House Impeachment Inquiry

[acbytesla]

I think because impeachment is political, it makes it even more important that the charges are as unambiguous and non-subjective as possible.

The real court is public opinion and the question is how much of a pretzel do GOP senators have to twist themselves into to try to spin the charges.

They're not going to vote for removal even if video of Trump strangling Epstein came out tomorrow. But the worse they look carry water for him in the Senate trial, the more of their supporters and potential Trump voters decide to stay home because they're not enthused next November.

While I agree that the charges should be unambiguous and non-subjective as possible, a certain amount of subjectivity is necessarily going to come in to play. Impeachment was intended to cover a broad range of offenses that may or may not be criminal. Dereliction of duty and abuse of power, neither of which is criminal were certainly thought of in the minds of the founders. There is a very good reason that Congress is limited to impeachment and disqualification as penalties for an office holder. Criminality while not irrelevant is secondary. In fact, a President could in fact be guilty of a criminal act and justifiably not be impeached.

Also, I don't believe the President's witness intimidation tactics are in fact up for subjective interpretation. Now his motives may be, but I see that as irrelevant when comes to an article of impeachment. It is a clear abuse of the power of his office.

 

[kellyb]

"When you think about it, isn't it the mailman's fault for delivering the threatening letter that I wrote?"

That's how dumb this argument is.

I think Schiff was smart to do it from a PR perspective, and it was the morally correct thing to do, as well, but in no way is that a good analogy.

Why was Schiff reading twitter himself in the first place in the middle of the Impeachment??? It's not normal to interrupt a legal proceeding because of anything ANYONE says on twitter.

 

[Cavemonster]

I think Schiff was smart to do it from a PR perspective, and it was the morally correct thing to do, as well, but in no way is that a good analogy.

Why was Schiff reading twitter himself in the first place in the middle of the Impeachment??? It's not normal to interrupt a legal proceeding because of anything ANYONE says on twitter.

This administration is not normal. Trump's tweets are considered official white house communications and can carry legal weight. Trump fired Rex Tillerson through a tweet. It's weird as hell that we've gotten here, but that's on Trump.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Also, I don't believe the President's witness intimidation tactics are in fact up for subjective interpretation.

Perhaps but, as always, it doesn't matter how much of an objective fact it is if the people in a position to do something about it (Which in the President's case means the Senate or the Cabinet) deny it, rationalize it, or don't care.

2+2 is not up for subjective interpretation but that doesn't make the people who think it equals 5 change their mind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's stupid enough to be a trump idea.

This is clearly implied because anyone with intelligence would know they could have brought up a number of Hunter's jobs following his father without this illegal act of extorting Zelensky.

It is consistent with Trump's projection, expecting to find blatant corruption, and with his obsession with Ukraine due to the whole 'Russia didn't help him get elected' and the subsequent CT about the DNC server.

 

[Cavemonster]

Also, I don't believe the President's witness intimidation tactics are in fact up for subjective interpretation. Now his motives may be, but I see that as irrelevant when comes to an article of impeachment. It is a clear abuse of the power of his office.

There's a certain amount of reading between the lines to get from Trump tweeting about Yovanovitch was done with the intent to stop her or others from testifying. The more clear primary motivation is probably to discourage voters from taking her testimony seriously and disseminating talking points to dismiss her testimony. Those are super gross, but they aren't directly witness tampering, and my guess is they'd be a tough sell to justify removal

Out of all the things Trump does regularly that are abuses of office, this particular case of witness tampering just isn't one of the best for the court of public opinion.

 

[Ziggurat]

"When you think about it, isn't it the mailman's fault for delivering the threatening letter that I wrote?"

That's how dumb this argument is.

The mailman has a legal obligation to deliver a letter, and no knowledge of its content. Schiff had no legal obligation to repeat Trump's tweet, and his knowledge of its content was precisely the point.

Your comparison is dumb.

