The know-nothing GOP

[hodad]

Just a thought:  If you can't even bear to hear the evidence in an impeachment trial, there's a really good chance you don't give a sh!t about the truth. 

What a fcking embarrassment the "Grand Old Party" has become. 

 

[pucho812]

Yeah I agree, the democrats should not be behaving in such a manor

 

[hodad]

I think you're proving my point for me.  I appreciate that!

 

[iturnknobs]

They know everything. They especially know that if subpoenas are honored and witnesses are heard that they will lose miserably and the reality television star who bankrupts casinos and surrounds himself with "nothing but the best people" will have to deal with his fate like most other regular people. Debating process and preventing people from being questioned is their only hope. If this is the way this thing goes, our country is eternally f****d.  SHAME ON the USa.

 

[JohnRoberts]

They know everything. They especially know that if subpoenas are honored and witnesses are heard that they will lose miserably and the reality television star who bankrupts casinos and surrounds himself with "nothing but the best people" will have to deal with his fate like most other regular people. Debating process and preventing people from being questioned is their only hope. If this is the way this thing goes, our country is eternally f****d.  SHAME ON the USa.

They?

I don't know what other people know, barely know what I think I know.

Politics is all about persuasion***, and we are seeing some industrial grade persuasion couched in political theater.

I am impressed by moves from both sides, but will predict that only one side wins, this round. I won't say which one wins, because I have been wrong before about my political guesses. 

JR

*** I have been reading books about persuasion recently and let's just leave that there for now, some interesting stuff.

 

[pucho812]

I think you're proving my point for me.  I appreciate that!

I think you have no sense of humor. lighten up. at the end of the day trump will be there or not. the world will continue to spin, thousands will have it way worse then us and few will have it better.  in the end  regardless of the outcome  some will cheer, some will cry foul and all of us will have to suffer for it. you decide which is which and what is what.

 

[Tubetec]

Stop being so down on yourselves good ole USA ,
Democracy is being made a shambles of worldwide ,
Just cause Donnie spearheaded the charge doesnt mean good people dont exist on both sides of the divide.
Over here in Ireland a general election has been announced in just under three weeks , the current administration has split this place down along city and country lines and between those who have vs those who dont , No one party will have a majority in the end so its another term of coalition government here no matter what happens .
The two biggest parties say they wont go into a partnership with Sinn Fein who reside in 3rd place only a few % points behind after making huge gains lately , if the two main parties end up cobbling  something together again for another term in office were very  likely to see a further disintegration in law and order and more cocaine fueled ultraviolence sweeping the streets, in fact Im not sure anything can stop that from happeneing now . 

 

[hodad]

I think you have no sense of humor. lighten up.

If a handful of GOP senators would vote to allow witnesses, or for documents to be subpoenaed, I'd be giddy as a schoolgirl.  I don't want a preordained outcome, I simply want a process that's not completely rigged by Mitch McConnell.  Bring on some witnesses.  Bring on some documents.  Enough with the White House stonewalling. 

 

[hodad]

I doubt that many of you stayed up for the whole hearing last night.  I jumped on a bit late, but I watched to the last vote.  Of course, watching Schiff make his case early in the proceedings would have been a good start for those awash in right wing propaganda.  Straightforward, supported by both law and evidence. 

But I'm more interested in what Nadler spoke about sometime after midnight.  He wasn't quite as smooth in his delivery, but a word he used often was "monarchical."  Throughout this process, Trump has asserted a version of executive privilege that is more expansive by orders of magnitude than any ever asserted by a president of this country.  He has denied virtually all access to and oversight of the executive branch by Congress.    He has, largely, asserted the privilege of a king or dictator. 

And the Republicans in Congress (and let's blame the Senate especially) have gone along with this--have tacitly approved of the diminution of Congress as a coequal branch of govt.  And they seem to be okay with this. 

