Impeachment Hearings

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2020, 08:44 AM)michaelsean Wrote: That’s a (bizarre) defense given in a trial held by the Senate. That’s a little different than things being said on the senate floor by members of the senate.

But the Senate voting to acquit means that the Senate is accepting of that argument.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2020, 09:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But the Senate voting to acquit means that the Senate is accepting of that argument.

Exactly.

They now believe the Trump Doctrine of a President can do anything that helps their own election as long as they believe it is in the nation's interest for them to stay in the office.  They can try and deny it but that is now out there.

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2020, 08:44 AM)michaelsean Wrote: That’s a (bizarre) defense given in a trial held by the Senate. That’s a little different than things being said on the senate floor by members of the senate.

He didn't say that it was said by a member of the Senate. 

But it's also a defense being given by agents of the President, supported through questions sent by Senators, and soon to be accepted by Senators.

[Belsnickel]

I listened to things sporadically as I was driving between some meetings. I got really frustrated with Schiff at one point. I forget who asked the question, but it was about how elected officials take actions regularly that are inherently political and so how that line can be drawn for an impeachable offense. His answer was decent, but totally not convincing. I sat there putting myself in the mind of an elected official and thinking to myself "this is too much of a wishy-washy answer and definitely gives them an out."

I thought it would be interesting to have that discussion here, though, about where you think that line should be drawn.

For me, I recognize the political nature of elected officials. They may frustrate me as a bureaucrat, but that is the nature of democracy. The policy efforts that benefit constituents or are made with an eye on how it will look publicly are acceptable to me. But when an official uses the authority granted to them to target an individual political rival, that crosses a line. I'm not saying giving a speech bashing someone would do it. I'm saying that utilizing the resources of the US government to target a political opponent crosses a line.

The defense in this case isn't even really arguing that didn't happen. Their argument is just that it isn't impeachable, and I find that argument highly fallacious and a disgrace to the principles our country was founded upon.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2020, 09:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But the Senate voting to acquit means that the Senate is accepting of that argument.

If everybody wants to be a moron and pretend they don't know what's happening.  Just say the prosecution didn't prove it.  In a regular criminal trial a jury doesn't set some kind of legal precedent by acquitting someone.

I mean is anyone confused about what sex is?

[GMDino]

(01-31-2020, 10:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I listened to things sporadically as I was driving between some meetings. I got really frustrated with Schiff at one point. I forget who asked the question, but it was about how elected officials take actions regularly that are inherently political and so how that line can be drawn for an impeachable offense. His answer was decent, but totally not convincing. I sat there putting myself in the mind of an elected official and thinking to myself "this is too much of a wishy-washy answer and definitely gives them an out."

I thought it would be interesting to have that discussion here, though, about where you think that line should be drawn.

For me, I recognize the political nature of elected officials. They may frustrate me as a bureaucrat, but that is the nature of democracy. The policy efforts that benefit constituents or are made with an eye on how it will look publicly are acceptable to me. But when an official uses the authority granted to them to target an individual political rival, that crosses a line. I'm not saying giving a speech bashing someone would do it. I'm saying that utilizing the resources of the US government to target a political opponent crosses a line.

The defense in this case isn't even really arguing that didn't happen. Their argument is just that it isn't impeachable, and I find that argument highly fallacious and a disgrace to the principles our country was founded upon.

Is it still hyperbole to suggest that the gop would not impeach a republican for any reason at all now?  

I agree with you that this was a clear example of abuse of power.  For Trump's lawyers to claim the founding fathers didn't think that was impeachable is a laugh to me.  So if abuse of power isn't impeachable, what is?  

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2020, 10:09 AM)michaelsean Wrote: If everybody wants to be a moron and pretend they don't know what's happening.  Just say the prosecution didn't prove it.  In a regular criminal trial a jury doesn't set some kind of legal precedent by acquitting someone.  

I mean is anyone confused about what sex is?

To be clear, the argument being supported now is "this is not an impeachable offense". It's literally what Alexander said in his statement rejecting witnesses and multiple Senators said as much in a question to the defense team. They're accepting that the prosecution proved that it occurred but are rejecting that it could have even been impeachable to begin with. 

Also, this is not a regular criminal trial. Precedents absolutely can be set by the Senate here, hence the constant references to how the Senate engaged in past impeachment trials. 

With regards to Clinton, he was given an incomplete definition that did not include receiving oral sex (only giving), so he was technically correct when he said that according to the definition given to him, he had not engaged in any of those actions. It was shitty and he knew they meant to include it to, but technically it was not perjury. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2020, 10:26 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: To be clear, the argument being supported now is "this is not an impeachable offense". It's literally what Alexander said in his statement rejecting witnesses and multiple Senators said as much in a question to the defense team. They're accepting that the prosecution proved that it occurred but are rejecting that it could have even been impeachable to begin with. 

Also, this is not a regular criminal trial. Precedents absolutely can be set by the Senate here, hence the constant references to how the Senate engaged in past impeachment trials. 

With regards to Clinton, he was given an incomplete definition that did not include receiving oral sex (only giving), so he was technically correct when he said that according to the definition given to him, he had not engaged in any of those actions. It was shitty and he knew they meant to include it to, but technically it was not perjury. 