 

[Steve]

I think Schiff was smart to do it from a PR perspective, and it was the morally correct thing to do, as well, but in no way is that a good analogy.

Why was Schiff reading twitter himself in the first place in the middle of the Impeachment??? It's not normal to interrupt a legal proceeding because of anything ANYONE says on twitter.

Consider the possibility that an aide was monitoring Trump’s tweets and thought this particular one was important enough to bring to Schiff’s attention. Federal politicians do have staff. They do not work in total isolation. (Except for one particular POTUS, perhaps)

 

[Steve]

The mailman has a legal obligation to deliver a letter, and no knowledge of its content. Schiff had no legal obligation to repeat Trump's tweet, and his knowledge of its content was precisely the point.

Your comparison is dumb.

Efforts over the last couple of pages to blame others for publicizing Trump’s post are sooo much dumber.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is highly unlikely Trump even knows the name of most Ambassadors. Do you think Trump really knows how good or bad Yovanovitch was as an Ambassador?

He doesn't need to. Presidents frequently remove ambassadors for no other reason than that another president appointed them, as Yovanovitch was. And I don't see people complaining about who he replaced her with. I'm sure she wasn't happy, because ambassadorships are sweet gigs, but she's not entitled to the job.

1. Do you think that President Trump withheld military aid?

It was delayed, yes.

2. Did he do it to get Ukraine to announce that they were investigating the Bidens?

Everyone claiming that is getting that second hand. It's conceivable, but it hasn't been demonstrated, and there are other reasons to delay payment.

3. Do you think that is a proper use of Presidential powers?

That reason wouldn't be proper (but I wouldn't impeach for it). But there were proper reasons to delay. It doesn't really work to get your panties in a bunch over a possible improper reason when there is a proper reason.

 

[Ziggurat]

Efforts over the last couple of pages to blame others for publicizing Trump’s post are sooo much dumber.

You fundamentally misunderstand the argument if you think I'm blaming Schiff.

 

[kellyb]

This administration is not normal. Trump's tweets are considered official white house communications and can carry legal weight. Trump fired Rex Tillerson through a tweet. It's weird as hell that we've gotten here, but that's on Trump.

Oh, Trump started it, for sure! It's just like he's dragged Democrats into LaLaLand with him to a tiny extent, in the sense that our behavior is atypical now because it's in response by necessity to his in the stratosphere craziness.

The mailman thing is just a bad analogy, though.

 

[acbytesla]

There's a certain amount of reading between the lines to get from Trump tweeting about Yovanovitch was done with the intent to stop her or others from testifying. The more clear primary motivation is probably to discourage voters from taking her testimony seriously and disseminating talking points to dismiss her testimony. Those are super gross, but they aren't directly witness tampering, and my guess is they'd be a tough sell to justify removal

Out of all the things Trump does regularly that are abuses of office, this particular case of witness tampering just isn't one of the best for the court of public opinion.

Sure. If it was only this single tweet. Then you might be able to argue that Trump is not trying to affect testimonies. However, when you add this tweet to all of the other actions of Trump, the witness intimidation and tampering is clear and unambiguous.

 

[Cavemonster]

Oh, Trump started it, for sure! It's just like he's dragged Democrats into LaLaLand with him to a tiny extent, in the sense that our behavior is atypical now because it's in response by necessity to his in the stratosphere craziness.

The mailman thing is just a bad analogy, though.

Eh, it's not the best analogy, but it's sort of the absurd termination of an absurd line of thought.

Witness intimidation is about intent to stop incriminating testimony. No sort of messenger who lacks that intent is in any way guilty of it.

 

[acbytesla]

He doesn't need to. Presidents frequently remove ambassadors for no other reason than that another president appointed them, as Yovanovitch was. And I don't see people complaining about who he replaced her with. I'm sure she wasn't happy, because ambassadorships are sweet gigs, but she's not entitled to the job.

