The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Crunch on November 25, 2019, 02:26:29 PM

Title: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 25, 2019, 02:26:29 PM
Alright, longish post but relevant. Adam Schiff told CNN’s State of the Union he saw no reason to call in more witnesses to publicly testify before the House Intelligence Committee. So we're at the end of the hearings ... at least the public ones. He could change his mind but for now, he's done. Even Chuck Todd knows there's a problem:
Quote
CHUCK TODD:

I want to put — I mean, you have all these open leads. It just seems odd that you’re stopping.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF:

Well, we’re not —

CHUCK TODD:

I mean, look at all these open leads.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF:

Yes, Chuck, it’s —

CHUCK TODD:

You have Bolton, you have the energy deal, the —

REP. ADAM SCHIFF:

It’s important to know we’re not stopping, but it’s also important to know this, Chuck, and you’ve acknowledged this, and I find this remarkable, the evidence is already overwhelming, right? The evidence is already overwhelming. The questions is not —

CHUCK TODD:

But you’re not in a courtroom. You know that.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF:

Well —

CHUCK TODD:

You have a political bar you have to meet.

Of course, everyone knows there's a problem.  WaPo reporter Rachel Bade has the inside info on how some Democrats getting are “cold feet” as worries grow about public opposition to impeachment. You gotta understand, after 2 weeks of public hearings, support for impeachment has declined signficantly:
Quote
According to the FiveThirtyEight average of national polls, support for impeachment has shrunk from 50.3 percent in mid-October to 46.3 percent presently, while opposition has risen from 43.8 percent to 45.6 percent.


Among independents in the FiveThirtyEight average, support for impeachment topped out at 47.7 percent in late October but has sunk to 41 percent over the past three weeks.
Almost 7% drop from the 538 guys. That means out in the real world it's probably quite a bit more than what they report. You can start to see the reality sinking in:
Quote
n Emerson University survey found an even more extreme flip among independents.

In October, independents supported impeachment 48 percent to 35 percent in Emerson’s polling. In the new poll released this week, independents opposed it by a 49 percent to 34 percent margin. In that time, overall support for impeaching Trump swung from 48 percent in favor and 44 percent against to 45 percent in opposition to impeachment and 43 percent in favor.

The latest Morning Consult survey was the third poll released this week to register a flip among independents. That survey also registered a new low among all voters in favor of impeachment at 48 percent.

But perhaps most alarming for Democrats is a new survey of Wisconsin from Marquette University. In Wisconsin, a key swing state in next year’s election, Marquette found that 40 percent supported impeaching Trump and removing him from office, while 53 percent opposed it. In October, before the hearings began, support was at 44 percent and opposition was at 51 percent.

Put 2 and 2 together and it's clear why Schiff is halting the public hearings. The Democrats are essentially seeing support for the shampeachment go into freefall and need to stop the hemorrhaging. Why, you may ask? Because it's hurting them, badly:
Quote
Vulnerable Democrats are watching in horror as GOP impeachment attacks deluge their districts back home. And they want a much stronger counteroffensive from their own party and its allies…

GOP-aligned outside groups have spent roughly $8 million on TV spots this cycle in battleground districts, such as Rep. Anthony Brindisi’s central New York seat. The vast majority of those ads specifically hammer Democrats over impeachment.

Meanwhile, swing-district Democrats are receiving little reinforcement from their own party or even other liberal coalitions. Democratic and pro-impeachment groups have spent about $2.7 million in TV ads, according to an analysis of spending by the ad tracking firm Advertising Analytics. And more than $600,000 of that total went to ads targeting Republican incumbents, not helping vulnerable Democratic members.

How do the vulnerable democrats phrase it? Well, like this:
Quote
“It’s like someone taped our arms to our side and punched us in the face,” groused one Democrat to Politico ...

Even Vanity Fair is starting to freak out (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/new-poll-suggests-democrats-impeachment-push-could-alienate-key-voters).

So, it's bad. Real bad. It's blowing up just as everyone expected it to. What's the next step? Plans for impeachment were announced, literally, 19 minutes after Trump won. Russian collusion was a epic bust and the only thing that's an even bigger bust is the Ukraine one.  Unfortunately, the left ignored Pelosi's attempt to retain some semblance of sanity and steamrolled her into letting the kangaroo court of Schiff and Friends to go forward.

There was bipartisan support against the hearings with 2 Democrats joining the Republicans - that should have been the flashing warning sign. Now, they're in quite the pickle. There are 233 Democrats in the House right now. 231 voted for the hearing and if less than 231 vote to move this forward (i.e. the bipartisan opposition actually grew), it hands Trump a bit of a victory and you know, you just know, how he'll tweet that and how he'll crow about the loss of support after the hearing shows it's nothing more than a hyperpartisan witch hunt. And God forbid she doesn't have the 218 votes to close the deal. The fallout of that would be an epic failure. Pelosi has to get not the 218 but at least the same 231 or Trump gets a win.

But, then we go to the Senate. And you all know what's gonna happen there. The handpicked, coached, "witnesses" will be without Schiff protecting them. Schiff himself will be called to testify as will others on his staff. Joe and Hunter Biden will take the stand. The debacle of the house hearings, as demonstrated above, will pale in comparison to what happens to the Democrats once it moves out of their control and into the senate. Trump has reportedly asked for the impeachment to go forward just so he can fully engage in the fight. Trump and the Republicans will wreck what's left of the Democrats here. I know it, you know it, Pelosi knows it.

So what does she do? Not having the vote or losing the vote is a massive failure. Having the vote and winning it is an even bigger failure. Democrats are in a lose-lose. Pelosi is pretty smart, she's been around the block so what's her way out?

She goes to the DNC media outlets and talks about how they got him, super proof, undeniable. By perfect witnesses. It's all obvious and real. The DNC media will eat this up and put it on full blast. Then she says, we can't go forward though. Those evil, corrupt, baby-eating, Republicans will simply not convict. And, through her perfect patriotism and that of Democrats, she holds the vote and goes for censure or something. All to save the country the embarrassment of acquiting Trump. I'm not saying she does this, just that it's a way out of the situation they've gotten themselves into with the least amount of damage.

Should be entertaining either way.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on November 25, 2019, 02:40:34 PM
Trump has reportedly asked for the impeachment to go forward just so he can fully engage in the fight. Trump and the Republicans will wreck what's left of the Democrats here. I know it, you know it, Pelosi knows it.

Trump could fully engage right now and allow people to testify. The Republicans in the house are getting equal time to question witnesses as the democrats. They could turn over the state department records pertaining to Ukraine. Basically they could do anything other than stonewalling the investigation. I think the only witnesses the Republicans were denied were Joe and Hunter Biden. Maybe a few others related to conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 25, 2019, 03:09:16 PM
Trump has reportedly asked for the impeachment to go forward just so he can fully engage in the fight. Trump and the Republicans will wreck what's left of the Democrats here. I know it, you know it, Pelosi knows it.

Trump could fully engage right now and allow people to testify.
Who is he preventing from testifying? I'm sure there are some, I just don't know. But, why should he allow anyone else to testify? What's the upside for Trump to put anyone in the situation where they have to answer to Schiff's kangaroo court? Trump is already winning the political war here, as polling shows, there is no advantage for him to allow anyone else to go on enemy turf and get beat up when he can wait and have them in front of a friendly audience.

The Republicans in the house are getting equal time to question witnesses as the democrats.

Let's ask Elise Stefanik if that's true. I tell you what, the optics on that one are pure electoral gold, straight into my veins.

They could turn over the state department records pertaining to Ukraine.

You have the call transcript and statements from the people involved in the call. You don't need a single other document.

Basically they could do anything other than stonewalling the investigation.

Stonewalling? What? Schiff and Friends say they got it all, they got the goods and it's undeniable! Why would you mischaracterize that as stonewalling?

I think the only witnesses the Republicans were denied were Joe and Hunter Biden. Maybe a few others related to conspiracy theories.

They did not get the leaker or any of the sources that provided the second and third hand information. They did not get the staff members from Schiff's office that coordinated with the leaker. They only got witnesses that were supposed to provide strong anti-Trump bias - and even then they were forced to admit it was just conjecture (or presumption as it was admitted).
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on November 25, 2019, 03:13:26 PM
The whistleblower is protected by federal law. Forcing him to testify would be illegal.

You're sure there are SOME??

Quote
An unidentified source told the network that National Security Council lawyers John Eisenberg and Michael Ellis will not testify.

Two other officials, Robert Blair, assistant to the president and senior adviser to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and Brian McCormack, associate director for natural resources energy and science at the Office of Management and Budget, had already declined to testify, outlets reported Saturday.


An administration official told that CNN that Eisenberg is claiming executive privilege, while Blair, Ellis and McCormack said they are not going to appear because they won’t be able to have an administration lawyer present, according to CNN.

Blair’s attorney, Whit Ellerman, also told Politico his client would still not show up if subpoenaed, adding that “direction from the White House and advice from [the Department of Justice] cover subpoena.”

Two other Office of Management and Budget officials, Michael Duffey and Russell Vought, will not show up to testimonies later this week, a source with knowledge of the situation told CNN.

Outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry refused to a request to testify Wednesday as part of the inquiry, a spokeswoman for his department, Shaylyn Haynes, told The Hill on Friday.

And that's just this week.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on November 25, 2019, 03:29:44 PM
Who is he preventing from testifying? I'm sure there are some, I just don't know.

In addition to the ones mentioned above, John Bolton (and other NSC officials), Mike Pompeo, Rudy, and others. Did you miss the white house announcing they weren't going to co-operate in any way and instructed everyone not to turn over documents or testify?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on November 25, 2019, 03:31:06 PM
Serious question: What kind of repercussions would be in play if it's proven that Schiff knew who the whistleblower was before he stated he didn't? Obviously the optics would be really bad, but would there be any more formal consequences?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on November 25, 2019, 03:37:58 PM
Serious question: What kind of repercussions would be in play if it's proven that Schiff knew who the whistleblower was before he stated he didn't? Obviously the optics would be really bad, but would there be any more formal consequences?

With a Democratic House? Repercussions are zero, a Democrat led ethic committee won't do anything to Schiff, to the point I doubt they're willing to even investigate.

Republicans might take it up in 2021 should they retake the House, but its more likely they're simply going to wash their hands of the whole mess, as it allows them to look like the Adults stuck between Trump and the Dems.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on November 25, 2019, 03:38:35 PM
The Republicans in the house are getting equal time to question witnesses as the democrats.

Let's ask Elise Stefanik if that's true. I tell you what, the optics on that one are pure electoral gold, straight into my veins.

Did any of the Democrats yield their time to anyone other than council? So your response to they didn't get equal time is to say that the committee adopted a different set of rules for these hearings and one Republican didn't like it? I'm glad your so interested in optics. I always find the optics of a situation what's most important in discovering the truth  ::).
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 25, 2019, 05:31:20 PM
The whistleblower is protected by federal law. Forcing him to testify would be illegal.
It is not illegal to have him testify. He will be forced to do it during the senate trial, it will be legal.

You're sure there are SOME??

Quote
An unidentified source told the network that National Security Council lawyers John Eisenberg and Michael Ellis will not testify.

Two other officials, Robert Blair, assistant to the president and senior adviser to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and Brian McCormack, associate director for natural resources energy and science at the Office of Management and Budget, had already declined to testify, outlets reported Saturday.


An administration official told that CNN that Eisenberg is claiming executive privilege, while Blair, Ellis and McCormack said they are not going to appear because they won’t be able to have an administration lawyer present, according to CNN.

Blair’s attorney, Whit Ellerman, also told Politico his client would still not show up if subpoenaed, adding that “direction from the White House and advice from [the Department of Justice] cover subpoena.”

Two other Office of Management and Budget officials, Michael Duffey and Russell Vought, will not show up to testimonies later this week, a source with knowledge of the situation told CNN.

Outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry refused to a request to testify Wednesday as part of the inquiry, a spokeswoman for his department, Shaylyn Haynes, told The Hill on Friday.

And that's just this week.

A lot of “sources say”, probably at least some of this is made up. Do you think they should have testified? I think it unlikely any administration would ever waive executive privilege under these circumstances. However, we very well may see them in the senate trial.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 25, 2019, 05:32:45 PM
Who is he preventing from testifying? I'm sure there are some, I just don't know.

In addition to the ones mentioned above, John Bolton (and other NSC officials), Mike Pompeo, Rudy, and others. Did you miss the white house announcing they weren't going to co-operate in any way and instructed everyone not to turn over documents or testify?

It rings a bell and fits with what anyone with a shred of intelligence would do. I just wanted to see a list.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 25, 2019, 05:37:07 PM
I'm glad your so interested in optics. I always find the optics of a situation what's most important in discovering the truth  ::).
I’m surprised you discount them. See the OP, you know how Democrats are feeling like they’re getting beat up? It’s the optics, running through ads. Given this is a political effort, the optics are massively important. You cannot possibly believe the truth is even remotely important here, not with Schiff and his show.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on November 25, 2019, 06:12:17 PM
The whistleblower is protected by federal law. Forcing him to testify would be illegal.

That's false.  There is no required anonymity or protection from testifying - even if the WB were legit.  However, the WB is not actually legit.

Trump has reportedly asked for the impeachment to go forward just so he can fully engage in the fight. Trump and the Republicans will wreck what's left of the Democrats here. I know it, you know it, Pelosi knows it.

Trump could fully engage right now and allow people to testify.

Sort of.  All that was "permitted" was for such persons to go into the House dungeon for secret testimony that would only be released if it helped the DNC narrative.  Kind of stupid to agree to that under penalty of perjury.  I'm sure Schiff and his staff would be totally wiling to sit down under oath with the DOJ where the DOJ was allowed to choose what to release or not.

The Democrats had the option to create a fair process and choose instead to create a show trial.  Trump's had to live with that unfair process, and now the Democrats do too.

Quote
The Republicans in the house are getting equal time to question witnesses as the democrats.


They are getting the "same" time it's not remotely equal.  Schiff has repeatedly, interrupted the Republicans (they are not allowed to interupt him), directed witnesses on how or whether to answer questions, and manipulated the process to prevent reasonable rebuttal rights.  I mean, honestly, he specifically disallowed the Republicans from using who they wanted to ask questions, in particular he set the rules so that Jim Jordan couldn't ask the primary questions.  I mean honestly, what kind of process allows you to control how the other side can even make their case?  Not one seeking the truth that's for sure.

Schiff was allowed to lie, to characterize others statements, with impunity.

And, no matter what, disallowing WhiteHouse participation was in no way designed to get to the truth.

Quote
They could turn over the state department records pertaining to Ukraine.

Sure, and Schiff could turn over records of his staff's interaction with the WB and all communications they had with DNC members related to the inquiry.  Why isn't he doing that?

Oh yeah, because just because something can happen doesn't mean it should or that it's a legitimate request. 

Quote
Basically they could do anything other than stonewalling the investigation

See that's the thing, this was never an investigation.  Not one member on the DNC side was looking for the truth, they were just looking for facts that they could use to forward an impeachment vote.  Period end of story.   And when they didn't get them, you get Schiff on tv claiming it's ironclad.  Lol

Quote
I think the only witnesses the Republicans were denied were Joe and Hunter Biden. Maybe a few others related to conspiracy theories.

Nothing wrong with calling them, all legitimate to call.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on November 25, 2019, 06:26:15 PM
What do we want?  SELECTIVE PROSECUTION!
when do we want it? WHEN IT SUITS US!
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on November 25, 2019, 07:53:22 PM
What do we want?  SELECTIVE PROSECUTION!
when do we want it? WHEN IT SUITS US!

I'd say, when do we want it?  WHEN WE'RE LOSING A WINNABLE ELECTION!
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 26, 2019, 11:26:05 AM
When do we want it? MAYBE AFTER THIS TWO WEEK BREAK!

I mean, Trump is destroying the nation, America may not survive, dog and cats, living together, mass hysteria!

Meh, we’ll get to it after a nice break.

Again, it’s a political process, optics are important. How’s the ad for this one gonna play in contested elections? Democrats  were so upset and had such solid evidence with the stakes being the actual dissolution of the United States, so they decided to take a two week break.

That ad will run in heavy rotation. It seems like some the Democrats are intentionally tanking this while others can’t think of anything else. It’s like the party went schizophrenic.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on November 26, 2019, 11:38:50 AM
I mean, Trump is destroying the nation, America may not survive, dog and cats, living together, mass hysteria!

That's Trouble with a capital T, and that rhymes with P, and that stands for Trump.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Wayward Son on November 26, 2019, 12:38:24 PM
Quote
Of course, everyone knows there's a problem.  WaPo reporter Rachel Bade has the inside info on how some Democrats getting are “cold feet” as worries grow about public opposition to impeachment. You gotta understand, after 2 weeks of public hearings, support for impeachment has declined signficantly:
Quote
According to the FiveThirtyEight average of national polls, support for impeachment has shrunk from 50.3 percent in mid-October to 46.3 percent presently, while opposition has risen from 43.8 percent to 45.6 percent.

Among independents in the FiveThirtyEight average, support for impeachment topped out at 47.7 percent in late October but has sunk to 41 percent over the past three weeks.
Almost 7% drop from the 538 guys. That means out in the real world it's probably quite a bit more than what they report.

Enjoy it while you can, boys.  The latest FiveThrityEight average has bounced back. (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo)  As of 11-26-19, it's up to 48.6 percent for impeachment and opposition has dropped to 41.1 percent--2.5 percent increase from your quote, and a 4.5 percent decrease in opposition.

Which means that out in the real world, it's probably worse. :)

I guess hearing from the officials themselves that the U.S. government actually did try to pressure the Ukrainian government to try to influence our elections by announcing an investigation against Trump's most likely opponent is slowly sinking in. :)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on November 26, 2019, 01:01:51 PM
breakdown of opinions (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/some-americans-look-persuadable-on-impeachment-but-theyre-not-paying-attention/)

In the article, they suggest that the ones who are not certain about this whole thing don't care and aren't watching.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on November 26, 2019, 01:27:19 PM
I still find it funny that people think opinion polls are the relevant thing.

Its a matter of right and wrong, the fact is the opinion polls are relevant because the process, even loaded as far to the left as it could be, didn't produce any actual evidence that goes to the President's conduct.  I'm with Trump on this, I kind of hope they do impeach, this whole sham will disintegrate when the other side actually gets to present a case.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on November 26, 2019, 01:31:35 PM
The opinion polls are mostly interesting as a question of blowback during elections in close districts - in either direction. If it is the hyper partisans who care, then the more centrist voters who are up for grabs are not paying attention and probably don't base their vote on impeachment unless something very dramatic happens.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 26, 2019, 04:32:32 PM
I still find it funny that people think opinion polls are the relevant thing.

Its a matter of right and wrong, the fact is the opinion polls are relevant because the process, even loaded as far to the left as it could be, didn't produce any actual evidence that goes to the President's conduct.  I'm with Trump on this, I kind of hope they do impeach, this whole sham will disintegrate when the other side actually gets to present a case.

I find opinion polls semi-relevant. I don't much buy into one time "spot polls" and I certainly don't base my entire hopes/doubts on them. But if all things remain consistent and we see a trend develop, I start thinking that something is happening.

But, more importantly, the politicians running the clown show live and die by them and make big decisions based on polls. And the opinion polls they most trust, like Rasmussen and Emerson, show a rather seismic shift since open hearings started. For example:

Quote
Black American support for President Trump:

Emerson: 34.5%
Rasmussen: 34%

There was an article some time ago that made the case that if Trump ever got more than 30% of the black vote, he'd be impossible to beat. Everyone scoffed at it being impossible but it seems likely to have happened. More open hearings in the judiciary committee will be scheduled at some point. If this trend holds or improves for Trump, I'm not sure how the Democrats go forward on impeachment.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 26, 2019, 04:37:44 PM
Case in point:

Quote
Rep. Brenda Lawrence on Tuesday jumped back on the House Democrats’ impeachment train, performing an awkward double-reversal after walking back her support for removing President Trump from office.

Ms. Lawrence, Michigan Democrat, went from supporting impeachment in October, to saying Sunday that censure of Mr. Trump might be a better alternative, to reviving her full support of impeachment.

She said the two weeks of public hearings on impeachment had convinced her of the need to impeach Mr. Trump.

“The information they revealed confirmed that this president has abused the power of his office, therefore I continue to support impeachment. However, I am very concerned about Senate Republicans and the fact that they would find this behavior by the President acceptable,” she said in a statement.

On Sunday, she said there may not be any “value” in impeaching the president ahead of the election.

“We are so close to an election,” said Ms. Lawrence said on a local radio program, Charlie LeDuff’s “No BS News Hour.”

“Sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of taking him out of office. But I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable,” she said. “I want him censured. I want it on the record that the House of Representatives did their job, and they told this president and any president coming behind him that this is unacceptable behavior.”

Brenda is looking for a way out. She tried to back out of impeachment altogether but she got the screws put to her and came back with this rather weak response to once again support impeachment (maybe?).

If Pelosi cannot get the original 231 Democrats to impeach Trump, or even bring in the 2 others, Trump scores major political points. If Pelosi only gets 218, just barely enough to impeach, Trump essentially wins even though he was actually impeached. The only thing worse for Democrats is actually having a Senate trial and that's precisely what Brenda is talking about.

This will be interesting.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on November 27, 2019, 09:28:26 AM
I still find it funny that people think opinion polls are the relevant thing.

Its a matter of right and wrong, the fact is the opinion polls are relevant because the process, even loaded as far to the left as it could be, didn't produce any actual evidence that goes to the President's conduct.  I'm with Trump on this, I kind of hope they do impeach, this whole sham will disintegrate when the other side actually gets to present a case.

I find opinion polls semi-relevant. I don't much buy into one time "spot polls" and I certainly don't base my entire hopes/doubts on them. But if all things remain consistent and we see a trend develop, I start thinking that something is happening.

But, more importantly, the politicians running the clown show live and die by them and make big decisions based on polls. And the opinion polls they most trust, like Rasmussen and Emerson, show a rather seismic shift since open hearings started. For example:

Quote
Black American support for President Trump:

Emerson: 34.5%
Rasmussen: 34%

There was an article some time ago that made the case that if Trump ever got more than 30% of the black vote, he'd be impossible to beat. Everyone scoffed at it being impossible but it seems likely to have happened. More open hearings in the judiciary committee will be scheduled at some point. If this trend holds or improves for Trump, I'm not sure how the Democrats go forward on impeachment.

The only black Americans I know who voted for Trump told me they did so to accelerate things falling apart so something else could be rebuilt.  That’s not a statistical argument, though.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on November 27, 2019, 05:48:57 PM
The only black Americans I know who voted for Trump told me they did so to accelerate things falling apart so something else could be rebuilt.  That’s not a statistical argument, though.

They have a lot of company in the "burn it all down" camp which also voted for Trump in 2016. The democrat's continuing to flip out over Trump makes him a solid lock for most of those voters to repeat that vote again in 2020. Their reason for voting for Trump in 2016 remains valid in 2020. He was voted in to disrupt the system, Trump's done a remarkable job of that so far, and him getting voted back in is likely to make a lot of anti-Trumpers to suffer from even more extreme psychologically induced illness than they already are. Why wouldn't they do so again? For those voters, that is an amazing bonus.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on November 27, 2019, 06:13:57 PM
You're forgetting about the phantom millions of fraudulent voters... Only way he can lose according to him, breitbart, 4chan, and proud boys.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 28, 2019, 07:50:43 AM
You can tell the current shampeachment is falling apart since they’re looking for the next one already.

Quote
On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) said House Democrats could impeach President Donald Trump again.

Cohen says:
Quote
”Things will come out for as long as he’s president and after he’s president. We will continue to pursue those issues, and we can still have hearings in Intel in Judiciary on actions he took that are violative of the Constitution, that are violative of law that affects our national security. All of those things can still be subject for hearings and possible— if there is something that comes out that’s impeachable, that doesn’t mean you can’t have another impeachment. There’s no rule that you win once and olly olly in-free.”

Impeachment now, impeachment tomorrow, impeachment forever. From now on, if Congress is from another party than the president, we will have nonstop impeachment.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 28, 2019, 08:34:46 AM
Let’s out this under the follies:

Quote
Three women claim that Sondland engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior toward them.

Sondland doesn’t deny knowing he three women in question or having business meetings with them but, through his lawyer, he denies any inappropriate touching or kissing. But, we must believe all victims. These brave women deserve awards and huge go fund me efforts.

Sondland has lost all credibility.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on November 28, 2019, 10:03:03 AM
You know what? When I've been looking at this thread since it was started I knew the title was a portmanteau. Because of how portmanteaus are usually constructed - cutting off the end of one word and the beginning of the second word to form a new one - I've been reading it this whole time as "shampoo impeachment." I figured it had something to do with shampooing the subject, like a dog show or something, like making it up. Kill me.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on November 28, 2019, 01:05:47 PM
You know what? When I've been looking at this thread since it was started I knew the title was a portmanteau. Because of how portmanteaus are usually constructed - cutting off the end of one word and the beginning of the second word to form a new one - I've been reading it this whole time as "shampoo impeachment." I figured it had something to do with shampooing the subject, like a dog show or something, like making it up. Kill me.

It's actually about the Sham-wow guy being locked in a room full of mints and peaches.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 29, 2019, 09:04:46 AM
Given the wash, rinse, repeat approach Democrats have taken on impeachment, now their 4th or 5th effort, shampoo impeachment jokes are relevant.

The next rinse is coming into focus:

Quote
The biggest Democrat problem is that they will lose control of the narrative at the very time they need it most.  With the inspector general report getting ready to drop and John Durham's investigation proceeding, they simply cannot afford to turn over the megaphone.

When Republican voters are actually hoping the Democrat House votes for impeachment, the odds of an impeachment vote drop precipitously.  While Democratic Party leaders are deranged, they are not that stupid.

For all of these reasons, instead of cutting the Schiffian Knot, they will likely pretend it never existed.

My guess is that they will solemnly intone that after prayerfully considering the evil president's actions, they have decided to hold a censure vote in the interests of the country while they further investigate.  They will claim they could have and probably should have impeached the president since the case was ironclad, but the Republican senators would just cover for him.  With a national vote right around the corner, they will trust in the voters to deliver justice.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on November 29, 2019, 06:09:22 PM
I'd expect some verbiage about it being set aside "pending further evidence" so that in the off chance Trump is re-elected, but they keep the House(possible), they can find a way to immediately resume impeachment proceedings in either 2021 or 2023.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 30, 2019, 08:52:13 AM
Ok, we’re gearing up for the next installment of the sham so let’s talk about section F of the rules democrats are creating.

In section F, if Trump doesn’t give Democrats all the witnesses they want(i.e. drops executive privilege), then Nadler has the power to deny Trump’s council the ability to question witnesses or call witnesses.

So Trump has some calculus to do.  He can ignore this sham and not send his team to participate. That’s been effective so far as Democrats keep stepping on the rake. Or, he could send his team and have the optics of Nadler refusing to allow them to question a la Stefanik.

It’s just incredible to see democrats constantly giving Trump the ability to decide how he wants to hurt them.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on November 30, 2019, 03:28:25 PM
Today, from the Associated Press:

Quote
Right now, Republicans are wielding impeachment mostly as an offensive weapon, and Democrats are generally playing defense or changing the subject as 2020 congressional races rev up. It's unclear how potent the issue will be by Election Day.

You know it’s getting bad when it’s time to roll this out.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: LetterRip on November 30, 2019, 05:02:27 PM
Ok, we’re gearing up for the next installment of the sham so let’s talk about section F of the rules democrats are creating.

In section F, if Trump doesn’t give Democrats all the witnesses they want(i.e. drops executive privilege), then Nadler has the power to deny Trump’s council the ability to question witnesses or call witnesses.

Executive privelege is quite likely to not extend to witnesses or documents that are part of impeachment hearings,

Quote
One lesson of U.S. v. Nixon is that an executive privilege claim is particularly weak when Congress has invoked its power to remove a president from office through impeachment, said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri.

In the impeachment context, “virtually no part of a president’s duties or behavior is exempt from scrutiny,” Bowman said. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-privilege-explainer/explainer-can-trump-use-executive-privilege-to-withhold-full-mueller-report-idUSKCN1SE2CW
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on November 30, 2019, 05:31:05 PM
I think there might be a compelling case in this instance for SCotUS to put a curb on that to the extent that only the Senate can do that when it comes to impeachment proceedings.

Otherwise, you're just asking for every major investigation into "questionable activities of the President" to become "an impeachment proceeding" which no rational person should want. (If the House is recognized as having that power, expect every PotUS from this day forward to be Impeached by the House if if is controlled by the opposing party.)

But then, this comes down to politics again, because I'm still not convinced that what the Dems have uncovered to date warrants impeachment. I guess we'll see what the Justices think. If they agree with me, they're going to limit the power of the House in some form as a reflection of their viewing this proceeding as being an abuse of Legislative authority.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 01, 2019, 08:39:39 AM
I think there might be a compelling case in this instance for SCotUS to put a curb on that to the extent that only the Senate can do that when it comes to impeachment proceedings.
The courts have already weighed in on the conflict between privilege and oversight, and although there could be tweeks to the balance between the branches, there is no chance the court would fly in the face of previous jurisprudence to this extent and so radically intrude into the separation debate.

Quote
But then, this comes down to politics again, because I'm still not convinced that what the Dems have uncovered to date warrants impeachment.
Whether something warrants impeachment to one person is if course purely subjective, but notwithstanding the particular echo chamber of this thread, what Trump did just on the July 25 phone call would almost certainly be enough to get him convicted of bribery in criminal court.

That's aside from all the corroborating witnesses and the refusals to testify by members of the administration - this not being a criminal proceeding, but rather a political one, there's nothing stopping Congress from interpreting what such refusals likely mean, nor even from interpreting what Trump's directives for his people not to appear might mean.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 01, 2019, 09:04:41 AM
Quote
...what Trump did just on the July 25 phone call would almost certainly be enough to get him convicted of bribery in criminal court.

If you look rationally at the polling, you can see this is obviously not true. At best, you would get a hung jury and you’d be damn lucky to get that. The majority of people aren’t going along with the accusation of abuse of power, quid pro quo , extortion, bribery. That the accusation of what he supposedly did constantly shifts based on what seems to poll best indicates it’s a losing accusation.

Because of that, the chance of a senate conviction is as close to zero as it gets. Many senators are already very clear they will not convict based on the lack of actual evidence (it’s all opinion and hearsay).

So what is the endgame here? What is the win for democrats? The blowback from impeachment is already starting. Does continuing the sham stop the bleeding or accelerate it?

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: LetterRip on December 01, 2019, 12:12:08 PM
If you look rationally at the polling, you can see this is obviously not true.

Polls are fairly meaningless to how a court case would go.  Roger Stone was convicted on all counts.  I doubt there were many conservatives who would agree he committed a crime in a public poll prior to his indictment and conviction.  The Trump supporters vary between completely uninformed and negatively informed - they have been fed a steady diet of absurd lies on Hannity and other shows and have completely ignored reality.

Quote
At best, you would get a hung jury and you’d be damn lucky to get that. The majority of people aren’t going along with the accusation of abuse of power, quid pro quo , extortion, bribery. That the accusation of what he supposedly did constantly shifts based on what seems to poll best indicates it’s a losing accusation.

Bribery is the legal term for a 'quid pro quo' (this for that) that is illegal.  Bribery using a government office and resources is also an abuse of power.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 01, 2019, 12:33:56 PM
The Trump supporters vary between completely uninformed and negatively informed

This is a perfect example of why dems are most likely doomed again in 2020. You allow for only the two possibilities that fit within your own cognition. Unless your model allows for the possibility of a “positively” informed Trump supporter? I doubt it does, but that’s not your fault. It’s how we're all wired.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: LetterRip on December 01, 2019, 02:43:50 PM
This is a perfect example of why dems are most likely doomed again in 2020. You allow for only the two possibilities that fit within your own cognition. Unless your model allows for the possibility of a “positively” informed Trump supporter? I doubt it does, but that’s not your fault. It’s how we're all wired.

You can't be accurately informed and believe that Trump hasn't committed an impeachable crime for which there is adequate evidence that an impartial jury would find him guilty - those are mutually exclusive.  You could think that a jury member might deliberately go against the law and facts and find him not guilty.  That isn't thinking he isn't guilty, that is a belief about behavior.  Do I believe there are Trump supporters immoral enough that they would lie during voir dire and then hang a jury even if Trump were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law?  Sure.

That has nothing to do with the strength of the evidence - it simply speaks to the immorality of some individuals.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 01, 2019, 03:07:44 PM
In a court of law, almost all testimony heard to date would have been stricken from the record.

Which would make it rather hard for a Jury to convict him on.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: LetterRip on December 01, 2019, 05:57:51 PM
In a court of law, almost all testimony heard to date would have been stricken from the record.

On what basis do you think that?  Th testimony given thus far would be pretty typical testimony for a bribery criminal trial.  I've yet to hear hardly any questions or testimony that would be disallowed.  There has been hearsay, but only as would be typical of a grand jury inquiry - to establish who other potential witnesses are and to establish who might have relevant evidence.

So Taylor might not testify in a criminal trial that he had been told by one of his staffers that the staffer had heard Sondland talking to Trump.  Instead Taylors staffer would be supeonaed and would testify directly to what he heard.  Similarly the cell tower logs would be supeonaed and establish the phones that were used and where the phones were located.  Right now those logs aren't being made available, similarly Trump has ordered relevant witnesses not to testify and evidence to be withheld - which a criminal trial wouldn't allow.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 01, 2019, 06:52:40 PM
You can't be accurately informed and believe that Trump hasn't committed an impeachable crime for which there is adequate evidence that an impartial jury would find him guilty - those are mutually exclusive.  You could think that a jury member might deliberately go against the law and facts and find him not guilty.  That isn't thinking he isn't guilty, that is a belief about behavior.  Do I believe there are Trump supporters immoral enough that they would lie during voir dire and then hang a jury even if Trump were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law?  Sure.

That has nothing to do with the strength of the evidence - it simply speaks to the immorality of some individuals.

If only stating things as fact made them so. If you’re right, Trump will clearly and decisively be removed from office. If you're wrong (I know, not possible) prepare to experience another short circuit - a glitch in your matrix - when Trump wins by a much larger margin in 2020. I realize this doesn't make sense to you, but ready yourself just in case.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 01, 2019, 07:00:15 PM
If only stating things as fact made them so. If you’re right, Trump will clearly and decisively be removed from office. If you're wrong (I know, not possible) prepare to experience another short circuit - a glitch in your matrix - when Trump wins by a much larger margin in 2020. I realize this doesn't make sense to you, but ready yourself just in case.

Eh, I'm inclined to think New York and California will make sure he doesn't win the popular vote once again. His carrying the electoral college is very likely though, IMO.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: LetterRip on December 01, 2019, 07:50:56 PM
\
If only stating things as fact made them so. If you’re right, Trump will clearly and decisively be removed from office. If you're wrong (I know, not possible) prepare to experience another short circuit - a glitch in your matrix - when Trump wins by a much larger margin in 2020. I realize this doesn't make sense to you, but ready yourself just in case.

That is a complete non-sequiter to what I wrote.  Trump voters aren't going to go through voir dire and then sit and listen to evidence therefore they aren't going to vote based on his guilt or innocence of committing a crime.  So either you failed to read or failed to understand what I wrote.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on December 01, 2019, 08:22:59 PM
Actually, LetterRip, your entire post was clueless. All those Schiff witnesses came to the conclusion there were no crimes. Specifically, they all said there was no bribery, quid pro quo, threats, nor any other impeachable actions. I realize the cross afforded to the GOP panelists was short, but they did get every single witness to admit there was no crime. You must have selectively decided to not listen to the most important part of the hearings.

The most damning thing about them was the fact that they regarded their own personal bureaucratic designs to be the "regular" process, and the official Trump policy to be "irregular". Seems like personal confessions of being denizens of the swamp, first, and patriots, second.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 02, 2019, 02:21:52 PM
Executive privelege is quite likely to not extend to witnesses or documents that are part of impeachment hearings,

I think that this statement is untrue.  You're misreading U.S. v. Nixon, which in fact established that there was a high bar for overcoming Executive Privilege and what it would take to pass it.  In the end, all the court authorized, was an in camera review by a judge who was charged with maximally protecting the Presidential privilege.  That means, it was still possible that the judge would not release things disclosed, even, potentially, if they were relevant to the charges.

Nothing about the House investigation remotely matches the facts in U.S. v. Nixon.  It's all tied into diplomatic communications (which the Nixon court flat out said are one of the areas where EP is at its strongest), there is not true adversarial process (which was a fundamental constitutional matter that gave the courts "parity" with the Executive branch, though it's possible the impeachment would satisfy this), there was specificity and likelihood of relevance (here - at best - you have a fishing expedition and not ability to pinpoint the relevant communications); you had a process designed to minimize the harm (in camera review for relevance before release and no leaks, which doesn't remotely match the current process).  You also had a far more activist court than the modern court.

So yes, its a certainty that EP is not absolute, but no, it's not remotely clear that this investigation - where it is today is going to get past it.   

If this is "impeachment" is the "bar" to get past EP, then EP doesn't exist.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 02, 2019, 02:31:29 PM
If this is "impeachment" is the "bar" to get past EP, then EP doesn't exist.

Well, more precisely, if "impeachment is the bar" period, than EP no longer exists. Because the moment the House decides it wants documents from the White House that are being protected by EP, they'll simply open "impeachment hearings" to get access. (And why every future President with the opposing party in control of the House could expect to be impeached by the House from now on)

Which is why I said the courts are likely to take measures to put hard limits on the kind of range Congress has with that authority. Be that a requirement for Judicial review of the documents to be released to Congress as you mention, or requiring it to be elevated to the Senate before EP loses most of its protections.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 02, 2019, 02:43:56 PM
Originally Posted by wmLambert:
Quote
All those Schiff witnesses came to the conclusion there were no crimes.
Every one of them... "conclusions"? really?  I can't wait to see those quotes...

Quote
Specifically, they all said there was no bribery, quid pro quo, threats, nor any other impeachable actions.
No, they did not.

Ambassador Sondland: "Was there a quid pro quo - as I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call, and the White House meeting, the answer is 'yes' "

Ambassador Taylor: "Mr Ratcliffe, I would just like to say that I'm not here to do anything having to do with to... to decide about impeachment, that is not what either of us is here to do, that is your job."

Quote
I realize the cross afforded to the GOP panelists was short
Wrong again - the Republicans were granted exactly the same amount of time as were the Democrats.

Quote
...but they did get every single witness to admit there was no crime.
Again, quotes, please?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 02, 2019, 02:44:29 PM
Polls are fairly meaningless to how a court case would go.  Roger Stone was convicted on all counts.  I doubt there were many conservatives who would agree he committed a crime in a public poll prior to his indictment and conviction.

Well we could only argue about the public information at the time.  At least on the witness intimidation it looks clear cut based on the texts he sent.  That said, he was important to Mueller as a "conduit" to Wikileaks, and it seems pretty decisive that hedin't have that connection.

Quote
The Trump supporters vary between completely uninformed and negatively informed - they have been fed a steady diet of absurd lies on Hannity and other shows and have completely ignored reality.

I think this is one of the most offensive beliefs out there.  I havaen't found the anti-Trumpers to have any more grasp of fact, and frequently to have less.  You just have the advantage of having more confirmation bias in the media.

I mean seriously, you have multiple accounts of media being directly controlled by open anti-Trumpers and it still seems you think you are getting reality from them.

There are no neutral accounts.  Trump's done a lot of good things, and they never translate into positive stories on the media you read, yet you are "getting the truth" and the other side believes only lies.  In fact, if you can't see your own information bias it's kind of clear evidence that you are part of the problem you are identifying as the "other" side.  Anyone can see that Hannity is biased for the President, he's one of Fox's opinion hosts after all.  But Don Lemon?  Further to the left than Hannity to the right, Maddow?  Yep further left and biased.  Heck, the "news" programs on MSNBC are further biased than the opinion[\i] shows on Fox.

Give it 10 years and you might be able to look back and see how off your view on the "real facts" actually was.

Quote
Bribery is the legal term for a 'quid pro quo' (this for that) that is illegal.  Bribery using a government office and resources is also an abuse of power.

Bribery is not the "legal term" for a "quid pro quo" that is illegal.  That's literally false.  The quid pro quo is an element of bribery, but there's other elements.  In fact, it's literally the other elements that define it as a crime.

And then you make it sound as if a "government office" or using "government resources" is another kind of bribery, when you can't actually be talking about the crime of bribery without them.

In either event, the claim of "bribery" is weak sauce, you don't have the requisite proof of intent.  You have a whole bunch of bad actors pretending they have it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 02, 2019, 02:59:53 PM
You can't be accurately informed and believe that Trump hasn't committed an impeachable crime for which there is adequate evidence that an impartial jury would find him guilty - those are mutually exclusive.

Maybe you can provide this evidence of an "impeachable crime" that ties to Trump.  Sounds, once again, like you're making a false claim that relies more on wishful thinking than any bit of matching to reality.

There's not one bit of evidence proferred in the Ukranianian mess that - as of yet - actually ties Trump to a crime, or even bribery.  Lot's of "supposes" and minor officials claiming that their policy preferences were somehow the official policy and that it would be criminal not to follow them.  That's just a bad understanding of law.

The most egregious thing to come out, was whether the Ukrainian aide - along with other aide this year - was held too long by the OMB (which they did in the past 2 years  well).   

Quote
You could think that a jury member might deliberately go against the law and facts and find him not guilty.

A jury wouldn't have any evidence to convict as of yet.  Just about zero of the opinions of the low level diplomats are actually relevant, and absolutely none of them provided any information about a direction from Trump on the quid pro quo let alone on elements of bribery.

This is one of those times, when you're staring at an inkblot and think you can make out a picture that isn't really there.

Quote
That isn't thinking he isn't guilty, that is a belief about behavior.  Do I believe there are Trump supporters immoral enough that they would lie during voir dire and then hang a jury even if Trump were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law?  Sure.

Again that's just nasty, but I guess it's reciprocal since I'm completely convinced that your position is literally hang him now and we'll figure out why later.

Quote
That has nothing to do with the strength of the evidence - it simply speaks to the immorality of some individuals.

I disagree.  This has to do with the inability to critically reason.  Or possibly, with an inability to properly empathize. 

If Trump was really guilty, and it was open and shut, there woudn't have been a sham process.  The process would have been designed to maximize the procedural protections (as it was for Nixon and Clinton), to close off any avenue of escape and to be sure that the President's best defense had come out and been exposed as false.  The deck was stacked the other way, specifically to prevent to the prosecutions "best case" from being exposed as false.  If nothing else that should cause you to have some doubts.

Ask yourself, if you're really the good guys why is your side ignoring everything about fairness and the sense of American justice?  I think you know the answer, which is why you're out her talking about how there is no possibility of the other side acting in good faith.  You know the case is so weak that admitting even the possibility of the other side operating rationally means you'd have to consider if you are in fact just wrong or misled.  Too much cognitive dissonance.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 02, 2019, 03:14:16 PM
Originally Posted by wmLambert:
Quote
All those Schiff witnesses came to the conclusion there were no crimes.
Every one of them... "conclusions"? really?  I can't wait to see those quotes...

Read the transcripts.  You won't find any of them that assert a crime, and they did pretty much admit to the factual problems on cross.

Quote
Quote
Specifically, they all said there was no bribery, quid pro quo, threats, nor any other impeachable actions.
No, they did not.

Ambassador Sondland: "Was there a quid pro quo - as I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call, and the White House meeting, the answer is 'yes' "

Ambassador Taylor: "Mr Ratcliffe, I would just like to say that I'm not here to do anything having to do with to... to decide about impeachment, that is not what either of us is here to do, that is your job."

And you chose not to quote the cross on quid pro quo, why?

Just because it undermined your claim and eliminated it as testimony that supports your position.

Quote
Quote
I realize the cross afforded to the GOP panelists was short
Wrong again - the Republicans were granted exactly the same amount of time as were the Democrats.

Sort of.  Show me where anyone was allowed to interrupt Schiff or the Dems in the manner that the Republicans were interrupted.  He disallowed Republican questions.  He disallowed relevant Republican witnesses (again - there's no good reason for this other than to protect a weak case).

it was also a sham to set the rules so Schiff got unlimited time, and Nunes could "match" it.  The Republicans should have been allowed to designate the member they wanted to ask the questions.  But that didn't serve the DNC purposes - about manipulating the narrative - not getting to the truth.

Schiff repeatedly timed breaks to ensure that RNC questions were deprioritized, to give pressers of his own.  He interjected - live - with false statements, that no one was allowed to object to or even respond to for sometimes over an hour.  He led witnesses on multiple occasions.

The idea that time was "equal" just because it ran on a stop watch (though Schiff also gave himself extra time on at least one occasion) is absurd. 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on December 02, 2019, 03:17:08 PM
There's not one bit of evidence proferred in the Ukranianian mess that - as of yet - actually ties Trump to a crime, or even bribery. 

Well what we *do* have is Trump making requests of a foreign leader, in a case that is possibly related to an upcoming election. I'd like to ask you, as someone knowledgeable in law, what it would take to legally connect the dots between this and coming to the conclusion 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that Trump's requests were purposefully (and solely) designed to disrupt Biden's 2020 election chances?

I personally do see the argument being made: an upcoming election candidate, a front-runner as well, is being subjected to a lateral attack by someone who might end up being his opponent in an election. It's not unreasonable to want to verify whether this whole thing isn't a preemptive political attack abusing Trump's power. But it's also possible that it really is a legitimate investigation into the 2016 election practices and is a form of draining the swamp. For it to be a bribe I presume one would have to show that it wasn't really about 2016 but was about 2020; knocking Biden out of the race. For it to be not-a-bribe I assume there would have to be some kind of evidence that Trump was legitimately concerned about the events around 2016. Of course there's a third option, which is that Trump legitimately - and stupidly - thought there was malfeasance around 2016, and it just wrong about that, but wanted the investigation because he really thought there was. That would be a wasted use of his resources, but I assume not outright an abuse. Just a fruitless exercise and waste of his time if that's the case.

So as a lawyer how do you get from "it could have been a bribe" to "it was almost certainly a bribe" in a court of law? How do those dots get connected to separate out the 'concerns about 2016 hjinx' from the 'trying to disrupt 2020'?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 02, 2019, 03:28:10 PM
Quote
Read the transcripts.  You won't find any of them that assert a crime, and they did pretty much admit to the factual problems on cross.
Not asserting a crime is not at all equivalent to asserting there was no crime.  You should be smart enough to be able to make this distinction, yet you did not. Can you figure out why?

Also... when exactly would a fact witness be expected to make a conclusion of guilt (or innocence)?  That whole meme is a pure red herring.  It's the same reason why Taylor very explicitly expressed that he would NOT make such a conclusion, and why most of the witnesses introduced themselves as "fact witnesses"... so people like you and wmLambert would not take their statements of facts as some kind of conclusion.
Quote
And you chose not to quote the cross on quid pro quo, why?
Because it was unnecessary to show that wmLambert was incorrect in making his positive assertion - both about quid pro quo, as well as about impeachment.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 02, 2019, 04:11:42 PM
There's not one bit of evidence proferred in the Ukranianian mess that - as of yet - actually ties Trump to a crime, or even bribery. 

Well what we *do* have is Trump making requests of a foreign leader, in a case that is possibly related to an upcoming election. I'd like to ask you, as someone knowledgeable in law, what it would take to legally connect the dots between this and coming to the conclusion 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that Trump's requests were purposefully (and solely) designed to disrupt Biden's 2020 election chances?

That's a hard one Fen, as it appears to me to be counter factual.  The strongest evidence of any connection is actually Trump's phone call transcript.  In that he expressly mentions, the 2016 interference, and endemic corruption, with the specific example of Biden's bragging about getting the prosecutor fired for investigating his son.

Tying that into the 2020 election?   That's almost completely spin from the WB complaint.  In fact, that was the primary source of the 2020 claim, it's no where in the call and no where in the record.  As far as I can tell there's no attribution - at all - to the President.

As I noted some time back, it's also a very shaky theory underlying it as a crime.  It was stated as such in the WB complaint, and that was clearly building on the Special Counsel's report.  It has NEVER been found that receiving true information from a foreign person about a crime is a "thing of value" under the law.  Ergo, the oft ignored fact that the DOJ already considered that point about the phone call and said it wasn't criminal.

So how do you get there?   Don't see any way that asking for information about the 2016 election gets you there.  Nor would it be interference if the investigation turns up actual evidence of crimes by Joe Biden, it's just not supportable under our law (and yes, I am aware that there is a hold out DNC FEC Commissioner who took it upon herself to issue an "opinion" to support the idea.  That's neither official, nor was it legitimate or appropriate for her to do).

So the only way to get there, is to assert it as a bribery claim.  You'd have to connect Trump - personally - to that action.  If you were good, you could build a claim around Rudy, and a "conspiracy" but you have too many points that fail to get there based on what we've seen to date.  Unless I missed it, you didn't even have a witness that could clearly tie Rudy to the specific request that Biden appear in the announcement (that never even happened).  You'd need that with certainty, and then some way to prove that was directed by Trump or part of the furtherance of a conspiracy to do something illegal (which unfortunately HAS to be bribery because there isn't anything illegal about investigating Biden, or uncovering evidence of his crimes, or even disclosing that in a way that hurts his electoral chances). 

And then you're back to the problem that there was no bribe, nothing of value was exchanged, and the only evidence you have that this wasn't always the way it would play out is that the preemptive WB account could have prompted the aide being released.  Of course, you don't have testimony on the aide being released, because none of the witnesses were actually in the know about the aide (as each clearly testified, though that didn't stop them from making up reasons for it).  Nor do you have testimony about the veracity of the underlying potential Biden misdeeds, because the House DNC managers obstructed justice by preventing that evidence from being gathered.

So, again, not clear how you would get there.

Quote
I personally do see the argument being made: an upcoming election candidate, a front-runner as well, is being subjected to a lateral attack by someone who might end up being his opponent in an election.

You mean like say Bloomberg news announcing a policy that they won't investigate or negatively report on the candidates from one party, but will continue to attack the other side?   Interesting that no one's up in arms about what looks very much like it should be a FEC vioation, yet it was the crime of the century that Trump's campaign ran a fund raiser for a charity and he might get credit.

Or how about, politically motivated leakers being granted WB anonimity to attack the President in large part to interfere in the process that could result in him being reelected?

Of if we want to be direct, phony Russian investigations used to spy on a campaign?  Or meetings with Ukrainian prosecutors during the 2016 election run up to dig up dirt on Paul Manafort in large part because of his connection to Trump?  I mean if digging up true info there was okay (even if there are questions about whether it was faked), why would digging up true info on Biden not be?

Quote
It's not unreasonable to want to verify whether this whole thing isn't a preemptive political attack abusing Trump's power.

Trump's going to make political attacks on all these people.  That's actually legitimate.  Zero question that -even though "he's the President" - he's allowed to make political attacks.

The "abuse" has got to be about the withholding of aid, or there is nothing here.  The witnesses were suprising in that they describe Trump as not wanting to deal with the Urkraine, in believing that the new administration was bringing in bad actors from the prior administration.  And it was clear from the context that he viewed those bad actors as having been involved in the 2016 election interference (and one day after Meuller's testimony its clear why he'd see that as a concern).  That really does undercut the case that "all" Trump wanted was some kind of political payola.  Trump has been crystal  clear that he believes we shouldn't be paying out foreign aid, that Europe should be doing more and in delaying foreign aide around to many countries every year.

All of which, makes this look like it was routine if you could find the neutral observer.

Go back and re look at the transcript.  You can literally see him talk through the exact and only things that have been attributed to him (none of which were illegal or even improper).  You can't find any where that he implied there was a trade being offered, let alone an improper one.

He talks about the prior ambassador being bad, and Zelenskyy confirms it and expands on it.  Why it's not crystal clear he seems to indicate that she was connected to the prior corrupt President of the Ukraine and not a fan of Zelenskyy (even though the state department employees otherwise were gungho on him).  It's only not clear because he may have been talking about Obama for part of it (though not in any corrupt way).

Quote
But it's also possible that it really is a legitimate investigation into the 2016 election practices and is a form of draining the swamp. For it to be a bribe I presume one would have to show that it wasn't really about 2016 but was about 2020; knocking Biden out of the race. For it to be not-a-bribe I assume there would have to be some kind of evidence that Trump was legitimately concerned about the events around 2016.

Like say direct evidence that Trump expressly mentioned the 2016 election on the day after Meuller testified, in a call to Zelenskyy?  Or the fact that he's given out several hundred tweets about investigating the "witchhunt" or the 2016 election interference?

If only there were hundreds of tweets, statements and a transcript of that call......

Quote
Of course there's a third option, which is that Trump legitimately - and stupidly - thought there was malfeasance around 2016, and it just wrong about that, but wanted the investigation because he really thought there was.

Don't know how to take that, but it's not a third option it's just a variation on the second.

Quote
That would be a wasted use of his resources, but I assume not outright an abuse. Just a fruitless exercise and waste of his time if that's the case.

Investigating what doesn't turn out to be a crime is not a crime, so long as you have a reasonable predicate.  I think the one thing that is clear, is that something really off occurred around the 2016 election.

Quote
So as a lawyer how do you get from "it could have been a bribe" to "it was almost certainly a bribe" in a court of law? How do those dots get connected to separate out the 'concerns about 2016 hjinx' from the 'trying to disrupt 2020'?

I don't answer questions as a "lawyer" online.  Happy to give my thoughts generally. 

I think most people make the case by demonstrating the exchange (which didn't happen) and evidence of an agreement stipulating that for one event the other had to occur.  The second part of that seems to fail as well, as there isn't even clear evidence that Rudy had an agreement like that on the table, and nothing as of yet establishing that he had a mandate from the President to seek one.

Literally the "star" witness seems to have been Sondland, and he testified that he "presumed" there was a quid pro quo, but that no one on earth told him there was, and that Trump directly told him there wasn't.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 02, 2019, 04:23:24 PM
Quote
Read the transcripts.  You won't find any of them that assert a crime, and they did pretty much admit to the factual problems on cross.
Not asserting a crime is not at all equivalent to asserting there was no crime.  You should be smart enough to be able to make this distinction, yet you did not. Can you figure out why?

Because it's a prosecutors job to show a crime, not as seems to be the "new logic" of the left for an accused to "prove their innocence."

The witnesses admissions on cross flat out make the case that they did not assert any crime.  In fact, they failed to establish even the elements of the crime.

Quote
Also... when exactly would a fact witness be expected to make a conclusion of guilt (or innocence)?

They wouldn't, and I think the original comment was clear that it was a conclusion that their admissions eliminated the elements that they were there to establish, ergo the didn't testify to any crime.  Not to mention, when they were directly asked about crimes, they said they didn't see them.

Quote
That whole meme is a pure red herring.  It's the same reason why Taylor very explicitly expressed that he would NOT make such a conclusion, and why most of the witnesses introduced themselves as "fact witnesses"... so people like you and wmLambert would not take their statements of facts as some kind of conclusion.

They introduced themselves as "fact" witnesses, because saying "I'm here to assert my opinion" didn't have the same ring.  They were short on relevant facts.

I mean why even call former Ambassador Yovanavitch?  She was removed before the conduct in question even occurred, and had nothing relevant to impart.  She wasn't there for "facts."

Quote
Quote
And you chose not to quote the cross on quid pro quo, why?
Because it was unnecessary to show that wmLambert was incorrect in making his positive assertion - both about quid pro quo, as well as about impeachment.

It was necessary to make your quotes not a misrepresentation.  Which is pretty much exactly what I pointed out, your claim about what the quote implied was false and undermined.  And you left it out because it undercut the false claim you wanted to assert.

So to be clear, you seem to be trying to make a technical complaint that where a prosecutor's witnesses fail to provide facts establishing the prosecutor's claims, it's "improper" to make a positive claim?  That's literal  nonsense. 

You seem to forget that the presumption of innocence is with the accused.  And if you want to whine about this not being a court of law, that just further proves my argument that you don't have right on your side, or you wouldn't be ignoring basic American principals of justice.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 02, 2019, 04:43:38 PM
Quote
Because it's a prosecutors job to show a crime, not as seems to be the "new logic" of the left for an accused to "prove their innocence."
Interesting dodge, but a complete non sequitur.  wmLambert made the claim all of the witnesses asserted there was no crime.  You then attempted to support wmLambert's position by claiming that none of the witnesses asserted there was a crime.

Those statements have completely different meanings.  By my pointing that out, I don't need to be making any claim about the necessity to "prove their innocence".  I was just pointing out that you misspoke or, as seems more and more likely, that you simply do not understand basic formal logic.
Quote
The witnesses admissions on cross flat out make the case that they did not assert any crime
Correct.  Also true during the majority's questioning.  But irrelevant to wmLambert's claim, which you seemingly still do not understand.
Quote
In fact, they failed to establish even the elements of the crime.
That is, I'm finding, more and more subjective.  Trump's words already establish strong evidence of his own crime.  The witnesses provided evidence that there was coordination in the attempts to bribe the Ukrainians in support of Trump's admitted crimes. So yes, they pretty much did establish the elements of the secondary crime, and provided corroboration for Trump's initial crime.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 02, 2019, 04:57:03 PM
DonaldD, I honestly don't believe you've read the transcripts.  Maybe you can convince me, but the crosses were pretty damning.  What witnesses do you think they failed to get?

Taylor said he saw no crime.  Sondland admitted he made up the quid pro quo and saw no crime.  So who do you think said they saw a crime that wasn't forced to admit they didn't?

In fact, your soft quotes of wmLambert aren't terribly accurate, he phrased it 3 different ways, all of which are more accurate that your position.

I mean, you could always demonstrate it's false by providing the "crime" quote.

Mostly, you seem to want to assert your own opinion as a fact witness, "Trump's words already establish strong evidence of his own crime."  Which is laughable, and just goes to show that lots of people like to make very strong claims based on things they can't actually establish.  Or do you think you can find the quid pro quo in there somewhere (I'll give you a hint, if you drop "no" then you can find it from Trump's quote "no quid pro quo" otherwise it's not there).
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 02, 2019, 05:06:41 PM
Let me just put the exact quotes side by side so there can be no claim that my "soft quotes of wmLambert aren't terribly accurate"
 
wmLambert:
Quote
All those Schiff witnesses came to the conclusion there were no crimes.

Seriati:
Quote
Read the transcripts.  You won't find any of them that assert a crime

It's very clear - these two statements are not at all equivalent.

Quote
Taylor said he saw no crime
Correct - Taylor's testimony was primarily setting up other witnesses and putting them in context.
Quote
Sondland admitted he made up the quid pro quo
A quote and link would be good, so we know from where, exactly, you are interpreting this. 
Quote
...and saw no crime
Again - not seeing a crime is not asserting that there was no crime, assuming that the answer to the question was not lawyerly in nature, as well.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 02, 2019, 06:15:13 PM
Sondland:


Quote
Yet Sondland noted that “we did not think we were engaging in improper behavior” — that no one expressed any concerns. And he admitted that Trump never told him of any “preconditions” for aid or a meeting.

Asked outright, “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”

Sondland can make up whatever he wants - that is literally what he just admitted he was doing. Sondland is on record, under oath (for those of you that love saying that) confirming that he’s used hearsay and a alleged partially overheard phone call to fabricate a story. That is his testimony.

So far, there is not a single person that can tie Trump to making an improper demand of the Ukraine. When directly asked, every single witness agrees they didn’t see Trump didn’t do anything nor do they have any direct knowledge that he did. It’s all presumption, unfounded opinion, and outright lies without even a single shred of physical evidence to support any of these stories.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 02, 2019, 06:18:23 PM
Lol, DonaldD.  If you can't make a case, obfuscate and play grammar games.

How about you just walk through the testimony that establishes the crime?  And that doesn't include quotes that are undermined by the individual's own later admissions.

On the balance, wmLambert is right about what the testimony says and you are the other thing.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 02, 2019, 08:02:14 PM
How about you just walk through the testimony that establishes the crime?  And that doesn't include quotes that are undermined by the individual's own later admissions.
Trump's own words are sufficient evidence.  His own words just from the July 25 call are enough.  And if they weren't the call on September 7 put the cherry on top.  The rest of the corroborating evidence, including not just the testimony, and all sorts of Giuliani's inadvertent self incriminations, those are just cream.

I get why you're running away from your misstatements - admitting mistakes can be hard.

But you aren't just running away from your misstatements; you're also now failing to support your other claims.  For instance, please do provide the detailed quotes where "Sondland admitted he made up the quid pro quo".

That should be really easy.

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on December 02, 2019, 09:31:46 PM
wmLambert made the claim all of the witnesses asserted there was no crime.  You then attempted to support wmLambert's position by claiming that none of the witnesses asserted there was a crime.

Those statements have completely different meanings.

Is it possible this inability to understand each other is a legal vs ontological issue? Maybe I'm seeing this argument: if no one can assert evidence of a crime, then legally there is no crime. The presumption of innocence means that there is no crime on the table unless a witness or some other evidence presents to that effect. So in essence denying that there is evidence of a crime is equivalent to saying there is no crime. Ontologically this is different, so long as we assert that objectively a crime may or may not have happened (a tree in the forest...) regardless of whether there is any evidence to ever show it. So it is possible for there to be a situation where factually a crime was committed but where there's no evidence at all left to implicate anyone in it.

Could this be where you're speaking past each other? Maybe Seriati's position is that legally speaking if no one can show a crime then there is no crime.

Quote
Trump's words already establish strong evidence of his own crime.  The witnesses provided evidence that there was coordination in the attempts to bribe the Ukrainians in support of Trump's admitted crimes. So yes, they pretty much did establish the elements of the secondary crime, and provided corroboration for Trump's initial crime.

Hold on, what are you referring to in the bolded part? The term "quid pro quo" was already thrown around enough previously without any qualification to make me wonder whether there was any content in its use (I suspected there wasn't). Now we've migrated somewhat to "bribe", which is perhaps better but still begs the question of "what was the bribe?" As I understood it the entire case of bribery was supposedly that Trump was demanding personal favors from Ukraine in exchange for their aid package. Putting aside that this sounds more like extortion than bribery (a semantic issue) if you're going to call it a bribe then it would be Trump demanding a bribe. Now you're saying he was trying to bribe the Ukrainians? In what way??

Trump's own words are sufficient evidence.  His own words just from the July 25 call are enough.  And if they weren't the call on September 7 put the cherry on top.  The rest of the corroborating evidence, including not just the testimony, and all sorts of Giuliani's inadvertent self incriminations, those are just cream.

