Author Topic: The Shampeachement Follies  (Read 34988 times)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #550 on: February 06, 2020, 03:59:17 PM »
Quote
I can show that ripping up a speech is petulant in itself.  Disagreement, or thinking the speech is horrible is not petulant in itself.  But ripping up a written speech is petulant because it served no purpose.  It's a fairly obvious act out of emotion.  Perhaps someone can argue against?  I'll listen. 
Not to rain on your parade, but I really don't think you can show that, not without a lot more evidence.

Sure, petulance is one possible motivation.  But she may also have been thinking that it would play well with her base, or with her Democratic colleagues.  Maybe she was doing it in order to steal the 24-hour news cycle.  It certainly looked staged, suggesting it was premeditated, which, though not ruling out petulance, certainly argues against it.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #551 on: February 06, 2020, 04:04:21 PM »

What ever gave you the idea that I said it was hidden? 

You said that petulance was BEHIND his position.  Since the wording of the statement shows no evidence of animosity or petulance, and since the action itself cannot be shown as evidence of animosity or petulance, and since many have stated that the reasons given by Romney for the action are false forms of self-justification, I assumed you mean that Romney's true motives are being hidden by him, but easily discerned by yourself and others.  Because appeal to motive is easier than dealing with the actual argument or you have already decided that the argument is faulty and there is no room for honest disagreement.

Grant, I was crystal clear that I believe the argument in favor of voting for removal is faulty.  And I don't even think it's close.  Any vote in favor of impeachment on the first count requires an assumption of facts that were not in evidence and that may not even exist.

Ergo, based on my knowledge of Romney, I think it's most likely his animus to Trump is what's behind his vote, and his explanation is just rationalization.   

Quote
Quote
He's said dozens if not hundreds of negative things about Trump.

Does everyone who holds a negative view of His Orangeness have animosity and hatred behind their view, or is it just Romney?

I doubt everyone does, but I think we should be able to agree that there are lot of people for whom the hatred leads their comments rather than the other way around.  It's trivially easy to get people to sound off about "quotes from Trump" that you later reveal were really from a Democrat.  Even if they're directly on something the DNC does support.

Quote
Thank you.  You've confirmed my previous statement that the real reason behind the belief that Romney is being petulant or his actions are motivated by animosity is because you hold a different view on the impeachment.  A view you hold so strongly and believe to be so self-evidence that anyone who disagrees with you cannot possibly be doing so from principle, they must be motivated by animosity. 

Well, you do give some room to cosmically poor judgement/understanding.  So, is it possible that Romney just has cosmically poor understanding?  Him and every other Republican who have said that Trump's actions were wrong or impeachable?

Let's talk more about correspondence bias. 

Wrong is different from impeachable. 

But even more, we don't get to "Trump's actions were wrong."  List for me the specific actions of Trump personally that were in the record that were wrong.  There's virtually nothing attributable to Trump in the record, and what is there doesn't support the personal benefit narrative.

It's like you're arguing that arresting people for the crime of black while driving is legitimate.  Being President while being Trump is impeachable.

Quote
Quote
The petulance isn't hidden, he's deliberately set his image as an anti-Trumper.

Are all individuals who have negative views of Trump or his actions motivated by petulance or animosity?  Are all of their judgments suspect?  Is holding a negative view of someone by definition petulance?  If I hold a negative view of Bernie Sanders, is this due to petulance or animosity on my part?  Is every judgement I make concerning Bernie Sander's economic plan suspect? 

No. No. No.  Beats me, only you would know, but if you wrote hundreds of things about your negative view of Bernie Sanders I might have a good guess.  No, but if you make a judgment of Bernie Sander's economic plan that assumes a lot of things not in evidence it may be evidence that that particular judgement is.

Quote
Quote
There  is no way to know his actual motives.  I just have a suspicion and when the suspicion fits the facts and the purported motive doesn't it gives more weight - in my mind - to that suspicion, but it's not proof.  He could just be not that smart, or have an error in facts or logic he hasn't examined.

This is infinity easier to do rather than deal with the stated motives.  The conclusion/view is different then yours, so the person must be biased or stupid.  Let's talk more about bias.

Let's talk about what's infinitely "easier" first.  There's no lack of my dealing with the "facts" and the law on this impeachment.  There's no analogue in American Justice that supports the process that was followed, that deliberately trampled the rights of the accused, propped up hearsay and even fiction, and NEVER had any cross examination of any prosecution witness or defense witness even called.  It was an abuse from the beginning, and it should be condemned as such.

Supporting a conviction based on THAT record can only be viewed as Banana Court justice.  It literally means that you believe you have proven the exclusive and impermissible motive of Trump without ever considering any evidence of other motives.  I don't care who you are, or what you believe, there is no way to justify that process in America.

Go ahead, try.  Explain how this process was right and just and fair, and led to a record that supports any charges and a conviction.

Quote
I can have an opinion on why Romney is doing something, and if I was in Utah that would cost him my vote, but it wouldn't put him in jail or get him impeached.

You didn't answer the question, but changed the subject.[/quote]

Not remotely.  Motive speculation is a great reason to vote for someone or not.  It's not a basis to put someone in jail or to impeach, for that we required proof and facts.  That's exactly the subject, and exactly why I can criticize Romney and you can criticize Trump on what we believe about what we've seen, but neither of us should be putting either in jail based on what we believe their motivations were.

