Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Paul2]

I was questioning your assertion that Pelosi withholding the Articles from a Senate that doesn't want the articles may put enough pressure on McConnell for him to agree to the fair trial which is the opposite of what the Senate actually wants.

To my way of thinking this fails on two fronts. Firstly, the Republicans don't want a trial, so threatening not to have a trial isn't putting any pressure on them at all. What it's doing, in fact, is good for them by preventing the trial from happening and allowing them to blame the Democrats for that.

The Senate may not want the trial, but perhaps Trump wants the trial so his impeachment does not remain in limbo, but he actually achieves exoneration if and when the Senate acquits him.

 

[Paul2]

Sign me up.

When the experts on TV are unsure how the roles will work, it's a bit much to demonstrate such supreme confidence.

In addition -- he's not going to override the 5th amendment. And I can't imagine he would override claims of executive privilege. If one side or the other chose to press something, I suspect it would go to the courts. But seeing as we're in uncharted territory, I'm sure as hell not going to call someone a moron for having a different take.

The SCOTUS ruled in Nixon v United States that the courts have basically nothing to do with impeachment. The Senate has the sole power to try an impeachment. It looks like what happens in the Senate stays in the Senate.

 

[theprestige]

Sign me up.

When the experts on TV are unsure how the roles will work, it's a bit much to demonstrate such supreme confidence.

In addition -- he's not going to override the 5th amendment. And I can't imagine he would override claims of executive privilege. If one side or the other chose to press something, I suspect it would go to the courts. But seeing as we're in uncharted territory, I'm sure as hell not going to call someone a moron for having a different take.

It's not uncharted territory, though. The role of the President of the Senate has been active for over two hundred years. Its duties and powers are laid out in the Senate rules, a matter of record.

Further, the role of the President of the Senate during an impeachment trial has been demonstrated several times. Also a matter of record.

Further, the role of the Chief Justice when presiding over an impeachment trial has been demonstrated in living memory. In addition to being a matter of record.

If the "experts" on TV can't figure it out, they're either idiots or ******* with you. Either way, who needs them? Why not just read the constitution for yourself? Why not read the Senate rules, and read what happened during the Clinton trial, and make up your own mind?

 

[theprestige]

The SCOTUS ruled in Nixon v United States that the courts have basically nothing to do with impeachment. The Senate has the sole power to try an impeachment. It looks like what happens in the Senate stays in the Senate.

One question that could go to the courts is the question of compelling cooperation of the executive branch. The congressional subpoena question.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You keep repeating this over and over. Yet, you're guessing like everyone else. I think you're 100 percent wrong about your conclusions. The Democrats could lose and the Republicans could lose. I think hammering home Trump's corruption and the GOP's brazen hand waving it away a winner for the Democrats and a loser for the Republicans. Pelosi is doing exactly what she should be doing.

My conclusions are based on everything that's happened up to this point. I know Joe goes on about it ad nauseum, but he's right - the message "Trump and the Republicans aren't being fair" achieves nothing, no matter how many times it's repeated by the Democrats. Pelosi now saying "the Republicans aren't being fair" isn't suddenly going to make people go "you know what? She's right! Who'd have thought that the Republicans weren't being fair? My entire conception of American politics has been completely turned on its head!"

It's not happened at any point in the previous 3 years, and I see no reason to suppose that this time it'll magically be different, just because.

 

[theprestige]

The Senate may not want the trial, but perhaps Trump wants the trial so his impeachment does not remain in limbo, but he actually achieves exoneration if and when the Senate acquits him.

Essentially Pelosi is offering him his show trial "exoneration", in exchange for putting Bolton's testimony on the record.

With the caveat that even if he were to concede to every demand, she could still delay things and try to extract even more political advantage anyway.

Unless, as has been suggested, there is no deal, and Pelosi's plan is to extract as much political advantage from the process as possible, ahead of the election, without going to trial.

I think if that's the plan, it's likely to backfire.

 

[Paul2]

One question that could go to the courts is the question of compelling cooperation of the executive branch. The congressional subpoena question.

By the way, Nixon here is Walter Nixon, a judge.

One issue: "the judicial branch is "checked" by impeachments, so judicial involvement in impeachments might violate the doctrine of the separation of powers"

Another: "they were concerned that the Court should have the power to review cases in which the Senate removed an impeached officer summarily without a hearing, or through some arbitrary process such as "a coin toss."

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States


Maybe it's not as clear-cut as I thought.

 

[Paul2]

Essentially Pelosi is offering him his show trial "exoneration", in exchange for putting Bolton's testimony on the record.