I hope you're not entirely serious about this, because it's spooky Orwellian stuff. A phone conversation which does not explicitly say what you're saying it implies, which is not at all obviously even implying what you think it does, is not only cause for alarm but is "sufficient evidence"? As in, evidence to prove a crime? So basically you're saying that your personal opinion - your read - on a phone call for which you don't have the context is legal evidence of criminality? We're halfway to Kafka's The Trial with that one.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 02, 2019, 10:50:26 PM
Quote
Trump's words already establish strong evidence of his own crime.  The witnesses provided evidence that there was coordination in the attempts to bribe the Ukrainians in support of Trump's admitted crimes. So yes, they pretty much did establish the elements of the secondary crime, and provided corroboration for Trump's initial crime.

Hold on, what are you referring to in the bolded part? The term "quid pro quo" was already thrown around enough previously without any qualification to make me wonder whether there was any content in its use (I suspected there wasn't). Now we've migrated somewhat to "bribe", which is perhaps better but still begs the question of "what was the bribe?" As I understood it the entire case of bribery was supposedly that Trump was demanding personal favors from Ukraine in exchange for their aid package. Putting aside that this sounds more like extortion than bribery (a semantic issue) if you're going to call it a bribe then it would be Trump demanding a bribe. Now you're saying he was trying to bribe the Ukrainians? In what way??

Trump was extorting Ukraine using the Congressionally authorized aid money, in exchange for their knuckling under his extortion attempt, they would give him("bribe") assistance in the 2020 election by giving him ammunition to attack Biden. (Announcing the investigation into the Bidens)

Never mind in everything that's been said and done, they can find plenty of evidence of Trump talking about 2016 in relation to Ukraine, but I haven't heard a single piece of evidence brought forward to indicate Trump was pursuing Ukraine in the interest of the 2020 race. (Other to possible prove he was the victim of a witch hunt in 2016 and possibly get a polling bump from that. The possibility of the Bidens getting slimed in the process was way down the list.)

Funny how they seem to fixate on the Bidens, when that wasn't the only thing Trump brought up, and for someone as Narcissistic as Trump is, I think his interest lay more in regards to chasing down the Manafort and cybercrime stuff than in the Bidens.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 02, 2019, 10:53:32 PM
In a court of law, almost all testimony heard to date would have been stricken from the record.

On what basis do you think that?  Th testimony given thus far would be pretty typical testimony for a bribery criminal trial.  I've yet to hear hardly any questions or testimony that would be disallowed.  There has been hearsay, but only as would be typical of a grand jury inquiry - to establish who other potential witnesses are and to establish who might have relevant evidence.

Here is your problem: Sure, what you have works for a Grand Jury, but the legal standard I was alluding to is an actual trial by jury. You know, the one that actually convicts the person who was being investigated. No Jury Trial would be able to convict Trump at present because virtually none of the evidence presented to date would be admissible in that court.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on December 02, 2019, 11:01:09 PM
Trump was extorting Ukraine using the Congressionally authorized aid money, in exchange for their knuckling under his extortion attempt, they would give him("bribe") assistance in the 2020 election by giving him ammunition to attack Biden. (Announcing the investigation into the Bidens)

That wouldn't explain what DonaldD meant by saying Trump was bribing the Ukrainians; what you're saying is the other way around. I'll wait for his reply on that one.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 02, 2019, 11:05:25 PM
Trump was extorting Ukraine using the Congressionally authorized aid money, in exchange for their knuckling under his extortion attempt, they would give him("bribe") assistance in the 2020 election by giving him ammunition to attack Biden. (Announcing the investigation into the Bidens)

That wouldn't explain what DonaldD meant by saying Trump was bribing the Ukrainians; what you're saying is the other way around. I'll wait for his reply on that one.

AFAIK, the "bribery" claim is that Trump is the one accepting the bribe, in the form of Foreign Assistance in his 2020 Election bid by getting the Ukranians to investigate Biden. And as that would be a foreign campaign contribution, that would make it illegal.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 03, 2019, 12:08:17 AM
Since when is intelligence on a competitor's wrongdoing considered a bribe?  Precedent?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 03, 2019, 12:21:34 AM
Quote
A phone conversation which does not explicitly say what you're saying it implies, which is not at all obviously even implying what you think it does

I get it - in this situation, your partisanship precludes you from understanding the clear meaning of the.words on the call, instead inserting words into Trump's mouth that he never spoke, and in turn meaning that just isn't there.
Quote
The presumption of innocence means that there is no crime on the table unless a witness or some other evidence presents to that effect.
No, that's not at all what the presumption of innocence means - it's not that we presume no crime has been committed (although the incontrovertible existence of a crime is a prerequisite of a finding of guilt) it's that we do not attribute the crime to a particular person without achieving a defined level of certainty.

The existence of a homicide can be obvious and self-evident - but we still may not be able to convict a particular person.

So no, that really doesn't explain Seriati's logical failure.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on December 03, 2019, 12:47:42 AM
Quote
A phone conversation which does not explicitly say what you're saying it implies, which is not at all obviously even implying what you think it does

I get it - in this situation, your partisanship precludes you from understanding the clear meaning of the.words on the call, instead inserting words into Trump's mouth that he never spoke, and in turn meaning that just isn't there.

It's interesting you can only assume I'm partisan if I don't see things your way. I hope you understand that this mindset is why both sides cannot communicate on the issue. It's funny that anytime I disagree with the left-leaning posters they imply I'm a right-wing partisan, as if there can only be two sides to an issue.

Now about the phone call, I at least hope you can see the difference between Trump's remarks seeming like they might very well be demands being made, conditional on the aid mentioned previously, and between him outright saying "no investigation, no money." The latter is outright saying what you say is in the call; the former is not. The latter would be direct evidence of it; the former can lead to suspicion of it, and might indeed make you want to investigate further, but is not itself the evidence of the extortion if said extortion exists. It's at best a pointer, but only your imagination can turn it into confirmation.

Quote
Quote
The presumption of innocence means that there is no crime on the table unless a witness or some other evidence presents to that effect.
No, that's not at all what the presumption of innocence means - it's not that we presume no crime has been committed (although the incontrovertible existence of a crime is a prerequisite of a finding of guilt) it's that we do not attribute the crime to a particular person without achieving a defined level of certainty.

The existence of a homicide can be obvious and self-evident - but we still may not be able to convict a particular person.

So no, that really doesn't explain Seriati's logical failure.

I was trying to separate out the legal side from the ontological, but as you've ignored that I guess we can move on. In the matter of a crime you still seem to be implying that there definitely was a crime here, and the issue is just tying it to Trump. But unlike homocide, featuring a dead body, certain kinds of crimes actually can't exist without knowing who did them. For example, insider trading is not a crime absent knowing who did it and how. Only if you know who conducted the trade, and under which circumstances, can something be insider trading in the first place. Intent can also color whether something is a crime; for instance finding a dead body does not mean a murder has taken place. Even finding the guy who did it doesn't mean a crime has taken place, as it could have been self-defence or something else. Without the perp, and without the motive/circumstances, the crime often doesn't even exist in the first place. Matching the motive to the action can create the crime. That type of situation more closely resembles our case where, where there's only an actual crime if there's a motive and intent to extort/bribe. The same fact pattern with different motives might mean the difference between crime or no crime, so no, there is no "ontologically verifiable crime" here that simply needs a criminal to be tied to it. The crime cannot be in evidence since there is no fixed event to match to it - no extorted goods to show, and no victim. There might have been intend to do so, which would still be a crime, but then you definitely need the motive, intent and perp for that crime to exist; it cannot exist without them.

Does that make what I was saying earlier clearer?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on December 03, 2019, 12:53:10 AM
I don't answer questions as a "lawyer" online.  Happy to give my thoughts generally. 

Sorry, didn't mean to imply I was requesting expert services. I meant it more like "as someone who knows more than me about things like this..." In a way it can be hard to disentangle your professional expertise from your personal opinion, since those no doubt color each other, but I didn't mean to ask for pro bono services  :)

Thanks for your other answers, though.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 03, 2019, 06:11:05 AM
Quote
In the matter of a crime you still seem to be implying that there definitely was a crime here, and the issue is just tying it to Trump.
No, on this topic, I was simply pointing out that Seriati misrepresented or misunderstood wmLambert's statement, and continued to do so. No assumption about Trump's guilt was implied, as we were at that point discussing wmLambert's claims concerning the evidence.

Quote
I at least hope you can see the difference between Trump's remarks seeming like they might very well be demands being made, conditional on the aid mentioned previously, and between him outright saying "no investigation, no money."
Sure - and that's the difference between absolute certainty and reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 03, 2019, 06:36:25 AM
I do apologize for pointing out your partisanship, though - it is not helpful
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 03, 2019, 06:41:11 AM
Quote
I was trying to separate out the legal side from the ontological, but as you've ignored that I guess we can move on.
I didn't ignore it - I pointed out the basis on which you constructed the argument was incorrect, and I also pointed out that your point was orthogonal to Seriati's attempts to support wmLambert's misstatements.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 09, 2019, 06:27:56 AM
Things must really be slipping. Today’s rationale for impeachment is <spins wheel> slavery!
Quote
Democratic Texas Rep. Al Green claimed that President Trump's impeachment was necessary to deal with the "original" sin of slavery.

During a Saturday appearance on MSNBC, the congressman cited an interest in acting on behalf of people of color. "I do believe, ma’am, that we have to deal with the original sin,” Green said to host Alex Witt. “We have to deal with slavery. Slavery was the thing that put all of what President Trump has done lately into motion.

Trump must be impeached to avenge slavery. This is a direct pander to black voters. What was the polling that said “we gotta get a black Democrat out there to drum up black support”?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 09, 2019, 08:48:30 PM
Things must really be slipping. Today’s rationale for impeachment is <spins wheel> slavery!
Quote
Democratic Texas Rep. Al Green claimed that President Trump's impeachment was necessary to deal with the "original" sin of slavery.

During a Saturday appearance on MSNBC, the congressman cited an interest in acting on behalf of people of color. "I do believe, ma’am, that we have to deal with the original sin,” Green said to host Alex Witt. “We have to deal with slavery. Slavery was the thing that put all of what President Trump has done lately into motion.

Trump must be impeached to avenge slavery. This is a direct pander to black voters. What was the polling that said “we gotta get a black Democrat out there to drum up black support”?



Fixed that for you. Read AG’s history of inflammatory lynchoholism, and clearly nothing has “slipped”— this is same old same cranky old Al Green.  like the spoiled Jewish kid who tells his mom that broccoli is “worse than the holocaust.” 

Stop the presses. Exaggeration was not invented yesterday
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 10, 2019, 01:46:59 PM
Nice fix, not. smh

Slipping is the right framing:

Quote

small group of vulnerable House Democrats is floating the longshot idea of censuring President Donald Trump instead of impeaching him, according to multiple lawmakers familiar with the conversations.

Those Democrats, all representing districts that Trump won in 2016, huddled on Monday afternoon in an 11th-hour bid to weigh additional — though unlikely — options to punish the president for his role in the Ukraine scandal as the House speeds toward an impeachment vote next week.

The group of about 10 Trump-district lawmakers included Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), and Ben McAdams (D-Utah.).

At least 10 Democrats are looking for a way out as polls continue to show impeachment as a loser for Democrats.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 10, 2019, 06:28:00 PM
Quote
“He endangers our democracy, he endangers our national security,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said of the president.

Oh please. If getting Ukraine to announce that they're investigating the Biden family by itself was capable of endangering either the election process in general(our Democracy), or our National Security in any kind of significant way, it must be a miracle that our country is able to function at all.

If both Joe Biden's Presidential campaign could be destroyed by that as well as the Democratic Party's best hope for the winning the White House(nearly a year before they select a nominee), they really need to go back to the drawing board.

The National Security claim is likewise trying to turn an anthill into Mount Everest. Last I checked, Ukraine isn't on the verge of collapse due to funds being delayed. A delay which the Democrats haven't been able to establish the a reason for the hold-back on. Best they've had is heresy testimony from officials who had no role in that decision.

Edit: Yes, there are valid concerns about "bad precedents" if the accusations and heresy prove correct. But two wrongs don't make a right. Jumping straight to impeachment proceedings was also "bad precedent" and by doing what they did, they justified the Trump Administrations decision to fight back as they have.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 13, 2019, 10:26:36 AM
Alright, straight party line vote after Nadler pulled some last minute shenanigans. Now it goes to the house. It should pass, it’s the only way democrats believe they can win the 2020 election.

There have been conversations that the senate will simply hold a majority vote and dismiss the articles without trial. A quick 51 votes and it ends, no testimony, no witnesses. Nothing. This might actually be the best case scenario for Democrats.

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: D.W. on December 13, 2019, 01:50:07 PM
Quote
This might actually be the best case scenario for Democrats.
From a pure politics / election stand point... yes, it would be. 

It's interesting that you assume every Democrat is just taking part in this for the election.  Though, I suppose that mentality is what got people to line up behind Trump to begin with.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on December 13, 2019, 03:29:40 PM
It's interesting that you assume every Democrat is just taking part in this for the election.  Though, I suppose that mentality is what got people to line up behind Trump to begin with.

There are many issues for which the radical or fringe left take the microphone but don't actually represent the views of average liberals. On this particular topic, however, I don't believe that's the case. I think it is in fact the case that the average liberal actually believes that Trump had no right to be elected, somehow, and that removing him is actually the right thing to do because he is a bad person. I don't think they base this view on a constitutional axis, or on a deep conviction in the law or on foreign policy standards, or even on the specifics of the WB's claims. I think if you asked an average person you might very well get the answer that a sexist, boorish pig like that has no place in office and should be removed. The reason in a situation like this will typically follow after the conviction, and although you are very likely to be given a nominal reason 'backing up' the belief he should be removed, I doubt it will be based on their deep concern for the law. This should not come as a surprise when calls for impeachment were being made the day it was announced that Trump won.

Now you, yourself, believe in a way that Trump is simply unfit to be in office. But the difference between you and between the average person is that you know that this belief does not translate directly into anything other than you being pissed that he won the election, whereas for probably the majority of people I don't think they would see a significant problem saying that he should be impeached because he's not fit to be President. They would probably even argue that this logic is obvious, without realizing the implications of their argument.

Now, to connect this point to your point that I quoted above, if the idea (in many voters' heads) is that Trump can't be allowed to win another election - and note I mean not be allowed to, not that the Democrats should try to beat him in the ballots - then basically an impeachment proceeding sort of becomes equivalent to a disqualification for the 2020 election.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: D.W. on December 13, 2019, 05:09:20 PM
Quote
I think it is in fact the case that the average liberal actually believes that Trump had no right to be elected, somehow, and that removing him is actually the right thing to do because he is a bad person.
  I know many liberals who are repelled by the fact he WAS elected, zero (nor even read of one) who believes he had no right to it. There wasn't a "birther" contingent when it came to Trump.  At all (AFAIK), let alone enough to be called "the average".

It is probably fair to say that "the average liberal" is disgusted with him as a person such that ANY excuse to reduce his power, eject him from office, or see to it he loses the next election, is cool with them.  And that's alone is a very unhealthy situation for our country to be in.  You don't need to make up crazy to portray it as worse than that.

I do think it comes down to a real test to see if our system can protect us from a man like Donald Trump or not.  This outrage is a form of patriotism even if it gets ugly at times.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 13, 2019, 05:37:03 PM
Quote
I think it is in fact the case that the average liberal actually believes that Trump had no right to be elected, somehow, and that removing him is actually the right thing to do because he is a bad person.
Although you don't realize it, this is just one example of how blinded by partisanship you can be, Fenring.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 13, 2019, 06:15:51 PM
The real follies are setting up:

Quote
During a Thursday night appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told the host that his “hope is that it will be a shorter process rather than a lengthy process.” McConnell also made clear that he was acting in lockstep with the White House.

“Everything I do during [the impeachment process], I’m coordinating with White House counsel,” McConnell said. “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

Trump’s idea:
Quote
“I’ll do whatever I want. Look, there is — we did nothing wrong,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

Democrats better hope McConnell really does dismiss this out of hand.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 13, 2019, 07:04:39 PM
Alright, straight party line vote after Nadler pulled some last minute shenanigans. Now it goes to the house. It should pass, it’s the only way democrats believe they can win the 2020 election.

There have been conversations that the senate will simply hold a majority vote and dismiss the articles without trial. A quick 51 votes and it ends, no testimony, no witnesses. Nothing. This might actually be the best case scenario for Democrats.

I doubt either side is going to be particularly happy with the proceedings in the Senate. The Chief Justice of the Surpreme Court will be presiding, and while he may be constrained to some degree by rules the Senate puts in place, it's likely to be more his show than anyone else's.

That said, he's going to allow the Defense its chance to make its case, and if the Senate provides rules that allows them to do so, then they will do so. The Democrats better hope the Trump Administration is unable to provide justifiable cause for holding back the funds to Ukraine without going down the road the Dems ran with in their amazing level of enthusiasm.

It also won't be a Kangaroo court like what happened in the House, legal counsel for those testifying will undoubtedly be present, among other things.

Although Trump's "I'll do anything I want" is potentially disturbing, the conciliation prize on that is Trump won't be the one on the Senate Floor working his defense, it'll be others.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on December 13, 2019, 08:05:12 PM
Given that McConnell isn't even pretending to give it a fair hearing, the narrative that the Senate's just a whitewash writes itself.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 14, 2019, 12:30:13 AM
Given that McConnell isn't even pretending to give it a fair hearing, the narrative that the Senate's just a whitewash writes itself.

"Fair hearing" for whom?

While what the Democrats have found to date might be enough for a Grand Jury indictment, it isn't enough for a Jury Trial, which is what the Senate Hearings would be more in line with.

If the Democrats are held to anything close to that standard of evidence, most of what they have never makes it to the Senate floor, or if it does, it gets scrubbed from the record soon after.

For the Republicans, the only it goes poorly for them is if Trump's people bungle it so badly they provide evidence for the Democrats in their attempt to defend Trump. Or Trump's legal defense drags the process out for weeks/months without providing any compelling rebuttals or counters. (IE they use it as a platform for introducing conspiracy theories that are only supported by innuendo) That it also gives them the chance to screw with the early Democratic Presidential Primaries is just an extra bonus. They'd be stupid to pass it up.

And that also isn't to mention the other matter-- with as many people as there are in the GOP who don't like Trump, giving him a chance to hang himself has to have some appeal from their point of view, so why wouldn't they want to give Trump a fair trial(hearing) in the Senate?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 14, 2019, 09:44:42 AM
Given that McConnell isn't even pretending to give it a fair hearing, the narrative that the Senate's just a whitewash writes itself.

Are you being serious? Really?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on December 14, 2019, 12:05:08 PM
Quote
I think it is in fact the case that the average liberal actually believes that Trump had no right to be elected, somehow, and that removing him is actually the right thing to do because he is a bad person.
Although you don't realize it, this is just one example of how blinded by partisanship you can be, Fenring.

I completely understand why you would say this, and I even see you think it fits the data of my comments. The reason I know you're wrong is because I happen to know that I'm neither a Republican nor a Trump supporter. Or I should say, I know you're wrong that I'm a partisan, but that doesn't mean I'm right in my assertion; I could be wrong about that. My perception for the past few years has been a very clear trend, uninterrupted and pretty much without exception either, that Trump is the devil, a horrible rapist, and that it is a disgrace that he's President. These views are fairly standard and, if I may say, uncontroversial (in that people have them), but what I'm suggesting that *is* controversial is that the desire to have him not be President may be higher in the average liberal than is the desire to uphold the office of the President as being protected from continual attacks and distractions from the job.

But I should add one thing: my surmise is a guess on my part and in no way some kind of evidence or datum that I can take as a given. It's what I would call a logical assumption to make of the inner mindset, which would result in the actual comments I do see IRL and on social media. There is no other reasonable way to explain FB memes about impeaching Trump which occured long before his summer phone call, and about how every action of his is evil and with nefarious motive, regardless of the action. Sure, I could just say it's partisan fighting and leave it at that, but I heard plenty of partisan mudslinging in Bush 43's term and although the derision was there in spades I *never* got the sense that anyone was actually challenging his Presidency, other than of course the "he stole the election" thing. But even having asserted that he literally stole the election I still never heard anyone even intimate that he should be removed from office. With Trump it's a whole other ballgame; suddenly in this Presidency it's not only that he doesn't deserve to be there (which was said of GW Bush) but that he shouldn't be there. The tone has suggested almost unambiguously that 'something has to be done' about him. I would regularly see posts about 'how do we get rid of this guy' and so forth. So naturally when the slightest event occurs that could be used as an excuse, like the Mexican wall idea, the immigration ban on Muslims, the tariffs, and now the phone call, each has been a call to arms for possible impeachment or something to that effect. This could not happen IMO unless the desire to have him removed predated the actual events for which people are calling for his removal. And so my conclusion is that the inner idea that he should be removed existed in people a priori to any particular cause for his removal. The cause, rather, seems to have been who he is, rather than any particular thing he's done. The more I specify my thoughts in explaining them to you, the more it seems to match what I've seen.

The reason I take this seriously is *not* because I want to defend Trump, although I see how you could make that mistake. It's because, like rightleft22, I don't like where America is headed, and this notion that political sentiment is some kind of legal basis to take actions (just like how people think that being offended means they can sue and bully people) is a dangerous head space to be in, for both sides. You DO NOT want a country that is bifurcated, as yossarian mentioned in the other thread; but it's not just political bifurcation that is the threat, but linguistic bifurcation, where both sides adopt new standards for what language communicates. At that point you're in a deep hole. At the moment the left is the side pushing America into the hole, but mind you that's only because it's Trump in office. I think if there was a liberal version of Trump maybe it would be happening in the other direction.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on December 14, 2019, 12:08:37 PM
The foreman of the jury just announced he's going to conspire with the defendant. How can that possibly be fair?

Regardless, it's fodder for a story about the Senate acquitting Trump due to partisan bias rather than lack of evidence. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound like it could be.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 14, 2019, 12:15:49 PM
It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound like it could be.

Nailed it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 14, 2019, 01:45:46 PM
It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound like it could be.

Nailed it.
It's called avoiding a conflict of interest, real or perceived, and why not doing so is generally a bad idea, unless one is trying to avoid an even worse fallout.

Of course, McConnell knows this... But I get the impression that's not where ScottF was going with his remark...
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 14, 2019, 01:54:42 PM
By that standard, nobody in either the House, or the Senate is qualified to try to President for anything. The House impeachment process is invalid, and no outcome from the Senate would be acceptable because everybody would have to recuse themselves from the proceeding.

Edit: Besides which, impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one, the Judicial proceedings would come later, and wouldn't involve Congress at all.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 14, 2019, 04:22:53 PM
The foreman of the jury just announced he's going to conspire with the defendant. How can that possibly be fair?

Regardless, it's fodder for a story about the Senate acquitting Trump due to partisan bias rather than lack of evidence. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound like it could be.

Now you’re talking about fair? LMAO.  Really? It’s at this point you advocate a standard of fairness?

Do you remember when a witness finished his testimony then became a member of the democrats prosecution and led questioning of other witnesses? How about the blatant lies of Schiff? How about coaching and leading witnesses while refusing to allow questions by defenders? None of this ring a bell?

You left any standard of fairness behind months ago. Welcome to the new rules you created. You’re gonna love them.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on December 14, 2019, 04:40:17 PM
I'm not advocating anything, I'm just describing how the story can be told.

I've never imagined that the Senate trial would be particularly fair.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 14, 2019, 10:13:07 PM
One of the two Democrats who voted against the Impeachment proceedings the first time around has evidently decided he will be switching parties:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/14/jeff-van-drew-change-parties-085036

Probably a combination of threats to primary him by AOC's fan club, and numerous other issues. Like this from Politico:

Quote
The stunning move comes amid new polling commissioned by Van Drew's campaign that shows his approval ratings are under water with Democratic voters in his district. Just 24 percent of Democratic primary voters said Van Drew deserves to be reelected to Congress, and only 28 percent said he deserves to be the Democratic nominee in next year’s election.

Orange man bad! Why are you protecting the Orange Man!? Get out of my party!
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 15, 2019, 03:12:20 PM
As i look at that blurb again this morning, I'm doing a double-take and wondering what is up with that statistic from his internal polling.

24% of Democratic Primary Voters feel he deserves to be re-elected to Congress, yet 28% of them feel he deserves to be the Democratic Nominee.  ???

So 4% of Democrats in his district think he should be their nominee for the House, but that he shouldn't win the general election? Weird.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 15, 2019, 08:05:43 PM
As i look at that blurb again this morning, I'm doing a double-take and wondering what is up with that statistic from his internal polling.

24% of Democratic Primary Voters feel he deserves to be re-elected to Congress, yet 28% of them feel he deserves to be the Democratic Nominee.  ???

So 4% of Democrats in his district think he should be their nominee for the House, but that he shouldn't win the general election? Weird.

Reference please
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on December 15, 2019, 08:19:24 PM
Quote
The stunning move comes amid new polling commissioned by Van Drew's campaign that shows his approval ratings are under water with Democratic voters in his district. Just 24 percent of Democratic primary voters said Van Drew deserves to be reelected to Congress, and only 28 percent said he deserves to be the Democratic nominee in next year’s election.

TargetSmart conducted the survey from Dec. 7-10 of 390 likely Democratic primary voters, according to a source familiar with the polling. It also found 71 percent of voters would be less likely to support Van Drew in his reelection if he voted against impeachment. Only 22 percent said they would be more likely to support him.

If Van Drew voted to impeach Trump, 69 percent would be more likely to back him in next year's election and 22 percent would be less likely.

The numbers do seem rather odd. I wonder how the questions were worded.
I also wonder at Van Drew’s devotion to Trump. Trump is generally loathed in New Jersey by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2019, 12:09:56 AM
One can simultaneously loathe Trump and consider the impeachment case against him a fragging joke.

I think Andrew Johnson was the most loathesome son of a bitch to ever hold office, but you can’t impeach a president for dismissing his own cabinet member.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 16, 2019, 01:51:51 AM
As i look at that blurb again this morning, I'm doing a double-take and wondering what is up with that statistic from his internal polling.

24% of Democratic Primary Voters feel he deserves to be re-elected to Congress, yet 28% of them feel he deserves to be the Democratic Nominee.  ???

So 4% of Democrats in his district think he should be their nominee for the House, but that he shouldn't win the general election? Weird.

Reference please

Direct quote from the politico article I cited in the post immediately above that.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/14/jeff-van-drew-change-parties-085036
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 16, 2019, 01:59:55 AM
One can simultaneously loathe Trump and consider the impeachment case against him a fragging joke.

John Adams coming to the legal defense of the Soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. The Voltaire attribution, or the original mission of the ACLU all broadly fall into the purview of reasons why people would be reaching for the brakes in regards to the Democratic Impeachment train.

Quote
I think Andrew Johnson was the most loathesome son of a bitch to ever hold office, but you can’t impeach a president for dismissing his own cabinet member.

I'm still amazed that the Democrats think that "Obstruction of Congress" has legs as an impeachable offense when they didn't even give the courts time to weigh in on Executive Privilege as it relates to their subpoenas. But then, I guess that was what their panel of legal experts giving testimony was all about. Who needs judges when you can call in legal experts who share your partisan slant on things?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 16, 2019, 08:13:40 AM
Quote
If Van Drew voted to impeach Trump, 69 percent would be more likely to back him in next year's election and 22 percent would be less likely.

This part of the poll is interesting. 22% of democrats would be less likely to vote for Van Drew if he supports impeachment. That’s a lot, it really highlights how unpopular this impeachment is even among a base that is supposed to be a lock to support it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on December 16, 2019, 08:33:35 AM
One can simultaneously loathe Trump and consider the impeachment case against him a fragging joke.

I think Andrew Johnson was the most loathesome son of a bitch to ever hold office, but you can’t impeach a president for dismissing his own cabinet member.

Even if he took a bribe to fire the person in question? The point is to give Congress the ability to remove a President that misuses his powers where Congress can't otherwise exercise oversight.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2019, 09:03:00 AM
if it were an actual bribe, rather than information arguably relevant to performance of his duties, then that question would not be pure sophistry more worthy of Crunch than of you, oh noble hunter.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on December 16, 2019, 09:13:28 AM
It answers to criticisms of the impeachment efforts that imply, when they do not state outright, that since authority over foreign affairs is given to the Executive branch, Congress can't impeach the President for it or at least have any of the information they need to decide if impeachment is warranted. 

So while dismissing a Cabinet member is entirely within the President's prerogative, if he exercises it inappropriately, Congress can impeach him for it. Likewise, the President can conduct foreign affairs, if he does so inappropriately, Congress can impeach him for it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 16, 2019, 10:16:38 AM
It answers to criticisms of the impeachment efforts that imply, when they do not state outright, that since authority over foreign affairs is given to the Executive branch, Congress can't impeach the President for it or at least have any of the information they need to decide if impeachment is warranted. 

So while dismissing a Cabinet member is entirely within the President's prerogative, if he exercises it inappropriately, Congress can impeach him for it. Likewise, the President can conduct foreign affairs, if he does so inappropriately, Congress can impeach him for it.

Uh, have you seen our commentary regarding "Obstruction of Congress" in this thread? They can impeach, but many things take time to play out. The Democrats decided they wanted this open and closed in just a handful of months, because they evidently see the impeachment hearing to be about eliminating a 2020 Presidential opponent, as I wouldn't be surprised if there is polling data to suggest that they have better odds against Pence than they do against Trump.

Compare this to the Watergate break-in and initial "Deep Throat" leak, in June of 1972,
A Senate investigation on the matter that starts in mid-May of 1973,
by mid-October the VP Spiro Agnew resigns due to corruption charges while Governor of Maryland. Just using the Senate hearings as a starting point, we're still in September on that timeline.
Ford is nominated as new VP.
October 20, 1973 the "Saturday Night Massacre" occurs.
November 17, 1973 Ford confirmed as new VP
And then I more blatantly theft from wiki rather than cherry-picking events and editing them slightly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Watergate_scandal
Quote
January 28, 1974: Nixon campaign aide Herbert Porter pleads guilty to perjury.
February 25, 1974: Nixon personal counsel Herbert Kalmbach pleads guilty to two charges of illegal campaign activities.
March 1, 1974: In an indictment against seven former presidential aides, delivered to Judge Sirica together with a sealed briefcase intended for the House Committee on the Judiciary, Nixon is named as an unindicted co-conspirator.
March 4, 1974: The "Watergate Seven" (Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson, Gordon C. Strachan, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson) are formally indicted.
March 18, 1974: Judge Sirica orders the grand jury's sealed report to be sent to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
April 5, 1974: Dwight Chapin convicted of lying to a grand jury.
April 7, 1974: Ed Reinecke, Republican lieutenant governor of California, indicted on three charges of perjury before the Senate committee.
April 16, 1974: Special Prosecutor Jaworski issues a subpoena for 64 White House tapes.
April 30, 1974: White House releases edited transcripts of the Nixon tapes, but the House Judiciary Committee insists the actual tapes must be turned over.
May 9, 1974: Impeachment hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee.
June 15, 1974: Woodward and Bernstein's book All the President's Men is published by Simon & Schuster (ISBN 0-671-21781-X).
July 24, 1974: United States v. Nixon decided: Nixon is ordered to give up tapes to investigators.
Congress moves to impeach Nixon.
-July 27 to July 30, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes Articles of Impeachment.
-Early August 1974: A previously unknown tape from June 23, 1972 (recorded a few days after the break-in) documenting Nixon and Haldeman formulating a plan to block investigations is released. This recording later became known as the "Smoking Gun".
-Key Republican Senators tell Nixon that enough votes exist to convict him.
August 8, 1974: Nixon delivers his resignation speech in front of a nationally televised audience.
August 9, 1974: Nixon resigns from office. Gerald Ford becomes president.
September 8, 1974: President Ford ends the investigations by granting Nixon a pardon.

And in that quote block we Have March 1(unindicted co-conspirator for Nixon), or April 16th/30th for the Special Prosecutor and Congressional ask for the Watergate tapes. May 9th you have impeachment proceedings start, but it isn't until July 24th that SCotUS settles the tape dispute(going with the end of August start for Trump's stuff, that gives an equivalent of about mid-January, or points in time about now, or at the end of November. Now we can question why SCotUS seems to be so "comparatively slow" in handling the Trump Admins actions this time around, but people need to remember that the Trump admin doesn't control the Judicial Branch, so that part of things operates outside any timeline that either Congress or the Executive Branch can claim to control.

If Nixon isn't enough to compare against, I guess we could compare to the Whitewater investigation and the Ken Starr report:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy
Vince Foster's death occurs in July 1993.
April 22, 1994 - Hillary Clinton holds a press conference announcing she no longer objects to calling a special council to investigate Whitewater.
Quote
May 1994, Fiske issued a grand jury subpoena to the President and his wife for all documents relating to Madison Guaranty, with a deadline of 30 days. They were reported as missing by the Clintons. Almost two years later, the subpoenaed billing records of the Rose Law Firm were discovered in the Clintons' private residence in the White House, with fingerprints of Hillary Clinton, among others.
...
In August 1994, Kenneth Starr[30] was appointed by a three-judge panel to continue the Whitewater investigation, replacing Robert B. Fiske, who had been specially appointed by the attorney general, prior to the re-enactment of the Independent Counsel law. Fiske was replaced because he had been chosen and appointed by Janet Reno, Clinton's attorney general, creating a conflict of interest.
...
Starr drafted an impeachment referral to the House of Representatives in the fall of 1997, alleging that there was "substantial and credible evidence" that Bill Clinton had committed perjury regarding Hale's allegations.
...
By April 1998, diverted to some degree by the burgeoning Lewinsky scandal, Starr's investigations in Arkansas were winding down, with his Little Rock grand jury about to expire.[19] Hubbell, Jim Guy Tucker, and Susan McDougal had all refused to cooperate with Starr. Tucker and McDougal were later pardoned by President Clinton. When the Arkansas grand jury did conclude its work in May 1998, after 30 months in panel, it came up with only a contempt indictment against Susan McDougal.
Wow, if only Trump and company were held to the same standard, we might hear something in about 3 years? Heck, even Watergate itself took nearly 2 years to play itself out in full. But hey, the Democrats have found sufficient evidence this time that they're going to get the job done in 4 to 5 months.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on December 16, 2019, 10:27:19 AM
Wow, if only Trump and company were held to the same standard, we might hear something in about 3 years? Heck, even Watergate itself took nearly 2 years to play itself out in full. But hey, the Democrats have found sufficient evidence this time that they're going to get the job done in 4 to 5 months.

So you’re suggesting that they should drag it out longer with the strategy of what? Unifying America and breaking down partisanship?

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 16, 2019, 10:37:00 AM
Wow, if only Trump and company were held to the same standard, we might hear something in about 3 years? Heck, even Watergate itself took nearly 2 years to play itself out in full. But hey, the Democrats have found sufficient evidence this time that they're going to get the job done in 4 to 5 months.

So you’re suggesting that they should drag it out longer with the strategy of what? Unifying America and breaking down partisanship?

The real argument for waiting is allowing as least the DC circuit, if not the full supreme court to uphold the subpoenas before charging him with obstruction of congress on that count. I'm sympathetic to the democrats but I didn't agree with that strategic decision. Wait and get the information or wait until the white house is defying congress and at a minimum the DC circuit before proceeding with impeachment.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 16, 2019, 11:08:36 AM
Wow, if only Trump and company were held to the same standard, we might hear something in about 3 years? Heck, even Watergate itself took nearly 2 years to play itself out in full. But hey, the Democrats have found sufficient evidence this time that they're going to get the job done in 4 to 5 months.

So you’re suggesting that they should drag it out longer with the strategy of what? Unifying America and breaking down partisanship?

By the standard the Dems are employing right now, the Clintons losing certain documents for 2 years would be an impeachable "obstruction" charge.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2019, 11:47:33 AM
Wow, if only Trump and company were held to the same standard, we might hear something in about 3 years? Heck, even Watergate itself took nearly 2 years to play itself out in full. But hey, the Democrats have found sufficient evidence this time that they're going to get the job done in 4 to 5 months.

So you’re suggesting that they should drag it out longer with the strategy of what? Unifying America and breaking down partisanship?

For the “strategy” of keeping the bloody law.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 16, 2019, 12:14:21 PM
The real argument for waiting is allowing as least the DC circuit, if not the full supreme court to uphold the subpoenas before charging him with obstruction of congress on that count. I'm sympathetic to the democrats but I didn't agree with that strategic decision. Wait and get the information or wait until the white house is defying congress and at a minimum the DC circuit before proceeding with impeachment.

This is even crazier when you look at their prospects for winning those cases. The DC circuit recently ruled that Don McGahn would have to show up to testify. I feel like there is even a stronger case for having the officials testify as part of the Ukraine matter, so not waiting the 1-2 months for the DC circuit even if you weren't going to wait another couple months for the SC seems insane to me. Have the democrats out talking about how Trump is obstructing the investigation everyday for months. They went for the speedy route and they are going to get slammed for it. The democrats are doing their best to make Mark Twain look prescient "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 16, 2019, 01:09:10 PM
The foreman of the jury just announced he's going to conspire with the defendant. How can that possibly be fair?

I don't know, maybe the same way Nadler and Schiff described the President as guilty in their opening statements in the investigation to determine if he was guilty?  Or how there's nothing but innuendo - most of it made up by dramatic interpretations of Schiff - that actually supports the impeachment case, yet the "evidence is overwhelming"?

Why would you think a political impeachment would receive an apolitical trial?

Quote
Regardless, it's fodder for a story about the Senate acquitting Trump due to partisan bias rather than lack of evidence. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound like it could be.

I agree with this.  If the impeachment is dismissed without a trial, the media will run with 100% coverage that Trump was guilty as sin and only let off by politics.  Actually this result is super favorable for the Democrats in my view.

On the other hand, if there is a full trial while it's true that Trump will finally get to bring in fact witnesses and cross examine people and present a defense and literally that every witness we heard from to date will be eradicated because they don't actually know any relevant facts.  It's also true that to make his case Trump will have to bring in the officials that do have first hand knowledge, and do we really know what they'll say?

Will Bolton destroy the Democrats case or will he make it credible?  Pretty sure that Mulvaney won't be a win for the Dems, but will someone on his staff?

I'm guessing that Graham thinks he can control the narrative better without the trial, particularly if he's concerned there could be things out there to add credibility, but honestly he's wrong.  The media will literally make Trump into a criminal and 2020 will be about redoing the impeachment.  The truth needs to come out, no matter what it is.

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 16, 2019, 01:59:09 PM
I'm still amazed that the Democrats think that "Obstruction of Congress" has legs as an impeachable offense when they didn't even give the courts time to weigh in on Executive Privilege as it relates to their subpoenas. But then, I guess that was what their panel of legal experts giving testimony was all about. Who needs judges when you can call in legal experts who share your partisan slant on things?

Repeat after me. You have to actually appear to invoke executive privilege. Assuming everything is above board, you would think they'd be climbing over each other to explain why funds were withheld, and how Trump never ever mentioned Biden, but was constantly talking about Burisma and corruption in general.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 16, 2019, 02:10:03 PM
Repeat after me. You have to actually appear to invoke executive privilege. Assuming everything is above board, you would think they'd be climbing over each other to explain why funds were withheld, and how Trump never ever mentioned Biden, but was constantly talking about Burisma and corruption in general.

I agree that Trump would get slammed on the privilege claim in court, all the more reason to wait. Either he complies with the court order and the democratic controlled committees get to interview the witnesses and review the additional documents or you have him dead to rights on obstruction of congress charges. Democrats have given him Trump a perfect defense, either he complies after the courts rule and the charge is null and void or Republicans acquit because there is no court order. Now Trump gets a chance to comply by providing the material to the Senate, which the Republicans control. It was an absolutely absurd decision by the house leadership to go before the courts ruled.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on December 16, 2019, 02:23:35 PM
On the other hand, if there is a full trial while it's true that Trump will finally get to bring in fact witnesses and cross examine people and present a defense and literally that every witness we heard from to date will be eradicated because they don't actually know any relevant facts.  It's also true that to make his case Trump will have to bring in the officials that do have first hand knowledge, and do we really know what they'll say?

Remind me again, who's preventing fact witnesses from testifying before the House?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 16, 2019, 02:30:20 PM
The real argument for waiting is allowing as least the DC circuit, if not the full supreme court to uphold the subpoenas before charging him with obstruction of congress on that count. I'm sympathetic to the democrats but I didn't agree with that strategic decision. Wait and get the information or wait until the white house is defying congress and at a minimum the DC circuit before proceeding with impeachment.

This is even crazier when you look at their prospects for winning those cases. The DC circuit recently ruled that Don McGahn would have to show up to testify.

Sort of, they ruled he would have to show up to assert executive privilege in person.  The ruling may be correct, may also not be correct, but it has a specific political twinge.  If the court had ruled that McGahn had to show up but that the President was entitled to send a representative to assert privilege on the President's behalf - without regard to what McGahn personally is willing to testify about - then it would not have that political twinge.  Against a backdrop of Congress refusing Whitehouse counsel and denying the right of the White House to assert the privilege (and it's literally the President's personal right that his officials can not waive on his behalf), this decision was mostly about creating a situation where if you put enough people in front of Congress one of them would eventually "break privilege" unConstitutionally and the bell would not be unringable (sure Trump would win in court, but Congress would already have the information).

It's a variant of Meuller's strategy to cease attorney client files knowing full well he never planned to bring charges in court, and accordingly doing so for the unConstitutional purpose of turning them over to Congress.

Quote
I feel like there is even a stronger case for having the officials testify as part of the Ukraine matter, so not waiting the 1-2 months for the DC circuit even if you weren't going to wait another couple months for the SC seems insane to me.

I agree, they would likely be compelled to testify, but very likely the court would have imposed constraints, like those I mentioned above (right to counsel, right to WhiteHouse representatives to independently assert privilege), maybe even right to cross examine them, that would have undercut what the DNC wanted - an unchallenged chance to craft a biased story.

Quote
Have the democrats out talking about how Trump is obstructing the investigation everyday for months. They went for the speedy route and they are going to get slammed for it. The democrats are doing their best to make Mark Twain look prescient "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."

Again, the Democrats did exactly what they wanted.  This was always about telling a story to the public.  It's never been about conviction, vindication at trial is part of the story the Democrats want to tell.  They want to go out to their base and demand a mandate because "without one" the criminal will stay in office.  The Senate "trial" isn't a real trial the House convicted him with  and proved him a criminal and only politics save him.  The solution to politics is - of course - to give us a mandate.

The only 2020 election interference the Democrats have uncovered is their own.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2019, 02:31:51 PM
I'm still amazed that the Democrats think that "Obstruction of Congress" has legs as an impeachable offense when they didn't even give the courts time to weigh in on Executive Privilege as it relates to their subpoenas. But then, I guess that was what their panel of legal experts giving testimony was all about. Who needs judges when you can call in legal experts who share your partisan slant on things?

[snip] Assuming everything is above board, you would think they'd be climbing over each other to explain why funds were withheld, and how Trump never ever mentioned Biden, but was constantly talking about Burisma and corruption in general.

In court, perhaps, because there are rules to prevent a fishing expedition, and also rules for recusal when judges and prosecutors have a conflict of interest or clearly biased.  No serious court would allow a prosecutor or judge who had (like Biden) a son's personal involvement, or (like Al Green) called for impeachment before Trump even took office. 

Prejudice matters in court.  Remember when Trump lost that first immigration case, solely because of prejudicial statements that he'd made about Muslim immigration before he was elected?

"Repeat after me. You have to actually appear to invoke executive privilege."

Please show me the constitutional provision or federal case that establishes that a sitting president cannot invoke executive privilege without actually appearing before Congress.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 16, 2019, 02:33:59 PM
Again, the Democrats did exactly what they wanted.  This was always about telling a story to the public.  It's never been about conviction, vindication at trial is part of the story the Democrats want to tell.  They want to go out to their base and demand a mandate because "without one" the criminal will stay in office.  The Senate "trial" isn't a real trial the House convicted him with  and proved him a criminal and only politics save him.  The solution to politics is - of course - to give us a mandate.

The only 2020 election interference the Democrats have uncovered is their own.

Well I think something you and I can agree on is that is an idiotic strategy.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2019, 02:40:35 PM
... Trump would get slammed on the privilege claim in court, all the more reason to wait. Either he complies with the court order and the democratic controlled committees get to interview the witnesses and review the additional documents or you have him dead to rights on obstruction of congress charges. Democrats have given him Trump a perfect defense, either he complies after the courts rule and the charge is null and void or Republicans acquit because there is no court order. Now Trump gets a chance to comply by providing the material to the Senate, which the Republicans control. It was an absolutely absurd decision by the house leadership to go before the courts ruled.

Agreed and well-said.  But the absurdity won't keep me from voting for Biden in the primary and in the general election.  Just because he's proved absurd in his house leadership does not mean that he can't be a better president than Trump.

It's a very low bar.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 16, 2019, 02:42:07 PM
Please show me the constitutional provision or federal case that establishes that a sitting president cannot invoke executive privilege without actually appearing before Congress.

They are working on it. A lower court already ruled this is the case. Beyond that, maybe a couple centuries of precedent that this is how it works? And also only applying to specific questions, not a blanket assertion.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2019, 02:46:39 PM
Please show me the constitutional provision or federal case that establishes that a sitting president cannot invoke executive privilege without actually appearing before Congress.

They are working on it. A lower court already ruled this is the case. Beyond that, maybe a couple centuries of precedent that this is how it works? And also only applying to specific questions, not a blanket assertion.

A lower court ruling and vague handwaving about being protecolegorically correct (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22XcT6KCrjs) hardly constitutes a "repeat after me" assertion, Señor El Drake.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 16, 2019, 03:04:14 PM
Fair enough, Pete. I hereby soften my repeat after me snark.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 16, 2019, 03:08:58 PM
If only Obama realized he could have kept everyone in the administration from testifying about Benghazi.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2019, 03:14:08 PM
If only Obama realized he could have kept everyone in the administration from testifying about Benghazi.

Excellent counter.  My guess: that Obama did realize it, as Clinton did before him, but Obama was Obama, and thank heavens for that.  Obama was not about what he could get away with. I miss his style and grace. 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 16, 2019, 03:49:25 PM
I think Andrew Johnson was the most loathesome son of a bitch to ever hold office, but you can’t impeach a president for dismissing his own cabinet member.

Not to derail the thread but I can't immediately think of anything he did worse than Jackson (trail of tears). But that's setting the bar at something approaching genocide so don't take it as an endorsement of Johnson by any stretch of the imagination.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2019, 04:07:20 PM
I think Andrew Johnson was the most loathesome son of a bitch to ever hold office, but you can’t impeach a president for dismissing his own cabinet member.

Not to derail the thread but I can't immediately think of anything he did worse than Jackson (trail of tears). But that's setting the bar at something approaching genocide so don't take it as an endorsement of Johnson by any stretch of the imagination.

I won't.  6 months ago I'd have agreed with you re Jackson's role in ethnic cleansing, and I reserve the right to agree with you again, but I'm currently digesting some credible arguments that Jackson lacked the means to prevent actual genocide, and chose ethnic cleansing via forced migration to prevent the Cherokee in some areas from being totally wiped out.

Johnson in contrast enacted policies that enabled terrorism, including lynchings, church burnings, mutilations, and burning people alive.  http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/exhibits/reconstruction/section4/section4_presrecon.html

In 1865 President Andrew Johnson
These new governments
Quote
passed the Black Codes, severely limiting the former slaves' legal rights and economic options so as to force them to return to the plantations as dependent laborers. Some states limited the occupations open to blacks. None allowed any blacks to vote, or provided public funds for their education.The new legislatures passed the Black Codes, severely limiting the former slaves' legal rights and economic options so as to force them to return to the plantations as dependent laborers. Some states limited the occupations open to blacks. None allowed any blacks to vote, or provided public funds for their education.

IMO Johnson should have been impeached for resisting the 14th amendment's effect after it had been passed.  But the actual impeachment charges against him did not fly.

https://millercenter.org/president/johnson/impact-and-legacy

Quote
For the most part, historians view Andrew Johnson as the worst possible person to have served as President at the end of the American Civil War. Because of his gross incompetence in federal office and his incredible miscalculation of the extent of public support for his policies, Johnson is judged as a great failure in making a satisfying and just peace. He is viewed to have been a rigid, dictatorial racist who was unable to compromise or to accept a political reality at odds with his own ideas. ...In the end, Johnson did more to extend the period of national strife than he did to heal the wounds of war.

Most importantly, Johnson's strong commitment to obstructing political and civil rights for blacks is principally responsible for the failure of Reconstruction to solve the race problem in the South and perhaps in America as well.

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 16, 2019, 06:47:25 PM
Quote
If the impeachment is dismissed without a trial, the media will run with 100% coverage that Trump was guilty as sin and only let off by politics.

This will be the headline regardless of anything done in the senate. Why would they change now?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 16, 2019, 07:16:33 PM
The latest from the democrats is that that they should withhold their articles of impeachment from the Senate unless Mitch McConnell agrees to let democrats set the rules for the trial.

I can’t wait for this trial to start.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 16, 2019, 08:21:00 PM
If only Obama realized he could have kept everyone in the administration from testifying about Benghazi.

Excellent counter.  My guess: that Obama did realize it, as Clinton did before him, but Obama was Obama, and thank heavens for that.  Obama was not about what he could get away with. I miss his style and grace.

Sort of.  Benghazi was conducted under Congress's oversight authority.  It's kind of ancient history, but one of the first things that the House did was demand the records under their power to impeach and also on their oversight authority, and Trump's White House responded pretty much responded that by pursing this as an impeachment matter it would be resisted as a matter of first impression, even if the records would have been available if the House was conducting oversight (of course then they'd have to tie it to  a legislative purpose, something the lower courts have repeatedly failed to do).

If the SC wants to avoid the "big" decision on executive privilege thy could rule for the House on the oversight grounds and explain the "missing" legislative purpose.  If they rule for Trump, they'd probably consider the oversight role and point out that no legitimate legislative purpose was being pursued. 

Impeachment is a funny game, cause either the court has to rule that Congress defines it's own authority - no matter how spurious to investigate anything, anytime, anywhere without any constraints by labeling it impeachment (they won't say it that way, but that would effectively be the end result if Congress sets its own terms), or they have to read into their own authority the ability to constrain Congress's authority by application of judicial judgement to the Constitution.  There's little question that the frames rejected political impeachment when they refused certain terms, but that only has meaning if someone can enforce it on Congress.

Less you think it's impossible the courts have already imposed their will on the executive on multiple occasions even where the executive discretion should be unreviewable.  It's not much of a leap to hold Congress to account for minimum standards.  They could easily say, impeach all you want, but you need actual evidence to violate Executive Privilege not just a desire to go fishing.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 18, 2019, 07:26:01 AM
Quote
House Democrats are already preparing to impeach Trump a second time. According to Law & Crime, they're currently suing to get access to more grand jury materials from the Robert Mueller investigation in the hopes of building a case for obstruction of justice. "In a 66-page filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, attorneys for congressional investigators led by House General Counsel Douglas N. Letter vowed that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would continue their impeachment inquiry into whether Trump committed obstruction of justice–regardless of the outcome of the House’s current 'narrow impeachment' process premised on the president withholding military aid to the Ukraine in an apparent scheme to obtain an investigation into Joe Biden‘s son," Law and Crime reported.

Impeachment now, impeachment tomorrow, impeachment forever.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 18, 2019, 08:19:14 AM
Vote today. There are 234 Democrats plus Amash for 235. 200 Republicans.

Pelosi must have the votes to move forward and get this sham done, she wouldn’t have the vote otherwise. Will she get all 235? Tulsi Gabbard joined the chorus of those asking to go with censure, maybe 6 total on that track. Maybe Pelosi gets them all on board, we’ll see.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 18, 2019, 12:59:30 PM
I've kind of shifted to something nearing legitimate pity for the democrats around this whole process. Not only have they decided to drive the entire bus down a one-way alley, in the very thing they thought was the last and best hope to unseat their bogeyman, they've forged a cudgel and handed it to him for the rest of the term.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on December 18, 2019, 01:21:16 PM
I've kind of shifted to something nearing legitimate pity for the democrats around this whole process. Not only have they decided to drive the entire bus down a one-way alley, in the very thing they thought was the last and best hope to unseat their bogeyman, they've forged a cudgel and handed it to him for the rest of the term.

Why? They were getting hit with the stick regardless. Nothing has changed except they actually did something. No matter how ineffectual it might be. They will still be recorded in history as the one who held up their  hands and said “no”.

Nobody ever really glorifies the moral who were weak unless there’s somehow a lesson of victory to be spun out of it. Being righteous does not predicate success. Victory does not prove a just cause.

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 18, 2019, 02:10:38 PM
I don't disagree that they were between bad choices. I do not think they will be viewed historically as the arbiters of morality and righteousness in a time of corruption. I think they'll be viewed as being completely befuddled as to how to combat an outlier opponent, combat being the only self-imposed option because there were no scenarios in which they would debase themselves to work with Trump.

When Trump was elected, I thought all the dems had to do was just not be nuts, and by the end of the term it would all be a fait de complete. I didn't realize the degree to which the left and media would be so emotionally fragile re: Trump's more repulsive tendencies. It's backed them into this corner and they're literally going to reap what they've sown. If that feels virtuous, then ok I guess.

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 18, 2019, 03:02:11 PM
I've kind of shifted to something nearing legitimate pity for the democrats around this whole process. Not only have they decided to drive the entire bus down a one-way alley, in the very thing they thought was the last and best hope to unseat their bogeyman, they've forged a cudgel and handed it to him for the rest of the term.

Why? They were getting hit with the stick regardless. Nothing has changed except they actually did something. No matter how ineffectual it might be. They will still be recorded in history as the one who held up their  hands and said “no”.

Nobody ever really glorifies the moral who were weak unless there’s somehow a lesson of victory to be spun out of it. Being righteous does not predicate success. Victory does not prove a just cause.

That right there is what is commonly referred to as loser talk, what someone would say when they know they’ve lost. I’m hearing it more and more from Democrats on this shampeachment.

Te goal of this was to get Trump and overturn the 2016 election. Will this “high ground” you think you have feel so virtuous when the fallout pushes Trump to victory in November and he subsequently appoints 2 more SC justices? What about the cost of giving Trump a rubber stamp with control of the house and the senate?

No to mention, we now have the precedent of impeachment being for no reason. Henceforth, every house controlled by the opposing party will impeach the president. Just part of the game now. How is that so great for anyone?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 18, 2019, 03:34:28 PM
Perhaps neither here nor there but some fine reading nonetheless.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrat-who-was-once-impeached-will-vote-on-trump-impeachment-170637692.html

When the House of Representatives votes on the articles of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday, one of the Democrats certain to vote in favor is Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings.

In doing so, Hastings will become the first sitting member of Congress to vote for the impeachment of a sitting president after having himself been impeached — and removed from office.

Hastings was a federal judge when he was impeached by the House for accepting bribes in 1988...

... “Rep. Hastings is the only person in U.S. history to have been impeached, convicted, removed from office and then returned to high government position..." His longevity means Hastings has participated in three other impeachments. In 1998, he voted against impeaching Bill Clinton, like himself a Democrat. This marked the first time, at least in modern American history, in which one impeached official voted in the impeachment of another...

Earlier in the impeachment process, Hastings blasted Trump for a “disregard for the rule of law.”

But more than 30 years after his own impeachment, how much regard Hastings has for the rule of law remains in doubt. As the impeachment inquiry against Trump proceeded, Hastings found himself embroiled in an ethics investigation, one that focused on his relationship with longtime staffer Patricia Williams, who was one of his attorneys during the 1988-89 impeachment inquiry.

And in 2014, the federal government paid $200,000 to a woman who accused Hastings of inappropriate sexual conduct. The alleged behavior, which he denied, allegedly took place in 2001...

His political prospects brightened in 1992, when Bill Clinton was at the top of the ticket. Hastings defeated state legislator Lois Frankel, whom he at one point called a “racist *$)@#.” Twenty years later, he would endorse her when she ran for Congress. The former rivals are now both members of the Florida delegation.

The district Hastings represents is safely Democratic, and he has served in Congress since 1993 without interruption — though not without continuing scandal."

------------------------------------------------------------

And these are the people ruling over us.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 18, 2019, 07:11:55 PM
Democrat, Eric Swalwell:
Quote
Unless you send us (witnesses), we can only conclude that you're guilty because in America, innocent men don't conceal evidence... they are forthcoming and want to cooperate.

That’s right, if you’re innocent you have nothing to fear. Why in the hell are you guys ok with this? It’s shameful.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 18, 2019, 07:35:10 PM
Also Swalwell: "fffbraaaaap"
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 18, 2019, 07:48:35 PM
Democrat, Eric Swalwell:
Quote
Unless you send us (witnesses), we can only conclude that you're guilty because in America, innocent men don't conceal evidence... they are forthcoming and want to cooperate.

That’s right, if you’re innocent you have nothing to fear. Why in the hell are you guys ok with this? It’s shameful.

He obviously has no understanding of the 5th Amendment, and innocent people DO have reason to want to conceal things from others, the government, and in particular political operatives, something Congress is packed to the gills with.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 18, 2019, 08:25:00 PM
Democrat, Eric Swalwell:
Quote
Unless you send us (witnesses), we can only conclude that you're guilty because in America, innocent men don't conceal evidence... they are forthcoming and want to cooperate.

That’s right, if you’re innocent you have nothing to fear. Why in the hell are you guys ok with this? It’s shameful.

I guess that's an admission that Schiff and the DNC are guilty unless they send the Whistleblower and Schiff testifies.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 18, 2019, 09:54:46 PM
Which moves us into a related item.

Bad idea for a potential 2021 Republican House to begin Impeachment proceedings on certain leading Democratic figures in the House under the same rules they used on Trump?

I'd also wish them luck on trying to invoke separation of powers on a Congressional subpoena.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 18, 2019, 09:55:03 PM
Quote
BREAKING: Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned the House may not immediately transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate out of concerns Republicans won't conduct impartial proceedings at a trial

Jesus *censored*ing christ, they’re going for impeachment without impeachment.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 18, 2019, 10:01:21 PM
Quote
BREAKING: Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned the House may not immediately transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate out of concerns Republicans won't conduct impartial proceedings at a trial

Jesus *censored*ing christ, they’re going for impeachment without impeachment.

McConnel seems to pretty clear that the Democrats get to use whatever it is they have when they refer it to the Senate. That the Senate will not do their work for them.

So basically sounds like a quasi-trial scenario. The prosecution(the House) only gets to present the evidence it discovered at the time the trial starts. Meanwhile the Defense can present basically anything they want(which a judge -- Justice Roberts as I recall) deems to be relevant.

He doesn't seem to be talking about setting up any roadblocks beyond that. Of course, that's not what the Dems want.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on December 18, 2019, 10:08:08 PM
Weren't you lot looking forward to the "fact witnesses" testifying in the Senate and clearer all this up? Of course, not that Dear Leader has decided he doesn't want them to testify, you're scrambling for reasons why that's "just fine, actually."
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 18, 2019, 10:12:40 PM
Weren't you lot looking forward to the "fact witnesses" testifying in the Senate and clearer all this up? Of course, not that Dear Leader has decided he doesn't want them to testify, you're scrambling for reasons why that's "just fine, actually."

There's a difference between fact witnesses being called by the defense, and witnesses being compelled to testify by Congressional Act when those witnesses are being questioned about activities under the purview of Executive Privilege.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 18, 2019, 11:13:09 PM
To augment the previous and to be clear: If they REALLY wanted those fact witnesses, the House could wait until SCotUS has ruled in regards to their ability to compell testimony, without White House consul being present, or any other check(like Judicial review) to backstop their over-ride of Executive privilege.

If the Prosecution(The House) decides not to wait for SCotUS to rule (mostly) in their favor(which is likely), that's on them, and not the business or responsibility of the Senate. The Senate's constitutional role in this is to be the Jury(and to a lesser extent the Judge, although the Chief Justice handles most of that), they're not supposed to be the Prosecution, or doing the Prosecution's job for them.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 19, 2019, 12:09:14 AM
Going back to this:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/14/jeff-van-drew-change-parties-085036

Quote
The stunning move comes amid new polling commissioned by Van Drew's campaign that shows his approval ratings are under water with Democratic voters in his district. Just 24 percent of Democratic primary voters said Van Drew deserves to be reelected to Congress, and only 28 percent said he deserves to be the Democratic nominee in next year’s election.

And adding this from FiveThirtyEight:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Where their chart at the time of this posting when you scroll down to breakdown by party indicate: 82.7% of Democrats support Impeachment, 44.4% of Independents support Impeachment, and 10.2% of Republicans support it.

The 24% of Democratic voters in Van Drew's district may be in the category of "reluctant about impeachment" and now that the House went and did it. The Democrats are now playing with a live hand grenade that may result in many of their voters staying home in 2020 should Trump's team present "a compelling enough" defense of what was happening. In all reality that number may be much higher, as people don't like being "spun up"/deceived/lied to. (There also is that 4% "anomaly" from that poll I noted earlier)

Which gets us to the more National Polling number of 82.7% of Democrats supporting Impeachment. That leaves 17.3% of their voters as either undecided or opposed. (I think Fox was claiming 11% opposition tonight)

What happens to the Democrats in 2020 if they have 10% or more of their voters (nationwide) decide to either stay home, or "protest" by voting third party as a consequence of the impeachment? (This also ignores minorities possibly "voting their wallet" and switching to voting Republican)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 19, 2019, 01:07:47 AM
I’m a democrat against impeachment on the BS bribery charge, and I’m voting 2020. I might skip the presidential ballot if the DNC puts forward someone like O-Cortez, but I’m not staying home.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 19, 2019, 07:28:29 AM
Quote
I'm still amazed that the Democrats think that "Obstruction of Congress" has legs as an impeachable offense when they didn't even give the courts time to weigh in on Executive Privilege as it relates to their subpoenas. But then, I guess that was what their panel of legal experts giving testimony was all about. Who needs judges when you can call in legal experts who share your partisan slant on things?
Does it make sense to you that Trump refuses to let ANY member of his Administration obey a subpoena from Congress?  Trump's favorite tactic when "attacked" by opponents in legal situations is to run up the costs for the other side and run out the clock until the issue is moot.  There's little doubt that he would have continued to stonewall up to a Supreme Court decision ruling against him, and frankly, not much doubt that he would ignore such a ruling.  What are they going to do, impeach him?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 19, 2019, 08:59:26 AM
Does it make sense to you that Trump refuses to let ANY member of his Administration obey a subpoena from Congress?  Trump's favorite tactic when "attacked" by opponents in legal situations is to run up the costs for the other side and run out the clock until the issue is moot.  There's little doubt that he would have continued to stonewall up to a Supreme Court decision ruling against him, and frankly, not much doubt that he would ignore such a ruling.  What are they going to do, impeach him?

