Author Topic: The Shampeachement Follies  (Read 34332 times)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #350 on: January 22, 2020, 10:06:39 PM »
What law from the US code are you alleging was broken?

You sure you want this new standard for impeachment? Really? It’s gonna work out about as well as your nuclear option for judges. You know that, right?
It seems like you are moving on, and you now accept that he was, indeed, impeached for that?

I am not alleging anything - it's the GAO that is stating that the Trump admin violated the law... that terrible, partisan, low I.Q. office full of... auditors!

No, stop making things up. Jesus.

I’m asking you what law was broken.

I’m asking you why Obama having the GAO say this 7 times is perfectly fine by you but Trump once
And you think it’s the end of the world.

Essentially, I’m pointing out your hypocrisy and the complete lack of basis for impeachment. Your response is to create pretend positions to take down - classic straw man fallacy. I can always count on you

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #351 on: January 23, 2020, 01:45:47 PM »
You're either obtuse or disingenuous. GAO said that OSTP was in violation. Bringing up Obama in this context is meaningless. You want to say that this means OSTP director should be fired? Okay fine. Winning. But if you're trying to imply this means that Obama should have been impeached also, you fail.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #352 on: January 23, 2020, 02:23:51 PM »
The GAO saying something is illegal is meaningless. People say things are illegal all the time especially when it comes to Trump. Look at all of the immigration policies they said were illegal like the so called Muslim ban. Not just illegal but UnConstitutional even. Until a court says it's illegal it doesn't mean anything. And even then it often gets overturned on appeal especially if the decision comes from a liberal court like the 9th Circuit. It's not illegal until the plus size lady sings.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #353 on: January 23, 2020, 02:30:47 PM »
You're either obtuse or disingenuous. GAO said that OSTP was in violation. Bringing up Obama in this context is meaningless. You want to say that this means OSTP director should be fired? Okay fine. Winning. But if you're trying to imply this means that Obama should have been impeached also, you fail.

It seems to me he's been trying to say all along that there's a phony double-standard in place and that this isn't about rule of law. I don't know if he's right, but that clearly seems to be his point. It's not about pointing fingers at Obama, as far as I can tell, but rather about objecting to hypocrisy and deceit.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #354 on: January 23, 2020, 03:01:25 PM »
You're either obtuse or disingenuous. GAO said that OSTP was in violation. Bringing up Obama in this context is meaningless. You want to say that this means OSTP director should be fired? Okay fine. Winning. But if you're trying to imply this means that Obama should have been impeached also, you fail.

It seems to me he's been trying to say all along that there's a phony double-standard in place and that this isn't about rule of law. I don't know if he's right, but that clearly seems to be his point. It's not about pointing fingers at Obama, as far as I can tell, but rather about objecting to hypocrisy and deceit.

If the GAO saying the president "probably did something against the law" is grounds for impeachment, then chances are Obama, Bush 43, and Clinton all should have been impeached multiple times over. "Even worse" in several cases, because I believe all three had executive decisions they made go before SCotUS only for their actions to be deemed unconstitutional.

Clearly, based on prior precedent, simple violations of law, or even the Constitution for that matter, are not, by themselves, grounds for impeachment. Or it would have been done prior to Trump.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #355 on: January 23, 2020, 03:06:20 PM »
I think that asking what law was broken, rather than what authority claims that trump broke some unspecified law, is a reasonable to ask even if it is Crunch asking it. Unlike Canada we in the US fought a bloody and horrific war specifically so that among other things, laws are enumerated pre facto rather than forced on us ex post facto by authority. That falls under us constitution elements that we’ve literally killed to get and would gladly kill again in order to think.

I would rather live forty horrible years under trump than allow the unbloodied rise of a new legal order where a body of experts can declare any man a criminal without bothering to articulate a law.

If that’s what law ever comes to mean then like our Iranian friends might say, Death to the Law

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #356 on: January 23, 2020, 03:13:24 PM »
I don't personally know the precedent on this in the U.S., but I would hope that what is written on paper as the law is not the only relevant thing when determining whether an action is legal or not. I would maintain that if previous instances of a particular type of action were known and permitted by legal authorities, that should be grounds for those activities to be officially declared as permissible. Obviously there is leeway when it comes to gradations or variances within the action.

Just as a small-time example, I have a sneaking suspicion that it violates the basic tenets of the rule of law for police officers to selectively enforce certain laws when they feel like it, thereby making people feel it's ok to do a thing and then smacking them down for it whenever they feel like it. This type of thing comes into play with police quotas (which we know exist), where certain traffic infractions or other types of offences are not usually enforced but at a certain time of the month people get nailed for them. This, to me, should be illegal; or rather, the lack of enforcing them at other times should prevent suddenly enforcing them and surprising people. I have to think that the practice of enforcing the law is one aspect of what is de facto legal, and that government has an absolute obligation to be consistent in how the law is applied.

