Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[acbytesla]

I'm still amused by the implications of "Russian interference." In order for Putin's ad buy to have a decisive, targeted effect on the election in certain key states, he must have had better polling data, better analysts, and better campaign strategists than Hillary Clinton.

That doesn't follow in any way.

It didn't make any sense to me either.

 

[Giordano]

It didn't make any sense to me either.

Me neither.

Plus, as already noted up thread, their goal was to be as disruptive as possible. To create mistrust and division. They didn't need better information than Clinton to do that They were undoubtable shocked (although incredibly pleased) to learn that Trump was elected.

 

[Giordano]

Well, the President wasn't really supposed to speak for the people, but for the Union.

I think one of the greatest, most toxic misunderstandings of American politics has been the elevation of the Presidency to some sort of mythical overlordship of the nation. He's not. He's really just Congress's agent for carrying out policy in certain domains relating to the Union as a whole:- Treaty negotiation
- Trade negotiation
- National security
- Waging of war
- Execution of federal law in federal jurisdictions

Beyond that, his only real superpower is the "bully pulpit"; i.e., his celebrity status and resultant power as an influencer of public opinion.

Which was much more significant in Teddy Roosevelt's time, since there weren't that many celebrities who could command the resources and cachet of the US presidency to get their message out.

But we live in the Information Age. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of celebrities with a comparable pulpit, and comparable influence over public opinion. Everyone from Oprah Winfrey to Julian Assange has a pulpit just as bully as the President's.

Highlighted: Does it concern you that is not how Trump operates? In fact the opposite?

As to bully pulpit: Trump is not restricting himself to that. He is both fully exploiting the many ways prior Congresses have inflated the actual powers of the President (IMO dangerously), and pushing beyond the barriers of legality even of those. Given your post, do you find this distasteful as a violation of the intent of the framers of the USA Constitution?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, the President wasn't really supposed to speak for the people, but for the Union.

I think one of the greatest, most toxic misunderstandings of American politics has been the elevation of the Presidency to some sort of mythical overlordship of the nation. He's not. He's really just Congress's agent for carrying out policy in certain domains relating to the Union as a whole:
- Treaty negotiation
- Trade negotiation
- National security
- Waging of war
- Execution of federal law in federal jurisdictions

Beyond that, his only real superpower is the "bully pulpit"; i.e., his celebrity status and resultant power as an influencer of public opinion.

Well put.

 

[Meadmaker]

Perhaps. Unfortunately I'm still not grasping things after reading your post.

We're in uncharted, chaotic water. The strands of history that lead us here are complicated. (I see Roe v Wade as seminal, but that's a topic for another place and time.) I tend to think that anyone who thinks they grasp the problem/solution is grasping at straws. I'm not confident there is a solution. The divide might be incurable, insofar as the US functioning as a healthy democracy.

Yeah tribalism and insistence on purity are constantly depressing to me. Notwithstanding, even if we could fix that with a magic spell, I have a hard time envisioning things falling into place. I'll leave it at that in deference to the thread topic.

Agreed.

It's complicated, and some of it's off topic.

 

[Meadmaker]

So "Trump is a reasonable and just punishment for liberal hubris" is just where we're landing at and never going to get any type of clarification on then?

Dude, you just used the phrase "smarmy, sad, disaffected, nihilistic, trolls" to describe (edited. I'm not sure exactly who he was describing)


You think someone owes you an explanation after that? You wouldn't listen to it anyway.

And that, actually, is the explanation, if you have the insight to see it.

 

[Random]

I'm still amused by the implications of "Russian interference." In order for Putin's ad buy to have a decisive, targeted effect on the election in certain key states, he must have had better polling data, better analysts, and better campaign strategists than Hillary Clinton.

Well, Putin did have the RNC polling data that Paul Manafort gave him. Of course, it was RNC polling data and the RNC could do what they want with it, but we have yet to get a straight answer from Manafort as to why he gave the data to the Russian government...

 

[JoeMorgue]

Dude, you just used the phrase "smarmy, sad, disaffected, nihilistic, trolls" to describe (edited. I'm not sure exactly who he was describing)


You think someone owes you an explanation after that? You wouldn't listen to it anyway.

And that, actually, is the explanation, if you have the insight to see it.

Again a glib "You brought this on yourself" is not an answer.

Again let's say I, either me literally or me symbolic as a member of "the Left" is just a big ole' meanie-poo jerkface.

I'm wroth the damage Trump is doing? I'm worth him standing on a stage and mocking a disabled man? I'm worth him openly bragging about sexual assault? I'm worth him calling Mexicans rapists and killers?

You hate "me" (as said either the literal me or the symbolic me) so much that all of that is worth it to you just to tweak me?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Bolton has released a statement saying that if he is subpoenaed, he will testify

 

[Segnosaur]

Bolton has released a statement saying that if he is subpoenaed, he will testify

You have to wonder how serious he is.

After all he knows the Republicans want the impeachment to go quietly and so they will probably not want to call any witnesses (or if they do, they will only call irrelevant ones like Biden). And he had the chance to testify to the house but he did not. So his promise to testify to the Senate is probably hot air.

I wonder if the house could call his bluff... Reopen the inquiry and issue a subpoena from them.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Honor a subpoena" could many anything from "I will physically show up but do nothing beyond lie, stall, plead the 5th, or otherwise actually not pass along any actual information of value" to "I will actually honor it."