YES! That is exactly what they should have done. And if he looses the election while we're waiting on the SC then so be it, and if he won the election while waiting on the SC then he can be impeached at the start of he second term - win, win in my book.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 19, 2019, 09:11:47 AM
With no more success than this time.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 19, 2019, 09:15:29 AM
With no more success than this time.

But instead of Republicans out there arguing the process wasn't fair, blah, blah, blah, they have to be out justifying why its okay for Trump to defy congress and the SC. I like to think there are enough Republicans in congress with a conscience to make the impeachment bipartisan at that point.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 19, 2019, 09:25:45 AM
If the senate goes absolutely crazy and convicts Trump from my understanding of the constitution there isn't actually anything standing in the way of him continuing to run and potentially being reelected. I get "normal" politicians wouldn't try this but Trump isn't normal. Which is why I don't understand why the Democrats are rushing this now, play the slow game, get the SC on their side, and time the impeachment to abbreviate his potential second term.

I really don't understand the Democratic house leaderships political calculus on rushing the impeachment.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 19, 2019, 09:38:08 AM
Quote
I'm still amazed that the Democrats think that "Obstruction of Congress" has legs as an impeachable offense when they didn't even give the courts time to weigh in on Executive Privilege as it relates to their subpoenas. But then, I guess that was what their panel of legal experts giving testimony was all about. Who needs judges when you can call in legal experts who share your partisan slant on things?
Does it make sense to you that Trump refuses to let ANY member of his Administration obey a subpoena from Congress?  Trump's favorite tactic when "attacked" by opponents in legal situations is to run up the costs for the other side and run out the clock until the issue is moot.  There's little doubt that he would have continued to stonewall up to a Supreme Court decision ruling against him, and frankly, not much doubt that he would ignore such a ruling.  What are they going to do, impeach him?

In that case, why didn't they wait for SCotUS to rule, so they could impeach him for ignoring SCotUS? Rather than making the SCotUS decision moot(because proceedings will likely be over before that ruling happens).

The Democrat's behavior only makes sense in a "doing this for political reasons, and on a timetable" where they check off the "impeach Trump" agenda item off their list before the Primaries to play well to their political base, but also give them enough time for other to try to forget they did that before the November election happens.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 19, 2019, 09:38:20 AM
If the senate goes absolutely crazy and convicts Trump from my understanding of the constitution there isn't actually anything standing in the way of him continuing to run and potentially being reelected. I get "normal" politicians wouldn't try this but Trump isn't normal. Which is why I don't understand why the Democrats are rushing this now, play the slow game, get the SC on their side, and time the impeachment to abbreviate his potential second term.

I really don't understand the Democratic house leaderships political calculus on rushing the impeachment.

You are basing this on the assumption that it is all a sham. If they actually think trump abused his power to influence an election, you really don't want to give him a shot at that election.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 19, 2019, 09:40:51 AM
If the senate goes absolutely crazy and convicts Trump from my understanding of the constitution there isn't actually anything standing in the way of him continuing to run and potentially being reelected. I get "normal" politicians wouldn't try this but Trump isn't normal. Which is why I don't understand why the Democrats are rushing this now, play the slow game, get the SC on their side, and time the impeachment to abbreviate his potential second term.

I really don't understand the Democratic house leaderships political calculus on rushing the impeachment.

You are basing this on the assumption that it is all a sham. If they actually think trump abused his power to influence an election, you really don't want to give him a shot at that election.

Inability to run for elected office again is a penalty that is decided at the time of "conviction" which a certain former Judge and now Democrat Representative in the House can attest to, considering he was Impeached and removed from the bench, but they didn't render that decision against him, or he wouldn't be serving in the House today.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 19, 2019, 09:44:26 AM
If the senate goes absolutely crazy and convicts Trump from my understanding of the constitution there isn't actually anything standing in the way of him continuing to run and potentially being reelected. I get "normal" politicians wouldn't try this but Trump isn't normal. Which is why I don't understand why the Democrats are rushing this now, play the slow game, get the SC on their side, and time the impeachment to abbreviate his potential second term.

I really don't understand the Democratic house leaderships political calculus on rushing the impeachment.

You are basing this on the assumption that it is all a sham. If they actually think trump abused his power to influence an election, you really don't want to give him a shot at that election.

I do think Trump abused his power. I do want to see the courts put stricter limits on "executive privilege." I don't think rushing the impeachment and having Trump be acquitted in the senate does anything to curb his future abuses of power.

Can some of our more constitutionally astute members answer my question on if impeaching Trump at this point does anything from him potentially being re-elected in November?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 19, 2019, 10:34:49 AM
Quote
But instead of Republicans out there arguing the process wasn't fair, blah, blah, blah, they have to be out justifying why its okay for Trump to defy congress and the SC. I like to think there are enough Republicans in congress with a conscience to make the impeachment bipartisan at that point.

If that were true, wouldn't they already be speaking up?  Can partisan loyalty be so strong that they would have to be forced to use their conscience to do the right thing?  And if that push is required, is it really conscience?

Quote
If the senate goes absolutely crazy and convicts Trump from my understanding of the constitution there isn't actually anything standing in the way of him continuing to run and potentially being reelected.

I think that's not true.  From the current Senate rules on impeachment:

 (https://www.riddick.gpo.gov/UserData/SenateProcedures/Impeachment.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2YvQlVvSGfiSj0GH3RbSuOF_LTAwbhC6DfX1ZJVjEL9HPCJc6EWbrHAMQ#xml=http://www.riddick.gpo.gov/PdfHighlighter.aspx?DocId=68&Index=D%3a%5cWebSites%5cUserIndex%5cSenateProcedures%5c&HitCount=107&hits=1+17+22+32+ac+d8+141+157+193+1cf+1e3+1f7+211+21c+23d+248+25d+296+2b7+31e+395+3d4+4b1+535+56f+6d5+713+770+784+819+837+84e+894+8a3+8cb+9c1+a54+a6d+a7c+a94+aa8+b13+b26+bda+c2f+cad+d04+d49+db0+eda+f16+f5f+f84+1004+1069+109c+10af+10ca+10d5+1116+117e+1188+11e7+11fb+1294+12b6+1349+1368+1372+137a+13ca+13de+13f1+140b+1414+142c+142f+14b6+14fd+150f+154a+1554+15f8+1618+1676+16c1+16dd+16f9+170d+1722+172c+1792+17cd+17e0+1810+1818+183e+185d+1865+18b1+18dc+190e+1921+194a+1959+1979+19da+)
Quote
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 19, 2019, 11:36:27 AM
You also have to wonder if enough Senate Republicans would vote to acquit even if the principal witnesses or documents revealed a smoking gun of Trump clearly directing funds to be withheld from Ukraine for the explicit purpose of defeating Joe Biden. That evidence would be unlikely ever to be met, but even if it were... I just don't think there's a level at which they'd say enough is enough.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 19, 2019, 11:49:57 AM
With no more success than this time.

But instead of Republicans out there arguing the process wasn't fair, blah, blah, blah, they have to be out justifying why its okay for Trump to defy congress and the SC. I like to think there are enough Republicans in congress with a conscience to make the impeachment bipartisan at that point.

Missed this earlier today. Trump has NOT defied SCotUS at this point in time, SCotUS has passed no rulings in regards to what the Democrats are impeaching him for. The Democrats decided they didn't need to wait on the third branch of government.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 19, 2019, 11:52:54 AM
I think that's not true.  From the current Senate rules on impeachment:

 (https://www.riddick.gpo.gov/UserData/SenateProcedures/Impeachment.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2YvQlVvSGfiSj0GH3RbSuOF_LTAwbhC6DfX1ZJVjEL9HPCJc6EWbrHAMQ#xml=http://www.riddick.gpo.gov/PdfHighlighter.aspx?DocId=68&Index=D%3a%5cWebSites%5cUserIndex%5cSenateProcedures%5c&HitCount=107&hits=1+17+22+32+ac+d8+141+157+193+1cf+1e3+1f7+211+21c+23d+248+25d+296+2b7+31e+395+3d4+4b1+535+56f+6d5+713+770+784+819+837+84e+894+8a3+8cb+9c1+a54+a6d+a7c+a94+aa8+b13+b26+bda+c2f+cad+d04+d49+db0+eda+f16+f5f+f84+1004+1069+109c+10af+10ca+10d5+1116+117e+1188+11e7+11fb+1294+12b6+1349+1368+1372+137a+13ca+13de+13f1+140b+1414+142c+142f+14b6+14fd+150f+154a+1554+15f8+1618+1676+16c1+16dd+16f9+170d+1722+172c+1792+17cd+17e0+1810+1818+183e+185d+1865+18b1+18dc+190e+1921+194a+1959+1979+19da+)
Quote
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.

Reading is hard. "shall not extend further than" = Maximum penalty. The verbiage quoted states nothing about the minimum, although from my understanding the minimum is removal from office, everything else is optional.

As witnessed by the Democratic Representative from Florida who was impeached as a Judge, removed from office, then ran for a House seat, where he has now voted on Clinton's Impeachment(against), and Trump's Impeachment(for). Making him the first person to be impeached to have voted for the impeachment of a president, as well as the first person to be impeached to vote against the impeachment of a President. He also gets the "double feature" award because he's now the first to have voted both for the impeachment of a president and against impeaching a president(who was impeached regardless), after having previously been impeached and removed from office himself.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 19, 2019, 12:13:20 PM
Quote
Reading is hard. "shall not extend further than" = Maximum penalty. The verbiage quoted states nothing about the minimum, although from my understanding the minimum is removal from office, everything else is optional.
I think you're right, but since no President has been impeached and convicted, it's all theory at this point.

It makes for an interesting scenario possibility.  If a sitting President can't be indicted, then once a President leaves office s/he can be.  So if Trump is convicted in the Senate there will be a window in which he won't be President, even if he decides to run again in the next election.  In the current process he hasn't been impeached for commission of a crime, but for high crimes and misdemeanors.  OTOH, Mueller found multiple instances of potential obstruction of justice for which he could be indicted.  Further, the two articles of impeachment could be reinterpreted as crimes once he leaves office.

None of this will happen, but if it does it would have to be done with maximum expeditiosity.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 19, 2019, 12:24:28 PM
No President has been impeached, but plenty of other people have been. So the punishment aspect of an Impeachment conviction is already known.

As I said, the Senate decides if they'll revoke the ability to run for, or hold, high office after they vote to convict the person in question. There is no reason the believe the President would be handled differently in that case than a Federal Judge, or member of Congress would be.

The only thing that the constitution explicitly makes different with regards to the PotUS when it comes to Impeachment is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the proceedings of the Impeachment Trial.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 19, 2019, 01:35:47 PM
With no more success than this time.

But instead of Republicans out there arguing the process wasn't fair, blah, blah, blah, they have to be out justifying why its okay for Trump to defy congress and the SC. I like to think there are enough Republicans in congress with a conscience to make the impeachment bipartisan at that point.

Who’s out there complaining about fairness today? Who’s refusing to follow the process as outlined in the constitution now?  LMAO. Karma is coming back quick.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 19, 2019, 01:41:45 PM
Quote
Reading is hard. "shall not extend further than" = Maximum penalty. The verbiage quoted states nothing about the minimum, although from my understanding the minimum is removal from office, everything else is optional.
I think you're right, but since no President has been impeached and convicted, it's all theory at this point.

It makes for an interesting scenario possibility.  If a sitting President can't be indicted, then once a President leaves office s/he can be.  So if Trump is convicted in the Senate there will be a window in which he won't be President, even if he decides to run again in the next election.  In the current process he hasn't been impeached for commission of a crime, but for high crimes and misdemeanors.  OTOH, Mueller found multiple instances of potential obstruction of justice for which he could be indicted.  Further, the two articles of impeachment could be reinterpreted as crimes once he leaves office.

None of this will happen, but if it does it would have to be done with maximum expeditiosity.

History tells us exactly what will happen. If a president commits a crime, even a felony - multiple ones even, that nothing will happen to him. Clinton showed us that. But, he’s a Democrat so, you know, feee pass.

Back when these things actually mattered, during the Nixon impeachment, the incoming president issued immediate pardons for Nixon.

So no matter how much you guys wish, Trump will never be indicted or sent to jail. It’s just fantasy. Besides, you can’t indict a sitting president so you won’t see anything until 2024 at the earliest.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 19, 2019, 01:44:23 PM
It looks like they are seriously considerOmg holding the articles of impeachment and not sending them to the senate. What a bunch of morons. This is even dumber than I thought it would be.

What’s the point of it all if you just sit on it?

McConnell must be laughing constantly.

  ::)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 19, 2019, 01:51:31 PM
They really, really want to go on that fishing expedition if they could maybe get the Senate to compel those Trump Admin officials to testify in the Senate Trial, rather than be called by the defense to give testimony only relevant to Ukraine and the temporary withholding of funds.

I guess the "meta" is if they get the Senate to do what the House did, Trump would likewise be stuck in a catch-22 on being able to call those witnesses for his defense. Either he keeps them away until SCotUS rules on it(too late to matter), and the Republicans vote to dismiss and give the Dems political cover. Or Trump brings them in anyway, and provides the Dems with their license to start fishing. (At least until Justice Roberts shuts them down)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 19, 2019, 02:05:57 PM
Nancy explains it all very clearly here:

https://twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1207699372055711744
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 19, 2019, 02:11:00 PM
Quote
No President has been impeached, but plenty of other people have been. So the punishment aspect of an Impeachment conviction is already known.
Fewer than 20 at the federal level and for such different reasons that it's hard to draw many conclusions.  We'll have to see what we see...

Quote
History tells us exactly what will happen. If a president commits a crime, even a felony - multiple ones even, that nothing will happen to him. Clinton showed us that. But, he’s a Democrat so, you know, feee pass.

I'm only aware of one crime (perjury in a civil trial), and that's not what he was impeached for, anyway.  Care to explain what the "multiple ones, even" were? Are you thinking of Vince Foster or the NY Pizza Parlor???

Quote
It looks like they are seriously considerOmg holding the articles of impeachment and not sending them to the senate. What a bunch of morons. This is even dumber than I thought it would be.

What’s the point of it all if you just sit on it?

Yes, I understand that you can't get your mind around it.  Be careful who you call a moron and "dumber than [you] thought.  Bless your heart and keep trying, there are several possible reasons.

Quote
They really, really want to go on that fishing expedition if they could maybe get the Senate to compel those Trump Admin officials to testify in the Senate Trial, rather than be called by the defense to give testimony only relevant to Ukraine and the temporary withholding of funds.

You, too?  If you've ever been on an archeological dig, you'd know that there's always more below the current level that you've excavated, especially when bad weather and hostile locals impede your progress.  Trump is a walking pismire of the pestilent perversion persuasion.  There's no telling how deep that hole can go.

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 19, 2019, 02:53:34 PM
Quote
They really, really want to go on that fishing expedition if they could maybe get the Senate to compel those Trump Admin officials to testify in the Senate Trial, rather than be called by the defense to give testimony only relevant to Ukraine and the temporary withholding of funds.

You, too?  If you've ever been on an archeological dig, you'd know that there's always more below the current level that you've excavated, especially when bad weather and hostile locals impede your progress.  Trump is a walking pismire of the pestilent perversion persuasion.  There's no telling how deep that hole can go.

4th Amendment is in play as well. Unless they have better evidence than "everybody knows" they have no business sticking their nose into that business through this specific lever. I can appreciate the zeal and desire to root out corruption(or more specifically--Trump himself) in Trump's administration. But we are a nation of laws and precedents, and violating the 4th Amendment is not anywhere I care to tread.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 19, 2019, 03:09:51 PM
Quote
4th Amendment is in play as well. Unless they have better evidence than "everybody knows" they have no business sticking their nose into that business through this specific lever. I can appreciate the zeal and desire to root out corruption(or more specifically--Trump himself) in Trump's administration. But we are a nation of laws and precedents, and violating the 4th Amendment is not anywhere I care to tread.

It is out of bounds for fishing expeditions, but not when the House finds something comparable to probable cause.  The Congress isn't a court or criminal system, so they can only pursue criteria based on possible (suspected) violations of the Constitution or the Presidential oath of office.  I think they have grounds to investigate potential violations of the nobility (aka foreign emoluments) and domestic emoluments clauses.  State prosecutors are free to investigate any crimes for which they think there is criminal probable cause.  It wouldn't be out of line for Trump to be investigated for the rest of his life for the host of possible crimes that have already been suggested.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 19, 2019, 03:13:46 PM
You also have to wonder if enough Senate Republicans would vote to acquit even if the principal witnesses or documents revealed a smoking gun of Trump clearly directing funds to be withheld from Ukraine for the explicit purpose of defeating Joe Biden. That evidence would be unlikely ever to be met, but even if it were... I just don't think there's a level at which they'd say enough is enough.

Conviction in the impeachment context is more than saying Defendant (D) did what Defendant is accused of doing. There are some crimes not even worth rebuking a sitting president.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 19, 2019, 04:47:35 PM
Let's say that Trump is completely guilty. He told Ukraine to investigate Biden and find real provable dirt and corruption and if they didn't at least investigate and announce the investigation then they don't get the funds.

You know I'm still not seeing how that is illegal for the President. The Bidens look dirty with their Ukraine operation. A real and thorough and public investigation is called for.


What would be illegal then?

Well, if he told them to frame Biden with a corrupt investigation that made up dirt where there was none. That would be illegal and abuse of power and impeachable, no question. But that's not what happened.

When you think about it, that's exactly what the Democrats did to Trump with the Russian dossier which was used as the basis for the FISA warrant to spy on his campaign and release to the media false information about the President to influence the election.

If Trump is looking for real dirt on Joe Biden and his son, real corruption, real influence peddling and abuse of power, then that is a totally legitimate thing for the President to do.

Conducting a psyops agitprop operation like Obama and Hillary did against Trump during the 2016 election would be a totally different story.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 19, 2019, 05:03:44 PM
Quote
Yes, I understand that you can't get your mind around it.  Be careful who you call a moron and "dumber than [you] thought.  Bless your heart and keep trying, there are several possible reasons.

Let’s look at the stupidity of this. Don’t worry, I will walk you through it despite the simplicity of it.

You see, they held the vote. The Democrats made their people commit to it. It’s on record now and will be playing in heavy rotation during the election season. With me so far?

Now, a good chunk of the these Democrats are in districts that Trump carried and/or red districts. With Trump on the ballot this time, and given all the things going for him, there’s an extremely good chance he will carry this districts again. Every poll and nearly every pundit as well as history tells us this. Following?

Democrats have completely alienated most moderates and independents with this sham. Now, they also alienate their own voters by exposing the sham (“and holding the reticle from the senate. Are you just so happy to vote in the same people that betrayed you? Is this the kind of thing that engages voters and gets them to the polls? We all know the answer. Keep up with me, we’re nearly there!

Now, because of all this, there’s an excellent chance that the Democrats have forfeited control of the house. They’ve virtually assured Trump’s re-election and given him the support he needs to essentially do whatever he wants - including a total remake of the judiciary. That was insanely stupid. It’s stupidity on a epic scale. It’s moronic. I love it.

I hope you followed along, but keep trying to come up with smart reasons.  ::)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 19, 2019, 05:51:57 PM
The Dems/Liberals on my FB feed that are talking about are dead-set convinced that Trump's guilty. I'd halfway suspect that if Trump Admin officials did come forth and given testimony that exonerates Trump, they'll be screaming about perjury. I guess we'll see if the Trump admin does that, should the Democrats ever turn the case over to the Senate.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 19, 2019, 05:56:43 PM
Quote
Yes, I understand that you can't get your mind around it.  Be careful who you call a moron and "dumber than [you] thought.  Bless your heart and keep trying, there are several possible reasons.

Let’s look at the stupidity of this. Don’t worry, I will walk you through it despite the simplicity of it.

Thanks!

Quote

You see, they held the vote. The Democrats made their people commit to it. It’s on record now and will be playing in heavy rotation during the election season. With me so far?

Righto!  The Republicans were equally in lock step, probably because of sincere matters of principle and conscience.  Good for them!

Quote

Now, a good chunk of the these Democrats are in districts that Trump carried and/or red districts. With Trump on the ballot this time, and given all the things going for him, there’s an extremely good chance he will carry this districts again. Every poll and nearly every pundit as well as history tells us this. Following?

Hmmm, now you're beginning to lose me.  You're saying that they support him because they think they will get reelected if they do and won't get reelected if they don't.  So it's not for principle or conscience, after all.  Ah, that clears it up!

Quote

Democrats have completely alienated most moderates and independents with this sham. Now, they also alienate their own voters by exposing the sham (“and holding the reticle from the senate. Are you just so happy to vote in the same people that betrayed you? Is this the kind of thing that engages voters and gets them to the polls? We all know the answer. Keep up with me, we’re nearly there!

No, you're falling back into your FOX brain box.  Actually, support for and against impeachment has remained remarkably steady for the last 2 months.  Over 80% of Democrats support impeaching and convicting Trump, including about 44% of Independents.  They're not losing anybody.  Likewise, not that many who opposed impeaching Trump 2 months ago have changed their minds.  You should talk to someone who doesn't bob their head in unison with you to find out where you're going wrong.

Quote
Now, because of all this, there’s an excellent chance that the Democrats have forfeited control of the house. They’ve virtually assured Trump’s re-election and given him the support he needs to essentially do whatever he wants - including a total remake of the judiciary. That was insanely stupid. It’s stupidity on a epic scale. It’s moronic. I love it.

What you call an "excellent chance" is based on...your acumen as a statistical engineer?  Or is it that your friends all agree with you when you say stuff.

Quote
I hope you followed along, but keep trying to come up with smart reasons.  ::)

I was able to follow along, but unfortunately I don't think you're making a lot of sense.  BTW, one clue that you're making it all up is that you didn't cite a single source for any of your "thinking".  I make a point of doing that before I let people know what I think.  Try it!
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 19, 2019, 05:59:26 PM
The Dems/Liberals on my FB feed that are talking about are dead-set convinced that Trump's guilty. I'd halfway suspect that if Trump Admin officials did come forth and given testimony that exonerates Trump, they'll be screaming about perjury. I guess we'll see if the Trump admin does that, should the Democrats ever turn the case over to the Senate.

Doesn't that sound to you a lot like how the Republicans kept investigating Hillary over Benghazi and her emails - a total of 7 times - without ever finding anything?  And each time when they came up empty they would actually say that the deep state is even deeper than they imagined, so keep digging!  And when they had exhausted all of their avenues to harass her, Trump came along to get his minions to shout "Lock Her Up!"

Likewise how Trump and Barr will never stop investigating the FBI for the Mueller investigation.  Coming up empty is just another name for We Need A Bigger Shovel.  How many reputations are they going to destroy before they finally give up and throw Rudy under the bus?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 19, 2019, 06:34:16 PM
"Doesn't that sound to you a lot like how the Republicans kept investigating Hillary over Benghazi and her emails - a total of 7 times - without ever finding anything? "

Not at all.;  Benghazi involved dead servicemen.  That's a huge balance in the damage threshold.  People want answers to a tragedy, and Americans particularly like to see someone crucified in response to bloody tragedy.  Benghazi was a case of finding "who's to Blame" for a terrible tragedy while Ukrainegate is an example of finding something to blame Trump for.

Surely you admit that the putative harm done to us in Ukraine cannot compare to special forces giving their lives to protect our embassador and then being left to die.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 19, 2019, 07:08:29 PM
It's going to be interesting to see how long Pelosi keeps her finger on the pause (stop?) button. I think she's probably been more hostage than participant from the beginning. We've gone from repeated statements of Trump presenting a clear and present threat to our democracy, to be impeached with all due haste, to "hold up, let's just slow our roll here, no need to rush things".

I believe the definition of impeachment has been permanently changed as a result of the democrats, um, approach. Impeachment now appears to mean "a strongly worded letter". Weird times.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 19, 2019, 07:47:18 PM
Quote
Not at all.;  Benghazi involved dead servicemen.  That's a huge balance in the damage threshold.  People want answers to a tragedy, and Americans particularly like to see someone crucified in response to bloody tragedy.  Benghazi was a case of finding "who's to Blame" for a terrible tragedy while Ukrainegate is an example of finding something to blame Trump for.

Surely you admit that the putative harm done to us in Ukraine cannot compare to special forces giving their lives to protect our embassador and then being left to die.

I'm surprised and disappointed that you said that.  Except for the most ardent Hillary haters, all analyses of the day's events agree that there was no chance to get to the Benghazi Consulate in time to save those lives.  OTOH, every day that Trump delayed the military support to Ukraine may well have cost lives.  They just weren't the lives of American soldiers.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 19, 2019, 07:55:45 PM
It should be noted there is a difference between investigating someone intensively as has been done to Hillary... And declaring "AHA! We have something to investigate you on! We're impeaching you immediately."
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 19, 2019, 08:04:30 PM
It should be noted there is a difference between investigating someone intensively as has been done to Hillary... And declaring "AHA! We have something to investigate you on! We're impeaching you immediately."

That blithely ignores Trump's almost superhuman ability to break rules, if not laws.  He is a sociopath, so nobody had to wait for him to do something objectionable or illegal.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 19, 2019, 08:15:26 PM
He is a sociopath, so nobody had to wait for him to do something objectionable or illegal.

Perfectly encapsulated, and honest.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 19, 2019, 08:22:44 PM
It should be noted there is a difference between investigating someone intensively as has been done to Hillary... And declaring "AHA! We have something to investigate you on! We're impeaching you immediately."

That blithely ignores Trump's almost superhuman ability to break rules, if not laws.  He is a sociopath, so nobody had to wait for him to do something objectionable or illegal.

No, it doesn’t! If y’all had waited until he broke a law (or even just until he took office) to announce y’all were going to impeach him, we’d all be taking this a lot more seriously.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 19, 2019, 08:52:20 PM
It should be noted there is a difference between investigating someone intensively as has been done to Hillary... And declaring "AHA! We have something to investigate you on! We're impeaching you immediately."

That blithely ignores Trump's almost superhuman ability to break rules, if not laws.  He is a sociopath, so nobody had to wait for him to do something objectionable or illegal.

No, it doesn’t! If y’all had waited until he broke a law (or even just until he took office) to announce y’all were going to impeach him, we’d all be taking this a lot more seriously.

You don't wait for a mob boss to personally do a hit job.  There are campaign finance law violations, continual violations of the emoluments clauses, misuse of funds allocated by Congress, obstruction of justice as described by Mueller, illegal immigration orders, yada, yada, yada.  You're a lawyer, you know all this.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 19, 2019, 09:17:15 PM
Next you're going to tell us that in your day Firemen put out fires rather than burned books.  8)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 19, 2019, 10:58:11 PM
Kasandra, it’s a very strained case of “bribery”— it would be easier to convict a typical prosecutor of extortion for the standard way they get guilty pleas.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 19, 2019, 11:12:55 PM
Next time prosecute Mob bosses *before* they get voted into high office. Seriously.  Even the Colombians understood that. Remember Pablo Escobar?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 20, 2019, 05:30:57 AM
Next you're going to tell us that in your day Firemen put out fires rather than burned books.  8)

In my day firemen weren't capitalized and stood ready at all times to deal with conflagrations that they knew were inevitable.  With Trump you need a bucket brigade of Investigators to deal with his inevitable arson.  I read about that in the Book of Constitution before Trump tried to burn it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 20, 2019, 05:32:09 AM
Next time prosecute Mob bosses *before* they get voted into high office. Seriously.  Even the Colombians understood that. Remember Pablo Escobar?

So what do you do about a mob boss after he's in office?  Seriously.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 20, 2019, 07:14:58 AM
 Fox News / Christianity Today calls for Trump removal (https://www.foxnews.com/media/christianity-today-trump-removal-impeachment)
Quote
the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral 

Significant or not?  It looks like at least some evangelicals no longer think that the policy upsides of Trump outweigh their moral principles.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 20, 2019, 07:25:14 AM
Fox News / Christianity Today calls for Trump removal (https://www.foxnews.com/media/christianity-today-trump-removal-impeachment)
Quote
the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral 

Significant or not?  It looks like at least some evangelicals no longer think that the policy upsides of Trump outweigh their moral principles.

They've already gotten everything from him that they want.  When you play with a transactional devil, you have to be transactional, too.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 20, 2019, 07:54:21 AM
It’s official, the House adjourned before voting to send the articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate for a trial. They’re doing all this for nothing. LMAO. .

You know, this means Trump has actually not been impeached.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 20, 2019, 07:58:28 AM
Next you're going to tell us that in your day Firemen put out fires rather than burned books.  8)

In my day firemen weren't capitalized and stood ready at all times to deal with conflagrations that they knew were inevitable.  With Trump you need a bucket brigade of Investigators to deal with his inevitable arson.  I read about that in the Book of Constitution before Trump tried to burn it.

You read about arson in the constitution?

Quote
BTW, one clue that you're making it all up is that you didn't cite a single source for any of your "thinking".  I make a point of doing that before I let people know what I think.  Try it!

I’m looking for that link ...nope. So, you made it all up!  LOL. That aged well for you.  smh
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on December 20, 2019, 08:14:59 AM
Fox News / Christianity Today calls for Trump removal (https://www.foxnews.com/media/christianity-today-trump-removal-impeachment)
Quote
the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral 

Significant or not?  It looks like at least some evangelicals no longer think that the policy upsides of Trump outweigh their moral principles.


Does the dog wag the tail or the tail tail wag the dog?

The evangelical community isn’t a homogenous entity. There are some there because they do indeed have good hearts and are sincere. There’s also some there because it provides them with power.

My guess is this will create churn and cause splits and fissures in the community.

Just like it has in the rest of the country.

Very few people talk about it but Trump doesn’t need to be sworn to Putin to serve him. He’s doing a damn good job of destroying the country just being himself.

Let’s see if the “awakening” becomes a trend or the few voices that speak up suddenly need to spend more time in reflection with their families.

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 20, 2019, 09:19:52 AM
Guess what? You're right about that.  I did my own reading before posting, but didn't cite the references.  I'll go back and see what I can reconstruct later today. Feel free to do the same if you think there were any facts hidden among your opinions.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 20, 2019, 11:21:09 AM
Crunch,

In that last thread I commented that support for impeachment has been stable for several months.  Here are some places I have read that support that: September (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/support-for-trump-impeachment-rises-after-ukraine-complaint-polls-say.html), October (https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-press/2019/11/26/politico-morning-consult-poll-votersupport-for-impeachment-inquiry-remains-stable-after-public-hearings-1523071), November (https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-press/2019/11/26/politico-morning-consult-poll-votersupport-for-impeachment-inquiry-remains-stable-after-public-hearings-1523071), December (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/cnn-poll-of-polls-impeachment-december/index.html).  I'd like to see a reference supporting your claim that support is falling.  And no, your dad, brother, cousin or pool buddies don't count as references.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 20, 2019, 12:29:59 PM
Impeachment polls (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/)

Independents have hovered around 40% since October.

Now, you can cherry-pick some polls, like Brietbart does (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/17/cnn-poll-shows-support-impeachment-dropping-even-among-democrats/) singling out a CNN poll.

This is terrible p-hacking. If they picked a two month window, they'd be reporting an increase of several percent.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 20, 2019, 01:45:57 PM
What I like (i.e., somewhat trust) about 538 is that they are a poll aggregator.  Most of the polls that are skewed pull to the right, and even though 538 includes them their impact is mitigated.  I don't completely trust them either, though, because of their seeming to lead the herd in predicting Hillary was a virtual shoo-in.  Statistics are still statistics, no matter how much you've got.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 20, 2019, 01:59:44 PM
That kind of poll hacking isn't limited to right wing outlets. It's just as likely for Democrats and left leaning publications to tout a one month change in one particular poll without considering overall trend or margin for error.

BTW, that CNN/SSRS poll:

 The margin of sampling error for total respondents is +/- 3.7

So anybody who thinks a 5 point drop is significant when looking at just two samples doesn't really understand math. This is within the polling noise. Also a commonly overlooked reality, especially as pundits from every part of the political spectrum cackle about 2 point gains in popularity or policy based on just two polls.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 20, 2019, 02:02:32 PM
What I like (i.e., somewhat trust) about 538 is that they are a poll aggregator.  Most of the polls that are skewed pull to the right, and even though 538 includes them their impact is mitigated.  I don't completely trust them either, though, because of their seeming to lead the herd in predicting Hillary was a virtual shoo-in.  Statistics are still statistics, no matter how much you've got.

They had Hillary at about 70% on election day. Far from a shoe in. And honestly I think Comey's letter hadn't had time to fully percolate through the polls to get their weighted average (they do it over time as well) adjusted correctly. Another two days of polling and I'm guessing they would have had the race even closer.

Part of it is you just have to quit thinking about it as 70% means Hillary is a likely shoe in to thinking of her as a clear favorite but with a definite chance of loosing. To put it another way 538 had the odds of Trump winning higher than pulling out a coin and flipping heads twice in a row. The chances of getting heads twice isn't the most likely outcome but it isn't something that you would be all that surprised by either.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 20, 2019, 02:14:57 PM
What I like (i.e., somewhat trust) about 538 is that they are a poll aggregator.  Most of the polls that are skewed pull to the right, and even though 538 includes them their impact is mitigated.  I don't completely trust them either, though, because of their seeming to lead the herd in predicting Hillary was a virtual shoo-in.  Statistics are still statistics, no matter how much you've got.

They had Hillary at about 70% on election day. Far from a shoe in. And honestly I think Comey's letter hadn't had time to fully percolate through the polls to get their weighted average (they do it over time as well) adjusted correctly. Another two days of polling and I'm guessing they would have had the race even closer.

If a poll (aggregate or otherwise) suggests there is a 70%-30% split and the margin of error is about 3.7% you would expect the outcome to be about 2:1.  You could still be wrong, but that's pretty reliable odds.

Quote
To put it another way 538 had the odds of Trump winning higher than pulling out a coin and flipping heads twice in a row.

Yeah but...We're not talking about 2 events combining for an unlikely outcome.  You would be closer to the situation if you placed a small weight on one side of the coin and flipped it once.  Hillary had that weight on her side and still lost.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 20, 2019, 02:39:30 PM
Quote
To put it another way 538 had the odds of Trump winning higher than pulling out a coin and flipping heads twice in a row.

Yeah but...We're not talking about 2 events combining for an unlikely outcome.  You would be closer to the situation if you placed a small weight on one side of the coin and flipped it once.  Hillary had that weight on her side and still lost.

I was just thinking of a situation with close to 30% odds of happening. Consider rolling a 1 or a 2 on a 6 sided die if you prefer. If I was placing a bet I would rather have 3-6 but it isn't a bet I would be wagering my mortgage money on even though the odds are favorable. That's the point I'm trying to get across 70% are good odds but there are limits to what you would be willing to bet on a single outcome of the roll.

Compare that to rolling a 2 with two 6 sided dice (~3%). Now the odds are getting good enough (assuming I'm getting everything else) that I would be willing to risk an entire months pay or more on the outcome of a single roll.

Something with a 30% outcome isn't that surprising. That's my only point, 538 had Hillary as a favorite but if you were interpreting their numbers in the right context it isn't that surprising Trump won.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 20, 2019, 03:26:11 PM
Or the "hundred year event" which actually is a 1 in 100 chance of an event happening in any given year.

When such "rolls" are being cast across tens of thousands of locations every year, well...
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 20, 2019, 04:12:50 PM
Or the "hundred year event" which actually is a 1 in 100 chance of an event happening in any given year.

When such "rolls" are being cast across tens of thousands of locations every year, well...

They included thousands of data points, which is enough (statistically) to smooth out outliers with the residue being the relatively small margin of error.  However, the polls should have measured only 50 things, the individual states (i.e., their electoral votes) instead of what the thousands of individuals preferred.  In other words, the polls were right - Clinton easily won the popular vote - but they were the wrong polls.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 20, 2019, 05:08:38 PM
Predicting the electoral college is a much trickier beast than, say, predicting a Congressional race.

For anyone who geeks on statistics and simulations, this was the original 538 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/) graph. The distribution is really interesting in the chart showing the data backing the 70/30 split.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 20, 2019, 05:43:23 PM
Predicting the electoral college is a much trickier beast than, say, predicting a Congressional race.

For anyone who geeks on statistics and simulations, this was the original 538 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/) graph. The distribution is really interesting in the chart showing the data backing the 70/30 split.

So 538 gave Clinton an edge of 77%-83% in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  Don't you find it weird that those 3 geographically close and demographically similar states all went the other way?  Do you wonder that something else might have influenced the results in those states?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 20, 2019, 06:30:29 PM
Predicting the electoral college is a much trickier beast than, say, predicting a Congressional race.

For anyone who geeks on statistics and simulations, this was the original 538 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/) graph. The distribution is really interesting in the chart showing the data backing the 70/30 split.

So 538 gave Clinton an edge of 77%-83% in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  Don't you find it weird that those 3 geographically close and demographically similar states all went the other way?  Do you wonder that something else might have influenced the results in those states?


Looking at Wisconsin, the raw vote prediction was 49.6, 44.3, 4.9 (the last being Johnson)

The result was 46.5, 47.2, 3.5

It looks like the undecideds (6.6%) were allocated evenly for the forecast. Michigan was 7% undecided, also split evenly. PA was the least undecided, at 4.8%, making it perhaps the least uncertain.

I went to wikipedia for the election writeup and found this:

Quote
Nate Silver found that the high number of undecided and third-party voters in the election was neglected in many of these models, and that many of these voters decided to vote for Trump.

And now we're way way off topic. ;)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 20, 2019, 06:42:29 PM
Or the "hundred year event" which actually is a 1 in 100 chance of an event happening in any given year.

When such "rolls" are being cast across tens of thousands of locations every year, well...

Statistics are fun. What's the actual chance of the 100 year event happening in 100 years?

Turns out, its actually 73%. 200 years, 87%. 300 years, 95%. For 10 years, it is pretty close to the intuitive 10%.

Aggregating locations would ignore that many 100 year flood plains are not independent rolls, but rather dependent on each other. Hurricanes cast a wide path, just like other storms that trigger such events. So predicting how many 100 year flood plains might flood in a given year would yield some interesting math that no one is probably interested enough in doing, except insurance companies, since their risk model has to account for the implication.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 20, 2019, 06:53:20 PM
You're giving the reason why the reinsurance market is so profitable.  They have used models that calculate out 20,000 years from the current year's underwriting.  New software now allows them to use 100,000 year models. If you think that's just an esoteric fine point, consider that they are the most profitable segment of the risk insurance market and no general underwriter dares to issue policies without them.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 21, 2019, 09:10:38 AM
Quote
Chaos erupted at a town hall event featuring House Intel Chair Adam Schiff Monday; with pro-Trump protesters screaming “liar” and “treason” as the top Democrat took the stage.

“This shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” claimed Schiff.

“You’re a liar!” screamed a handful of protesters.

“You should be going to jail,” yelled another. “You’re guilty of treason.”

“You’re a disgrace to the House of Representatives. You should be going to jail for treason!” said another.

This doesn’t really give you a good sense of just how crazy it got - video shows the mob got pretty fired up. Schiff better have some security he can trust or stop doing public appearances.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 21, 2019, 09:17:08 AM
Crunch, the question is what do you think of those so-called protesters who disrupted his town hall?  Were they right to do that?  Is Schiff really guilty of treason?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 21, 2019, 09:41:41 AM
People exercising their first amendment rights is ok by me.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 21, 2019, 10:01:29 AM
People exercising their first amendment rights is ok by me.

I did not like it when the Left systematically disrupted their enemies’ town halls, and I don’t like this either .
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 21, 2019, 11:49:49 AM
I agree. It’s fine to protest outside, carry signs whatever. But infiltrating an event purely to disrupt it is gross.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 21, 2019, 11:59:26 AM
My understanding is that in at least a number of instances, there is some "honor" among the protestors. Once asked to leave, they leave. But up until then, they cause havoc inside.

Unlike a number of the leftist iterations, where Security had to remove them by force.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 21, 2019, 12:20:16 PM
Trump supporters disrupt Schiff event (https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/15/trump-supporters-disrupt-adam-schiffs-armenian-genocide-event/2653891001/),  and also here (https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/15/impeachment-trump-supporters-disrupt-adam-schiffs-armenian-event/2658336001/).

Trump supporter disrupts Sanders event (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-supporter-bernie-sanders-rally-2020), and also here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ziml3DnBN8).

Trump supporters disrupt California Congressman's event (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/trump-supporters-disrupt-town-hall-lou-correa/16538/).

Protesters disrupt Biden and Warren events (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/us/politics/joseph-biden-protest.html).

Pro-Trump group organized disruption of Ocasio-Cortez event (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/04/conservatives-attacked-ocasio-cortez-over-bizarre-town-hall-speaker-now-pro-trump-fringe-group-says-they-planned-stunt/).

I'm sure there are anti-Trump protesters who try to go to Trump events, but they are prevented from going into the events for the most part.  The only one I know of was back in 2016 by Tlaib.  There are a few anti-Trump disruptions of other Republicans.  There are often fights between pro- and anti-Trump people outside.  There are also many instances of pro-Trump people disrupting state and local meetings.

Do you think both sides are equally guilty of doing this sort of thing?

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 21, 2019, 12:23:53 PM
What do people thing Nancy's long game is by withholding the articles of impeachment, essentially leaving it unconsummated.

1. Occam’s razor, it’s simply a delay tactic to get the most press and potential leverage out of Trump being impeached, realizing that most people don’t really know what that means.

2. She has an angle, or is constructing one that virtually nobody knows yet. Something that will somehow de-neuter the impeachment and give it actual teeth.

3. She's doing it to piss Trump and Republicans off.

4 ?

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 21, 2019, 12:37:40 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 21, 2019, 01:35:40 PM
What do people thing Nancy's long game is by withholding the articles of impeachment, essentially leaving it unconsummated.

1. Occam’s razor, it’s simply a delay tactic to get the most press and potential leverage out of Trump being impeached, realizing that most people don’t really know what that means.

At the moment, my guess would be this one, as the Senate already made clear the Trial wouldn't happen before they return to hold sessions in January. So her "delaying" the turnover to the Senate makes for more opportunities to generate political theater between now and then, as well as keep herself in the spotlight, because once she turns it over to the Senate, her part is done. Unless she decides to be part of the House Delegation presenting the evidence to the Senate at least. Which I believe would be unprecedented in relation to the two previous Presidential impeachments.

Although there are elements in press reporting going back to 2008 that certainly gives the vibe that she believes the Speaker of the House(at least, when she's in charge, Republican Speakers aren't supposed to be as powerful for some reason)  is the most powerful position in Washington, possibly more powerful than PotUS and SCotUS in her world view. So her dictating things to the Senate as the Speaker isn't out of character for that.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 21, 2019, 09:24:44 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

From the Bloomberg bout the author
Quote
Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

Souter was appointed by Bush 41, and is still among the living, but he retired in 2009, during the Obama Admin. Sonia Sotomayor occupies his former seat in the Supreme Court.

Somebody else can dig deeper into the politics of the author if they wish, but it is safe to say his politics likely lean to the left.

Now from his op-ed piece:
Quote
The relevant constitutional provisions are brief. Article I gives the House “the sole power of impeachment.” And it gives the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article II says that the president “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Putting these three different provisions together yields the conclusion that the only way to remove the president while he is in office is if the House impeaches him and the Senate tries and convicts him.

The provisions say nothing about timing. Taken literally, they don’t directly say that articles of impeachment passed by the House must be sent to the Senate. But the framers’ definition of impeachment assumed that impeachment was a process, not just a House vote.

The framers drafted the constitutional provisions against the backdrop of impeachment as it had been practiced in England, where the House of Commons impeached and the House of Lords tried the impeachments. The whole point of impeachment by the Commons was for the charges of impeachment to be brought against the accused in the House of Lords.

Strictly speaking, “impeachment” occurred – and occurs -- when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.

What would make that trial fair is a separate question, one that deserves its own discussion. But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial – that’s what the “sole power to try all impeachments” means.

If the House votes to “impeach” but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or send impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn’t directly violated the text of the Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution’s description of impeachment.

Of note his comment about "But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial – that’s what the “sole power to try all impeachments” means." And here we have the Speaker of the House trying to dictate terms for the trial in the Senate. Yup, she certainly is a stickler for Constitutional law that Nancy Pelosi is.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 22, 2019, 02:09:28 AM
"If you like your articles of impeachment you can keep your articles of impeachment, period."
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 22, 2019, 02:25:23 AM
"If you like your articles of impeachment you can keep your articles of impeachment, period."

I'm getting a good laugh out of Pelosi's soundbyte about "a rogue President and a rogue Senate" being something the founders never envisioned. Coming so shortly after she had Republicans quoting the Federalist Papers on the House Floor where different writers in the Federalist Papers expressed concerns about the potential for purely partisan impeachment proceedings to be convened.

And in the wider context of the founders concerns about Democracy turning into Mob Rule, and the House being the most Democratic body in the Federal Government, what with it being "the People's House" as Speaker Pelosi loves to constantly bring up and all. They had concerns about the House being taken over by a populist mob, and well that's what you have a Senate for...
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 22, 2019, 03:13:22 AM
I suspect Pelosi has an unplaced card up her sleeve. If she doesn’t, well, the markets and diplomatic front seem to have made ribbons of her impeachment scheme.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 22, 2019, 05:43:29 AM
... or possibly, Pelosi doesn't and never did expect conviction, but was still duty-bound to constrain the president's overt attempts to subvert the upcoming election - and to provide 'direction' to future presidents who would be tempted to do the same.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 22, 2019, 06:51:43 AM
At a minimum she's making Trump aware that she and the Democratic House aren't going to be his patsies.  She's had a string of successes lately where the content and timing were designed to diminish the spotlight Trump shines on himself.  She recently said, "I'm never afraid and I'm rarely surprised."  Trump hasn't had to deal with that sort of thing before now.  Her moves includes the following during the same week that he was impeached:

* Passing a labor-friendly TPPC on the same day impeachment passed. With the changes she made to the original wording, Republicans are now more uncomfortable with TPPC than Democrats were.
* Delaying sending the impeachment decision to the Senate in order to put pressure on Trump and McConnell to take Democrat concerns about the trial process into account. Technically, the House has no say in that, but if McConnell wobbles, she wins even more influence over Trump.
* Passing the budget deal including family leave and an increase in non-defense spending a few days later. Republican fiscal hawks have now totally caved and the deficit will increase even faster than before.  This makes absolutely clear to even his most ardent supporters in Congress that he can't control the budget and the tax cuts were never intended to pay for themselves.  The idea that Trump would ask for yet another tax cut is now ludicrous.
* Inviting him to deliver the SotU and setting the date to the day after the Iowa caucuses.  This also will create pressure on the timing of the impeachment trial. 

She's not done yet, and she's making it clear that Trump will keep being surprised and perhaps should be afraid.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 22, 2019, 09:54:43 AM
And last night we learned that the hold on military funds for Ukraine was placed within hours after the July 25 call with instructions to keep that decision "closely held".  Perhaps all along she's known that there are shoes to drop, maybe a closet full of them.  The more that come out before the Senate can implement their trial plan the harder it will be for them to exclude witnesses with inside knowledge.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 22, 2019, 09:58:34 AM
Duh!
Quote
* Passing a labor-friendly TPPC USMCA on the same day impeachment passed. With the changes she made to the original wording, Republicans are now more uncomfortable with TPPC USMCA than Democrats were.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 22, 2019, 10:10:10 AM
Deliberate or not, she’s created an invitation window for Putin to wreak more havoc. This ain’t a two player game, folks, and it’s time we remember it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 22, 2019, 11:58:03 AM
I'm not really seeing the Trump should be afraid angle. His donor $s and signups have shot through the roof since the kinda-impeached decision came down. It seems to be galvanizing/growing his based and he appears to thrive in these kinds of environments. The more antagonistic or chaotic/random, the better.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 22, 2019, 12:05:08 PM
I'm not sure why Putin would care about the window since Trump has been steadfastly holding the doors open for him for the past 3 years...

Of course, that's presupposing that stopping Trump from selling out the country's electoral process to foreign entities is in any way an invitation to foreign entities... the whole idea of blaming Democrats for, not just Trump's refusal to investigate Russian interference, but his active resistance to such investigations is... misplaced.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 22, 2019, 12:39:29 PM
... or possibly, Pelosi doesn't and never did expect conviction, but was still duty-bound to constrain the president's overt attempts to subvert the upcoming election - and to provide 'direction' to future presidents who would be tempted to do the same.

I have doubts that Trump was thinking much about 2020, it might have registered in his narcissistic brain, but I doubt it played any kind of major role in regards to Ukraine.

Trump has a track record of being exceedingly petty, he carries grudges for a very long time. He also does not appreciate assaults on his image. Ukraine in 2016 was ground zero for getting his attention in all categories, particularly after the Mueller report came out, which is the time-frame we're talking about all of this happening in. The Bidens were, if anything, likely to have been an afterthought for Trump rather than anything close to being a pivotal or decisive reason for doing what Trump did.

Without Trump being upset about the all the other 2016 shenanigans that involved Ukraine, the "ask" for the Biden investigation is likely to have never happened. Which basically nullifies the entire impeachment proceeding since Article 1 of his impeachment is fixating on interference on the 2020 elections as being the sole cause for Trump doing what he did.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 22, 2019, 12:49:49 PM
And last night we learned that the hold on military funds for Ukraine was placed within hours after the July 25 call with instructions to keep that decision "closely held".  Perhaps all along she's known that there are shoes to drop, maybe a closet full of them.  The more that come out before the Senate can implement their trial plan the harder it will be for them to exclude witnesses with inside knowledge.

If anything, I'd think that screws with the Democrats timeline more than anything else.

I thought the July 25th phone call was in response to the funds being held back. Now we find out the deliberate hold-back didn't even happen until after that phone call?

I also note your phrasing is very vague as to the source for that order, did Trump issue it, or some shadowy White House Official? Was Trump inside or outside of that particular decision loop at the time? (Could be a rogue Admin official who was privy to the call who put a hold on it in response to Trump's part in the call, and it being "closely held" was to keep Trump unaware for as long as possible--but that's deep-state talk, or talk from a certain "Anonymous White House official" who has asserted there are "grown ups" in the White House working to keep Trump in line; obviously Trump learned about the hold-back later)... But that also changes the significance of that funding hold back.

Funds were approved in May, the Trump Admin didn't implement a deliberate hold on the funds until the end of July. Funds were released by the first half of September. So it added maybe a 6 week delay on the release of funds? If that, considering we now don't know why they were still being held on July 25th?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 22, 2019, 01:13:34 PM
More ponderings on the funding hold back happening after the phone call.

The Phone Call is their centerpiece in claiming he was withholding the funds in order to get a Biden investigation. In fact, the phone call was due in part to that hold-back.

So Trump has a nice conversation with the leader of Ukraine, who sounds agreeable to looking into the Bidens among other things...Then Trump decides to withhold the money?

What kind of extortion deal is that?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 22, 2019, 02:14:30 PM
The kind where one actually holds power over the extorted party until they actually do what one wants of them (as opposed to simply agreeing to the terms and then doing nothing)?  I suppose it's a good thing that you don't have a deep and personal understanding of the mechanics of extortion...
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 22, 2019, 03:01:12 PM
The kind where one actually holds power over the extorted party until they actually do what one wants of them (as opposed to simply agreeing to the terms and then doing nothing)?  I suppose it's a good thing that you don't have a deep and personal understanding of the mechanics of extortion...

The withholding as "a guarantee of compliance" only goes so far, as it doesn't make sense in the larger picture. Trump would need to ensure they get the money by the end of the FY regardless, so the opportunity to play games with it is rather limited given a start date of July 25th and the FY ending on September 30th. That's only 2 months.

He'd be better off trying to expedite the money to them in "a show of good faith" on his end with an implied threat of future ramifications if they don't deliver. They've been fighting Russian insurgents for years now, they're probably going to be several years cleaning that up, given Russia is stirring the pot on the other side.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on December 22, 2019, 03:02:19 PM
The kind where one actually holds power over the extorted party until they actually do what one wants of them (as opposed to simply agreeing to the terms and then doing nothing)?  I suppose it's a good thing that you don't have a deep and personal understanding of the mechanics of extortion...

Your idea is that Trump was going to withhold funds until...what? Until Zelenskyy had demonstrated completion of an investigation? Or the beginning of one? How long do you think Trump could plausibly have kept the funds in limbo for this extortion, seeing as investigations of that sort can take quite a while? It doesn't sound plausible to me. And how would Trump explain that to Congress the longer it went on? The only way this hypothesis makes sense is to assert that Trump was so daft that he came up with a nonsensical plan.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 22, 2019, 03:14:28 PM
Quote
I thought the July 25th phone call was in response to the funds being held back. Now we find out the deliberate hold-back didn't even happen until after that phone call?

You're a tad too fine grained.  Trump was looking for leverage and decided to hold back the money in case he needed to apply just a little more pressure.  Standard ploy in every crime b-movie plot.

Quote
I also note your phrasing is very vague as to the source for that order, did Trump issue it, or some shadowy White House Official? Was Trump inside or outside of that particular decision loop at the time? (Could be a rogue Admin official who was privy to the call who put a hold on it in response to Trump's part in the call, and it being "closely held" was to keep Trump unaware for as long as possible--but that's deep-state talk, or talk from a certain "Anonymous White House official" who has asserted there are "grown ups" in the White House working to keep Trump in line; obviously Trump learned about the hold-back later)... But that also changes the significance of that funding hold back.

You've got to be kidding.  Nobody does anything the boss don't like, don't need to be told and certainly wouldn't ask.

Quote
The Phone Call is their centerpiece in claiming he was withholding the funds in order to get a Biden investigation. In fact, the phone call was due in part to that hold-back.

The call wasn't the centerpiece, the whistleblower report about it was the first inkling.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 22, 2019, 04:38:38 PM
Quote
I also note your phrasing is very vague as to the source for that order, did Trump issue it, or some shadowy White House Official? Was Trump inside or outside of that particular decision loop at the time? (Could be a rogue Admin official who was privy to the call who put a hold on it in response to Trump's part in the call, and it being "closely held" was to keep Trump unaware for as long as possible--but that's deep-state talk, or talk from a certain "Anonymous White House official" who has asserted there are "grown ups" in the White House working to keep Trump in line; obviously Trump learned about the hold-back later)... But that also changes the significance of that funding hold back.

You've got to be kidding.  Nobody does anything the boss don't like, don't need to be told and certainly wouldn't ask.

If the NY Times is to be believed, and some of the testimony given to House unironically gives some credance to that specific leaker, people in the White House frequently go about deliberately undermining things Trump wants to do.

And last I checked, the NY Times is hardly a Trump apologist front.

Quote
Quote
The Phone Call is their centerpiece in claiming he was withholding the funds in order to get a Biden investigation. In fact, the phone call was due in part to that hold-back.

The call wasn't the centerpiece, the whistleblower report about it was the first inkling.

The call is an inkblot test that has lead to a non-falsifiable hypothesis for the left-wits.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 22, 2019, 05:11:29 PM
Quote
If the NY Times is to be believed, and some of the testimony given to House unironically gives some credance to that specific leaker, people in the White House frequently go about deliberately undermining things Trump wants to do.
Ah, yes, if one report says that then it must be true across the board.  Except, of course, not.

Quote
The call is an inkblot test that has lead to a non-falsifiable hypothesis for the left-wits.
The call transcript is an admission by Trump that he did it. It's just that Trump insists it's perfectly fine and his troops all dial that into their think bots.  I hesitate to call you a member of that royal brigade, but in that comment you do veer in their direction.  Somehow he has lied over 14,000 times, but THIS time he's telling the stone cold truth.  Amazing.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 22, 2019, 06:15:18 PM
Quote
The call is an inkblot test that has lead to a non-falsifiable hypothesis for the left-wits.
The call transcript is an admission by Trump that he did it. It's just that Trump insists it's perfectly fine and his troops all dial that into their think bots.  I hesitate to call you a member of that royal brigade, but in that comment you do veer in their direction.  Somehow he has lied over 14,000 times, but THIS time he's telling the stone cold truth.  Amazing.

Trump participates in a phone call that runs for many minutes and covers a range of topics. Mentions Biden twice(in a single statement) in relation to corruption and events in Ukraine.

Democrats go "Wait Biden is a front-runner for the Democrat Nomination in 2020. This call must be about influencing 2020!" And promptly ignore everything else that call covered both before and after that statement by Trump.

Any attempt to demonstrate how some of what Trump brought up as relevant to 2016 also gets ignored.

After all, the Democrats already have their non-falsifiable position staked out that it is only about 2020 because the Bidens were mentioned. Everything else is just a cover-up, excuses, and conspiracy on the part of Trump's patsies. Often going to level of pointing to other things that tangentially involved Ukraine (Russian hacking) as having "already been disproven." But are not actually the things that are being pointed at.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on December 22, 2019, 07:18:22 PM
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified by order of the President
September 24, 2019
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
SUBJECT: Telephone Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Participants: President Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Notetakers: The White House Situation Room
Date, Time July 25, 2019, 9:03-9:33 am EDT
and Place: Residence
The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn't given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It's a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.
President Zelenskyy: You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. I'm able to tell you the following; the first time you called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.
The President: (laughter) That's a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.
President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.
The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.
President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you.
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.
President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.
The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we'll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.
President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. I am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September 1 we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.
The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.
President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President.
The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you've done. The whole world was watching. I'm not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.
President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on December 22, 2019, 07:20:46 PM
It’s fascinating to me that people can read that and come away with such completely different impressions of what went on.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 22, 2019, 07:44:31 PM
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

This is the part I'm amazed that the Democrats so casually hand-wave away with regards to Trump. This is 100% in character for Him. It's petty, it's tied to the Mueller Report and Trump's inability to let things go, coming right on the heels of the report being made public, and Mueller implicates Ukraine in multiple ways beyond just simply Russia using servers based in Ukraine. (That and thinking Trump has the tech-savvy to realize there is a distinction on even that much is another matter)

Everything in the above points very solidly at 2016 and/or Mueller, no ifs ands, or buts about it. Biden has absolutely nothing to do with that, or at least, he has no known connections to it.

Quote
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you.
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

Which is the Democrats promptly memory hole everything else in the conversation, zero in on Biden, and declare the entire conversation to be about the 2020 presidential campaign. Everything else is simply "cover" for Trump to get what he really wants, the investigation into the Biden family. Because somehow Ukraine, a nation with a history of corruption(and thus easy to ignore), announcing that they have an open investigation(no evidence, no findings, just an investigation) into Hunter Biden, a year before the election, is somehow going to play a pivotal and decisive role in Trump's 2020 election campaign bid. (It might now, but only because of how the Democrats reacted to learning about the above "ask" being made to Ukraine--and their decision to turn it into "a Constitutional Crises.")

It boggles the mind.

Further, for "influencing 2020" items, political news cycles being what they are. NOTHING in FY2019 was ever likely to have significant lasting damage on the Biden Campaign in time to influence much of anything by the time polls opened in January. Never mind the General Election in November the following year. The time line and strategy for that makes no sense. If Trump was going for damage on Biden with just the announcement he'd be wanting it to come out in late December or early January... Not August or September, so again, holding funds back makes no sense.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 22, 2019, 08:01:03 PM
It’s fascinating to me that people can read that and come away with such completely different impressions of what went on.

Part of it I'm seeing on Social Media is that at least the vocal Anti-Trumpers on my feed have fully disassociated the Mueller Report with that phone call, or it having any potential significance with regards to Trump's interest in Ukraine during this past summer. For them, it is all about Biden2020.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 22, 2019, 09:15:22 PM
You don't think Trump can be corrupt on multiple issues at the same time?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 22, 2019, 10:07:38 PM
Quote
Mentions Biden twice(in a single statement) in relation to corruption and events in Ukraine.
No.  You don't get to make this up.  Trump made zero reference to "corruption".  Zelensky arguably made an implicit reference to corruption, but Trump ignored that reference completely, and his reference to the Biden's was much more closely tied to his "favour" statement than to Zelensky's "swamp" reference.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on December 22, 2019, 10:14:27 PM
Quote
it  doesn't make sense in the larger picture. Trump would need to ensure they get the money by the end of the FY regardless, so the opportunity to play games with it is rather limited given a start date of July 25th and the FY ending on September 30th. That's only 2 months.
a) as the witnesses have testified, the extortion started well before the July 25 call, and b) do you really think that Trump wasn't willing to have the Ukrainians believe he would allow the funds to go unspent (or to actually leave them unspent for that matter?)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 22, 2019, 10:39:30 PM
Quote
it  doesn't make sense in the larger picture. Trump would need to ensure they get the money by the end of the FY regardless, so the opportunity to play games with it is rather limited given a start date of July 25th and the FY ending on September 30th. That's only 2 months.
a) as the witnesses have testified, the extortion started well before the July 25 call, and b) do you really think that Trump wasn't willing to have the Ukrainians believe he would allow the funds to go unspent (or to actually leave them unspent for that matter?)

Evidently the extortion started on the 25th of July?

Unless you're saying Kasandra is a Trump apologist now?

And last night we learned that the hold on military funds for Ukraine was placed within hours after the July 25 call with instructions to keep that decision "closely held".  Perhaps all along she's known that there are shoes to drop, maybe a closet full of them.  The more that come out before the Senate can implement their trial plan the harder it will be for them to exclude witnesses with inside knowledge.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 22, 2019, 10:42:27 PM
Quote
Mentions Biden twice(in a single statement) in relation to corruption and events in Ukraine.
No.  You don't get to make this up.  Trump made zero reference to "corruption".  Zelensky arguably made an implicit reference to corruption, but Trump ignored that reference completely, and his reference to the Biden's was much more closely tied to his "favour" statement than to Zelensky's "swamp" reference.

Did you read the call summary/transcript?

The ask for a Favor was very clearly and indisputably tied to the Mueller investigation. It's the only thing Trump makes connections in his immediate ask.

Biden doesn't come up until after Zelenskyy replies to his request.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 23, 2019, 12:32:33 AM
You don't think Trump can be corrupt on multiple issues at the same time?

I guess I should address this one. I do think Trump views Biden as a rival, I do think the ask for an investigation into Biden's son and the Burisma activities what an attempt to "get at" Biden.

I do not think it was intended as a means of influencing 2020 in the way it is portrayed, except in the off-chance Ukraine actually found something that could be acted on, something I think Trump himself probably also views as unlikely(then again, given his past tendency to spout off conspiracy theories...). But even getting an investigation into the Bidens announced would simply be a way to "poke him in the eyes."

It's hilarious how you guys complain, piss, and moan about Trumps lack of restraint in Rallies, on Twitter, etc. And yet suddenly in this phone call, you're suddenly viewing Trump as this Criminal Mastermind that could teach Mafia Don's a master class in how to carry out a conspiracy.

