Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[acbytesla]

As Speaker of the House, she could get legislation passed to raise taxes on the rich, using the money to assist the poor, especially in housing. I'm sure Trump, the Senate Republicans, and conservative posters here would be all in favor of that, right?

Prestige's post demonstrates the dishonesty of Republican discourse these days. Prestige knows our government structure and knows what a representative does. He knows what the Speaker does. He understands the power they have and its limitations.

I expect Trump to say something stupid like this because he's a lying sack of crap, not to mention an ignorant dumbass.

 

[acbytesla]

What is an individual congressperson supposed to do to alleviate any problems in their district?

The purpose of the Senate is to represent the States' interests in questions that affect the union as such.

The purpose of the House is to represent the interests of the citizens in their districts. Pelosi's main job is literally to influence federal policy in a way that improves the lives of her constituents. During Pelosi's tenure as their representative, the homeless situation has gotten worse. The income inequality situation has gotten worse. She's busy impeaching the president, which is a good and noble pursuit, but quite frankly won't make any difference to the problems in her district.

The House of Representatives has passed more than 300 bills that have not gotten any further than McConnell's desk. Your post is partisan bs and is beneath you.

 

[Paul2]

Pelosi's district is at the epicenter of one of the most extreme cases of income inequality on the entire West Coast. These local problems may not be her responsibility, but they are definitely her milieu. And of course she does bear some responsibility for the problems in her district. She's her district's elected representative in Washington, after all.

Would you say her responsibility for the s*** problem is the same whether she has done a little or a lot (relative to her position as a congressional representative, as opposed to a city or county official, assuming you agree that this problem is primarily a city/county issue)?


If so, do you know how little or a lot she's done or tried to do? I hope you are not measuring her responsibility by the fact that the problem exists, but, rather, on the amount of effort, given that some problems may be intractable or difficult to fix (like homelessness in general, not coincidentally a problem that may well be tied directly to the s*** problem).


That's the last I'm going to say on this, as it is a thread derail.

 

[Lurch]

I think you might have a bit of a narrow focus here. Expand your mind to the possibilities of how Joe Biden might be relevant in a case where Trump is accused of asking someone to investigate Joe Biden.

If all Trump did was to ask for an investigation, *perhaps* no particularly big thing. But:

1) It does circumvent protocol, where such investigations are either referred to or instigated by the Justice Dep't. Fishy right there.

2) Fishier when the subject is one's political rival.

3) Demanding the investigation as a 'favour, though" is even fishier still.

4) And fishiest of all, witholding an official act as leverage to get that "favour, though" is extortion.

5) Add in the White House's violation of the Witholding Act of 1974 with the issuance of he hold on Congressionally approved aid a mere 91 minutes after Trump hung up the phone after his "perfect" call, and the pieces come together in a most damning picture of deliberate scumbaggery.

Even if Biden and Son were guilty as hell on many matters.

Calling either Biden as a witness has **** all to do with Trump and company's illegal acts.

 

[acbytesla]

I think you might have a bit of a narrow focus here. Expand your mind to the possibilities of how Joe Biden might be relevant in a case where Trump is accused of asking someone to investigate Joe Biden.

It should be a narrow focus. The issue is did the President of the United States withhold government aid in exchange for a foreign country to announce investigating his political rival? And did he cover that up.

Biden cannot illuminate what Trump was doing. The ONLY purpose for calling Biden is to make Trump's impeachment about Biden. It isn't, nor should it be. Deflection and distraction is the only thing that could accomplish.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Indeed. Even if Joe Biden gets on the stand and admits he's really D.B. Cooper, kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, killed the Black Daliah, buried Jimmy Hoffa, and paid off Ukraine to shower his son in hookers and blow, it would change the fact that the President of the United States did something illegal.

"Whatabouta" is not a legal standard.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I see that Joe Biden has said he won't comply with any Senate subpoena to testify during an impeachment trial.

Well now isn't that interesting?

Just following the example set by the president. Subpoena schlubpoena! Just ignore it. Wadda they gonna do, eh?

 

[Meadmaker]

Just following the example set by the president. Subpoena schlubpoena! Just ignore it. Wadda they gonna do, eh?