Quote
You generally observe that you cannot prove Romney's motivations, but hold that you can have an opinion on those motivations regardless of proof.

I didn't hold that.  I held that different types and kinds of proof are necessary for different purposes, and that motive speculation is not the standard of proof for trials.

Quote
I would generally agree that the vast majority of our beliefs and opinions are not based on proof as we define it.  Yet most people would tend to believe that they had SOME sort of evidence to back up their opinion.  The only evidence I have seen presented that Romney acted out of animosity or petulance is that he has an unfavorable view of Trump as a human being , as a politician, or as a president.

If you're looking for me to prove my opinion you're not going to get it.  They are called opinions for a reason.   That doesn't mean they are unsupported, the record is there, it means that they are not proven.  If I knew if for certain, I would have stated it as a certainty.

The impeachment record doesn't support a guilty vote.   It's my opinion Romney strained to find a way to vote guilty because of his dislike of Trump and not because he found the impeachment record particularly persuasive.  Or rather that absent his personal dislike, he would have rejected the record.  There is no chance he would have voted guilty if Pence was facing the exact same charges.

Quote
  This comes back to my question as to whether all people who hold negative views of other people are animated by animosity or petulance, and if their biases make their views suspect?  You are free to have an opinion.  They are like *censored*.  Everyone has them.  But should we not have an awareness as to the strength of those opinions, so we are aware if we are being motivated by our own biases?

No to the first, lots of people with negative views are not animated by petulance or animosity.  I mean heck, we have two examples in the impeachment itself.  Both Turley and Dershowitz expressed lack of personal support for Trump and indicated they voted for Hillary, yet they were still there making the arguments because they believed the principals were more important.

On the hand, just about everyone in the House, Republican or Democrat, flipped their entire position from where they were on Clinton's impeachment, to the point that you have literal video clips of them contradicting themselves.   And they weren't really motivated by "petulance" either, but rather by pure political greed. 

Quote
Quote
Impeaching Trump because of opinions about his motives is wrong.  Not voting for him in an election based on your beliefs about his motive is totally reasonable.

I'm glad all the Never Trumpers are now totally reasonable for not voting for Trump based on their opinions.  I will remember that.

Whoever said you shouldn't vote for who you want?

Quote
Quote
In making a judgement about why Romney is doing this, I have to be informed by my own conclusions on the impeachment.  There is no basis for his vote (nor that of the Democrats) in favor of impeachment on this record.

Again, it comes down to Romney disagrees with me so he must be full of hate or stupid.  Again, much easier than dealing with the actual arguments or motivations given by Romney.  Is this not the definition of confirmation bias?

I don't know how to take your response at this point.  You seem to want to convince me that I find the impeachment guilty votes illegitimate.  Yes I do.

Then to convince me that people that voted guilty are wrong because I believe those votes are completely unsupportable.  Yes I do.

Perhaps you are under the mistaken view that I think the Republicans voted for acquital for the right reasons?  I do not, or they would have dismissed the case prior to oral arguments for being defective on its face.

No, it's not the definition of confirmation bias.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #552 on: February 06, 2020, 04:22:22 PM »
I can't speak to proving anything, but it is an essential job of the electorate to try to divine motivation. Are people trying to take our guns to establish a police state, or to add measures for public safety? Are they cutting taxes to create jobs, or to make the rich richer? Are they cutting transgender from the military to improve readiness, or to roll back LGBT agendas? Are they increasing welfare programs to help people in need, or to buy votes?

We can often be cynical about true motivations, but it is still an important exercise.

Pelosi ripping up the speech was symbolic of the rejection of the ideas presented. I think decorum left us a while ago. The veneer of respectful disagreement has been torn asunder. And it is very dangerous. It didn't start with lying Ted, or crooked Hillary, but that seems the inflection point, at least to me. The gloves are off now.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #553 on: February 06, 2020, 05:01:00 PM »
Quote
But ripping up a written speech is petulant because it served no purpose.  It's a fairly obvious act out of emotion.

the act appeared more calculated then emotional or perhaps a bit of both, a attempt to make a point in answer to the (perhaps) petulant snub of Trump refusing to shake her hand when offered.

We see the world as we are not as it is so I prefer the rule of charity when it trying to "Know" what another person is thinking.

Trump didn't notice the offered hand and Pelosi didn't like the speech.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #554 on: February 06, 2020, 05:03:04 PM »
Quote
Given Pelosi's statement that impeachment is forever vetting the facts in the House before impeachment seems like the minimum standard that should apply.  Or do you believe that once the Senate chooses not to remove that Trump is exonerated?

Can't have it both ways, if Impeachment means something it's the Houses job to make sure they have it correct.

It finally occurred to me why this is so sad.

The Republicans in the Senate, and apparently a lot of other people, decided that the Senate trial was to evaluate the quality of the House's evidence, rather than to determine whether Trump was guilty of the charges or not.  :(

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #555 on: February 06, 2020, 05:04:25 PM »
Quote
Any vote in favor of impeachment on the first count requires an assumption of facts that were not in evidence and that may not even exist.