The problem the Trump Admin most likely has with getting their top level people to testify is how embarrassing much of what would be said would be for Trump, and them. I doubt there is going to be anyone testifying that 2020 even entered into any discussions about this with regards to Trump until after the Democrats started talking about it.

Which is a problem when the grounds for impeachment is that Trump did this for the purpose of influencing the 2020 election outcome.

What he probably did is still wrong. It is dubious on more than a few levels, and certainly questionable on ethical and multiple other grounds. What it probably is not, is criminal because as Comey testified with regards to Hillary and the mishandling of Classified documents: Criminal intent is not present. It most likely is not even what the Democrats want to portray it as being.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 23, 2019, 07:38:45 AM
Quote
it  doesn't make sense in the larger picture. Trump would need to ensure they get the money by the end of the FY regardless, so the opportunity to play games with it is rather limited given a start date of July 25th and the FY ending on September 30th. That's only 2 months.
a) as the witnesses have testified, the extortion started well before the July 25 call, and b) do you really think that Trump wasn't willing to have the Ukrainians believe he would allow the funds to go unspent (or to actually leave them unspent for that matter?)

Evidently the extortion started on the 25th of July?

Unless you're saying Kasandra is a Trump apologist now?

And last night we learned that the hold on military funds for Ukraine was placed within hours after the July 25 call with instructions to keep that decision "closely held".  Perhaps all along she's known that there are shoes to drop, maybe a closet full of them.  The more that come out before the Senate can implement their trial plan the harder it will be for them to exclude witnesses with inside knowledge.

You're tiptoeing through the evidence trying to avoid slipping and falling.  We KNOW that internal discussions in the WH started before July 25 and we KNOW that Zelensky's staff was asking about the funding before July 25.

Here's my full-on tin foil hat tilt.  Trump several times said that Putin denied having anything to do with US election interference in 2016 to help him, and that he believed him.  What Trump doesn't say, but implicitly appears to have acted on, is that Putin told him that Ukraine interfered to help Hillary.  He dispatched Rudy to Ukraine in April to start the digging, before Biden declared his candidacy.  At that time, he was focused only on Hillary; his goal at that time was to discredit Mueller and his report, which was due to be released a few weeks later.

He was stewing on this Ukrainian perfidy the whole time that the Mueller investigation was grinding along.  When Mueller's testimony fizzled on July 24, Trump realized he was free ("exonerated") from that and immediately turned his attention to getting the goods on how Ukraine had helped Hillary and, now, Biden, who had already jumped to the top of the Democratic polls.  That made Biden an obvious target for his scorched earth problem solving approach, since he would make a viable candidate.

The July 25 call was the opening shot in the direct extortion scheme.  Zelensky obviously wanted US military help and a high-profile visit to the WH.  Being the mob-style businessman he is, Trump realized he had a golden opportunity to put the screws to Zelensky.  He didn't have to "root out corruption" because he didn't care about that. Zelensky only needed to announce that he had reason to reopen the Burisma (Biden) investigation for Trump to disparage and delegitimize Biden in the eyes of his supporters.

There is zero evidence supporting claims against either Hillary or the Bidens, but Trump doesn't need evidence.  He doesn't even want it, because evidence can be tested.  Remember that every US intelligence agency and every US member of the diplomatic core have dismissed the claims Trump and Rudy are pimping about Ukraine, but they won't go away.

Rudy keeps promising that he will reveal his evidence "soon" and "real soon," and that you'll be amazed at what he's found.  Lindsay Graham has even invited him to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, but warned him that he had better have a good case and solid evidence.  So far Rudy hasn't appeared.

Personally I prefer a good fedora to a tin-foil cap, and nothing I wrote is contradicted by any evidence and most of it is supported by things we do know.  People who want to believe the the Trump/Rudy conspiracy theory so badly want their story to be true, but so far have produced zero evidence to back it up.

Quote
It's hilarious how you guys complain, piss, and moan about Trumps lack of restraint in Rallies, on Twitter, etc. And yet suddenly in this phone call, you're suddenly viewing Trump as this Criminal Mastermind that could teach Mafia Don's a master class in how to carry out a conspiracy.

Your hilarity is more of a cackle than a laugh.  Trump is an entertainer of the twisted clown variety when he's in public.  When he's not performing and in his quiet moments he's thinking about how to get away with murder, a tried and true winning strategy for him.

TheDeamon, give it up.  You've hinted in different ways that you don't believe any of the Ukraine nonsense Trump is spewing, either.  Why not just come out and say what he did was not only wrong, but it proves that he doesn't deserve to be President, and we've done nothing to deserve him, either.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 23, 2019, 08:57:23 AM
“When he's not performing and in his quiet moments he's thinking about how to get away with murder, a tried and true winning strategy for him.”

Where are the bodies?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 23, 2019, 09:19:24 AM
“When he's not performing and in his quiet moments he's thinking about how to get away with murder, a tried and true winning strategy for him.”

Where are the bodies?

It's amusing that you didn't take that as a metaphor.  But if you like, change murder to extortion, business fraud, tax fraud, breach of contract, defamation, sexual harassment, misrepresentation, hiring undocumented aliens, denial of wages and probably others if he had only thought of them.  Murder, well, he has people who can do that for him if needed, but since he thinks he can't be arrested for any crime while he's president I guess the sky's the limit.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on December 23, 2019, 10:57:27 AM
It’s so ironic that you make out Trump as a murderer when it was Obama that ordered the execution of US citizens.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 23, 2019, 11:37:16 AM
TheDeamon, give it up.  You've hinted in different ways that you don't believe any of the Ukraine nonsense Trump is spewing, either.  Why not just come out and say what he did was not only wrong, but it proves that he doesn't deserve to be President, and we've done nothing to deserve him, either.

Undeserving of being President? Sure.

Legally qualified to be President? Yes.

Nothing I've seen so far, IMO, raises to the bar of disqualifying him from office by means of legal process.

If you want him removed from office that desperately, put forward a candidate that can beat him in an Election that uses the Electoral College.

Don't turn the legal system into a mockery of itself in an ends justify the means mentality.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 23, 2019, 12:55:25 PM
It’s so ironic that you make out Trump as a murderer when it was Obama that ordered the execution of US citizens.
Link?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 23, 2019, 01:03:03 PM
It’s so ironic that you make out Trump as a murderer when it was Obama that ordered the execution of US citizens.
Link?

The killing (via drone) of an Al Qaeda recruiter and propagandist in Yeman. If memory serves correctly his son was also killed in one of the strikes. He was a US citizen and he was on a kill list put together by the Obama admin.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 23, 2019, 01:13:22 PM
The Dems/Liberals on my FB feed that are talking about are dead-set convinced that Trump's guilty. I'd halfway suspect that if Trump Admin officials did come forth and given testimony that exonerates Trump, they'll be screaming about perjury. I guess we'll see if the Trump admin does that, should the Democrats ever turn the case over to the Senate.

Doesn't that sound to you a lot like how the Republicans kept investigating Hillary over Benghazi and her emails - a total of 7 times - without ever finding anything?

I have no comment on Benghazi.  I think the reports of it being an abuse have a grain of salt, but far too much of a whine to be real.  Congress has legitimate oversight roles, and those investigations were actually within those roles.  The public nature of them was for another purpose though, and not one that is to the credit of the investigators.  The actual report issued however is far more fair than anything produced by the Dems.  Go read it again if you forget, it's heavily fact based, and does a good bit to exonerate Obama personally.

But there's no question that they found guilt on Hillary's e-mails.  We now know from Lisa Page's released testimony that the DOJ issued a proclamation that Hillary would not be charged under the gross negligence standard, nonwithstanding that it is expressly included in the law.  That's why Comey's statement was changed to remove that exact term (and replaced with a functionally equivalent term) in his claim about that reasonable prosecutors wouldn't bring these charges.  They found gross negligence therefore they found a violation of the law, they only explained the independent basis of intentional action (which, they construed as narrowly as possible, as it could have been established from the intentional act of creating the server and redirecting email to it AFTER having been warned of the risk).

He literally found evidence of a breach of the law, and hid the ball on what was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion to not bring the charges (exercising that discretion is generally unreviewable, and he could have been open about it, but it was not politically feasible to tell the truth, he couldn't just say, "She absolutely violated the law, but we decided it wasn't "bad enough" to prosecute.")  This was literally, exoneration in spite of finding a violation of law.

This is in direct contrast to what you listed about Trump:

Quote
Likewise how Trump and Barr will never stop investigating the FBI for the Mueller investigation.  Coming up empty is just another name for We Need A Bigger Shovel.  How many reputations are they going to destroy before they finally give up and throw Rudy under the bus?

The IG report makes it clear that the FBI violated the legal standards that apply to the FISA court.  He found no reasonable reason that they left out exculpatory evidence that they had knowledge of, found their explanations unsatisfactory and decided to tell us that they didn't tell him they were corrupt.  Based on this fact pattern, you either have gross incompetence and a wilful disregard for the law.  Or you have politically motivated action.  The IG does not speculate.

Mueller on the other hand found nothing.  No Russian collusion and no obstruction of justice (or did you miss the DOJ conclusion that Meuller's evidence was NOT sufficient to establish obstruction of justice).  And that was after the House and the Senate were also not able to find Russian collusion.  And will the full cooperation of the White House and the power to compel testimony.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 23, 2019, 01:21:15 PM
Thanks for reminding me.  That was inexcusable.  If that's not what Crunch was thinking of, he can still respond.  This is not unique to Obama, however.  Trump ordered a commando raid in Yemen on Jan 29, 2017 that killed a girl who was an 8-year old US citizen and her grandmother.  As I recall, Bush killed a US citizen in a drone strike (or raid?) in 2002.  It's rare, violates international policy and should never happen.

Also bear in mind the number of civilians that are killed in raids and drone attacks.  Trump has instructed the CIA not to reveal those numbers, but independent observer agencies report that the number has gone up dramatically under his leadership, as have the number of drone strikes overall.

We like to make a distinction between innocent (non-combatant) people killed by US forces in military operations based on "which side" they are perceived to be affiliated with.  If you only keep score of the US citizens who are killed by "friendly fire" you're ignoring 99% of the wrongful deaths we cause.

We can talk about Trump inviting the Taliban to Camp David on the anniversary of 9/11 some other time.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 23, 2019, 01:26:46 PM
Quote
Mueller on the other hand found nothing.  No Russian collusion and no obstruction of justice (or did you miss the DOJ conclusion that Meuller's evidence was NOT sufficient to establish obstruction of justice).  And that was after the House and the Senate were also not able to find Russian collusion.  And will the full cooperation of the White House and the power to compel testimony.

Not quite.  Mueller felt constrained by the DOJ policy not to bring charges against a sitting President for the many instances of obstruction that he found.  That policy is both ridiculous and an artifact of the DOJ's investigation of Spiro Agnew.  Back then they decided that although a sitting President couldn't be indicted, a sitting Vice President could be.  The only reason for that policy decision was to make sure that Agnew was removed from office before Nixon was, because they recognized that the public wouldn't tolerate impeaching two Presidents in the same Administration, and doing them only months apart.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 23, 2019, 01:44:07 PM
Also bear in mind the number of civilians that are killed in raids and drone attacks.  Trump has instructed the CIA not to reveal those numbers, but independent observer agencies report that the number has gone up dramatically under his leadership, as have the number of drone strikes overall.

First I agree with this. We knew about what Obama was doing because he ran it through the DOD in a semi-transparent way. Trump moved the drones back over to the CIA and put it back in a black box like Bush.

Secondly there is a distinction between collateral damage and being targeted for death from the skies. We know Obama targeted one US citizen, its possible Trump has done the same. I'm basing this on the fact that there were US citizens fighting with ISIS and its plausible (likely even) some of them were targeted specifically by air strikes because of their social media and propaganda efforts. But since the drone program went back into the CIA there is very little publicly known about it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 23, 2019, 04:35:37 PM
Quote
Mueller on the other hand found nothing.  No Russian collusion and no obstruction of justice (or did you miss the DOJ conclusion that Meuller's evidence was NOT sufficient to establish obstruction of justice).  And that was after the House and the Senate were also not able to find Russian collusion.  And will the full cooperation of the White House and the power to compel testimony.

Not quite.  Mueller felt constrained by the DOJ policy not to bring charges against a sitting President for the many instances of obstruction that he found.

I read what Mueller said.  I also read the conclusions of Barr AND Rosenstein that as a matter of law - without regard to that policy - the evidence that Mueller found was not sufficient to establish obstruction of justice.

I take note that no law - of any sort, not even DOJ policy - prohibitted Mueller from reaching a conclusion in his report.  Nothing whatsoever prevented him from saying, we found Obstruction but DOJ policy prevents us from prosecuting it.

He did not do so.  There is a reason for that.  The case he made was garbage.  It relied entirely on misreading the relevant statute, and treated publically defending yourself as proof of obstruction.  It also heavily relied on Comey's testimony, which as we can see from later revelations about lies Comey told, improprieties he pursued and FISA abuses was unwise.

He also ignored existing court interpretations on the applicability of statutes to the President (generally the President has to be specifically included within the terms and when he is not he is exempt) in relying on the provisions he relied on.  He ignored legal privilege on multiple occasions. 

Pretty much he lied about why he wouldn't say Trump is guilty, because it would unfair to say it when he knew he couldn't bring the charges, then wrote a couple hundred pages trying to smear Trump as much as possible without any way for Trump to defend himself. 

It's not surprising, every single part of the get Trump campaign has been about presenting one sided cases without any ability of the accused to defend themselves.  Again, it's literally unAmerican how the attacks on Trump have been handled. 

Quote
That policy is both ridiculous and an artifact of the DOJ's investigation of Spiro Agnew.  Back then they decided that although a sitting President couldn't be indicted, a sitting Vice President could be.  The only reason for that policy decision was to make sure that Agnew was removed from office before Nixon was, because they recognized that the public wouldn't tolerate impeaching two Presidents in the same Administration, and doing them only months apart.

That's a very limited understanding of the policy origins in question.  But yes, they did conclude no such exemption applies to anyone but the President.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 23, 2019, 05:57:40 PM
“When he's not performing and in his quiet moments he's thinking about how to get away with murder, a tried and true winning strategy for him.”

Where are the bodies?

It's amusing that you didn't take that as a metaphor.

Why not take my “bodies” as metaphorical as well and show us the victims of Trump’s metaphorical murders? Or are these victimless metaphorical murders?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 23, 2019, 06:31:24 PM
His contractors. Anyone he's feuding with in the press. Biden. Many cabinet members. Clinton. All members of the press. Teenage autistic girls. Anyone who went to trump University. Mexican judges. Business partners. Golf opponents. Nato leaders. Refugees. Muslims. He spends his down time fuming, plotting, and scheming on how to get one over on a multitude of enemies and marks.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 23, 2019, 07:28:58 PM
His contractors. Anyone he's feuding with in the press. Biden. Many cabinet members. Clinton. All members of the press. Teenage autistic girls. Anyone who went to trump University. Mexican judges. Business partners. Golf opponents. Nato leaders. Refugees. Muslims. He spends his down time fuming, plotting, and scheming on how to get one over on a multitude of enemies and marks.

Since Bidens the only one on your list that relates to impeachment, how has he been harmed?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 23, 2019, 07:45:38 PM
His contractors. Anyone he's feuding with in the press. Biden. Many cabinet members. Clinton. All members of the press. Teenage autistic girls. Anyone who went to trump University. Mexican judges. Business partners. Golf opponents. Nato leaders. Refugees. Muslims. He spends his down time fuming, plotting, and scheming on how to get one over on a multitude of enemies and marks.

Since Bidens the only one on your list that relates to impeachment, how has he been harmed?

Clearly his reputation is more tarnished than it was. He's probably getting more death threats than usual. He's going to be investigated now. Not to mention any potential result to his election chances as he gets knocked entirely off messages with questions about Ukraine. As far as his family goes, probably no more sweet patronage jobs for his son.

One can say, well he deserves all of that, but it's still harm. Just like trump justifies lots of his plots and attacks.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 23, 2019, 09:18:46 PM
Quote
Undeserving of being President? Sure.

Legally qualified to be President? Yes.

I didn't say he wasn't legally qualified; I said we didn't deserve a President like him.  Do you think we (you) do?

Bonus question, Thinking about foreign policy and international relations, the national debt, handling of health care, immigration, infrastructure and climate policy, do you (still) think Trump is a better President than Clinton would have been?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 23, 2019, 09:36:04 PM
He won the election. He's the President we deserve by that metric alone.

Yes, still better than Clinton. But then, we're looking at very different metrics when we're saying "better" in that context.

Would Hillary have been better for certain issues? Undoubtedly. But in the big picture, and longer-term picture, she was a national disaster from my point of view(What happened with the FBI and the FISA court with the Trump Campaign is evidence enough of that--if Hillary won, that IG report would likely have never happened).

Of course, at this point, I'm starting to wonder if a Trump Electoral win in November might result in a leftist revolt against the United States, and in some ways, I'd be oddly okay with them making the attempt. But then, I've previously said I'm more comfortable with a Civil War Scenario where it's the left that gets "pushed" into revolting rather than the right. (Mostly because "the right" would generally be much slower on throwing that particular switch in sufficient numbers to matter, unless they're playing defense) But the left-wit anti-Trump crowd? If Trump wins on November 3rd, I'd be surprised if there isn't wide spread rioting in many urban areas on the morning of the 4th.

In some respects, the previous paragraph alone is likely to be motivation enough for a lot of people to show up and vote Trump in 2020, just to watch the leftists hang themselves.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 24, 2019, 08:42:02 AM
Quote
He won the election. He's the President we deserve by that metric alone.

I just love semantics.  Also, I notice that you didn't respond to any of the substantive issues I asked about.  Which do you think will be a longer lasting problem for the country: any of the things I asked about or past institutional malfeasance in the FBI investigation.

Quote
Of course, at this point, I'm starting to wonder if a Trump Electoral win in November might result in a leftist revolt against the United States, and in some ways, I'd be oddly okay with them making the attempt. But then, I've previously said I'm more comfortable with a Civil War Scenario where it's the left that gets "pushed" into revolting rather than the right. (Mostly because "the right" would generally be much slower on throwing that particular switch in sufficient numbers to matter, unless they're playing defense) But the left-wit anti-Trump crowd? If Trump wins on November 3rd, I'd be surprised if there isn't wide spread rioting in many urban areas on the morning of the 4th.

Say, weren't you the one who first used "tin-foil hat"?  I suppose you think the Democrats would rise up using all the guns they've cached over the last 12 years.  No wait, those was 2nd Amendment conservatives who have threatened to rise up against the government and support Republicans.  Maybe all of the domestic terrorism Democrats have committed have been training and reconnaissance exercises.  No, those were by right wing extremists who align with Republicans.  Maybe they have been burning down black churches and invading black churches and Jewish synagogues to incite other Democrats to get a taste for blood.  No, wrong again. Those are right wing racists and anti-semites who want to rid the country of unwanted people and purify the nation.

You'll have to 'splain which component of the militant Democrats are plotting the insurrection.  Maybe it's the teachers who say they don't want to carry guns in school.  Any self-respecting right wing thinker would recognize that that is just a cover so that they don't have to reveal how many weapons they actually have stockpiled.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 24, 2019, 11:13:27 AM
Yes, we remember how y’all categorized the BLM active shooter as a white conservative in that BS study to prove that conservatives and whites are the big menace.  The white privileged left doesn’t get its hands dirty; they just point and lie and people die.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on December 24, 2019, 12:25:59 PM
What one prominent law professor is saying:

"But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.

If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all."
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 24, 2019, 12:45:50 PM
Quote
He won the election. He's the President we deserve by that metric alone.

I just love semantics.  Also, I notice that you didn't respond to any of the substantive issues I asked about.  Which do you think will be a longer lasting problem for the country: any of the things I asked about or past institutional malfeasance in the FBI investigation.

Hillary would have implemented further "nanny state" regulations in place in the name of "equality" and "fairness" which would have been a death-knell to personal liberty in this country. But hey, we could rest easy because it is all for the cause of "social justice" so personal justice needs to take a back seat to the well being of the group.

Following on the heels of the Obama Admin, as evidenced by DOJ behavior re:Trump, I don't think even 4 years of Hillary would have been something the United States could recover from as a nation anyone who values personal rights would want to be associated with.

Trump is bad, but it's like being given the choice between being "gifted" with an untreatable form of cancer, or deal with a few simple bone fractures. I'll take my chances with the bone fractures.

Quote
Quote
Of course, at this point, I'm starting to wonder if a Trump Electoral win in November might result in a leftist revolt against the United States, and in some ways, I'd be oddly okay with them making the attempt. But then, I've previously said I'm more comfortable with a Civil War Scenario where it's the left that gets "pushed" into revolting rather than the right. (Mostly because "the right" would generally be much slower on throwing that particular switch in sufficient numbers to matter, unless they're playing defense) But the left-wit anti-Trump crowd? If Trump wins on November 3rd, I'd be surprised if there isn't wide spread rioting in many urban areas on the morning of the 4th.

Say, weren't you the one who first used "tin-foil hat"?  I suppose you think the Democrats would rise up using all the guns they've cached over the last 12 years.  No wait, those was 2nd Amendment conservatives who have threatened to rise up against the government and support Republicans.  Maybe all of the domestic terrorism Democrats have committed have been training and reconnaissance exercises.  No, those were by right wing extremists who align with Republicans.  Maybe they have been burning down black churches and invading black churches and Jewish synagogues to incite other Democrats to get a taste for blood.  No, wrong again. Those are right wing racists and anti-semites who want to rid the country of unwanted people and purify the nation.

You'll have to 'splain which component of the militant Democrats are plotting the insurrection.  Maybe it's the teachers who say they don't want to carry guns in school.  Any self-respecting right wing thinker would recognize that that is just a cover so that they don't have to reveal how many weapons they actually have stockpiled.

Were you paying attention to the response to Trump's win in 2016? There was rioting back then. I'd expect the response in 2020 to even less "restrained" the second time around.

You're also pretending Anti-Fa isn't lurking out there in the periphery waiting for their chance to smash some MAGA's face in.

You're also ignoring there are plenty of left-wing kooks out there as well, California independence anyone?

And of course, there is the smugness in social media when it comes to anti-Trump, they come across as convinced the "typical Trump supporter" would make someone with an IQ above 90 seem like a super-genius. That level of contempt for the other side doesn't promise good things moving forward.

Then we get down to the rhetoric being used in regards to Trump currently. How do you think a LOT of Democrat/Left wing "true believers" are going to respond to Trump winning 4 more years, possibly by way of the "horribly broken Electoral College" a second time. When they've been fed a steady diet of news reports and campaign rhetoric that presents Trump as being just short of the second coming of Hitler and the biggest domestic threat to Democracy we've ever faced?

As the Anti-Trump rhetoric ratchets up even more, in particular after the impeachment is killed in the Senate, IF it even gets to the Senate, there is a very real chance you're going to see a lot of people go "screw it" and vote for Trump in 2020 just so the Lunatics currently engaged in the political process do flip out and lose control. If only so we don't have to deal with them again in 2024 because their response is likely to remove many of them from the process going forward.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 24, 2019, 01:20:13 PM
I think it's a far cry from some radicals with bicycle locks and milkshakes to a mass uprising of civil unrest and destruction. Anybody who thinks a trump win is going to lead to the watts riots on a national scale is delusional.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 24, 2019, 02:17:34 PM
Quote
What one prominent law professor is saying:

It only takes one, even if none others are.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 24, 2019, 02:52:55 PM
I think it's a far cry from some radicals with bicycle locks and milkshakes to a mass uprising of civil unrest and destruction. Anybody who thinks a trump win is going to lead to the watts riots on a national scale is delusional.

It is tin foil hat territory, but predicting riots in response to a 2020 Trump win isn't much of a reach.

Now it reaching the level of the 1960's race riots, that's a major stretch. Going beyond even that is an ever deeper one. But for the people who believe we're on the cusp of a Civil War-type event, Trump's the "most obvious" catalyst on the political scene at the moment. Well, aside from completely revoking the 2nd Amendment at least. You also need to remember part of Trump's base in 2016 was "burn it all down" in mindset, that still applies for 2020, even more so when it looks like some Dems are ready to trash the place if they don't get what they want.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on December 24, 2019, 03:05:02 PM
I think it's possible you could see marches, roads blocked, and maybe some broken store windows. I wouldn't call that a riot.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 24, 2019, 03:45:05 PM
Quote from: El Deamon
He won the election. He's the President we deserve by that metric alone.

I just love semantics.


Not sure that the question of whether Trump "deserves" to be president deserve anything better than a semantic answer.  No one deserves that sort of power.


 
Quote
Also, I notice that you didn't respond to any of the substantive issues I asked about.

Substantive issues do tend to get lost under non-substantive flourishes like the above.

 
Quote
Which do you think will be a longer lasting problem for the country: any of the things I asked about or past institutional malfeasance in the FBI investigation.

I went fishing for the things you asked about and wasn't sure I found them on this page. 

Quote
Here's my full-on tin foil hat tilt.  Trump several times said that Putin denied having anything to do with US election interference in 2016 to help him, and that he believed him.  What Trump doesn't say, but implicitly appears to have acted on, is that Putin told him that Ukraine interfered to help Hillary.  He dispatched Rudy to Ukraine in April to start the digging, before Biden declared his candidacy.  At that time, he was focused only on Hillary; his goal at that time was to discredit Mueller and his report, which was due to be released a few weeks later.

He was stewing on this Ukrainian perfidy the whole time that the Mueller investigation was grinding along.  When Mueller's testimony fizzled on July 24, Trump realized he was free ("exonerated") from that and immediately turned his attention to getting the goods on how Ukraine had helped Hillary and, now, Biden, who had already jumped to the top of the Democratic polls.  That made Biden an obvious target for his scorched earth problem solving approach, since he would make a viable candidate.

As for Trump's error of trusting Putin, yes that's devastating, as it was when Obama did it ("blank slate"), and when Bush Jr. did it (his buddy Putin).

But setting that error aside, it does seem a legitimate thing for a US president to want to investigate.  I agree there's a conflict of interest, but ... I don't think this is what you're referring to.  Help me out?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 24, 2019, 10:36:11 PM
Quote
Not sure that the question of whether Trump "deserves" to be president deserve anything better than a semantic answer.  No one deserves that sort of power.

I was questioning whether *we* deserved him, not whether we voted for him.

Quote
I went fishing for the things you asked about and wasn't sure I found them on this page.

They're there, look again.

Quote
As for Trump's error of trusting Putin, yes that's devastating, as it was when Obama did it ("blank slate"), and when Bush Jr. did it (his buddy Putin).

Really?  You say any sort of equivalence to either of those Presidents showing willingness to talk and Trump's acceptance of Putin's explanations over the unanimous conclusions of every US Intelligence agency?  Really?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 24, 2019, 11:08:08 PM
Quote
Not sure that the question of whether Trump "deserves" to be president deserve anything better than a semantic answer.  No one deserves that sort of power.

I was questioning whether *we* deserved him, not whether we voted for him.

*I* didn't vote for him. But he won the Electoral College.

As I said, don't like it? Help field a candidate that can beat him in the Electoral College.

Otherwise, he is the candidate we deserve.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 24, 2019, 11:16:45 PM
Quote
As for Trump's error of trusting Putin, yes that's devastating, as it was when Obama did it ("blank slate"), and when Bush Jr. did it (his buddy Putin).

Really?  You say any sort of equivalence to either of those Presidents showing willingness to talk and Trump's acceptance of Putin's explanations over the unanimous conclusions of every US Intelligence agency?  Really?

Nope. I’m not talking about willingness to discuss. I’m talking about Obama’s idiotic “the 1980s called and they want the Cold War back.” Dumbest thing Obama ever said.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 25, 2019, 07:24:01 AM
Interesting that that single comment, a zinger in a debate, somehow is elevated to stand beside Trump's interference in Ukraine and Russian matters. 

I said (and meant) that I don't dislike you, but I seriously don't like you dredging up isolated factoids from the distant past without context as if they bear weight on a current set of discussions.  It's a weird variation on the FOX tactic of finding one client scientist who sent an email of questionable value years ago to discredit the entire global warming analysis.  Then, of course, we find that the email wasn't questionable when read in context, but it's too late.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 25, 2019, 08:00:56 AM
Arrghh!
Quote
It's a weird variation on the FOX tactic of finding one client climate scientist...
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 25, 2019, 09:48:02 AM
Arrghh!
Quote
It's a weird variation on the FOX tactic of finding one client climate scientist...

https://archive.org/details/HundertAutorenGegenEinstein

Quote
From The Ultimate Quotable Einstein p. 170, Einstein said of this work:

Quote
If I were wrong, then one [author] would have been enough!

Einstein’s retort with regard to his theory when he heard that a book titled 100 Authors against Einstein was published in Germany. Quoted in Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (London: Bantam, 1988), 178

And on a tangential note:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475704-dem-senator-requests-legal-opinion-on-if-trumps-ukraine-aid-delay-broke-law
Quote
"Michael Duffey, a top Trump Administration official, sent an email ordering that the military assistance be withheld, and that that order be hush-hush and no one know about it. What were they hiding? What were they afraid of?" Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Sunday.

The Funds being held back doesn't (yet) point back to Trump, but to someone else in the Admin. Mr. Duffey would certainly be a useful person to have testify as to why he did that, if only the Democrats had bothered to wait to explore this before they voted to impeach Trump in the House.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 25, 2019, 11:54:26 AM
I'm really beginning to like you :).  Einstein was a single theoretical physicist who came up with revolutionary theories about matter, energy and time.  He did that with a blackboard, a violin and without wearing socks.  And since his theories, like all theories, were designed to be tested by his theoretically oriented and experimentally oriented peers, it would only take one of them to find a flaw in his theories that would require correction.  So far, after more than 100 years, no one has ever managed to do that.  It's been asserted by many other brilliant physicists that even if a flaw is found, it would probably show that his theories were incomplete rather than wrong.

Einstein also said that explanations should be as simple as possible, but not moreso.  Most of your arguments have been, well, moreso.

Contrast that with climate scientists, who are not theoreticians.  They observe, calculate, measure, model and ultimate predict changes in the earth's natural climate over time.  Since this is predictive analysis based on models, there are many different outcomes predicted by different sets of those scientists.  As of now, a few climate scientists do not completely accept any of those findings and a very small number claim that that are completely wrong.  That's also par for the course.

But in the Trump White House, on FOX News and in other conservative media, there is almost unanimous agreement among non-scientists or scientists of dubious credentials that climate change predictions are a hoax.  The reasons for their attitude are almost universally nefarious, since THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, but insist on their point of view anyway.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 25, 2019, 12:10:45 PM
Interesting that that single comment, a zinger in a debate, somehow is elevated to stand beside Trump's interference in Ukraine and Russian matters. 

Nope.  I’ve given two comments so far from Obama, the debate one and the “blank slate” policy quote.  And the only “equivalence” I’ve made is trusting Putin too much.  Obama himself would admit that he overtrusted Putin. 

Trump isn’t on trial for trusting Putin here.  You are making too much of a big deal of this small point.

As for “distant past,” if I can’t compare one presidency to the previous two presidencies, that’s just silly.

Anyway, a point of similarity isn’t really “ equivalency.” Bush Jr made far more of a fool of himself fawning over Putin than either of his successors, and Trump more so than Obama, as best I can tell.

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on December 31, 2019, 11:40:55 AM
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/30/792476791/federal-judge-dismisses-former-white-house-aides-lawsuit-over-congressional-subp (https://www.npr.org/2019/12/30/792476791/federal-judge-dismisses-former-white-house-aides-lawsuit-over-congressional-subp)

And here is why Schiff shouldn't have withdrawn his subpoena. Now it looks like they don't care about hearing from other people. It makes their impeachment case so much stronger if Trump is defying congress and the courts instead of just congressional subpoenas.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 31, 2019, 12:10:38 PM
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/30/792476791/federal-judge-dismisses-former-white-house-aides-lawsuit-over-congressional-subp (https://www.npr.org/2019/12/30/792476791/federal-judge-dismisses-former-white-house-aides-lawsuit-over-congressional-subp)

And here is why Schiff shouldn't have withdrawn his subpoena. Now it looks like they don't care about hearing from other people. It makes their impeachment case so much stronger if Trump is defying congress and the courts instead of just congressional subpoenas.

Not quite, while:
Quote
"To be perfectly clear yet again, the House Defendants will not reissue the subpoena to Kupperman, period," lawyers wrote in earlier court documents. "The subpoena will not reissue today, tomorrow, or ever."

That's because they're wanting the Senate to issue those subpoenas and for the Republicans to battle it out with Trump over the same issue. The issue isn't dead, the Democrats simply decided to change the venue.

Bad move on their part, as the Senate is under no obligation to make the case for the House. If anything, letting THAT case go to the courts could be interesting to see how a court would rule on it. I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

Political angle not-withstanding, there is a reason why the Grand Jury stands separate from the actual Jury Trial. Turning the jury into a second Grand Jury perverts the idea of an "impartial jury" such as they're certainly not when it comes to impeachment hearings.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 31, 2019, 12:18:02 PM
Quote

Bad move on their part, as the Senate is under no obligation to make the case for the House. If anything, letting THAT case go to the courts could be interesting to see how a court would rule on it. I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

Except, of course, it is not a criminal trial. The Constitution doesn't define the process or the rules. The Founding Fathers didn't give any indication for how to proceed.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on December 31, 2019, 12:24:23 PM
Are we in agreement that executive privilege, at least on matters touching the articles of impeachment, doesn't apply during the Senate trial?

Given the severity of impeachment, I would think ensuring that the Senate has all the evidence matters more than following the forms of a criminal trial. IRRC, no criminal penalties can be levied during impeachment, which could mean (as I think it does for ordinary misdemeanors) there's more flexibility in due process.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 31, 2019, 01:27:45 PM
Quote

Bad move on their part, as the Senate is under no obligation to make the case for the House. If anything, letting THAT case go to the courts could be interesting to see how a court would rule on it. I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

Except, of course, it is not a criminal trial. The Constitution doesn't define the process or the rules. The Founding Fathers didn't give any indication for how to proceed.

And with what the Democrats did in the House, we're so far into left-field(in every conceivable way) on the process at this point that I don't think anything from centuries ago is going to be particularly informative.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 31, 2019, 01:28:01 PM
Quote

Bad move on their part, as the Senate is under no obligation to make the case for the House. If anything, letting THAT case go to the courts could be interesting to see how a court would rule on it. I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

Except, of course, it is not a criminal trial. The Constitution doesn't define the process or the rules. The Founding Fathers didn't give any indication for how to proceed.

In absence of specifics in the constitution, One should reasonably assume that the founders expected us to follow the same impeachment rules that the states had used for governors for decades before 1789.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 31, 2019, 01:29:53 PM
Quote

Bad move on their part, as the Senate is under no obligation to make the case for the House. If anything, letting THAT case go to the courts could be interesting to see how a court would rule on it. I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

Except, of course, it is not a criminal trial. The Constitution doesn't define the process or the rules. The Founding Fathers didn't give any indication for how to proceed.

And with what the Democrats did in the House, we're so far into left-field(in every conceivable way) on the process at this point that I don't think anything from centuries ago is going to be particularly informative.

I disagree. I think that fairness is far better served by using a system the preexists the current political landscape. Impeachment was conceived originally as a system to send the kings governors and ministers back to him saying send us another one because this bastard is incompetent or corrupt or both.  America has corrupted and democratized impeachment into some sort of attempt to raise a mob, Where of the Congress doesn’t feel that it can engage the will of the people, then it backs down tail between legs as it did with Clinton.  What impeachment was supposed to be about, is a triumph of the rule of law over the Voice of the king and/or the vox populi.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 31, 2019, 02:10:59 PM
Quote
I disagree. I think that fairness is far better served by using a system the preexists the current political landscape. Impeachment was conceived originally as a system to send the kings governors and ministers back to him saying send us another one because this bastard is incompetent or corrupt or both.  America has corrupted and democratized impeachment into some sort of attempt to raise a mob, Where of the Congress doesn’t feel that it can engage the will of the people, then it backs down tail between legs as it did with Clinton.  What impeachment was supposed to be about, is a triumph of the rule of law over the Voice of the king and/or the vox populi.

I like several of your points, but the edges to some of them are a bit blurry to me.  As to pre-existing English precedent, Webster's 1828 dictionary is the closest thing we have to a contemporaneous definition in the drafting of the Constitution:

Quote
An accusation or charge brought against a public officer for maladministration in his office. In Great Britain, it is the privilege or right of the house of commons to impeach, and the right of the house of lords to try and determine impeachments. In the U. States, it is the right of the house of representatives to impeach, and of the senate to try and determine impeachments. In Great Britain, the house of peers, and in the U. States, the senate of the U.States, and the senates in the several states, are the high courts of impeachment

I highlighted the key word, which is maladministration, not commission of a crime.  That, in turn, is defined as:

Quote
Bad management of public affairs; vicious or defective conduct in administration, or the performance of official duties, particularly of executive and ministerial duties, prescribed by law; as the maladministration of a king, or of any chief magistrate.

No crimes here, either.  The King of England is mentioned in the second definition, but is explicitly excluded from the definition of impeachment, as he was/is not a public officer, and therefore can't be impeached.  Trump *is* a public official, and therefore is answerable to the House and Senate for his conduct, i.e., his maladministration of public affairs.  I tend to agree with people who say that the President, or any other official facing impeachment, has no right of "Executive Privilege" or any other right to withhold testimony, documents or other cooperation.

FWIW, Hamilton (Federalist 65) gives good arguments why the Senate is the least bad place to hold the trial, since the impeached President could still be tried for any crimes for which s/he was impeached, and the trials could end up coming before the Supreme Court for adjudication.  That also makes clear that the impeachment and trial are designed to take place outside of the judicial system, and therefore is not bound by its rules.  I wish those old boys had been a bit more specific about what the rules ought to be, but so it goes.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 31, 2019, 02:21:41 PM
I wouldn’t look too pre-existing British precedent but rather to pre-existing American colonial precedent. For a colony to impeach the kings governor was risky political business. It meant saying screw you to the king. And unless Congress is willing to say screw you to the people, the vox populi, impeachment is out of its depth.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on December 31, 2019, 02:23:35 PM
Do we have a student in this discussion? Or letterrip?  I would like to read this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1921980?seq=1


Quote

Power and Precedent in the Creation of an American Impeachment Tradition: The Eighteenth-Century Colonial Record

Peter C. Hoffer and N. E. H. Hull
The William and Mary Quarterly
Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), pp. 51-77
Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
DOI: 10.2307/1921980
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1921980


I think it would be useful to review what impeachment meant before we changed its meaning for the sake of Clinton and Trump.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 31, 2019, 02:25:45 PM
Try this (https://books.google.com/books?id=oyFpDS8p33sC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=Power+and+Precedent+in+the+Creation+of+an+American+Impeachment+Tradition:+The+Eighteenth-Century+Colonial+Record&source=bl&ots=MUD2szf0ju&sig=ACfU3U19Fu60F2xwzlG59RgqkEltdZF4qg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOoNDQzuDmAhXYWc0KHX-TBJ0Q6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Power%20and%20Precedent%20in%20the%20Creation%20of%20an%20American%20Impeachment%20Tradition%3A%20The%20Eighteenth-Century%20Colonial%20Record&f=false).
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 31, 2019, 02:38:21 PM
Are we in agreement that executive privilege, at least on matters touching the articles of impeachment, doesn't apply during the Senate trial?

No we are not in agreement on this point.  Executive privilege always applies, it can be breached in certain circumstances.  I don't see those circumstances as being terribly more likely to occur in the Senate trial than they were in the House impeachment charade.  Absent some kind of non-speculative evidence that protected materials are likely to have evidence of impeachable conduct and there is no less invasive way to get that evidence.

Now that said, the courts were never likely to support the broad assertion of a right to refuse to testify, instead they were almost certainly going to come down in a position that requires White House officials to appear before Congress but that provides for White House counsel or other representatives of the President to be present to assert privilege (whether or not such official would otherwise testify).  That said, I would think some officials are likely exempt from testifying.  It's hard to see, notwithstanding the district court's view, how McGahn can be compelled to testify in Congress.  Mulvaney maybe on the borderline, with somethings entitled to EP and others not, or he may be exempt entirely.

Quote
Given the severity of impeachment, I would think ensuring that the Senate has all the evidence matters more than following the forms of a criminal trial.

Then given the "severity" the House should have done its job and compelled the testimony of those officials that have the evidence.  Hard to argue that more evidence is required when the House has voted out articles of impeachment based on the current record, and asserted effectively that it is "clear" based on that record.

I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

I don't know what this means, but there's no restriction on introducing new evidence at trial.  The restrictions are on how it can be introduced and allowing the defense adequate notice and ability to prepare.

The biggest fault with the "record" to date, is the House's shoddy work, which effectively prevented any vetting of the "evidence" by the defense.  There's no good reason the Republican's in the Senate should voluntarily bend over backwards to fix the mess the House deliberately created.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 31, 2019, 02:45:37 PM
Quote
An accusation or charge brought against a public officer for maladministration in his office.

I highlighted the key word, which is maladministration, not commission of a crime.

The founder's specifically considered and rejected maladministration as a standard.  Specifically because it was too low of a standard to apply. Ergo, an argument centered on maladministration is false.

Quote
No crimes here, either.  The King of England is mentioned in the second definition, but is explicitly excluded from the definition of impeachment, as he was/is not a public officer, and therefore can't be impeached.  Trump *is* a public official, and therefore is answerable to the House and Senate for his conduct, i.e., his maladministration of public affairs.

Or given the express rejection of maladministration all of the foregoing is incorrect.

Quote
I tend to agree with people who say that the President, or any other official facing impeachment, has no right of "Executive Privilege" or any other right to withhold testimony, documents or other cooperation.

On what basis?  The Nixon case flat out stated that the President was entitled to executive privilege.  And set out some of the limited basis on which the court under strict confidence could violate it on a limited scale.

It's been repeatedly  affirmed that the President is entitled to the privilege and that there are circumstances where it can be breached.  Never seen "fishing expeditions" listed in that list.

Quote
I wish those old boys had been a bit more specific about what the rules ought to be, but so it goes.

It wouldn't have done any good.  They were specific about maladministration (an you missed it) and about high crimes and misdemeanors and the House ignored that.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on December 31, 2019, 03:11:43 PM
I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

I don't know what this means, but there's no restriction on introducing new evidence at trial.  The restrictions are on how it can be introduced and allowing the defense adequate notice and ability to prepare.

The biggest fault with the "record" to date, is the House's shoddy work, which effectively prevented any vetting of the "evidence" by the defense.  There's no good reason the Republican's in the Senate should voluntarily bend over backwards to fix the mess the House deliberately created.

I'm given to understand that when it comes to trials, that Courts set a very high bar for circumstances where the prosecution is allowed to introduce new evidence before the court which hadn't been provided to defense during the discovery pre-trial phase of the process.

What the House just did is the equivalent of sending a case to trial while it is still under active investigation, and in fact, expect the Trial itself to fulfill taskings that should have been carried out before it reached the stage it is at now. And given the prosecution(the House) is the one who controlled the time-table on that, they're the ones with the burden, not the defense.

"Fair Trial" in the context the Founders used is actually a slight misnomer. They deliberately skewed things strongly in favor of the defense, because the State(prosecution) has numerous advantages that the common citizen generally cannot hope to overcome.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 31, 2019, 03:46:09 PM
Quote
It wouldn't have done any good.  They were specific about maladministration (an you missed it) and about high crimes and misdemeanors and the House ignored that.

My point wasn't that the word in the Constitution had to be "maladministration", but that the Constitution shares the sense that the spirit of impeachment is not directed at commission of crimes.  "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a good and more officially worded analog to "maladministration".
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 31, 2019, 03:48:13 PM
Quote
'm given to understand that when it comes to trials, that Courts set a very high bar for circumstances where the prosecution is allowed to introduce new evidence before the court which hadn't been provided to defense during the discovery pre-trial phase of the process.

Sigh, once again this isn't a judicial system proceeding.  It's a trial in form, but not according to the same rules.  Anything the leaders of the Senate Parties agree to is likely permissable.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 31, 2019, 04:07:31 PM
I'm given to understand that when it comes to trials, that Courts set a very high bar for circumstances where the prosecution is allowed to introduce new evidence before the court which hadn't been provided to defense during the discovery pre-trial phase of the process.

There's no limit on the prosecutors continuing to investigate matters and to introduce new evidence.  Disclosure doesn't have to stop just because the trial starts.  If you've ever watched Law and Order (at least the old episodes - which were very good for tv presentation of trials) you'd have seen that occur on occasion.

Now that doesn't mean the Senate has to authorize fishing expeditions.  The court doesn't go on fishing expeditions on behalf of the Prosecutor. If the prosecutor wanted to call a witness not on their list, they'd have to explain the reason and the expected testimony to the court and the defense.  Pretty much like how they would have had to establish some kind of reasonable basis based on facts to get the courts to compel their testimoney during the impeachment.  Again, I don't see a reason for the Senate to prop up the failures by the House to investigate (the Senate's innate authority to compel testimony is no different than the House's, ergo the House should have fought the battle to get he information it needed - and I would treat that as compelling evidence that they waived the opportunity). 

The defense on the other hand was denied any ability to call witnesses or cross examine them, and they should be provided the right to do so.

Quote
What the House just did is the equivalent of sending a case to trial while it is still under active investigation....

Don't kid yourself.  What the House did is the equivalent of filing charges on a politically motivated "hot topic" where there's little chance the court's are going to agree to apply guilt, solely for publicity.

The House's decision to file the articles of Impeach is their representation that the record they relied on is sufficient to prove the case.  If it's not, then everyone that voted yes failed to uphold their oath to the Constitution.

Quote
...and in fact, expect the Trial itself to fulfill taskings that should have been carried out before it reached the stage it is at now. And given the prosecution(the House) is the one who controlled the time-table on that, they're the ones with the burden, not the defense.

I agree with you here, the DNC wants to force the Senate to do the House's job.  They wanted to "Impeach" for political purposes, nevermind about building an actual case.  Nothing could get in the way of that political statement in time for the election.

Now they want the Senate to take damage - again for political reasons - in how the trial of their sham impeachment is prosecuted. 

Honestly, if this was a real trial, it wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss.  If the prosecutors got to "submit their case" then none of what they've collected to date should be considered admissable.  It was collected without benefit of cross examination.  Depositions taking before trial are not admissable as evidence of facts, they can be for purposes of impeaching a witness with their prior statements, but the defect of not allowing cross examine or resolution of objections is not correctable with respect to the transcripts.

The Senate trial, of necessity, has to operate on a different basis because of the House's public release of those transcripts.  But that' s just more evidence that the House manipulated the process and operated in bad faith.

Quote
"Fair Trial" in the context the Founders used is actually a slight misnomer. They deliberately skewed things strongly in favor of the defense, because the State(prosecution) has numerous advantages that the common citizen generally cannot hope to overcome.

Yes, and what's telling is how much the DNC violated every norm of a fair trial in the process so far.  I haven't heard a single bit of good explanation for why it was okay to violate principals that we put in place because we think they are necessary for justice and fairness.

The answer is that it wasn't okay, it was pure politics and is factual evidence of how unAmerican the DNC's leadership actually is.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 31, 2019, 04:09:09 PM
Quote
It wouldn't have done any good.  They were specific about maladministration (an you missed it) and about high crimes and misdemeanors and the House ignored that.

My point wasn't that the word in the Constitution had to be "maladministration", but that the Constitution shares the sense that the spirit of impeachment is not directed at commission of crimes.  "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a good and more officially worded analog to "maladministration".

But your point is expressly wrong.  The Founders considered maladministration and expressly rejected it.  Therefore it is not an analogue to what they decided to include but rather a specific example of conduct that IS NOT IN FACT high crimes or misdemeanors.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 31, 2019, 04:35:36 PM
Quote
But your point is expressly wrong.  The Founders considered maladministration and expressly rejected it.  Therefore it is not an analogue to what they decided to include but rather a specific example of conduct that IS NOT IN FACT high crimes or misdemeanors.

The point is that you're missing the point.  I'm aware that they considered using the word maladministration because it conveyed the correct intent but decided against it because it wasn't specific enough. 

Quote
Mason [] moved to add the word "maladministration" to the other two grounds. Maladministration was a term in use in six of the thirteen state constitutions as a ground for impeachment, including Mason's home state of Virginia.

When James Madison objected that "so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate," Mason withdrew "maladministration" and substituted "high crimes and misdemeanors agst. the State,"which was adopted eight states to three, apparently with no further debate.

Enough of this?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on December 31, 2019, 04:40:50 PM
Again.  NO.  Absolutely NO.  They rejected maladministration because it conveyed the WRONG intent.  Not because it was not specific enough, but expressly because it was too low of a standard to apply in the context of impeachment.

You are absolutely wrong in trying to claim that maladministration was their intent, or that it is the correct interpretation of an impeachment.  Maladministration expressly includes conduct that IS NOT INTENDED TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR IMPEACHMENT.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on December 31, 2019, 06:22:04 PM
No... No! Madison rejected the term because it was too vague, not because it had the wrong intent. It was already used in the Constitutions of several states, BECAUSE IT CONVEYED THE CORRECT INTENT.

Let's pick this up again sometime next year
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 02, 2020, 03:06:09 PM
I don't see a point in "picking it up."  Maladministration was expressly rejected because of it's over inclusive nature, and "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was used instead.  While the term is still flexible it is far less flexible than maladministration (which for example, includes negligent acts, or even potentially acts that have a negative consequence without any wrongful intent - ie mistakes of judgment).  There is no principal of legal construction that allows one to take an expressly rejected term and reapply it as the "intent" of a provision from which it was struck.

And in this case it's actually telling that the reason it was struck - it's vagueness - directly speaks to it being overinclusive, ergo your attempt to use it will also over include non-impeachable conduct.

And honestly, there's no reason to try and argue for it.  High crimes and misdemeanors is an adequate definition, if you had any proof - as of  yet - that they actually occurred.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 02, 2020, 03:32:04 PM
I think it has always been clear that impeachment is supposed to be for illegal acts, but also unethical acts that may not rise to the level of a crime. As opposed to maladministration, which could mean just about anything. Including failure to enforce each and every federal law or any foreign policy decisions.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on January 02, 2020, 03:58:45 PM
Quote
I think it has always been clear that impeachment is supposed to be for illegal acts, but also unethical acts that may not rise to the level of a crime. As opposed to maladministration, which could mean just about anything. Including failure to enforce each and every federal law or any foreign policy decisions.

And more than "unethical acts," as in violations of the oath of office.  My last gasp, since you're new to this discussion:

Quote
Col. Mason: "Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason.  Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined— As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments."

He moved. to add after `bribery’ `or maladministration’.
Mr. Gerry seconded him—
Mr Madison: "So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate."
“Mr Govr Morris: "it will not be put in force & can do no harm— An election of every four years will prevent maladministration."
“Col. Mason withdrew `maladministration’ & substitutes `other high crimes & misdemeanors’<agst. the State’>
“On the question thus altered [the Convention agreed].

The money quote from Mason is highlighted above.  I'll leave you to decide if Mason meant any kind of malfeasance or "attempts to subvert the Constitution," as he himself says.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 02, 2020, 04:08:11 PM
The money quote from Mason is highlighted above.  I'll leave you to decide if Mason meant any kind of malfeasance or "attempts to subvert the Constitution," as he himself says.

That quote does not seem to reinforce your previous position, which was that "maladministration" was their real intent but was a bit too vague. This bolded quote is saying that "treason and bribery" is too restrictive and that other dangerous offenses should be included as well. Since this comes at the issue from the opposite direction you were going before (too inclusive) and is now about being too exclusive, I don't see how this quote is relevant to your point.

It would also seem to be the case that by quoting this you're implying that Trump was attempting to subvert the constitution by doing what he did. What part of his action was unconstitutional? Or are you referring to the bribe part of the clause?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 02, 2020, 04:10:01 PM
I've read the history before Kasandra.  Mason asked to include maladministration and that was not accepted, specifically on the grounds that it's too vague (read broad) and that it would lower the standard of impeachment effectively to at the pleasure of the Senate.  At the time, I don't think it really occurred to them that the Senate would ever primarily be made of political animals without a shred of honor, and they expected that by change the standard it would be honored.

High crimes and misdemeanors was largely understood to be crimes against the interests of the state, whether by treason or by taking bribes or by other means.  So again, there is plenty of room to make that case if you have evidence.  The only reason to argue for maladministration is specifically because you don't have any evidence tying this to Trump.  Accordingly, you need to make a claim that the circumstances are a failure to properly execute the office of the President.  Unfortunately that is exactly why maladministration was rejected.  Impeachable conduct has got to be by the President to impeach the President, if it was by staff acting on their own it's that staff that should face consequences.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 02, 2020, 04:13:16 PM
It would also seem to be the case that by quoting this you're implying that Trump was attempting to subvert the constitution by doing what he did. What part of his action was unconstitutional?

This is actually a far more material problem for them than you may realize.  There's a legitimate school of thought that argues foreign aid is not in the interest of the US (e.g., Rand Paul has expressed this, as has the far left columnist Ted Rall, among others).  By that political position withholding Ukrainian aid could never be impeachable conduct in and of itself.  It would have to be tied to a misuse of office.  This will come up in the future as Dems try to assert that evidence of withheld aid proves  impeachable conduct on a "maladministration" theory, even though they have - as of yet - provided zero evidence of conduct by Trump that is impeachable.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 02, 2020, 04:32:50 PM
This is actually a far more material problem for them than you may realize.  There's a legitimate school of thought that argues foreign aid is not in the interest of the US (e.g., Rand Paul has expressed this, as has the far left columnist Ted Rall, among others).  By that political position withholding Ukrainian aid could never be impeachable conduct in and of itself.

I suppose that makes sense, although their argument doesn't seem to be that withholding aid was the primary problem, but rather that it was doing so for personal gain. My main problem with this argument is that demonstrating intent to gain personally, while not benefitting the state, seems like an unlikely demonstration to be able to put on. Although amazingly the headlines today seem to show leaked proof that Trump did order the hold himself. But I don't see how that is even relevant to whether in doing so had a nefarious motive.

My question to Kasandra about the constitutional issue is in what way constitutionality is even relevant to this issue. Wouldn't that have more to do with the structure of government rather than the manner in which the President pursues foreign policy?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on January 02, 2020, 08:20:11 PM
...their argument doesn't seem to be that withholding aid was the primary problem, but rather that it was doing so for personal gain. My main problem with this argument is that demonstrating intent to gain personally, while not benefitting the state, seems like an unlikely demonstration to be able to put on. Although amazingly the headlines today seem to show leaked proof that Trump did order the hold himself. But I don't see how that is even relevant to whether in doing so had a nefarious motive.


I think for sake of wrongdoing they need to go further and show total absence of legitimate executive motive.  And that's a high bar that AFAIK no one's even tried to reach.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on January 03, 2020, 06:10:34 AM
The money quote from Mason is highlighted above.  I'll leave you to decide if Mason meant any kind of malfeasance or "attempts to subvert the Constitution," as he himself says.

That quote does not seem to reinforce your previous position, which was that "maladministration" was their real intent but was a bit too vague. This bolded quote is saying that "treason and bribery" is too restrictive and that other dangerous offenses should be included as well. Since this comes at the issue from the opposite direction you were going before (too inclusive) and is now about being too exclusive, I don't see how this quote is relevant to your point.

Mason felt that "treason and bribery" weren't comprehensive enough, so to give additional grounds he wanted to add "maladministration" to cover other unspecified acts deserving of impeachment.  You're saying that somehow he failed to do that and changed the term to "other high crimes and misdemeanors" in a shift of his objective.  That makes no sense.  According to all known records, he agreed to the new phrasing without argument or delay.  In other words, he was saying "Sure, I'm ok with the old English phrase here."

Quote
It would also seem to be the case that by quoting this you're implying that Trump was attempting to subvert the constitution by doing what he did. What part of his action was unconstitutional? Or are you referring to the bribe part of the clause?

"Subvert" in 1789 (and now) meant "undermine" as well as "overthrow,"  In the context of their deliberations, all of the delegates understood it to mean the use of corrupt intent for personal gain or perversion of the proper objectives of government.  Rather than asking whether you agree that Trump is guilty of doing that here, but wondering whether you think that is what the first impeachment article against Trump is based on.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on January 03, 2020, 06:30:31 AM
Quote
The only reason to argue for maladministration is specifically because you don't have any evidence tying this to Trump.

You're basically saying that the articles of impeachment against him are completely without merit, as if he had "perfect"ly good reasons to withhold the funding. But if it was improper, he was a passive victim of his staff's actions. Either way he's in the clear because the House produced no proof of nefarious motive or actions by anybody.  You're entitled to your opinion.

Since I don't expect any member of Trump's staff to testify honestly if they are called, the vote on the first article of impeachment is foreordained.  IMO, the prosecution has a stronger argument on the second article, whether Trump is guilty or innocent, precisely because he refused to cooperate with the legitimate investigation that the House undertook.  I think it's silly to insist that the House should have let Trump run out the clock stonewalling, because that empowers future Presidents to similarly reject oversight by Congress whenever they choose.  Unless the Senate vote is conducted by secret ballot, it's a guarantee that he'll be acquitted on that charge, too.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on January 03, 2020, 08:04:03 AM
You're basically saying that the articles of impeachment against him are completely without merit, as if he had "perfect"ly good reasons to withhold the funding.

Was the funding withheld or did Ukraine get it? Does Ukraine think the funding was ever withheld? I'll answer too ... they got it and the did not have an inkling about it being withheld. That's why the articles of impeachment against him are completely without merit.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on January 03, 2020, 08:56:36 AM
Was the funding withheld or did Ukraine get it? Does Ukraine think the funding was ever withheld? I'll answer too ... they got it and the did not have an inkling about it being withheld. That's why the articles of impeachment against him are completely without merit.

Yes, yes, yes, you're wrong, and you're entitled to your opinion....
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on January 03, 2020, 09:13:30 AM
I'm not wrong. The funding was, in fact, delivered. Zelensky and his government had no idea anything was going on. That's not an opinion, it's fact.

Kind of hard to do the quid pro quo thing when nobody thinks anything is happening.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on January 03, 2020, 12:31:49 PM
I'm not wrong. The funding was, in fact, delivered. Zelensky and his government had no idea anything was going on. That's not an opinion, it's fact.

Kind of hard to do the quid pro quo thing when nobody thinks anything is happening.

You can't see what you won't see.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 03, 2020, 12:59:03 PM
The money quote from Mason is highlighted above.  I'll leave you to decide if Mason meant any kind of malfeasance or "attempts to subvert the Constitution," as he himself says.

That quote does not seem to reinforce your previous position, which was that "maladministration" was their real intent but was a bit too vague. This bolded quote is saying that "treason and bribery" is too restrictive and that other dangerous offenses should be included as well. Since this comes at the issue from the opposite direction you were going before (too inclusive) and is now about being too exclusive, I don't see how this quote is relevant to your point.

Mason felt that "treason and bribery" weren't comprehensive enough, so to give additional grounds he wanted to add "maladministration" to cover other unspecified acts deserving of impeachment.  You're saying that somehow he failed to do that and changed the term to "other high crimes and misdemeanors" in a shift of his objective.  That makes no sense.  According to all known records, he agreed to the new phrasing without argument or delay.  In other words, he was saying "Sure, I'm ok with the old English phrase here."

This is why I don't think it's profitable to "debate" this with you.  Mason wasn't the sole author of the Constitution, he wanted maladministration and DID NOT GET IT.  The agreed language is not "the same as" maladministration or it too would have been rejected.

There was no question about this for 250 years.  In fact, the only place I can find a question about it is in the current House DNC write up on impeachment, which of course the liberal media has widely dispersed.  I suggest you retune your google searches to preclude materials written since Trump was in office if you want to get to a less biased version.  It should still be plenty good, because the Republicans really wanted to impeach Clinton.  But it's not going to get over this hump.

No matter how often you repeat it, it's still a "post truth" assertion to claim that maladaministration, despite be EXPRESSLY rejected as too vague, is the proper equivalent for impeachable conduct.  It's a lie.  It's false information.  And it's literally a claim made solely to try and support a political conviction.

Quote
Rather than asking whether you agree that Trump is guilty of doing that here, but wondering whether you think that is what the first impeachment article against Trump is based on.

Polling and political wishing is what the first article is based on.  It's deliberately vague because the House didn't find convincing evidence of impeachable conduct, ergo they passed an article that lets anyone construe their dislike of Trump as "guilt."

There's no defense against vague charges, which is EXACTLY why the courts find vague statutes passed by Congress unConstitutional on a regular basis.   But again, basic principals of justice and fairness that are guaranteed to all Americans can't be found in how the House is operating.

Although amazingly the headlines today seem to show leaked proof that Trump did order the hold himself. But I don't see how that is even relevant to whether in doing so had a nefarious motive.

It's not, which is why Kasandra and other proxies arguing on behalf of the DNC are trying to resurrect maladministration.  No need to show intent.  And that's also why it was not accepted in the first place.

The fact that such a bad argument, that's absurd on its face if you actually look at the history and meaning, is apparently so convincing to some is deeply troubling.  I do conclude I agree with Kasandra that we are in the "post truth" era, but not because of Trump, rather because those who keeping making the claim are literally revealing their own projection of how they think.  It doesn't matter what anything actually means or the intent behind it, so long as it "appears" the way the left wants it to look they are entitled to impose whatever interpretation or intent they find politically convenient on the situation.

That's why they can do things like openly misconstrue Trump on things like there being fine people on both sides and deny that he ever criticized the KKK and get away with it.  They have words that - without context - can be used to claim the intent they want to project but wasn't there, and through repetition and echo techniques convince massive amounts of people on the point.

I mean look at the thread hear.  Kasandra is literally trying to gaslight everyone.  Maladministration was rejected.  And yet he'd have you believe somehow that it was expressly incorporated.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on January 03, 2020, 03:29:25 PM
Quote
This is why I don't think it's profitable to "debate" this with you.  Mason wasn't the sole author of the Constitution, he wanted maladministration and DID NOT GET IT.  The agreed language is not "the same as" maladministration or it too would have been rejected.

I NEVER SAID it was "the same as".  I hate when you do this.  You're almost as bad as Crunch.  The intent was to hold the President accountable for misdeeds while in office.  The precise language chosen satisfied the intent with more specificity.  You see a thousand shades of nuance in your own arguments but consistently treat what I say as black and white.  The rest of your argument continues this pattern, so it's not worth commenting on.  BTW, why do you keep referring to the "House DNC" but never the "House RNC"?  Hint, it's just another example of your black and white compartmentalization of all things left of your cherished opinions.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on January 19, 2020, 10:11:38 AM
The shampeachmeny has moved to the senate, finally.