No they don't. They can, but they don't. The foreign services does have some political aspects to it, but it's amazing just how apolitical it has been.

It was delayed, yes.

Everyone claiming that is getting that second hand. It's conceivable, but it hasn't been demonstrated, and there are other reasons to delay payment.

Now, you're just being dishonest. Sondland, Volker, VIindman and Taylor are NOT second hand. And all we need is for Perry, Pompeo, Mulvaney and Trump come and testify under oath, if these people got it wrong.

That reason wouldn't be proper (but I wouldn't impeach for it). But there were proper reasons to delay. It doesn't really work to get your panties in a bunch over a possible improper reason when there is a proper reason.

Again, you're being dishonest. The FACTS show NO OTHER REASON.

It's really sad when people bury their heads in the sand.

 

[Cavemonster]

He doesn't need to. Presidents frequently remove ambassadors for no other reason than that another president appointed them, as Yovanovitch was. And I don't see people complaining about who he replaced her with. I'm sure she wasn't happy, because ambassadorships are sweet gigs, but she's not entitled to the job.

He doesn't need to legally, but ethically, and for the good of our relationships with other countries, publicly smearing a public servant and firing them if the smears aren't true is not a good thing.

Are we really in disagreement about that? The work that public servants do benefits from built up relationships, institutional knowledge and some degree of continuity and reliability.

Do we really need to make a case for why lieing about an ambassador's performance and firing her for no good reason is a bad thing? Is that where we are?

 

[kellyb]

Eh, it's not the best analogy, but it's sort of the absurd termination of an absurd line of thought.

Witness intimidation is about intent to stop incriminating testimony. No sort of messenger who lacks that intent is in any way guilty of it.

Agreed. I had actually come to a similar thought about intent by thinking some more about the hypothetical I posted earlier, of if it was a Republican who stopped the Impeachment to show it to her. That really, actually would beyond a reasonable doubt be witness intimidation with both Trump AND the messenger. Way beyond reasonable doubt. Because the intimidation intent would be the ONLY possible motive there, and not maybe "troll", or Trump's version of PR and damage control, or whatever else.

 

[kellyb]

This is clearly implied because anyone with intelligence would know they could have brought up a number of Hunter's jobs following his father without this illegal act of extorting Zelensky.

It is consistent with Trump's projection, expecting to find blatant corruption, and with his obsession with Ukraine due to the whole 'Russia didn't help him get elected' and the subsequent CT about the DNC server.

Extorting Zelensky kinda sounds like something Giuliani probably dreamed up. I think Guiliani has been Trump's "think tank" of one brain for a while now. The two of them conspiring crap like this is an almost predictable result of them spending a lot of time together now that Trump's old "crew" has run off or been removed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't keep up with the thread but will try to go back to it. I have the rerun on of the testimony of Taylor and Kent on. Something I didn't notice in the first go-round:

Kent was asked how the derogatory campaign against the ambassador began. His answer, Giuliani met twice with the last fired prosecutor (the one that followed Shokin). That fired prosecutor met with Mr Solomon of the Hill who then wrote a derogatory piece on the ambassador.

You all remember Solomon? The alt-right and dishonest op ed writer The Hill is giving a platform too?

 

[kellyb]

Consider the possibility that an aide was monitoring Trump’s tweets and thought this particular one was important enough to bring to Schiff’s attention. Federal politicians do have staff. They do not work in total isolation. (Except for one particular POTUS, perhaps)

So why was the aid showing it to Schiff in the middle of impeachment and showing it to Schiff? The aid would have known it was unintentionally wonderful PR for the Democratic side to highlight just how over the top nutty, juvenile, and UNpresidential President Manbaby is. They might have predicted Trump would do that because he's a predictably awful weirdo when it comes to exposing his soul on twitter. He can't HELP but dig his own grave on twitter.

It embarrassed them as expected, too. AWESOME!

But it's not like the mailman analogy. That was a terrible analogy.