 I don't know anyone who does not think that Trump didn't do what he was accused of doing.
The difference of opinion is if such actions were impeachable and or should lead to his removal of office.
The House impeached Trump, The Senate found that his actions should not lead to Trump removal.  The system worked.

The House had to investigate, the administration was less the helpful in the investigation - arguably obstruction. Their was strong evidence that Trump withhold aid to gain a personal favor and so a abuse of power - arguable if it was personal. The Senate did not find the actions were for personal gain, so not abuse of power and obstruction of congress doesn't matter.  (until it will some time in the future.)  Whatever the precedence's have be set.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #556 on: February 06, 2020, 05:15:18 PM »
It finally occurred to me why this is so sad.

The Republicans in the Senate, and apparently a lot of other people, decided that the Senate trial was to evaluate the quality of the House's evidence, rather than to determine whether Trump was guilty of the charges or not.  :(

The latter required the former.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #557 on: February 06, 2020, 06:13:58 PM »
The Republicans in the Senate, and apparently a lot of other people, decided that the Senate trial was to evaluate the quality of the House's evidence, rather than to determine whether Trump was guilty of the charges or not.  :(

You think deciding on a person's guilt should be based on something...other than...evaluating the quality of the evidence? This sounds like a Troy McClure bit.

I think in proper court cases the jury is explicitly instructed to rule based on the evidence alone and not whether they "think" the defendant is guilty. So...yeah..."we all know he did it" isn't a kind of evidence.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #558 on: February 06, 2020, 06:30:19 PM »
I think in proper court cases the jury is explicitly instructed to rule based on the evidence alone and not whether they "think" the defendant is guilty. So...yeah..."we all know he did it" isn't a kind of evidence.

I'd refine this a bit, the jury is there to evaluate the evidence presented (not their outside opinions), but to apply it through the law that actually applies.  Killing a person is only murder if it fits into the law, and there is no defense such as self defense that applies.

There were several gross failings by the House, but one of them very clearly was a failure to set out the elements of what their impeachment charge was for abuse of power.  They were deliberately vague and non-specific, and that let them argue a case without specifying exactly which conduct of Trump's was impermissable.  Was it just the call?  The motive isn't there.  Was it some assumption that because he told Sondland "no quid pro quo" we can assume he meant quid pro quo?  Was it that multiple mid level diplomats heard rumors that largely came from Sondland's misunderstanding?

A court case is dismissable, and in fact a law is ruled unConstitutional if it's so vague a defendant can't determine which conduct is illegal and which is not.  A case fails if it can't prove an element.

List out the elements for the charge for Article I and what specific facts prove them.  The elements are not there.

If you look at the second article, you find an article that should always have been dismissed.  It literally makes impeachable an insistance that novel issues be litigated and ruled on by the courts.  If the House demanded Trump's attorney's files would they be entitled to them?  By their theory the answer is yes without question, Trump is not entitled to speak to his lawyers if the House says impeachment and makes the demand.

If you list out the actual elements, you'll find either that the charges are poor and don't require proof that Trump did something wrong, or that the elements needed to prove it are not present.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #559 on: February 06, 2020, 06:31:40 PM »
Quote
Given Pelosi's statement that impeachment is forever vetting the facts in the House before impeachment seems like the minimum standard that should apply.  Or do you believe that once the Senate chooses not to remove that Trump is exonerated?

Can't have it both ways, if Impeachment means something it's the Houses job to make sure they have it correct.

It finally occurred to me why this is so sad.

The Republicans in the Senate, and apparently a lot of other people, decided that the Senate trial was to evaluate the quality of the House's evidence, rather than to determine whether Trump was guilty of the charges or not.  :(

I think it makes me so sad that so many people don't believe that the purpose of the House's impeachment process was to get to the truth rather than to create a narrative justifying Trump''s removal.

Still waiting for your explanation on how denying cross examination helped us get to the truth.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #560 on: February 06, 2020, 06:40:32 PM »
The Republicans in the Senate, and apparently a lot of other people, decided that the Senate trial was to evaluate the quality of the House's evidence, rather than to determine whether Trump was guilty of the charges or not.  :(

You think deciding on a person's guilt should be based on something...other than...evaluating the quality of the evidence? This sounds like a Troy McClure bit.

I think in proper court cases the jury is explicitly instructed to rule based on the evidence alone and not whether they "think" the defendant is guilty. So...yeah..."we all know he did it" isn't a kind of evidence.

It's not that the judgement should be based on something other than the evidence.  It's that the Senate Republicans decided that it was more important to limit their inquiry only to the House's evidence.  And if that evidence, and that evidence alone, did not convince them, well, then it was all the House's fault, wasn't it?  If Trump happened to the guilty and there was more evidence out there that proved it, well, that wasn't their job to look at it.  Finding out the truth wasn't their job.  Responding to the evidence the House provided was.

Evidence, facts, guilt, innocence--those were only secondary issues. :(

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #561 on: February 06, 2020, 06:46:12 PM »
Quote
Still waiting for your explanation on how denying cross examination helped us get to the truth.

You mean denying the White House the ability to cross-examine the witnesses (since Republicans were at the hearings, too, although some Republicans would have you believe otherwise)?

I believe they expected that to happen during the Senate Impeachment hearings.  After all, every other Senate impeachment hearings had witnesses that spoke directly to the Senators and told what they had witnessed.

