impeachment stupidity

[Matador]

I'm not sure where to post this (there is a smattering of impeachment talk in various threads), but it was just too good not to pass on, as it summarizes the current state of the impeachment process quite well.

I was listening to an interview by Jim Jordan on the radio (or it was rather a discussion of the interview, which I think was originally hosted by NPR).  The interviewer was comparing and contrasting the Clinton impeachment with the current Trump impeachment:  I'm paraphrasing the discussion, but it went something like this...

-----------------------------------------
INTERVIEWER: Clinton was impeached for high crimes because the GOP claimed he perjured himself during his deposition regarding his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

JORDAN: Yes, he lied about his relationship while giving sworn testimony.

INTERVIEWER: He was asked if he had ever had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinksi and he denied it...

JORDAN: Yes, which we found out was a lie once we had the famous dress!

INTERVIEWER: However Clinton later said that he considered 'sexual intercourse' to be sexual relations, which both he and Ms. Lewinski denied ever occurred.  Should we consider what he meant when he said that?

JORDAN:  What he meant wasn't relevant, because everyone knew exactly what he was saying.  Anyone who heard the question and the answer knew what was meant just by the words.  What Clinton thought isn't relevant because the question was clear.

INTERVIEWER: Ok, but didn't the transcript of the Trump call seems to prove the crime of bribery, where Trump asked for a political favor from a foreign government?

JORDAN: No, there was no crime, because regardless of what was asked the thing of value was never delivered.

INTERVIEWER: But couldn't it be argued that the phrase "I need you to do me a favor..." is clear just by the words?  Most people who have been asked say they know exactly what was meant by that request.  The fact that nothing of value was delivered isn't even part of the bribery statute.

JORDAN: All that matters is what Trump was thinking when he made that statement.  What you or I think about what it meant is irrelevant, because all that matters is what Trump was thinking when he said those words.
-----------------------------------------

So there you have it.  Jordan applied two completely opposite standards of proof within the span of about 10 minutes.

Given McConnell and Graham have already publicly stated they won't vote to impeach no matter what is presented, it looks like this will die quickly in the beginning of January.

 

[pucho812]

all well and good except the obvious of they charged trump with obstruction of congress and  abuse of power. None of which is bribery, extortion or obstruction of justice which to me would be the high crimes in this whole sorted affair.  But yet while words were tossed around and accusations made, in the end it was stuff that I wouldn't call high crime or misdemeanor. As it was said elsewhere, there is no definition of abuse of power in the constitution so good luck. I am sure you will have a fine impeachment, I am sure the sabers will rattle. Hell they are already planning  impeach and remove events tonight 12/17 because we all need to gather in our peer groups  at various locations to discuss how we want to impeach.  Since this impeachment started trumps favorability among minorities has gone up.  In the end this doesn't look like it will be in favor of the dems.

 

[hodad]

  Since this impeachment started trumps favorability among minorities has gone up. 

Republicans don't care about winning minority votes; they care about suppressing minority votes.  I lived that here in Georgia during our last gubernatorial election.  I waited an hour or more to vote in my majority-minority district, while folks in whiter, more Republican areas were in and out in 10 minutes.  It's no surprise that the Republican candidate was secretary of state and had declined to recuse himself from supervising the election. 

But even more to the issue of support:  54% of Americans (per Fox) support impeachment.  50% support impeachment and removal.  70% of Americans (including a large % of Republicans) think Trump's cabinet officers should testify before the Senate. 

Republicans shouldn't be  (and really, aren't) worried about gaining minority votes.  Their real issue is white suburban voters who supported him in 2016 and are disgusted by the results.  Trump has to cheat to win.  You see that in his actions right now.  The man lost the popular vote by 3 million votes in 2016.  A difference of a few tens of thousands of votes in key states were all that won him the electoral college.  Losing white suburban women could easily cost him most or all of the battleground states he won in '16. 

Thus, he abuses the power of the office to bribe Ukraine into supporting him.  It's an impeachable offense, but McConnell is so busy using Trump to pursue his own agenda that he can't quit him.  So Senate Republicans will cheerfully abrogate their duty to the nation and give Trump a pass---they're not going to dig into the info, demand more access and make a reasoned decision.  They are going to acquit because they don't care if he's guilty or not, and they don't care about democracy frankly. 

