Impeachment Hearings

[Benton]

(01-28-2020, 02:16 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL one side is socialist for big business; the other is socialist for the middle and working class.

Follow the tax cuts.

That's part of it,for sure.

I'd toss religion in there, too.

My county went red in the last election. The one democrat elected to a county office switched parties as soon as he got in. In the last couple years, they've found the money to have community gospel singings, gotten rid of volunteer positions and replaced them with paid positions (all going to the same two families) and exploded our costs for ems services. At the same time, we stopped feeding our seniors because the fed cut funding for that program and county leaders didn't think it was the taxpayers responsibility.

[Belsnickel]

(01-28-2020, 12:04 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What's even more sad, is that people are so infatuated with Trump hate, that they no longer recognize what is an actual misgiving, and just business as usual, when it comes to American politics.

Y'all keep on hatin' on the POTUS, but he gets things done, and he's going to be acquitted and win re-election.

I'm a bureaucrat. The books I read (when not reading about fishing stuff) are about our government and democratic theory. How our government functions is quite literally what I study. I don't say this often in here because I hate saying this sort of thing, but there are very few people, maybe one or two, that frequent this forum that know as much or more about how our government functions than I do.

There is nothing "business as usual" about what Trump did that led to these impeachment articles. Trying to say that it was is the result of falling prey to partisan propaganda. There is a reason the GAO, a non-partisan agency, said it was illegal, and that's not even commenting on the personal politics part of the equation.

[Goalpost]

Is it true Obama was found by the GAO to have violated Federal law 7 different times?

[Belsnickel]

(01-28-2020, 09:39 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Is it true Obama was found by the GAO to have violated Federal law 7 different times?

Yup. My argument for years has been Congress is not holding the Executive accountable. It was true in Obama's tenure, Bush's, and going on back. Violating the law in and of itself should result in censure or contempt and maybe some sort of other oversight.

[GMDino]

I don't want to derail this back and forth.  Seriously I find it fascinating.

But I wanted to add something to the Pompeo incident which I think was in this thread:

State Department removes @NPR's @michelekelemen from @SecPompeo plane--where she was scheduled for a pool radio rotation--during upcoming trip to London, Kiev. Comes after @SecPompeo accused media of being "unhinged" after @NPRKelly interview and subsequent back and forth.

— Nick Schifrin (@nickschifrin) January 27, 2020

 

[BmorePat87]

(01-28-2020, 08:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote:  I don't say this often in here because I hate saying this sort of thing, but there are very few people, maybe one or two, that frequent this forum that know as much or more about how our government functions than I do.

Solid humble brag

[Belsnickel]

(01-28-2020, 10:49 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Solid humble brag

It's one of those things where we often debate differences in opinion in here, so tooting my horn on this isn't necessary. No matter how ill-informed someone's policy opinions are they are ultimately opinions. I just can't abide people misrepresenting how our government functions in such a way, though.

[Dill]

(01-28-2020, 09:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: I don't want to derail this back and forth.  Seriously I find it fascinating.

But I wanted to add something to the Pompeo incident which I think was in this thread:

But Hillary did it too!

[Dill]

(01-28-2020, 10:49 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Solid humble brag

He walks the walk, though, so I would agree with his self-assessment. I would toss you and Benton in there as well as posters who know how gov is sposed to work. I'll add Hollo too, not as an expert on government (until he changes his mind about the electoral college), but as someone who probably followed reporting on Trump more closely than anyone. Toss in Dino too, as someone who has kept the best track of Trump tweets. A valuable resource.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 10:49 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Solid humble brag

Now he's thrown in a "can't abide".  A southern gentleman scholar.  

[Belsnickel]

(01-28-2020, 11:26 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Now he's thrown in a "can't abide".  A southern gentleman scholar.  

[hollodero]

(01-28-2020, 11:12 AM)Dill Wrote: He walks the walk, though, so I would agree with his self-assessment. I would toss you and Benton in there as well as posters who know how gov is sposed to work. I'll add Hollo too, not as an expert on government (until he changes his mind about the electoral college), but as someone who probably followed reporting on Trump more closely than anyone.

I'd leave myself out. I follow very selectively, just the things that baffle or scare or entertain me. Which, ok, is pretty much everything Trump does and says.

As for the electoral college though, define irony: Lawyers of a president elected by a minority go to a chamber where his party's majority represents an even bigger minority, and one of their core arguments is "the will of the people".

Also, those debates are just like the "trial" in the senate. One side has facts over facts, the other side claims people just hate Trump and their minds are distorted by the media.
And there seems no way to make clear that "you are hateful, hateful, you just hatehatehate" and "you are too fatuous to not fall the all-crooked media" are not valid counterarguments.

[Dill]

(01-27-2020, 08:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Except that it's within his rights, and duties as POTUS to inquire about corruption.  Why is that a "high crime"?  Is it because it involves a member of the "resistance" party?  

It's almost like Trump took over as CEO of a company where the norm was employees stealing from the company.  Now, that he's trying to expose said employee theft, the rest of the gang is trying to get him thrown out.

Certainly it is within Trump's rights to "inquire" about corruption. That's why under Obama, Biden could threaten to withhold aid if a corrupt prosecutor were not fired, thereby following the wishes of Congress.

But it is not within his rights to make corruption a condition of foreign aid. 