Do you really think that this White House would cross-examine witnesses to get to the truth?  ;D

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #562 on: February 07, 2020, 02:58:28 AM »
Grant, while I think you may be right that both sides of this issue seem to often have partisan blinders on, I also think in this particular argument you're being hyper-reductionist. Asking for proof of someone's motivation is an ultimately circular debate: you'll start with someone stating evidence, you'll ask if that evidence is based on opinion or fact, and it will come full circle when all "facts" about someone's motivations end up being educated opinions, in which case you're back to asking for facts again (which inevitably will be shown to be opinions of one sort or another).

Which is why I stopped justifying my position after the initial few rounds. It's a conjecture on what I think Romney did and why based on my own personal opinion. As it involves some degree of "mind reading" being employed, arguing over it will only run us around in circles.

It doesn't appreciably change my views of Romney, I'm disappointed, but he's human and if my theory is right, he wasn't (fully) aware of what he did.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #563 on: February 07, 2020, 03:10:03 AM »
Pelosi ripping up the speech was symbolic of the rejection of the ideas presented. I think decorum left us a while ago. The veneer of respectful disagreement has been torn asunder. And it is very dangerous. It didn't start with lying Ted, or crooked Hillary, but that seems the inflection point, at least to me. The gloves are off now.

Well at least nobody has been beaten to within an inch of his life on the Senate Floor to the point where it took years to recover.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #564 on: February 07, 2020, 03:16:04 AM »
I believe in coincidences. Sometimes they happen. But it's a pretty big coincidence that Romney has been the one who has been the Republican in the Senate most critical of Trump and then he's the only Republican who votes against Trump on impeachment. Not likely a coincidence in my book. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #565 on: February 07, 2020, 03:20:41 AM »
It's not that the judgement should be based on something other than the evidence.  It's that the Senate Republicans decided that it was more important to limit their inquiry only to the House's evidence.  And if that evidence, and that evidence alone, did not convince them, well, then it was all the House's fault, wasn't it?  If Trump happened to the guilty and there was more evidence out there that proved it, well, that wasn't their job to look at it.  Finding out the truth wasn't their job.  Responding to the evidence the House provided was.

Evidence, facts, guilt, innocence--those were only secondary issues. :(

The sole power of impeachment lies with the House of Representatives. The funnier thing about how broadly they expanded it, they also hilariously determined that evidently while the "sole power" lies with them to conduct the impeachment, they decided the Senate's role is to actually investigate the case. After the House decides they should do so by sending articles of impeachment to them.

There are multiple problems with that.

Complaining that the Senate did not investigate further is like a DA complaining about losing a Murder Trial because the Judge didn't allow them to carry out further investigations and bring in new evidence during the trial they were already aware of prior to the pre-trial work concluding when they could have asked to delay the trial date.

In this case, they can't even blame the judge for refusing to grant them extension on the trial start date. The House rushed it to a floor vote, then sat on it for an additional month before giving it to the Senate, where they promptly proclaim an orange dog ate their homework and asks the Senators to do it for them.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #566 on: February 07, 2020, 09:26:01 AM »
I find it interesting that people keep comparing impeachment to a criminal trial when it's explicitly not a criminal trial. It's one of the few things that the Constitution actually defines about impeachment.

The other thing is that if it had been intended for the Senate to simply review the House's case, I doubt the Constitution would have called for a trial. 

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #567 on: February 07, 2020, 11:00:35 AM »
Quote
I believe in coincidences. Sometimes they happen. But it's a pretty big coincidence that Romney has been the one who has been the Republican in the Senate most critical of Trump and then he's the only Republican who votes against Trump on impeachment. Not likely a coincidence in my book

Coincidence or is it just possible that Romney is attempting to live up to his values and oath as he see's necessary for the good of the country?  I think you miss use the word coincidence when it appears he is being consistent. 

Everyone that you disagree with is not necessarily out to get you or have some kind of hidden agenda. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #568 on: February 07, 2020, 11:16:35 AM »
Quote
Still waiting for your explanation on how denying cross examination helped us get to the truth.

You mean denying the White House the ability to cross-examine the witnesses (since Republicans were at the hearings, too, although some Republicans would have you believe otherwise)?

A cross examination is by definition by the defense.  Republican members of the House are not the defense, they have their own powers and perrogatives to pursue.  The only reason you can even make this argument is that this such a purely political and partisan process that it had no Republican support.

There was no ability to object to questions, no ability to insist on answers that Schiff didn't want to hear (what was it you were saying about not being interested in pursuing the truth again?).

I get you see the world only in shades of teams, but being a Republican and present =/ to having a cross examination.  Heck, the mere fact that no one could object to a question by Schiff is a material deviation of process.

Quote
I believe they expected that to happen during the Senate Impeachment hearings.  After all, every other Senate impeachment hearings had witnesses that spoke directly to the Senators and told what they had witnessed.

That may be the most false statement you've ever made.  There is not one precedent for taking depositions in this manner, it never happened in prior impeachments.  There is no way to cure a one sided deposition left stale for months without any ability of the defense to bring up its objections and questions.