Speaking of Clinton's impeachment, I found the question posed to Ms. Lofgren about impeachable offenses to be interesting. I didn't realize she had been a part of all three of the presidential impeachment inquiries in modern times (she was a staffer during Nixon's). I found her argument comparing Trump's to Nixon's more than to Clinton's rather compelling. She said that while what Clinton did was wrong, it did not rise to the level of high crimes as the articles of impeachment were not about misuse of the office as were the articles that would have been compiled for Nixon and what was referred for Trump.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2020, 10:26 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: To be clear, the argument being supported now is "this is not an impeachable offense". It's literally what Alexander said in his statement rejecting witnesses and multiple Senators said as much in a question to the defense team. They're accepting that the prosecution proved that it occurred but are rejecting that it could have even been impeachable to begin with. 

Also, this is not a regular criminal trial. Precedents absolutely can be set by the Senate here, hence the constant references to how the Senate engaged in past impeachment trials. 

With regards to Clinton, he was given an incomplete definition that did not include receiving oral sex (only giving), so he was technically correct when he said that according to the definition given to him, he had not engaged in any of those actions. It was shitty and he knew they meant to include it to, but technically it was not perjury. 

Acquittal does not have to be acceptance of the defense; it can be saying the prosecution did not prove their case, especially if the Senators say we went with a reasonable doubt standard.  

[GMDino]

(01-31-2020, 10:36 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Acquittal does not have to be acceptance of the defense; it can be saying the prosecution did not prove their case, especially if the Senators say we went with a reasonable doubt standard.  

Alexander said they proved their case.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2020, 10:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: Alexander said they proved their case.

Then I guess he should vote guilty.

Edit: I'm not defending decisions, I just think this precedent fear is a bit overblown.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2020, 10:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Then I guess he should vote guilty.  

Nope.  He said Trump did it and he did it for the reason he was accused and he thinks people should vote him out rather than have congress provide oversight.  So the guilty POTUS has at minimum another 9 months to continue to try and rig the election.

'Merica.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2020, 10:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: Nope.  He said Trump did it and he did it for the reason he was accused and he thinks people should vote him out rather than have congress provide oversight.  So the guilty POTUS has at minimum another 9 months to continue to try and rig the election.

'Merica.

OK so he's on record stating his reasons, and it's not an acceptance of the defense.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2020, 10:53 AM)michaelsean Wrote: OK so he's on record stating his reasons, and it's not an acceptance of the defense.

Yep.  It might be worse.  "He's guilty but I don't care".

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2020, 10:36 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Acquittal does not have to be acceptance of the defense; it can be saying the prosecution did not prove their case, especially if the Senators say we went with a reasonable doubt standard.  

Do I need to repeat that Senators outright stated that they reject that the offense is even impeachable or when they supported use of the defense in their questions?

[Belsnickel]

The conservative/former-GOP strategists online calling out this authoritarian direction are killing it right now.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2020, 10:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yep.  It might be worse.  "He's guilty but I don't care".

I thought we kind of assumed that going in.

[Vas Deferens]

(01-31-2020, 10:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I listened to things sporadically as I was driving between some meetings. I got really frustrated with Schiff at one point. I forget who asked the question, but it was about how elected officials take actions regularly that are inherently political and so how that line can be drawn for an impeachable offense. His answer was decent, but totally not convincing. I sat there putting myself in the mind of an elected official and thinking to myself "this is too much of a wishy-washy answer and definitely gives them an out."

I thought it would be interesting to have that discussion here, though, about where you think that line should be drawn.

For me, I recognize the political nature of elected officials. They may frustrate me as a bureaucrat, but that is the nature of democracy. The policy efforts that benefit constituents or are made with an eye on how it will look publicly are acceptable to me. But when an official uses the authority granted to them to target an individual political rival, that crosses a line. I'm not saying giving a speech bashing someone would do it. I'm saying that utilizing the resources of the US government to target a political opponent crosses a line.

The defense in this case isn't even really arguing that didn't happen. Their argument is just that it isn't impeachable, and I find that argument highly fallacious and a disgrace to the principles our country was founded upon.

Essentially, when my tax dollars are being utilized the suppress my political ideologies, the system completely breaks down for me.

I thought the house managers did a pretty good job with what they were presented.  Some pundit made the comment that the Senate is often put on a pedestal because of the number of law degrees in the building, but there are few actual lawyers present, they are there in name alone.  I think it was pretty clear the house managers would wipe the floor with many of the Senators given any chance to actually debate.   The oratory skills of Schiff, Jeffries and Demings really impressed me.  The immediate stonewalling by the Trump administration and that fact that many members of the GOP are tangentially involved in similar activities is the only thing that saved him, and its an absolute abomination.  

I'll spare you my ill-will and vitriol for the members of the defense.  But I will admit Patrick Philbin made some astute points throughout the process that allowed me access to a different viewpoint.  In the end the premises were built on a steaming pile of bullshit, but in the end I despise him the least.

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2020, 10:53 AM)michaelsean Wrote: OK so he's on record stating his reasons, and it's not an acceptance of the defense.

His actual words:

Quote:I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense

There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine.

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a “mountain of overwhelming evidence.”

There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation.

When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.

But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did.

I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

The Senate has spent nine long days considering this “mountain” of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record.

Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” standard for an impeachable offense.

The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles.

If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist.

It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.

Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with “the consent of the governed,” not at the pleasure of the United States Congress.

Let the people decide.

He literally admits that the House proved it and then accepts the Defense's argument that this is not impeachable. 

It's not impeachable to use your office to help reelect yourself. It's merely "inappropriate". 

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2020, 11:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: His actual words:




He literally admits that the House proved it and then accepts the Defense's argument that this is not impeachable. 

It's not impeachable to use your office to help reelect yourself. It's merely "inappropriate". 

He's saying it didn't reach the high bar. I believe the defense is saying he didn't do anything wrong at all with that best interest stuff.  So two different reasonings for it not being impeachable.