It sounds like you are asking "Why is it a high crime when the president uses his office to perpetrate corruption and then hide his own actions?"

And then asking "Is it only because he is a Republican that people are calling corruption/obstruction illegal?"

It's almost like the government appointed Trump to oversee companies in receivership because they were on the verge of bankruptcy, and he told the CEO of one that unless he got dirt on a previous gov. official who had overseen that company--an official applying for Trump's job--he would block funds needed to keep the company afloat. Because it is within his rights and duties to inquire about fiscal responsibility.

[Au165]

Anyone watch South Park? It legitimately feels like Trump's defense team is running the Chewbacca defense here by bringing up the Bidens at this point.

[Dill]

(01-28-2020, 11:38 AM)hollodero Wrote: And there seems no way to make clear that "you are hateful, hateful, you just hatehatehate" and "you are too fatuous to not fall the all-crooked media" are not valid counterarguments.

That goes right to the heart of it. 
How is it that adducing material facts that, on their own, establish criminal behavior can be successfully cast as just "finger pointing" and converted to evidence of prosecutorial "hatred" rather than evidence of wrongdoing?

One tactic has been to replace specifics with general language--so an act of bribery is processed as "asking a favor."   Suddenly only the most extreme, blinded and willful partisanship could see criminality in a favor.

Still, there has to be some recognition of the twist in there, some recognition that the accusers are working to reconstruct a factual record and go by that while the defenders are working to obstruct that record.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 08:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm a bureaucrat. The books I read (when not reading about fishing stuff) are about our government and democratic theory. How our government functions is quite literally what I study. I don't say this often in here because I hate saying this sort of thing, but there are very few people, maybe one or two, that frequent this forum that know as much or more about how our government functions than I do.

There is nothing "business as usual" about what Trump did that led to these impeachment articles. Trying to say that it was is the result of falling prey to partisan propaganda. There is a reason the GAO, a non-partisan agency, said it was illegal, and that's not even commenting on the personal politics part of the equation.

I'm willing to be educated here because i have not been paying close attention, but I don't see how the abuse of power stands.  Even the "attempt" seems to be inference and conjecture.  Obviously they aren't required to go by the same standard, but I don't think you could  possibly get a conviction in a criminal case.  

I know what the obstruction is based on, but I can never keep track or get a clear picture on what the president is and is not allowed to do in these cases so that one I don't really have an opinion on.  

[Dill]

(01-28-2020, 11:55 AM)Au165 Wrote: Anyone watch South Park? It legitimately feels like Trump's defense team is running the Chewbacca defense here by bringing up the Bidens at this point.

That is a good point.  We need to hear why Biden thinks he was qualified to sit on the board of an energy company.  But the Dems don't want that because they know how the Trump administration has fought nepotism for years.

If it doesn't fit Biden, you must acquit Trump!!

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 11:38 AM)hollodero Wrote: I'd leave myself out. I follow very selectively, just the things that baffle or scare or entertain me. Which, ok, is pretty much everything Trump does and says.

As for the electoral college though, define irony: Lawyers of a president elected by a minority go to a chamber where his party's majority represents an even bigger minority, and one of their core arguments is "the will of the people".

Also, those debates are just like the "trial" in the senate. One side has facts over facts, the other side claims people just hate Trump and their minds are distorted by the media.
And there seems no way to make clear that "you are hateful, hateful, you just hatehatehate" and "you are too fatuous to not fall the all-crooked media" are not valid counterarguments.

Well the racistracistracist argument seemed to work for eight years so they are just trying a variation on that.  

[fredtoast]

(01-27-2020, 09:32 PM)HarleyDog Wrote:  It's only so I can try and decipher through the garbage and come to my own conclusion since we don't have sincere truth reporting anymore. 

The problem is that you have failed completely at findinmg the truth and instead adopted the positions promoted by the right wing echo chamber.

When you compare the economy for the three years that Trump has been in control an dcompare it to the final three years of the Obama administration you will see that Obama created more jobs and the economy grew at the same rate excpet Obama did it with HALF of the deficit spending Trump has relied on.  The unfunded tax cuts Trump used to juice the economy resulted in the yearly deficit being twice as high under Trump as in the final years of the Obama administration.  Trump is not able to grow the economy any faster than Obama was without blowing up the dredit card for the US governemt.

Iran was not going to nuke Israel before Trump came along, but at least we had their nuclear program under control.  Now they are free to advance it as fast as they want.  Trump has made that situation worse.

Trump ended military exercises in South Korea to please North Korea and got NOTHING in return.  He got played like a chump.

You talk about other countries paying theior "fair share", but that is meaningless to us because it has not reduced our military spending at all.  In fact Trump is leaning on unnecessary increases in military spending in order to fluff the economy even more.

Trump has reduced health care available for people with pre-existing conditions.  He has offered no answer for the problem of unaffordable health care.

So basically you have not been looking for the truth.  You have been looking for sources that tell you what you want to hear.

[hollodero]

(01-28-2020, 12:11 PM)Dill Wrote: Still, there has to be some recognition of the twist in there, some recognition that the accusers are working to reconstruct a factual record and go by that while the defenders are working to obstruct that record.

What do you mean, "has to be"?

Just yesterday there was doubt that Trump even lies. Whoever thinks Trump lies consumes crooked media and is blinded by rage. Arguments like those make facts irrelevant, or any recognition that "has to be". Imho.