Impeachment Hearings

[jj22]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-putin-215387

[Belsnickel]

(12-19-2019, 01:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Everyone on that floor gave a partisan speech including many members serving as Judge, juror, and executioner; however, when a GOp brings up the possible corruption trump claimed he wanted investigated the Chair called it "Russian propaganda". Consider it justified if you choose I found the Chair to be partisan in his duties

When the claims of possible corruption are Russian propaganda according to our own intelligence agencies as well as those of our allies, then it should be pointed out by the Chair. It is highly dangerous for our elected officials to be regurgitating propaganda that is generated by a foreign nation with the intent of damaging our democracy. When an elected official repeats their propaganda on the floor of our legislative body without being checked on it they are winning. They are succeeding in their subversion of our democratic principles. In fact, I want any instance of propaganda from the floor of the House of the Senate to be called out for what it is. Foreign or domestic.

[Belsnickel]

(12-19-2019, 04:23 PM)Millhouse Wrote: If the Dems are smart, they will nominate a moderate candidate. But if they put up one of the left-wing dingbats, Maga Part 2 incoming, imo.

Clinton was a moderate candidate, albeit with baggage. One of the reasons she lost? The Democratic base was not enthusiastic about her. You put another neo-liberal moderate on the ticket it would probably happen again. Thousands upon thousands of progressives would look at the ticket and say "you've learned nothing." Whether they stay home or not would be hard to say, but the money and effort won't be behind a moderate candidate.

[hollodero]

(12-19-2019, 05:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Clinton was a moderate candidate, albeit with baggage. One of the reasons she lost? The Democratic base was not enthusiastic about her. You put another neo-liberal moderate on the ticket it would probably happen again.

I guess you're closer to all that and probably right - turnout might be more important than persuading some light conservatives. But I always wondered if the problem with Hillary really was her being moderate. Baggage aside (though boy she had too much of that too), I feel her problem was that she was emblematic for the establishment, preselected to become president, it was determined that it was her turn. They just forgot to tell Bernie, aside from hin she ran pretty much unopposed - no Warren, Booker, Biden, no one seemd daring to stand in her way. That's not sparking enthusiasm, and I'm not so sure her policy positions are to blame for that.

Buttigieg would also be a moderate candidate, but I guess he could get lots of enthusiasm still. Or couldn't he?

[GMDino]

Why they can't and try to hold the POTUS to a higher standard is beyond me short of they don't care and are also awful human beings.  

WH spox Hogan Gidley responds to Trump joking about John Dingell being in hell by trying to make *Trump* the victim: "No matter what the president says...people are going to parse it apart, try & tear it apart & focus on the most negative aspects of it...he's been under assault" pic.twitter.com/gV3uEllRkS

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 19, 2019

 

[BmorePat87]

(12-19-2019, 05:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When the claims of possible corruption are Russian propaganda according to our own intelligence agencies as well as those of our allies, then it should be pointed out by the Chair. It is highly dangerous for our elected officials to be regurgitating propaganda that is generated by a foreign nation with the intent of damaging our democracy. When an elected official repeats their propaganda on the floor of our legislative body without being checked on it they are winning. They are succeeding in their subversion of our democratic principles. In fact, I want any instance of propaganda from the floor of the House of the Senate to be called out for what it is. Foreign or domestic.

[*bfine32*]

(12-19-2019, 03:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: She was pretty straight forward with her reasoning.

I'm sure her explanation could have been missed.  Many people choose to not watch/listen/read but rather to just react to what they are told, which is fine until they are "just asking" loaded questions not based in the reality of the situation.

(12-19-2019, 04:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think holding it up for a week or so to prepare the House's end of it (determining who will be impeachment managers, etc), for a holiday break, or for an agreement with the Senate on how the trial will look is appropriate. Anything beyond that or for reasons not justified would be inappropriate. 

Oh, I got her explanation. The Speaker of the House wants to Senate to answer to her. 

The Senate Majority Leader appears to have no issue with her holding it up. I just don't think he'll be inclined to meet her demand. Maybe she'll take it to SCOTUS. Wonder if they'll rule the Senate should answer to the House. 