Democracy, at this point, is the enemy of the Republican party.  They realize that to keep from becoming utterly irrelevant, they must subvert it.  Thus their hearty embrace of the criminal Trump, their nationwide push for minority vote suppression, the extreme partisan gerrymandering, the flood of hyperpartisan judges, etc.  Their only hope is to rule from the minority, and Trump, a man with no regard for laws, convention or morality, is their savior.  They'll do anything to fend off the rise of the dreaded black and brown people, of queers and those urban hipsters with their beards and avocado toast. 

The Republicans are, in a nutshell, the anti-democracy party.  The party that hates America and hates freedom.  The party that wants to destroy everything that makes this country great. ;D ;D ;D

 

[pucho812]

ah yes the old talking point like the gop doesn't care about minorities.

I find it funny one party claims to care about minorities so much but yet allows their districts to be in shambles.

 

[DaveP]

I'm guessing the delay in starting the senate trial is deliberate?

The maximum political benefit for the democrats is produced by keeping him as an impeached president for as long as possible?

Having the impeachment quashed by the senate long before the next election would not help them so much as keeping the pot boiling  until the election, I guess.

From this side of the pond it looks like the same kind of delaying tactics used during the Brexit fiasco in the UK.  I can't help thinking that this is going to back-fire on the democrats  during the coming year, in much the same way.

Are there no better candidates for the democratic nomination?  Is there not someone who does not come across as so angry?  The US needs someone with a concilatory character more like Reagan IMHO.

What I find so sad is that in your founding fathers time, it was possible for an ordinary citizen to become a president, now it looks like the minimum starting requirement would be to be a millionaire, or preferably a billionaire, this is a very small pool from which to make a choice and it would include a lot of very ruthless people , which is far from ideal.

I'm not a fan of Trump because of his views on climate change, but I think that this trial has harmed US national security, because in the case of North Korea for example, why would they come to the negotiating table with a president who has been crippled by his own government?  OK to cite national security when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't?

DaveP

 

[living sounds]

Is there not someone who does not come across as so angry? 

Obama was as non-angry and as conciliatory as one can imagine. It didn't matter, the other side hated him. And Reagan wasn't concilliatory in the way he worked to destroy unions, BTW.

[quote author=pucho812]
I find it funny one party claims to care about minorities so much but yet allows their districts to be in shambles.
[/quote]

Well, their districts also receive far less funding than other districts and face structural problems. Your argument is a non sequitur with regards to the issue of voter disenfranchisement brought up by hodad.

The problem is this proccupation with talking points rather than facts. If people in either the US or Britain could actually all grasp how they are being betrayed by the right wing populists, they wouldn't vote for people like Trump or Johnson.

 

[dmp]

Trump comes across as very angry. His inauguration speech for instance..  It is surprising that he gets a pass on such egregious conduct.  Trump can insult people, call names, etc... yet people expect everyone else to be civil and reach out for compromise.

It doesn't seem to matter to anyone that Trump most likely did exactly as he is accused - the transcript made it seem very likely and then the witnesses that did testify were incriminating. All of the major figures in the Trump admin defied the subpoenas.
Foreign interference in elections was one of the serious concerns of the founding fathers when writing the Constitution.

It's a sad time for the system of gov in the US 

 

[living sounds]

In percentage context in kinda sounds like a razor thin loss in total popular votes  and a razor thin win in some key states??....

It was achieved through trickery, by disenfrenchising voters and targeted spreading of lies via online media. And the president himself was in on it.

And he did it again for the next election. That's what the impeachment process is all about: He got caught cheating.

Even some Evangelical leaders get it now:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm guessing the delay in starting the senate trial is deliberate?

Indeed deliberate and unilateral by the speaker of the house.

The maximum political benefit for the democrats is produced by keeping him as an impeached president for as long as possible?

The expected benefit was most likely to erode his popularity before the 2020 election, since removal by the senate was so unlikely. Sound bites extracted from days of unfriendly questioning and testimony will probably show up in campaign advertising.  Polls in critical swing states already appear to be moving in the wrong direction for that strategy to show  success.

