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.