[Belsnickel]

(12-19-2019, 06:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I guess you're closer to all that and probably right - turnout might be more important than persuading some light conservatives. But I always wondered if the problem with Hillary really was her being moderate. Baggage aside (though boy she had too much of that too), I feel her problem was that she was emblematic for the establishment, preselected to become president, it was determined that it was her turn. They just forgot to tell Bernie, aside from hin she ran pretty much unopposed - no Warren, Booker, Biden, no one seemd daring to stand in her way. That's not sparking enthusiasm, and I'm not so sure her policy positions are to blame for that.

Buttigieg would also be a moderate candidate, but I guess he could get lots of enthusiasm still. Or couldn't he?

Those were, indeed, all problems with Clinton. However, keep in mind that both Clinton and Trump came to that race with a lot of baggage. One represented an outsider, one the establishment. Moderate Democrats are the establishment right now, so any moderate candidate will still represent what has been going on for years in the party. My position, though, is also based on my knowledge of the party and what has happened since 2016. I was involved in the 2017-2019 elections here in Virginia and got a good idea of the pulse of things. I'm in a rural Democratic area and there is still a ton of disappointment with the way the party is embracing moderate candidates.

As for Buttigieg, he is a moderate candidate, but he won't make it through the primaries. He's pretty in line with Germany's FDP, to be quite honest. But he's facing too many problems right now.

[treee]

(12-19-2019, 06:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I guess you're closer to all that and probably right - turnout might be more important than persuading some light conservatives. But I always wondered if the problem with Hillary really was her being moderate. Baggage aside (though boy she had too much of that too), I feel her problem was that she was emblematic for the establishment, preselected to become president, it was determined that it was her turn. They just forgot to tell Bernie, aside from hin she ran pretty much unopposed - no Warren, Booker, Biden, no one seemd daring to stand in her way. That's not sparking enthusiasm, and I'm not so sure her policy positions are to blame for that.

Buttigieg would also be a moderate candidate, but I guess he could get lots of enthusiasm still. Or couldn't he?

You're right. It felt more like she was appointed by the party elite rather than selected by the constituency.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/18/trump-impeachment-trial-steny-hoyer-087319

Quote:By delaying passage of that resolution, Pelosi and top Democrats retain control of the articles and hope to put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to adopt trial procedures they consider bipartisan.

...yet...





Now they want Bipartisanship for a vote? After they passed it through the House with exactly 1 non-Democrat vote (and 4.5 Democrats not voting for). That's pretty funny.  I'm not saying I wouldn't be fine if Trump was out (maybe then I could actually bring myself to listen to the State of the Union addresses again since my brain cells won't be actively dying), but I just think it's funny that they're holding it up because NOW there are concerns over bipartisanship. Sure didn't give a flying F about bipartisanship when they had the numbers.

[Belsnickel]

(12-19-2019, 06:49 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/18/trump-impeachment-trial-steny-hoyer-087319

...yet...





Now they want Bipartisanship for a vote? After they passed it through the House with exactly 1 non-Democrat vote (and 4.5 Democrats not voting for). That's pretty funny.  I'm not saying I wouldn't be fine if Trump was out (maybe then I could actually bring myself to listen to the State of the Union addresses again since my brain cells won't be actively dying), but I just think it's funny that they're holding it up because NOW there are concerns over bipartisanship. Sure didn't give a flying F about bipartisanship when they had the numbers.

I know. It's not like they afforded the minority party in the House any opportunities to call witnesses or question their own. They didn't do anything like invite the party being investigated to take part in the proceedings. Surely this wasn't based on the same rules that were used when the GOP impeached a Democratic POTUS. No bipartisanship at all. The lack of GOP votes in favor of the articles can't have anything to do with partisanship on their part. Not in the slightest.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-19-2019, 06:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know. It's not like they afforded the minority party in the House any opportunities to call witnesses or question their own. They didn't do anything like invite the party being investigated to take part in the proceedings. Surely this wasn't based on the same rules that were used when the GOP impeached a Democratic POTUS. No bipartisanship at all. The lack of GOP votes in favor of the articles can't have anything to do with partisanship on their part. Not in the slightest.

Did they delay the vote until they could find a set of impeachment rules that Republicans agreed with before proceeding?

If not, this is some "we care when we don't have the numbers, we don't care when we have the numbers, because we want to win" and pretending it's about trying to find bipartisanship is a sham. 

It's a legitimate strategy that they apparently can do, so more power to them for using the system, but at least don't pretend it's anything else.