To recap, there is no alleged crime, no law broken.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 19, 2020, 11:50:44 AM
Government Accountability Office: Trump Admin withholding aid to Ukraine violated the law (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/16/gao-severely-rebukes-trumps-ukraine-ploy-undermines-his-no-crime-defense/)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on January 19, 2020, 06:27:03 PM
He was not impeached for that.

But if you like it, GAO: Obama White House Violated Law in Engagements With China (https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/terence-p-jeffrey/gao-obama-white-house-violated-law-engagements-china). That’s one of seven times the GAO ruled Obama that way.

Why do you believe it was ok for Obama to do so 7 times but a problem for Trump only once?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 19, 2020, 07:00:21 PM
He was not impeached for that.

But if you like it, GAO: Obama White House Violated Law in Engagements With China (https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/terence-p-jeffrey/gao-obama-white-house-violated-law-engagements-china). That’s one of seven times the GAO ruled Obama that way.

Why do you believe it was ok for Obama to do so 7 times but a problem for Trump only once?

Don't forget the Obama Admin actions that were ruled unconstitutional by SCotUS.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 19, 2020, 07:44:45 PM
He was not impeached for that.
Here is an excerpt of the articles of impeachment (in relation to ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: soliciting the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.)
Quote
President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
So yes, withholding aid to Ukraine was very much a part of the first article of impeachment.

As to the rest of your post - I just pointed out that yes, indeed, there was a breach of law, and it was known prior to your post where you erroneously claimed otherwise. That's it.

You do realize that a broken law is neither required nor necessarily sufficient for impeachment, right?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 19, 2020, 08:03:20 PM
Here is an excerpt of the articles of impeachment (in relation to ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: soliciting the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.)
Quote
President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
So yes, withholding aid to Ukraine was very much a part of the first article of impeachment.

As to the rest of your post - I just pointed out that yes, indeed, there was a breach of law, and it was known prior to your post where you erroneously claimed otherwise. That's it.

You do realize that a broken law is neither required nor necessarily sufficient for impeachment, right?

That's nice, now can anyone prove it was only about 2020?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 19, 2020, 08:08:35 PM
To recap, there is no alleged crime, no law broken.
Government Accountability Office: Trump Admin withholding aid to Ukraine violated the law (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/16/gao-severely-rebukes-trumps-ukraine-ploy-undermines-his-no-crime-defense/)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 19, 2020, 08:13:36 PM
That's nice, now can anyone prove it was only about 2020?
Well, Lev Parnas has publicly made that claim, consistent with what the witnesses during the impeachment process have also stated.

Maybe the Senate should subpoena him...
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 21, 2020, 01:17:11 PM
Lol, yeah DonaldD, sure that's less relevant to the Dems claim than Hunter Biden is to Trumps, which is a "side show" even though it goes to establish an actual motive (investigating what looks like corruption).

In any event, just read McConnell's motion for the rules.  It looks to me like if it passes, the House's entire record will be inadmissible.  "No testimony shall be admissible in the Senate unless the parties have had an opportunity to depose such witnesses."  Since the House failed to conduct a just investigation it's all effectively garbage that'd have to be redone to be usable.  Of course that could just refer to the Senate process.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 21, 2020, 02:00:02 PM
Quote
even though it goes to establish an actual motive
It really doesn't, though - only what Trump knew or suspected would go to his motive.  What Trump did not know could not factor into his motivations.
Quote
Lol, yeah DonaldD, sure that's less relevant to the Dems claim
You're kidding, right?  Evidence that Trump was leaning on Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election is irrelevant to the impeachment claims?  Have you read them?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 21, 2020, 02:46:57 PM
Quote
even though it goes to establish an actual motive
It really doesn't, though - only what Trump knew or suspected would go to his motive.  What Trump did not know could not factor into his motivations.

That may be most nonsensical thing I've ever heard. Trump knew about Hunter's problems, they were common knowledge and he directly referenced them.  Pretty clear as a motive.

I've seen zero evidence tying this to 2020, and clear evidence of intent to investigate it as related to corruption generally in the Ukraine. 

Quote
Quote
Lol, yeah DonaldD, sure that's less relevant to the Dems claim
You're kidding, right?  Evidence that Trump was leaning on Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election is irrelevant to the impeachment claims?  Have you read them?

The Impeachment claims are garbage as written.  They violate many basic tenants of law, but one in particular strikes here.  Accusations must be specific not general.  You can't have different jurors voting to convict on different actions but not agreeing on a common action for which there was guilt.  There's literally zero direct attributions - in the record - of the 2020 tie in.  You just think it's obvious that this is what it must be about (just like I think it's obvious the House misused the impeachment power to influence the 2020 election  which makes them guilty of the same crime).

But what I was referring to was your claim about the GAO opinion.  The illegality (or non-illegality, which is still really up for debate) has nothing to do with the motive claim or the 2020 interference claim.  Hunter's actions go directly to the motive, which the House asserts can only be 2020 interference, even though facially on the record the other motives appear. 

Let's be honest.  If you can't admit the House abused fairness and justice, you're really not being a serious person.   There's no part of that process that matches with what we expect from American justice.  It was fundamentally abusive and injust and not remotely designed to get to the actual truth, to the point where it would be thrown out summarily in any court.  If you can admit that and still want to argue it has merit of some sort, please do so.  But it's not possible to ignore that reality, without being just a tribalism mouthpiece.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 21, 2020, 03:11:50 PM
Quote
Trump knew about Hunter's problems, they were common knowledge and he directly referenced them.  Pretty clear as a motive.
So there's no need to call Biden as a witness, since he had nothing to add to the facts that were already independently 'known'.   So what was your point?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 21, 2020, 03:20:57 PM
I don't see a good reason to call the Bidens as a witnesses if this was a court rather than a political witchhunt.  The fact is that their actions are 100%  relevant to the defense, but calling them (oddly) seems an indirect way to point that out.  They can only testify to whether or not they did it - which is actually irrelevant to whether or not Trump thought they did it.

But the House picked the "rules" which are about swaying public opinion rather than actually finding evidence.  In that game, which if the House got to play it the defense has to be allowed as well, proving that the Bidens are guilty is actually decisive.  If the Bidens are guilty the public support for this impeachment would crater.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 21, 2020, 03:39:39 PM
I would say an investigation into the obvious Biden and son graft in Ukraine is called for even if nothing illegal was done so the public can understand what actually went on and with our politicians decide if that's something that should be legal or if that's something that we might need to take a look at passing laws to guard against. Just because it wasn't illegal doesn't mean the public doesn't have a right to know. Transparency and all that.

Now if any laws were broken by the Bidens, that opens up a can of whuppin' worms against the Democrats who are then guilty of collusion to cover up crimes. Either way though Trump was right to want an investigation and not only is that not an impeachable offense, it's actually a commendable action to give the public more information about how our elected politicians use their positions or have their positions used to make money for their families with our tax dollars acting as leverage.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 21, 2020, 04:43:33 PM
Just read Schumer's amendments request and now I see where they are going with this.  It's a classic poison pill.  If it's adopted, it requires the Chief Justice to execute the subpeona on Trump - who then exerts executive privilege.  The privilege claim is litigated through the DC circuit where it's controlled 7-4 by Democratic judges and already on record as hostile to the President.   Ultimately they expect the unfavorable result to get appealed to the SC, where lo and behold the demand will be for the Chief Justice to recuse himself because he was the person that issued the subpeona.  That leaves a 4-4 split decision with the order staying in force.

Of course, that's only if its adopted.  If its not adopted, its the basis for the exoneration of Trump to be declared illegitmate and for the House to reopen it's active Impeachment investigation.  They get to say Trump is Impeached, run on the Senate "illegtimately saving" him and on an active investigation to get to the "truth" that their constituents can highly motivate on.

I think the only thing they have right is that the Impeachment really is all about 2020, but not Trump's part in it, just their own.  With the media in their corner they won't pay a price for this.

So what can the Republicans actually do?  Just make them look stupid and petty, it's not hard, Schiff and Nadler are petty and reckless.  But this was what the rush was about.  The Impeachment inquiry was a flop, but selling the Senate trial as a sham makes Impeachment 2.0 a winner (at least that's what they think). 

The only other thing would be for the DOJ to get off their asses and actually start bringing the real criminals to justice (yeah right, like those deep staters are going to put other deep staters in jail).
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on January 21, 2020, 05:59:15 PM
...So there's no need to call Biden as a witness, since he had nothing to add to the facts that were already independently 'known'.   So what was your point?

There is every reason to examine his actions in giving million of USA money to Burisma with his son on the board. There is a serious matter of the Ukrainian Oligarch who owns Burisma stealing that money. ...Not to mention the Chinese connection.

It's not just about the 2016 election or the 2020 election.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 21, 2020, 06:07:29 PM
There is every reason to examine his actions in giving million of USA money to Burisma with his son on the board.
You really have to stop doing this to yourself...
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on January 21, 2020, 06:21:11 PM
...about the GAO opinion.  The illegality (or non-illegality, which is still really up for debate) has nothing to do with the motive claim or the 2020 interference claim.

All Constitutional experts note that the Constitution gives the sole power of Foreign policy to the president. The House is prohibited from anything but perhaps refusing to fund his policy directives. They do not have the authority to make foreign policy. ...Funny they can not fund things they do not control, but then say the President must fund what he does control.

The GAO is turning law upside down - but they are a House adjunct.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 21, 2020, 06:26:48 PM
The GAO is turning law upside down - but they are a House adjunct.
Yes, the GAO is part of the deep state, too!  Boogaboogabooga! (there's got to be a tinfoil hat emoji around here somewhere...)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on January 21, 2020, 06:47:17 PM
He was not impeached for that.
Here is an excerpt of the articles of impeachment (in relation to ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: soliciting the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.)
Quote
President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
So yes, withholding aid to Ukraine was very much a part of the first article of impeachment.

As to the rest of your post - I just pointed out that yes, indeed, there was a breach of law, and it was known prior to your post where you erroneously claimed otherwise. That's it.

You do realize that a broken law is neither required nor necessarily sufficient for impeachment, right?

What law from the US code are you alleging was broken?

You sure you want this new standard for impeachment? Really? It’s gonna work out about as well as your nuclear option for judges. You know that, right?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on January 21, 2020, 06:48:39 PM
The GAO is turning law upside down - but they are a House adjunct.
Yes, the GAO is part of the deep state, too!  Boogaboogabooga! (there's got to be a tinfoil hat emoji around here somewhere...)

Can you point to the article f the constitution that give foreign policy power to the GAO and not the president? That’d be really helpful.  Thanks
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on January 21, 2020, 06:51:46 PM
...Yes, the GAO is part of the deep state, too!  Boogaboogabooga! (there's got to be a tinfoil hat emoji around here somewhere...)

You don't agree that the GAO is a House adjunct? It is supposed to be non-partisan, but somehow came up with a Democrat-slanted statement that embues the House with UnConstitutional powers and says Trump broke the law by making his own foreign policy. The head of the GAO was named under Obama in 2010. Want to bet he has webbed feet? If he is not part of the Swamp, why did he weigh in and make UnConstutional statements?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 21, 2020, 06:58:10 PM
What law from the US code are you alleging was broken?

You sure you want this new standard for impeachment? Really? It’s gonna work out about as well as your nuclear option for judges. You know that, right?
It seems like you are moving on, and you now accept that he was, indeed, impeached for that?

I am not alleging anything - it's the GAO that is stating that the Trump admin violated the law... that terrible, partisan, low I.Q. office full of... auditors!
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 21, 2020, 07:00:13 PM
Just read Schumer's amendments request and now I see where they are going with this.  It's a classic poison pill.  If it's adopted, it requires the Chief Justice to execute the subpeona on Trump - who then exerts executive privilege.  The privilege claim is litigated through the DC circuit where it's controlled 7-4 by Democratic judges and already on record as hostile to the President.   Ultimately they expect the unfavorable result to get appealed to the SC, where lo and behold the demand will be for the Chief Justice to recuse himself because he was the person that issued the subpeona.  That leaves a 4-4 split decision with the order staying in force.

Given the nature of the impeachment process, I think it'd be an interesting point regarding recusal on Robert's part. Personally, I'd say the basis for his recusal is n/a'd by virtue of the matter that he wasn't actually the one who decided to issue the subpoena, he merely is one required to sign off on it--with no legal means/process to avoid doing so to the best of my knowledge.

So he's be able to wear "two hats" in that case, as the "other hat" which creates the basis for his "conflict of interest" merely consists of his acknowledging that Senate Rules for issuance of the subpoena were followed. Which is a far cry from him certifying said actions as being constitutional or not--which is the "second hat" in this case.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 22, 2020, 01:00:33 PM
I would not be surprised if the Courts declined to tell the Senate how to run its impeachment trial.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 22, 2020, 02:39:26 PM
I would not be surprised if the Courts declined to tell the Senate how to run its impeachment trial.

They generally stay out of it, IIRC there even one SCotUS finding where the majority response was that "Impeachment is a political process" and thus outside their purview generally speaking.

But that doesn't mean the political process itself cannot run afoul of the Constitution in such a manner that SCotUS needs to rule on a separation of powers matter.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on January 22, 2020, 10:06:39 PM
What law from the US code are you alleging was broken?

You sure you want this new standard for impeachment? Really? It’s gonna work out about as well as your nuclear option for judges. You know that, right?
It seems like you are moving on, and you now accept that he was, indeed, impeached for that?

I am not alleging anything - it's the GAO that is stating that the Trump admin violated the law... that terrible, partisan, low I.Q. office full of... auditors!

No, stop making things up. Jesus.

I’m asking you what law was broken.

I’m asking you why Obama having the GAO say this 7 times is perfectly fine by you but Trump once
And you think it’s the end of the world.

Essentially, I’m pointing out your hypocrisy and the complete lack of basis for impeachment. Your response is to create pretend positions to take down - classic straw man fallacy. I can always count on you
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 23, 2020, 01:45:47 PM
You're either obtuse or disingenuous. GAO said that OSTP was in violation. Bringing up Obama in this context is meaningless. You want to say that this means OSTP director should be fired? Okay fine. Winning. But if you're trying to imply this means that Obama should have been impeached also, you fail.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 23, 2020, 02:23:51 PM
The GAO saying something is illegal is meaningless. People say things are illegal all the time especially when it comes to Trump. Look at all of the immigration policies they said were illegal like the so called Muslim ban. Not just illegal but UnConstitutional even. Until a court says it's illegal it doesn't mean anything. And even then it often gets overturned on appeal especially if the decision comes from a liberal court like the 9th Circuit. It's not illegal until the plus size lady sings.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 23, 2020, 02:30:47 PM
You're either obtuse or disingenuous. GAO said that OSTP was in violation. Bringing up Obama in this context is meaningless. You want to say that this means OSTP director should be fired? Okay fine. Winning. But if you're trying to imply this means that Obama should have been impeached also, you fail.

It seems to me he's been trying to say all along that there's a phony double-standard in place and that this isn't about rule of law. I don't know if he's right, but that clearly seems to be his point. It's not about pointing fingers at Obama, as far as I can tell, but rather about objecting to hypocrisy and deceit.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 23, 2020, 03:01:25 PM
You're either obtuse or disingenuous. GAO said that OSTP was in violation. Bringing up Obama in this context is meaningless. You want to say that this means OSTP director should be fired? Okay fine. Winning. But if you're trying to imply this means that Obama should have been impeached also, you fail.

It seems to me he's been trying to say all along that there's a phony double-standard in place and that this isn't about rule of law. I don't know if he's right, but that clearly seems to be his point. It's not about pointing fingers at Obama, as far as I can tell, but rather about objecting to hypocrisy and deceit.

If the GAO saying the president "probably did something against the law" is grounds for impeachment, then chances are Obama, Bush 43, and Clinton all should have been impeached multiple times over. "Even worse" in several cases, because I believe all three had executive decisions they made go before SCotUS only for their actions to be deemed unconstitutional.

Clearly, based on prior precedent, simple violations of law, or even the Constitution for that matter, are not, by themselves, grounds for impeachment. Or it would have been done prior to Trump.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on January 23, 2020, 03:06:20 PM
I think that asking what law was broken, rather than what authority claims that trump broke some unspecified law, is a reasonable to ask even if it is Crunch asking it. Unlike Canada we in the US fought a bloody and horrific war specifically so that among other things, laws are enumerated pre facto rather than forced on us ex post facto by authority. That falls under us constitution elements that we’ve literally killed to get and would gladly kill again in order to think.

I would rather live forty horrible years under trump than allow the unbloodied rise of a new legal order where a body of experts can declare any man a criminal without bothering to articulate a law.

If that’s what law ever comes to mean then like our Iranian friends might say, Death to the Law
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 23, 2020, 03:13:24 PM
I don't personally know the precedent on this in the U.S., but I would hope that what is written on paper as the law is not the only relevant thing when determining whether an action is legal or not. I would maintain that if previous instances of a particular type of action were known and permitted by legal authorities, that should be grounds for those activities to be officially declared as permissible. Obviously there is leeway when it comes to gradations or variances within the action.

Just as a small-time example, I have a sneaking suspicion that it violates the basic tenets of the rule of law for police officers to selectively enforce certain laws when they feel like it, thereby making people feel it's ok to do a thing and then smacking them down for it whenever they feel like it. This type of thing comes into play with police quotas (which we know exist), where certain traffic infractions or other types of offences are not usually enforced but at a certain time of the month people get nailed for them. This, to me, should be illegal; or rather, the lack of enforcing them at other times should prevent suddenly enforcing them and surprising people. I have to think that the practice of enforcing the law is one aspect of what is de facto legal, and that government has an absolute obligation to be consistent in how the law is applied.

That being said, I am sort of for politicians being brought down when they're corrupt, and I wouldn't be so fond of an argument that suggested that because corruption was tolerated in the past it's now legal. But on the other hand I don't like the idea that something that was "ok" in a previous administration is now legally not ok depending on who's in office. If it's about cracking down in general I'm pretty ok with that; if it's about selective enforcement then I would like to believe that this should be illegal.

Is it a valid defence in court to say "yeah, I did the thing, but you knew all these other people were doing it, and allowed it, and are picking on me unfairly?" 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 23, 2020, 03:22:40 PM
I think that asking what law was broken, rather than what authority claims that trump broke some unspecified law, is a reasonable to ask even if it is Crunch asking it. Unlike Canada we in the US fought a bloody and horrific war specifically so that among other things, laws are enumerated pre facto rather than forced on us ex post facto by authority. That falls under us constitution elements that we’ve literally killed to get and would gladly kill again in order to think.

I would rather live forty horrible years under trump than allow the unbloodied rise of a new legal order where a body of experts can declare any man a criminal without bothering to articulate a law.

If that’s what law ever comes to mean then like our Iranian friends might say, Death to the Law

I'm pretty sure the GAO spells out which laws in their report.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 23, 2020, 03:39:00 PM
I don't personally know the precedent on this in the U.S., but I would hope that what is written on paper as the law is not the only relevant thing when determining whether an action is legal or not. I would maintain that if previous instances of a particular type of action were known and permitted by legal authorities, that should be grounds for those activities to be officially declared as permissible. Obviously there is leeway when it comes to gradations or variances within the action.

Well, the first Presidential Impeachment attempt to go before the Senate actually does have precedent for a President being impeached for (blatantly) violating a law. They failed to convict, and about 60 years later, SCotUS deemed the law in question to be Unconstitutional. So you also get to deal with the additional layer of contending with violations of laws which are unconstitutional in the first place.

Basically, Trump may have violated a law, but that law in and of itself may be in violation of the Constitution and the Separation of Powers it specifies, in which case the violation.. isn't.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on January 23, 2020, 04:05:52 PM
Ok, so your argument is headline: authority wants you to panic! If you want to know why, go look it up some place?

Because if that’s how democracy is supposed to work then death be to democracy.

I see headlines saying the founding fathers were warning us against guys like Trump! No! They talked about guys like Trump, to warn us against Democracy powered by sophistry. Trump’s just the sign post: “you are now all in hell.” Taking away the sign post doesn’t change the fact that we are, after your long march, finally in hell.

I think that asking what law was broken, rather than what authority claims that trump broke some unspecified law, is a reasonable to ask even if it is Crunch asking it. Unlike Canada we in the US fought a bloody and horrific war specifically so that among other things, laws are enumerated pre facto rather than forced on us ex post facto by authority. That falls under us constitution elements that we’ve literally killed to get and would gladly kill again in order to think.

I would rather live forty horrible years under trump than allow the unbloodied rise of a new legal order where a body of experts can declare any man a criminal without bothering to articulate a law.

If that’s what law ever comes to mean then like our Iranian friends might say, Death to the Law

I'm pretty sure the GAO spells out which laws in their report.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 23, 2020, 04:08:50 PM
My argument is that before endorsing a would-be dictator to avoid a regime of ex post facto laws, you should actually read the judgment in question.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 23, 2020, 04:27:31 PM
Which I'm gathering nobody has done, otherwise, it'd be pretty easy to spell it out.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on January 23, 2020, 04:41:29 PM
My argument is that before endorsing a would-be dictator to avoid a regime of ex post facto laws, you should actually read the judgment in question.

How am I “endorsing “ anything? Is this one of these “if you don’t support us in this I’m your enemy things?” 

If I can’t expect you to give a bit of fact to support your claim of “dictator” why should I take the time to get my crippled ass on a bus to go buy a new set of reading glasses?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 23, 2020, 04:43:47 PM
My argument is that before endorsing a would-be dictator to avoid a regime of ex post facto laws, you should actually read the judgment in question.

How am I “endorsing “ anything? Is this one of these “if you don’t support us in this I’m your enemy things?” 

If I can’t expect you to give a bit of fact to support your claim of “dictator” why should I take the time?

Quote
I would rather live forty horrible years under trump

I'm just saying before being alarmed about something you should probably check to see if it's happening.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 23, 2020, 05:01:36 PM
I think that asking what law was broken, rather than what authority claims that trump broke some unspecified law, is a reasonable to ask even if it is Crunch asking it. Unlike Canada we in the US fought a bloody and horrific war specifically so that among other things, laws are enumerated pre facto rather than forced on us ex post facto by authority. That falls under us constitution elements that we’ve literally killed to get and would gladly kill again in order to think.

I would rather live forty horrible years under trump than allow the unbloodied rise of a new legal order where a body of experts can declare any man a criminal without bothering to articulate a law.

If that’s what law ever comes to mean then like our Iranian friends might say, Death to the Law

GAO cited very specifically which law was in play. In all those cases. They all had to do with appropriations and separation of powers. The executive branch can't unilaterally override laws passed by congress - at least in theory.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Pete at Home on January 23, 2020, 05:08:16 PM
If Congress is the aggrieved party as well as the prosecutor and tryer of fact, then what’s the problem?

Since the 1990s Clinton impeachment debacle, I have denounced the repugnant democratizing of the impeachment process. I loathed Congress’ cowardly leaking of the Starr Report (even Starr himself was horrified.  If Congress cannot prosecute an impeachment without personal support of the voters then it should not be the business.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on January 23, 2020, 07:35:09 PM
The way Obama was treated is relevant because of the Doctrie of Laches. The normal example is a landlord who says you can't have a pet, yet allows someone else to have one. Once allowed for anyone else, then you are also allowed that same right.

Selective law is no law.

According to Constitutional expert professors I have heard, The GAO is flat out wrong, because they work from the fallacy that Legislative Foreign policy must be sacrosanct, when in fact, such policy, in itself, is unConstitutional. The President has the sole authority to make foreign policy, and the legislature only has the authority to fund policy actions. The true force of foreign policy may be from the bully pulpit. One must sell it to the body politic for it to be acceptable.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 23, 2020, 10:57:34 PM
According to Constitutional expert professors I have heard, The GAO is flat out wrong, because they work from the fallacy that Legislative Foreign policy must be sacrosanct, when in fact, such policy, in itself, is unConstitutional. The President has the sole authority to make foreign policy, and the legislature only has the authority to fund policy actions. The true force of foreign policy may be from the bully pulpit. One must sell it to the body politic for it to be acceptable.

Not entirely correct, the Senate has a Constitutional role to play in foreign policy, by ratifying treaties and validating the appointment of ambassadors(IIRC). But you are correct that the Constitution grants PotUS broad authority with regards to foreign affairs.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on January 25, 2020, 09:44:12 AM
Well, Schiff finished his opening.

Some senators were openly laughing at him. Some called him out for lying. Many ultimately decided to ignore his antics and deceptions.  It was a major train wreck for Schiff and democrats.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 25, 2020, 12:20:47 PM
I knew nothing about Schiff before all the Trump stuff. But now that I've seen him in action, he really comes across as a weasel and a gross human. I also think he might be a bit psychotic, similar to Trump in that he may not process the things he says and does as being subject to scrutiny, or reality.

If this were happening in the early 1800s, he's the kind of weasel that would have been called out for a duel at dawn with pistols.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 25, 2020, 12:47:43 PM
Watched some of the response by Trump's defense team this morning. I'd say the Democrats have a major problem in making their case.

Part of their conspiracy theory was that Trump was offering an in person meeting in exchange for the Biden Investigation.

Except Trump was already scheduled to meet the President of Ukraine in Poland on September 1st. Granted, that meeting wound up being with Pence instead, but only because Trump remained in the US due to a Hurricane being forecast to make landfall in the US. And Trump did subsequently meet with the Ukrainian President later that same month(September).

They also played up the additional problem regarding the theory of the Aid being held back in exchange for the announcement of a Biden investigation.

Nobody testified about the Ukranians being concerned about the aid being delayed prior to August 28th.
No documentation exists to support the Ukranians being concerned about the aid being delayed until August 28th.

Extortion doesn't work very well when the party being extorted is unaware of their being extorted.

Edit: I also liked the explanation given for why several of the subpoenas were declined/ignored by the White House. It also explains why the House didn't pursue the issue further, as I presume they acknowledged the reasons given as being legally valid, and that the courts would likely reject their requests on the same grounds the White House did. They used the wrong legal process for making the request.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 25, 2020, 12:51:22 PM
I saw that too. Watch for a moving goalpost where any meeting would have been purely to bribe (reverse-bribe?) Z in person.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Wayward Son on January 28, 2020, 01:46:26 PM
I've been avoiding this thread for a while because, once Sondland testified under oath that he had told the Ukrainians that they needed to start the investigation before there would be a White House meeting, there was no question in my mind that the Trump Administration pressured Ukraine.  I didn't need to hear any lame excuses to the contrary.

However, new developments brings me back.  Namely, the pages from Bolton's book that have been "leaked."

Looks like the pro-Trump Republican Senators are in trouble.

On the one hand, if they ignore the alleged allegations in the manuscript and don't have him testify, they will have to explain come March, when the book comes out, why they did so.  Can anyone really argue that Bolton personally witnessing Trump directing that no aid be sent to Ukraine unless they investigate the Bidens is not germane to the impeachment?  ;D  Is trying to keep pertinent info out of the trial anything short of a cover-up?

OTOH, if they do have Bolton testify, he will be talking about things that Mulvaney and Pompeo heard, too, which will drag them into the trial to testify.  And if they're going to do that, why not ask Parnas what he knows?  All this doubtlessly means more and more worms from the can to deal with.

It looks like McConnell's plan to have a quick, quiet impeachment acquittal has just blown up in his face.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on January 28, 2020, 02:09:41 PM
It looks like McConnell's plan to have a quick, quiet impeachment acquittal has just blown up in his face.

Not yet, its hard to refuse to hear Bolten's testimony but that doesn't mean 50 republican senators won't ignore it and just vote to end to the trial anyway.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2020, 02:28:53 PM
What will it matter anyway? Bolton is just going to be portrayed as a liar with sour grapes because Trump fired him. Republicans are trying to decide if it is in their better interest to let him testify and ignore what he as to say, versus not letting him testify. As far as optics go.

And haven't you seen the shift in talking points from "Trump did no wrong" to "this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment"? That's the fallback defense. Yeah he did it, it was unethical, but not illegal and not impeachable.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2020, 02:43:03 PM
I don't think anybody expects Trump to be removed from office.

But the most generous interpretation of the impeachment process is that it should be bad enough for the president so as to act as a deterrent for future presidents who would like to spread their own emperor's wings; as opposed to a less generous interpretation, but still one of value, that the Republican brand should take a hit for supporting a clearly corrupt president taking advantage of his position for purely personal gain.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 28, 2020, 04:18:56 PM
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.  After listening to some of the House Manager's "case" and the Defense, it's pretty clear these articles should be rejected as invalid.   The Senate should dismiss them and admonish the House that they are legally deficient.

I think the Senate should go further and make it clear that unless the House allows cross examination of witnesses and the presence of defense counsel the testimony provided by such witnesses will be inadmissable.

If the Senate decides it should hear from witnesses then it will have to recall all prior witnesses so they can be properly deposed.  It should then allow the defense to call each and every witness it has requested.  It would then call, to the extent required, additional witnesses proposed by the House Managers.  But in reality, even calling witnesses gives an improper validation to defective process and articles.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on January 28, 2020, 05:08:28 PM
Alan Dershowitz was very clear and documented his statement that Bolton's allegations, whether true or not, have no impact whatsoever on impeachment. Nothing he said rises to that level. His statements were scholarly and demolished both impeachment articles brought by the House Managers.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 28, 2020, 05:18:18 PM
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.

I think they did, but the White House rejected the subpeona on one of the various grounds they presented to the Senate. The House then declined to pursue the matter further, even when Bolton subsequently announced he was willing to testify.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 28, 2020, 05:38:51 PM
The House withdrew their subpeona of Bolton's underling when he  appealed to the courts to resolve the issue.  Bolton said he'd go along with that result.

There is no excuse for the House failing to pursue subpeona's in court.  There is also no excuse for the House's biased process.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Wayward Son on January 28, 2020, 05:52:38 PM
Quote
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.

Oh, yeah, that worked so well for the House for their other subpoenas.  ;D  What makes you think it would be any different with Bolton, who already said he wouldn't testify to the House until a court ordered him to, because Trump ordered him not to?  Do we have to go over the Obstruction of Justice charge? ;)

Quote
The House then declined to pursue the matter further, even when Bolton subsequently announced he was willing to testify.

Except that he specifically said he would testify to the Senate, not the House.  And the impeachment was already headed to the Senate by then.  Day late and wrong house.

And in any case, we now have more information than the House did at the time.  Now we have a good indication that he does have specific information relevant to the case; a written account that he personally heard Trump say he would withhold the funds until Ukraine complied.  Things are different now, and its in the Senate's court.  The only question is whether they want to know the whole truth or cover the truth up. ;)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 28, 2020, 06:39:26 PM
Alan Dershowitz was very clear and documented his statement that Bolton's allegations, whether true or not, have no impact whatsoever on impeachment. Nothing he said rises to that level. His statements were scholarly and demolished both impeachment articles brought by the House Managers.

Pretty much this. If it makes people feel better, they can claim that republicans are conceding, or falling back by saying "doesn't even matter if he did do it" but it doesn't change reality. Unless there's a cogent argument against what Dershowitz laid out vis a vis no provable high crimes or misdemeanors, it's all moot.

I have to think that Schiff and Nancy probably knew this all along but were pressured and/or desperate enough to give it a shot.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 29, 2020, 12:34:20 AM
Looks like it comes down to if 50 Republicans feel there was grounds for asking the Ukranian Government to investigate the Bidens for corruption with regards to their dealings in Ukraine.

At least that seems to be the narrative Cruz and the GOP seem to have ran with. As the case hinges primarily on if the decision to investigate the Bidens was "baseless" or not.

And keep in mind, the standard of evidence for initiating an investigation is much much lower than the standard employed for starting a prosecution. (Or what should be used for starting an impeachment)

The interference in 2020 is incidental to that. And the ask about "But why did he wait until 2019?" to do anything can be accounted for two ways:
1) Part of the hold back was a response to the Mueller report, which didn't get released until 2019.
2) The Ukrainian Administration in office during 2017/2018 was likely to have been part of that corruption and interference.

Nothing like asking a criminal to conduct an official investigation into their own criminal activities, that's a surefire way to get results.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 29, 2020, 10:34:51 AM
Quote
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.

Oh, yeah, that worked so well for the House for their other subpoenas.  ;D  What makes you think it would be any different with Bolton, who already said he wouldn't testify to the House until a court ordered him to, because Trump ordered him not to?  Do we have to go over the Obstruction of Justice charge? ;)

I hadn't heard the House lost their case in court.  How well did it go for them again?

Last I checked one could still challenge any subpeona in court and that's not evidence of a separate crime of obstruction.

Quote
Quote
The House then declined to pursue the matter further, even when Bolton subsequently announced he was willing to testify.

Except that he specifically said he would testify to the Senate, not the House.  And the impeachment was already headed to the Senate by then.  Day late and wrong house.

Again, the Senate should reject the House's defective record.  If this was a real court the case would be dismissed with leave to refile or remanded to the lower court to fix the problem.

In fact this is not a real case, it's a government funded campaign ad to interfere in the 2020 election.  Every single step of this has been managed by the left on a political basis.

Abuse of power by Trump?  My ass, clear abuse of power by the Dems.

Quote
And in any case, we now have more information than the House did at the time.

If the House needed that information they should have obtained it.  You can't impeach someone for claims they didn't develop without uncostitutionally taking the sole power to impeach from the House. 

Quote
The only question is whether they want to know the whole truth or cover the truth up. ;)

The only question is whether they will realize that this is nothing but politics and shut it down or let the Dems get away with the biggest political crime in our history.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 29, 2020, 12:27:59 PM
If this was a real court case, the defendant wouldn't be allowed to order people not to testify.

If this was a real court case, the foreman of the jury wouldn't be conspiring coordinating with the defense.

If this was a real court case, it wouldn't be up to the jury if witnesses are called.

If this was a real court case, it wouldn't be held in the Senate.

Pretending the Democrats are the only ones involved in political maneuvers is either partisan blindness or willful ignorance.

Though I can't wait for the GOP to impeach the next Democratic President and watch the GOP and their useful idiots line up to explain why everything is different this time.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 29, 2020, 02:46:53 PM
Though I can't wait for the GOP to impeach the next Democratic President and watch the GOP and their useful idiots line up to explain why everything is different this time.

It won't need to be positioned as different. The precedent has been set. There's no reason to think it won't be "game on" for republicans to use impeachment if/when things get highly contentious.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 29, 2020, 03:04:34 PM
It won't need to be positioned as different. The precedent has been set. There's no reason to think it won't be "game on" for republicans to use impeachment if/when things get highly contentious.

I meant that the GOP will be arguing why they should be able to call whoever they want as witnesses and that executive privilege doesn't apply to whatever thing they come up with.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 29, 2020, 03:21:03 PM
If this was a real court case, the defendant wouldn't be allowed to order people not to testify.

Sure they could.  They could order their lawyer not to testify, their doctor not to testify, their spouse not to testify.  They could challenge witnesses for relevancy, and require that certain witnesses testify under seal.

They could challenge and impeach those witnesses. 

If the prosecution brought THIS case to court they would not only be dismissed they'd be sanctioned.

Quote
If this was a real court case, the foreman of the jury wouldn't be conspiring coordinating with the defense.

That's true, but neither would the self interested Democrat's being conspiring with the prosecuttion.  They'd all go to jail.

Quote
If this was a real court case, it wouldn't be up to the jury if witnesses are called.

And?  The Senate is the judge as well as the jury.  It would be up to the judge to disallow inproper witnesses.

Quote
Pretending the Democrats are the only ones involved in political maneuvers is either partisan blindness or willful ignorance.

There is no way to cure the defective House process.  Pretending that "both" sides are guilty of that is just buying into a false position, and I GUARANTY one that will never be tolerated if a Republican House were to do the same thing.

Quote
Though I can't wait for the GOP to impeach the next Democratic President and watch the GOP and their useful idiots line up to explain why everything is different this time.

That's the joy.  If this is allowed to stand it IS THE PROCESS.  Asking them to justify it after it's already the rule is a nonsense request on your part that goes directly to my point.  This is completely a misuse for political reasons.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on January 29, 2020, 03:36:23 PM
Quote from: Noblehunter
Though I can't wait for the GOP to impeach the next Democratic President and watch the GOP and their useful idiots line up to explain why everything is different this time.

Quote from: Seriati
That's the joy.  If this is allowed to stand it IS THE PROCESS.  Asking them to justify it after it's already the rule is a nonsense request on your part that goes directly to my point.  This is completely a misuse for political reasons.

You need to look at history. When Harry Reid changed Senate rules to push Obamacare through, everyone was beside themselves that the GOP would return the favor when they returned to the majority. They did in some things - but in general resisted the Democrat precedent in all things.

When one party endorses the idea that "the end justifies the means" and the other endorses honor and justice, you can't project the evil onto the other side.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 29, 2020, 03:44:02 PM
Do you honestly think the GOP is trying to prevent witnesses from testifying solely to protect executive privilege or some other constitutional principle? That if the House redid their impeachment hearings with all the protections people were saying would be available at the Senate trial for witnesses they'd find that Trump's actions were entirely above board?

No one with sense has denied there's a political angle to impeachment but I think it's absurd to believe only one side is acting out of high-minded civic duty and the other out of vile partisanship.

For the record, I think the GOP doesn't want more testimony because even if whatever comes out doesn't support impeachment, it'll make Trump look terrible. I think Trump is preventing people from testifying, because he knows they'd say he attempted to coerce Ukraine into faking investigations into Biden.

You need to look at history. When Harry Reid changed Senate rules to push Obamacare through, everyone was beside themselves that the GOP would return the favor when they returned to the majority. They did in some things - but in general resisted the Democrat precedent in all things.

When one party endorses the idea that "the end justifies the means" and the other endorses honor and justice, you can't project the evil onto the other side.

Exhibit A.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 29, 2020, 03:45:13 PM
This probably will be the process for people who are not politicians or lawyers prior to taking office. You can't have someone roll up into the oval office who will break the written or unwritten rules of conduct.

Meanwhile you now have Dershowitz claiming that nothing Trump could have done would be abuse of power even if he .

Quote
“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said. “And mostly you’re right. Your election is in the public interest.”

“And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: rightleft22 on January 29, 2020, 03:53:18 PM
So the question isn't if Trump did what he is accused of doing but if what he did should disqualify him from office?
If such is the case no further investigation, witness, what ever is required. He did it

The question is: Trump did what he is accursed but what he did is not wrong, or its wrong but ok, or wrong.
I haven't been paying attention as I think the outcome is a forgone conclusion but is that were we are at now 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 29, 2020, 04:06:52 PM
So the question isn't if Trump did what he is accused of doing but if what he did should disqualify him from office?

It was originally framed as being about what he did or didn't do, but while that's not irrelevant the real question was always why he did it (if he did it). That this has been overly confused and lost in the shuffle is probably deliberate. After all, it would seemingly take some pretty specific evidence to show a particular intent (i.e. to disrupt 2020) as opposed to his claimed intent, which was to investigate 2016. That's what the case logically should hinge on, regardless of what both sides are claiming it does hinge on. It's not so much "he did it" but about specifying what "it" we are talking about. If "it" is trying to pressure the Ukraine, then it's obvious he did that. But that in itself is not a problem. It pressuring countries was illegal then the entire nation should go to jail, like, put bars around the entire continental U.S. and maybe give Hawaii a pass. All of these articles claiming that it's a slam dunk to prove he pressured Ukraine seem to me a bunch of treacherous parasites selling anger and fear for money. Trump may very well have broken the law, but the actual discussion about that, even in the House, seems to be mired in misdirection and smoke and mirrors about red herrings.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on January 29, 2020, 04:18:59 PM
Do you honestly think the GOP is trying to prevent witnesses from testifying solely to protect executive privilege or some other constitutional principle?

I don't think the Democrats impeached based on Constitutional principals.  I don't think the Republican Senators are resisting/not resisting for Constitutional principals.   Everyone, and I mean everyone, is just looking to the potential impact on the election.

That's EXACTLY why the House ignored due process.  They couldn't care less about proving the case, just making it sound damning and tarring as many Republicans as they can (including Trump).

I think the Republicans want two disparate things, (1) they want it over as defective immediately (but only if they don't get tarred as covering it up) and (2) to nail the House's process as defective and abusive, which can only be done with witness, but can really only be done in the public eye - and with a media that is completely in the tank they won't get that.

Quote
That if the House redid their impeachment hearings with all the protections people were saying would be available at the Senate trial for witnesses they'd find that Trump's actions were entirely above board?

I think if the House had engaged in due process there never would have been an impeachment.  Too many reps in swing districts that would have refused to support this defective impeachment if that had been fully laid out.

At this point?  There's no way to un ring the bell of unfairness.  The House made a one sided, abusive case for nearly 4 months, without any testing of the theories - the Defense, which we haven't even heard from for  a total of 24 hours demolished the actual case.  if witnesses had properly been deposed and objections noted, you never would have gotten a record that includes so many lies and we'd KNOW FOR A FACT whether the President's justifications of his actions were legitimate or not.

Quote
No one with sense has denied there's a political angle to impeachment but I think it's absurd to believe only one side is acting out of high-minded civic duty and the other out of vile partisanship.

Why would I have to think that "only one side" is?  The Abuse was managed by the House and that's solely on the Democrats. 

Quote
For the record, I think the GOP doesn't want more testimony because even if whatever comes out doesn't support impeachment, it'll make Trump look terrible.

I'm sure they're worried about that, it's not a question of law its a question of appearences and elections.  I think they're also worried that they can count on a partisan press to endlessly repeat lies told by Democrats as true (e.g., Schiff's repeated lie about Mulvaney) without exposing them, and to turn every single thing that can be pulled out of context to make Trump look bad into a national story (e.g., Sondland's statement on quid pro quo, which has been looped and repeated without  any real attention to the fact he made it up).

Quote
I think Trump is preventing people from testifying, because he knows they'd say he attempted to coerce Ukraine into faking investigations into Biden.

I think Trump is preventing people from testifying because he took the opposite route on Mueller, and that allowed Mueller to extend an investigation that had no basis for two years by construing anything and everything in the worst conceivable light - even if he had to ignore a dozen contrary facts to get there.

Think about what you're asking for.  The House won't be satisfied even if every single person in the government testifies they never heard it from Trump (which will never happen cause, if for no other reason, some of them will lie).  Literally, they will then claim that every person that testified was intimidated.  Don't have to speculate, that's exactly what they've said about every bit of testimony from the Ukraine.

You need to look at history. When Harry Reid changed Senate rules to push Obamacare through, everyone was beside themselves that the GOP would return the favor when they returned to the majority. They did in some things - but in general resisted the Democrat precedent in all things.

When one party endorses the idea that "the end justifies the means" and the other endorses honor and justice, you can't project the evil onto the other side.

Well except that sometimes they do sink down.  The Republicans continued with the majority approval standards for justices in the Senate (granted against a backdrop of no votes based on politics rather than qualifications). 

And honestly if they don't the playing field will continually tilt.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2020, 10:18:10 AM
Dershowitz's position is basically:
a) Doing something in the public interest is a sufficient defense to excuse an otherwise criminal or impeachable act
b) If an elected official believes their own election is in the public interest, then
c) Anything done in support of their own re-election cannot be used as a reason to remove that person from their elected position.

One can quibble with a word or two, but that is essentially it.  One can also describe this argument in many ways, but 'scholarly' is one of the least accurate.

By this reasoning, campaign financing laws, laws concerning foreign interference... none of these laws, at least partly written to curb the activities of corrupt elected officials, could be enforceable against elected officials using the power of their elected office to improve their electoral chances or even to ensure their own re-election... except maybe in the case of very special politicians who make clear that their own election is NOT in the public interest.

Maybe Dershowitz's argument was completely extemporaneous and without any analysis... (one can hope) Unfortunately, it sounds like a lot of people have turned their brains off and don't realize what is being argued... it also seems that there are many people who do know better but are depending on the lack of critical thinking on the part of their supporters in order to use this as a defense of their own team...
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 30, 2020, 10:46:59 AM
No, he didn't say that.

"They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything. I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest,"

"A constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any president to be impeached," he argued. "How many presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with their political advisers and their pollsters?"



A president must have another motive OTHER than re-election, but re-election can be a simultaneous goal. The opposite would be that a president can only take an action if it has nothing to do with his re-election, which would make nearly all presidential action impeachable.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on January 30, 2020, 10:58:16 AM
Sure, Political ends are what drives the entire Shampeachment... and because it does, the President's team cannot just win the Constitutional Law argument, they must win the Bully Pulpit. When you're attacked by smears, you can't ignore it - you must prove it wrong.

The only way to achieve lasting success of defending against a sham, is to see the miscreants who break the law for personal political ends pay the price for their perfidy. For years, the Democrats have used "proijection" to blame everyone else for what they are guilty of doing. Clinton did this in his impeachment by claiming "everyone does it. He tarred the Founders as womanizing slave owners. He couldn't be impeached because his actions were just like everyone else. After the Nixon election, they pretended all the Democrat southern racists switched parties to become Republicans. Never happened. All the racists and bigots stayed with the Democrats. The Nixon Southern Strategy was just projection.

What is front and center in everyone's mind, is how the Dems get away with anything they do. Unless someone goes to prison and is perp-walked to the prison bus, nothing changes.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 30, 2020, 11:09:37 AM
Sure, Political ends are what drives the entire Shampeachment... and because it does, the President's team cannot just win the Constitutional Law argument, they must win the Bully Pulpit. When you're attacked by smears, you can't ignore it - you must prove it wrong.

Which he could do by having his people testify that his sole, or even primary, concern was ensuring that Ukraine didn't misuse the funds due to corruption. Strange that Trump's going to court to prevent those people from testifying though. Even more strange is that he isn't leaning on the Senate to allow him to introduce exculpatory evidence. It's almost like he thinks their testimony wouldn't prove his innocence.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on January 30, 2020, 11:35:24 AM
...the President's team cannot just win the Constitutional Law argument, they must win the Bully Pulpit. When you're attacked by smears, you can't ignore it - you must prove it wrong.

Which he could do by having his people testify that his sole, or even primary, concern was ensuring that Ukraine didn't misuse the funds due to corruption. Strange that Trump's going to court to prevent those people from testifying though. Even more strange is that he isn't leaning on the Senate to allow him to introduce exculpatory evidence. It's almost like he thinks their testimony wouldn't prove his innocence.

Totally erroneous statement. Trump is innocent until proved guilty. ...But he must prove his innocence to stop the continual smears. How has that worked out anytime during his Presidency, so far?

Schumer was busy smearing again this morning. He claimed Dershowitz said "Anything done in support of their own re-election cannot be used as a reason to remove that person from their elected position, then changed his statement when called on it." He said no such thing (as ScottF posted.)

Even correcting inaccurate accusations is seen as waffling. One thing I like about Fox News, is that they routinely show the full clips of stories being commented upon, instead of cherry-picking bits and pieces. Once again, Schumer was quickly proved in error, but those who need to see it don't watch Fox News.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 30, 2020, 11:44:12 AM
It's almost like he thinks their testimony wouldn't prove his innocence.

Putting aside the above point that on principle you should not have to prove your own innocence, even in an impeachment trial, I will also point out that it is in fact nearly impossible to prove innocence in this sense. There is no physical way to demonstrate that you *did not* intend an action based on a certain motive. We don't have psychic brain-scans that employ time travel technology, and you cannot exhaustively prove that you literally never said a single thing that could be construed as wrong. When it comes especially to a media-circus type event even the *idea* of trying to prove your own innocence is something right out of the 1984 playbook. It's a pre-fab trap to ensure someone looks guilty no matter what.

What you should be saying is that if he has his people testify it might show that he did intend to investigate what was going on in 2016. Demonstrating that agenda would not prove his innocence (whatever that is supposed to mean) but it would prove that at minimum a part of his intent was to correct a potential wrong in the previous election, which is the only bar he should have to meet.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 30, 2020, 11:57:23 AM
Totally erroneous statement. Trump is innocent until proved guilty. ...But he must prove his innocence to stop the continual smears. How has that worked out anytime during his Presidency, so far?

My point is that Trump is supposedly sitting on proof of his innocence but is actively fighting to prevent anyone from seeing it.

What you should be saying is that if he has his people testify it might show that he did intend to investigate what was going on in 2016. Demonstrating that agenda would not prove his innocence (whatever that is supposed to mean) but it would prove that at minimum a part of his intent was to correct a potential wrong in the previous election, which is the only bar he should have to meet.


His people could testify, as you suggest, that he was focused on conspiracy theories about 2016 or even that he showed genuine frustration that Hunter Biden got a job due to corrupt influence or that he didn't trust the proof provided to the Pentagon about reforms. Any hard evidence probably would have given Pelosi the leverage to make the more restive members of the party to wait for the election. If only to keep impeachment in reserve.

As it is, Trump handed her the ability to decide the timing of the trial, which Pelosi could have delayed until all the court cases were settled, and let the DNC argue that Republicans in the Senate are complicit in covering up an impeachable offense. But I'm sure he's preventing people from testifying just to protect the prerogatives of some future President.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 30, 2020, 12:10:02 PM
While you may be right that declining to employ that strategy might mean that he couldn't (i.e. that his claims are not true), it certainly does not necessary mean that. It could also mean that he does things in a sloppy way and tells people things an in informal and even confusing manner, so that they are not even quite sure what his 'real motives' are. It shouldn't surprise me to learn that he issues instructions all the time without carefully walking people through the reasons why it should be done. "Guys, we need to do something about Ukraine. Burisma, Bidens, Steel Report, all that. Let's get on that, and make it happen. Some bad people were there, we need to get them in line." People walk out of the meeting vaguely knowing the plan but still scratching their heads. That ring a bell? Plus with Trump flip-flopping all the time about what he really meant (truthfully or otherwise) and you're stuck between he's confused, he's a liar, and he's an idiot. So good luck parsing that and proving specifically was his intent was and was not. Did he even know?

I'm not trying to mount a defense of him, but rather mentioning a few options offhand that are easily plausible and which indicate how tough this case really should be to demonstrate. Showing his specific and illegal intent requires having more info than I suspect they had when they began the impeachment process; it may even require info which doesn't exist because Trump is such a weirdo. If that were so it might inspire more anger against him, but also means that trying a case where his intent is the main event is going to be tough; certainly not a trivial slam-dunk like they're trying to pretend it is.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 30, 2020, 12:35:02 PM
The proof under question isn't the proof of Trump's guilt, which he would obviously interested in suppressing, but the proof of his innocence. The claim was that Trump has to prove his innocence in order to stop the Left from smearing him. That he's actively preventing people who might be able to offer such proof from testifying is suggestive that they can't.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 30, 2020, 12:47:47 PM
BTW, the Dershowitz comment that constitutes a kill shot for the impeachment, and has opponents hot and bothered is this:

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

This quite clearly refers to something that is in the public interest AND could help a president get elected. Dershowitz does not have a history of being obtuse or vague.

The reactions are boringly predictable but basically variations of "So what you're saying is if Trump thinks his re-election is in the public interest, he can do anything!"

In my experience, anytime an argument begin with "so what you (he/she/they) are saying is..", you're no longer arguing logically/factually and have directly crossed into mind reading.

Schiff and lots of others (Colbert, seriously I thought you were smarter dude) are already using edited/mind-reading versions of Dershowitz's quote across the media. It's all they have left because how would you argue it as stated?


Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 30, 2020, 12:53:32 PM
Do you have the full quote? I'm only seeing pieces added on to pieces which isn't ideal.

Quote
The reactions are boringly predictable but basically variations of "So what you're saying is if Trump thinks his re-election is in the public interest, he can do anything!"

That's based on what Dershowitz said about how all politicians see their re-election as being in the public interest.

It's only a kill shot if it's shown that Trump had a reasonable belief that coercing Ukraine into announcing an unwarranted investigation into Burisma was also in the public interest as well as good for his re-election.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Wayward Son on January 30, 2020, 01:05:16 PM
Quote
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.

Oh, yeah, that worked so well for the House for their other subpoenas.  ;D  What makes you think it would be any different with Bolton, who already said he wouldn't testify to the House until a court ordered him to, because Trump ordered him not to?  Do we have to go over the Obstruction of Justice charge? ;)

I hadn't heard the House lost their case in court.  How well did it go for them again?

Last I checked one could still challenge any subpeona in court and that's not evidence of a separate crime of obstruction.

Quote
Quote
The House then declined to pursue the matter further, even when Bolton subsequently announced he was willing to testify.

Except that he specifically said he would testify to the Senate, not the House.  And the impeachment was already headed to the Senate by then.  Day late and wrong house.

Again, the Senate should reject the House's defective record.  If this was a real court the case would be dismissed with leave to refile or remanded to the lower court to fix the problem.

In fact this is not a real case, it's a government funded campaign ad to interfere in the 2020 election.  Every single step of this has been managed by the left on a political basis.

Abuse of power by Trump?  My ass, clear abuse of power by the Dems.

Quote
And in any case, we now have more information than the House did at the time.

If the House needed that information they should have obtained it.  You can't impeach someone for claims they didn't develop without uncostitutionally taking the sole power to impeach from the House. 

Quote
The only question is whether they want to know the whole truth or cover the truth up. ;)

The only question is whether they will realize that this is nothing but politics and shut it down or let the Dems get away with the biggest political crime in our history.

I remember when Republicans used to brag about being the Moral Party.  The party that believed in the Justice and Facts.  You guys always made fun of us Democrats for not knowing what was true and what wasn't, not thinking logically, being driven by partisanship and emotions.

Now look at you.   With possible new information coming out (we didn't know before that Bolton had actually heard Trump say to stop the funds to Ukraine until they investigated Biden), why do you object?  Because he has the right to appeal revealing those facts (even though that would delay the process until after the election Trump wanted to influence).  Because in a "real court case" it would have been dismissed.  Because the claims weren't previously sufficiently developed before they were brought to the Senate (in spite of the fact that they couldn't get the evidence in a timely manner).

Tell me, do you give a flying f**k whether Trump actually tried to use his position as President to extort another nation, one that was fighting an invasion, in order to get dirt on a political opponent?  Or do you just want to make sure all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed before the Senate gets to judge?

I ask because the Trump defense team and the vast majority of Republican Senators don't care.  They are quite willing to give the President kingly powers to do whatever he likes (if its for the good of the country, like having Trump as President, he's justified in just about anything he does) as long as it is a Republican President.  Watch how fast they spin around when a Democrat is elected to our highest office.

We need to hear from Bolton to establish what the facts are.  Whether those are established in the House or the Senate does not change the facts.  And if Trump tried to use his office to extort another nation into helping with his election, he should be removed from office.  Anyone who believes in justice and facts would agree with that.

But those don't matter much to Republicans anymore, do they?

BTW, the Dershowitz comment that constitutes a kill shot for the impeachment, and has opponents hot and bothered is this:

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

This quite clearly refers to something that is in the public interest AND could help a president get elected. Dershowitz does not have a history of being obtuse or vague.

The reactions are boringly predictable but basically variations of "So what you're saying is if Trump thinks his re-election is in the public interest, he can do anything!"

In my experience, anytime an logical arguments begin with "so what you (he/she/they) are saying is..", you're no longer arguing logically/factually and have directly crossed into mind reading.

Schiff and lots of others (Colbert, seriously I thought you were smarter dude) are already using edited/mind-reading versions of Dershowitz's quote across the media. It's all they have left because how would you argue it as stated?

It's not mind reading.  It's logical inference.  (You've heard of that, haven't you?)

What is or is not in the "public interest" is a political question.  One can argue that making the Democratic Party illegal would be in the "public interest."  Ask any partisan Republican.  Just because you might disagree doesn't make it not so.  So the range of justification of something being in the "public interest" covers just about any action, including deciding that being President is ultimately in the public interest, especially if you are a very stable genius, so much smarter than everyone else! :)

Besides, the whole point of this impeachment is the firm belief that investigating debunked theories, those only held by the rightwing fringe, is in no way "in the public interest."  The only interests it would help is Trump's and the Republican Party's.

So, yes, the vagueness of the term "public interest" gives the President carte blanche to do just about anything he wants.  And if practically nothing is impeachable, and he cannot be charged with a crime while he is office, what the difference between a President and a king/dictator?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 30, 2020, 01:05:36 PM
It's in the first section of this article:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/are-republicans-prepared-accept-dershowitzs-radical-defense

The MSNBC author, Steve Benen, then does exactly what I described and immediately states:

In other words, presidents who abuse their powers to win elections should be immune from punishment, so long as they believe their victory will benefit the public.

*in other words* . lol. yeah, no.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 30, 2020, 01:12:04 PM
The proof under question isn't the proof of Trump's guilt, which he would obviously interested in suppressing, but the proof of his innocence. The claim was that Trump has to prove his innocence in order to stop the Left from smearing him. That he's actively preventing people who might be able to offer such proof from testifying is suggestive that they can't.

If what you're talking about is having his people testify in order to prove his innocence in the court of public opinion then it becomes even more implausible a strategy than what I outlined above. However hard it might be to *prove* innocence in court, it will be exponentially harder to do so in the media where plenty of media sources will continue to rag on you no matter what you say. There is no "objection, your honor" in the news.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 30, 2020, 01:13:25 PM
So, yes, the vagueness of the term "public interest" gives the President carte blanche to do just about anything he wants.  And if practically nothing is impeachable, and he cannot be charged with a crime while he is office, what the difference between a President and a king/dictator?

Yes, presidents can do basically anything they want. If any of those things are criminal, or were done solely for personal gain, it's impeachable. Democrats have done a lousy job proving the latter.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 30, 2020, 01:18:05 PM
WS,

Check what you wrote again. You jump from 'Bolton says Trump withheld funds until investigation' right to 'Trump extorting a country under attack to undermine a political opponent.' Maybe these are unrelated points on your part but the one does not follow from the other despite you making it sound like they do based on the ordering of your arguments. That Trump may (or may not) have extorted the Ukraine specifically pending investigating the Bidens is separate and unrelated to his motive for doing so. You go from "he did it!" to "which proves it was to undermine a political opponent", which is the typical fallacious argument being made. Maybe he did exactly what you say, but it's not shown by the logic you are presenting.

Likewise, you later go on to insist that if a President does an action based on it getting him re-elected that makes it somehow pernicious. Well guess what, that's the main reason most politicians do anything. Maybe just eject the entire political posse? Hey I'll even support you on that :)  And heck, I don't even disagree that 'being re-elected' is a totally corrupt and BS reason to do something as a politician. But that speaks to the current structure of the political system, and not to Trump's wrongdoing. Doing stuff because it will help your next election is literally what the system is based on now. You can't call foul and insist this is malfeasance when it's an action you don't like by a guy you don't like. That really is double dealing.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 30, 2020, 01:22:16 PM
Sure, Political ends are what drives the entire Shampeachment... and because it does, the President's team cannot just win the Constitutional Law argument, they must win the Bully Pulpit. When you're attacked by smears, you can't ignore it - you must prove it wrong.

Which he could do by having his people testify that his sole, or even primary, concern was ensuring that Ukraine didn't misuse the funds due to corruption. Strange that Trump's going to court to prevent those people from testifying though. Even more strange is that he isn't leaning on the Senate to allow him to introduce exculpatory evidence. It's almost like he thinks their testimony wouldn't prove his innocence.

More likely, any testimony they offer will only further confuse the issue and perpetuate the partisan divide. Basically, the testimony would provide exculpatory evidence demonstrating motives not related to 2020, while also providing evidence he was looking at the upcoming election.

Basically, the testimony would provide nothing new, and we would still be exactly where we are.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 30, 2020, 01:24:23 PM
It's in the first section of this article:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/are-republicans-prepared-accept-dershowitzs-radical-defense

The MSNBC author, Steve Benen, then does exactly what I described and immediately states:

In other words, presidents who abuse their powers to win elections should be immune from punishment, so long as they believe their victory will benefit the public.

*in other words* . lol. yeah, no.

That still only seems to be quoting part of his statement. I'm not sure why they aren't quoting the whole thing because the line appears worse in context that out of it.

ETA
More likely, any testimony they offer will only further confuse the issue and perpetuate the partisan divide. Basically, the testimony would provide exculpatory evidence demonstrating motives not related to 2020, while also providing evidence he was looking at the upcoming election.

Basically, the testimony would provide nothing new, and we would still be exactly where we are.

Except there'd be a lot less room for the Democrats to accuse the Republicans of a cover-up or to argue that they'd be able to make the case for impeachment *if only* Trump allowed people to testify.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Wayward Son on January 30, 2020, 01:38:46 PM
Let me ask a question Betty Warren asked yesterday to the wrong people (the House Impeach Committee, rather than Trump's Lawyers):

If Ukraine had offered to Trump to investigate Biden (which would possibly help his campaign) for weapons to defend themselves, that would be illegal, right?  Offering assistance to a campaign in exchange for badly-needed assistance.

If that is illegal, why is the opposite--offering to release badly-needed weapons for an investigation into Biden--not illegal?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 30, 2020, 01:48:26 PM
Let me ask a question Betty Warren asked yesterday to the wrong people (the House Impeach Committee, rather than Trump's Lawyers):

If Ukraine had offered to Trump to investigate Biden (which would possibly help his campaign) for weapons to defend themselves, that would be illegal, right?  Offering assistance to a campaign in exchange for badly-needed assistance.

Depends on the basis Ukraine gives for why they think Biden should be investigated. And it's funny you should mention that, considering Ukraine did do essentially that in regards to Manafort(Trump's Campaign manager) with the DNC and Obama Administration officials...

Quote
If that is illegal, why is the opposite--offering to release badly-needed weapons for an investigation into Biden--not illegal?

It is the basis, ie intent, behind the act which determines if the action is illegal or not. If a rational, and legal basis can be presented for conducting an investigation which isn't purely political in nature, the action is defensible.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 30, 2020, 02:50:11 PM
If Ukraine had offered to Trump to investigate Biden (which would possibly help his campaign) for weapons to defend themselves, that would be illegal, right?  Offering assistance to a campaign in exchange for badly-needed assistance.

If that is illegal, why is the opposite--offering to release badly-needed weapons for an investigation into Biden--not illegal?

Not sure what the point of this question is. Is your question about campaign finance law? As I understand the rules foreign countries cannot directly contribute to a campaign. There are also financial restrictions on local entities contributing to campaigns. However locally they get around this by having PAC's 'not affiliated' with the party run ads and so forth to help the campaign even though they are not working for them. So evidently certain kinds of de facto in kind donations are permitted so long as they are conducted in a non-direct manner. I think what you are perhaps indirectly asking is whether it is illegal for a foreign country to make indirect in kind donations in the form of actions that will bolster a campaign without directly donating to it? I suppose a lawyer might be able to answer that. If it is illegal for a foreign country to do that then it doesn't matter what they are getting in exchange for it (whether weapons or chocolates). If it is legal for a foreign country to do that then it likewise doesn't matter why they choose to do so, unless in so doing they are directly violating some other law, such as bribery laws. Where it gets murky is to what extent 'favors' to the President can be considered as personal rather than national. For instance when Tony Blair supported Bush 43 in Iraq, was this allegiance a personal 'bribe' to Bush or was it allegiance to the U.S.? Good luck extricating those from each other. I think part of the point people make about a President being able to get stuff done is that when something gets done 'for them' it's also getting done for the country. Where this gets ugly is when what the President wants is dumb.