Quote
Do you really think that this White House would cross-examine witnesses to get to the truth?  ;D

Yes.  Pretty clearly, they would have cross examined witnesses with questions that would have demonstrated that they were stating unfounded opinions, they would have objected to statements based solely on hearsay, they would have demanded answers around why they believed they set policy rather than the white house.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #569 on: February 07, 2020, 11:31:48 AM »
I find it interesting that people keep comparing impeachment to a criminal trial when it's explicitly not a criminal trial. It's one of the few things that the Constitution actually defines about impeachment.

The other thing is that if it had been intended for the Senate to simply review the House's case, I doubt the Constitution would have called for a trial.

If they had intended for the Senate to make the House's case, then there would be Senate impeachment managers not House impeachment managers.

The House failed to state and actionable claim, and failed to demonstrate that they voted to impeach based on facts they had collected.  This case should have been dismissed.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #570 on: February 07, 2020, 11:38:10 AM »
If they had intended for the Senate to make the House's case, then there would be Senate impeachment managers not House impeachment managers.

The House failed to state and actionable claim, and failed to demonstrate that they voted to impeach based on facts they had collected.  This case should have been dismissed.

And where in the Constitution does it mention impeachment managers or that it's up to the House alone to make the case for impeachment?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #571 on: February 07, 2020, 11:58:40 AM »
Lol.  If you want to make the case that the sparse words on Impeachment mean that the House can do whatever sham process it decides to run, it's hard to whine about the Senate using the sparse words in the Constitution to justify it's own process.

Given how you've responded, are you really okay with the House running a banana court process that completely undermines what we believe are the Constitutional rights of an accussed person? 

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #572 on: February 07, 2020, 12:14:54 PM »
I don't think what the Senate did could be properly called a trial.

Please tell me how Trump's life, liberty, or property were imperiled by impeachment proceedings. It's well established law that the full protections of constitutionally-guaranteed rights don't apply for non-criminal proceedings.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #573 on: February 07, 2020, 12:23:59 PM »
Yes.  Pretty clearly, they would have cross examined witnesses with questions that would have demonstrated that they were stating unfounded opinions, they would have objected to statements based solely on hearsay, they would have demanded answers around why they believed they set policy rather than the white house.

Okay, I may be wrong about this (not a legal expert). The closest analogies I can think of for comparing impeachment to criminal legal proceedings would be the following.

The house most acts like some kind of combination of grand jury and prosecution rolled into one. So not having defense council present would be okay if that was their role.

The Senate is some combination of judge and jury rolled into one. This is usually the stage in a trial when witnesses would be subject to cross examination by the defense.

But in the end its not a trial and expecting each peace of the criminal justice system to fit in nicely with the impeachment process is asking a bit much.

At the end of the day you either think Trump is justified in asking for the investigation or you feel that is outside of the lines for what presidents should do. There is some dispute over how much leverage he used in pushing for the investigations but not the fact he was asking for those investigations in particular and not other corruption related investigations.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #574 on: February 07, 2020, 12:46:44 PM »
I don't think what the Senate did could be properly called a trial.

Please tell me how Trump's life, liberty, or property were imperiled by impeachment proceedings. It's well established law that the full protections of constitutionally-guaranteed rights don't apply for non-criminal proceedings.

I don't understand the intricacies of the system we're talking about, but it seems to me that on a common sense level if a person is publicly being accused of things which are bad, this will automatically threaten his well-being, prosperity, and perhaps freedom down the line. First of all it's someone's job, which they worked tirelessly to get, be elected, and spent in this case a ton of his own money to petition for. Threatening to take that away isn't nothing. But as I doubt that issue will garner much sympathy for people (especially if he really is corrupt) I think the more important issue would be that if a banana-court type proceeding is conducted which exposes the President to things for which he might be prosecuted after he is impeached (or not re-elected), then it is very material what is or isn't permitted into evidence in this "trial" since it will come back to haunt him. I don't know that, from my lay perspective, it makes sense to argue that "oh it's not really a trial so what does it matter." Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it might matter a lot.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #575 on: February 07, 2020, 03:54:40 PM »
I don't think what the Senate did could be properly called a trial.

Please tell me how Trump's life, liberty, or property were imperiled by impeachment proceedings. It's well established law that the full protections of constitutionally-guaranteed rights don't apply for non-criminal proceedings.

You aren't taking that from Trump, you're taking it from 63 million voters that put him into office.  You are literally trying to terminate that political statement, invalidate it and prevent however many millions of people would vote for him in the next election from doing so.

You guys flip out about voter id laws disenfranchising people (even though there isn't actually any evidence they do), but turn a blind eye to disenfranchising millions upon millions.

But it's definitely an embarrassment that you'd even try to argue that impeaching a President is somehow less significant than trying any crime or misdemeanor.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #576 on: February 07, 2020, 04:09:40 PM »
Yes.  Pretty clearly, they would have cross examined witnesses with questions that would have demonstrated that they were stating unfounded opinions, they would have objected to statements based solely on hearsay, they would have demanded answers around why they believed they set policy rather than the white house.

Okay, I may be wrong about this (not a legal expert). The closest analogies I can think of for comparing impeachment to criminal legal proceedings would be the following.

The house most acts like some kind of combination of grand jury and prosecution rolled into one. So not having defense council present would be okay if that was their role.