That being said, I am sort of for politicians being brought down when they're corrupt, and I wouldn't be so fond of an argument that suggested that because corruption was tolerated in the past it's now legal. But on the other hand I don't like the idea that something that was "ok" in a previous administration is now legally not ok depending on who's in office. If it's about cracking down in general I'm pretty ok with that; if it's about selective enforcement then I would like to believe that this should be illegal.

Is it a valid defence in court to say "yeah, I did the thing, but you knew all these other people were doing it, and allowed it, and are picking on me unfairly?" 

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #357 on: January 23, 2020, 03:22:40 PM »
I think that asking what law was broken, rather than what authority claims that trump broke some unspecified law, is a reasonable to ask even if it is Crunch asking it. Unlike Canada we in the US fought a bloody and horrific war specifically so that among other things, laws are enumerated pre facto rather than forced on us ex post facto by authority. That falls under us constitution elements that we’ve literally killed to get and would gladly kill again in order to think.

I would rather live forty horrible years under trump than allow the unbloodied rise of a new legal order where a body of experts can declare any man a criminal without bothering to articulate a law.

If that’s what law ever comes to mean then like our Iranian friends might say, Death to the Law

I'm pretty sure the GAO spells out which laws in their report.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #358 on: January 23, 2020, 03:39:00 PM »
I don't personally know the precedent on this in the U.S., but I would hope that what is written on paper as the law is not the only relevant thing when determining whether an action is legal or not. I would maintain that if previous instances of a particular type of action were known and permitted by legal authorities, that should be grounds for those activities to be officially declared as permissible. Obviously there is leeway when it comes to gradations or variances within the action.

Well, the first Presidential Impeachment attempt to go before the Senate actually does have precedent for a President being impeached for (blatantly) violating a law. They failed to convict, and about 60 years later, SCotUS deemed the law in question to be Unconstitutional. So you also get to deal with the additional layer of contending with violations of laws which are unconstitutional in the first place.

Basically, Trump may have violated a law, but that law in and of itself may be in violation of the Constitution and the Separation of Powers it specifies, in which case the violation.. isn't.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #359 on: January 23, 2020, 04:05:52 PM »
Ok, so your argument is headline: authority wants you to panic! If you want to know why, go look it up some place?

Because if that’s how democracy is supposed to work then death be to democracy.

I see headlines saying the founding fathers were warning us against guys like Trump! No! They talked about guys like Trump, to warn us against Democracy powered by sophistry. Trump’s just the sign post: “you are now all in hell.” Taking away the sign post doesn’t change the fact that we are, after your long march, finally in hell.

I think that asking what law was broken, rather than what authority claims that trump broke some unspecified law, is a reasonable to ask even if it is Crunch asking it. Unlike Canada we in the US fought a bloody and horrific war specifically so that among other things, laws are enumerated pre facto rather than forced on us ex post facto by authority. That falls under us constitution elements that we’ve literally killed to get and would gladly kill again in order to think.

I would rather live forty horrible years under trump than allow the unbloodied rise of a new legal order where a body of experts can declare any man a criminal without bothering to articulate a law.

If that’s what law ever comes to mean then like our Iranian friends might say, Death to the Law

I'm pretty sure the GAO spells out which laws in their report.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #360 on: January 23, 2020, 04:08:50 PM »
My argument is that before endorsing a would-be dictator to avoid a regime of ex post facto laws, you should actually read the judgment in question.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #361 on: January 23, 2020, 04:27:31 PM »
Which I'm gathering nobody has done, otherwise, it'd be pretty easy to spell it out.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #362 on: January 23, 2020, 04:41:29 PM »
My argument is that before endorsing a would-be dictator to avoid a regime of ex post facto laws, you should actually read the judgment in question.

How am I “endorsing “ anything? Is this one of these “if you don’t support us in this I’m your enemy things?” 

If I can’t expect you to give a bit of fact to support your claim of “dictator” why should I take the time to get my crippled ass on a bus to go buy a new set of reading glasses?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 04:44:18 PM by Pete at Home »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #363 on: January 23, 2020, 04:43:47 PM »
My argument is that before endorsing a would-be dictator to avoid a regime of ex post facto laws, you should actually read the judgment in question.

How am I “endorsing “ anything? Is this one of these “if you don’t support us in this I’m your enemy things?” 

If I can’t expect you to give a bit of fact to support your claim of “dictator” why should I take the time?