That being said, reversing directions in your above example does not create an equivalent situation. If I'm working in government and tell you that you *will* pay me money in exchange for my services, I am extorting you and using force to coerce you. If you tell me you will offer to pay me in exchange for my services, you are bribing me. Accepting a bribe is bad, but is not the same as extorting people. There could be overlap, but no force is necessary with a bribe; it could be a mutually agreeable arrangement. Extortion means someone involved is upset but can't do anything about it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2020, 03:16:26 PM
Quote
BTW, the Dershowitz comment that constitutes a kill shot for the impeachment, and has opponents hot and bothered is this:

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
I see why you think that - you have ignored the previous statements clarifying the one you quoted, PLUS you misunderstand to what "that" refers in the "that cannot be the kind..." clause. This is what Dershowitz stated (my markup)
Quote
Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest1. And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest.

And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected2, in the public interest3, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.4
Dershowitz is not actually making a claim here about things that are or are not in the public interest.  His statement is completely about politician's belief about their own election being in the public interest, and why, since they believe their election to be in the public interest, their re-election itself is sufficient rationale for just about any otherwise impeachable action.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 30, 2020, 03:30:25 PM
[...]their re-election itself is sufficient rationale for just about any otherwise impeachable action.

I don't understand what you mean by this clause. Since a President is *always* campaigning for re-election in their first term, how could this type of action ever by an 'impeachable action' according to this logic? Do you mean to say that what would be an impeachable offense in their 2nd term could be considered 're-election strategy' in their 1st?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2020, 03:33:58 PM
if you prefer, I could have worded it like this: "... is sufficient rationale to excuse just about any otherwise impeachable action."
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 30, 2020, 03:56:54 PM
If we consider that politicians can't use their franking privileges, desk phone, or photocopier to seek re-election, I think it is pretty clear that you can't use a diplomatic phone call for that purpose. Now taking Air Force One to a re-election rally, thinly veiled as some other kind of speech? Yeah, we got to put up with that one for the dual-purpose argument, which can also apply here. You want to fund some opposition research? Go right ahead. Hire an army of investigators to go dig up dirt on Biden and try to get yourself re-elected. You can even hint at it to your super-pac.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on January 30, 2020, 05:01:07 PM
Too many misleading accusations don't equal truth or the moral high ground.

Listening to the Hearing now, the Democrats have claimed "absolutely no truth to any conspiracy theories about the Ukraine in the 2016 election."

What about the VERIFIED documents John Solomon put out? These documents have not been looked at by the House. There are all these tranches of documents from the Ukraine that shatter that Democrat claim that were missed:

Quote from: John Solomon
1.  Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine’s new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship with oligarchs and other key figures. What was the CIA, FBI and U.S. Treasury Department telling Trump and other agencies about Zelensky’s ties to oligarchs like Igor Kolomoisky, the former head of Privatbank, and any concerns the International Monetary Fund might have? Did any of these concerns reach the president’s daily brief (PDB) or come up in the debate around resolving Ukraine corruption and U.S. foreign aid? CNBC, Reuters and The Wall Street Journal all have done recent reporting suggesting there might have been intelligence and IMF concerns that have not been fully considered during the impeachment proceedings.

2.  State Department memos detailing conversations between former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. He says Yovanovitch raised the names of Ukrainians she did not want to see prosecuted during their first meeting in 2016. She calls Lutsenko’s account fiction. But State Department officials admit the U.S. embassy in Kiev did pressure Ukrainian prosecutors not to target certain activists. Are there contemporaneous State Department memos detailing these conversations and might they illuminate the dispute between Lutsenko and Yovanovitch that has become key to the impeachment hearings?

3.  State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. There is documentary evidence that State provided funding to this group, that Ukrainian prosecutor sought to investigate whether that aid was spent properly and that the U.S. embassy pressured Ukraine to stand down on that investigation. How much total did State give to this group? Why was a federal agency giving money to a Soros-backed group? What did taxpayers get for their money and were they any audits to ensure the money was spent properly? Were any of Ukrainian prosecutors’ concerns legitimate?

4.  The transcripts of Joe Biden’s phone calls and meetings with Ukraine’s president and prime minister from April 2014 to January 2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Did Burisma or Hunter Biden ever come up in the calls? What did Biden say when he urged Ukraine to fire the prosecutor overseeing an investigation of Burisma? Did any Ukrainian officials ever comment on Hunter Biden’s role at the company? Was any official assessment done by U.S. agencies to justify Biden’s threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid if Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin wasn’t fired?

5.  All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine. The U.S. government’s main whistleblower office is investigating allegations from a U.S Energy Department worker of possible wrongdoing in U.S.-supported Ukrainian energy business. Who benefited in the United States and Ukraine from this alleged activity? Did Burisma gain any benefits from the conduct described by the whistleblower? OSC has concluded there is a “substantial likelihood of wrongdoing” involved in these activities.

6.  All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings. What did the U.S. know about allegations of corruption at the Ukrainian gas company and the efforts by the Ukrainian prosecutors to investigate? Did U.S., Latvian, Cypriot or European financial authorities flag any suspicious transactions involving Burisma or Americans during the time that Hunter Biden served on its board? Were any U.S. agencies monitoring, assisting or blocking the various investigations? When Ukraine reopened the Burisma investigations in March 2019, what did U.S. officials do?

7.  All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department’s foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue a joint project with Burisma Holdings. State official George Kent has testified he stopped this joint project because of concerns about Burisma’s corruption reputation. Did Hunter Biden or his American business partner Devon Archer have anything to do with seeking the project? What caused its abrupt end? What issues did Kent identify as concerns and who did he alert in the White House, State or other agencies?

8.  All cables, memos and documents showing State Department’s dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016. We now know that Ukrainian authorities escalated their investigation of Burisma Holdings in February 2016 by raiding the home of the company’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Soon after, Burisma’s American representatives were pressing the State Department to help end the corruption allegations against the gas firm, specifically invoking Hunter Biden’s name. What did State officials do after being pressured by Burisma? Did the U.S. embassy in Kiev assist Burisma’s efforts to settle the corruption case against it? Who else in the U.S. government was being kept apprised?

9.  All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden’s office concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. We now know that multiple State Department officials believed Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma created the appearance of a conflict of interest for the vice president, and at least one official tried to contact Joe Biden’s office to raise those concerns. What, if anything, did these Cabinet agencies tell Joe Biden’s office about the appearance concerns or the state of the various Ukrainian investigations into Burisma?

10. All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy’s request in spring 2019 to monitor the social media activities and analytics of certain U.S.  media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. Did any such monitoring occur? Was it requested by the American embassy in Kiev? Who ordered it? Why did it stop? Were any legal concerns raised?

11. All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence on the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine’s ambassador to Washington or efforts to publicize allegations against Paul Manafort. What did U.S. officials know about these efforts in 2016, and how did they react? What were these federal agencies’ reactions to a Ukrainian court decision in December 2018 suggesting some Ukrainian officials had improperly meddled in the 2016 election?

12.  All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. Did anyone in these U.S. government agencies interview or have contact with Chalupa during the time the Ukraine embassy in Washington says she was seeking dirt in 2016 on Trump and Manafort?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2020, 05:18:19 PM
John Solomon??  ;D
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 30, 2020, 05:42:04 PM
How a conservative columnist helped push a flawed Ukraine narrative (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-a-conservative-columnist-helped-push-a-flawed-ukraine-narrative/2019/09/26/1654026e-dee7-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html)

Quote
Except both stories had major defects. The State Department called Lutsenko’s allegations against Yovanovitch “an outright fabrication.” And Lutsenko eventually backed off, retracting his claim in April that the ambassador had given him a do-not-prosecute list. He further said in May that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden or his son. (Lutsenko was eventually replaced as chief prosecutor by Ukraine’s reform-minded new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.)

What document on that list do you think shatters anything? This list is mostly innuendo.

He didn't actually put out any of these documents. He states:

Quote
There are still wide swaths of documentation kept under wraps inside government agencies like the State Department that could substantially alter the public’s understanding of what has happened in the U.S.-Ukraine relationships now at the heart of the impeachment probe.

As House Democrats mull whether to pursue impeachment articles and the GOP-led Senate braces for a possible trial, here are 12 tranches of government documents that could benefit the public if President Trump ordered them released, and the questions these memos might answer

"Under wraps" means nobody has seen them, just that he's hoping he'll get to see them and he's sure they would show how guilty Biden was.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on January 30, 2020, 07:45:57 PM
Solomon's website has all the documents hot-linked so you can see them. Hurry before Leftwing IT-types take them all down. Such archives are short-lived.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 30, 2020, 08:05:32 PM
I guess you mean the top story on his blog? The big section you quoted does not have any links, and you didn't provide one. The vast majority of these documents say the same thing that nobody has refuted, that Biden looked bad because of the appearance of impropriety, that Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, etc.

I'm not going to plow through all of these, but I thought this was interesting:

Quote
“On the grounds of possible legalization of proceeds derived from criminal activity and corruption, please grant us permission to share the information included in the reply to this request with Latvian law enforcement entities for intelligence purposes only,” the letter said.

Arturs Saburovs, the Third Secretary at the Latvian embassy in Washington, confirmed his country flagged the transactions in February 2016 after seeing public reports that Burisma was under investigation in Ukraine and that Hunter Biden served on the company’s board. He said Latvia did not receive any evidence back from Ukraine to further its investigation.

He makes a lot of hay about this, but it really doesn't mean much. Ukraine ignored a subpoena. Which apparently went ignored by Shokin one month before he got fired. If anything, it backs up the accepted facts by international sources - Shokin refused to investigate and prosecute corruption.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 30, 2020, 09:03:30 PM

"Elizabeth Warren says she’ll create a federal task force to investigate corruption during the Trump administration if she’s elected president."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/warren-task-force-investigate-trump-administration-68424348


If Trump is running against her wouldn't this be illegal, unConstitutional, and an abuse of power, at least according to the Democrats impeaching Trump and according to Warren herself who believes Trump deserved to be impeached and removed from office?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 30, 2020, 10:29:30 PM
No. Because she's not using the power of her current office. She's making a campaign promise. Same reason why trumps lock her up chants and promises to investigate Clinton were not a problem. There is a reason why none of the candidates are on the team of house managers in the impeachment trial.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 30, 2020, 10:30:40 PM
Honestly, it's not that much different than Trump claiming he'd put Hilary in jail when he became president.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 30, 2020, 10:34:12 PM
Warren is a joke not because of the Trump comment but because of things like this:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/warren-vows-to-give-young-trans-person-veto-power-over-her-secretary-of-education-pick/

Basically, she's saying she'll have her secretary of education screened by a "young trans person" before they could get the job.

I don't even...somewhere Elizabeth just got caught up in it all.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 31, 2020, 02:13:56 AM
Well I wasn't suggesting she should be charged now. I'm saying that according to the Democrats, she is running on a campaign that promises if elected on Day One she will break the law, abuse her power, violate the Constitution, and deserve removal of office by impeachment. And that's coming from the Democrats in Congress.

It's interesting though that none of them to my knowledge have come out against it and said now hold on a minute. Are you sure you want to do that seeing as how that's why we're impeaching Trump?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 31, 2020, 02:32:47 AM
Well I wasn't suggesting she should be charged now. I'm saying that according to the Democrats, she is running on a campaign that promises if elected on Day One she will break the law, abuse her power, violate the Constitution, and deserve removal of office by impeachment. And that's coming from the Democrats in Congress.

It's interesting though that none of them to my knowledge have come out against it and said now hold on a minute. Are you sure you want to do that seeing as how that's why we're impeaching Trump?

Warren isn't orange, and isn't a man. She's safe from being on the receiving end of Orange Man Bad Derangement Syndrome.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on January 31, 2020, 09:29:30 AM
Well I wasn't suggesting she should be charged now. I'm saying that according to the Democrats, she is running on a campaign that promises if elected on Day One she will break the law, abuse her power, violate the Constitution, and deserve removal of office by impeachment. And that's coming from the Democrats in Congress.

It's interesting though that none of them to my knowledge have come out against it and said now hold on a minute. Are you sure you want to do that seeing as how that's why we're impeaching Trump?

No one's come out against it because it's not the gotcha you think it is.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 31, 2020, 10:25:10 AM
Nancy is now saying that Trump "cannot be acquitted". It looks like she's going to ride this puppy right into the ground. It has to suck when reality refuses to cooperate with how you think the world should be.

Did she really see any other outcome, or is she just saying her lines like a good soldier?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 31, 2020, 10:34:19 AM
Quote
Are you sure you want to do that seeing as how that's why we're impeaching Trump?
It would seem you don't understand why Trump is being impeached... seriously, this is a pretty stark misrepresentation; if you honestly believe this is 'why' Trump is being impeached, I would suggest you need to throw out what you think you know, and re-read the articles of impeachment at the very least.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 31, 2020, 12:03:39 PM
Basically, she's saying she'll have her secretary of education screened by a "young trans person" before they could get the job.

Is that such a terrible idea? This is what we're dealing with currently.

Quote
After his graduation in 2017 Howe filed a complaint with federal civil rights officials at the Department of Education, hoping to ease the way for other transgender students at his school to use the bathrooms of their choice. But an examination of federal records by POLITICO shows that his complaint is one of at least five involving transgender students denied bathroom access that was thrown out by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who has halted such investigations.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 31, 2020, 01:00:12 PM
Basically, she's saying she'll have her secretary of education screened by a "young trans person" before they could get the job.

Is that such a terrible idea? This is what we're dealing with currently.

Yes, it is a terrible idea. First off, young people are stupid. I know because I was one.  Second, if we're going to screen key appointments according to group identity (horrible on its face), we should probably start with groups that represent more than 1% of the population.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 31, 2020, 01:07:16 PM
Is that such a terrible idea? This is what we're dealing with currently.

Quote
After his graduation in 2017 Howe filed a complaint with federal civil rights officials at the Department of Education, hoping to ease the way for other transgender students at his school to use the bathrooms of their choice. But an examination of federal records by POLITICO shows that his complaint is one of at least five involving transgender students denied bathroom access that was thrown out by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who has halted such investigations.

Such first world problems...yes what a disaster.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on January 31, 2020, 01:11:27 PM
Quote
if we're going to screen key appointments according to group identity (horrible on its face), we should probably start with groups that represent more than 1% of the population.
I guarantee you that the vast majority of federal appointees are already screened by a number of white, straight, cisgender men. That is undoubtedly the point that Warren was making.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 31, 2020, 01:28:14 PM
I created a new thread for the Warren discussion, to keep this for the Trump impeachment.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 31, 2020, 01:32:32 PM
The Breitbarters are going apeshift about Roberts refusing to use the whistleblower's name and rejecting Rand Paul's question.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 31, 2020, 04:23:30 PM
The whistleblower is entirely inconsequential apart from potentially proving that Schiff lied multiple times about him or his team having contact with them. Even if/when that's proven, won't change anything because he was acting for the greater good.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 31, 2020, 05:38:33 PM
The whistleblower is entirely inconsequential apart from potentially proving that Schiff lied multiple times about him or his team having contact with them. Even if/when that's proven, won't change anything because he was acting for the greater good.

Watching social media, there are claims floating around that the (suspected) whistleblower was/is dating Schiff's Daughter, I'm dubious, but too lazy to bother fact-checking it. Would be hilarious if true, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 31, 2020, 05:41:03 PM
Let's say that everything you assert is true. Schiff was in on it from the start, wrote the script himself, gave him $50k and a foot massage.

Would that then mean Trump should be acquitted, even if he had committed an impeachable offense?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on January 31, 2020, 05:51:39 PM
He didn’t.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 31, 2020, 05:55:30 PM
Let's say that everything you assert is true. Schiff was in on it from the start, wrote the script himself, gave him $50k and a foot massage.

Would that then mean Trump should be acquitted, even if he had committed an impeachable offense?

In this case, truth is very much in the eye of the beholder regarding Trump. As to Schiff, it introduces a poisoned well into the mix, and the potential need for criminal charges against the whistleblower, and either the impeachment or resignation of Schiff.

If Schiff did do the above hypothetical, it doesn't matter if he was proven right in the end or not. He should be removed from office, two wrongs don't make a right.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on January 31, 2020, 05:56:13 PM
My favorite scene, which perfectly encapsulates this sham, was Roberts asking about a final statement. Nadler just takes off, blinders on, to the microphone like there’s a twinkie on it. In a Seinfeld episode brought to life, we hear Schiff going, “Jerry, Jerry, Jerry”. But, it was LEEEEEROOOOOOOY NADLER!” Jerry was gone and gave a truly, epically bad closing statement.

I must have watched that half a dozen times and I laughed harder every single time.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on January 31, 2020, 06:02:02 PM
So that’s it, no witnesses. Great news, indicating this sham may soon end
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on January 31, 2020, 06:48:11 PM
Let's say that everything you assert is true. Schiff was in on it from the start, wrote the script himself, gave him $50k and a foot massage.

Would that then mean Trump should be acquitted, even if he had committed an impeachable offense?

In this case, truth is very much in the eye of the beholder regarding Trump. As to Schiff, it introduces a poisoned well into the mix, and the potential need for criminal charges against the whistleblower, and either the impeachment or resignation of Schiff.

If Schiff did do the above hypothetical, it doesn't matter if he was proven right in the end or not. He should be removed from office, two wrongs don't make a right.

You are correct. If he did all that, I would expect him to be expelled from Congress - although I assume he would resign first. Unclear if this would be a criminal case, maybe bribery in my hypothetical.

I don't think you leave someone in power to abuse it more just because the guy who undercovered the malfeasance was dirty. What if "deep throat" Mark Felt had been hyperpartisan? And would Republicans have insisted that he be identified and subpoenaed, and would that have vindicated Nixon as a victim of his enemies?

To help crunch out, these are hypothetical statements, so your assertion that Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense is less than useless. You can recognize hypothetical arguments by phrases like "consider for the sake of argument", "what if", "even if". Dershowitz used these over and over.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 31, 2020, 07:42:41 PM
Let's say that everything you assert is true. Schiff was in on it from the start, wrote the script himself, gave him $50k and a foot massage.

Would that then mean Trump should be acquitted, even if he had committed an impeachable offense?

In this case, truth is very much in the eye of the beholder regarding Trump. As to Schiff, it introduces a poisoned well into the mix, and the potential need for criminal charges against the whistleblower, and either the impeachment or resignation of Schiff.

If Schiff did do the above hypothetical, it doesn't matter if he was proven right in the end or not. He should be removed from office, two wrongs don't make a right.

You are correct. If he did all that, I would expect him to be expelled from Congress - although I assume he would resign first. Unclear if this would be a criminal case, maybe bribery in my hypothetical.

I don't think you leave someone in power to abuse it more just because the guy who undercovered the malfeasance was dirty. What if "deep throat" Mark Felt had been hyperpartisan? And would Republicans have insisted that he be identified and subpoenaed, and would that have vindicated Nixon as a victim of his enemies?

To help crunch out, these are hypothetical statements, so your assertion that Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense is less than useless. You can recognize hypothetical arguments by phrases like "consider for the sake of argument", "what if", "even if". Dershowitz used these over and over.

The problem is, and I dodged it in my initial response, is that operating on the assumption that it was proven that what Trump did was impeachable. Then he should be impeached.

The problem at hand is that it was not proven he did something impeachable, because the Democrats botched their job when the House had control of the situation. It was not, and is not, the Senate's job to fix the screw up of the House in an impeachment proceeding. The real precedent being set in this case, not the one Democrat partisans will be claiming, is that it is the responsability of the House to make sure their case is "in order" prior to impeaching someone and sending it on to the Senate. The Senate's role is to hear the case for Impeachment, not investigate it further after that stage has been reached.

The House knew there were more witnesses they could call, and that an already existing mechanism existed to gain access to said witnesses. They declined to use it, under the guise "it's urgent, urgent, emergency" and ignoring that for the Senate to "investigate properly"(again, not their role) they'd likely end up with comparable legal roadblocks to address.

The fault lies with the House. In their rush to get it out the door(which was entirely motivated by Politics), they ensured the case was going to fail even before they ratified the Articles of Impeachment in December. But they knew that then, their political calculation is this outcome, now that it is all but assured, is going to help them in the 2020 campaign cycle. We'll find out in November.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on January 31, 2020, 08:24:43 PM
Acquittal should happen tomorrow. Schiff, Schumer and team won't stop but the cold truth is that while they've been taking this swing, they've taken their eye off the ball. If you come at the king you best not miss, and now a socialist will be their party's nominee. The speed and depth of change within their own party must be dizzying to anyone born before 1990.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on January 31, 2020, 11:39:22 PM
The House knew there were more witnesses they could call, and that an already existing mechanism existed to gain access to said witnesses. They declined to use it, under the guise "it's urgent, urgent, emergency" and ignoring that for the Senate to "investigate properly"(again, not their role) they'd likely end up with comparable legal roadblocks to address.

To be fair, I think in order to evaluate how much of a screw up hurrying the process is, we need to think about what the process is supposed to prevent, which is a sitting President doing bad things. Imagining that the impeachable offenses may have included really bad things (vaguely pressuring the Ukraine not being such a thing, even if it is vaguely bad) it might very well be urgent to remove the President. People could be dying, the nation in danger, and with that looming the notion that the Congress has to wait 6-12 months to get some slow process in order reminds me of the Old Republic in the SW prequels. If a President is committing crimes it needs to be possible to get him out of there right quick, in theory. In practice this particular case seems by some to be an 'emergency' and to others a sham, so we have a weird case. If the Democrats truly believe this to be urgent - a point of view they will regret in future if some other President really does do terrible things after crying wolf this time - then I suppose I don't blame them for wanting it to be speedy. That in itself is not necessarily a fault, unless takes the view that they don't *really* see it as urgent but are trying to time the political optics game properly.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on January 31, 2020, 11:43:40 PM
The House knew there were more witnesses they could call, and that an already existing mechanism existed to gain access to said witnesses. They declined to use it, under the guise "it's urgent, urgent, emergency" and ignoring that for the Senate to "investigate properly"(again, not their role) they'd likely end up with comparable legal roadblocks to address.

To be fair, I think in order to evaluate how much of a screw up hurrying the process is, we need to think about what the process is supposed to prevent, which is a sitting President doing bad things. Imagining that the impeachable offenses may have included really bad things (vaguely pressuring the Ukraine not being such a thing, even if it is vaguely bad) it might very well be urgent to remove the President. People could be dying, the nation in danger, and with that looming the notion that the Congress has to wait 6-12 months to get some slow process in order reminds me of the Old Republic in the SW prequels. If a President is committing crimes it needs to be possible to get him out of there right quick, in theory. In practice this particular case seems by some to be an 'emergency' and to others a sham, so we have a weird case. If the Democrats truly believe this to be urgent - a point of view they will regret in future if some other President really does do terrible things after crying wolf this time - then I suppose I don't blame them for wanting it to be speedy. That in itself is not necessarily a fault, unless takes the view that they don't *really* see it as urgent but are trying to time the political optics game properly.

If only there was a constitutional provision for the Congress to designate which courts had responsibility for what.
If only there was a legislative means to setup a framework for expediting judicial processes in certain narrowly constrained circumstances.

Obviously too late for what just happened, but not so for future events.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 01, 2020, 08:26:58 AM
Let's say that everything you assert is true. Schiff was in on it from the start, wrote the script himself, gave him $50k and a foot massage.

Would that then mean Trump should be acquitted, even if he had committed an impeachable offense?

In this case, truth is very much in the eye of the beholder regarding Trump. As to Schiff, it introduces a poisoned well into the mix, and the potential need for criminal charges against the whistleblower, and either the impeachment or resignation of Schiff.

If Schiff did do the above hypothetical, it doesn't matter if he was proven right in the end or not. He should be removed from office, two wrongs don't make a right.

You are correct. If he did all that, I would expect him to be expelled from Congress - although I assume he would resign first. Unclear if this would be a criminal case, maybe bribery in my hypothetical.

I don't think you leave someone in power to abuse it more just because the guy who undercovered the malfeasance was dirty. What if "deep throat" Mark Felt had been hyperpartisan? And would Republicans have insisted that he be identified and subpoenaed, and would that have vindicated Nixon as a victim of his enemies?

To help crunch out, these are hypothetical statements, so your assertion that Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense is less than useless. You can recognize hypothetical arguments by phrases like "consider for the sake of argument", "what if", "even if". Dershowitz used these over and over.

But that’s precisely what Schiff tried to do, argue hypotheticals as though they were fact. If you’re granted the hypothetical, you’ll move to the fear mongering and threat to democracy with them just as Schiff did. It’s kind of a standard tactic in this sham.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 01, 2020, 08:37:24 AM
It's important not to confuse one's misplaced triumphalism with reality.

Was Trump ever likely to be removed from office by a Republican-controlled senate?  No, and I doubt anybody in the Democratic party leadership had that expectation.  The impeachment process is as much a method of investigating and publicizing administration wrong-doing - and how that eventually plays out is still very much a question.Will the Democrats be seen to have overplayed the process for trivial reasons? Will the Republican's be seen to have impeded investigations into a serious dereliction of a president's duties?  Only time will tell.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on February 01, 2020, 12:00:51 PM
The whole Shampeachment is being viewed wrong. There is no crime even from Schiff's parody. There is a requirement for Trump to see corruption is investigated when our money is involved. Biden as well as his son have been reported as corrupt ln the Ukraine for years. Biden entering the Presidential race is even more reason to investigate. No one wants a crook to get elected. That is in our extreme national interest.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 01, 2020, 12:05:39 PM
Quote
There is a requirement for Trump to see corruption is investigated when our money is involved
As Master Yoda would say: "the unintentional irony is strong in this one..."
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 01, 2020, 03:12:00 PM
Trumps main problem is that he's too stupid to operate through proxies and maintain plausible deniability. Reagan should have been impeached for Iran-Contra but nobody could pin that on him. A far more serious violation than Clinton or Nixon, let alone trump.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on February 01, 2020, 04:37:29 PM
Working theory: dems could have made more political hay from Trump's “perfect” call if they would have simply embedded/leveraged it into the upcoming primaries and general election instead of formal impeachment.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on February 01, 2020, 05:04:45 PM
I do have a procedural/strategy question that I genuinely can’t figure out. Admittedly it could be my own bias, but I’m too ignorant of impeachment rules to know:

Why didn’t the Democrats subpoena witnesses when things were in the house? I *think it’s because there was no guarantee they would be able to actually get the witnesses thru subpoena? Or it would take too long?

If there weren't any procedural reasons, it seems like a huge blunder. Anyone know exactly why they didn’t make a stand on witnesses in the house but then decided to in the senate?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 01, 2020, 05:23:53 PM
Why didn’t the Democrats subpoena witnesses when things were in the house? I *think it’s because there was no guarantee they would be able to actually get the witnesses thru subpoena? Or it would take too long?

As the Trump defense team stated, most of the subpoena requests were rejected on the grounds that the committee making the request did not have the authority to make the request as it exceeded the authority granted to them by the House. They could have fought that out in the courts, but because they dropped it, although they used the excuse of "we don't have time to fight this in court" at the time, I suspect they realized they probably did over-step the authority they actually had. So rather than take it to court and be embarrassed when the courts sided with Trump, they dropped the subpoena and cried to the sympathetic media about Trump "playing politics" with it and trying to cover up his misdeeds.

Likewise, because that's the track they took, they couldn't go back through "proper channels" and have a properly authorized congressional body re-submit the same request because that would validate the initial rejection, and make them seem incompetent. So to make lemons out of lemonade, they kicked the problem down the line so the Senate would have to address it, and they could then blame the Republicans for not wanting to properly investigate the situation.

Quote
If there weren't any procedural reasons, it seems like a huge blunder. Anyone know exactly why they didn’t make a stand on witnesses in the house but then decided to in the senate?

Simple, they were playing politics. To fix their mistake, they'd have to admit making a mistake, which both wouldn't play well to their own base and give the Republicans a significant amount of political hay to play with. So they instead brazened their way through the process so they could give the Republicans a steaming turd, and leave them with the choice of either doing the Democrats dirty work for them, or getting smeared for trying to cover for the President.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 01, 2020, 08:32:04 PM
At least one of the factors had to be Sanders and Warren. If they pushed through a couple of more months, they'd be in the heart of primaries during the trial.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 02, 2020, 05:20:03 AM
At least one of the factors had to be Sanders and Warren. If they pushed through a couple of more months, they'd be in the heart of primaries during the trial.

I don't think the DNC was going to be particularly upset if Bernie was stuck sitting through a trial in the Senate.

Warren also isn't likely to be favored by the power brokers in the DNC so a possible Senate trial would have been a bonus from that point of view.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 02, 2020, 09:07:43 AM
  The impeachment process is as much a method of investigating and publicizing administration wrong-doing ...
Right, just as spelled out in the constitution. Remind me, which article covered impeachment as a means of publicity? Can’t seem to find it ...
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 02, 2020, 09:44:45 AM
Crunch, the impeachment articles were a result of Congressional investigations that might have led to nothing, votes of censure, more investigations or, in this case, impeachment. It's called Congressional oversight - and oversight is meaningless without a means of making its findings public.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 02, 2020, 02:36:30 PM
Crunch, the impeachment articles were a result of Congressional investigations that might have led to nothing, votes of censure, more investigations or, in this case, impeachment. It's called Congressional oversight - and oversight is meaningless without a means of making its findings public.

And exactly what investigations happened in advance of the impeachment proceedings with respect to Trump?

Clinton and Nixon spent months/years dealing with an Independent Counsel (or Special Counsel) and Congressional Hearings before things moved to impeachment. Trump's impeachment on the other hand? The thing they tried to impeach him for had exactly 0 investigatory work done at the behest of Congress prior to when Impeachment proceedings began.

And the Congressional hearings conducted as part of the Trump impeachment were run as a Kangaroo court, where they failed to assert their legal rights through the legal system because it was so critical to raise public awareness, get Trump, make findings public, pander to left-wing voters, prevent foreign interference in our election process, have the serious matter of impeachment "settled" in time to make it a major campaign issue.

Congressional oversight is proper, it should happen. It also should be done properly. Something which did not happen with respect to how the House handled its investigation. Good news for them is because the charges were exceedingly vague, double jeopardy is obviously N/A if they were to file more specific charges on the same matter in the future. Assuming double-jeopardy provisions even apply to the political process of impeachment. So now that the Democrats are done playing politics on the matter, some proper hearings on the matter could be possible, without needing to convene the entire Senate to sort through the mess the Democrats in the House made.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 02, 2020, 02:43:13 PM
Crunch, the impeachment articles were a result of Congressional investigations that might have led to nothing, votes of censure, more investigations or, in this case, impeachment. It's called Congressional oversight - and oversight is meaningless without a means of making its findings public.

You and Mazie:
Quote
“I don't care what kind of nice, little, legal, Constitutional defenses that they came up with.” – Dem Sen. Mazie Hirono
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2020, 06:16:55 AM
I'm getting annoyed on Facebook right now with many of the people on my feed being left-wits and complaining about "Checks and Balances" not working because the Senate didn't impeach Trump for refusing to honor the Subpoena requests, among other things.

It's like they've completely forgotten about the Judicial Branch and what its role is supposed to be when the Executive Branch is in conflict with the Legislative Branch.

It is equally impressive to see them declaring Trump to be acting like a Monarch because he blew off the House's requests by telling them to take it to court. Uh what? Since when is telling Congress they don't have unlimited (oversight) power over the Executive, and they need to run their requests through the courts first, the act of a Despot?  It actually is the embodiment of checks and balances, unlike what the Democrats did, where they decided to add that on as an additional impeachable offense(Obstruction of Congress).
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 03, 2020, 07:45:01 AM
TDS is a terrible thing.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on February 03, 2020, 08:48:17 AM
I'm getting annoyed on Facebook right now with many of the people on my feed being left-wits and complaining about "Checks and Balances" not working because the Senate didn't impeach Trump for refusing to honor the Subpoena requests, among other things.

It's like they've completely forgotten about the Judicial Branch and what its role is supposed to be when the Executive Branch is in conflict with the Legislative Branch.

It is equally impressive to see them declaring Trump to be acting like a Monarch because he blew off the House's requests by telling them to take it to court. Uh what? Since when is telling Congress they don't have unlimited (oversight) power over the Executive, and they need to run their requests through the courts first, the act of a Despot?  It actually is the embodiment of checks and balances, unlike what the Democrats did, where they decided to add that on as an additional impeachable offense(Obstruction of Congress).

Withdrawing the subpoenas is weird. Moving forward without waiting is another matter. They are still waiting on rulings about Don McGahn testifying that were issued close to a year ago.

So while I also argued that their case would be stronger waiting for a ruling I do understand going forward without one. That being said, getting at least 1 federal judge to rule in their favor but maybe not waiting out the 1+ year trek through the appeals process would have made their case a ton stronger. Or after passing the impeachment resolution and having subpoenas being rejected submit an appeal directly to the SC - because that is where it was ending up anyway. Not sure if the SC would have agreed to hear the case that way but I think it would have been a superior strategy.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on February 03, 2020, 08:52:52 AM
So while I also argued that their case would be stronger waiting for a ruling I do understand going forward without one. That being said, getting at least 1 federal judge to rule in their favor but maybe not waiting out the 1+ year trek through the appeals process would have made their case a ton stronger. Or after passing the impeachment resolution and having subpoenas being rejected submit an appeal directly to the SC - because that is where it was ending up anyway. Not sure if the SC would have agreed to hear the case that way but I think it would have been a superior strategy.

And made no real difference to the outcome.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on February 03, 2020, 09:02:22 AM
So while I also argued that their case would be stronger waiting for a ruling I do understand going forward without one. That being said, getting at least 1 federal judge to rule in their favor but maybe not waiting out the 1+ year trek through the appeals process would have made their case a ton stronger. Or after passing the impeachment resolution and having subpoenas being rejected submit an appeal directly to the SC - because that is where it was ending up anyway. Not sure if the SC would have agreed to hear the case that way but I think it would have been a superior strategy.

And made no real difference to the outcome.

In terms of convection probably not. But more Republicans would have to publicly defend the Lamar Alexander standard "The question then is not whether the president did it" - admitting it all happened but that they don't view what happened as impeachable.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 03, 2020, 11:35:47 AM
DonaldD, I'm curious, did you actually listen to Dershowitz or only to the press accounts about what he said, because you've really really misstated his position.

Dershowitz's position is basically:
a) Doing something in the public interest is a sufficient defense to excuse an otherwise criminal or impeachable act

Never said that, never implied that.  A criminal act is a criminal act regardless of whether its in the public interest, and can be impeachable.

What he said is that the House's case is based on the premise that a legal act can be impeachable if it's for a bad motive.  There's absolutely no question that a President can investigate a potential crime or can condition aid on any number of things.  Every President has done both.  The House's case is that performing these legal actions is impeachable because they assert the President's motive is bad.

Dersh's actual point was that a mixed motive can not be impeachable, because ALL President's have mixed motives.  All President's (and all politicians) believe that implementing their policies will help them get reelected.  If mixed motives are "enough" then every act is impeachable. 

The Dem's entire case was motive speculation, which is why their process violations were so egregious.  They asserted there were no motives but the one they preferred, and refused to investigate other motives, even those that were expressly in the record in favor of that preferred narrative (which is not in the record).

Dersh correctly pointed out that an opposition party will always believe the other side's politicians have bad motives.  Ergo, all conduct is inherently impeachable, if the "mixed" motive standard is enough.

Quote
b) If an elected official believes their own election is in the public interest, then

I think he spent too much time explaining his thinking on this, which led to more confusion that was needed.  The point was just that politicians are entitled to think their own re-election is in the public interest (rather than somehow against it), and therefore an action taken in the public interest that also benefits their re-election does not somehow become for a bad reason.

Quote
c) Anything done in support of their own re-election cannot be used as a reason to remove that person from their elected position.

Again, never said that or even implied that.  He said that having a re-election motivation as one of your motivations is entirely appropriate.  Which should be obvious given that every politician you've ever supported has touted their own achievements in their re-election campaigns.

Quote
One can quibble with a word or two, but that is essentially it.  One can also describe this argument in many ways, but 'scholarly' is one of the least accurate.

Or one could actually understand what was said, in which case it's not about a "quibble" with a word or two, but understanding that you fundamentally misstated the position.  And it was a very scholarly position he took.

I disagree with him on his conclusion that there must be a crime, but I also disagree with the position that because it doesn't have to be a crime it can be anything.  The standard for a "not crime" is one that should be a crime - which fails here because the conduct is acceptable if done in the public interest and the House failed to investigate the President's rationale and thereby can not eliminate it.

Quote
By this reasoning, campaign financing laws, laws concerning foreign interference... none of these laws, at least partly written to curb the activities of corrupt elected officials, could be enforceable against elected officials using the power of their elected office to improve their electoral chances or even to ensure their own re-election... except maybe in the case of very special politicians who make clear that their own election is NOT in the public interest.

Well except that when you strawman an argument your conclusions rarely lead from what the actual argument was.

Dersh would have no problem with an impeachment based on a violation of law under this argumen.  He may not think they warrant the label "high crimes and misdemeanors" which is effectively where it came out on Clinton.  But nothing about what he said on motivation for re-election being permissable would in any way make a violation of law "not applicable" for an impeachment.

Quote
Maybe Dershowitz's argument was completely extemporaneous and without any analysis... (one can hope) Unfortunately, it sounds like a lot of people have turned their brains off and don't realize what is being argued... it also seems that there are many people who do know better but are depending on the lack of critical thinking on the part of their supporters in order to use this as a defense of their own team...

And I find it particularly absurd to claim others have "turned their brains off" after demonstrating that you didn't even understand the argument.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 03, 2020, 12:01:30 PM
Lot of good points, Seriati, but reading his language I parsed it as "A president can take any legal action solely in support of his re-election, and it would be in the public interest and not impeachable.

I don't see any explicit "partly" or "also" in his language.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 03, 2020, 12:25:12 PM
Quote
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.

Oh, yeah, that worked so well for the House for their other subpoenas.  ;D  What makes you think it would be any different with Bolton, who already said he wouldn't testify to the House until a court ordered him to, because Trump ordered him not to?  Do we have to go over the Obstruction of Justice charge? ;)

I hadn't heard the House lost their case in court.  How well did it go for them again?

Last I checked one could still challenge any subpeona in court and that's not evidence of a separate crime of obstruction.

Quote
Quote
The House then declined to pursue the matter further, even when Bolton subsequently announced he was willing to testify.

Except that he specifically said he would testify to the Senate, not the House.  And the impeachment was already headed to the Senate by then.  Day late and wrong house.

Again, the Senate should reject the House's defective record.  If this was a real court the case would be dismissed with leave to refile or remanded to the lower court to fix the problem.

In fact this is not a real case, it's a government funded campaign ad to interfere in the 2020 election.  Every single step of this has been managed by the left on a political basis.

Abuse of power by Trump?  My ass, clear abuse of power by the Dems.

Quote
And in any case, we now have more information than the House did at the time.

If the House needed that information they should have obtained it.  You can't impeach someone for claims they didn't develop without uncostitutionally taking the sole power to impeach from the House. 

Quote
The only question is whether they want to know the whole truth or cover the truth up. ;)

The only question is whether they will realize that this is nothing but politics and shut it down or let the Dems get away with the biggest political crime in our history.

I remember when Republicans used to brag about being the Moral Party.  The party that believed in the Justice and Facts.  You guys always made fun of us Democrats for not knowing what was true and what wasn't, not thinking logically, being driven by partisanship and emotions.

I hate having to quote that much, sorry all, but context on that is important.  You're defending the first banana court in modern American history by accusing me of not believing in Justice?

You have some nerve.

There is no motive in the DNC for the way they handled this other than 2020 election interference.  Can you even make a case otherwise?

There is no grounds for denying due process if you're trying to make a legitimate case.  If the DNC proved their case, then it would be Trump that was clamoring for more witnesses to undermine it.  If the DNC had a case they would have allowed cross examination and due process in the House to undermine the President's claims.  They didn't, because their case is 100% politics.

So, in my view, the Facts are that the DNC didn't conduct an investigation in good faith, deliberately biased the record, lied at every stage about what happened, and then played more politics at the trial.  What would be just is if the Senate dismissed the impeachment and sanctioned the House (we can wish) for it's repulsively unjust and unAmerican process.

Quote
Now look at you.   With possible new information coming out (we didn't know before that Bolton had actually heard Trump say to stop the funds to Ukraine until they investigated Biden), why do you object?

Because there is no case.  If the House thinks there's information out there on which they could make a case - THE HOUSE - should go get it.  Again though, the Senate should dismiss their current record to make it clear that it will not accept a record that the House develops without cross examination.  Any such record is about politics not justice.

Quote
Because he has the right to appeal revealing those facts (even though that would delay the process until after the election Trump wanted to influence).  Because in a "real court case" it would have been dismissed.  Because the claims weren't previously sufficiently developed before they were brought to the Senate (in spite of the fact that they couldn't get the evidence in a timely manner).

They couldn't have President's counsel there to cross examine witnesses in a timely manner?  That's total nonsense.

They couldn't have reissued subpeonas to executive staff that were not entitled to immunity and allowed them to have agency counsel present?  Agency counsel is absolutely necessary and appropriate to allow executive privilege claims to be narrowed down to only those questions where they apply.  Effectively, your noble managers declined to follow all precedent, which would have allowed them to have most of the witnesses they were interested in appear and answer most (if not all) of the questions they had.  Again, total nonsense to claim otherwise.

Heck, if they had been conducting a fair investigation, I'd bet they would have even gotten senior people to appear. 

But they didn't, and there's a reason for that.  They deliberately set the process to make the White House not participate.  They didn't want the defense to be heard.  Because this was never about guilt, it was about 2020 election interference by the Dems.

Quote
Tell me, do you give a flying f**k whether Trump actually tried to use his position as President to extort another nation, one that was fighting an invasion, in order to get dirt on a political opponent?

I might, if I believe something like that really happened.  But an investigation of Joe Biden is not political dirt.  Joe Biden's conduct should be investigated.

You guys seem to operate under the delusion that revealing actual crimes by a Democrat is somehow illegal if it's done by a Republican.

Quote
Or do you just want to make sure all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed before the Senate gets to judge?

I do want that, but the number one thing an abusive process does is hide the truth.  That's exactly what the House process did - and was designed to do.

Let's be honest.  You've had four months with just the prosecution's case and at the point you wrote that less than 24 hours hearing from the defense.  That's gross even in a third world country.  Yet you seem totally okay with it, even in 24 hours the defense totally destroyed the basis of the prosecution.

We all know that if the Dems had conducted a fair process this impeachment never happens, and not because of delays, but just because it was weak sauce and they'd never have gotten the swing state votes.

Quote
I ask because the Trump defense team and the vast majority of Republican Senators don't care.  They are quite willing to give the President kingly powers to do whatever he likes (if its for the good of the country, like having Trump as President, he's justified in just about anything he does) as long as it is a Republican President.  Watch how fast they spin around when a Democrat is elected to our highest office.

What "kingly" powers?  Seriously, this is a great meme based argument, certainly running the rounds on the talking heads, but it's a total fiction.  By any objective measure, Obama asserted far more kingly powers than Trump.  Trump's abided by court decisions even where the court's were far outside the bounds of Article 3 Jurisdiction. 

It's a great form of projection though, from the person who was on here defending Obama's authority to rewrite our laws unilatterly because "Congress won't act."

So be specific.  List out the "kingly" powers of Trump.

Quote
We need to hear from Bolton to establish what the facts are.  Whether those are established in the House or the Senate does not change the facts.

Then call him in the House.  If he's heard in the House, maybe there never is an impeachment.  Given Pelosi's statement that impeachment is forever vetting the facts in the House before impeachment seems like the minimum standard that should apply.  Or do you believe that once the Senate chooses not to remove that Trump is exonerated?

Can't have it both ways, if Impeachment means something it's the Houses job to make sure they have it correct.

Quote
And if Trump tried to use his office to extort another nation into helping with his election, he should be removed from office.

Then prove extortion.  The House didn't bother to charge extortion.  Do you know why?  Cause they couldn't prove it, couldn't demonstrate, and don't even have facts that indicate it.

What should be the penalty for bearing false witness?  For asserting the commissions of crimes that a prosecution can't prove?  For bad faith?

Quote
Anyone who believes in justice and facts would agree with that.

Anyone who believes in justice believes in innocence until proven guilty, believes in a right to confront your accusers, to have counsel present and to be represented in depositions, in a right to have prosecutors seek out exculpatory as well as incriminating evidence and ultimately in receiving a fair hearing of your defense. 

Since you believe in none of that, what does that mean?

Quote
But those don't matter much to Republicans anymore, do they?

Lol.  Yes they do.  What doesn't matter to Republicans anymore is when Democrats cloak themselves in fancy language while abusing the very processes they claim to support.

Again, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for how this process was managed by the Democrats.  You haven't even tried to establish one, other than maybe you believe it had to be rushed to stop the 2020 election - which in and of itself is an attempt to undermine the Constitution.  If the case is solid, Trump could have been impeached and removed after the election.  But the case isn't solid, it's barely a case, and it relies 100% on believing that Schiff can read Trump's mind.

Quote
It's not mind reading.  It's logical inference.  (You've heard of that, haven't you?)

This was in reference to ScottF's refutation of the fake claims on Dersh's argument.  It's mind reading, well actually I agree it's not, it's projection.  Schiff needs a bad motive to make his case, ergo the bad motive must be true without proof.  That's what we saw.  Every House Manager, in every response to just about every question, went with the Big Lie tactic and just repeatedly asserted that they had proved the motive.  There's no proof in the record.  It's just a projection.

Quote
What is or is not in the "public interest" is a political question.  One can argue that making the Democratic Party illegal would be in the "public interest."  Ask any partisan Republican.  Just because you might disagree doesn't make it not so.  So the range of justification of something being in the "public interest" covers just about any action, including deciding that being President is ultimately in the public interest, especially if you are a very stable genius, so much smarter than everyone else! :)

The test is whether a politician acted in what they believe to be the public interest, not whether their opponents disagree.  Obama believed he acted in the public interest when he passed Obamacare, his Republican opponents believed they acted in the public interest in opposing it.

Investigation of criminal and corrupt activity in foreign countries by politicians and their families is in the public interest.  Investigating Ukranian interference in the 2016 election is as much in the public interest as investigating Russian interference was.

Quote
Besides, the whole point of this impeachment is the firm belief that investigating debunked theories, those only held by the rightwing fringe, is in no way "in the public interest."  The only interests it would help is Trump's and the Republican Party's.

You can't "debunk" a theory by engaging in wilful blindness.  That's literally a nonsensical position. 

It's also a Big Lie to claim they have been debunked, particularly they are just facts.  Ukraine interfered in 2016  fact.  Hunter Biden took a position on a corrupt company board - fact.  Joe Biden was responsible for Ukraine, including fighting corruption, at that time, got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired by engaging in a quid pro quo for $1 billion in US aid.  If, as it appears, he was made aware of Hunter's position and the appearance prior to that decision the case against him is stonger (by far) than the case against Trump.

Quote
So, yes, the vagueness of the term "public interest" gives the President carte blanche to do just about anything he wants.  And if practically nothing is impeachable, and he cannot be charged with a crime while he is office, what the difference between a President and a king/dictator?

The public interest does not justify any criminal act.  This impeachment was devoid of a criminal act.

A legal action taken in the public interest is game over.  That was Dersh's point.   Legal Action, public interest motivation, inquiry over.  Elections are the mechanism to determine if the President was correct about the public interest not impeachments.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on February 03, 2020, 12:27:19 PM
I don't see any explicit "partly" or "also" in his language.

I expect the "partly" comes implicitly based on common sense: a President is going to consider his own re-election as for the public good, but also wants to be re-elected for purely personal selfish reasons (i.e. he likes the job, the fame, etc). So any desire to be re-elected will practically by definition have a mixed motive, part of which is for America and part of which is self-centered. The argument, such as it is, seems to be that to whatever extent the motive includes being for the good of America then it is not impeachable on those grounds, although it can be impeachable on other grounds. The reason this distinction is pertinent is because the case against Trump for impeachment seems to rest not only on what he did, but on asserting positively that he did it for purely selfish reasons and was not aiming his policy at helping America.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on February 03, 2020, 12:47:13 PM
The idea that an official's re-election is a sufficient justification for an act being in the public interest is so corrosive to the idea of good government that I'm not surprised the GOP is buying into it whole-heartedly.

ETA: Of course re-election is an omnipresent motive but the idea that a politician could say "I only did it to be re-elected" and we should just accept that it is terrible.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on February 03, 2020, 12:52:10 PM
The idea that an official's re-election is a sufficient justification for an act being in the public interest is so corrosive to the idea of good government that I'm not surprised the GOP is buying into it whole-heartedly.

ETA: Of course re-election is an omnipresent motive but the idea that a politician could say "I only did it to be re-elected" and we should just accept that it is terrible.

Are you saying that Seriati's take on this is wrong? Because otherwise you're responding to the wrong point. The argument that's been put forward is not that "for re-election" automatically makes any action ok, but the converse: that "for re-election" cannot automatically make an action not ok since it must automatically be assumed to be at least part of the motive of any President. In other words, accusing a President of doing something to help his own election chances cannot, in absence of any other objection, be sufficient grounds for impeachment because then all actions would be impeachable. But that does not mean that it's not acceptable grounds; just not sufficient.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 03, 2020, 01:39:21 PM
I think there is something more unseemly about damaging a political rival than other actions. If Trump started a trade war with China, and got caught on tape talking about how great it would be for his re-election, I don't think there's going to be much concern about it. I'm not reopening a debate about impeachment, merely making a statement about optics.

So if Biden only in part wanted to help his son, but also had lots of other reasons in the public interest to get this prosecutor fired, isn't that in some way a similar argument? I don't call it equivalent.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 03, 2020, 02:15:29 PM
Let me ask a question Betty Warren asked yesterday to the wrong people (the House Impeach Committee, rather than Trump's Lawyers):

If Ukraine had offered to Trump to investigate Biden (which would possibly help his campaign) for weapons to defend themselves, that would be illegal, right?  Offering assistance to a campaign in exchange for badly-needed assistance.

If that is illegal, why is the opposite--offering to release badly-needed weapons for an investigation into Biden--not illegal?

It was established as fact that the provision of Javellins was not at anytime delayed.  Ergo, your entire supposition about delaying release of weapons is counterfactual.

And you've still failed to address Fenring's point that you haven't actually connected the motive to the act - in other words, you keep "jumping to" or "assuming' election assistance without showing it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2020, 02:38:58 PM
The idea that an official's re-election is a sufficient justification for an act being in the public interest is so corrosive to the idea of good government that I'm not surprised the GOP is buying into it whole-heartedly.

ETA: Of course re-election is an omnipresent motive but the idea that a politician could say "I only did it to be re-elected" and we should just accept that it is terrible.

Pot, meet kettle. Why do you think the Dems moved on impeachment before the 2020 election? Maybe because so many of them ran on impeaching Trump in 2018? Their political base wanted him impeached, mission accomplished. The rush to impeachment was just as much about the Democrats trying to protect themselves in the primary process as it was to try to influence the 2020 election outcome by smearing the Republicans.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on February 03, 2020, 02:47:11 PM
Pot, meet kettle. Why do you think the Dems moved on impeachment before the 2020 election? Maybe because so many of them ran on impeaching Trump in 2018? Their political base wanted him impeached, mission accomplished. The rush to impeachment was just as much about the Democrats trying to protect themselves in the primary process as it was to try to influence the 2020 election outcome by smearing the Republicans.

So did any Democrats advance the argument that what they were doing was okay because their re-election would be in the public interest?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2020, 02:55:03 PM
The idea that an official's re-election is a sufficient justification for an act being in the public interest is so corrosive to the idea of good government that I'm not surprised the GOP is buying into it whole-heartedly.

ETA: Of course re-election is an omnipresent motive but the idea that a politician could say "I only did it to be re-elected" and we should just accept that it is terrible.

Are you saying that Seriati's take on this is wrong? Because otherwise you're responding to the wrong point. The argument that's been put forward is not that "for re-election" automatically makes any action ok, but the converse: that "for re-election" cannot automatically make an action not ok since it must automatically be assumed to be at least part of the motive of any President. In other words, accusing a President of doing something to help his own election chances cannot, in absence of any other objection, be sufficient grounds for impeachment because then all actions would be impeachable. But that does not mean that it's not acceptable grounds; just not sufficient.

I think Dershowitz should have worked on the phrasing a bit more.

Practically every politician in the history of history felt that their remaining in power was "in the public interest" so that sets a very low bar at the onset.

Although politicians have been caught out doing things that obviously were not "in the public interest."

His explicit caveat for other illegal activity is obviously valid, as witnessed with Nixon and the Watergate break-in as that involved an actual crime.

"Motive crimes" however, which is basically what the Democrats were accusing Trump of, are an entirely different ball game. You either have to be able to mind read, or generate a mind-numbingly large pile of evidence to rule out any option which qualifies as a "public interest" even absent re-election intentions.

Which has been my refrain from the onset. If the Trump Administration could provide any reason that creates a "mixed motive" outcome, where the reason for the funds being held back wasn't exclusively about re-election for Trump, and their case for a "motive crime" falls apart.

Evidence of Ukranian interference(not to be confused with the Russian interference, both were interfering in 2016, Russia was simply much more active), Biden Family connections to Burisma and Joe Biden getting involved with the prosecutor investigating that company, as well as other ongoing corruption issues in Ukraine while a new Ukranian Administration is taking shape, all serve to establish a "mixed motive" defense for Trump and nulls the case the Democrats presented.

They simply could not, and can not, prove that Trump's only motive for doing what he did revolved around sabotaging Joe Biden in 2020. Even if they get Trump to flat out say Joe Biden was "the major reason" for doing what he did, because once again, the motive is mixed.

And we still also get back to the other problem with their claim that this was a "serious offense" on Trump's part. They have no evidence to suggest there was implication that the Ukranian's "create evidence" to sabotage Biden's campaign. They also failed to demonstrate how such an investigation would do "irreparable harm" to the Biden Presidential campaign absent actual, genuine, evidence of wrong-doing being found.

Hillary's mis-handling of classified emails is more damning in my book than what has been brought forward with regards to Trump and Ukraine.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2020, 02:56:17 PM
Pot, meet kettle. Why do you think the Dems moved on impeachment before the 2020 election? Maybe because so many of them ran on impeaching Trump in 2018? Their political base wanted him impeached, mission accomplished. The rush to impeachment was just as much about the Democrats trying to protect themselves in the primary process as it was to try to influence the 2020 election outcome by smearing the Republicans.

So did any Democrats advance the argument that what they were doing was okay because their re-election would be in the public interest?

It's implicit in the fact they did it, and they're running for re-election.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 03, 2020, 03:08:56 PM
It's implicit in the fact they did it, and they're running for re-election.

So now you're the mind reader?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2020, 03:15:19 PM
It's implicit in the fact they did it, and they're running for re-election.

So now you're the mind reader?

Everything a politician does revolves around "will I get re-elected if I do this?"

If the answer they arrive at is "yes" then they do it, and it meets a definition of "public interest" because (enough) voters will support it at the ballot box, willingly or not.

So yes, everything they do as a politician is subject to mixed motive. There were likely a few "true believers" in the mix, but I think you'd find most Democrats were simply voting to appease their respective bases, or to secure "important support" for their re-election bid. I wouldn't be surprised if a few Dems(and Republicans on the flip side) weren't threatened with having funding support in their re-election cut if they wavered from their respective part line.

A previous example on other issues would be AOC threatening to help primary other Democrats if they didn't vote certain ways on other previous legislation. It would not be surprising to learn some of that happened behind closed doors with respect to the impeachment.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Wayward Son on February 03, 2020, 03:18:35 PM
Let me ask a question Betty Warren asked yesterday to the wrong people (the House Impeach Committee, rather than Trump's Lawyers):

If Ukraine had offered to Trump to investigate Biden (which would possibly help his campaign) for weapons to defend themselves, that would be illegal, right?  Offering assistance to a campaign in exchange for badly-needed assistance.

If that is illegal, why is the opposite--offering to release badly-needed weapons for an investigation into Biden--not illegal?

It was established as fact that the provision of Javellins was not at anytime delayed.  Ergo, your entire supposition about delaying release of weapons is counterfactual.

No, his Administration merely promised, i.e, threatened, not to release the military funds until Ukraine announced the investigation into his political rival and son.  The fact that he didn't follow through with that threat is entirely beside the point.  The threat itself, if made for political gain, would be a high crime.

Reminds me of a calendar I have on the stupidest things people have said.  Reportedly during a cross-examination, the following occurred:

Quote
Lawyer: What happened then?
Witness: He told me, he says, "I have to kill you because you can identify me!"
Lawyer: Did he kill you?

Somehow, this sounds similar, if the defendant was being charged with assault. :)

Quote
And you've still failed to address Fenring's point that you haven't actually connected the motive to the act - in other words, you keep "jumping to" or "assuming" election assistance without showing it.

Are you actually arguing that, if Ukraine announced it was investigating Joe Biden and his son for corruption, it would not hurt his campaign in any way?  And if Biden was the best Democratic nominee, or even the nominee, that this would not benefit Trump's campaign?

It's not so much an "assumption" that such an investigation would assist Trump's election effort as "painfully obvious." :)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2020, 03:21:24 PM
Are you actually arguing that, if Ukraine announced it was investigating Joe Biden and his son for corruption, it would not hurt his campaign in any way?  And if Biden was the best Democratic nominee, or even the nominee, that this would not benefit Trump's campaign?

It's not so much an "assumption" that such an investigation would assist Trump's election effort as "painfully obvious." :)

Did it hurt Biden's campaign? The funny thing about this particular hypothetical at this point is much of it actually isn't hypothetical at this point. And even more ironically, it didn't need to be announced by Ukraine after all.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on February 03, 2020, 03:25:30 PM
And you've still failed to address Fenring's point that you haven't actually connected the motive to the act - in other words, you keep "jumping to" or "assuming" election assistance without showing it.

Are you actually arguing that, if Ukraine announced it was investigating Joe Biden and his son for corruption, it would not hurt his campaign in any way?  And if Biden was the best Democratic nominee, or even the nominee, that this would not benefit Trump's campaign?

It's not so much an "assumption" that such an investigation would assist Trump's election effort as "painfully obvious." :)

This is irrelevant to the point. You asserted an equivalence between bribery and extortion, which (a) are not equivalent, and (b) not applicable to Trump unless you can show one of them is. I have alternatively heard the accusation flip-flopping between bribery and extortion, but actually these are contradictory claims and cannot both be true. The fact that I've heard both suggests strongly that people are misinformed about what certain foreign interactions actually mean. Hence my question to you about campaign finance law. You seem to be connecting investigating Burisma to Trump via the logic that hurting Biden would help him - duh! - and concluding from this that bribery or extortion must have been what's happening. Do you not see how this conclusion does not follow from the circumstances? It *might* explain them but it does not follow from them as a direct consequence. The only argument from your post I could see making sense would be a campaign finance violation, i.e. that Ukraine doing something beneficial to Trump's re-election is in and of itself against the law. Whether you realize it or not, this was the point you were (intentionally or not) actually making.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2020, 03:46:45 PM
Hence my question to you about campaign finance law. You seem to be connecting investigating Burisma to Trump via the logic that hurting Biden would help him - duh! - and concluding from this that bribery or extortion must have been what's happening. Do you not see how this conclusion does not follow from the circumstances? It *might* explain them but it does not follow from them as a direct consequence. The only argument from your post I could see making sense would be a campaign finance violation, i.e. that Ukraine doing something beneficial to Trump's re-election is in and of itself against the law. Whether you realize it or not, this was the point you were (intentionally or not) actually making.

That was one of the Democrat's openers and seems to be one most Liberals are sticking to. Evidently Trump's impeachment, which spelled out no actual violation of law, is actually about him violating campaign finance law (no foreign money--or equivalent, it seems)with respect to Ukraine and Joe Biden.

Which makes him being impeached even more laughable IMO.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 03, 2020, 03:50:16 PM
I do have a procedural/strategy question that I genuinely can’t figure out. Admittedly it could be my own bias, but I’m too ignorant of impeachment rules to know:

Why didn’t the Democrats subpoena witnesses when things were in the house? I *think it’s because there was no guarantee they would be able to actually get the witnesses thru subpoena? Or it would take too long?

They made a legal claim.  Essentially, they say that because the "sole power" of impeachment is in the House, they are above judicial process and are the final arbiters of their own subpoena power.  Therefore they will not submit to the courts and any refusal to comply with the bounds they set is de facto unConstitutional and impeachable.

It's a funny little argument, and it's literally equivalent to saying that so long as the House uses the word "impeachment" all other branch perrogatives, rights and checks and balances fall away.  They said Executive Privilege doesn't apply - because the House said it doesn't apply.  They said, no due process - because they House says it doesn't apply.  They said no agency counsel, because the House is the final arbiter on whether a question must be answered by any witness and no court can interfere.

I suspect that much like the courts did in the Nixon case where they reigned in Executive Privilege, litigating this out would establish what I suspect most of us ALREADY BELIEVE IS THE CASE, that the court's can set legitimate constraint's on the House's exercise of subpoena's even in the Impeachment process.

We already have a good idea a about how the Supreme Court might view this, given that it directly plays into the Nixon precedent by concerning matters of foreign policy, which the Nixon court said may be entitled to absolute executive privilege.  Very likely to get a 5-4 decision that says while there may be a case where Executive Privilege can be overcome in this area this isn't it, or a very limited case where they authorize a court master to review the materials and only turn over evidence of crimes to the House.  So no fishing expedition, and very likely nothing revealed to the House.

Why push for a result where the most likely result is a smack in the face curtailing your power, when you can go the other way, assert it's a crime, prevent any judicial review and most importantly make political hay by smearing the President about it for months before he even gets to respond and then make more hay out of it by claiming it was a cover up or a sham trial?

Quote
If there weren't any procedural reasons, it seems like a huge blunder. Anyone know exactly why they didn’t make a stand on witnesses in the house but then decided to in the senate?

Again, politics.  By making the issue in the Senate they get to smear the Republican senators.  It's now the "Noble House Managers" seeking to find the truth and the dastardly Republican Senators who kept it from coming out.  This political strategy wasn't just about Trump, it's about campaign adds they can run in Senate campaigns.  That's why Schumer ran through all those votes individually.