Having the impeachment quashed by the senate long before the next election would not help them so much as keeping the pot boiling  until the election, I guess.

Except it is not boiling in the fly over states or middle America. The minority leader in the senate is trying to demand new witnesses, but unlikely to get much satisfaction. The investigation is supposed to occur in the house. The senate is the jury to decide the veracity of the charges and that is pretty much a forgone conclusion (to acquit).

Political maneuvering right now is probably trying to make him look weak for the upcoming "state of the union" speech next month. Like the doctor's office lollipop, I can imagine the opposition wanting impeachment to be the last impression voters see. But I am not smart enough to know what they are thinking. 

FWIW some partisans have already expressed a desire to repeat with new impeachment investigations in the future as is their constitutional right, but that will only diminish the process even further.

From this side of the pond it looks like the same kind of delaying tactics used during the Brexit fiasco in the UK.  I can't help thinking that this is going to back-fire on the democrats  during the coming year, in much the same way.

I have seen political jokes crediting Nancy Pelosi as being the top money raiser for the Republicans.  :

Are there no better candidates for the democratic nomination?  Is there not someone who does not come across as so angry?  The US needs someone with a concilatory character more like Reagan IMHO.

There are some wild card options floating around. Michelle Obama might be able to reassemble the voting block who so loved her husband, but so far has not indicated active interest. Hillary probably wants to, but should know better (the party leadership has shifted since anointing her last time and is not very receptive).

What I find so sad is that in your founding fathers time, it was possible for an ordinary citizen to become a president, now it looks like the minimum starting requirement would be to be a millionaire, or preferably a billionaire, this is a very small pool from which to make a choice and it would include a lot of very ruthless people , which is far from ideal.

The founders were not ordinary citizens, most were wealthy land owners and very well educated.  An ordinary citizen couldn't get arrested running for high office these days (or maybe they would). 

There are several very wealthy candidates this time using their own funds to stay in the race while less successful candidates have already run out of money/support and dropped out. Mike Bloomberg (former well liked mayor of NYC) has thrown himself into the race and may be more of a spoiler (like Perot) than a viable independent candidate but he checks several boxes with conservative voters for knowing how to count and not being a flaming socialist. Bloomberg is unlikely to run out of money quickly. 

I'm not a fan of Trump because of his views on climate change, but I think that this trial has harmed US national security, because in the case of North Korea for example, why would they come to the negotiating table with a president who has been crippled by his own government?  OK to cite national security when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't?

DaveP

President Trump seems capable of rising above the political fray and IMO gets more respect from most world leaders than domestic opposition leaders (despite the picture media tries to paint like those NATO gossips).  There used to be an unwritten rule that party politics stops at the border (i.e. don't embarrass POTUS when out of the country on the people's business). That rule has not only been abandoned but the opposition goes out of their way to compromise POTUS while out of the country negotiating trade or security deals.

The severe anti-Trump anger is remarkable with people confident that they know what he thinks?  I doubt he knows what he thinks about stuff until it comes up. Only after he makes unfiltered inflammatory statements (tweets) does his left brain and right brain get to reconcile what he actually thinks, hopefully assisted by informed advisors to educate him (he has walked back several egregious mistakes).  He is not a typical politician so mainly thinks/acts like a businessman. Sadly he is learning how to be a politician the hard way. President Trump learning more about acting like a politician is not good for the opposition, while he seems to have a natural ability to negotiate (or trade insults) effectively. 

I expect both sides to spend truck loads of money on political advertising between now and next Nov. My DVR is already ignoring political ads. This is still early days it will heat up after an opposition candidate emerges. It is quickly getting too late for somebody new to emerge completely out of left field (Oprah?).

JR

 

[DaveP]

Thanks for answering my genuine questions JR.

I hope you have Happy Christmas, New Year looks turbulent!

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Thanks for answering my genuine questions JR.

I try not to talk politics, but I have an interest in how it works (to not be the patsy in the poker game).

I hope you have Happy Christmas, New Year looks turbulent!