Quote
I would rather live forty horrible years under trump

I'm just saying before being alarmed about something you should probably check to see if it's happening.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #364 on: January 23, 2020, 05:01:36 PM »
I think that asking what law was broken, rather than what authority claims that trump broke some unspecified law, is a reasonable to ask even if it is Crunch asking it. Unlike Canada we in the US fought a bloody and horrific war specifically so that among other things, laws are enumerated pre facto rather than forced on us ex post facto by authority. That falls under us constitution elements that we’ve literally killed to get and would gladly kill again in order to think.

I would rather live forty horrible years under trump than allow the unbloodied rise of a new legal order where a body of experts can declare any man a criminal without bothering to articulate a law.

If that’s what law ever comes to mean then like our Iranian friends might say, Death to the Law

GAO cited very specifically which law was in play. In all those cases. They all had to do with appropriations and separation of powers. The executive branch can't unilaterally override laws passed by congress - at least in theory.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #365 on: January 23, 2020, 05:08:16 PM »
If Congress is the aggrieved party as well as the prosecutor and tryer of fact, then what’s the problem?

Since the 1990s Clinton impeachment debacle, I have denounced the repugnant democratizing of the impeachment process. I loathed Congress’ cowardly leaking of the Starr Report (even Starr himself was horrified.  If Congress cannot prosecute an impeachment without personal support of the voters then it should not be the business.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #366 on: January 23, 2020, 07:35:09 PM »
The way Obama was treated is relevant because of the Doctrie of Laches. The normal example is a landlord who says you can't have a pet, yet allows someone else to have one. Once allowed for anyone else, then you are also allowed that same right.

Selective law is no law.

According to Constitutional expert professors I have heard, The GAO is flat out wrong, because they work from the fallacy that Legislative Foreign policy must be sacrosanct, when in fact, such policy, in itself, is unConstitutional. The President has the sole authority to make foreign policy, and the legislature only has the authority to fund policy actions. The true force of foreign policy may be from the bully pulpit. One must sell it to the body politic for it to be acceptable.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #367 on: January 23, 2020, 10:57:34 PM »
According to Constitutional expert professors I have heard, The GAO is flat out wrong, because they work from the fallacy that Legislative Foreign policy must be sacrosanct, when in fact, such policy, in itself, is unConstitutional. The President has the sole authority to make foreign policy, and the legislature only has the authority to fund policy actions. The true force of foreign policy may be from the bully pulpit. One must sell it to the body politic for it to be acceptable.

Not entirely correct, the Senate has a Constitutional role to play in foreign policy, by ratifying treaties and validating the appointment of ambassadors(IIRC). But you are correct that the Constitution grants PotUS broad authority with regards to foreign affairs.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #368 on: January 25, 2020, 09:44:12 AM »
Well, Schiff finished his opening.

Some senators were openly laughing at him. Some called him out for lying. Many ultimately decided to ignore his antics and deceptions.  It was a major train wreck for Schiff and democrats.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #369 on: January 25, 2020, 12:20:47 PM »
I knew nothing about Schiff before all the Trump stuff. But now that I've seen him in action, he really comes across as a weasel and a gross human. I also think he might be a bit psychotic, similar to Trump in that he may not process the things he says and does as being subject to scrutiny, or reality.

If this were happening in the early 1800s, he's the kind of weasel that would have been called out for a duel at dawn with pistols.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #370 on: January 25, 2020, 12:47:43 PM »
Watched some of the response by Trump's defense team this morning. I'd say the Democrats have a major problem in making their case.

Part of their conspiracy theory was that Trump was offering an in person meeting in exchange for the Biden Investigation.

Except Trump was already scheduled to meet the President of Ukraine in Poland on September 1st. Granted, that meeting wound up being with Pence instead, but only because Trump remained in the US due to a Hurricane being forecast to make landfall in the US. And Trump did subsequently meet with the Ukrainian President later that same month(September).

They also played up the additional problem regarding the theory of the Aid being held back in exchange for the announcement of a Biden investigation.

Nobody testified about the Ukranians being concerned about the aid being delayed prior to August 28th.
No documentation exists to support the Ukranians being concerned about the aid being delayed until August 28th.

Extortion doesn't work very well when the party being extorted is unaware of their being extorted.

