Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[Stacyhs]

Except history is written by the winners. Trump has won.
I'm old, white, male, well-off, and not known for my political activity so I'll be fine for the 20 or so years I have left. Others will not be so fortunate.

That used to be true...but no longer. There is too much available information out there nowadays for that to still be possible.

 

[portlandatheist]

I have a pit in my stomach after what happened today. I'm really really hoping we get on a new track come this November.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

"Not Guilty!" is going to be that ******* campaign slogan in 2020.

Hmm, I’m expecting: “Totally Exonerated...Again!”

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Can someone please explain the middle ground between "rig the election" and "don't rig the election?"

”And.”

Yes, that is vague.

 

[Sideroxylon]

As Senator Murkowski observed, the Dems rushed a poor case to trial, and it's not the Senate's job to fix the House's mess, or find out the truth, or keep with the precedent of having witnesses at trial, or anything else. Trump WINS.

Colbert should have kept with the satire. Love your work though.

 

[Venom]

Marco Rubio explains his impeachment vote

However, for purposes of answering my threshold question I assumed what is alleged is true. And then I sought to answer the question of whether under these assumptions it would be in the interest of the nation to remove the President.

Determining which outcome is in the best interests requires a political judgment — one that takes into account both the severity of the wrongdoing alleged but also the impact removal would have on the nation.

I disagree with the House Managers’ argument that, if we find the allegations they have made are true, failing to remove the President leaves us with no remedy to constrain this or future Presidents. Congress and the courts have multiple ways by which to constrain the power of the executive. And ultimately, voters themselves can hold the President accountable in an election, including the one just nine months from now.

tl;dr version: Maybe he did it. I just don't think it's in the best interest of the nation to remove him.

 

[Meadmaker]

Don't worry, low IQ Dems. There are still plenty more crimes Trump will commit... and you'll try to hold him accountable... but ultimately fail. Beep, Beep!

I read today that E. Jean Carroll (sp?) has some DNA on the dress she was wearing the day that Donald Trump (allegedly) raped her.

That sounds promising. I looked it up, and there's no statute of limitations for rape in New York.

(In case anyone is wondering, the above is serious.)


Even if that doesn't pan out, I do think he will commit more impeachable offenses, and more serious ones, possibly including actual crimes. Three years ago in November I predicted on these boards he would be the first president impeached and convicted. If he gets re-elected, I still think there's a good shot at it. Losing this one makes the next one harder, but not impossible.

 

[Meadmaker]

Trump wasn't impeached for rigging elections.

Also nobody has demonstrated that elections were rigged.

I think the "rigged election" narrative is really dangerous. I cringed when Adam Schiff brought it up.


What happened in 2016 wasn't "rigging". The Russians bought ads. They spread misinformation. They hacked some communication and revealed things that people wish had been kept secret.

No one changed vote totals. Everyone who voted for Donald Trump meant to do it. That one dude down in Georgia (North Carolina? Somewhere in that neighborhood) cheated on some absentee ballots, and went to jail (I think?) and the election was redone. That's good. There were shenanigans around suppressing minority votes through shady, but legal, means. That's bad, but it's a loophole, not fraud. That isn't "rigging". When Donald Trump thought he was going to lose, he was talking about the election being rigged, and people rightly called him a lunatic conspiracy theorist. They were right.

We haven't lost our democracy yet, and we won't, as long as people can tell the difference between an outcome they don't like, and an outcome that isn't democratic.

 

[Venom]

Time to take up arms against this tyrannical government.

 

[Cain]

I read today that E. Jean Carroll (sp?) has some DNA on the dress she was wearing the day that Donald Trump (allegedly) raped her.

That sounds promising. I looked it up, and there's no statute of limitations for rape in New York.

A few hurdles there. 1) Going through the courts to obtain a DNA sample from Trump. 2) The sample must match (not a given). This woman also alleges something like the Democratic Party was involved in a sexual assault by Moonves. 3) Even if it is a match, it doesn't prove that Trump raped her, or even lied about meeting her. Depending on the nature of the DNA, Trump's lawyers could argue it was planted. 4) A prosecution or civil lawsuit would not occur until after the election.

 

[Lurch]

I think the "rigged election" narrative is really dangerous. I cringed when Adam Schiff brought it up.