No it wouldn't.  A grand jury is a brake on the otherwise unfettered powers of a prosecutor to engage in abusive prosecutions.  Someone can not be a "grand jury" and a "prosecutor," without the function voiding itself.  It's a safety valve that requires the body politic sign off on prosecutions.  The House "as a grand jury" is not doing that function, they are doing the function of the prosecutor - speaking to no one.  That's why that is a terrible analogy.

The House's job is to do the investigation and  reach a conclusion that impeachable conduct likely occurred, it's more than a grand jury (probable cause) and much more akin to what a prosecutor is supposed to do.  A prosecutor is supposed to have a good faith belief that the person is guilty of the crimes they are charged with, that means they are IN FACT supposed to investigate the defenses the person could have put forward and come to a conclusion that they are no applicable.

A prosecutor should NEVER bring a case if they have a good faith belief that a killing was in self defense, or if they can't prove the person they think did it in fact did it.  It's not, take a bad case to trial and see what a jury says.  It's literally, take a case because I think I show it to a factual certainty.

Pretending that the House's sole charge is to find the political will to vote yes, demeans us all.  Pretending that if the House has the votes, it's up to the Senate to do the entire process is just nonsense.

Quote
The Senate is some combination of judge and jury rolled into one. This is usually the stage in a trial when witnesses would be subject to cross examination by the defense.

No.  In fact most every witness is deposed before trial.  You guys are confused by tv.   They actually use those depositions to impeach them at trial.  What the House did in refusing defense counsel the right to cross examination is a literal abuse.

Quote
At the end of the day you either think Trump is justified in asking for the investigation or you feel that is outside of the lines for what presidents should do.

Trump was completely justified in what he actually asked for on the call. 

It's also completely legitimate to investigate the 2016 election interference, and in fact it should be investigated since it's completely obvious the DNC did invite foreign interference.

It's also completely legitimate to investigate Hunter Biden's role with Burisma.  It looks on its face like corruption and possibly an FCPA violation.

Otherwise, it seems to be that you believe it's a crime to investigate criminal conduct by Democrats.  We all know that investigating Republicans to the point of using foreign propaganda, authorizing spying, and running 3 year processes that ignore constitutional rights is apparently okay.  How is this -even if what you believe is assumed true- not far less than what you've already endorsed as okay by Democrats?

Quote
There is some dispute over how much leverage he used in pushing for the investigations but not the fact he was asking for those investigations in particular and not other corruption related investigations.

The record actually makes it clear that he was concerned about all corruption.  It's repeated multiple times.  It's fake news to claim he never asked about the others.

But in any event, it's not even plausible that asking about 2016 election interference is wrong.

Asking about Biden was stupid, but not wrong either.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #577 on: February 07, 2020, 04:44:40 PM »
Breaking:
Quote
Lt. Col. Vindman was just escorted out of the White House by security and told his services were no longer needed.

When you aim for the king, you best not miss.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #578 on: February 08, 2020, 10:35:06 AM »
Sondland too

Quote
U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who testified about President Trump’s Ukraine dealings during the House impeachment hearings, said Friday he had been recalled from his overseas position, hours after a National Security Council aide who testified against the president was also fired


wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #579 on: February 08, 2020, 05:52:34 PM »
...I don't know anyone who does not think that Trump didn't do what he was accused of doing.

You must not know many people. The only people who believed the accusation must not know there is an obligation of the President to investigate corruption when USA funds are at risk. Biden's son joined the Burisma board and his father arranged for preferential treatment for the company. The oligarch who owns Burisma was under criminal scrutiny for stealing millions of our money. Biden and others connected to Burisma managed to quash the arrest warrants, and as far as we know, the oligarch still has our money.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #580 on: February 10, 2020, 10:32:37 AM »
Not that anybody is surprised (well, maybe with the exception of wmLambert): Fox News implicates... Fox News in spreading disinformation concerning Ukraine conspiracy theories

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #581 on: February 10, 2020, 11:24:43 AM »
Limiting my google search to the 20 years before Feb 1 (so ignoring the 200+ citations after media matters starting promoting this story 4-5 days ago), I have difficulty finding any references to Brian Murphy related to Fox, or as a "senior researcher" notwithstanding The Daily Beast credits him with the document they are leaking.  Not saying he isn't, just that it's a peculiar omission.

And this is how the Daily Beast describes John Solomon:

Quote
The research brief is especially critical of Solomon, a former opinion columnist at The Hill whose opinion pieces about Ukraine made unsubstantiated claims about its government interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

***

While Solomon is portrayed on Sean Hannity’s show as a crusading “investigative reporter”—despite The Hill overtly branding him an opinion columnist—the Brain Room document accuses the contributor of taking part in a Ukrainian smear campaign. 

Which is a fascinating way to describe someone who spent 20 years working at the Associated Press and rose to be it's Washington Bureau chief before becoming the Editor in Chief of the Washington times.  Even at The Hill, his work is described in his Wiki as follows:  "Upon leaving Circa, Solomon became executive vice president of digital video for The Hill.  Until May 2018, he worked on news and investigative pieces for The Hill."  I Grant you Wikipedia describes him as a "political commentator" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator)

Now they've posted opinion pieces of his as well, but hardly a circumstance where someone could in good faith object to him being described as an investigative journalist.