DaveP

Actually it seems like things might be getting less turbulent around the world compared to a few years ago,  but it depends on where you are standing (French unions/workers not very happy about proposed entitlement spending cut backs.).

Indeed have a very merry christmas, and an even better new year.

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

The minority leader in the senate is trying to demand new witnesses, but unlikely to get much satisfaction. The investigation is supposed to occur in the house. The senate is the jury to decide the veracity of the charges and that is pretty much a forgone conclusion (to acquit).

I’ve been confused about all that. I thought the senate is to be an impartial jury of an actual fair trial; key words being impartial, fair, and trial.

What’s to be done with openly non-impartial jurors, including the one with the highest power making trial procedure rules?

Isn’t Chief Justice John Roberts job, essentially the judge, to oversee that the entire trail is actually fair?

In a trial, can’t both the prosecution and the defense bring in additional evidence and witnesses, not included in the investigation, to present to the jury, after the opposing side (and possibly the judge) has been given an opportunity to review prior?

As is, it amazes to me how all this seems to guarantee a non-impartial and unfair trial. The whole thing is unfair to the president and unfair to the people. Where’s the call of emergency legislation? Where was it last time?

 

[iomegaman]

I’ve been confused about all that. I thought the senate is to be an impartial jury of an actual fair trial; key words being impartial, fair, and trial.

What’s to be done with openly non-impartial jurors, including the one with the highest power making trial procedure rules?

Isn’t Chief Justice John Roberts job, essentially the judge, to oversee that the entire trail is actually fair?

In a trial, can’t both the prosecution and the defense bring in additional evidence and witnesses, not included in the investigation, to present to the jury, after the opposing side (and possibly the judge) has been given an opportunity to review prior?

As is, it amazes to me how all this seems to guarantee a non-impartial and unfair trial. The whole thing is unfair to the president and unfair to the people. Where’s the call of emergency legislation? Where was it last time?

Every Senator will take an oath to be an impartial juror in the trial,  Its part of the process, which seems really odd that both McConnell and Graham have made very public statements saying they would NOT be impartial, that there would be no witnesses allowed and they had already made up their minds as to the outcome and were working with the WH to insure it goes the way Trump wants it to.

THAT is not an impartial jury under ANY conditions.

Which begs the question, why would they say such things prior to taking the oath unless they were hoping to be recused?

The trial in the Senate SHOULD be fair to all parties...the President should be allowed to defend himself, and likewise there should be testimony from actual witnesses of his behavior and intent made to swear before the judge...witnesses need to be called but McConnell and Graham BOTH know that Trump will be a disaster if he testifies...so they want to rig the trial where no witnesses are called, no evidence is provided and no testimony is heard...they want another media circus so they can get talking points...

The LAST thing the GOP wants is an actual unbiased fair trial. The problem is you must also work with the minority member and Pelosi does have some say in when the articles are delivered because the Congressional witnesses are appointed by her committee...

So if McConnell is recused, then the blame of any situation falls on someone else...and he can claim some kind of high road...

Don't forget that Chief Justice Roberts oversees the whole thing...and he is not one to bully or play games with, he will declare a mistrial if McConnell does not play by the rules...McConnell wants no part of that...

Pelosi's delay is brilliant...it puts heat on the GOP to provide an actual trial while Americans get educated on the process.

Gonna be lots of arguments and experts around the Christmas table this year all across the country...of course many will say Pelosis is stalling because she's afraid, but it allows enough time fr people to get the message that McConnell has already declared it won't be a fair trial...people will notice that shit.

 

[dmp]

Impeachment by the House of Representatives means to formally charge.
The trial occurs in the Senate.
Trump illegally directed members of his cabinet and others to defy Subpoenas, so the investigation of the House was limited. The House has ambiguous means to deal with the WH defying subpoenas, due to the separation of powers.
Lots of disinformation about this - but we live in an age of manic disinformation.


From Article I:

5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Don't forget that Chief Justice Roberts oversees the whole thing...and he is not one to bully or play games with, he will declare a mistrial if McConnell does not play by the rules...McConnell wants no part of that...