Edit: I also liked the explanation given for why several of the subpoenas were declined/ignored by the White House. It also explains why the House didn't pursue the issue further, as I presume they acknowledged the reasons given as being legally valid, and that the courts would likely reject their requests on the same grounds the White House did. They used the wrong legal process for making the request.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2020, 12:51:37 PM by TheDeamon »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #371 on: January 25, 2020, 12:51:22 PM »
I saw that too. Watch for a moving goalpost where any meeting would have been purely to bribe (reverse-bribe?) Z in person.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #372 on: January 28, 2020, 01:46:26 PM »
I've been avoiding this thread for a while because, once Sondland testified under oath that he had told the Ukrainians that they needed to start the investigation before there would be a White House meeting, there was no question in my mind that the Trump Administration pressured Ukraine.  I didn't need to hear any lame excuses to the contrary.

However, new developments brings me back.  Namely, the pages from Bolton's book that have been "leaked."

Looks like the pro-Trump Republican Senators are in trouble.

On the one hand, if they ignore the alleged allegations in the manuscript and don't have him testify, they will have to explain come March, when the book comes out, why they did so.  Can anyone really argue that Bolton personally witnessing Trump directing that no aid be sent to Ukraine unless they investigate the Bidens is not germane to the impeachment?  ;D  Is trying to keep pertinent info out of the trial anything short of a cover-up?

OTOH, if they do have Bolton testify, he will be talking about things that Mulvaney and Pompeo heard, too, which will drag them into the trial to testify.  And if they're going to do that, why not ask Parnas what he knows?  All this doubtlessly means more and more worms from the can to deal with.

It looks like McConnell's plan to have a quick, quiet impeachment acquittal has just blown up in his face.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #373 on: January 28, 2020, 02:09:41 PM »
It looks like McConnell's plan to have a quick, quiet impeachment acquittal has just blown up in his face.

Not yet, its hard to refuse to hear Bolten's testimony but that doesn't mean 50 republican senators won't ignore it and just vote to end to the trial anyway.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #374 on: January 28, 2020, 02:28:53 PM »
What will it matter anyway? Bolton is just going to be portrayed as a liar with sour grapes because Trump fired him. Republicans are trying to decide if it is in their better interest to let him testify and ignore what he as to say, versus not letting him testify. As far as optics go.

And haven't you seen the shift in talking points from "Trump did no wrong" to "this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment"? That's the fallback defense. Yeah he did it, it was unethical, but not illegal and not impeachable.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #375 on: January 28, 2020, 02:43:03 PM »
I don't think anybody expects Trump to be removed from office.

But the most generous interpretation of the impeachment process is that it should be bad enough for the president so as to act as a deterrent for future presidents who would like to spread their own emperor's wings; as opposed to a less generous interpretation, but still one of value, that the Republican brand should take a hit for supporting a clearly corrupt president taking advantage of his position for purely personal gain.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #376 on: January 28, 2020, 04:18:56 PM »
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.  After listening to some of the House Manager's "case" and the Defense, it's pretty clear these articles should be rejected as invalid.   The Senate should dismiss them and admonish the House that they are legally deficient.

I think the Senate should go further and make it clear that unless the House allows cross examination of witnesses and the presence of defense counsel the testimony provided by such witnesses will be inadmissable.

If the Senate decides it should hear from witnesses then it will have to recall all prior witnesses so they can be properly deposed.  It should then allow the defense to call each and every witness it has requested.  It would then call, to the extent required, additional witnesses proposed by the House Managers.  But in reality, even calling witnesses gives an improper validation to defective process and articles.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #377 on: January 28, 2020, 05:08:28 PM »
Alan Dershowitz was very clear and documented his statement that Bolton's allegations, whether true or not, have no impact whatsoever on impeachment. Nothing he said rises to that level. His statements were scholarly and demolished both impeachment articles brought by the House Managers.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #378 on: January 28, 2020, 05:18:18 PM »
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.

I think they did, but the White House rejected the subpeona on one of the various grounds they presented to the Senate. The House then declined to pursue the matter further, even when Bolton subsequently announced he was willing to testify.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #379 on: January 28, 2020, 05:38:51 PM »
The House withdrew their subpeona of Bolton's underling when he  appealed to the courts to resolve the issue.  Bolton said he'd go along with that result.

There is no excuse for the House failing to pursue subpeona's in court.  There is also no excuse for the House's biased process.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #380 on: January 28, 2020, 05:52:38 PM »
Quote
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.

Oh, yeah, that worked so well for the House for their other subpoenas.  ;D  What makes you think it would be any different with Bolton, who already said he wouldn't testify to the House until a court ordered him to, because Trump ordered him not to?  Do we have to go over the Obstruction of Justice charge? ;)

Quote
The House then declined to pursue the matter further, even when Bolton subsequently announced he was willing to testify.

Except that he specifically said he would testify to the Senate, not the House.  And the impeachment was already headed to the Senate by then.  Day late and wrong house.