With the caveat that even if he were to concede to every demand, she could still delay things and try to extract even more political advantage anyway.

Unless, as has been suggested, there is no deal, and Pelosi's plan is to extract as much political advantage from the process as possible, ahead of the election, without going to trial.

I think if that's the plan, it's likely to backfire.

That is above my pay grade.

 

[Paul2]

My conclusions are based on everything that's happened up to this point. I know Joe goes on about it ad nauseum, but he's right - the message "Trump and the Republicans aren't being fair" achieves nothing, no matter how many times it's repeated by the Democrats. Pelosi now saying "the Republicans aren't being fair" isn't suddenly going to make people go "you know what? She's right! Who'd have thought that the Republicans weren't being fair? My entire conception of American politics has been completely turned on its head!"

It's not happened at any point in the previous 3 years, and I see no reason to suppose that this time it'll magically be different, just because.

One metaphor for how this might work - which is not to be construed as evidence that it will work - is that of water dripping on a stone. In a short time frame, it does nothing visible, but eventually will make some progress against the stone.

 

[JoeMorgue]

One metaphor for how this might work - which is not to be construed as evidence that it will work - is that of water dripping on a stone.

That metaphor doesn't work when it's happening in real time.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

"Fake news"? Like climate science? And I don't have a clue who White Hispanic is. Or Darren Wilson.

Is everything reported on the news accurate? I never hinted that it was. I was just about to make a post about how much harder it is to read the news today because so many headlines are gross exaggerations and occasionally althogh not often, outright fabrications.

But Trump is a far bigger liar than the media could ever hope to aspire to be. Trump DID collude with Russia and he did it PUBLICLY! Trump lied about the popular vote. Trump lied about Ukraine. Trump lies almost constantly. I've never seen anyone like him in my entire life and my older brother was a sleazeball lawyer, I mean liar.

Truth matters to me. The media often exaggerates their headlines but almost always tells the facts as best they know in the body of the story. That doesn't mean they don't use language as a tool to support a misleading conclusion.

Take FOX for example. The editorials are all pretty much far right and almost insanely biased. But the news reporting is as good as you would find anywhere. Sadly, that is only a tiny slice of their broadcasts. They try and drown it out.

Hands up, don't shoot!!! The Mueller Report said no one in the U.S. colluded with Russia to fix the election and that included Trump. Everything you read in fake news about pee pee tapes and Trump colluding with Russia is a lie, but nothing will ever convince the consumers of fake news about that. The "popular vote" is irrelevant in this country, by the way, and designed that way intentionally by the Founding Fathers. Biden bragged about doing exactly what fake news is lying about Trump doing by extorting Ukraine and the left SIMPLY DOESN'T CARE. There is no rational reason Hunter Biden was getting a million dollars a year for sitting on Burisma's board while Biden was Vice-President and Obama's point man for Ukraine. Oh, and climate science is nonsense as presented by all left-wing politicians and is simply an excuse to implement global socialism. Also, being able to change your gender by simply announcing it is perhaps the stupidest lie the left has ever come up with. Hope this helps.

 

[acbytesla]

My conclusions are based on everything that's happened up to this point. I know Joe goes on about it ad nauseum, but he's right - the message "Trump and the Republicans aren't being fair" achieves nothing, no matter how many times it's repeated by the Democrats. Pelosi now saying "the Republicans aren't being fair" isn't suddenly going to make people go "you know what? She's right! Who'd have thought that the Republicans weren't being fair? My entire conception of American politics has been completely turned on its head!"

It's not happened at any point in the previous 3 years, and I see no reason to suppose that this time it'll magically be different, just because.

You know what. You're ignoring what has happened. The Republicans got crushed in the midterms. The Blue wave was a Blue tsunami. Trump still has his core, but he's alienated everyone else. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million people and won the electoral vote because of 200,000 votes spread between 4 states. And that was when Trump's popularity was at it's highest. Since then he's pissed off almost everyone. Everyone, even his fans know he's a lying sleazeball. I find it hard to believe anyone continues to support him, but I know that some do.

I'll take the Democrats argument all day and twice on Sunday. Because they're true. I can keep posting video clips of McConnell and Graham saying they have no intention of being fair. You can try and sell the lie they are.

 

[varwoche]

It's not uncharted territory, though. The role of the President of the Senate has been active for over two hundred years. Its duties and powers are laid out in the Senate rules, a matter of record. Further, the role of the President of the Senate during an impeachment trial has been demonstrated several times. Also a matter of record.