Exactly, which is what makes it kind of interesting.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Exactly, which is what makes it kind of interesting.

Soon everyone will be ignoring them for everything. Good outcome, do you think?

 

[Meadmaker]

Indeed. Even if Joe Biden gets on the stand and admits he's really D.B. Cooper, kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, killed the Black Daliah, buried Jimmy Hoffa, and paid off Ukraine to shower his son in hookers and blow, it would change the fact that the President of the United States did something illegal.

"Whatabouta" is not a legal standard.

That completely misses the point. It has nothing to do with "whataboutism".

Trump will allege that there was strong reason to believe that Joe and Hunter Biden were engaged in corrupt acts that involved US government funds. That's a pretty serious issue, isn't it? Never mind that it's all part of Trump's twisted bizarre mind in which Trump is the center of the universe and everyone who opposes Trump is automatically a bad person doing corrupt things.

If that were true, if there really was reason to believe that the Biden family was part of Ukranian corruption, then everything Trump did would be perfectly reasonable.

So, if he is on trial for corruptly messing with US foreign policy, all Trump has to do is show that his motives were pure, and one way to do that is to show that there was reason to believe that Joe Biden's motive for demanding the dismissal of the Ukranian prosecutor was as part of a coverup of Burisma's corrupt practices.

Do I actually believe that's true? i.e. Did Trump really believe that Biden was corrupt? Yes, I do believe that. Let me emphasize something. I don't believe that Biden was corrupt. I do believe that Trump believed it. The man is a friggin lunatic, and that should have been obvious to everyone as soon as he started talking about his inauguration crowds and his "landslide" victory. Even if they didn't realize it before, that should have been a wake up call to everyone that this man is a lunatic.

But, it wasn't, and still isn't. Sad, but true. So, we are left playing politics. You want witnesses? Well, then, Trump's team gets to call witnesses, too, and their defense rests on Donald Trump's belief that the Bidens were behaving suspiciously and that there ought to be an investigation into their behavior. Surely their own testimony about that behavior is relevant. And if Biden won't testify, that gets awkward when you are saying that Trump's facilitation of non-testifying is a "high crime or misdemeanor".

In reality, I have no idea what will happen if it gets to that point. Who will even make the decision about whether Biden testifies? Is it Roberts? Is it the majority of the Senate? It's one of those, and I don't know what will happen. Presumably, if it's the Senate majority, it will go the GOP way, but perhaps not. The final verdict is not in doubt, because 2/3 is needed to convict, but Romney, Murkowski, or Collins could defect on some rules questions.

 

[theprestige]

Soon everyone will be ignoring them for everything. Good outcome, do you think?

The right to contest subpoenas is a well-established principle of US jurisprudence. You're already witnessing the outcome: Trump and Biden contesting subpoenas. They are, in fact, exercising the same right that you yourself enjoy - that all people enjoy, and may want to exercise.

I think this is a very good outcome. I think that it is a very good thing that subpoenas can be contested.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Blimey.

I highlighted what you said in YOUR QUOTE that I don't agree with. How hard can it be?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Given that this is the argument he's been making since the beginning, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Joe said Trump had not been impeached. I said: "He has been impeached."

The next post went into everything but, yes, OK.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would absolutley just love to know what goal post you think I've moved that doesn't amount to some pure bit of argumentative semantics.

See above post.

Why? Because Trump is Trump and Clinton was Clinton?

If you seriously need me to explain why there is no analogy there, nothing I can say will make you look at the differences.

Then why bloody do it? An impeachment isn't the kind of thing you do with a "Shrug... can't hurt, let's give it a shot."

Trump is corrupt. VERY corrupt. He has no respect whatsoever for the Constitution or the rule of law. He only cares about himself: his ego and his financial gain.

We can't just ignore this and expect this county to go on.

That works both ways. Trump is a lot better at selling the narrative that this is just a partisan witchhunt trying to undue the 2016 election then the Democrats are at selling... whatever narrative they are trying to sell this minute before changing it the next.

And yet, the majority want him impeached and a greater number of persons polled want him impeached and removed than not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you might have a bit of a narrow focus here. Expand your mind to the possibilities of how Joe Biden might be relevant in a case where Trump is accused of asking someone to investigate Joe Biden.