What happened in 2016 wasn't "rigging". The Russians bought ads. They spread misinformation. They hacked some communication and revealed things that people wish had been kept secret.

No one changed vote totals. Everyone who voted for Donald Trump meant to do it. That one dude down in Georgia (North Carolina? Somewhere in that neighborhood) cheated on some absentee ballots, and went to jail (I think?) and the election was redone. That's good. There were shenanigans around suppressing minority votes through shady, but legal, means. That's bad, but it's a loophole, not fraud. That isn't "rigging". When Donald Trump thought he was going to lose, he was talking about the election being rigged, and people rightly called him a lunatic conspiracy theorist. They were right.

We haven't lost our democracy yet, and we won't, as long as people can tell the difference between an outcome they don't like, and an outcome that isn't democratic.

"... suppressing minority votes through shady, but legal, means."

A loophole? Not fraud? Right there is how apologists for this scumbaggery reveal their inner thoughts. Suppressing votes, no matter how 'legal', strikes at democracy itself. It's definitive of an anti-democratic bent.

The suppression of a vote is arguably worse than acceptance of a fraudulent one made. For it denies a right that's (nominally) protected. I'm aghast at the extent and the relative acceptance of voter suppression in the US. Your own blithe dismissal is yet another damning indictment in the country's slipping toward a monarchic, kleptocratic oligarchy.

 

[Cain]

Marco Rubio explains his impeachment vote

tl;dr version: Maybe he did it. I just don't think it's in the best interest of the nation to remove him.

I anticipated something like this earlier when I wrote:

Here's a semi-coherent argument they could make. No president has ever been convicted and removed from office. It's unprecedented. We have an election coming up, so let the people Electoral College decide. There was no question that President Clinton committed perjury, but the Senate did not convict him. The whole process is essentially political, and elections have a lot more legitimacy than Congress. Ukraine still ended up getting aide, so quit yer bitching n' go vote. Unless you're Black.

This would also leave the door open for impeaching future Democrats. Dershowitz's bone-headed "joke" of an argument turns the president into a monarch.

Republicans will have to explain their vote to acquit. If they say they had doubts about why exactly the aid was withheld, then they'd also have to explain why they didnt' vote in favor of witnesses. Lamar Alexander agreed Trump conditioned the aid on investigating a political rival, but apparently believes it doesn't merit removal. Collins and Romney can say they voted to acquit because maybe Trump really did withhold aid to root out Ukrainian corruption.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you believe that he is honestly mistaken that Trump's actions are not impeachable? Or do you perhaps believe that he's right and Trump's actions are not actually impeachable?

The longer answer:

You first have to define "impeachable offense". Justice Rhenquist famously wrote a book about impeachment before presiding over the trial of Bill Clinton. His conclusion was that impeachment was a purely political process. What that means is that literally any act is an impeachable offense of 67 Senators say it is an impeachable offense. As the saying goes, you can impeach the president for eating a ham sandwich if you have the votes to do it, and I think Senator Alexander knows that.

However, the Constitution calls for impeachment in the case of "high crimes and misdemeanors". That has led many to conclude that there has to be an actual crime to impeach. I thought that myself a few months ago, but a very small amount of reading convinced me otherwise, and pwengthold's example of a president not doing the job of being president is an excellent counterexample that everyone can understand. (It was pwengthold, wasn't it?) Nevertheless, some people insist there has to be an actual crime. Is Alexander one of them? If so, he's wrong.

Then again, if it doesn't have to be a crime, what could it be? Are we back to ham sandwiches?

I think the answer is that any abuse of power should be considered what I might term potentially impeachable. In other words, you could impeach for it, but you don't have to. If the action isn't very serious, then it might be an abuse of power, but not sufficiently severe to warrant removal from office. Every single president in my lifetime (my memory begins with Nixon) has been accused of abuse of power. All of them. Some of them with quite a bit of merit. Should they all be impeached? Could they all be impeached? How do we decide how severe an abuse of power has to be before saying that the President has to be removed, without waiting for an election, and even if he would win that election. (Maybe especially if he would win that election.) When should the option be removed from the voters?