This is one of those strategies that relies on the media being in the tank for the Democrats.  Any real journalists who acted fairly would have never have let them get away it.  Can you even imagine how this impeachment would have been characterized if it was a Republican House and a Democrat President?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 03, 2020, 04:55:17 PM
Lot of good points, Seriati, but reading his language I parsed it as "A president can take any legal action solely in support of his re-election, and it would be in the public interest and not impeachable.

I don't see any explicit "partly" or "also" in his language.

Dersh walked through two situations, an illegal act (which can be impeachable) and a legal act.

For the legal act, he walked through 3 states of mind, purely in the public good, purely in the self interest and mixed.  He flat out said, for purely in the self interest (e.g. pecuniary benefit, "I won't release this aid unless you put money in my bank account, or build a Trump branded hotel in Ukranian") it would be appropriate to impeach.

He spent the majority of his argument on the "mixed" case, or rather the case where there is a clear public interest (which there was in this case).  In that case, he said arguing that you can attribute a legal act that has a public benefit to a nefarious motive shouldn't be done.  First of all the proof required is near insurmountable when you can't read minds (which is in large part, why virtually no Republicans are convinced by the House's "argument" based on mind reading or "logical inference").

Unlike many, I suspect, I watched most of the arguments and a bunch of the Q&A.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 03, 2020, 05:18:29 PM
I think there is something more unseemly about damaging a political rival than other actions.

Yes there is, yet that's exactly what was done TO TRUMP.

Quote
So if Biden only in part wanted to help his son, but also had lots of other reasons in the public interest to get this prosecutor fired, isn't that in some way a similar argument? I don't call it equivalent.

It is, if Biden was up for impeachment.  Of course, the difference may in fact be that Biden's conduct was illegal - which it would take an investigation to determine.  The other half about why criminal acts are themselves conduct that can justify an impeachment is that a President or Vice President has notice of what is criminal.  An investigation of Biden is an investigation of a crime.  There may not be evidence of a crime, in which case it shouldn't be charged.  But if there is, that's way stronger than impeachment for non-crimes and motive inference.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 03, 2020, 05:45:33 PM
Let me ask a question Betty Warren asked yesterday to the wrong people (the House Impeach Committee, rather than Trump's Lawyers):

If Ukraine had offered to Trump to investigate Biden (which would possibly help his campaign) for weapons to defend themselves, that would be illegal, right?  Offering assistance to a campaign in exchange for badly-needed assistance.

If that is illegal, why is the opposite--offering to release badly-needed weapons for an investigation into Biden--not illegal?

It was established as fact that the provision of Javellins was not at anytime delayed.  Ergo, your entire supposition about delaying release of weapons is counterfactual.

No, his Administration merely promised, i.e, threatened, not to release the military funds until Ukraine announced the investigation into his political rival and son.  The fact that he didn't follow through with that threat is entirely beside the point.  The threat itself, if made for political gain, would be a high crime.

Actually no.  You're just wrong on this.  It directly came out in trial that the Javelin's WERE NEVER PART OF THE DELAY.

It was repeated several times.  The delayed aid was not for lethal hardware.

Quote
Quote
And you've still failed to address Fenring's point that you haven't actually connected the motive to the act - in other words, you keep "jumping to" or "assuming" election assistance without showing it.

Are you actually arguing that, if Ukraine announced it was investigating Joe Biden and his son for corruption, it would not hurt his campaign in any way?  And if Biden was the best Democratic nominee, or even the nominee, that this would not benefit Trump's campaign?

See how you shifted the goal posts.  I have no idea if the mere announcement of an investigation would hurt Biden's campaign, but that's not what you claimed before.  You jumped to that was the purpose, without any explanation of how. 

What if a fair investigation announced there was no crime?  Still hurt?

What if the media refused to cover it?  Still hurt?

We already do know that the Ukrainian courts have established that people in their country interfered in our 2016 election, yet not only has that not hurt anyone, you've pretended the idea has been debunked.

And what if Biden is guilty, and the evidence comes out.  Is that purely to help Trump?  Is not suppressing that investigation solely to help Biden's campaign?  What other cause is there to suppress evidence of guilt in this circumstance?

Quote
It's not so much an "assumption" that such an investigation would assist Trump's election effort as "painfully obvious." :)

Like I said, you skipped some steps because you believe it to be true.

If Biden is guilty, investigating him is not wrong even if it helps Trump.  But proof of guilt isn't the actual standard to investigate, there is more than enough evidence of an illegal or corrupt act in connection with Hunter.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 03, 2020, 06:01:49 PM
This by the way was my favorite question and answer, directed to the House Managers:

Quote
Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired a retired foreign spy to work with Russian contacts to build a dossier of opposition research against her political opponent, Donald Trump. Under the House managers’ standard would the dossier be considered as foreign interference in a U.S. election, a violation of the law, and/or an impeachable offense?

House Manager Hakeem Jefferies, opened his response like this and my jaw dropped:

Quote
The analogy is not applicable to the present situation because first, to the extent that opposition research was obtained, it was opposition research that was purchased.

I can't find the rest of his answer, but it was an attack on Republicans and I believe conspiracy theories, even though nothing about the Steele dossier being produced by a British spy and including Russian propaganda is a conspiracy theory.

But just the fabulousness of the argument that "purchasing" foreign campaign interference, and thereafter spreading "paid for" Russian propaganda, and using it to trigger an FBI investigation that ties up an administration for 2 years, is totally cool, but if it were handed to someone for free it's an obvious crime and impeachable offense (well obvious if they are a Republican).
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2020, 06:06:23 PM
So if Biden only in part wanted to help his son, but also had lots of other reasons in the public interest to get this prosecutor fired, isn't that in some way a similar argument? I don't call it equivalent.

It is, if Biden was up for impeachment.  Of course, the difference may in fact be that Biden's conduct was illegal - which it would take an investigation to determine.  The other half about why criminal acts are themselves conduct that can justify an impeachment is that a President or Vice President has notice of what is criminal.  An investigation of Biden is an investigation of a crime.  There may not be evidence of a crime, in which case it shouldn't be charged.  But if there is, that's way stronger than impeachment for non-crimes and motive inference.

The other elephant in the room on this whole affair: Biden threatened to pull nearly $1 Billion in aid to Ukraine if they didn't fire that prosecutor.

He may have had Obama's authorization to do so, but where was the Congressional approval for that?

One of other nebulous charges against Trump, as they couldn't be bothered to enumerate them, was the withholding of Congressionally authorized funds "for reasons not approved by Congress," and of course the mind-reading allegation of it being for his own political benefit. Yes, in both cases, Ukraine received the money, in Biden's case a clear threat was made, while in Trump's case the threat was far more ambiguous from what they discovered.

Yet Biden is evidently A-OK and good to go despite using Congressional monies to threaten an ally without Congressional approval, but Trump needed to be removed from office for simply delaying it with no reason given to Ukraine?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Wayward Son on February 03, 2020, 06:40:06 PM
And you've still failed to address Fenring's point that you haven't actually connected the motive to the act - in other words, you keep "jumping to" or "assuming" election assistance without showing it.

Are you actually arguing that, if Ukraine announced it was investigating Joe Biden and his son for corruption, it would not hurt his campaign in any way?  And if Biden was the best Democratic nominee, or even the nominee, that this would not benefit Trump's campaign?

It's not so much an "assumption" that such an investigation would assist Trump's election effort as "painfully obvious." :)

This is irrelevant to the point. You asserted an equivalence between bribery and extortion, which (a) are not equivalent, and (b) not applicable to Trump unless you can show one of them is. I have alternatively heard the accusation flip-flopping between bribery and extortion, but actually these are contradictory claims and cannot both be true. The fact that I've heard both suggests strongly that people are misinformed about what certain foreign interactions actually mean. Hence my question to you about campaign finance law. You seem to be connecting investigating Burisma to Trump via the logic that hurting Trump would help him - duh! - and concluding from this that bribery extortion must have been what's happening. Do you not see how this conclusion does not follow from the circumstances? It *might* explain them but it does not follow from them as a direct consequence. The only argument I could see making sense here would be a campaign finance violation, i.e. that Ukraine doing something beneficial to Trump's re-election is in an of itself against the law. Whether you realize it or not, this was the point you were (intentionally or not) actually making.

First off, I did not assert anything.  I was paraphrasing Elizabeth Warren.

Quote
You seem to be connecting investigating Burisma to Trump via the logic that hurting Trump would help him - duh! - and concluding from this that bribery extortion must have been what's happening. Do you not see how this conclusion does not follow from the circumstances?

I assume you mean "investigating Burisma to Trump via the logic that hurting Biden would help him..."

No, I did not "conclude" that this is what's happening.  However, if we do conclude that he was extorting Ukraine (and I believe the evidence overwhelming shows that his representatives did just that), and if this extortion was mostly, if not exclusively, for the purpose of helping his campaign (which, I admit, may still be in question, although the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that), then the question becomes relevant, for the reason you said--it would be an illegal campaign contribution.  It would be made much worse because he used his position as President to do this extortion; using the power of the Presidency to withhold the funds.

The question, as I understood it, was based on the assumption that Trump did use his position to extort Ukraine.  But the question itself was not meant to prove that he had done so, AFAIK.  It was meant to point out that if it was proven, then it would be illegal just as the opposite would have been.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 03, 2020, 06:57:31 PM
Lot of good points, Seriati, but reading his language I parsed it as "A president can take any legal action solely in support of his re-election, and it would be in the public interest and not impeachable.

I don't see any explicit "partly" or "also" in his language.

Dersh walked through two situations, an illegal act (which can be impeachable) and a legal act.

For the legal act, he walked through 3 states of mind, purely in the public good, purely in the self interest and mixed.  He flat out said, for purely in the self interest (e.g. pecuniary benefit, "I won't release this aid unless you put money in my bank account, or build a Trump branded hotel in Ukranian") it would be appropriate to impeach.

He spent the majority of his argument on the "mixed" case, or rather the case where there is a clear public interest (which there was in this case).  In that case, he said arguing that you can attribute a legal act that has a public benefit to a nefarious motive shouldn't be done.  First of all the proof required is near insurmountable when you can't read minds (which is in large part, why virtually no Republicans are convinced by the House's "argument" based on mind reading or "logical inference").

Unlike many, I suspect, I watched most of the arguments and a bunch of the Q&A.

Well the structure of the speech starts very broadly and progressively pares away bits and pieces and he does in fact make a "mixed motives" argument with overlaps.

I can't find the original question that prompted the key response though (here in its entirety):

Quote
Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and mostly you’re right, your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. I quoted President Lincoln. When President Lincoln told general Sherman to let the troops go to Indiana so that they can vote for the Republican party, let’s assume the president was running at that point and it was in his electoral interest to have these soldiers, put at risk the lives of many, many other soldiers who would be left without their company. Would that be an unlawful quid pro quo? No, because the president, A, believed it was in the national interest, but B, he believed that his own election was essential to victory in the Civil War. Every president believes that. That’s why it’s so dangerous to try to psychoanalyze a president, to try to get into the intricacies of the human mind. Everybody has mixed motives, and for there to be a constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives, would permit almost any president to be impeached.

It's unclear in the Lincoln example what other reason than a re-election interest could prompt releasing Troops to vote. Especially ones stationed outside Atlanta. This seems to support the idea that taking an action solely to boost your re-election chances should never be considered impeachable. I get that this wasn't the main part of his many arguments, but this response seems highly unclear. I'm willing to believe it is just a poorly constructed response.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 03, 2020, 09:25:15 PM
Well you left out part of the Lincoln example.  Dersh posited that the election in Indiana was close between a group that wanted to pull Indiana out of the Civil War and his party that wanted them to stay the course.  The soldiers, presumably were more likely to support Lincoln and thus vote to keep Indiana in the war.  So Dersh's point, was it benefiting Lincoln to release soldiers to support the Civil War, or in the public interest not to lose the Civil War?  Yes.  And that was Dersh's Lincoln point.

I actually found it to be a stupid argument that was too esoteric to have an impact, and, as you can see, it was easily capable of being misconstrued.

I assume you mean "investigating Burisma to Trump via the logic that hurting Biden would help him..."

No, I did not "conclude" that this is what's happening.  However, if we do conclude that he was extorting Ukraine (and I believe the evidence overwhelming shows that his representatives did just that), and if this extortion was mostly, if not exclusively, for the purpose of helping his campaign (which, I admit, may still be in question, although the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that), then the question becomes relevant, for the reason you said--it would be an illegal campaign contribution.

Both your suppositions fail as unproven, but even if they were true it wouldn't be a campaign contribution illegal or otherwise.

First, for "Trump" to be extorting Ukraine, he'd have to have ordered it.  There's no evidence that he did so in the record.  There's barely any evidence that anyone  even did it in the record.

Second, there is ZERO evidence that this was for helping his campaign. The only evidence on the record says it was for fighting corruption.  The prosecutor does not get to assume his case.

And if it were true he'd be impeached for extortion, not for campaign finance violations.  Despite the novel DNC theory there is no legal support for the proposition that true information about a crime is a thing of value at law that is provided to a campaign.  There's never been any court that established that proposition, and it's very unlikely that any ever would.  Even Mueller flat out said he couldn't bring that case (or did you think Don Jr. had presidential immunity that stopped hi from being prosecuted, lol).

Quote
It would be made much worse because he used his position as President to do this extortion; using the power of the Presidency to withhold the funds.

It's actually only barely plausible because it played into a well known pattern.  Trump held aid to Ukraine 3 years in a row, notwithstanding he didn't ask for anything before and released it on the same timeline.  Trump's admin routinely held aid for multiple countries.  So like wow, the entire country knew he'd hold the aid, and that's the primary proof of guilt. 

Quote
The question, as I understood it, was based on the assumption that Trump did use his position to extort Ukraine.  But the question itself was not meant to prove that he had done so, AFAIK.  It was meant to point out that if it was proven, then it would be illegal just as the opposite would have been.

But the point of the question is to mislead people.  Whether forwards or backwards the conduct didn't occur.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 04, 2020, 07:47:48 AM
Let's say that everything you assert is true. Schiff was in on it from the start, wrote the script himself, gave him $50k and a foot massage.

Would that then mean Trump should be acquitted, even if he had committed an impeachable offense?

In this case, truth is very much in the eye of the beholder regarding Trump. As to Schiff, it introduces a poisoned well into the mix, and the potential need for criminal charges against the whistleblower, and either the impeachment or resignation of Schiff.

If Schiff did do the above hypothetical, it doesn't matter if he was proven right in the end or not. He should be removed from office, two wrongs don't make a right.

You are correct. If he did all that, I would expect him to be expelled from Congress - although I assume he would resign first. Unclear if this would be a criminal case, maybe bribery in my hypothetical.

I don't think you leave someone in power to abuse it more just because the guy who undercovered the malfeasance was dirty. What if "deep throat" Mark Felt had been hyperpartisan? And would Republicans have insisted that he be identified and subpoenaed, and would that have vindicated Nixon as a victim of his enemies?

To help crunch out, these are hypothetical statements, so your assertion that Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense is less than useless. You can recognize hypothetical arguments by phrases like "consider for the sake of argument", "what if", "even if". Dershowitz used these over and over.

But that’s precisely what Schiff tried to do, argue hypotheticals as though they were fact. If you’re granted the hypothetical, you’ll move to the fear mongering and threat to democracy with them just as Schiff did. It’s kind of a standard tactic in this sham.

And here we go:, via ABC News:

Quote
Adam Schiff argues that under claim a non-criminal action is not impeachable, Pres. Trump could "offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election, or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and let Jared Kushner run the country."

This is exactly what I’m saying, it’s all about bull*censored* hypotheticals presented to create a “favt”. Also known as lying.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on February 04, 2020, 11:20:52 AM
I'll give Schiff points for consistency, that's for sure. He hasn't met a hypothetical he didn't like. Except for the one where his whole case is nonsense. Maybe he'll recite another "parody" call transcript between Trump and Putin negotiating terms for Alaska.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 04, 2020, 01:04:59 PM
Well you left out part of the Lincoln example.  Dersh posited that the election in Indiana was close between a group that wanted to pull Indiana out of the Civil War and his party that wanted them to stay the course.  The soldiers, presumably were more likely to support Lincoln and thus vote to keep Indiana in the war.  So Dersh's point, was it benefiting Lincoln to release soldiers to support the Civil War, or in the public interest not to lose the Civil War?  Yes.  And that was Dersh's Lincoln point.

I don't think I left out anything, I thought I had found the full transcript. If you have a more complete version, I'd enjoy reading it.

But isn't this is the whole crux: "I believe my policies will benefit the nation, therefore anything legal that I do to help my re-election is acceptable"?

It might be winning the civil war, building a border wall with Mexico, or fighting the communists. So under this, if Obama withheld funds from a nation to dig up dirt on Mitt Romney, it would be okay because he was really doing it in part to combat climate change?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 04, 2020, 01:24:22 PM
Well you left out part of the Lincoln example.  Dersh posited that the election in Indiana was close between a group that wanted to pull Indiana out of the Civil War and his party that wanted them to stay the course.  The soldiers, presumably were more likely to support Lincoln and thus vote to keep Indiana in the war.  So Dersh's point, was it benefiting Lincoln to release soldiers to support the Civil War, or in the public interest not to lose the Civil War?  Yes.  And that was Dersh's Lincoln point.

I don't think I left out anything, I thought I had found the full transcript. If you have a more complete version, I'd enjoy reading it.

No idea what transcript you looked at I watched it live.  The point of the example was that Lincoln's motive (presumed) was to win the Civil War and he needed that vote to do so.  Dersh pointed out that the direction he needed the vote to go was in favor of his own party (electoral benefit) to expressly demonstrate (so he thought) a circumstance where the political result WAS in the public interest.  All of that was a very roundabout way to say showing political benefit doesn't show enough to prove an impermissable motive.

Quote
But isn't this is the whole crux: "I believe my policies will benefit the nation, therefore anything legal that I do to help my re-election is acceptable"?

No.  His point way, "If I enact policies to help the nation, the fact that it causes me to get re-elected doesn't make it unacceptable."  It's a gross misscharacterization (which the media has endorse, and Dersh has in fact clarified) to say that re-election justifies an otherwise impermissible policy.  For 2 reasons.  First, Dersh was only talking about acts that are legal on their face (assume if it helps an act that can be done with good motives and clearly be okay), not acts that are illegal on their face (bribery can not be excused because it helps you get re-elected).  Second, he was dismissing that showing electoral benefit was somehow a trump card that rules out permissable motives.  The point was exactly that if there is any other motive, plausible or on the record, you can not just jump to "bad electoral" motive and ignore it.  In that field he said that further its arguable that an election motive is bad. 

That's why I said he spent too much time on it.  It's like the argument for the fourth round of minor objection, not for the main thrust.

Quote
It might be winning the civil war, building a border wall with Mexico, or fighting the communists. So under this, if Obama withheld funds from a nation to dig up dirt on Mitt Romney, it would be okay because he was really doing it in part to combat climate change?

No.  But if Obama withheld funds to combat climate change and it undermined a major campaign point of Romney's - somehow - that would be okay.  Or if say, Obama changed the tax laws on real estate development while running against Trump in a way that made him look like a worse business man.  Presuming he could make an argument that the change really was for a legit purpose do you think you'd have supported impeaching Obama for that "election interference"?

It's not clear how "digging up dirt" is connected to climate change, whereas, investigating corruption and investigating Biden's corruption are literally in the same category, with Biden being a sub-set of the first.  Come up with an example like that and it'd be a challenge.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 04, 2020, 02:02:28 PM
Seriati, get away from what Trump did or didn't do or why. This is a Constitutional argument that doesn't require players.

So if Lincoln released the soldiers to canvass neighborhoods, that also would have been okay because he just wanted to win the Civil War? What if he established a curfew in areas that would be detrimental to his campaign? Okay - Civil War.

You're a better man than me if you can actually watch all that in real time. I'd have blood running from my ears in mere minutes. No matter who was talking.

the answer to the question (https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/transcript-key-moments-in-january-29-impeachment-trial-qa-session)

I see where you are referring now. In his argument, not in the q/a I cited, was this:

Quote
“In 1864 during the height of the Civil War, President Lincoln encouraged General William Sherman to allow soldiers in the field to return to Indiana to vote. What was Lincoln’s primary motivation?” The professor asks, “He wanted to make sure that the government of Indiana remained in the hands of Republican loyalists who would continue the war until victory. Lincoln’s request risks undercutting the military effort by depleting the ranks. Moreover, during this time, soldiers from the remaining states face greater risks than did the returning Hoosiers.” The professor continues. “Lincoln had dueling motives. Privately he sought to secure victory for his party, but the president as a president and as a party leader and Commander in Chief made a decision with life or death consequences.” Professor Blackman drew the following relevant conclusion from this and other historical events. He said, “Politicians routinely promote their understanding of the general welfare while in the back of their minds considering how these actions will affect their popularity. Often the two concepts overlap. What’s good for the country is good for the official’s reelection. All politicians,” he said, “understand that dynamic.” Like all human beings, presidents and other politicians persuade themselves that their actions seen by their opponents as self-serving are primarily in the national interest. In order to conclude that such mixed motive actions constituted abuse of power, opponents must psychoanalyze the president and attribute to him a singular self-serving motive.

Gotta make sure Republicans control Indiana. Yeah, a lot of what Lincoln did was probably impeachable. A lot.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on February 04, 2020, 02:33:44 PM
Gotta make sure Republicans control Indiana. Yeah, a lot of what Lincoln did was probably impeachable. A lot.

According to the argument being made now, it wasn't. That being said if people agreed with you on this and would retroactively argue that both Lincoln and Trump were deserving of impeachment - I would advise them to go rethink their life. Anyhow I doubt you'll get any anti-Trumper to agree that he's 'like Lincoln' in using his office to help his own re-election.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 04, 2020, 03:38:03 PM
Seriati, get away from what Trump did or didn't do or why. This is a Constitutional argument that doesn't require players.

Baffled by that.  The entire impeachment "case" is based on projection of why Trump did something.

Quote
So if Lincoln released the soldiers to canvass neighborhoods, that also would have been okay because he just wanted to win the Civil War? What if he established a curfew in areas that would be detrimental to his campaign? Okay - Civil War.

Not sure what you mean by canvassing.  There's a direct law on use of federal resources in a campaign (which is why political activity is done on a separate network).  That would make this a violation of law and not subject to Dersh's proposal (which applies to non-violations that are wrong solely by motive).  Instead, the question would be whether its a high crime or misdemeanor that warrants removal (for reference he argued that Clinton's crimes didn't meet that standard).  My guess is that this one is not only a violation of law it probably warrants an impeachment/removal.  But that's fundamentally fairer in that a President would have notice of the illegality prior to doing that act.  Would they have impeached Lincoln for it?  I doubt it, but not an expert.

If the curfew had a military justification it would stand.  To me the better question would be what result if he has a general curfew and diverts security to pro-Republican voting districts so those polls can be open longer.

My actual guess on the Lincoln story is that we wouldn't accept that behavior today, which again is a reason Dersh made a bad call in using it.  But I think that was his point.  Every prior President would be impeached on the Trump impeachment standard consistently applied. AG Holder defied Congressional impeachments, ergo Obama was impeachable on count 2 (also on Count 1 for failure to implement Obamacare when he deferred provisions illegally until after the election - by the way almost literally the Lincoln example and far more directly politically self-serving than Trump).  There are arbitrary things that every President to date did that would meet this Trump "Abuse of Power" standard if it's defined as any action for which a "bad" motivation is arguably or likely "part of the picture."

And that was Dersh's point.  That's the wrong standard.  The standard is that if "part of the picture" is a public interest goal the whole thing survives, not that if any part is a bad motive the whole thing fails.  To hold otherwise could literally mean that a President can't act in the best interest of the country because it could be interpreted as helping the President.

End of day, this was more about disagreement over policy than legitimate investigation.  No one testified to what Schiff and the House Managers claimed.  It's not in the record.
 
Quote
You're a better man than me if you can actually watch all that in real time. I'd have blood running from my ears in mere minutes. No matter who was talking.

Noone could watch it all.  The HM's opening 24 hours was beyond painful, repetition, repetition, repetition, which makes sense given they were going with the Big Lie strategy.  I did listen to the Defense's entire Saturday opening, parts of the next 2 days.  The whole first day of Q&A and about half of the second day Q&A.

Quote
I see where you are referring now. In his argument, not in the q/a I cited, was this:

The Q&A was a follow up on the original as you gleaned.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 04, 2020, 04:53:08 PM
Quote
AG Holder defied Congressional impeachments,

I think you meant subpoenas? Nixon blocked those too, and would ultimately have become part of the articles if he hadn't resigned, IMO.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 05, 2020, 03:02:49 PM
Oh look - bi-partisan impeachment support: Romney to vote to convict (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/romney-announces)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 05, 2020, 03:31:12 PM
I don't think you can call it a bi-partisan support with just one guy. It's fun watching the Trumpians lose their collective minds over it. Romney is a traitor! Waah!
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 05, 2020, 03:45:46 PM
Well, how many have used the "it's completely-partisan" as one reason not to support the process (ignoring that this is self-fulfilling, and now not even that anymore) ;)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 05, 2020, 04:28:31 PM
Sure. But they still call this completely partisan, they recast Romney as a RINO or secret Democrat.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 05, 2020, 04:41:07 PM
Sure. But they still call this completely partisan, they recast Romney as a RINO or secret Democrat.

That "Recasting" is long since done, or did you not pay attention in 2012? RINO saw a lot of use that year, and Romney was one of the people it was aimed at.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 05, 2020, 04:42:44 PM
Well, that’s that. Acquitted on all charges. Not guilty.

What a week for Trump, huh?  Iowa caucus shows Democrat incompetence, SOTU is a mega success, and now acquitted of all charges.

Of course, Nadler is looking to do another investigation. So we’ll probably see another impeachment attempt in 2021 or 2022.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 05, 2020, 04:45:15 PM
Sure. But they still call this completely partisan, they recast Romney as a RINO or secret Democrat.

That "Recasting" is long since done, or did you not pay attention in 2012? RINO saw a lot of use that year, and Romney was one of the people it was aimed at


Yeah, Romney is all about Romney. He’ll check whatever way the wind is blowing and that’s his position. He’s probably angling for a VP slot on the Democrat ticket, you know, some kind of bipartisan play so Bernie looks normal. Romney is all the things people hate in politicians and it’s always been that way. This was just another case of Romney being for Romney.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on February 05, 2020, 04:53:39 PM
Well, Trump is in better shape now than he was before the impeachment. If results were paramount, you'd think Pelosi would focus on messaging against Trump ferociously but leaving impeachment v2 for now. But I think there's way too much emotional (read irrational) investment at this point to do anything other than try another lap and drive Trump numbers up even more. Horrible position to be in, but it's mostly self-inflicted.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Grant on February 05, 2020, 05:22:50 PM
He’s probably angling for a VP slot on the Democrat ticket, you know, some kind of bipartisan play so Bernie looks normal.

The fantasy is strong in this one.  Like, really really strong. 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 05, 2020, 05:43:12 PM
Sanders: "Members of the billionaire class, like my running mate here, are scared of my policies"

Romney: "I see a convention hall full of people who pay no income tax"

 ;D
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 05, 2020, 05:43:21 PM
I don't think you can call it a bi-partisan support with just one guy. It's fun watching the Trumpians lose their collective minds over it. Romney is a traitor! Waah!

Romney is Romney, I haven't like his anti-Trump positions up to this point, they do seem petulant rather than principled.

I'm more disappointed in the Dems voting party line.  I can't see any basis for voting in favor of Obstruction of Congress on this record.  Without pursuit in court there's no reason to think the President was wrong or that the House was right, I'd suspect the truth was a bit of splitting the baby.  When the law is not clear, and the rights are clear, the failure to litigate the law is on the prosecution.  I flat out reject the premise that the House is the final arbiter of it's own power, and that it can ignore the Constitutional powers of the Executive and the Judiciary, and I think it's repulsive that no Democrats voted against this article.

I'm also baffled by the contention that a Democrat could vote in favor of needing additional witnesses, and then not vote against the Articles.  That seems to reject the presumption of innocence, whereby a failure prove a fact (hence a need for witnesses) means there can be no conviction.  Effectively, this yes vote, means the vote saying witnesses were needed was in bad faith.  I don't see any good faith reconcilliation possible (and I expressly reject a bad faith argument that the Dems were looking for more witnesses to clear Trump).
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 05, 2020, 05:50:35 PM
Quote
I'm also baffled by the contention that a Democrat could vote in favor of needing additional witnesses, and then not vote against the Articles. 

Not that much of a gotcha if the Democrats themselves were convinced by existing evidence, but wanted witnesses in order to convince their Republican colleages. Just because a prosecutor has some evidence excluded doesn't mean the jury can't still convict.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Grant on February 05, 2020, 05:58:57 PM

Romney is Romney, I haven't like his anti-Trump positions up to this point, they do seem petulant rather than principled.

Quote
In the last several weeks, I have received numerous calls and texts. Many demand that, in their words, “I stand with the team.” I can assure you that that thought has been very much on my mind. I support a great deal of what the President has done. I have voted with him 80% of the time. But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

I am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced. I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

Yes.  This sounds very petulant.  Totally in keeping with Romney's petulant character. 

The following, on the other hand, is not petulant at all. 

Quote
I’m hearing that the Great People of Utah are considering their vote for their Pompous Senator, Mitt Romney, to be a big mistake. I agree! He is a fool who is playing right into the hands of the Do Nothing Democrats! #IMPEACHMITTROMNEY
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 05, 2020, 06:36:11 PM
I think his petulance is behind his position.  The fact is we can all find justifications for the action we want to take even if the real motives are something else.

I don't think that the Impeachment charges pass the sniff test.  Period, end of story.  I don't really expect honor from the Democrats, they have no principles.  I'm disappointed in a few of them I thought did.  A few others I expected to vote to acquit out of political motivation (thank you Doug Jones for effectively announcing the end of your re-election campaign).  But end of day, I don't think they believe these charges are proper, they just rationalize that they believe Trump is inherently guilty of something.

I say it again, these charges are bogus.  No one who took the oath they did should have voted to convict.  It's literally a vote that hearsay and storytelling by Adam Schiff are sufficient basis to remove a President.  That it's impeachable to not grant the House the unilateral authority to interfere in Executive branch business regardless of the damage to the national interest.  I can't even see the logic that says the House can trample the national interest and hurt the country on the off chance that they believe they may find dirt showing the President did less damage to he national interest than they did.

So yes, any yes vote on these articles reflects a weak adherence to the oath given, or is evidence of an inability to process consequences and meanings, or just a flat out rejection of our Constitutional system.  The correct response would have been to dismiss the case, sanction the House for running an abusive process and granted leave to refile if they actually could make a case.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 05, 2020, 06:51:01 PM
I'm more disappointed in the Dems voting party line.  I can't see any basis for voting in favor of Obstruction of Congress on this record.  Without pursuit in court there's no reason to think the President was wrong or that the House was right, I'd suspect the truth was a bit of splitting the baby.  When the law is not clear, and the rights are clear, the failure to litigate the law is on the prosecution.  I flat out reject the premise that the House is the final arbiter of it's own power, and that it can ignore the Constitutional powers of the Executive and the Judiciary, and I think it's repulsive that no Democrats voted against this article.

In a fantasyland where the Republicans retake the House this election cycle(I don't view it as likely at this time, possible, but not very probable given current atmosphere although Democrats could still fumble the ball badly or the GOP could be hit with a rare spark of brilliance that overwhelms the partisan press). I would love to see the Republicans open "an Impeachment inquiry" into Abuse of Office and Authority on the parts of Pelosi and Schiff after the next congressional body convenes.

If they felt the Power of Impeachment was that powerful with respect to PotUS and the Judiciary, it should be even more powerful with respect to investigating their own.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Grant on February 05, 2020, 06:52:53 PM
I think his petulance is behind his position.  The fact is we can all find justifications for the action we want to take even if the real motives are something else.

That's very interesting.  You're saying that his petulance is hidden.  That is he just making up something to justify his actions.  "We can all find justifications for the action we want to take".

Very telling.  Since the petulance is hidden, how would an individual go about ascertaining that petulance is behind someone's actions, and that they are making something up to justify their beliefs or actions?  How would you differentiate a person who was in fact being honest about their motives and an individual who was lying?  Why would these people engage in external self-justification?  What is their motivation?  In this particular instance, and in general? 

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 05, 2020, 06:57:36 PM
I admire Romney, but in this case, I think his vote was in large part animosity over the fact that Trump won the Presidency in 2016 by being an unapologetic rich white guy. While Romney lost in 2012 after being portrayed as an out of touch rich white guy.

Never mind Trump was dealing with out-of-touch Hillary, while Romney was dealing with Obama, and Hurricane Sandy.

Romney was looking for a means to justify his action, so he found an excuse and went with it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Grant on February 05, 2020, 07:01:23 PM
I admire Romney, but in this case, I think his vote was in large part animosity over the fact that Trump won the Presidency in 2016 by being an unapologetic rich white guy. While Romney lost in 2012 after being portrayed as an out of touch rich white guy.

I'd ask the same general question.  How do you differentiate a person who is being honest about their motivations and a person who is lying about them and hiding their true motivations?  In general and in specific?  In this particular case, what makes you believe that Romney is hiding a secret animosity towards Trump? 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 05, 2020, 07:12:03 PM
Well, animosity isn't much of a secret when Romney makes it the centerpiece of a WaPo op ed the minute he got to Washington criticizing the President's character.

Trump's character falls short (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-president-shapes-the-public-character-of-the-nation-trumps-character-falls-short/2019/01/01/37a3c8c2-0d1a-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html)

Now, as to whether that documented animosity was all, part, or none of his motivation to vote to remove Trump from office. Whether that animosity sprung from seeing Trump win, or why, I think that's near impossible to say.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 05, 2020, 07:15:50 PM
I'd ask the same general question.  How do you differentiate a person who is being honest about their motivations and a person who is lying about them and hiding their true motivations?  In general and in specific?  In this particular case, what makes you believe that Romney is hiding a secret animosity towards Trump?

His animus towards Trump is hardly secret. Most "upstanding Mormons" should despise many of the things Trump stands for on principle, and Romney very much tries to be an upstanding Mormon. (In case you forgot, my family is Mormon, and so am I, although I'm not so upstanding) It just happens that the Democrats don't haven't really offered them an appealing alternative in awhile, Hillary certainly wasn't.

Keep in mind, I think Trump is a terrible person. I'm sure Romney agrees, but unlike Romney, I'm not dealing with a guy who won the very same election campaign I lost a few years previous, and did so by running on the very thing Romney was pilloried for by Obama's campaign. If that doesn't leave a lot of personal animus behind, I don't know what will. You're talking almost deity level ability to forgive and forget, with Trump (and company) probably rubbing his nose in it periodically so forgetting is not really on the table.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 05, 2020, 07:19:04 PM
Well, animosity isn't much of a secret when Romney makes it the centerpiece of a WaPo op ed the minute he got to Washington criticizing the President's character.

Trump's character falls short (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-president-shapes-the-public-character-of-the-nation-trumps-character-falls-short/2019/01/01/37a3c8c2-0d1a-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html)

Now, as to whether that documented animosity was all, part, or none of his motivation to vote to remove Trump from office. Whether that animosity sprung from seeing Trump win, or why, I think that's near impossible to say.

It would be enough, I'd wager, that Romney wasn't able to be properly objective about what was placed before him. That animosity gives him a degree of certainty about how Trump is going to be viewed in the future that you get him talking about "how History will judge" the vote that occurred. Basically, he was more fixated on certain aspects of the case over the more legalistic and Constitutional grounds that were put in play by the Democrats.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Grant on February 05, 2020, 07:33:02 PM
Well, animosity isn't much of a secret when Romney makes it the centerpiece of a WaPo op ed the minute he got to Washington criticizing the President's character.

I think previous examples of animosity towards a particular person or animosity in general are perfectly good reasons to believe that an individual may be hiding that animosity later and lying to justify their actions.  This is a good answer. 

But the animosity would generally have to be overt, yes?  I mean, you cannot point to another incidence where the animosity is supposedly hidden?  In this particular case you use as an example Romney's editorial in the WaPo, declaring that Trump was unfit to the President by reason of his character. 

Quote
The Trump presidency made a deep descent in December. The departures of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, the appointment of senior persons of lesser experience, the abandonment of allies who fight beside us, and the president’s thoughtless claim that America has long been a “sucker” in world affairs all defined his presidency down.

It is well known that Donald Trump was not my choice for the Republican presidential nomination. After he became the nominee, I hoped his campaign would refrain from resentment and name-calling. It did not. When he won the election, I hoped he would rise to the occasion. His early appointments of Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Nikki Haley, Gary Cohn, H.R. McMaster, Kelly and Mattis were encouraging. But, on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions last month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.

It is not that all of the president’s policies have been misguided. He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years. But policies and appointments are only a part of a presidency.

To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.

The world is also watching. America has long been looked to for leadership. Our economic and military strength was part of that, of course, but our enduring commitment to principled conduct in foreign relations, and to the rights of all people to freedom and equal justice, was even more esteemed. Trump’s words and actions have caused dismay around the world. In a 2016 Pew Research Center poll, 84 percent of people in Germany, Britain, France, Canada and Sweden believed the American president would “do the right thing in world affairs.” One year later, that number had fallen to 16 percent.

This comes at a very unfortunate time. Several allies in Europe are experiencing political upheaval. Several former Soviet satellite states are rethinking their commitment to democracy. Some Asian nations, such as the Philippines, lean increasingly toward China, which advances to rival our economy and our military. The alternative to U.S. world leadership offered by China and Russia is autocratic, corrupt and brutal.

The world needs American leadership, and it is in America’s interest to provide it. A world led by authoritarian regimes is a world — and an America — with less prosperity, less freedom, less peace.

To reassume our leadership in world politics, we must repair failings in our politics at home. That project begins, of course, with the highest office once again acting to inspire and unite us. It includes political parties promoting policies that strengthen us rather than promote tribalism by exploiting fear and resentment. Our leaders must defend our vital institutions despite their inevitable failings: a free press, the rule of law, strong churches, and responsible corporations and unions.

We must repair our fiscal foundation, setting a course to a balanced budget. We must attract the best talent to America’s service and the best innovators to America’s economy.

America is strongest when our arms are linked with other nations. We want a unified and strong Europe, not a disintegrating union. We want stable relationships with the nations of Asia that strengthen our mutual security and prosperity.

I look forward to working on these priorities with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other senators.

Furthermore, I will act as I would with any president, in or out of my party: I will support policies that I believe are in the best interest of the country and my state, and oppose those that are not. I do not intend to comment on every tweet or fault. But I will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions.

I remain optimistic about our future. In an innovation age, Americans excel. More importantly, noble instincts live in the hearts of Americans. The people of this great land will eschew the politics of anger and fear if they are summoned to the responsibility by leaders in homes, in churches, in schools, in businesses, in government — who raise our sights and respect the dignity of every child of God — the ideal that is the essence of America.

Now, it would help me, if you could point out the specific portion of the editorial where Romney is displaying overt animosity towards Trump.  Or was it the timing itself that was proof of animosity? 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 05, 2020, 07:39:41 PM
Huh?

Quote
a feeling of strong dislike, ill will, or enmity that tends to display itself in action:

I don't know how you could read his oped and conclude that it shows no animosity. Seems like plenty of dislike and ill will there. And the publication is the action.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Grant on February 05, 2020, 07:45:50 PM
Most "upstanding Mormons" should despise many of the things Trump stands for on principle, and Romney very much tries to be an upstanding Mormon. (In case you forgot, my family is Mormon, and so am I, although I'm not so upstanding)

K.  Let me break this down. 

1. Mormons hate (have animus for) many of the things Trump stand for. 
2. Romney is an upstanding Mormon
3. Romney has animus for Trump

Further

1. When someone succeeds where someone else fails, it causes hatred or dislike.
1. Trump succeeded where Romney failed.
3. Romney has animus for Trump


K.  My first question is whether Mormons actually teach having animus towards an individual, whether or not they teach to have animus towards what they stand for?
My second question is whether ALL upstanding Mormons have animosity towards Trump. 
My third question is whether success ALWAYS breeds resentment and animosity. 

You appear to have created generalizations that explain Romney's behavior as animosity instead of looking into specific actions by Romney to prove animosity.  You yourself admit to disliking Trump.  But do you know what Romney's motivations and feelings are in this matter?  Is it necessary that Romney has animosity for Trump to explain his actions? 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Grant on February 05, 2020, 07:47:15 PM
Huh?

I don't know how you could read his oped and conclude that it shows no animosity. Seems like plenty of dislike and ill will there. And the publication is the action.

Quote an actual line or paragraph, please. 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 05, 2020, 09:15:38 PM
K.  My first question is whether Mormons actually teach having animus towards an individual, whether or not they teach to have animus towards what they stand for?

They teach "Love the sinner, hate the sin" the doctrine and teaching focus on forgiveness and demonstrating a better way exists, by living up to that higher standard.
Quote
My second question is whether ALL upstanding Mormons have animosity towards Trump.

A number of them like him(comparable situation to a lot Evangelicals), a lot of them are firmly on "Team Red(Republican)" and actively support him as such even if they don't like him much. But I think you'd find a large number of them, even among the Conservative, dislike Trump and how he's going about doing many things. However, they still are conservatives and the Democrats are becoming even more of an anethema for them as thet lurch ever deer into left field and socialism/communism. The Mormon's have been there, done that even before Marx wrote his manifesto(and again after, IIRC), it didn't work. They have no reason to believe it would this time.
   
Quote
My third question is whether success ALWAYS breeds resentment and animosity.

Not always. I don't know Romney personally, so it's all conjecture on my part. As such, it's only a theory, but I do stand by the claim that Romney doesn't like Trump for a multitude of reasons, and that colored his perception of the Impeachment proceedings and that animosity is why he decided to vote the way he did, even if he claims differently. For all practical intents, he may fully believe he was being objective. I don't. 

Quote
You appear to have created generalizations that explain Romney's behavior as animosity instead of looking into specific actions by Romney to prove animosity.  You yourself admit to disliking Trump.  But do you know what Romney's motivations and feelings are in this matter?  Is it necessary that Romney has animosity for Trump to explain his actions?

Nothing specific, I've said my piece. I think it's why he did what he did, unconscious bias is a beast, just because you've buried it so deep you don't know its there doesn't mean it can't influence decisions.

Just going by Romney's statement on his decision. I'll still hold to the (unconscious) bias he holds against Trump is what tipped the scales in his decision, as he seemed to be thinking more about how history will judge those who openly supported Trump on this, rather than thinking about the legal and constitutional merits of the case.

Although I think ultimately this one will be viewed like President Johnson's Impeachment. He may have been worse than the things you could find on the bottom of your shoe after crossing a street in 1860's America, but Impeachment on the grounds of him violating a law which was subsequently determined to be unconstitutional was not the way to go about it. The Senators who voted to impeach him are the ones that should be scorned by history, not the ones who voted against conviction on "the clear violation of law." Which was actually more evidence than was presented by the House of Representatives in Trump's case. Even after the House Leadership evidently decided to run with a frightening new interpretation of how far and wide-ranging their powers of Impeachment are.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 05, 2020, 10:47:11 PM
Quote
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have taunted that “impeachment will last forever,” but GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, in line to be speaker if Republicans regain the majority in the November election, doesn’t agree.

“This is the fastest, weakest, most political impeachment in history,” McCarthy told The Post on Wednesday. “I don’t think it should stay on the books.”

If McCarthy (R-Calif.) does indeed take the gavel from Pelosi (D-Calif.) in 2021, he will hold immense power to pass legislation — and a vote on expungement almost certainly would yield party-line support.

Andrew Jackson was censured in 1834 and the censure was expunged by a House vote in 1837 so there’s precedent of a sort.

My god, this would be so phenomenally epic.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 05, 2020, 10:51:30 PM
Quote
This is the fastest, weakest, most political impeachment acquital in history
Fixed that for him.

What is interesting is that this is the first time in US history that a member of the president's own party voted to convict. So even though the numbers to convict weren't there, the votes to convict were the most bi-partisan ever.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 06, 2020, 02:23:50 AM
Quote
This is the fastest, weakest, most political impeachment acquital in history
Fixed that for him.

What is interesting is that this is the first time in US history that a member of the president's own party voted to convict. So even though the numbers to convict weren't there, the votes to convict were the most bi-partisan ever.

LOL.

If Nixon hadn't resigned, his would have likely been very bipartisan, probably a big factor in his resignation.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 06, 2020, 06:42:15 AM
...and?  I don't think the Nixon example suggests what you think it does.  Does anybody really dispute that what Nixon did rose to the level of removing him from office?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 06, 2020, 07:30:16 AM
Quote
This is the fastest, weakest, most political impeachment acquital in history
Fixed that for him.

What is interesting is that this is the first time in US history that a member of the president's own party voted to convict. So even though the numbers to convict weren't there, the votes to convict were the most bi-partisan ever.

You’re gonna hang on to thst aren’t you? You know it means nothing, right? Pierre Delecto Is a Democrat.

Have you forgotten what happened in the house?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 06, 2020, 07:38:03 AM
Oh, wait...

Quote
“top Mitt Romney adviser Joseph Cofer Black, who publicly goes by 'Cofer Black,' joined Burisma’s board of directors while Hunter Biden was also serving on the board."

Well, isn’t that quite the coincidence. The one defector is directly tied to the Biden’s corrupt business.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Grant on February 06, 2020, 09:57:48 AM
Not always. I don't know Romney personally, so it's all conjecture on my part. As such, it's only a theory, but I do stand by the claim that Romney doesn't like Trump for a multitude of reasons, and that colored his perception of the Impeachment proceedings and that animosity is why he decided to vote the way he did, even if he claims differently. For all practical intents, he may fully believe he was being objective. I don't. 

OK.  So we've come to the point where it's admittedly conjecture.  But standing by the idea that the action is motivated by animosity and that the stated reasons given are false, hence the false reasons are a form of self-justification. 

First, what is the conjecture based on?  You cannot use the action itself as the source of the conjecture that there is animosity.  That's circular logic.  You cannot say that an action is proof of underlying animosity if you are basing your belief that animosity exists from previous items.  But I don't think you're doing that.  Previous examples are that Romney lost where Trump won but that seems to be thin. 

It seems to me that the conjecture is based on a difference of opinion on the weight of the evidence given during impeachment.  YOU believe that the evidence did not support impeachment.  Romney states that he does.  But you seem to believe that Romney is simply saying that and that his real motivation is animosity.  Your theory is that Romney MUST believe that the evidence does not support impeachment, just like you do.  I suppose this is due to your belief that the lack of evidence is either glaringly obvious or self-evident. 

Your entire theory leaves no room for honest disagreement, but seems to rest on the idea that a difference of opinion can only be the result of animosity and that the supposed difference of opinion is simply a farce due to a form of self-justification.  This form of argumentation is destructive, since this form of conjecture can be applied to ALL disagreements.  ANYONE who disagrees with you can be accused of hidden motivations due to animosity.  This is why it is shunned and is an informal fallacy.  It's an appeal to motive.  It's basically an ad hominem.  It's like saying that Omar's testimony against Byrd cannot be believed because Omar doesn't like Byrd. 

I personally don't see any evidence of the animosity that is being ascribed here.  I suppose it is possible, but there seems to be little evidence for it.  One would have to beat down the actual justifications given over several instances to show that the individual was guilty of self-justification and lying while making arguments.  Overall, I'd say there is a great deal of projection occurring. 

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 06, 2020, 10:57:38 AM
Romney has never been shy about expressing his opinion of Trump and his belief that Trump is unfit to be President. Maybe he should have given some consideration to recusing himself since it's obvious that he is biased against Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney%27s_2016_anti-Trump_speech

"Romney's speech represented an unprecedented attack by a major U.S. party's most recent presidential nominee against the party's current front-runner for the nomination."

And now his vote to impeach represents an unprecedented instance of a Senator voting to impeach his own party's President.

I see a pattern emerging.

"Romney used the address, a targeted critique of Donald Trump, to declare that the candidate's promises were "worthless", describe him as a "fraud", and claim that "he's playing the American public for suckers: he gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."

"Mitt Romney's political assault on Donald J. Trump on Thursday was so savage that historians strained to recall any precedent in American politics, with a major party's former nominee blistering his party's leading presidential candidate in such a personal and sweeping fashion." Historians pointed to two instances: Theodore Roosevelt harshly criticizing William Howard Taft on a personal basis when Roosevelt split from the Republicans, and the erstwhile friends ran against each other in the 1912 U.S. presidential election, and Al Smith, the Democratic nominee in the 1928 U.S. presidential election, strongly denouncing Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal in a 1936 speech before the American Liberty League; However, neither instance was thought to be truly comparable to Romney's denunciation of Trump."


Here's some of the backstory about the reasons why Romney hates and was outraged by Trump:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/03/12/mitt-romney-spoke-out-against-donald-trump-after-months-rising-frustration/64xUc4myXpDRtdlZLYuRrK/story.html

Some of the highlights are Trump and David Duke, real heroes don't get shot down referring to John McCain, and Mexicans are rapists.

The guy is obviously suffering from chronic TDS. And that's fine. People have their reasons for hating Trump, Romney more than most. Nobody should expect that he could really make an unbiased decision regarding Trump. If he was honest with himself he would have admitted it to himself and then recused himself.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 06, 2020, 11:18:58 AM
I think his petulance is behind his position.  The fact is we can all find justifications for the action we want to take even if the real motives are something else.

That's very interesting.  You're saying that his petulance is hidden.

What ever gave you the idea that I said it was hidden?  Romney's very public anti-Trump stance and comments go back to before the Republican primary was even decided.  He's been the defining anti-Trumper since Jeff Flake left the Senate.  There's nothing about it that's hidden.  A number of your  follow ups seem to be asking for an exact direct reference by Romney?  He's said dozens if not hundreds of negative things about Trump.

It's my personal view that it's petulance (childishly sulky or bad tempered) rather than principled, which I flagged when I said "Romney is Romney, I haven't like his anti-Trump positions up to this point, they do seem petulant rather than principled."

I also clearly stated that I don't believe there can be a principled vote for impeachment on these charges, these facts and consistent with innocence until proven guilt.  The entire case isn't even circumstantial its projection.  Ergo, breaking with party to vote guilty, when the case hasn't been made, reflects either petulance or cosmically poor judgement/understanding. 

If the Republicans put forward this case against a Democratic President they too would be wrong to vote to convict.

Quote
Very telling.  Since the petulance is hidden, how would an individual go about ascertaining that petulance is behind someone's actions, and that they are making something up to justify their beliefs or actions?

The petulance isn't hidden, he's deliberately set his image as an anti-Trumper.  I would guess he thinks he projects as a champion of the "true" Republican party, but that's not how he appears to me.

There  is no way to know his actual motives.  I just have a suspicion and when the suspicion fits the facts and the purported motive doesn't it gives more weight - in my mind - to that suspicion, but it's not proof.  He could just be not that smart, or have an error in facts or logic he hasn't examined.  It may even feel that way to him, we all tend to accept less critically questionable statements that align with what we want to be true.  There's no question he wants bad things about Trump to be true.

Quote
How would you differentiate a person who was in fact being honest about their motives and an individual who was lying?

I never said he was lying.  But typically showing someone is honest in their motives is hard when there are multiple possibilities, which is why we require proof of motive to convict.  Romney's not on trial, but Trump was, and the very argument that underlies your question was exactly my point.  I can have an opinion on why Romney is doing something, and if I was in Utah that would cost him my vote, but it wouldn't put him in jail or get him impeached.

Impeaching Trump because of opinions about his motives is wrong.  Not voting for him in an election based on your beliefs about his motive is totally reasonable.

Quote
Why would these people engage in external self-justification?  What is their motivation?  In this particular instance, and in general?

All people engage in external self-justification.  Isn't that common psychological knowledge?  That we believe that our reasons for doing things are mostly based on outside factors that justifiably trigger our decision, and simultaneously that we believe others are primarily motivated by internal factors.

In making a judgement about why Romney is doing this, I have to be informed by my own conclusions on the impeachment.  There is no basis for his vote (nor that of the Democrats) in favor of impeachment on this record.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 06, 2020, 12:07:15 PM
Romney demanded witnesses because he said we didn’t have enough information. TheN votes to convict without the witnesses and without enough information. That’s pretty inconsistent.

Romney was essentially a leader In the NeverTrump coalition of the Republican Party. He used that stupid anonymous twitter account to criticize Trump. He’s been an outspoken critic of Trump - that’s is, unless he’s seeking to further his own political career with a Trump endorsement, then he’s all supportive. Romney is the type of politician everyone hates.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Grant on February 06, 2020, 12:10:49 PM
Romney has never been shy about expressing his opinion of Trump and his belief that Trump is unfit to be President. Maybe he should have given some consideration to recusing himself since it's obvious that he is biased against Trump.

Is it your position that every Senator who has expressed an opinion on Lord Cheetoh should recuse themselves?  Because that would be all of them.  Everybody in the world has an opinion on Trump.  He's the POTUS.  Don't be ridiculous.  Should every Republican who said *censored* about Trump in 2016 recuse themself?  Wouldn't that include Graham, Rubio, McConnel, and Cruz? 

Quote
I see a pattern emerging.

Well, you can't accuse him of being partisan, now can you?   :)

Quote
"Mitt Romney's political assault on Donald J. Trump on Thursday was so savage that historians strained to recall any precedent in American politics"

Hyperbole is great for newspaper writers.  I thought you guys thought the Grey Hooker was full of hacks anyways.  Why is it now a reputable source when it suits your needs? 

Quote
Here's some of the backstory about the reasons why Romney hates and was outraged by Trump:

I'm confused.  Did you read the article?  Because it seems to paint Romney is a good light.  Trump did refuse to condemn the KKK and David Duke in an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN.  He later put out a tweet saying that he did disavow David Duke, but he didn't.  He was lying as usual.  He did say that John McCain wasn't a war hero and that he liked people who didn't get captured.  Thinking these things are wrong doesn't mean that you HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE.  That's projection. 

Quote
Nobody should expect that he could really make an unbiased decision regarding Trump. If he was honest with himself he would have admitted it to himself and then recused himself.

Sure.  That's not deranged thinking at all.  Run with that. 

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on February 06, 2020, 12:12:13 PM
All people engage in external self-justification.  Isn't that common psychological knowledge?  That we believe that our reasons for doing things are mostly based on outside factors that justifiably trigger our decision, and simultaneously that we believe others are primarily motivated by internal factors.

aka fundamental attribution error or correspondence bias.

"The tendency for people to over-emphasise dispositional, or personality-based explanations for behaviours observed in others while under-emphasising situational explanations."

I try hard to be cognizant of it as default behaviour but it's challenging. And we all do it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: oldbrian on February 06, 2020, 12:50:36 PM
I think its funny that Trump believes Romney should be impeached because Romney had mixed motivations for an action that would potentially damage a political rival.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Grant on February 06, 2020, 01:12:51 PM

What ever gave you the idea that I said it was hidden? 

You said that petulance was BEHIND his position.  Since the wording of the statement shows no evidence of animosity or petulance, and since the action itself cannot be shown as evidence of animosity or petulance, and since many have stated that the reasons given by Romney for the action are false forms of self-justification, I assumed you mean that Romney's true motives are being hidden by him, but easily discerned by yourself and others.  Because appeal to motive is easier than dealing with the actual argument or you have already decided that the argument is faulty and there is no room for honest disagreement. 

Quote
He's said dozens if not hundreds of negative things about Trump.

Does everyone who holds a negative view of His Orangeness have animosity and hatred behind their view, or is it just Romney? 

Quote
I also clearly stated that I don't believe there can be a principled vote for impeachment on these charges, these facts and consistent with innocence until proven guilt.  The entire case isn't even circumstantial its projection.  Ergo, breaking with party to vote guilty, when the case hasn't been made, reflects either petulance or cosmically poor judgement/understanding.

Thank you.  You've confirmed my previous statement that the real reason behind the belief that Romney is being petulant or his actions are motivated by animosity is because you hold a different view on the impeachment.  A view you hold so strongly and believe to be so self-evidence that anyone who disagrees with you cannot possibly be doing so from principle, they must be motivated by animosity. 

Well, you do give some room to cosmically poor judgement/understanding.  So, is it possible that Romney just has cosmically poor understanding?  Him and every other Republican who have said that Trump's actions were wrong or impeachable? 

Let's talk more about correspondence bias. 

Quote
The petulance isn't hidden, he's deliberately set his image as an anti-Trumper.

Are all individuals who have negative views of Trump or his actions motivated by petulance or animosity?  Are all of their judgments suspect?  Is holding a negative view of someone by definition petulance?  If I hold a negative view of Bernie Sanders, is this due to petulance or animosity on my part?  Is every judgement I make concerning Bernie Sander's economic plan suspect? 

Quote
There  is no way to know his actual motives.  I just have a suspicion and when the suspicion fits the facts and the purported motive doesn't it gives more weight - in my mind - to that suspicion, but it's not proof.  He could just be not that smart, or have an error in facts or logic he hasn't examined.

This is infinity easier to do rather than deal with the stated motives.  The conclusion/view is different then yours, so the person must be biased or stupid.  Let's talk more about bias. 

Quote
I can have an opinion on why Romney is doing something, and if I was in Utah that would cost him my vote, but it wouldn't put him in jail or get him impeached.

You didn't answer the question, but changed the subject.  You generally observe that you cannot prove Romney's motivations, but hold that you can have an opinion on those motivations regardless of proof.  I would generally agree that the vast majority of our beliefs and opinions are not based on proof as we define it.  Yet most people would tend to believe that they had SOME sort of evidence to back up their opinion.  The only evidence I have seen presented that Romney acted out of animosity or petulance is that he has an unfavorable view of Trump as a human being , as a politician, or as a president.  This comes back to my question as to whether all people who hold negative views of other people are animated by animosity or petulance, and if their biases make their views suspect?  You are free to have an opinion.  They are like *censored*.  Everyone has them.  But should we not have an awareness as to the strength of those opinions, so we are aware if we are being motivated by our own biases? 

Quote
Impeaching Trump because of opinions about his motives is wrong.  Not voting for him in an election based on your beliefs about his motive is totally reasonable.

I'm glad all the Never Trumpers are now totally reasonable for not voting for Trump based on their opinions.  I will remember that. 

Quote
In making a judgement about why Romney is doing this, I have to be informed by my own conclusions on the impeachment.  There is no basis for his vote (nor that of the Democrats) in favor of impeachment on this record.

Again, it comes down to Romney disagrees with me so he must be full of hate or stupid.  Again, much easier than dealing with the actual arguments or motivations given by Romney.  Is this not the definition of confirmation bias? 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on February 06, 2020, 02:23:59 PM
Grant, while I think you may be right that both sides of this issue seem to often have partisan blinders on, I also think in this particular argument you're being hyper-reductionist. Asking for proof of someone's motivation is an ultimately circular debate: you'll start with someone stating evidence, you'll ask if that evidence is based on opinion or fact, and it will come full circle when all "facts" about someone's motivations end up being educated opinions, in which case you're back to asking for facts again (which inevitably will be shown to be opinions of one sort or another).

In other words, asking for "facts" about this sort of thing is not tenable if you won't accept opinions of any sort. I don't think Seriati's position on this is unreasonable, notwithstanding that he may or may not be correcet. The reductionism here ends up being a form of linguistic deconstruction where any evidence cited will be shown to be merely the product of someone's logical apparatus, which in turn you can show to be imperfect and therefore not 'real' evidence. Which basically means everything we believe is to varying degrees as inadmissible as the things you're dismissing here. What I think you should be arguing is that there's a low amount of data to support these positions, but calling them mere opinions is to call all information to do with motive a mere opinion; a truism, in short.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 06, 2020, 02:34:40 PM
"Is it your position that every Senator who has expressed an opinion on Lord Cheetoh should recuse themselves?"

Now I know an impeachment is not a jury trial. I get that. But... would anyone put people who have publicly expressed the opinions about a guy the way these people have done about Trump on a jury and expect them to give him a fair shake? Expect them not to let their emotions get in the way? No, and there's a good reason for that. Nobody would expect them to be unbiased. These politicians don't have better character than everyone else. They aren't above being petty and biased like everyone else. If anything they are worse. And that's what we saw with this impeachment. That's what we saw with Nancy tearing up the speech. Pettiness. Spitefulness. Hatred. Sadly that's also what we saw with Romney.

Sure they still have to impeach him if he goes way too far. I guess they thought he did. Maybe. But with all their bias going into it they also need to make sure the case is airtight otherwise it looks like exactly what this looks like. And it isn't good. It looks like this wasn't just business. It was personal.


"I'm confused.  Did you read the article?  Because it seems to paint Romney is a good light."

Yeah, I read it. I already knew about all of it and went through every statement Trump made and didn't make in real time. I did mention that they have their reasons for hating Trump. In some cases very good reasons. Which makes it all the easier to understand why they hate the guy.

By the way it was funny watching Nancy talk about how she doesn't hate. He actions though speak louder than her words.

But if you want to put a fine Christian line on it, they don't hate Trump. They just hate almost everything he stands for, almost everything he does, and almost everything he says. They don't hate the sinner. They just hate almost everything about him.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: rightleft22 on February 06, 2020, 02:55:37 PM
Quote
By the way it was funny watching Nancy talk about how she doesn't hate. He actions though speak louder than her words.

actions speak louder the words unless they don't.
Lets not seek out truth, facts. Investigates and question come from hate so we need not engage in such activities. We KNOW what the other is thinking and we KNOW their intentions. Their is no need to hold our knowing to a higher standing when we KNOW.

We are all flawed and cannot or should not be held to the oaths we take. Bias always wins out so mean oaths nothing. No one in history has seen by bias and character and drive to be better then they were.

So much sadness in everything you argue and take as truth
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Grant on February 06, 2020, 03:07:42 PM
Grant, while I think you may be right that both sides of this issue seem to often have partisan blinders on, I also think in this particular argument you're being hyper-reductionist. Asking for proof of someone's motivation is an ultimately circular debate: you'll start with someone stating evidence, you'll ask if that evidence is based on opinion or fact, and it will come full circle when all "facts" about someone's motivations end up being educated opinions, in which case you're back to asking for facts again (which inevitably will be shown to be opinions of one sort or another).

I can see how it may seem that way, but I don't think that reflects my actual views.  I'll give a counter-example.

Do I think Nancy Pelosi was being petulant when she ripped up a copy of the SOTU speech? 

Yes. 

First, it meets my definition of petulance.  It was an act, out of spite or anger, with no real purpose at all.  Ripping the speech up served no purpose.  I don't think it was a crime, like some Republican Cheetoh worshipers would like it to be, but it was petulant.  It was against common norms of decorum for a Speaker. 