And in any case, we now have more information than the House did at the time.  Now we have a good indication that he does have specific information relevant to the case; a written account that he personally heard Trump say he would withhold the funds until Ukraine complied.  Things are different now, and its in the Senate's court.  The only question is whether they want to know the whole truth or cover the truth up. ;)

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #381 on: January 28, 2020, 06:39:26 PM »
Alan Dershowitz was very clear and documented his statement that Bolton's allegations, whether true or not, have no impact whatsoever on impeachment. Nothing he said rises to that level. His statements were scholarly and demolished both impeachment articles brought by the House Managers.

Pretty much this. If it makes people feel better, they can claim that republicans are conceding, or falling back by saying "doesn't even matter if he did do it" but it doesn't change reality. Unless there's a cogent argument against what Dershowitz laid out vis a vis no provable high crimes or misdemeanors, it's all moot.

I have to think that Schiff and Nancy probably knew this all along but were pressured and/or desperate enough to give it a shot.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #382 on: January 29, 2020, 12:34:20 AM »
Looks like it comes down to if 50 Republicans feel there was grounds for asking the Ukranian Government to investigate the Bidens for corruption with regards to their dealings in Ukraine.

At least that seems to be the narrative Cruz and the GOP seem to have ran with. As the case hinges primarily on if the decision to investigate the Bidens was "baseless" or not.

And keep in mind, the standard of evidence for initiating an investigation is much much lower than the standard employed for starting a prosecution. (Or what should be used for starting an impeachment)

The interference in 2020 is incidental to that. And the ask about "But why did he wait until 2019?" to do anything can be accounted for two ways:
1) Part of the hold back was a response to the Mueller report, which didn't get released until 2019.
2) The Ukrainian Administration in office during 2017/2018 was likely to have been part of that corruption and interference.

Nothing like asking a criminal to conduct an official investigation into their own criminal activities, that's a surefire way to get results.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #383 on: January 29, 2020, 10:34:51 AM »
Quote
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.

Oh, yeah, that worked so well for the House for their other subpoenas.  ;D  What makes you think it would be any different with Bolton, who already said he wouldn't testify to the House until a court ordered him to, because Trump ordered him not to?  Do we have to go over the Obstruction of Justice charge? ;)

I hadn't heard the House lost their case in court.  How well did it go for them again?

Last I checked one could still challenge any subpeona in court and that's not evidence of a separate crime of obstruction.

Quote
Quote
The House then declined to pursue the matter further, even when Bolton subsequently announced he was willing to testify.

Except that he specifically said he would testify to the Senate, not the House.  And the impeachment was already headed to the Senate by then.  Day late and wrong house.

Again, the Senate should reject the House's defective record.  If this was a real court the case would be dismissed with leave to refile or remanded to the lower court to fix the problem.

In fact this is not a real case, it's a government funded campaign ad to interfere in the 2020 election.  Every single step of this has been managed by the left on a political basis.

Abuse of power by Trump?  My ass, clear abuse of power by the Dems.

Quote
And in any case, we now have more information than the House did at the time.

If the House needed that information they should have obtained it.  You can't impeach someone for claims they didn't develop without uncostitutionally taking the sole power to impeach from the House. 

Quote
The only question is whether they want to know the whole truth or cover the truth up. ;)

The only question is whether they will realize that this is nothing but politics and shut it down or let the Dems get away with the biggest political crime in our history.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #384 on: January 29, 2020, 12:27:59 PM »
If this was a real court case, the defendant wouldn't be allowed to order people not to testify.

If this was a real court case, the foreman of the jury wouldn't be conspiring coordinating with the defense.

If this was a real court case, it wouldn't be up to the jury if witnesses are called.

If this was a real court case, it wouldn't be held in the Senate.

Pretending the Democrats are the only ones involved in political maneuvers is either partisan blindness or willful ignorance.

Though I can't wait for the GOP to impeach the next Democratic President and watch the GOP and their useful idiots line up to explain why everything is different this time.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #385 on: January 29, 2020, 02:46:53 PM »
Though I can't wait for the GOP to impeach the next Democratic President and watch the GOP and their useful idiots line up to explain why everything is different this time.

It won't need to be positioned as different. The precedent has been set. There's no reason to think it won't be "game on" for republicans to use impeachment if/when things get highly contentious.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #386 on: January 29, 2020, 03:04:34 PM »
It won't need to be positioned as different. The precedent has been set. There's no reason to think it won't be "game on" for republicans to use impeachment if/when things get highly contentious.

I meant that the GOP will be arguing why they should be able to call whoever they want as witnesses and that executive privilege doesn't apply to whatever thing they come up with.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #387 on: January 29, 2020, 03:21:03 PM »
If this was a real court case, the defendant wouldn't be allowed to order people not to testify.