There isn't a set of lawbooks we can turn to to make that call. It really is a matter of judgement, of opinion. How bad is it? Is it bad enough? In my opinion, it has to be pretty darned bad before we disregard the voters' will, or before we refuse to allow the voters to speak. That whole election process is a really big deal. I mean a really big deal. It's a defining characteristic of America. You don't lightly set it aside.

So, is this particular issue big enough? It's a judgement call, and I won't say Lamar Alexander is mistaken in making the judgement he did. Neither will I say that the Democratic Senators who voted to remove him (or will vote on Wednesday, anyway) are mistaken. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. I don't think the situation is clear.

So, in summary, if Senator Alexander thinks there absolutely has to be a crime, I think he is mistaken. On the other hand, if he thinks it should only be a very serious offense or abuse of power, but not necessarily a crime, I would agree. As for whether this situation is sufficiently severe to warrant the very severe step of removing an elected president form office, I think reasonable people could differ.

 

[Meadmaker]

A few hurdles there. 1) Going through the courts to obtain a DNA sample from Trump. 2) The sample must match (not a given). This woman also alleges something like the Democratic Party was involved in a sexual assault by Moonves. 3) Even if it is a match, it doesn't prove that Trump raped her, or even lied about meeting her. Depending on the nature of the DNA, Trump's lawyers could argue it was planted. 4) A prosecution or civil lawsuit would not occur until after the election.

A civil lawsuit could. That's how Bill Clinton ended up giving a DNA sample to match against Ms. Lewinsky's dress.

And while a prosecution can't take place against a sitting president, an investigation can.


Is it likely to produce results? Did Donald Trump actually rape the woman, and if so can she produce evidence of it? Time will tell.

There's also tax issues percolating in courts. I certainly hope we eventually see his tax returns. I don't know if there will be a real crime there. With all the money he pays to lawyers you would hope they could keep him barely within the law, but exposing him as someone who fails in one business after another can't help with his voter support, even if it doesn't lead to impeachment.

The real message is that I do not share the doom and gloom here, because I do not think this situation was an airtight, must impeach, matter. I think if one of those does come up, and with this guy I think there's a good chance it will, I think impeachment is still an option. It's harder after losing this one, but not impossible.

 

[Meadmaker]

. Your own blithe dismissal (of voter suppression) is yet another damning indictment in the country's slipping toward a monarchic, kleptocratic oligarchy.

(material in parenthesis added)


No, it isn't. For one thing, we should not accept it, but there's a time and a place. We should fight it tooth and nail. We should expose it where it happens. We should see if there is cause for criminal charges against those who do it. And we should do it all right now, in advance of the election.

After the election, though, it happened, and it was legal. It isn't a sign of impending dictatorship. It's dirty tricks that might, possibly, turn an election.

There's no actual reason to believe it turned the last election. Michigan was awfully close. Is it possible enough votes in Michigan were suppressed to flip Michigan. I doubt it, but who knows? Maybe. Unless you also got Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Trump still won. He didn't win by voter suppression. This is still a democracy.


Get out and vote. Organize others to vote. Fight every attempt at voter suppression. Work hard to get the outcome you want. Once the votes are counted, though, that's it. Accept the outcome and if you don't like it, come back after the first week in November and start working toward 2022 and 2024.

 

[Aridas]

Congress's approval rating is at 23% and that's actually pretty good for Congress. (I'm trying to find it broken down by Senate vs House anywhere).

Last I saw... the recent rise in approval rating was exclusively due to the Democrats of the House once they took over. The approval of the Republicans remained pretty much unchanged and horrendous.

"... suppressing minority votes through shady, but legal, means."

A loophole? Not fraud?

Neither.

Right there is how apologists for this scumbaggery reveal their inner thoughts. Suppressing votes, no matter how 'legal', strikes at democracy itself. It's definitive of an anti-democratic bent.

And the US' history is crammed full of entirely legal voter suppression. It's fine and good to oppose it, but seriously, don't attack people over them simply having acknowledged that it's a real and ongoing thing.

The suppression of a vote is arguably worse than acceptance of a fraudulent one made. For it denies a right that's (nominally) protected. I'm aghast at the extent and the relative acceptance of voter suppression in the US. Your own blithe dismissal is yet another damning indictment in the country's slipping toward a monarchic, kleptocratic oligarchy.

Nevertheless, the general trend has fairly consistently been in the exact opposite direction as what you project over US history, with plenty of times when those who tried to suppress votes more again gained some ground for a while. Hopefully, we'll be able to keep that trend going.

