Impeachment Hearings

[Vas Deferens]

(01-31-2020, 10:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The conservative/former-GOP strategists online calling out this authoritarian direction are killing it right now.

What should I be searching for if you don't have time to link?

[Benton]

(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.

But that's the new norm, not so much because it was happening, but because of the belief it was.

It's the sore loser defense. It's been the mantra of the GOP since the 90s.

"I should've won, but the deck's stacked against me!" And when those candidates win? "I can't do the things I promised because the last guy stacked the deck!"

Dems do the same thing, but from a different angle. "I can't get things done because shady powers paid people off!"

And both sides clean house when they come in office because they say they have to, because the last guys people were working against him. Truth is, they're generally just bringing in people they can give jobs to, usually as political capital. All the public dollars (jobs, assess, etc) are, to them, just leverage to pay back the people that supported them. And they justify it by saying the last guy did it.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2020, 11:07 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: What should I be searching for if you don't have time to link?

Rick Wilson and John Weaver are two of my favorites on Twitter.

[jj22]

Regardless of what happens I believe Democrats exposed the GOP for being Anti American with their move towards a Dictatorship and away from the Constitution and our Democracy.

This has been in the works for the last Decade as Republicans and Trump supporters had began to hate America since America had changed to have a little more diversity then they like over the last decade. This isn't the America they want with their hatred has spilled over and caused a turn on our Constitution and Democracy. It isn't even hidden as these hearings have ended with the WH lawyers conceding every Democratic point and argument. Every single one. They aren't denying anything anymore.

I applaud those who stand with our Constitution and don't believe a POTUS is above the law. The precedent set by Republicans has effectively ended our Democracy. We no longer have a constitution. A rule of law, and they have set the path for Trump to use a foreign country to attack his opponent once again in 2020.

They know the guy can't win without the help of foreign interference.

[masonbengals fan]

Will the GOP pass out pens this afternoon ? LOL

[Vas Deferens]

(01-31-2020, 01:12 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Will the GOP pass out pens this afternoon ? LOL

Box cutters. These nickle dick piss ants are too weak to rip up the constitution.

[fredtoast]

(01-31-2020, 10:09 AM)michaelsean Wrote:  Just say the prosecution didn't prove it. 

They can't.  They would get laughed at.

The only people who think the prosecution did not prove it happened live deep in the echo chamber isolated from reality.

[fredtoast]

BTW you thought Trump was arrogant before. Now he has the Senate telling him it is okay to abuse his power.

This is going to get really interesting. Republican Senators are cowering like whipped dogs. Trump will be able to do whatever e wants.

[Dill]

(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?

MMMM.  How are you defining "Is"?

[Dill]

(01-31-2020, 11:17 AM)Benton Wrote: And both sides clean house when they come in office because they say they have to, because the last guys people were working against him. Truth is, they're generally just bringing in people they can give jobs to, usually as political capital. All the public dollars (jobs, assess, etc) are, to them, just leverage to pay back the people that supported them. And they justify it by saying the last guy did it.

But surely you see SOME difference between the people Obama gave jobs and the people Trump gave jobs?

A Stable Genius describes Trump appointing with no vetting.  And you know what kind of judgment he has.

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2020, 11:07 AM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.  

His abuse for power wasn't an abuse of power because he was trying to help himself. It's merely "inappropriate". Note he joined with Cruz in asking the question about how Bolton's testimony would not matter because the quid pro quo being described isn't impeachable. It hinged on the defense's argument. 

[BmorePat87]

Murkowski doing what she does: "Hmm, yes, this is concerning... but ok I'll vote however McConnell tells me to".

Suggesting that there's a flaw in the impeachment article is an incredibly dishonest and pathetic defense being used by some of these "moderates". The abuse of power is now normalized as being acceptable, a far worse precedent than what she is implying would be set by allowing witnesses when there are "flawed" articles of impeachment.

The GOP is banking on voters forgetting that they just allowed this to be the 1st impeachment in 200+ years with no witnesses, even though 75% of voters support witnesses. They are sure that ending this now and not allowing it to drag out into the election will mean voters will not remember this when they vote.

A vote for witnesses will likely fail 51-49 against.

[BmorePat87]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/john-bolton-trump-ukraine-book/index.html

Bolton's book reportedly claims that Trump told Bolton in May to tell Zelensky that he needs to meet with Rudy about the Biden investigations.

[BmorePat87]

John Kelly said today:

"If I was advising the United States Senate, I would say, 'If you don't respond to 75% of the American voters and have witnesses, it's a job only half done. You open yourself up forever as a Senate that shirks its responsibilities."

[BmorePat87]

Imagine telling Republicans in 2012 that in 8 years, they'd ignore John Kelly and John Bolton's advice on checks and balances and support Donald Trump's views on abuse of power being legal.

[BmorePat87]

Marco Rubio said today that he believes the House's case, that the offense is impeachable, but he doesn't think it's a good thing to remove the president. We don't need more witnesses because I already believe it's true, but I don't want to remove him.

https://medium.com/@SenatorMarcoRubio/my-statement-on-the-presidents-impeachment-trial-9669e82ccb43

[Dill]

(01-31-2020, 03:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They can't.  They would get laughed at.

The only people who think the prosecution did not prove it happened live deep in the echo chamber isolated from reality.

Actually, that is quite a lot of people--possibly over 30% of voters.

[Benton]

(01-31-2020, 04:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Imagine telling Republicans in 2012 that in 8 years, they'd ignore John Kelly and John Bolton's advice on checks and balances and support Donald Trump's views on abuse of power being legal.

Republican voters? They wouldn't believe you.

Republican (or Dem for that matter) lawmaker? Easy. They'd just shrug and say 'if it's what gets me reelected, it must be what the people want.'

[fredtoast]

(01-31-2020, 05:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Marco Rubio said today that he believes the House's case, that the offense is impeachable, but he doesn't think it's a good thing to remove the president. We don't need more witnesses because I already believe it's true, but I don't want to remove him.

https://medium.com/@SenatorMarcoRubio/my-statement-on-the-presidents-impeachment-trial-9669e82ccb43

His argument is that a "purely partisan" impeachment would be bad for the country.

But if he (a republican) voted for it then it would no longer be "purely partisan"

 

Basically the Republicans can make absurd, completely illogical arguments and the Trump rubes swallow them down without question.

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2020, 05:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: His argument is that a "purely partisan" impeachment would be bad for the country.

But if he (a republican) voted for it then it would no longer be "purely partisan"

 

Basically the Republicans can make absurd, completely illogical arguments and the Trump rubes swallow them down without question.

GOP: impeachment is flawed because you didn’t convince any of us to support it

Also GOP: yea you convinced us that it’s impeachable but we don’t want him to leave office