Sure they could.  They could order their lawyer not to testify, their doctor not to testify, their spouse not to testify.  They could challenge witnesses for relevancy, and require that certain witnesses testify under seal.

They could challenge and impeach those witnesses. 

If the prosecution brought THIS case to court they would not only be dismissed they'd be sanctioned.

Quote
If this was a real court case, the foreman of the jury wouldn't be conspiring coordinating with the defense.

That's true, but neither would the self interested Democrat's being conspiring with the prosecuttion.  They'd all go to jail.

Quote
If this was a real court case, it wouldn't be up to the jury if witnesses are called.

And?  The Senate is the judge as well as the jury.  It would be up to the judge to disallow inproper witnesses.

Quote
Pretending the Democrats are the only ones involved in political maneuvers is either partisan blindness or willful ignorance.

There is no way to cure the defective House process.  Pretending that "both" sides are guilty of that is just buying into a false position, and I GUARANTY one that will never be tolerated if a Republican House were to do the same thing.

Quote
Though I can't wait for the GOP to impeach the next Democratic President and watch the GOP and their useful idiots line up to explain why everything is different this time.

That's the joy.  If this is allowed to stand it IS THE PROCESS.  Asking them to justify it after it's already the rule is a nonsense request on your part that goes directly to my point.  This is completely a misuse for political reasons.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #388 on: January 29, 2020, 03:36:23 PM »
Quote from: Noblehunter
Though I can't wait for the GOP to impeach the next Democratic President and watch the GOP and their useful idiots line up to explain why everything is different this time.

Quote from: Seriati
That's the joy.  If this is allowed to stand it IS THE PROCESS.  Asking them to justify it after it's already the rule is a nonsense request on your part that goes directly to my point.  This is completely a misuse for political reasons.

You need to look at history. When Harry Reid changed Senate rules to push Obamacare through, everyone was beside themselves that the GOP would return the favor when they returned to the majority. They did in some things - but in general resisted the Democrat precedent in all things.

When one party endorses the idea that "the end justifies the means" and the other endorses honor and justice, you can't project the evil onto the other side.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2020, 03:39:16 PM by wmLambert »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #389 on: January 29, 2020, 03:44:02 PM »
Do you honestly think the GOP is trying to prevent witnesses from testifying solely to protect executive privilege or some other constitutional principle? That if the House redid their impeachment hearings with all the protections people were saying would be available at the Senate trial for witnesses they'd find that Trump's actions were entirely above board?

No one with sense has denied there's a political angle to impeachment but I think it's absurd to believe only one side is acting out of high-minded civic duty and the other out of vile partisanship.

For the record, I think the GOP doesn't want more testimony because even if whatever comes out doesn't support impeachment, it'll make Trump look terrible. I think Trump is preventing people from testifying, because he knows they'd say he attempted to coerce Ukraine into faking investigations into Biden.

You need to look at history. When Harry Reid changed Senate rules to push Obamacare through, everyone was beside themselves that the GOP would return the favor when they returned to the majority. They did in some things - but in general resisted the Democrat precedent in all things.

When one party endorses the idea that "the end justifies the means" and the other endorses honor and justice, you can't project the evil onto the other side.

Exhibit A.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #390 on: January 29, 2020, 03:45:13 PM »
This probably will be the process for people who are not politicians or lawyers prior to taking office. You can't have someone roll up into the oval office who will break the written or unwritten rules of conduct.

Meanwhile you now have Dershowitz claiming that nothing Trump could have done would be abuse of power even if he .

Quote
“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said. “And mostly you’re right. Your election is in the public interest.”

“And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #391 on: January 29, 2020, 03:53:18 PM »
So the question isn't if Trump did what he is accused of doing but if what he did should disqualify him from office?
If such is the case no further investigation, witness, what ever is required. He did it

The question is: Trump did what he is accursed but what he did is not wrong, or its wrong but ok, or wrong.
I haven't been paying attention as I think the outcome is a forgone conclusion but is that were we are at now 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #392 on: January 29, 2020, 04:06:52 PM »
So the question isn't if Trump did what he is accused of doing but if what he did should disqualify him from office?

It was originally framed as being about what he did or didn't do, but while that's not irrelevant the real question was always why he did it (if he did it). That this has been overly confused and lost in the shuffle is probably deliberate. After all, it would seemingly take some pretty specific evidence to show a particular intent (i.e. to disrupt 2020) as opposed to his claimed intent, which was to investigate 2016. That's what the case logically should hinge on, regardless of what both sides are claiming it does hinge on. It's not so much "he did it" but about specifying what "it" we are talking about. If "it" is trying to pressure the Ukraine, then it's obvious he did that. But that in itself is not a problem. It pressuring countries was illegal then the entire nation should go to jail, like, put bars around the entire continental U.S. and maybe give Hawaii a pass. All of these articles claiming that it's a slam dunk to prove he pressured Ukraine seem to me a bunch of treacherous parasites selling anger and fear for money. Trump may very well have broken the law, but the actual discussion about that, even in the House, seems to be mired in misdirection and smoke and mirrors about red herrings.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #393 on: January 29, 2020, 04:18:59 PM »
Do you honestly think the GOP is trying to prevent witnesses from testifying solely to protect executive privilege or some other constitutional principle?

I don't think the Democrats impeached based on Constitutional principals.  I don't think the Republican Senators are resisting/not resisting for Constitutional principals.   Everyone, and I mean everyone, is just looking to the potential impact on the election.

That's EXACTLY why the House ignored due process.  They couldn't care less about proving the case, just making it sound damning and tarring as many Republicans as they can (including Trump).

I think the Republicans want two disparate things, (1) they want it over as defective immediately (but only if they don't get tarred as covering it up) and (2) to nail the House's process as defective and abusive, which can only be done with witness, but can really only be done in the public eye - and with a media that is completely in the tank they won't get that.

Quote
That if the House redid their impeachment hearings with all the protections people were saying would be available at the Senate trial for witnesses they'd find that Trump's actions were entirely above board?

I think if the House had engaged in due process there never would have been an impeachment.  Too many reps in swing districts that would have refused to support this defective impeachment if that had been fully laid out.

At this point?  There's no way to un ring the bell of unfairness.  The House made a one sided, abusive case for nearly 4 months, without any testing of the theories - the Defense, which we haven't even heard from for  a total of 24 hours demolished the actual case.  if witnesses had properly been deposed and objections noted, you never would have gotten a record that includes so many lies and we'd KNOW FOR A FACT whether the President's justifications of his actions were legitimate or not.

Quote
No one with sense has denied there's a political angle to impeachment but I think it's absurd to believe only one side is acting out of high-minded civic duty and the other out of vile partisanship.

Why would I have to think that "only one side" is?  The Abuse was managed by the House and that's solely on the Democrats. 

Quote
For the record, I think the GOP doesn't want more testimony because even if whatever comes out doesn't support impeachment, it'll make Trump look terrible.

I'm sure they're worried about that, it's not a question of law its a question of appearences and elections.  I think they're also worried that they can count on a partisan press to endlessly repeat lies told by Democrats as true (e.g., Schiff's repeated lie about Mulvaney) without exposing them, and to turn every single thing that can be pulled out of context to make Trump look bad into a national story (e.g., Sondland's statement on quid pro quo, which has been looped and repeated without  any real attention to the fact he made it up).

Quote
I think Trump is preventing people from testifying, because he knows they'd say he attempted to coerce Ukraine into faking investigations into Biden.

I think Trump is preventing people from testifying because he took the opposite route on Mueller, and that allowed Mueller to extend an investigation that had no basis for two years by construing anything and everything in the worst conceivable light - even if he had to ignore a dozen contrary facts to get there.

Think about what you're asking for.  The House won't be satisfied even if every single person in the government testifies they never heard it from Trump (which will never happen cause, if for no other reason, some of them will lie).  Literally, they will then claim that every person that testified was intimidated.  Don't have to speculate, that's exactly what they've said about every bit of testimony from the Ukraine.

You need to look at history. When Harry Reid changed Senate rules to push Obamacare through, everyone was beside themselves that the GOP would return the favor when they returned to the majority. They did in some things - but in general resisted the Democrat precedent in all things.

When one party endorses the idea that "the end justifies the means" and the other endorses honor and justice, you can't project the evil onto the other side.

Well except that sometimes they do sink down.  The Republicans continued with the majority approval standards for justices in the Senate (granted against a backdrop of no votes based on politics rather than qualifications). 

And honestly if they don't the playing field will continually tilt.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #394 on: January 30, 2020, 10:18:10 AM »
Dershowitz's position is basically:
a) Doing something in the public interest is a sufficient defense to excuse an otherwise criminal or impeachable act
b) If an elected official believes their own election is in the public interest, then
c) Anything done in support of their own re-election cannot be used as a reason to remove that person from their elected position.

One can quibble with a word or two, but that is essentially it.  One can also describe this argument in many ways, but 'scholarly' is one of the least accurate.

By this reasoning, campaign financing laws, laws concerning foreign interference... none of these laws, at least partly written to curb the activities of corrupt elected officials, could be enforceable against elected officials using the power of their elected office to improve their electoral chances or even to ensure their own re-election... except maybe in the case of very special politicians who make clear that their own election is NOT in the public interest.