So it sounds like The Daily Beast has an agenda here, and that fills me with severe doubt that they are reporting in good faith on the pieces that I can't easily verify.  In fact, I don't trust their account at all.  Especially not when they play into their own false memes.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #582 on: February 10, 2020, 08:32:52 PM »
Quote
Officials confirmed that Trump and national security adviser Robert O’Brien have cut 70 positions inherited from former President Barack Obama, who had fattened the staff to 200.

Many were loaners from other agencies and have been sent back. Others left government work.

 8)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #583 on: February 13, 2020, 01:44:08 PM »
OK, so Hunter Biden being named to a board of directors and making an obscene salary while his father was VP and was involved in getting the Ukraine public prosecutor replaced is sufficient for some people to believe there must be corruption in that instance... yet there has been complete radio silence on the topic of the president decrying the treatment of his friend Roger Stone at the hands of career federal prosecutors and the concurrent overruling of those same federal prosecutors' recommended sentencing of Stone by the president's justice department...

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #584 on: February 13, 2020, 02:14:42 PM »
OK, so Hunter Biden being named to a board of directors and making an obscene salary while his father was VP and was involved in getting the Ukraine public prosecutor replaced is sufficient for some people to believe there must be corruption in that instance...

There's no question this should have been investigated. 

Quote
yet there has been complete radio silence on the topic of the president decrying the treatment of his friend Roger Stone at the hands of career federal prosecutors and the concurrent overruling of those same federal prosecutors' recommended sentencing of Stone by the president's justice department...

It's hard to even understand the sense in this complaint, let alone why anyone would think it's equivalent. 

The recommendation on Stone was a literal abuse of the sentencing guidelines.  That's not a joke or fake news.  The question is why, and the only answer seems to have been political payback or motivation by the prosecutors.  The DOJ was absolutely correct to amend the recommendation, it never should have been made in the first place.

Now why exactly is Trump's tweet in any way relevant?  The judge sets the sentence length, not the prosecutors, and can in fact set it for more than they request.  Doesn't make it okay for them to abuse the guidelines.  It's already out that the decision to revise was made before the tweet.  And, the President has the arbitrary and unreviewable  authority to commute the sentence should he so choose.

Why is it that once again, pro-Democrat partisans can abuse the guidelines an corrections based on all prior law and precedent that they ignored are somehow bad?

I'm beginning to think there are no honest "career" government employees.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #585 on: February 13, 2020, 02:17:05 PM »
OK, so Hunter Biden being named to a board of directors and making an obscene salary while his father was VP and was involved in getting the Ukraine public prosecutor replaced is sufficient for some people to believe there must be corruption in that instance... yet there has been complete radio silence on the topic of the president decrying the treatment of his friend Roger Stone at the hands of career federal prosecutors and the concurrent overruling of those same federal prosecutors' recommended sentencing of Stone by the president's justice department...

Multiple problems here: Roger Stone was prosecuted due to the Mueller Investigation, which in turn may have been triggered by a poisoned well, only Barr and a handful of people at Justice are currently "in the know" on that front at this time. Further, nobody can claim that the Mueller Investigation was devoid of political motivations in what it did, and how it did many things(leaks, early and often).

The next issue is we're back to Trump being able to speak "as Trump the citizen" rather than "Trump the President" where not everything Trump says is being said by "Trump the President" and it seems that it is entirely possible that what we saw was Citizen Trump speaking, not President Trump. Sure, investigate, it's "only proper" that it be validated that it was in fact Citizen Trump speaking, rather than Barr thinking he was dealing with PotUS Trump in doing what he did.

But I guess some of this goes back to the new, and unproven, TDS-era legal theory where someone publicly complaining about ____ now qualifies as Obstruction of Justice.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #586 on: February 13, 2020, 02:34:11 PM »
So how can you tell when it's Citizen Trump instead of President Trump speaking?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #587 on: February 13, 2020, 02:34:33 PM »
Yes, I understand that you would be unable to call out the president for involving himself in the sentencing of his friend.  That was kinda the point.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #588 on: February 13, 2020, 02:41:59 PM »
I also think it hilarious that there is this assumption that Trump's personal attorney, William Barr, was not in discussion with the president between the time the sentencing recommendations were handed down and when he had them overruled.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #589 on: February 13, 2020, 02:50:14 PM »
So how can you tell when it's Citizen Trump instead of President Trump speaking?

That would be why an investigation is warranted in this case.

Note: I said an investigation, not impeachment 2.0, but be prepared for Barr and company to come back and report that they were already in the process of changing things when Trump's comments were made, and that they received no orders from Trump on the matter.

And really, I don't work for Trump, and I don't work with him. But my take on it would be that when I have doubts about which one I'm seeing(PotUS or Citizen; as well as legality), I'd ask.

But then I also have a father who loves to rant, rave, and even say a number of things. He's almost entirely bark, it's just a matter of learning the signals in regards to bite. Trump has always come off as "lots of bark, next to no bite" to me, so if it helps think of him as a Chihuahua that thinks it's 6 feet tall and 200 pounds of muscle--right up until you approach it. Just because Trump is talking(barking), doesn't mean anything of significance is happening.