[Belsnickel]

(12-19-2019, 07:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Did they delay the vote until they could find a set of impeachment rules that Republicans agreed with before proceeding?

If not, this is some "we care when we don't have the numbers, we don't care when we have the numbers, because we want to win" and pretending it's about trying to find bipartisanship is a sham. 

It's a legitimate strategy that they apparently can do, so more power to them for using the system, but at least don't pretend it's anything else.

They used rules Republlicans created; why would they need them to agree to them when they created them?

[hollodero]

(12-19-2019, 06:49 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Now they want Bipartisanship for a vote? After they passed it through the House with exactly 1 non-Democrat vote (and 4.5 Democrats not voting for).

I find it difficult to blame democrats for how republicans vote.

[ballsofsteel]

If Pelosi and the Dems were smart they wouldn't turn over anything to the senate. She is not required to. If it goes to the senate the Repubs will vote it down. Trump and the Repubs will say he is exonerated of all charges. Just let the impeachment stay in the house and be a stain on Trump and the Rebubs going into the 2020 election.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-19-2019, 07:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They used rules Republlicans created; why would they need them to agree to them when they created them?

As I said, I am not assigning blame to them for doing it. I am just laughing about trying to hide behind other reasons other than "we got what we wanted done". They did what they needed to do, and did it within the established rules. 

Just own it, was all I was laughing at.

(12-19-2019, 07:28 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: If Pelosi and the Dems were smart they wouldn't turn over anything to the senate. She is not required to. If it goes to the senate the Repubs will vote it down. Trump and the Repubs will say he is exonerated of all charges. Just let the impeachment stay in the house and be a stain on Trump and the Rebubs going into the 2020 election.

She can hold it for awhile, but I don't know if she can hold it for 11 months. I can't see the courts allowing a perpetual impeachment destined to be shot down in the Senate to be stalled and used as an election tool.

[*bfine32*]

(12-19-2019, 07:28 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: If Pelosi and the Dems were smart they wouldn't turn over anything to the senate. She is not required to. If it goes to the senate the Repubs will vote it down. Trump and the Repubs will say he is exonerated of all charges. Just let the impeachment stay in the house and be a stain on Trump and the Rebubs going into the 2020 election.

You've hit on exactly what the Dems want and your honesty should be applauded. The Dems give 2 shits about the "rule of law". They want to say Trump was impeached, but to also have to say he was acquitted does not help their case.  

Personally, I love those in here supporting her choice to hold up the vote. Hell, they may even try to tell you they favor the Constitution, but grown folks see. 

[Benton]

(12-19-2019, 05:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Clinton was a moderate candidate, albeit with baggage. One of the reasons she lost? The Democratic base was not enthusiastic about her. You put another neo-liberal moderate on the ticket it would probably happen again. Thousands upon thousands of progressives would look at the ticket and say "you've learned nothing." Whether they stay home or not would be hard to say, but the money and effort won't be behind a moderate candidate.

Yeah, but... Clinton was a woman.

Personally, I think the impeachment is going to hurt the Dems chancesmore than help it. But if they want any chance of winning, they pretty much have to go with a white male, preferably one with 5.56 tattooed across knuckles on one hand and JSUS on the other hand.

[hollodero]

(12-19-2019, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You've hit on exactly what the Dems want and your honesty should be applauded. The Dems give 2 shits about the "rule of law". They want to say Trump was impeached, but to also have to say he was acquitted does not help their case.  

Personally, I love those in here supporting her choice to hold up the vote. Hell, they may even try to tell you they favor the Constitution, but grown folks see. 

Could we wait how this actually plays out before we (quite heftily) slam Democrats for a hypothetical strategy?

And of course they have to play power games with McConnell. To believe they do not would be naive. As who's against the constitution, I go with the president guy that calls impeachment illegitimate and illegal and hence he does not have to respond to Congress. Or those that parrot that uncostitutional stance.

[GMDino]

(12-19-2019, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You've hit on exactly what the Dems want and your honesty should be applauded. The Dems give 2 shits about the "rule of law". They want to say Trump was impeached, but to also have to say he was acquitted does not help their case.  

Personally, I love those in here supporting her choice to hold up the vote. Hell, they may even try to tell you they favor the Constitution, but grown folks see. 

The level one has to sink too to claim they don't support/defend Trump in this case and then post like that is amazing.

It should be applauded.