and in some cases both.

Reprimand? A reprimand is maybe a reasonable punishment for lying about a blowjob. Such as the censure of Bill Clinton. Using military aid to get a foreign power to help in aiding your election is far more serious.

A reprimand may be appropriate for some who demonstrates contrition and takes responsibility for their wrongdoing such as Bill Clinton did. Trump has not once owned his actions. In fact yesterday he said he accepts zero responsibility. It should also be recognized that Trump engaged in his Ukraine bribery the day after Mueller gave his report. And only days after that he publicly asked that China investigate the Bidens.

Can someone who brazenly does the same thing over and over again and during investigations be trusted? I don't think so.

 

[Paul2]

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.

Or they made a tactical decision as to what would give them the best chance to succeed at holding Trump to account (including what might move public opinion).

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?

The Constitution is the highest law in this country, and not even the president is above it. That's what the phrase "no man is above the law" implies in this case. That IS a grave and serious concern.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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.

He got caught attempting to subvert the electoral process.

"Just win an election against the guy who rigged the election" is not the optimal strategy.

 

[Sideroxylon]

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.

Criminal or not. What we know Trump did cannot stand if you value America’s democratic tradition.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

There's a difference between crimes and the law. You can break the law without doing ANYTHING CRIMINAL. The LAW says the President must faithfully execute the laws, but if he doesn't, it doesn't mean he committed a crime. It does mean that he put himself above the law.

 

[Meadmaker]

Or they made a tactical decision as to what would give them the best chance to succeed at holding Trump to account (including what might move public opinion).

Well, that is certainly the theory a lot of people hold, but if that's what they were thinking, they suck at evaluating what the "best chance" is.


What does it mean to "hold Trump to account" via the impeachment process. The only thing I can think of that it might mean is remove him from office. If that's the case, the chances of that happening are exactly zero, so if that's their best chance, what was their worst? They might as well have thrown in at least one of those numerous crimes he committed. Their chances certainly would not have gotten worse.


The only other alternative meaning of "hold to account" would be to create pressure at the ballot box. I'm no political strategist, but I don't think it's going to work, if that's what they had in mind. As an aside, it would also imply that the whole exercise was done for political reasons. Not one of the Democrats that I heard while on my drive home even mentioned the possibility that it was political, so I guess we have to dismiss that possibility completely.

 

[Norman Alexander]

As an outsider, why can't this be done:

1. As soon as any senator (of either side) takes their oath to participate in the impeachment trial, they are bound to be (or at least try to act) impartially.

2. If any of them have previously stated they will NOT be impartial jurors, that should be immediately noted to the presiding officer, i.e. Justice Roberts.

3. They should be asked to publicly state out loud if they intend to stand by their previous statements, or abide by the oath they have just taken.

4. If they confirm they stand by their previous statements then the Justice should be asked to recuse these senators from the proceedings entirely. Have them barred from the senate chamber for the whole process.



THAT might throw the cat among the pigeons! Imagine if a couple dozen recalcitrant Republican senators were excluded from the impeachment trial! It could throw the balance well towards Donny's removal.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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.

That would be false. Democrats had several legal scholars testify that the facts presented do meet the requirements of the crime of bribery.

One of the theories I've heard is that Democrats dropped the bribery accusation as a means of sidestepping the "corrupt intent" portion of the statute - a horrible misstep, in my opinion. But suffice to say, "Democrats know there was no crime" is not a safe inference at all.

 

[Meadmaker]

That would be false. Democrats had several legal scholars testify that the facts presented do meet the requirements of the crime of bribery.

One of the theories I've heard is that Democrats dropped the bribery accusation as a means of sidestepping the "corrupt intent" portion of the statute - a horrible misstep, in my opinion. But suffice to say, "Democrats know there was no crime" is not a safe inference at all.

So, they ignored the testimony of the scholars?


