Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fast Eddie B said:
Do you really think that the testimony of McGahn, Bolton, Mulvaney et al might not add anything to our understanding of the events in question?
Click to expand...

That is, in fact, what I think. It won't add anything.

And even possibly reveal additional misdeeds?
Click to expand...

Of course, that's the hope. And if it doesn't reveal actual misdeeds, it might reveal something that could be spun as misdeeds.

Getting it out live on TV might very well be the first exposure of the whole sordid mess for a large percentage of the population that never read the Mueller report and who’s impression of it is simply the “No Collusion. No Obstruction.” mantra initiated by Barr and repeated ad nauseum by Trump.
Click to expand...

Indeed it might. In other words, it really has nothing to do with a "fair trial", it's about electoral spin. It's about influencing public opinion. There may be people with absolutely no exposure to the whole sordid mess, but none of those people are senators, so there is no need for any pretense that somehow fairness, or the constitution, or whatever else one can make up as an excuse, is playing any role at all.
 
theprestige said:
So somehow Pelosi is going to hold her breath until McConnell agrees to force an executive branch official to testify - something she herself couldn't force him to do?

And somehow this is the 4D chess move that's going to make impeachment matter?
Click to expand...

You ignore the fact that Roberts can order Bolton to appear and that order cannot be appealed to anyone.
 
theprestige said:
The Chief Justice doesn't work that way even when they're presiding over the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

The **** he doesn't. If the Senate issues a subpoena during an impeachment trial. It not only carries the authority of the legislative branch but the judicial branch as well. Bolton cannot appeal to a higher judicial authority. There is no appeal say to the full court. It ends with his order. But he won't issue that order if 51 Senators vote against the subpoena.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It's hard to be unbiased if one side goes Total Obstruction. Trump has so many first hand witnesses - if any of them were exculpatory, he would have let them testify, wouldn't he?

And for the record, it is the Constitution that demands impartiality in this case.
Too bad you don't seem to care about that.
Click to expand...

The whole idea of "exculpatory" in this case doesn't even apply.

The facts are known. Now make a decision. Is the conduct in question sufficiently reprehensible that President Trump ought to be removed from office without an election? That's the question. How would any additional information exculpate anyone? (Is that really a word? It has the right Latin segments, but I've never heard anyone actually use it as a word.)

I'm guessing you have already made your decision. Did you do so impartially? But if you were listening to the trial, having already made the decision about guilt, would you still be impartial?

The word has no meaning in this context.
 
I Am The Scum said:
It's not about changing the minds of people who clearly don't care about the facts. It's about building political pressure on immoral people, such that the prospect of losing their job convinces them to do the right thing.

I wish it weren't necessary, but pretending this is an ordinary trial is not going to fix the problem.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. The proposed trial and the method of trial is all about building political pressure. I already understood that.

And the reason I would have preferred this process not go where it is today is that it's building the wrong kind of pressure. Trump wins on this one.
 
acbytesla said:
You ignore the fact that Roberts can order Bolton to appear and that order cannot be appealed to anyone.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fact.

Certainly Roberts can't order anything unless there's actually a trial, since he doesn't actually preside over the Senate until the trial happens.

Pretrial negotiations about how the trial will work are between Pelosi and McConnell.

---

As far as I can tell, the bargain you think Pelosi is offering is this:

Trump gets his show trial "exonwration", but in exchange Pelosi gets Bolton's testimony on the record.

Trump gets his
 
Meadmaker said:
I agree 100%. The proposed trial and the method of trial is all about building political pressure. I already understood that.

And the reason I would have preferred this process not go where it is today is that it's building the wrong kind of pressure. Trump wins on this one.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your conclusions. Trump CANNOT win on this.
 
acbytesla said:
Excuse me? What has this President done to advance Healthcare? Or infrastructure? Remember Trump was going to be the infrastructure President? Mexico was going to pay for the wall. They didn't. Tell me please, what are Trump's legislative accomplishments?
Click to expand...

I'm saying with a Dem House/Senate he might agree to some good stuff.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
...

How? The Republicans have been successfully controlling the narrative for the last 3 years. How is withholding the Articles from the Senate magically going to change that? How is it going to look, to the average person on the street, like anything other than the Democrats refusing to obey the rule of law because they're too scared to have a trial because they know their case is weak and they'll lose?
Click to expand...
This makes me wonder who it is you think is buying the GOP narrative because the polls suggests the country is split down the middle-ish. Nothing suggests the GOP narrative is ubiquitous.
 
acbytesla said:
The **** he doesn't. If the Senate issues a subpoena during an impeachment trial. It not only carries the authority of the legislative branch but the judicial branch as well. Bolton cannot appeal to a higher judicial authority. There is no appeal say to the full court. It ends with his order. But he won't issue that order if 51 Senators vote against the subpoena.
Click to expand...
Where did you get the idea that the Chief Justice brings judicial authority to the presidency of the Senate?

Does the Vice President bring executive authority to the presidency of the Senate?
 
theprestige said:
I don't think that's a fact.

Certainly Roberts can't order anything unless there's actually a trial, since he doesn't actually preside over the Senate until the trial happens.

Pretrial negotiations about how the trial will work are between Pelosi and McConnell.

---

As far as I can tell, the bargain you think Pelosi is offering is this:

Trump gets his show trial "exonwration", but in exchange Pelosi gets Bolton's testimony on the record.

Trump gets his
Click to expand...

I really don't understand your post.

The Senate conducts the trial according to rules predetermined before the trial. So agreements between Schumer and McConnell can be codified as those rules will be voted on by the entire Senate. Right now as the way the rules are written the Chief Justice may on his own issue subpoenas for documents and testimony. However his decisions may be voted on by the entire Senate and therefore overruled by the Senate. But Roberts orders after being handed the gavel may not be appealed to another court. If Bolton gets a subpoena to appear during the impeachment trial, there isn't another option but to appear. Although he might be able to take the 5th. But the Senate could grant him immunity and then he would then really have no choice.
 
theprestige said:
Where did you get the idea that the Chief Justice brings judicial authority to the presidency of the Senate?

Does the Vice President bring executive authority to the presidency of the Senate?
Click to expand...

You're a moron if you think he doesn't. The Constitution doesn't say that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court becomes President of the Senate. It says the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
I'm saying with a Dem House/Senate he might agree to some good stuff.
Click to expand...

That's a possibility. It certainly would be a better situation than what we have at this moment. Trump is so obsessed with what people say about him. And he's not an ideologue. Just a moron. As it stands McConnell is blocking everything but judges.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You are invoking the "You made me do it!" defense?
Click to expand...

I voted for Hillary.

I voted in the Republican primary in 2016 for the first time in my life, specifically so I could cast a vote against Donald Trump.

I can't stand the worthless git. He's a pathological liar and complete narcissist. He cares for no one but himself. You can go back to this forum's archives and read what I wrote in 2016 about that moron. Nothing has happened since to change my opinion, although it has been reinforced in many cases.


Now if that's confusing to you, or if you think that contradicts some of the other things that I have been saying, you really need to try and correct your misunderstandings. The first step in that is to recognize that they are, in fact, your misunderstandings.


ETA: To be fair, I am sort of using the "you made them do it". I hate Donald Trump, but I don't hate people who voted for Donald Trump, and I understand why the did it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom