|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 9, 2019 9:11:03 GMT -5
With Clinton the Republicans at least had the balls to vote for an impeachment inquiry. Or didn't they teach you that in school? It's not apples and apples. The investigations in the Clinton impeachment were farmed out to Ken Starr. Due to changes in the Special Council law, Mueller did not have the same charge as Starr. The courageous Republicans initiated their impeachment during the lame duck session after the 1998 elections. The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. That hasn't changed. The President is adding Obstruction of Justice to the articles that will be introduced. BTW- Condescension ("Or didn't they teach you that in school?") adds nothing to your argument. Fine, we'll do it your way and we'll see who's left standing in the end. But I haven't heard anything that indicates Trump needs to worry.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Oct 9, 2019 9:14:30 GMT -5
Yeah I guess I'm unclear on the process. Formal impeachment requires a vote in the House doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 9, 2019 9:35:25 GMT -5
Yeah I guess I'm unclear on the process. Formal impeachment requires a vote in the House doesn't it? Yeah. That the whole formal inquiry which gives Republicans the right to call their own witnesses, etc. Democrats are counting on getting their smear campaign into high gear before the "fairness" part of the whole thing can hit the papers (like most of the media cares).
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Oct 9, 2019 9:40:59 GMT -5
This looks like a good place to make my wager. I will bet someone a worn out pick or broken shoelace that that vote never happens. They are getting to stand in front of cameras and spout whatever shit they feel like, feed their pals at WaPo, NYT, CNN, et al all kinds of "scoops" about the bad orange man which will generate breathless on-air reports and hyped up "news articles".
If they screw up and have a vote it is my understanding that the Republicans can then get involved, issue subpoenas, compel witnesses, enter evidence, etc. I'm sure they have a nice chair all warmed up for Hunter Biden- the first of many.
Right now it's all a Shakespearean play: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
C'mon, now's the time to take me to the cleaners... get some nice worn out picks... If I'm really shown to be wrong, I might even throw in some old rusty strings.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Oct 9, 2019 9:41:28 GMT -5
Pete is too quick for me.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 9, 2019 9:42:48 GMT -5
This looks like a good place to make my wager. I will bet someone a worn out pick or broken shoelace that that vote never happens. They are getting to stand in front of cameras and spout whatever shit they feel like, feed their pals at WaPo, NYT, CNN, et al all kinds of "scoops" about the bad orange man which will generate breathless on-air reports and hyped up "news articles". If they screw up and have a vote it is my understanding that the Republicans can then get involved, issue subpoenas, compel witnesses, enter evidence, etc. I'm sure they have a nice chair all warmed up for Hunter Biden- the first of many. Right now it's all a Shakespearean play: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". C'mon, now's the time to take me to the cleaners... get some nice worn out picks... If I'm really shown to be wrong, I might even throw in some old rusty strings. Wouldn't take that bet with a gun to my head.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 9, 2019 10:19:18 GMT -5
I'm unclear about the actual constitutional requirements for an impeachment. Is the house required to vote for an impeachment inquiry before such an inquiry can be started? Or can they simply say they've started it, as Pelosi has done? Is an impeachment inquiry conducted by a single committee, can it be assigned to more than one committee, or does there need to be a special impeachment committee? From a practical standpoint I don't know that any of those questions makes a lot of difference. It's clear that the Democrats in the house are committed to impeaching Trump. There is nothing the Republicans can do to stop it.
In the senate it's a different matter. Unless a bunch of Republicans change their minds, there is no hope that the senate will convict Trump. In my opinion, that casts a lot of doubt on the wisdom of impeaching Trump in the first place. It seems like a risky political move that could backfire.
Since impeachment is political rather than a criminal proceeding what this fight boils down to is a battle for the hearts and minds of the American public. The Democrats are hoping that Trump will be so tarnished by the impeachment that he cannot win re-election in 2020. The Republicans are want to cast the impeachment as an unfair and vindictive political exercise. Both sides are aiming to decide the matter in the court of public opinion.
I've been trying to put aside my natural cynicism about the motives of both the Republicans and the Democrats in order to try to view this somewhat logically and impartially. My gut reaction personal dislike of Trump and his methods makes the task more difficult. What it comes down to for me is the question of whether or not it's okay to ride someone out of town on a rail simply because he's a scummy character. After a lot of thought, I've decided it's not okay.
There is that part of me that insists that fairness is required no matter what.
The press, and our conversations in this forum, have made much of the die-hard Trump supporters who will be with him until the bitter end. There's another side of the coin that hasn't been talked about much. There exists a polar opposite of the Trump supporter who insists, despite having no evidence to support the claim, that Trump stole the election from Clinton and that he has no right to the presidency. That group is just as loud and just as vociferous as the Trump crowd. In the final analysis, is the Trump impeachment the logical conclusion of the actions of an unscrupulous and corrupt president? Or is there a significant component rooted in the idea that Trump has no right to the presidency and needs to be taken out by whatever means are necessary?
The latter is unfair and shouldn't be allowed. Try as I might I can't escape the feeling that the impeachment is much more about punishing Trump for defeating Clinton than it is for corrupt behavior. That's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 9, 2019 10:27:29 GMT -5
There exists a polar opposite of the Trump supporter who insists, despite having no evidence to support the claim, that Trump stole the election from Clinton and that he has no right to the presidency. You just described the national press. Not a fringe group.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 9, 2019 10:28:54 GMT -5
Yeah I guess I'm unclear on the process. Formal impeachment requires a vote in the House doesn't it? Yeah. That the whole formal inquiry which gives Republicans the right to call their own witnesses, etc. Democrats are counting on getting their smear campaign into high gear before the "fairness" part of the whole thing can hit the papers (like most of the media cares). The President has publicly and privately called for foreign governments to investigate his political opponents, thus requesting interference with The United States' 2020 election. The President has said he will stonewall a clearly constitutional impeachment inquiry, which will add Obstruction of Justice to the list of impeachment articles. Not sure were why there will be any need to "smear." The facts that are known ought to be sufficient. I want the GOP Congrescritters and Senators to explain their no votes to these articles in 2020. Support for impeachment is growing, and will only increase as Trump is exposed and put under the microscope.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 9, 2019 10:30:16 GMT -5
Yeah. That the whole formal inquiry which gives Republicans the right to call their own witnesses, etc. Democrats are counting on getting their smear campaign into high gear before the "fairness" part of the whole thing can hit the papers (like most of the media cares). The President has publicly and privately called for foreign governments to investigate his political opponents, thus requesting interference with The United States' 2020 election. The President has said he will stonewall a clearly constitutional impeachment inquiry, which will add Obstruction of Justice to the list of impeachment articles. Not sure were why there will be any need to "smear." The facts that are known ought to be sufficient. I want the GOP Congrescritters and Senators to explain their no votes to these articles in 2020. Support for impeachment is growing, and will only increase as Trump is exposed and put under the microscope. Sure. If you say so.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 9, 2019 11:16:57 GMT -5
The President has publicly and privately called for foreign governments to investigate his political opponents, thus requesting interference with The United States' 2020 election. The President has said he will stonewall a clearly constitutional impeachment inquiry, which will add Obstruction of Justice to the list of impeachment articles. Not sure were why there will be any need to "smear." The facts that are known ought to be sufficient. I want the GOP Congrescritters and Senators to explain their no votes to these articles in 2020. Support for impeachment is growing, and will only increase as Trump is exposed and put under the microscope. Sure. If you say so. The GOP and Trump will have to claim that it's OK for an American POTUS to ask for dirt on potential political opponents- acts that impact our elections. Also, they will have to defend the POTUS announcing he will not cooperate with an impeachment investigation. The accusations are not what I "say." Those are the facts for which he will be impeached by the House. Nobody is seriously denying that these things have happened and are happening. Some GOP geniuses, I guess, are suggesting that these things are defensible. That spin may play to FOX news, but impeachment will bring a much larger audience. You think that will work out well for Trump? I don't see it as a great look for reelection, myself.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Oct 9, 2019 11:39:09 GMT -5
Paul, if it's such a slam dunk, why are they dithering? Call for the vote and get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 9, 2019 12:05:20 GMT -5
Paul, if it's such a slam dunk, why are they dithering? Call for the vote and get on with it. I'm suddenly reminded of that old saw about wrestling with a pig.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 9, 2019 12:28:31 GMT -5
Paul, if it's such a slam dunk, why are they dithering? Call for the vote and get on with it. Objectively, it's a slam dunk. Politically? That's going to require hearings. So far there has been a dearth of witnesses. I think Pelosi was wise to keep her powder dry and wait for the smoking gun that turned out to be the Ukrainian call transcript before publicly calling for impeachment. Simultaneous with that she saw support grow among first time Democrats in swing districts. That was a big deal. Shifting poll numbers will also be a big deal. Ramming a vote through just because people like me think it's time is not the kind of strategic decision that made her the first woman Speaker. Patience, will be required, and will pay off.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 9, 2019 18:03:25 GMT -5
Love this song, and the sentiment behind it, but I don't think Dylan was targeting liberal Democrats. I hear it was an up-tight hotel clerk. (Probably a Republican.)
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 10, 2019 15:45:27 GMT -5
McMaster joins the Deep State:
Q: "Do you think it's appropriate for the President of the United States to solicit foreign interference in our political process?"
"Of course no. No. It's absolutely not."
- Pres. Trump's former National Security Adviser HR McMaster
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 10, 2019 15:59:21 GMT -5
He's not asking for help in our political process. That's begging the question. McMaster's answer is fine. The question is fine too, but has nothing to do with the present issue.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 10, 2019 16:13:20 GMT -5
I've been saying all along that my reading of the transcript revealed that Trump asked Zelensky to look into the Biden's role in Ukraine. It's the Democrats who have spun that into "digging for dirt on the Bidens" and "interfering in the 2020 elections". I've been shouted down because it's obvious to most everyone but me that Trump was speaking in code that Zelensky understood and I don't.
From my vantage point . . . over here in the corner and far from accepted reality, McMaster answered the question he was asked. The same question, framed in a different manner, might have resulted in a different response. But then I'm not a code-speaker so it's easy for me to miss the nuances.
Seriously, have we truly reached the point where it's necessary to see evil lurking around every corner and every statement has to be parsed to find hidden meanings? That, by the way, is a bi-partisan question. I'm talking about both Democrats and Republicans because in my opinion there's plenty of this kind of crap going around on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 10, 2019 16:20:01 GMT -5
"Bullpoppy" is D.C. code for Bullshit for those not in D.C.
As to reality, the Democrats are still looking for a crime that doesn't exist and it's costing us millions of dollars. Remember that at the polls.
Whoops, looks like Mr. Smith removed his post.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 10, 2019 16:31:33 GMT -5
No. The Constitution says nothing about how the House is to conduct impeachment proceedings, only that the House is where it happens. It says nothing about requiring a vote to open an inquiry; only votes on actual articles of impeachment.
In case it hasn't already been said, Pelosi obviously wants to spare those in her caucus who are in purple states and who could be hurt by a yea vote to open an inquiry. That's her prerogative as speaker of the House. She'd be stupid not to, and stupid she is not.
In the meantime, Team Trump's claim that the inquiry therefore lacks a constitutional basis, and therefore it will not honor subpoenas or cooperate in any other way, is utter self-serving bullpoppy, and is bound to be ruled against, even in a conservative court. But that will take time, which is precisely Team Trump's strategy: to slow things down. I doubt it will help them much.
|
|