I've never been elected to congress, so they obviously know something I don't, but I don't understand why they would do that. If they wanted to sidestep the "corrupt intent", that's another way of saying that they couldn't prove a necessary element of the crime. You say that was a horrible misstep, but if that's the case, then you must know better than the lawyers who made the decision.

I'm not saying that's impossible, but I would be willing to explore alternative explanations.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

He got caught attempting to subvert the electoral process.

"Just win an election against the guy who rigged the election" is not the optimal strategy.

Apparently going back to 2016... based on the statements of some of the participants in today's hearing. Their evidence? Trump making snarky remarks about russia looking into Clinton's emails and joking about china getting involved. With as strong as the evidence is supposed to be... Its hard to understand why they need campaign zingers from 2016 to make the case...

 

[Lurch]

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.

The electoral remedy is off the table because he's *still* inviting foreign aid in his election. How can that election be trusted to have been conducted fairly when one participant is actively working to rig it?

 

[acbytesla]

Apparently going back to 2016... based on the statements of some of the participants in today's hearing. Their evidence? Trump making snarky remarks about russia looking into Clinton's emails and joking about china getting involved. With as strong as the evidence is supposed to be... Its hard to understand why they need campaign zingers from 2016 to make the case...

Are we not supposed to take the President at his word? Hard to believe sometimes, but not every word out of his mouth is a lie.

His campaign did meet with Russian agents seeking dirt on Clinton. Trump did ask in public that Russia find Hillary's emails. And coincidentally Russia launced an attack on the DNC Servers immediately following. And keep in mind the FACT that military aid was withheld. That Rudy Giuliani said why they got rid of Yovanovitch. That Nick Mulvaney admitted to the Quid Pro Quo. In the law, Mulvaney's admission is referred to as an excited utterance.

How much evidence is ******* required? Trump was right. He could shoot someone in broad daylight in mid town Manhattan and not lose support. Your defense in view of the avalanche of evidence is proof of that.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Apparently going back to 2016... based on the statements of some of the participants in today's hearing. Their evidence? Trump making snarky remarks about russia looking into Clinton's emails and joking about china getting involved. With as strong as the evidence is supposed to be... Its hard to understand why they need campaign zingers from 2016 to make the case...

I'm sorry, but did you forget what thread you were posting in? This is the one where we're discussing Trump withholding aid in an attempt to rig the election in his favor. It's been a pretty hot topic in the news recently.

 

[Paul2]

Well, that is certainly the theory a lot of people hold, but if that's what they were thinking, they suck at evaluating what the "best chance" is.

i guess I will trust you no this, as opposed to the professionals (politicians be they may).

What does it mean to "hold Trump to account" via the impeachment process. The only thing I can think of that it might mean is remove him from office. If that's the case, the chances of that happening are exactly zero, so if that's their best chance, what was their worst? They might as well have thrown in at least one of those numerous crimes he committed. Their chances certainly would not have gotten worse.


The only other alternative meaning of "hold to account" would be to create pressure at the ballot box. I'm no political strategist, but I don't think it's going to work, if that's what they had in mind. As an aside, it would also imply that the whole exercise was done for political reasons. Not one of the Democrats that I heard while on my drive home even mentioned the possibility that it was political, so I guess we have to dismiss that possibility completely.

When holding someone to account depends on one group as well as another group, doing your part - regardless of what the other party does - is fulfilling your responsibility. Does that make sense?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think we're gonna have a lot of "NV" on this one guys. 86 members of Congress haven't voted yet and there is only 4 minutes left.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I think we're gonna have a lot of "NV" on this one guys. 86 members of Congress haven't voted yet and there is only 4 minutes left.

They got there though.

 

[JoeMorgue]

224-169 in favor, well past the 216 needed, lots of people still listed as not voting.

 

[JoeMorgue]

1 Republican Yea vote. 2 Democrat Nay votes.

Never mind CNN must have mistyped the onscreen vote counting graphic thingie. No Republican votes for Yea.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Right lets hear from former national security advisor John “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up” Bolton in senate testimony.

Yeah that should be in the fantasy thread in Community.