Were there legal challenges during the senate proceedings with Clinton or Johnson? If the answer is no, we're in uncharted waters.

If the "experts" on TV can't figure it out, they're either idiots or ******* with you. Either way, who needs them? Why not just read the constitution for yourself? Why not read the Senate rules, and read what happened during the Clinton trial, and make up your own mind?

I take it all in.

I tend to agree with you that role of the Chief Justice is greatly limited, though not with your degree of confidence.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You know what. You're ignoring what has happened. The Republicans got crushed in the midterms. The Blue wave was a Blue tsunami.

Jesus Christ do you actually believe that?

A minor swing back in the House, probably attributable to just the normal ebb and flow of American politics, was a "Blue Tsunami?"

It was, at absolute best, the tide going in and out a little.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You know what. You're ignoring what has happened. The Republicans got crushed in the midterms.

The Democrats made a net gain of 41 seats out of 535. The Republicans gained 2 seats in the Senate.

You can call that the Republicans being "crushed", if you like. Seems more than a little hyperbolic to me.

Since then he's pissed off almost everyone. Everyone, even his fans know he's a lying sleazeball. I find it hard to believe anyone continues to support him, but I know that some do.

Then Pelosi withholding the Articles changes this how?

I'll take the Democrats argument all day and twice on Sunday. Because they're true. I can keep posting video clips of McConnell and Graham saying they have no intention of being fair. You can try and sell the lie they are.

When you've said stuff like this in previous posts, I've assumed that you were using a generic "you" to make some point or other (which, when asked, you refused to explain) which was unrelated to what I was saying. Now it seems like you're actually accusing me, personally, of stating opinions that I haven't stated and don't hold.

Please don't do that.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's a year off but this is an interesting thought. If McConnell was convinced Trump was not going to win reelection you would think he would consider dumping Trump.

But he'd be left with Pence who would win the primary because no one else is running. And Pence has less of a chance than Trump.

Actually, there are three declared candidates. Bill Weld, Mark Sanford, and someone else whose name I don't remember.

Not that anyone takes them seriously. Depending on how things look by the time Michigan rolls around, I might cross party lines again to vote for Weld, but obviously that would just be a "not Trump" vote. Purely symbolic.


(As an aside, I have always wondered what you have to do to be a declared candidate and have the media identify you as such. How do you become a "real" candidate as opposed to a mock candidate like Vermin Supreme, whose is never listed as a real candidate, despite the fact that his name actually has appeared on a real, official, ballot.)

However, this is all speculation. Trump will not be convicted. Trump will run and will get the nomination. We already know these things.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The Senate may not want the trial, but perhaps Trump wants the trial so his impeachment does not remain in limbo, but he actually achieves exoneration if and when the Senate acquits him.

I imagine Trump wants it dismissed, but he's getting plenty of mileage out of the delay.

 

[acbytesla]

Jesus Christ do you actually believe that?

A minor swing back in the House, probably attributable to just the normal ebb and flow of American politics, was a "Blue Tsunami?"

It was, at absolute best, the tide going in and out a little.

Hell ******* YEAH! 41 ******* House Seats flipped! Almost every single race the GOP lost ground. If they won a seat by 18 points in 2016, they only won by 10 in 2018. If they won by 10 they won or lost by a point in 2016. If it was less than that, the seat flipped.

Trump's support among Republicans has grown but that is because fewer people identify as Republicans.

2020 is going to be an election based on voter turnout vs voter suppression. I'm not worried about voter turnout. I am worried about voter suppression.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Actually, there are three declared candidates. Bill Weld, Mark Sanford, and someone else whose name I don't remember..

Two; Joe Walsh and Bill Weld. Sanford dropped out back in mid November.

 

[Meadmaker]

You're trying to change the subject again. The question at hand is how Pelosi withholding the Articles is a clever move. You keep avoiding explaining why you think that that's the case. When pushed, the only explanation you've offered is that it provides her leverage, but you've not explained what leverage it gives her and how.

A few days ago, when the subject first came up, I thought it could be a clever move, but not the way she played it.

Withholding the articles would just be a simple way of acknowledging reality. If she had said something along the lines of "We know he won't be convicted by the Republican Senate, so we aren't going to go through with a trial. We believe that in the coming months more evidence will come forward that will make a conviction possible, so we will wait and proceed at that point."

It sounds goofy, and might not work, but at least it shows an acceptance of reality. Instead, what she went with was, "Oh, yeah? Well if you want us to put you on trial, you have to play by our rules!" (This was known as "the other operation.") That's just nuts, and makes her look like she's lost her marbles.