Maybe Dershowitz's argument was completely extemporaneous and without any analysis... (one can hope) Unfortunately, it sounds like a lot of people have turned their brains off and don't realize what is being argued... it also seems that there are many people who do know better but are depending on the lack of critical thinking on the part of their supporters in order to use this as a defense of their own team...

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #395 on: January 30, 2020, 10:46:59 AM »
No, he didn't say that.

"They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything. I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest,"

"A constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any president to be impeached," he argued. "How many presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with their political advisers and their pollsters?"



A president must have another motive OTHER than re-election, but re-election can be a simultaneous goal. The opposite would be that a president can only take an action if it has nothing to do with his re-election, which would make nearly all presidential action impeachable.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 10:58:07 AM by ScottF »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #396 on: January 30, 2020, 10:58:16 AM »
Sure, Political ends are what drives the entire Shampeachment... and because it does, the President's team cannot just win the Constitutional Law argument, they must win the Bully Pulpit. When you're attacked by smears, you can't ignore it - you must prove it wrong.

The only way to achieve lasting success of defending against a sham, is to see the miscreants who break the law for personal political ends pay the price for their perfidy. For years, the Democrats have used "proijection" to blame everyone else for what they are guilty of doing. Clinton did this in his impeachment by claiming "everyone does it. He tarred the Founders as womanizing slave owners. He couldn't be impeached because his actions were just like everyone else. After the Nixon election, they pretended all the Democrat southern racists switched parties to become Republicans. Never happened. All the racists and bigots stayed with the Democrats. The Nixon Southern Strategy was just projection.

What is front and center in everyone's mind, is how the Dems get away with anything they do. Unless someone goes to prison and is perp-walked to the prison bus, nothing changes.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #397 on: January 30, 2020, 11:09:37 AM »
Sure, Political ends are what drives the entire Shampeachment... and because it does, the President's team cannot just win the Constitutional Law argument, they must win the Bully Pulpit. When you're attacked by smears, you can't ignore it - you must prove it wrong.

Which he could do by having his people testify that his sole, or even primary, concern was ensuring that Ukraine didn't misuse the funds due to corruption. Strange that Trump's going to court to prevent those people from testifying though. Even more strange is that he isn't leaning on the Senate to allow him to introduce exculpatory evidence. It's almost like he thinks their testimony wouldn't prove his innocence.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #398 on: January 30, 2020, 11:35:24 AM »
...the President's team cannot just win the Constitutional Law argument, they must win the Bully Pulpit. When you're attacked by smears, you can't ignore it - you must prove it wrong.

Which he could do by having his people testify that his sole, or even primary, concern was ensuring that Ukraine didn't misuse the funds due to corruption. Strange that Trump's going to court to prevent those people from testifying though. Even more strange is that he isn't leaning on the Senate to allow him to introduce exculpatory evidence. It's almost like he thinks their testimony wouldn't prove his innocence.

Totally erroneous statement. Trump is innocent until proved guilty. ...But he must prove his innocence to stop the continual smears. How has that worked out anytime during his Presidency, so far?

Schumer was busy smearing again this morning. He claimed Dershowitz said "Anything done in support of their own re-election cannot be used as a reason to remove that person from their elected position, then changed his statement when called on it." He said no such thing (as ScottF posted.)

Even correcting inaccurate accusations is seen as waffling. One thing I like about Fox News, is that they routinely show the full clips of stories being commented upon, instead of cherry-picking bits and pieces. Once again, Schumer was quickly proved in error, but those who need to see it don't watch Fox News.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #399 on: January 30, 2020, 11:44:12 AM »
It's almost like he thinks their testimony wouldn't prove his innocence.

Putting aside the above point that on principle you should not have to prove your own innocence, even in an impeachment trial, I will also point out that it is in fact nearly impossible to prove innocence in this sense. There is no physical way to demonstrate that you *did not* intend an action based on a certain motive. We don't have psychic brain-scans that employ time travel technology, and you cannot exhaustively prove that you literally never said a single thing that could be construed as wrong. When it comes especially to a media-circus type event even the *idea* of trying to prove your own innocence is something right out of the 1984 playbook. It's a pre-fab trap to ensure someone looks guilty no matter what.

What you should be saying is that if he has his people testify it might show that he did intend to investigate what was going on in 2016. Demonstrating that agenda would not prove his innocence (whatever that is supposed to mean) but it would prove that at minimum a part of his intent was to correct a potential wrong in the previous election, which is the only bar he should have to meet.