Does Nancy Pelosi feel anger or spite out for Trump?  Sure.  But I don't think it is the animus behind all of her reasons she opposes some of his work, though.  I don't think it was even the reason she eventually bowed to pressure to begin impeachment.  Attibuting every belief or action that Nancy Pelosi does against Trump to animus is ridiculous, and leaves no room for honest disagreement.  Nancy Pelosi is a liberal.  She's going to be against some of Trump's actions because they are anti-liberal. 

So what is the difference between Romney and Pelosi?  Now, you could say that I'm biased because I generally like Romney and dislike Pelosi.  Personally, I think it is based on things that I can show.  I can show that ripping up a speech is petulant in itself.  Disagreement, or thinking the speech is horrible is not petulant in itself.  But ripping up a written speech is petulant because it served no purpose.  It's a fairly obvious act out of emotion.  Perhaps someone can argue against?  I'll listen. 

Romney on the other hand gave several reasons for his action beyond pure emotion or petulance. The act itself is not petulant if he honestly believes that Trump is guilty of an impeachable offense.  He lays out his reasoning.  There are lots of people who believe that Trump is guilty of an impeachable offense.  Maybe they're all wrong.  But I'm not going to assume that they all are wrong because they hold some animus towards Trump.  That's ridiculous demonization of other people and their arguments.  It's unserious.  It's for hacks.  I won't even demonize Hiz Majesty Of the Perfect Callz.  I think he's a petty individual unsuited to high office, but I don't think he's a monster. 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Grant on February 06, 2020, 03:31:04 PM
Now I know an impeachment is not a jury trial. I get that. But... would anyone put people who have publicly expressed the opinions about a guy the way these people have done about Trump on a jury and expect them to give him a fair shake? Expect them not to let their emotions get in the way? No, and there's a good reason for that. Nobody would expect them to be unbiased. These politicians don't have better character than everyone else. They aren't above being petty and biased like everyone else. If anything they are worse. And that's what we saw with this impeachment. That's what we saw with Nancy tearing up the speech. Pettiness. Spitefulness. Hatred. Sadly that's also what we saw with Romney.


As you say, it's not a jury trial.  And there is one more important difference between a regular jury trial and the US Senate. 

You say "These politicians don't have better character than everyone else. They aren't above being petty and biased like everyone else. If anything they are worse.". 

But the entire idea behind Republican representative government, one of the major ideas behind the entire US Constitution, one of the major ideas behind America, is that there are some people who have better character than most everyone else.  There are people that are better.  There are people that can make decisions without being petty or as biased as everyone else.  These are the people that the framers wanted us to place into high office when they created the US Government as designed in the Constitution. That was the entire premise behind Republican government, and was the #1 reason for ditching the Articles of Confederation for a stronger Federal Government.  That federal elections would serve as a filter to produce the best citizens to serve.  Otherwise, we could have stuck with direct democracy or state legislatures running the show. 

Now, you could say that the experiment has failed.  That federal elections have not produced better citizens.  You argue that they are in fact worse.  But we get the government we vote for.  I don't see how someone can complain about lack of character and pettiness in government and support voting for Lord Babyhands, for instance.  US Senators are supposed to be the senior house of the Legislative Branch.  They are supposed to be statesmen/women of high character.  That is why they are given such responsibility in impeachment.  Even then, the framers understood, better than anyone, the dangers of faction.  This was foreseen.  Which is why it takes 2/3 majority to convict. 

But if the people of the United States can no longer produce politicians and public servants of high character and raise them to office, we need to question the entire structure and premise of Republican Democracy.  We should just go back to Monarchy, so they can protect us from the shareholders of Chase Manhattan.  These were the same warnings given by Britain in 1783.  Previous generations of Americans were apparently able to make it work, but somewhere along the line, the mix of Boomers, GenX, and Millenials, have failed. If we cannot produce people better than the hoi poloi, we don't deserve Democracy, and we certainly don't deserve our particular place in the world. 

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 06, 2020, 03:59:17 PM
Quote
I can show that ripping up a speech is petulant in itself.  Disagreement, or thinking the speech is horrible is not petulant in itself.  But ripping up a written speech is petulant because it served no purpose.  It's a fairly obvious act out of emotion.  Perhaps someone can argue against?  I'll listen. 
Not to rain on your parade, but I really don't think you can show that, not without a lot more evidence.

Sure, petulance is one possible motivation.  But she may also have been thinking that it would play well with her base, or with her Democratic colleagues.  Maybe she was doing it in order to steal the 24-hour news cycle.  It certainly looked staged, suggesting it was premeditated, which, though not ruling out petulance, certainly argues against it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 06, 2020, 04:04:21 PM

What ever gave you the idea that I said it was hidden? 

You said that petulance was BEHIND his position.  Since the wording of the statement shows no evidence of animosity or petulance, and since the action itself cannot be shown as evidence of animosity or petulance, and since many have stated that the reasons given by Romney for the action are false forms of self-justification, I assumed you mean that Romney's true motives are being hidden by him, but easily discerned by yourself and others.  Because appeal to motive is easier than dealing with the actual argument or you have already decided that the argument is faulty and there is no room for honest disagreement.

Grant, I was crystal clear that I believe the argument in favor of voting for removal is faulty.  And I don't even think it's close.  Any vote in favor of impeachment on the first count requires an assumption of facts that were not in evidence and that may not even exist.

Ergo, based on my knowledge of Romney, I think it's most likely his animus to Trump is what's behind his vote, and his explanation is just rationalization.   

Quote
Quote
He's said dozens if not hundreds of negative things about Trump.

Does everyone who holds a negative view of His Orangeness have animosity and hatred behind their view, or is it just Romney?

I doubt everyone does, but I think we should be able to agree that there are lot of people for whom the hatred leads their comments rather than the other way around.  It's trivially easy to get people to sound off about "quotes from Trump" that you later reveal were really from a Democrat.  Even if they're directly on something the DNC does support.

Quote
Thank you.  You've confirmed my previous statement that the real reason behind the belief that Romney is being petulant or his actions are motivated by animosity is because you hold a different view on the impeachment.  A view you hold so strongly and believe to be so self-evidence that anyone who disagrees with you cannot possibly be doing so from principle, they must be motivated by animosity. 

Well, you do give some room to cosmically poor judgement/understanding.  So, is it possible that Romney just has cosmically poor understanding?  Him and every other Republican who have said that Trump's actions were wrong or impeachable?

Let's talk more about correspondence bias. 

Wrong is different from impeachable. 

But even more, we don't get to "Trump's actions were wrong."  List for me the specific actions of Trump personally that were in the record that were wrong.  There's virtually nothing attributable to Trump in the record, and what is there doesn't support the personal benefit narrative.

It's like you're arguing that arresting people for the crime of black while driving is legitimate.  Being President while being Trump is impeachable.

Quote
Quote
The petulance isn't hidden, he's deliberately set his image as an anti-Trumper.

Are all individuals who have negative views of Trump or his actions motivated by petulance or animosity?  Are all of their judgments suspect?  Is holding a negative view of someone by definition petulance?  If I hold a negative view of Bernie Sanders, is this due to petulance or animosity on my part?  Is every judgement I make concerning Bernie Sander's economic plan suspect? 

No. No. No.  Beats me, only you would know, but if you wrote hundreds of things about your negative view of Bernie Sanders I might have a good guess.  No, but if you make a judgment of Bernie Sander's economic plan that assumes a lot of things not in evidence it may be evidence that that particular judgement is.

Quote
Quote
There  is no way to know his actual motives.  I just have a suspicion and when the suspicion fits the facts and the purported motive doesn't it gives more weight - in my mind - to that suspicion, but it's not proof.  He could just be not that smart, or have an error in facts or logic he hasn't examined.

This is infinity easier to do rather than deal with the stated motives.  The conclusion/view is different then yours, so the person must be biased or stupid.  Let's talk more about bias.

Let's talk about what's infinitely "easier" first.  There's no lack of my dealing with the "facts" and the law on this impeachment.  There's no analogue in American Justice that supports the process that was followed, that deliberately trampled the rights of the accused, propped up hearsay and even fiction, and NEVER had any cross examination of any prosecution witness or defense witness even called.  It was an abuse from the beginning, and it should be condemned as such.

Supporting a conviction based on THAT record can only be viewed as Banana Court justice.  It literally means that you believe you have proven the exclusive and impermissible motive of Trump without ever considering any evidence of other motives.  I don't care who you are, or what you believe, there is no way to justify that process in America.

Go ahead, try.  Explain how this process was right and just and fair, and led to a record that supports any charges and a conviction.

Quote
I can have an opinion on why Romney is doing something, and if I was in Utah that would cost him my vote, but it wouldn't put him in jail or get him impeached.

You didn't answer the question, but changed the subject.[/quote]

Not remotely.  Motive speculation is a great reason to vote for someone or not.  It's not a basis to put someone in jail or to impeach, for that we required proof and facts.  That's exactly the subject, and exactly why I can criticize Romney and you can criticize Trump on what we believe about what we've seen, but neither of us should be putting either in jail based on what we believe their motivations were.

Quote
You generally observe that you cannot prove Romney's motivations, but hold that you can have an opinion on those motivations regardless of proof.

I didn't hold that.  I held that different types and kinds of proof are necessary for different purposes, and that motive speculation is not the standard of proof for trials.

Quote
I would generally agree that the vast majority of our beliefs and opinions are not based on proof as we define it.  Yet most people would tend to believe that they had SOME sort of evidence to back up their opinion.  The only evidence I have seen presented that Romney acted out of animosity or petulance is that he has an unfavorable view of Trump as a human being , as a politician, or as a president.

If you're looking for me to prove my opinion you're not going to get it.  They are called opinions for a reason.   That doesn't mean they are unsupported, the record is there, it means that they are not proven.  If I knew if for certain, I would have stated it as a certainty.

The impeachment record doesn't support a guilty vote.   It's my opinion Romney strained to find a way to vote guilty because of his dislike of Trump and not because he found the impeachment record particularly persuasive.  Or rather that absent his personal dislike, he would have rejected the record.  There is no chance he would have voted guilty if Pence was facing the exact same charges.

Quote
  This comes back to my question as to whether all people who hold negative views of other people are animated by animosity or petulance, and if their biases make their views suspect?  You are free to have an opinion.  They are like *censored*.  Everyone has them.  But should we not have an awareness as to the strength of those opinions, so we are aware if we are being motivated by our own biases?

No to the first, lots of people with negative views are not animated by petulance or animosity.  I mean heck, we have two examples in the impeachment itself.  Both Turley and Dershowitz expressed lack of personal support for Trump and indicated they voted for Hillary, yet they were still there making the arguments because they believed the principals were more important.

On the hand, just about everyone in the House, Republican or Democrat, flipped their entire position from where they were on Clinton's impeachment, to the point that you have literal video clips of them contradicting themselves.   And they weren't really motivated by "petulance" either, but rather by pure political greed. 

Quote
Quote
Impeaching Trump because of opinions about his motives is wrong.  Not voting for him in an election based on your beliefs about his motive is totally reasonable.

I'm glad all the Never Trumpers are now totally reasonable for not voting for Trump based on their opinions.  I will remember that.

Whoever said you shouldn't vote for who you want?

Quote
Quote
In making a judgement about why Romney is doing this, I have to be informed by my own conclusions on the impeachment.  There is no basis for his vote (nor that of the Democrats) in favor of impeachment on this record.

Again, it comes down to Romney disagrees with me so he must be full of hate or stupid.  Again, much easier than dealing with the actual arguments or motivations given by Romney.  Is this not the definition of confirmation bias?

I don't know how to take your response at this point.  You seem to want to convince me that I find the impeachment guilty votes illegitimate.  Yes I do.

Then to convince me that people that voted guilty are wrong because I believe those votes are completely unsupportable.  Yes I do.

Perhaps you are under the mistaken view that I think the Republicans voted for acquital for the right reasons?  I do not, or they would have dismissed the case prior to oral arguments for being defective on its face.

No, it's not the definition of confirmation bias.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 06, 2020, 04:22:22 PM
I can't speak to proving anything, but it is an essential job of the electorate to try to divine motivation. Are people trying to take our guns to establish a police state, or to add measures for public safety? Are they cutting taxes to create jobs, or to make the rich richer? Are they cutting transgender from the military to improve readiness, or to roll back LGBT agendas? Are they increasing welfare programs to help people in need, or to buy votes?

We can often be cynical about true motivations, but it is still an important exercise.

Pelosi ripping up the speech was symbolic of the rejection of the ideas presented. I think decorum left us a while ago. The veneer of respectful disagreement has been torn asunder. And it is very dangerous. It didn't start with lying Ted, or crooked Hillary, but that seems the inflection point, at least to me. The gloves are off now.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: rightleft22 on February 06, 2020, 05:01:00 PM
Quote
But ripping up a written speech is petulant because it served no purpose.  It's a fairly obvious act out of emotion.

the act appeared more calculated then emotional or perhaps a bit of both, a attempt to make a point in answer to the (perhaps) petulant snub of Trump refusing to shake her hand when offered.

We see the world as we are not as it is so I prefer the rule of charity when it trying to "Know" what another person is thinking.

Trump didn't notice the offered hand and Pelosi didn't like the speech.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Wayward Son on February 06, 2020, 05:03:04 PM
Quote
Given Pelosi's statement that impeachment is forever vetting the facts in the House before impeachment seems like the minimum standard that should apply.  Or do you believe that once the Senate chooses not to remove that Trump is exonerated?

Can't have it both ways, if Impeachment means something it's the Houses job to make sure they have it correct.

It finally occurred to me why this is so sad.

The Republicans in the Senate, and apparently a lot of other people, decided that the Senate trial was to evaluate the quality of the House's evidence, rather than to determine whether Trump was guilty of the charges or not.  :(
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: rightleft22 on February 06, 2020, 05:04:25 PM
Quote
Any vote in favor of impeachment on the first count requires an assumption of facts that were not in evidence and that may not even exist.

 I don't know anyone who does not think that Trump didn't do what he was accused of doing.
The difference of opinion is if such actions were impeachable and or should lead to his removal of office.
The House impeached Trump, The Senate found that his actions should not lead to Trump removal.  The system worked.

The House had to investigate, the administration was less the helpful in the investigation - arguably obstruction. Their was strong evidence that Trump withhold aid to gain a personal favor and so a abuse of power - arguable if it was personal. The Senate did not find the actions were for personal gain, so not abuse of power and obstruction of congress doesn't matter.  (until it will some time in the future.)  Whatever the precedence's have be set.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: ScottF on February 06, 2020, 05:15:18 PM
It finally occurred to me why this is so sad.

The Republicans in the Senate, and apparently a lot of other people, decided that the Senate trial was to evaluate the quality of the House's evidence, rather than to determine whether Trump was guilty of the charges or not.  :(

The latter required the former.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on February 06, 2020, 06:13:58 PM
The Republicans in the Senate, and apparently a lot of other people, decided that the Senate trial was to evaluate the quality of the House's evidence, rather than to determine whether Trump was guilty of the charges or not.  :(

You think deciding on a person's guilt should be based on something...other than...evaluating the quality of the evidence? This sounds like a Troy McClure bit.

I think in proper court cases the jury is explicitly instructed to rule based on the evidence alone and not whether they "think" the defendant is guilty. So...yeah..."we all know he did it" isn't a kind of evidence.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 06, 2020, 06:30:19 PM
I think in proper court cases the jury is explicitly instructed to rule based on the evidence alone and not whether they "think" the defendant is guilty. So...yeah..."we all know he did it" isn't a kind of evidence.

I'd refine this a bit, the jury is there to evaluate the evidence presented (not their outside opinions), but to apply it through the law that actually applies.  Killing a person is only murder if it fits into the law, and there is no defense such as self defense that applies.

There were several gross failings by the House, but one of them very clearly was a failure to set out the elements of what their impeachment charge was for abuse of power.  They were deliberately vague and non-specific, and that let them argue a case without specifying exactly which conduct of Trump's was impermissable.  Was it just the call?  The motive isn't there.  Was it some assumption that because he told Sondland "no quid pro quo" we can assume he meant quid pro quo?  Was it that multiple mid level diplomats heard rumors that largely came from Sondland's misunderstanding?

A court case is dismissable, and in fact a law is ruled unConstitutional if it's so vague a defendant can't determine which conduct is illegal and which is not.  A case fails if it can't prove an element.

List out the elements for the charge for Article I and what specific facts prove them.  The elements are not there.

If you look at the second article, you find an article that should always have been dismissed.  It literally makes impeachable an insistance that novel issues be litigated and ruled on by the courts.  If the House demanded Trump's attorney's files would they be entitled to them?  By their theory the answer is yes without question, Trump is not entitled to speak to his lawyers if the House says impeachment and makes the demand.

If you list out the actual elements, you'll find either that the charges are poor and don't require proof that Trump did something wrong, or that the elements needed to prove it are not present.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 06, 2020, 06:31:40 PM
Quote
Given Pelosi's statement that impeachment is forever vetting the facts in the House before impeachment seems like the minimum standard that should apply.  Or do you believe that once the Senate chooses not to remove that Trump is exonerated?

Can't have it both ways, if Impeachment means something it's the Houses job to make sure they have it correct.

It finally occurred to me why this is so sad.

The Republicans in the Senate, and apparently a lot of other people, decided that the Senate trial was to evaluate the quality of the House's evidence, rather than to determine whether Trump was guilty of the charges or not.  :(

I think it makes me so sad that so many people don't believe that the purpose of the House's impeachment process was to get to the truth rather than to create a narrative justifying Trump''s removal.

Still waiting for your explanation on how denying cross examination helped us get to the truth.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Wayward Son on February 06, 2020, 06:40:32 PM
The Republicans in the Senate, and apparently a lot of other people, decided that the Senate trial was to evaluate the quality of the House's evidence, rather than to determine whether Trump was guilty of the charges or not.  :(

You think deciding on a person's guilt should be based on something...other than...evaluating the quality of the evidence? This sounds like a Troy McClure bit.

I think in proper court cases the jury is explicitly instructed to rule based on the evidence alone and not whether they "think" the defendant is guilty. So...yeah..."we all know he did it" isn't a kind of evidence.

It's not that the judgement should be based on something other than the evidence.  It's that the Senate Republicans decided that it was more important to limit their inquiry only to the House's evidence.  And if that evidence, and that evidence alone, did not convince them, well, then it was all the House's fault, wasn't it?  If Trump happened to the guilty and there was more evidence out there that proved it, well, that wasn't their job to look at it.  Finding out the truth wasn't their job.  Responding to the evidence the House provided was.

Evidence, facts, guilt, innocence--those were only secondary issues. :(
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Wayward Son on February 06, 2020, 06:46:12 PM
Quote
Still waiting for your explanation on how denying cross examination helped us get to the truth.

You mean denying the White House the ability to cross-examine the witnesses (since Republicans were at the hearings, too, although some Republicans would have you believe otherwise)?

I believe they expected that to happen during the Senate Impeachment hearings.  After all, every other Senate impeachment hearings had witnesses that spoke directly to the Senators and told what they had witnessed.

Do you really think that this White House would cross-examine witnesses to get to the truth?  ;D
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 07, 2020, 02:58:28 AM
Grant, while I think you may be right that both sides of this issue seem to often have partisan blinders on, I also think in this particular argument you're being hyper-reductionist. Asking for proof of someone's motivation is an ultimately circular debate: you'll start with someone stating evidence, you'll ask if that evidence is based on opinion or fact, and it will come full circle when all "facts" about someone's motivations end up being educated opinions, in which case you're back to asking for facts again (which inevitably will be shown to be opinions of one sort or another).

Which is why I stopped justifying my position after the initial few rounds. It's a conjecture on what I think Romney did and why based on my own personal opinion. As it involves some degree of "mind reading" being employed, arguing over it will only run us around in circles.

It doesn't appreciably change my views of Romney, I'm disappointed, but he's human and if my theory is right, he wasn't (fully) aware of what he did.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 07, 2020, 03:10:03 AM
Pelosi ripping up the speech was symbolic of the rejection of the ideas presented. I think decorum left us a while ago. The veneer of respectful disagreement has been torn asunder. And it is very dangerous. It didn't start with lying Ted, or crooked Hillary, but that seems the inflection point, at least to me. The gloves are off now.

Well at least nobody has been beaten to within an inch of his life on the Senate Floor to the point where it took years to recover.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 07, 2020, 03:16:04 AM
I believe in coincidences. Sometimes they happen. But it's a pretty big coincidence that Romney has been the one who has been the Republican in the Senate most critical of Trump and then he's the only Republican who votes against Trump on impeachment. Not likely a coincidence in my book. 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 07, 2020, 03:20:41 AM
It's not that the judgement should be based on something other than the evidence.  It's that the Senate Republicans decided that it was more important to limit their inquiry only to the House's evidence.  And if that evidence, and that evidence alone, did not convince them, well, then it was all the House's fault, wasn't it?  If Trump happened to the guilty and there was more evidence out there that proved it, well, that wasn't their job to look at it.  Finding out the truth wasn't their job.  Responding to the evidence the House provided was.

Evidence, facts, guilt, innocence--those were only secondary issues. :(

The sole power of impeachment lies with the House of Representatives. The funnier thing about how broadly they expanded it, they also hilariously determined that evidently while the "sole power" lies with them to conduct the impeachment, they decided the Senate's role is to actually investigate the case. After the House decides they should do so by sending articles of impeachment to them.

There are multiple problems with that.

Complaining that the Senate did not investigate further is like a DA complaining about losing a Murder Trial because the Judge didn't allow them to carry out further investigations and bring in new evidence during the trial they were already aware of prior to the pre-trial work concluding when they could have asked to delay the trial date.

In this case, they can't even blame the judge for refusing to grant them extension on the trial start date. The House rushed it to a floor vote, then sat on it for an additional month before giving it to the Senate, where they promptly proclaim an orange dog ate their homework and asks the Senators to do it for them.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on February 07, 2020, 09:26:01 AM
I find it interesting that people keep comparing impeachment to a criminal trial when it's explicitly not a criminal trial. It's one of the few things that the Constitution actually defines about impeachment.

The other thing is that if it had been intended for the Senate to simply review the House's case, I doubt the Constitution would have called for a trial. 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: rightleft22 on February 07, 2020, 11:00:35 AM
Quote
I believe in coincidences. Sometimes they happen. But it's a pretty big coincidence that Romney has been the one who has been the Republican in the Senate most critical of Trump and then he's the only Republican who votes against Trump on impeachment. Not likely a coincidence in my book

Coincidence or is it just possible that Romney is attempting to live up to his values and oath as he see's necessary for the good of the country?  I think you miss use the word coincidence when it appears he is being consistent. 

Everyone that you disagree with is not necessarily out to get you or have some kind of hidden agenda. 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 07, 2020, 11:16:35 AM
Quote
Still waiting for your explanation on how denying cross examination helped us get to the truth.

You mean denying the White House the ability to cross-examine the witnesses (since Republicans were at the hearings, too, although some Republicans would have you believe otherwise)?

A cross examination is by definition by the defense.  Republican members of the House are not the defense, they have their own powers and perrogatives to pursue.  The only reason you can even make this argument is that this such a purely political and partisan process that it had no Republican support.

There was no ability to object to questions, no ability to insist on answers that Schiff didn't want to hear (what was it you were saying about not being interested in pursuing the truth again?).

I get you see the world only in shades of teams, but being a Republican and present =/ to having a cross examination.  Heck, the mere fact that no one could object to a question by Schiff is a material deviation of process.

Quote
I believe they expected that to happen during the Senate Impeachment hearings.  After all, every other Senate impeachment hearings had witnesses that spoke directly to the Senators and told what they had witnessed.

That may be the most false statement you've ever made.  There is not one precedent for taking depositions in this manner, it never happened in prior impeachments.  There is no way to cure a one sided deposition left stale for months without any ability of the defense to bring up its objections and questions.

Quote
Do you really think that this White House would cross-examine witnesses to get to the truth?  ;D

Yes.  Pretty clearly, they would have cross examined witnesses with questions that would have demonstrated that they were stating unfounded opinions, they would have objected to statements based solely on hearsay, they would have demanded answers around why they believed they set policy rather than the white house.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 07, 2020, 11:31:48 AM
I find it interesting that people keep comparing impeachment to a criminal trial when it's explicitly not a criminal trial. It's one of the few things that the Constitution actually defines about impeachment.

The other thing is that if it had been intended for the Senate to simply review the House's case, I doubt the Constitution would have called for a trial.

If they had intended for the Senate to make the House's case, then there would be Senate impeachment managers not House impeachment managers.

The House failed to state and actionable claim, and failed to demonstrate that they voted to impeach based on facts they had collected.  This case should have been dismissed.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on February 07, 2020, 11:38:10 AM
If they had intended for the Senate to make the House's case, then there would be Senate impeachment managers not House impeachment managers.

The House failed to state and actionable claim, and failed to demonstrate that they voted to impeach based on facts they had collected.  This case should have been dismissed.

And where in the Constitution does it mention impeachment managers or that it's up to the House alone to make the case for impeachment?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 07, 2020, 11:58:40 AM
Lol.  If you want to make the case that the sparse words on Impeachment mean that the House can do whatever sham process it decides to run, it's hard to whine about the Senate using the sparse words in the Constitution to justify it's own process.

Given how you've responded, are you really okay with the House running a banana court process that completely undermines what we believe are the Constitutional rights of an accussed person? 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on February 07, 2020, 12:14:54 PM
I don't think what the Senate did could be properly called a trial.

Please tell me how Trump's life, liberty, or property were imperiled by impeachment proceedings. It's well established law that the full protections of constitutionally-guaranteed rights don't apply for non-criminal proceedings.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: yossarian22c on February 07, 2020, 12:23:59 PM
Yes.  Pretty clearly, they would have cross examined witnesses with questions that would have demonstrated that they were stating unfounded opinions, they would have objected to statements based solely on hearsay, they would have demanded answers around why they believed they set policy rather than the white house.

Okay, I may be wrong about this (not a legal expert). The closest analogies I can think of for comparing impeachment to criminal legal proceedings would be the following.

The house most acts like some kind of combination of grand jury and prosecution rolled into one. So not having defense council present would be okay if that was their role.

The Senate is some combination of judge and jury rolled into one. This is usually the stage in a trial when witnesses would be subject to cross examination by the defense.

But in the end its not a trial and expecting each peace of the criminal justice system to fit in nicely with the impeachment process is asking a bit much.

At the end of the day you either think Trump is justified in asking for the investigation or you feel that is outside of the lines for what presidents should do. There is some dispute over how much leverage he used in pushing for the investigations but not the fact he was asking for those investigations in particular and not other corruption related investigations.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on February 07, 2020, 12:46:44 PM
I don't think what the Senate did could be properly called a trial.

Please tell me how Trump's life, liberty, or property were imperiled by impeachment proceedings. It's well established law that the full protections of constitutionally-guaranteed rights don't apply for non-criminal proceedings.

I don't understand the intricacies of the system we're talking about, but it seems to me that on a common sense level if a person is publicly being accused of things which are bad, this will automatically threaten his well-being, prosperity, and perhaps freedom down the line. First of all it's someone's job, which they worked tirelessly to get, be elected, and spent in this case a ton of his own money to petition for. Threatening to take that away isn't nothing. But as I doubt that issue will garner much sympathy for people (especially if he really is corrupt) I think the more important issue would be that if a banana-court type proceeding is conducted which exposes the President to things for which he might be prosecuted after he is impeached (or not re-elected), then it is very material what is or isn't permitted into evidence in this "trial" since it will come back to haunt him. I don't know that, from my lay perspective, it makes sense to argue that "oh it's not really a trial so what does it matter." Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it might matter a lot.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 07, 2020, 03:54:40 PM
I don't think what the Senate did could be properly called a trial.

Please tell me how Trump's life, liberty, or property were imperiled by impeachment proceedings. It's well established law that the full protections of constitutionally-guaranteed rights don't apply for non-criminal proceedings.

You aren't taking that from Trump, you're taking it from 63 million voters that put him into office.  You are literally trying to terminate that political statement, invalidate it and prevent however many millions of people would vote for him in the next election from doing so.

You guys flip out about voter id laws disenfranchising people (even though there isn't actually any evidence they do), but turn a blind eye to disenfranchising millions upon millions.

But it's definitely an embarrassment that you'd even try to argue that impeaching a President is somehow less significant than trying any crime or misdemeanor.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 07, 2020, 04:09:40 PM
Yes.  Pretty clearly, they would have cross examined witnesses with questions that would have demonstrated that they were stating unfounded opinions, they would have objected to statements based solely on hearsay, they would have demanded answers around why they believed they set policy rather than the white house.

Okay, I may be wrong about this (not a legal expert). The closest analogies I can think of for comparing impeachment to criminal legal proceedings would be the following.

The house most acts like some kind of combination of grand jury and prosecution rolled into one. So not having defense council present would be okay if that was their role.

No it wouldn't.  A grand jury is a brake on the otherwise unfettered powers of a prosecutor to engage in abusive prosecutions.  Someone can not be a "grand jury" and a "prosecutor," without the function voiding itself.  It's a safety valve that requires the body politic sign off on prosecutions.  The House "as a grand jury" is not doing that function, they are doing the function of the prosecutor - speaking to no one.  That's why that is a terrible analogy.

The House's job is to do the investigation and  reach a conclusion that impeachable conduct likely occurred, it's more than a grand jury (probable cause) and much more akin to what a prosecutor is supposed to do.  A prosecutor is supposed to have a good faith belief that the person is guilty of the crimes they are charged with, that means they are IN FACT supposed to investigate the defenses the person could have put forward and come to a conclusion that they are no applicable.

A prosecutor should NEVER bring a case if they have a good faith belief that a killing was in self defense, or if they can't prove the person they think did it in fact did it.  It's not, take a bad case to trial and see what a jury says.  It's literally, take a case because I think I show it to a factual certainty.

Pretending that the House's sole charge is to find the political will to vote yes, demeans us all.  Pretending that if the House has the votes, it's up to the Senate to do the entire process is just nonsense.

Quote
The Senate is some combination of judge and jury rolled into one. This is usually the stage in a trial when witnesses would be subject to cross examination by the defense.

No.  In fact most every witness is deposed before trial.  You guys are confused by tv.   They actually use those depositions to impeach them at trial.  What the House did in refusing defense counsel the right to cross examination is a literal abuse.

Quote
At the end of the day you either think Trump is justified in asking for the investigation or you feel that is outside of the lines for what presidents should do.

Trump was completely justified in what he actually asked for on the call. 

It's also completely legitimate to investigate the 2016 election interference, and in fact it should be investigated since it's completely obvious the DNC did invite foreign interference.

It's also completely legitimate to investigate Hunter Biden's role with Burisma.  It looks on its face like corruption and possibly an FCPA violation.

Otherwise, it seems to be that you believe it's a crime to investigate criminal conduct by Democrats.  We all know that investigating Republicans to the point of using foreign propaganda, authorizing spying, and running 3 year processes that ignore constitutional rights is apparently okay.  How is this -even if what you believe is assumed true- not far less than what you've already endorsed as okay by Democrats?

Quote
There is some dispute over how much leverage he used in pushing for the investigations but not the fact he was asking for those investigations in particular and not other corruption related investigations.

The record actually makes it clear that he was concerned about all corruption.  It's repeated multiple times.  It's fake news to claim he never asked about the others.

But in any event, it's not even plausible that asking about 2016 election interference is wrong.

Asking about Biden was stupid, but not wrong either.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 07, 2020, 04:44:40 PM
Breaking:
Quote
Lt. Col. Vindman was just escorted out of the White House by security and told his services were no longer needed.

When you aim for the king, you best not miss.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 08, 2020, 10:35:06 AM
Sondland too

Quote
U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who testified about President Trump’s Ukraine dealings during the House impeachment hearings, said Friday he had been recalled from his overseas position, hours after a National Security Council aide who testified against the president was also fired

Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on February 08, 2020, 05:52:34 PM
...I don't know anyone who does not think that Trump didn't do what he was accused of doing.

You must not know many people. The only people who believed the accusation must not know there is an obligation of the President to investigate corruption when USA funds are at risk. Biden's son joined the Burisma board and his father arranged for preferential treatment for the company. The oligarch who owns Burisma was under criminal scrutiny for stealing millions of our money. Biden and others connected to Burisma managed to quash the arrest warrants, and as far as we know, the oligarch still has our money.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 10, 2020, 10:32:37 AM
Not that anybody is surprised (well, maybe with the exception of wmLambert): Fox News implicates... Fox News in spreading disinformation concerning Ukraine conspiracy theories (https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-internal-document-bashes-john-solomon-joe-digenova-and-rudy-giuliani-for-spreading-disinformation)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 10, 2020, 11:24:43 AM
Limiting my google search to the 20 years before Feb 1 (so ignoring the 200+ citations after media matters starting promoting this story 4-5 days ago), I have difficulty finding any references to Brian Murphy related to Fox, or as a "senior researcher" notwithstanding The Daily Beast credits him with the document they are leaking.  Not saying he isn't, just that it's a peculiar omission.

And this is how the Daily Beast describes John Solomon:

Quote
The research brief is especially critical of Solomon, a former opinion columnist at The Hill whose opinion pieces about Ukraine made unsubstantiated claims about its government interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

***

While Solomon is portrayed on Sean Hannity’s show as a crusading “investigative reporter”—despite The Hill overtly branding him an opinion columnist—the Brain Room document accuses the contributor of taking part in a Ukrainian smear campaign. 

Which is a fascinating way to describe someone who spent 20 years working at the Associated Press and rose to be it's Washington Bureau chief before becoming the Editor in Chief of the Washington times.  Even at The Hill, his work is described in his Wiki as follows:  "Upon leaving Circa, Solomon became executive vice president of digital video for The Hill.  Until May 2018, he worked on news and investigative pieces for The Hill."  I Grant you Wikipedia describes him as a "political commentator" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator))

Now they've posted opinion pieces of his as well, but hardly a circumstance where someone could in good faith object to him being described as an investigative journalist.

So it sounds like The Daily Beast has an agenda here, and that fills me with severe doubt that they are reporting in good faith on the pieces that I can't easily verify.  In fact, I don't trust their account at all.  Especially not when they play into their own false memes.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 10, 2020, 08:32:52 PM
Quote
Officials confirmed that Trump and national security adviser Robert O’Brien have cut 70 positions inherited from former President Barack Obama, who had fattened the staff to 200.

Many were loaners from other agencies and have been sent back. Others left government work.

 8)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 13, 2020, 01:44:08 PM
OK, so Hunter Biden being named to a board of directors and making an obscene salary while his father was VP and was involved in getting the Ukraine public prosecutor replaced is sufficient for some people to believe there must be corruption in that instance... yet there has been complete radio silence on the topic of the president decrying the treatment of his friend Roger Stone at the hands of career federal prosecutors and the concurrent overruling of those same federal prosecutors' recommended sentencing of Stone by the president's justice department...
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 13, 2020, 02:14:42 PM
OK, so Hunter Biden being named to a board of directors and making an obscene salary while his father was VP and was involved in getting the Ukraine public prosecutor replaced is sufficient for some people to believe there must be corruption in that instance...

There's no question this should have been investigated. 

Quote
yet there has been complete radio silence on the topic of the president decrying the treatment of his friend Roger Stone at the hands of career federal prosecutors and the concurrent overruling of those same federal prosecutors' recommended sentencing of Stone by the president's justice department...

It's hard to even understand the sense in this complaint, let alone why anyone would think it's equivalent. 

The recommendation on Stone was a literal abuse of the sentencing guidelines.  That's not a joke or fake news.  The question is why, and the only answer seems to have been political payback or motivation by the prosecutors.  The DOJ was absolutely correct to amend the recommendation, it never should have been made in the first place.

Now why exactly is Trump's tweet in any way relevant?  The judge sets the sentence length, not the prosecutors, and can in fact set it for more than they request.  Doesn't make it okay for them to abuse the guidelines.  It's already out that the decision to revise was made before the tweet.  And, the President has the arbitrary and unreviewable  authority to commute the sentence should he so choose.

Why is it that once again, pro-Democrat partisans can abuse the guidelines an corrections based on all prior law and precedent that they ignored are somehow bad?

I'm beginning to think there are no honest "career" government employees.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 13, 2020, 02:17:05 PM
OK, so Hunter Biden being named to a board of directors and making an obscene salary while his father was VP and was involved in getting the Ukraine public prosecutor replaced is sufficient for some people to believe there must be corruption in that instance... yet there has been complete radio silence on the topic of the president decrying the treatment of his friend Roger Stone at the hands of career federal prosecutors and the concurrent overruling of those same federal prosecutors' recommended sentencing of Stone by the president's justice department...

Multiple problems here: Roger Stone was prosecuted due to the Mueller Investigation, which in turn may have been triggered by a poisoned well, only Barr and a handful of people at Justice are currently "in the know" on that front at this time. Further, nobody can claim that the Mueller Investigation was devoid of political motivations in what it did, and how it did many things(leaks, early and often).

The next issue is we're back to Trump being able to speak "as Trump the citizen" rather than "Trump the President" where not everything Trump says is being said by "Trump the President" and it seems that it is entirely possible that what we saw was Citizen Trump speaking, not President Trump. Sure, investigate, it's "only proper" that it be validated that it was in fact Citizen Trump speaking, rather than Barr thinking he was dealing with PotUS Trump in doing what he did.

But I guess some of this goes back to the new, and unproven, TDS-era legal theory where someone publicly complaining about ____ now qualifies as Obstruction of Justice.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: NobleHunter on February 13, 2020, 02:34:11 PM
So how can you tell when it's Citizen Trump instead of President Trump speaking?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 13, 2020, 02:34:33 PM
Yes, I understand that you would be unable to call out the president for involving himself in the sentencing of his friend.  That was kinda the point.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 13, 2020, 02:41:59 PM
I also think it hilarious that there is this assumption that Trump's personal attorney, William Barr, was not in discussion with the president between the time the sentencing recommendations were handed down and when he had them overruled.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 13, 2020, 02:50:14 PM
So how can you tell when it's Citizen Trump instead of President Trump speaking?

That would be why an investigation is warranted in this case.

Note: I said an investigation, not impeachment 2.0, but be prepared for Barr and company to come back and report that they were already in the process of changing things when Trump's comments were made, and that they received no orders from Trump on the matter.

And really, I don't work for Trump, and I don't work with him. But my take on it would be that when I have doubts about which one I'm seeing(PotUS or Citizen; as well as legality), I'd ask.

But then I also have a father who loves to rant, rave, and even say a number of things. He's almost entirely bark, it's just a matter of learning the signals in regards to bite. Trump has always come off as "lots of bark, next to no bite" to me, so if it helps think of him as a Chihuahua that thinks it's 6 feet tall and 200 pounds of muscle--right up until you approach it. Just because Trump is talking(barking), doesn't mean anything of significance is happening.

It doesn't hurt the validate nothing is in fact going on, as that behavior has obvious use as a smokescreen... But the immediate jump to "guilty as sin" on the grounds they have so far is very premature.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 13, 2020, 02:53:39 PM
I also think it hilarious that there is this assumption that Trump's personal attorney, William Barr, was not in discussion with the president between the time the sentencing recommendations were handed down and when he had them overruled.

Barr is the Attorney General, not his personal attorney. Barr also has a long history in Washington, and a history of being well regarded by both parties prior to becoming Trump's AG. Further, Barr basically came out of retirement for this, so I have severe doubts about Trump being able to force him to do anything he doesn't want to do. Just because Barr's legal views don't line up with your politics doesn't mean he's a toady for Trump.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 13, 2020, 03:18:59 PM
Quote
Barr is the Attorney General, not his personal attorney.
Of course he isn't
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 13, 2020, 03:31:55 PM
Do you have anything other parroting fake news to add DonaldD?

As I said, it's pretty much fact that the sentencing guidelines were abused.  Can you even respond to that?  8 level increase for a "threat" to the dog of an immaterial witness, which same witness told the prosecutors he didn't take it as a threat and that it was consistent with how he and Stone always spoke.  That's step intended to increase sentences on mob bosses who routinely make good on such threats, not on internet trolls and conspiracy theorists.  This was a clear case of overreach.

As for AG Barr being Trump's personal attorney?  Total nonsense leftwing media meme.  Barr's been consistent with the law in his actions, and it's not like he's openly the President's "wing man" like AG Holder was.

I do disagree with you TheDeamon, no investigation is warranted here.  There is nothing wrong with the President tweeting about a sentence on Roger Stone, or Michael Flynn being too long, or on Comey not having served any time.  It's pretty clear that if Trump and Barr really exerted the influence that is being ascribed to them, the Stone case would have been dropped, or as was the case with Clinton's staffers, they would have been granted immunity deals for agreeing to say they did nothing wrong and providing no useful testimony.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 13, 2020, 03:52:26 PM
There is no "private citizen" version of somebody that powerful. A mere suggestion can get people trying to please you.

No need to get worked up about this, however, as I expect Trump to pardon Stone or commute his sentence.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 13, 2020, 04:38:35 PM
No need to get worked up about this, however, as I expect Trump to pardon Stone or commute his sentence.

That is precisely why this is another nonsense issue being fabricated into something. If Trump wanted to do anything to help Stone, he’d just do exactly what you said. In addition to have the full authority to direct the DOJ to be involved in Stone’s case, he could just easily wipe it away if he wanted to. Trump has broken no laws, violated no norms or ethics. It’s just another BS hoax.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on February 13, 2020, 05:00:22 PM
...It's pretty clear that if Trump and Barr really exerted the influence that is being ascribed to them, the Stone case would have been dropped, or as was the case with Clinton's staffers, they would have been granted immunity deals for agreeing to say they did nothing wrong and providing no useful testimony.

Except for the fact that the Hillary staffers were granted immunity without cause. They were never interviewed to "get the goods" on higher-ups, as is the only reason to provide immunity.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 13, 2020, 05:57:23 PM
There was, in fact, a crime in the Roger Stone case. The jury foreman testified under oath that she did not know who Roger Stone was. But, Twitter is forever and her tweets talking about Roger Stone have been found. She was also rabidly anti-Trump, a former democrat candidate.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 18, 2020, 11:15:24 AM
Hmmm... Federal Judges Association joins "leftwing media" (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-association-calls-for-emergency-meeting-amid-doj-intervention-in-stone-case), as do more than 2000 former DOJ officials and federal prosecutors. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/16/politics/prosecutors-doj-officials-barr-resign/index.html)  The "leftwing media" is certainly becoming quite a big tent.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 18, 2020, 01:57:37 PM
The left is a big tent, it includes the media, the DNC and much of the deep state Bureaucrats.  It's not a shock that with 95% of the Bureaucrats preferring Democrats you can get even 2000 former DOJ employees to sign that letter.  I mean, the DOJ have over 100k current employees, and god knows how many former ones, even it's just a half as many (and I would be surprised if it's less than double giving how often the DOJ is a stepping stone), you're talking more than 50k, of whom you can expect at least 47.5k prefer the left. 

So wow.  On the other hand, they should be embarrassed.  Stone's original sentencing recommendation was a travesty that never should have occurred.  It's the empitome of abusive prosecution for political purposes, and that even before you consider that 2k former employees signing on to it reflects a fundamental failing in justice being applied fairly.

Not sure what the Fed Judges Assoc. intends, presumably to condemn the tweets, but never know.  Judge Barrett should be considered for reprimand (but she won't be) based on the state of the trial she presided over.  No one, regardless of sides, believes the end result is not tainted.  The right correctly points at the open anti-Stone/Trump jurors, and the left sees the Trump bogey man in everything that happens.

Still no sensible word on how Trump tweeting about sentencing is an interference in a trial (when it's just the judge who's making the decision not the DOJ), while the same people didn't condemn Obama for announcing Hillary was innocent before the investigation and trial.  Oh well, we already know the answer, "my team" is always right, when you are on the left.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 18, 2020, 02:10:35 PM
Well Barr felt it was interfering, making his job harder, and last time I checked he's not part of the evil left.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 18, 2020, 02:43:36 PM
Barr said expressly that it didn't influence the decision, which means regardless of word not an interference.  Now the media blowing it out of proportion?  That certainly is interfering in his ability to do his job, and that can be tracked back to Trump's tweet (even if the coverage is solely an act of politics).
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 18, 2020, 04:12:26 PM
Quote
... and much of the deep state Bureaucrats
Boogaboogabooga
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 18, 2020, 04:18:26 PM
So then you'd be cool if we replaced the entire federal work force with new workers that support Republicans 95% of the time?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 18, 2020, 04:20:46 PM
The deep staters you're talking about had no problem serving in the Bush administration and in some cases going back to Reagan. They support plenty of republicans, just not lunatics that attack them on a daily basis.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 18, 2020, 04:31:14 PM
Lol,  if you ignore turn over in the federal work force, that Obama was a master at embedding political appointees into career positions, and that dems have been pursuing a regulatory control strategy for decades, you could almost have a point.  But you don't, cause it's just a fact that the Bureaucracy is Dem controlled and has been ignoring their actual duties to pursue resistance at every turn (much like how they were out of control under Obama in the same Dem favoring direction) to the point of actually using multiple government agencies to attack political opponents.

Even still, in the past what they could do was far more limited, because there wasn't he same level of communications tech to make coordination not only possible, but trivially easy. 

It's just stunning, you are concerned about Trump's non-existent abuse of power, and totally ignore the rampant abuse of power by bureaucrats.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 18, 2020, 04:36:04 PM
Quote
... and much of the deep state Bureaucrats
Boogaboogabooga

Deep
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 18, 2020, 05:08:56 PM
Quote
it's just a fact that the Bureaucracy is Dem controlled and has been ignoring their actual duties to pursue resistance at every turn
The confirmation bias is strong in this one... (and very consistent)
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 18, 2020, 05:16:55 PM
Lol, so do you have any evidence at all that the federal bureaucrats evenly support Republicans?  Or that they've not leaked and resisted Trump to a far far greater degree than Obama (who they actually facilitated)?

Or is just the pot calling the kettle black with your assertion of confirmation bias?

Honestly, I used to think people argued in good faith, but I'm doubting it more an more everyday.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 18, 2020, 06:09:42 PM
Are they leaking more? Yes. But you're assuming it is a partisan motivation rather than wanting to reveal something they truly believe is wrong.

Quote
Two examples include the leaking of transcripts of Trump's phone calls with foreign leaders to the Washington Post, and the disclosures about irregularities in the way the White House processed senior presidential adviser Jared Kushner's security clearance to NBC News.

Those are two big examples. But did they get leaked because Trump is a psycho blowhard that insults foreign leaders, or because they just don't like him? I doubt anything Obama did was wild enough for someone to blow the whistle. Now you might hope that they would instead raise the issues internally. But given Trump's tendency to crush anyone who dares question him? Can you take it to Congress? We see how well that worked out.

I highly doubt that Obama overruled a clearance judgement, and he certainly didn't do it for one of his in-laws. I'd like to think that if he did, that would have been leaked as well. I'd like to think that someone would expose a call that he made where he was petty and unreasonable and undiplomatic. I can't prove it, maybe Obama did these things all the time and the deep state was just fine with it.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 18, 2020, 07:15:55 PM
Well Barr felt it was interfering, making his job harder, and last time I checked he's not part of the evil left.

I don't think that word means what you think it means in the context it was given.

Trump's tweets and other comments cause massive optics problems which greatly interfere in several departments ability to effectively conduct their roles and duties. Not necessarily because of what Trump did, but from how others respond to what he said.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 18, 2020, 07:36:38 PM
Hmmm... Federal Judges Association joins "leftwing media" (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-association-calls-for-emergency-meeting-amid-doj-intervention-in-stone-case), as do more than 2000 former DOJ officials and federal prosecutors. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/16/politics/prosecutors-doj-officials-barr-resign/index.html)  The "leftwing media" is certainly becoming quite a big tent.

I could see this two cut two different ways, but think calls for resignation are premature. Without even touching those two directions it could cut, I'm dubious about the 2,000 signatures claim. A lot of those petitions, once they start drilling into the names, tend to end up including completely invalid names, or even "signatures" that the name belongs disavows having ever signed.

Option 1) The DoJ was politicized and "weaponized" under Obama, and a number of those "bipartisan signatures" refuse to belive that to be true, and are operating on the presumption that it absolutely did not happen, which leaves only Barr being "Trump's lap dog." But if you go with the DoJ having been weaponized under Obama, then what may seem to be Barr "doing Trump's bidding" is in fact him trying to clean up DoJ instead. Throw in Never Trump Replublicans, and Democrats(given the heavy pro-Democrat skew for many Government Agencies) in general, and seeing something get 2,000 signatures to support embarrassing Trump is downright trivial to achieve given the size of it's of living former employee pool, never mind the people currently working there.

Option 2) Barr is in fact doing Trump's bidding. I've covered this previously elsewhere, I don't think Barr is serving as AG this time for the purpose of ladder climbing. He's not there because he needs the paycheck. He's there because he feels there is a job that needs to be done, and based on his past record, he's acting based on personal principles(which he had been well regarded for in the past--by both parties) rather than based on what Trump wants. (While Trump's "wants" may align with where some of Barr's principles lead, that isn't to be confused with Barr changing positions to suit Trump's whims)

I'm awaiting his testimony before Congress in the coming month to explain what was going on. I've previously said that the optics on this whole affair are bad and presents a good case for Congress to investigate and exercise their power of oversight. But jumping straight to demanding a resignation before he has a chance to present his case is very highly premature.

The other thing happening in the background is that a number of other investigations regarding DoJ Activiies in 2016 are still ongoing, and Barr is privy to that information, and most of the latest events involving Trump associates also revolves those same 2016 investigations. It is entirely reasonable to believe that finds from those investigations, rather than Trump's hot air, are what is guiding Barr's decisions.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 18, 2020, 07:37:59 PM
Are they leaking more? Yes. But you're assuming it is a partisan motivation rather than wanting to reveal something they truly believe is wrong.

Recursion is a very real thing, and this statement has it going on in spades.

A Partisan is going to be more inclined towards being either alarmed or conclude something to "be wrong" if the activity they're witnessing directly contradicts their partisan beliefs, harms their partisan cause, or benefits their partisan rival. Exculpatory factors do not matter to a partisan.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 18, 2020, 09:30:55 PM
Or Option 3) The DoJ was politicized and "weaponized" under Bush, and yet even those Republican operatives have found Barr's actions to be beyond the pale.

I love how everything comes down to being unproven and unprovable conspiracy theories designed to hurt Trump, whose every decision, action and associate (even the convicted felons) are unimpeachable according to his accolytes.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 19, 2020, 05:13:45 PM
Trump alleged to have attempted to bribe Assange to clear Russia of Wikileaks involvement in 2016 election (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51566470)

It's still early days, but Assange's barrister made the claim in front of a judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court, so he must be fairly confident in his ability to support the claim.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Fenring on February 19, 2020, 06:04:46 PM
Trump alleged to have attempted to bribe Assange to clear Russia of Wikileaks involvement in 2016 election (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51566470)

It's still early days, but Assange's barrister made the claim in front of a judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court, so he must be fairly confident in his ability to support the claim.

I have heard about this, but it should also be noted that the news is editorializing the headline. For instance some sources are reporting that Trump was bribing Assange to "lie" about the fact that it was Ukraine, and not Russia, involved in 2016 interference. This implies that Trump is corrupt and is trying to coerce people possibly on pain of death to serve his evil agenda. But what I have heard is that in fact Assange really does believe this and has been saying it all along, which would mean that Trump will give him a pardon in exchange for making the same message he's been saying in context of Trump being correct about 2016. In this second scenario it makes Trump look merciful in a sense, that by looking past what another admin would see as treasonous actions the truth can come out instead.

Do you see how a partisan slant can make Trump's offer to him appear alternatively nefarious or beneficient?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 19, 2020, 07:05:29 PM
It's an interesting theory, but strangely, Trump is not defending the alleged action as being righteous - he is denying having taken that action as if somehow he believes it to be a bad thing...
Quote
"The President barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he's an ex-congressman. He's never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject.
"It is is a complete fabrication and a total lie."
Of course, Trump has previously praised Rohrabacher, an outspoken fan of Putin's, as being a "great congressman"... but that Trump lies with even the slightest of provocation is hardly a surprise to anybody anymore.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on February 19, 2020, 07:37:41 PM
Quote
Do you see how a partisan slant can make Trump's offer to him appear alternatively nefarious or beneficient?

If he's been saying it all along, then he wouldn't have to be asked to say it. If he's never previously said it publicly, then at the very least you once again have a terrible optics problem with the suggestion of quid pro quo.

None of this is terribly new news, although it may have a little more weight.

Quote
Giuliani said he believed Assange may be able to "show who invented [the] false story that [Trump] colluded with Russians."

Giuliani, a former U.S. attorney and New York City mayor, said he was "not sure yet" if Assange helping exonerate Trump would lighten his possible criminal penalties.

That one isn't liberal media spin, it came out of the Washington Examiner.

Given the amount of times that Trump gnashed his teeth over how many people were giving false testimony in order to get plea bargains, I'm not sure why he would trust this. Oh, right, it would help him.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 19, 2020, 07:43:21 PM
It's an interesting theory, but strangely, Trump is not defending the alleged action as being righteous - he is denying having taken that action as if somehow he believes it to be a bad thing...
Quote
"The President barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he's an ex-congressman. He's never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject.
"It is is a complete fabrication and a total lie."
Of course, Trump has previously praised Rohrabacher, an outspoken fan of Putin's, as being a "great congressman"... but that Trump lies with even the slightest of provocation is hardly a surprise to anybody anymore.


Given the pace and breadth of media lies, this is an incredibly ironic thing to say. But it is a great story ... and they tell it so well. Run Forest Run.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on February 19, 2020, 07:51:26 PM
Well Barr felt it was interfering, making his job harder, and last time I checked he's not part of the evil left.

With all things Trumpian, we must be patient and see how the machinations evolve. A professor who teaches the Philosophy of Persuasion (like my Professor at Michigan, James V. McConnell) could spend a whole term studying the ins and outs of Trump's Bully Pulpit. He's mentioned it before, but the media seems to have missed it. He saw how Bush 43 honored the office of the President, and tried to model himself after Reagan - rather than his own father. George W. Bush noted that Reagan ignored the media, and let history exonerate his actions. He was wrong. Reagan was a great communicator and didn't just ignore the media - he went around it, never letting a pejorative be sustained without addressing it. Bush 43 never addressed his attackers, he foolishly believed the media would do it for him, and history would make things right.

Trump knows the media will never give him a fair shake, so does like Reagan did, and goes round them. His use of social platforms dominates the news when he wants to do so. The media believes the public has a short attention span, and if they ignore correcting their own embarrassments, they won't be judged for their perfidy. What he hasn't done is smash the rule of law. What he does is challenge his attackers in ways they find hard to ignore. Decorum is no longer a principle that will muzzle him, like former Presidents were.

At the current moment, after his own exoneration, he used his Executive powers to pardon or commute unfair sentences and, makes the media address the Swamp, once again.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 19, 2020, 09:04:19 PM
Are you suggesting Trump had not previously heaped praise on Rohrabacher, Crunch?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on February 20, 2020, 07:32:37 AM
I'm suggesting that constantly whining about what you call “lies” while also constantly championing organizations that have demonstrably and consistently lied to us is ironic. I don’t think you (and quite a few others) have a good grasp on what’s true anymore, just what’s ideologically correct and talking points - almost exclusively driven by orange man bad mythology.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: DonaldD on February 20, 2020, 10:03:52 AM
Crunch, you are the only poster so focused on orange man syndrome - to the point of seeing everything you read being processed through that filter.  Also, why focus on the throw-away "lies" observation, while ignoring the substance of the posts?

By the way, what is this organization that you feel is being "championed" here?  Twitter?  BBC? The Westminster Magistrates' Court?
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Seriati on February 20, 2020, 10:12:06 AM
Lol, DonaldD, yes the Republican President praised a Republican member of the House running in a close election.  In other news, Senators often refer to each other as honorable and leaders of both parties say nice things about party members to the press.

But this "story" is funny, and way late.  It was already reported in 2017.  See for example https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-congressman-sought-trump-deal-on-wikileaks-russia-1505509918 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-congressman-sought-trump-deal-on-wikileaks-russia-1505509918).   Where its clear that Rohrabacher was the one that came up with the "deal" and was pitching it to the White House (not the other way around).  As to what he was asking for?

Quote
The possible “deal”—a term used by Mr. Rohrabacher during the Wednesday phone call—would involve a pardon of Mr. Assange or “something like that,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. In exchange, Mr. Assange would probably present a computer drive or other data-storage device that Mr. Rohrabacher said would exonerate Russia in the long-running controversy about who was the source of hacked and stolen material aimed at embarrassing the Democratic Party during the 2016 election.

“He would get nothing, obviously, if what he gave us was not proof,” Mr. Rohrabacher said.

So pretty literally, he was asking for proof not lies.  The report was on a leak of a call where Rohrabacher was talking with Kelly (not Trump), and ended up getting referred to the CIA.

Quote
“I would be happy to go with somebody you trust whether it is somebody at the FBI; somebody on your staff,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. The California congressman said he would be pleased to talk to CIA Director Mike Pompeo, but that the agency “has its limitations” and wanted “to cover their butt by having gone along with this big lie.”

All this back in September 2017.  Not seeing how its suddenly breaking news two and a half years later.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDeamon on February 20, 2020, 02:56:26 PM
With the short attention span press and short memories as well, it's hardly shocking that they'd start dredging up forgotten stories from years past in an effort to try to smear in the present, as so (comparatively) few people are going to remember the proper context for what was going on.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on May 10, 2020, 09:42:32 AM
Quote
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary.

Quote
But Vindman clarified during his testimony that the president did not bring up the topic rooting out corruption during the phone call, but he included it in his summary of the call anyway.

So basically, Vindman lied. A lot.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on May 10, 2020, 09:50:11 AM
Quote
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary.

Quote
But Vindman clarified during his testimony that the president did not bring up the topic rooting out corruption during the phone call, but he included it in his summary of the call anyway.

So basically, Vindman lied. A lot.

Talk about making *censored* up.  TWS got you in it's short-fingered grip :)!
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 10, 2020, 10:05:52 AM
Of course it's impossible to say what might be different regarding the coronavirus response if the Democrats hadn't gone ahead with the distraction of their shampeachment but it is certain that it was a major distraction at a critical time when the country could least afford it. And of course it didn't just distract Trump either. Maybe some of the Democrats would have had their eye on the ball and raised the alarm about the virus pandemic looming just over our collective shoulders but unfortunately they too were otherwise occupied on matters that were far less pressing. The point is that whole farce was a lot of time, money, energy, and attention spent on something that was a complete waste of all of it when there were far more important matters needing those resources.

Pelosi waving her little impeachment articles now looks a lot like Nero fiddling.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on May 10, 2020, 10:27:48 AM
Of course it's impossible to say what might be different regarding the coronavirus response if the Democrats hadn't gone ahead with the distraction of their shampeachment but it is certain that it was a major distraction at a critical time when the country could least afford it. And of course it didn't just distract Trump either. Maybe some of the Democrats would have had their eye on the ball and raised the alarm about the virus pandemic looming just over our collective shoulders but unfortunately they too were otherwise occupied on matters that were far less pressing. The point is that whole farce was a lot of time, money, energy, and attention spent on something that was a complete waste of all of it when there were far more important matters needing those resources.

Pelosi waving her little impeachment articles now looks a lot like Nero fiddling.

Calling impeaching Trump a "distraction" says more about you than Nancy Pelosi, but it's clear that Trump will use the impeachment as a distraction to take people's attention away from his record in November.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Crunch on May 12, 2020, 07:51:24 AM
Quote
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary.

Quote
But Vindman clarified during his testimony that the president did not bring up the topic rooting out corruption during the phone call, but he included it in his summary of the call anyway.

So basically, Vindman lied. A lot.

Talk about making *censored* up.  TWS got you in it's short-fingered grip :)!

Quoting Vindman abiut his admission that he made up things is dishonest. Right. 
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on May 12, 2020, 07:55:21 AM
Not so fast!  Provide the quote. [playing Jeopardy music.....dum-dum...]
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: TheDrake on May 12, 2020, 10:14:15 AM
Quote
So Breitbart’s story contains a hint of truth; Vindman included something in a call summary that was not explicitly discussed between Trump and Zelensky.

But the outlet did not explicitly say which call the summary pertained to, making it look like Vindman "made up" parts of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky in July instead of the April call. Most readers would see the misleading headline and assume the Breitbart story is about the former since it’s the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

Breitbart confused you.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: Kasandra on May 12, 2020, 10:39:39 AM
Quote
So Breitbart’s story contains a hint of truth; Vindman included something in a call summary that was not explicitly discussed between Trump and Zelensky.

But the outlet did not explicitly say which call the summary pertained to, making it look like Vindman "made up" parts of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky in July instead of the April call. Most readers would see the misleading headline and assume the Breitbart story is about the former since it’s the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

Breitbart confused you.

As expected, but I was hoping Crunch would stick to his guns.  He brings to mind a saying, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."  I have no evidence Crunch is being paid, but his posting history suggests he's acting as a sort of tester for possible lines of attack that Trump will use in November.  This one isn't true, but I'm confident he'll try out plenty of others.  TWS works that way.
Title: Re: The Shampeachement Follies
Post by: wmLambert on May 12, 2020, 12:05:57 PM
Quote
So Breitbart’s story contains a hint of truth; Vindman included something in a call summary that was not explicitly discussed between Trump and Zelensky.

But the outlet did not explicitly say which call the summary pertained to, making it look like Vindman "made up" parts of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky in July instead of the April call. Most readers would see the misleading headline and assume the Breitbart story is about the former since it’s the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

Breitbart confused you.

As expected, but I was hoping Crunch would stick to his guns.  He brings to mind a saying, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."  I have no evidence Crunch is being paid, but his posting history suggests he's acting as a sort of tester for possible lines of attack that Trump will use in November.  This one isn't true, but I'm confident he'll try out plenty of others.  TWS works that way.

Another debate fallacy. (Politics of Personal Destruction. Instead of responding to facts and objective evidence, the advocate is reviled as being unfit to be believed. For example, Although Linda Tripp personally witnessed documents being illegally removed from Vince Foster's office (later to be discovered in Hillary's personal office), Her statements will not be considered because she was also a witness to the Billy Dale railroad in the Tavelgate scandal, which must mean it is an extreme right wing conspiracy and she must be a bad person. Paula Jones can not be believed because she had Republican attorneys. George W. Bush can not be believed as an advocate trying to fix the California energy crisis, because he was an oil man and must be greedy. Lack of logic = attack.)

The Democrat party has been guilty of Projection for so long, that it is easy to assume the rubber bodysuit position. What they say reflects mostly on themselves. Anyone who attacks the messenger because they cannot refute their points is probably just projecting. So, prove yourself not being paid by some Democrat handler to provide noise in the