 

[JoeMorgue]

Or (less likely but hardly impossible) we might finally get a meaningful "Sing like a Canary" moment.

How such a thing would play out in Trump world is still a very open ended question however.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"Honor a subpoena" could many anything from "I will physically show up but do nothing beyond lie, stall, plead the 5th, or otherwise actually not pass along any actual information of value" to "I will actually honor it."

The actual phrase he uses is "I will testify". Of course that might mean "I will lie". That didn't last long for Sondland.

And, who knows? Perhaps he's upset that he couldn't persuade Trump to attack Iran, and now he's gone and done it without letting Bolton in on the fun?

 

[Crossbow]

"Honor a subpoena" could many anything from "I will physically show up but do nothing beyond lie, stall, plead the 5th, or otherwise actually not pass along any actual information of value" to "I will actually honor it."

Indeed so.

Or as Trump has done in similar cases, simply say something like 'I do not recall that.'.

After all, it can be very difficult to prove perjury when a witness says that they do not remember something.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah I mean we've firmly established reality denial as a valid tactic.

Bolton can, and will if it suits him, look right into a camera and say "I never said I agreed to testify" this time next week.

 

[Meadmaker]

Again a glib "You brought this on yourself" is not an answer.

Again let's say I, either me literally or me symbolic as a member of "the Left" is just a big ole' meanie-poo jerkface.

I'm wroth the damage Trump is doing? I'm worth him standing on a stage and mocking a disabled man? I'm worth him openly bragging about sexual assault? I'm worth him calling Mexicans rapists and killers?

You hate "me" (as said either the literal me or the symbolic me) so much that all of that is worth it to you just to tweak me?

Keeping in mind that I didn't vote for Trump last time and I won't vote for Trump next time, so your comments don't apply to me, but for the people who did, the answer is yes.

I think that was a mistake, but I understand why they did it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Keeping in mind that I didn't vote for Trump last time and I won't vote for Trump next time, so your comments don't apply to me, but for the people who did, the answer is yes.

As I said we can both be symbolic in this particular point of the discussion.

I think that was a mistake, but I understand why they did it.

I understand 100% why they are upset. I posted a 6 paragraph long breakdown of it at the top of page.

I don't understand, again unless the entire veil falls away and we all, everyone on everyside of this discussion, just full on admit that what we are dealing with is the largest semi-coordinated trolling campaign in history.

If "The pain is the point" then that has to be... the point.

 

[theprestige]

Why exactly are you assuming that Putin would have had to have better polling data/analysts/etc.?

He was throwing a monkey wrench into U.S. politics. It was a low-risk/high-return strategy. He didn't need any special information or skills; just mess things up as much as possible. If Hillary wins? At least America is more divided than before. If Trump wins? Its an added bonus.


I doubt very much that the Democrats knew there internal communications were going to be leaked before hand.

And why exactly does it matter if its a 'known element' or not? An illegal campaign tactic is unfair, whether its known ahead of time or not.

Why exactly are you assuming any politician will be able to magically change voter's minds "if they just knew about them"?

If Hillary couldn't flip a few thousand votes by campaigning in a few swing states, then maybe she was just a bad candidate.

The fact that she didn't even try makes her a bad campaigner. The fact that she apparently didn't even know to try, doubly so.

But all of this is moot if Putin wasn't actually trying to get Trump elected.

 

[theprestige]

Highlighted: Does it concern you that is not how Trump operates? In fact the opposite?

Sorry. I hit submit in haste.

Regarding the highlighted (Trump is the agent of Congress): I was at that moment thinking specifically of the "executes the laws passed by Congress" thing, which ended up being a bullet point in a longer list.

It is closer to what I think, to say that the President is the agent of the Union. This includes executing Congress's laws, but doesn't make him an agent of Congress as such. The separation of powers is pretty well established: Within the boundaries of the office, which are quite clear, the President has almost unlimited authority to act for the Union however he sees fit. Even if it's at odds with how Congress would prefer him to act.

As to bully pulpit: Trump is not restricting himself to that. He is both fully exploiting the many ways prior Congresses have inflated the actual powers of the President (IMO dangerously), and pushing beyond the barriers of legality even of those. Given your post, do you find this distasteful as a violation of the intent of the framers of the USA Constitution?

I haven't seen Trump push beyond the barriers of legality. Can you give an example of what you mean?

And no, I don't find it a violation of the framers' intent, nor do I find it particularly distasteful as a principle. I was confident before the election that the US system could easily survive a President like Trump. I think events have since justified that confidence. As distasteful as I might find it, to have Trump in office, I don't find it distasteful that the system allows for it.

I don't see how you could have a sufficiently democratic system that didn't allow for it. I haven't seen anyone complaining about how the system shouldn't allow for it, who has the courage to even begin talking about any improvement that might be made. So I think maybe there isn't any improvement to be made. I think maybe this is as good as it gets. If you think it could get better, maybe you can tell us how.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I understand 100% why they are upset. I posted a 6 paragraph long breakdown of it at the top of page.

I don't understand, again unless the entire veil falls away and we all, everyone on everyside of this discussion, just full on admit that what we are dealing with is the largest semi-coordinated trolling campaign in history.

If "The pain is the point" then that has to be... the point.

Pain may be the point, but fear is the staff.