I’m not so sure he doesn’t want any part of that. I’d imagine he’s taking the cue and banking on Trump still having enough unshakable supporters, whom is all he needs to care about. And he’s probably right.  It seems it was a call to his base, and prior to oath is his card, should he need to use it

I’d imagine a mistrial is one of the contingency plans, should their desire for a fairly-instant pseudo-trial and acquittal not take shape. It’s all a part of banking on the conspiracy theories until the bitter end and probably will work.

 

[DaveP]

You could look at this and say "its democracy in action", but I can imagine it putting off many authoritarian leaders around the world from going anywhere near democracy.  It also looks like democracy in melt-down, not a pretty sight.

DaveP

 

[pucho812]

my impression has been like kids playing. There is always that one kid who demands it their way and then when they don't get it they either leave or flip over the game board.  which side is that can be either one depending on what day  of the week it is. Sometimes it's both.

But this is a good distraction for the omnibus bill spending up to 1.5 trillion dollars and some of the crazy things that are in it. While crazy things is nothing new, some of these things are a new trick up their sleeve.

 

[JohnRoberts]

my impression has been like kids playing. There is always that one kid who demands it their way and then when they don't get it they either leave or flip over the game board.  which side is that can be either one depending on what day  of the week it is. Sometimes it's both.

Its always about power...

But this is a good distraction for the omnibus bill spending up to 1.5 trillion dollars and some of the crazy things that are in it. While crazy things is nothing new, some of these things are a new trick up their sleeve.

This is the first time in a while I have seen an actual federal budget passed (without apparently reading it).  Neither side wants to get blamed for shutting down the government in this hyper partisan news cycle. The tradeoffs were both sides spending a bunch on things they each wanted.

Worth notice, the federal budget runs out again before next Nov so we will get to revisit this again before the election. I can live without all the drama, but wouldn't mind lower spending.

JR

 

[sodderboy]

I LOVE the fact that Smellosi is stuck in a fetid corner with her rubbish papers.  That's what real hatred brings.  She's not happy there on her vineyard.  She and her group of ghastly ghouls deserve everything coming to them. 

People here are saying that the President is hateful, but they are so wrong.  He is just his own DIY James Carville.  Obama didn't need a Carville because he had the majority of the press running cover for him. 

We have already started the campaign to impeach our US representative in 2020.  Nice

 

[JohnRoberts]

I LOVE the fact that Smellosi is stuck in a fetid corner with her rubbish papers.  That's what real hatred brings.  She's not happy there on her vineyard.  She and her group of ghastly ghouls deserve everything coming to them. 

lets be nice... She was originally opposed to impeachment unless they could garner bipartisan support knowing how the President Clinton impeachment backfired and didn't hurt his popularity.  As an outside observer I suspect the speaker was correct in her original assessment but got pressured by her base and more extreme new house members with huge social media footprints, to file for impeachment after years of openly digging for dirt on POTUS (and claiming to have found smoking guns multiple times  :. )

Her holding back the impeachment filing now is unexpected and interesting from a historical perspective. I do not think it helps their argument that filing impeachment was urgent. She can read the tea leaves as well as any in DC, so may have decided to stop digging while already at the bottom of a hole. Of course this is not over, just on pause, probably to gauge sentiment over the holiday break (this has always been about political sentiment that didn't move in the direction they expected after the public hearings). 

People here are saying that the President is hateful, but they are so wrong.  He is just his own DIY James Carville.  Obama didn't need a Carville because he had the majority of the press running cover for him. 

That can't be known one way or the other, but the evidence**** appears to dispute the ugly characterizations. Of course after so much repetition in the opposition media many have been imprinted with such beliefs (just like propaganda) so believe.

We have already started the campaign to impeach our US representative in 2020.  Nice

yup  I expect 2020 to be interesting, but there is till a lot of time between now and then for new revelations. Not only October surprises, but Jan, Feb, etc....  :  Buckle up it could be a wild ride.  8)

JR

**** For just one example, not getting much press is how the Trump administration is supporting an initiative to decriminalize homosexuality in the more than 70 nations where it is still illegal. President Trump mentioned it in his UN speech and his US ambassador to Germany is leading the initiative.    https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/12/20/us-hosts-homosexuality-decriminalization-event-at-un/