However, the Constitution calls for impeachment in the case of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

To poke at this, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Also, just because, it's worth restating that Trump solicited a notable bribe. He didn't immediately get it, so he almost immediately committed extortion to try to get it, on top of all the rest of the plotting.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The argument that the Senate needs to heed the will of the people is absurd: the long terms of Senators are specifically there to create a distance between Representatives and Voters so that Senators can take decisions which go beyond what's best for the next election cycle.

 

[Lurch]

The longer answer:

You first have to define "impeachable offense". Justice Rhenquist famously wrote a book about impeachment before presiding over the trial of Bill Clinton. His conclusion was that impeachment was a purely political process. What that means is that literally any act is an impeachable offense of 67 Senators say it is an impeachable offense. As the saying goes, you can impeach the president for eating a ham sandwich if you have the votes to do it, and I think Senator Alexander knows that.

However, the Constitution calls for impeachment in the case of "high crimes and misdemeanors". That has led many to conclude that there has to be an actual crime to impeach. I thought that myself a few months ago, but a very small amount of reading convinced me otherwise, and pwengthold's example of a president not doing the job of being president is an excellent counterexample that everyone can understand. (It was pwengthold, wasn't it?) Nevertheless, some people insist there has to be an actual crime. Is Alexander one of them? If so, he's wrong.

Then again, if it doesn't have to be a crime, what could it be? Are we back to ham sandwiches?

I think the answer is that any abuse of power should be considered what I might term potentially impeachable. In other words, you could impeach for it, but you don't have to. If the action isn't very serious, then it might be an abuse of power, but not sufficiently severe to warrant removal from office. Every single president in my lifetime (my memory begins with Nixon) has been accused of abuse of power. All of them. Some of them with quite a bit of merit. Should they all be impeached? Could they all be impeached? How do we decide how severe an abuse of power has to be before saying that the President has to be removed, without waiting for an election, and even if he would win that election. (Maybe especially if he would win that election.) When should the option be removed from the voters?

There isn't a set of lawbooks we can turn to to make that call. It really is a matter of judgement, of opinion. How bad is it? Is it bad enough? In my opinion, it has to be pretty darned bad before we disregard the voters' will, or before we refuse to allow the voters to speak. That whole election process is a really big deal. I mean a really big deal. It's a defining characteristic of America. You don't lightly set it aside.

So, is this particular issue big enough? It's a judgement call, and I won't say Lamar Alexander is mistaken in making the judgement he did. Neither will I say that the Democratic Senators who voted to remove him (or will vote on Wednesday, anyway) are mistaken. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. I don't think the situation is clear.

So, in summary, if Senator Alexander thinks there absolutely has to be a crime, I think he is mistaken. On the other hand, if he thinks it should only be a very serious offense or abuse of power, but not necessarily a crime, I would agree. As for whether this situation is sufficiently severe to warrant the very severe step of removing an elected president form office, I think reasonable people could differ.

Here you strongly emphasize the importance of elections. But Trump demonstrably tried to cheat in the one upcoming. And he has shown not the slightest inkling of contrition, and indeed we can be sure he'll likely keep trying to cheat. THAT'S why his impeachment was necessary.

To say, "Let the voters decide" when the issue is the grave doubt about the very fairness and validity of the election is idiotic.

And don't forget that Moscow Mitch has reams of bills--including measures to strengthen election integrity--sitting in his desk drawer awaiting even a glance. The whole GOP is complicit in this undemocratic scumbaggery in their will to power by a minority.

 

[Lurch]

The argument that the Senate needs to heed the will of the people is absurd: the long terms of Senators are specifically there to create a distance between Representatives and Voters so that Senators can take decisions which go beyond what's best for the next election cycle.

True enough. The House represents the people. The Senate represents land.

 

[alfaniner]

Marco Rubio explains his impeachment vote

tl;dr version: Maybe he did it. I just don't think it's in the best interest of the nation to remove him.

I have some small hope that in Tuesdays SOTU speech, The PDJT is going to say something so abhorrent, so egregious, so clearly against the best interest of the nation, that several Republicans will feel no choice but to change their votes over to CONVICT on Wednesday.

And I would laugh at him.