But Trump denies doing that, now doesn't he?

Quite the Catch 22 all around.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Indeed. Even if Joe Biden gets on the stand and admits he's really D.B. Cooper, kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, killed the Black Daliah, buried Jimmy Hoffa, and paid off Ukraine to shower his son in hookers and blow, it would change the fact that the President of the United States did something illegal.

"Whatabouta" is not a legal standard.

Did you mean "would not have changed"?

 

[acbytesla]

The right to contest subpoenas is a well-established principle of US jurisprudence. You're already witnessing the outcome: Trump and Biden contesting subpoenas. They are, in fact, exercising the same right that you yourself enjoy - that all people enjoy, and may want to exercise.

I think this is a very good outcome. I think that it is a very good thing that subpoenas can be contested.

I think it is absurd for a member of the government to refuse to comply with a subpoena from the House or the Senate. The only reason not to is to cover up wrongdoing. Transparency in government is essential. Without it there is no oversight.

Asking a private citizen is another issue. They have a right to privacy and have nothing to do with government operations so I have no problem with them challenging a subpoena. But the system should not allow such challenges unreasonably slow the process.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

That completely misses the point. It has nothing to do with "whataboutism".

Trump will allege that there was strong reason to believe that Joe and Hunter Biden were engaged in corrupt acts that involved US government funds. That's a pretty serious issue, isn't it? Never mind that it's all part of Trump's twisted bizarre mind in which Trump is the center of the universe and everyone who opposes Trump is automatically a bad person doing corrupt things.

If that were true, if there really was reason to believe that the Biden family was part of Ukranian corruption, then everything Trump did would be perfectly reasonable.

So, if he is on trial for corruptly messing with US foreign policy, all Trump has to do is show that his motives were pure, and one way to do that is to show that there was reason to believe that Joe Biden's motive for demanding the dismissal of the Ukranian prosecutor was as part of a coverup of Burisma's corrupt practices.

Do I actually believe that's true? i.e. Did Trump really believe that Biden was corrupt? Yes, I do believe that. Let me emphasize something. I don't believe that Biden was corrupt. I do believe that Trump believed it. The man is a friggin lunatic, and that should have been obvious to everyone as soon as he started talking about his inauguration crowds and his "landslide" victory. Even if they didn't realize it before, that should have been a wake up call to everyone that this man is a lunatic.

But, it wasn't, and still isn't. Sad, but true. So, we are left playing politics. You want witnesses? Well, then, Trump's team gets to call witnesses, too, and their defense rests on Donald Trump's belief that the Bidens were behaving suspiciously and that there ought to be an investigation into their behavior. Surely their own testimony about that behavior is relevant. And if Biden won't testify, that gets awkward when you are saying that Trump's facilitation of non-testifying is a "high crime or misdemeanor".

Trump didn’t/doesn’t give a poop and a half about Biden possibly having been corrupting around in Ukraine. All he was trying to wrangle was for Zelensky to simply make a little announcement that his government intended to “investigate” Biden/Burisma (whether they then did or not being of no concern). Then Trump would be off to the “but her emails” races once again, happy as a dog in a sea of legs.

 

[carrps]

Trump didn’t/doesn’t give a poop and a half about Biden possibly having been corrupting around in Ukraine. All he was trying to wrangle was for Zelensky to simply make a little announcement that his government intended to “investigate” Biden/Burisma (whether they then did or not being of no concern). Then Trump would be off to the “but her emails” races once again, happy as a dog in a sea of legs.

Precisely.

 

[Minoosh]

So why didn't they? Why vote on the Articles, and then delay in order to bring a new one that they chose not to bring initially?

I don't know. But what if they had? Trump was always going to be a moving target. He may be breaking new laws at this very moment. For whatever reason the strategy that emerged pared back the Articles to what the House "personally" investigated. There were MANY potential charges. If Mitch and Lindsey hadn't bragged about their ability to rig a meaningless "trial" maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. But once they did, what did they think would happen?

I don't know if Pelosi did the right thing, but IMO the thing she did was entirely justifiable. I also find it deliciously passive-aggressive. It beats meekly begging Master for another swat.