It doesn't hurt the validate nothing is in fact going on, as that behavior has obvious use as a smokescreen... But the immediate jump to "guilty as sin" on the grounds they have so far is very premature.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #590 on: February 13, 2020, 02:53:39 PM »
I also think it hilarious that there is this assumption that Trump's personal attorney, William Barr, was not in discussion with the president between the time the sentencing recommendations were handed down and when he had them overruled.

Barr is the Attorney General, not his personal attorney. Barr also has a long history in Washington, and a history of being well regarded by both parties prior to becoming Trump's AG. Further, Barr basically came out of retirement for this, so I have severe doubts about Trump being able to force him to do anything he doesn't want to do. Just because Barr's legal views don't line up with your politics doesn't mean he's a toady for Trump.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #591 on: February 13, 2020, 03:18:59 PM »
Quote
Barr is the Attorney General, not his personal attorney.
Of course he isn't

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #592 on: February 13, 2020, 03:31:55 PM »
Do you have anything other parroting fake news to add DonaldD?

As I said, it's pretty much fact that the sentencing guidelines were abused.  Can you even respond to that?  8 level increase for a "threat" to the dog of an immaterial witness, which same witness told the prosecutors he didn't take it as a threat and that it was consistent with how he and Stone always spoke.  That's step intended to increase sentences on mob bosses who routinely make good on such threats, not on internet trolls and conspiracy theorists.  This was a clear case of overreach.

As for AG Barr being Trump's personal attorney?  Total nonsense leftwing media meme.  Barr's been consistent with the law in his actions, and it's not like he's openly the President's "wing man" like AG Holder was.

I do disagree with you TheDeamon, no investigation is warranted here.  There is nothing wrong with the President tweeting about a sentence on Roger Stone, or Michael Flynn being too long, or on Comey not having served any time.  It's pretty clear that if Trump and Barr really exerted the influence that is being ascribed to them, the Stone case would have been dropped, or as was the case with Clinton's staffers, they would have been granted immunity deals for agreeing to say they did nothing wrong and providing no useful testimony.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #593 on: February 13, 2020, 03:52:26 PM »
There is no "private citizen" version of somebody that powerful. A mere suggestion can get people trying to please you.

No need to get worked up about this, however, as I expect Trump to pardon Stone or commute his sentence.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #594 on: February 13, 2020, 04:38:35 PM »
No need to get worked up about this, however, as I expect Trump to pardon Stone or commute his sentence.

That is precisely why this is another nonsense issue being fabricated into something. If Trump wanted to do anything to help Stone, he’d just do exactly what you said. In addition to have the full authority to direct the DOJ to be involved in Stone’s case, he could just easily wipe it away if he wanted to. Trump has broken no laws, violated no norms or ethics. It’s just another BS hoax.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #595 on: February 13, 2020, 05:00:22 PM »
...It's pretty clear that if Trump and Barr really exerted the influence that is being ascribed to them, the Stone case would have been dropped, or as was the case with Clinton's staffers, they would have been granted immunity deals for agreeing to say they did nothing wrong and providing no useful testimony.

Except for the fact that the Hillary staffers were granted immunity without cause. They were never interviewed to "get the goods" on higher-ups, as is the only reason to provide immunity.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #596 on: February 13, 2020, 05:57:23 PM »
There was, in fact, a crime in the Roger Stone case. The jury foreman testified under oath that she did not know who Roger Stone was. But, Twitter is forever and her tweets talking about Roger Stone have been found. She was also rabidly anti-Trump, a former democrat candidate.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #597 on: February 18, 2020, 11:15:24 AM »
Hmmm... Federal Judges Association joins "leftwing media", as do more than 2000 former DOJ officials and federal prosecutors.  The "leftwing media" is certainly becoming quite a big tent.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #598 on: February 18, 2020, 01:57:37 PM »
The left is a big tent, it includes the media, the DNC and much of the deep state Bureaucrats.  It's not a shock that with 95% of the Bureaucrats preferring Democrats you can get even 2000 former DOJ employees to sign that letter.  I mean, the DOJ have over 100k current employees, and god knows how many former ones, even it's just a half as many (and I would be surprised if it's less than double giving how often the DOJ is a stepping stone), you're talking more than 50k, of whom you can expect at least 47.5k prefer the left. 

So wow.  On the other hand, they should be embarrassed.  Stone's original sentencing recommendation was a travesty that never should have occurred.  It's the empitome of abusive prosecution for political purposes, and that even before you consider that 2k former employees signing on to it reflects a fundamental failing in justice being applied fairly.

Not sure what the Fed Judges Assoc. intends, presumably to condemn the tweets, but never know.  Judge Barrett should be considered for reprimand (but she won't be) based on the state of the trial she presided over.  No one, regardless of sides, believes the end result is not tainted.  The right correctly points at the open anti-Stone/Trump jurors, and the left sees the Trump bogey man in everything that happens.

Still no sensible word on how Trump tweeting about sentencing is an interference in a trial (when it's just the judge who's making the decision not the DOJ), while the same people didn't condemn Obama for announcing Hillary was innocent before the investigation and trial.  Oh well, we already know the answer, "my team" is always right, when you are on the left.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #599 on: February 18, 2020, 02:10:35 PM »
Well Barr felt it was interfering, making his job harder, and last time I checked he's not part of the evil left.