My question is, are you okay with this?  Do you really want the office of President to be immune to oversight by Congress or the courts?  Do you really want a legislative branch that no longer is a coequal partner in our system of govt.?  Are you so afraid of "your party" losing power that you're willing to sacrifice the American system of govt. that you purportedly love so much,    just so "your guys" can stay in control? 

 

[JohnRoberts]

If a handful of GOP senators would vote to allow witnesses, or for documents to be subpoenaed, I'd be giddy as a schoolgirl.

You might get your wish....  I am repeating myself but what do you expect to discover new after years of investigation? In fact the direction of the investigation has changed a few times after earlier investigations missed the mark.

In my judgement this is not about discovery but painting with words, hoping the public will finally watch and believe the opposition sentiment.

  I don't want a preordained outcome, I simply want a process that's not completely rigged by Mitch McConnell.

Then do not try to impeach a POTUS while his party controls the senate.  Winning a 2/3 majority is a rather high hurdle.

There is nothing to rig, the articles do not rise to high crimes and misdemeanor, as required by the constitution.

Bring on some witnesses.  Bring on some documents.  Enough with the White House stonewalling.

Even a president has the right to defend himself under our system of government. The limits of executive power have been tested by every president.

It is hard (impossible) to ignore that this is occurring less than a year before an election where POTUS could be removed by voters if they so desire. Even the low information voters can see this for what it is (IMO) an attempt to slime POTUS for political purposes. Nobody expects impeachment will succeed, and some vocal opposition are already promising to impeach again.

It is also perhaps interesting to note that several democratic candidates for president are senators who will be instructed to sit quietly and watch. They are not even allowed to use their smartphones. There will be winners and losers among the democratic candidates from this side track.

JR

PS: I wonder if modern culture has changed its opinion about big money in politics? The ASSumption is that money can buy votes but in the last election the democrats outspent the republicans and still lost. We now have two billionaires throwing their hats into the presidential ring... Likely to be a very good year for TV advertising sales.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I doubt that many of you stayed up for the whole hearing last night.  I jumped on a bit late, but I watched to the last vote.  Of course, watching Schiff make his case early in the proceedings would have been a good start for those awash in right wing propaganda.  Straightforward, supported by both law and evidence. 

not like his improvised version of the phone call...  : when he didn't expect the transcript to be made public?

But I'm more interested in what Nadler spoke about sometime after midnight.  He wasn't quite as smooth in his delivery, but a word he used often was "monarchical."  Throughout this process, Trump has asserted a version of executive privilege that is more expansive by orders of magnitude than any ever asserted by a president of this country.  He has denied virtually all access to and oversight of the executive branch by Congress.    He has, largely, asserted the privilege of a king or dictator. 

this has already been addressed... the house decided to forgo using the courts to force testimony, because it would involve delays.  Hurry up and wait....

And the Republicans in Congress (and let's blame the Senate especially) have gone along with this--have tacitly approved of the diminution of Congress as a coequal branch of govt.  And they seem to be okay with this. 

Coequal, means they do not get to force their preferred outcomes. Disagreements between the coequal branches can be addressed in the courts (the other coequal branch). 

My question is, are you okay with this?  Do you really want the office of President to be immune to oversight by Congress or the courts?  Do you really want a legislative branch that no longer is a coequal partner in our system of govt.?  Are you so afraid of "your party" losing power that you're willing to sacrifice the American system of govt. that you purportedly love so much,    just so "your guys" can stay in control?

The constitution and separation of powers seems to be working as planned. I continue to be impressed by the wisdom of our founders.

Give the voters a little more credit.  If President Trump is as bad as you think, how could he possibly be re-elected?

JR

 

[hodad]

the house decided to forgo using the courts to force testimony, because it would involve delays.  Hurry up and wait....

As was pointed out last night (you were watching, weren't you?), waiting for a ruling on witnesses in an ongoing crime is not terribly helpful.  Trump continues to solicit foreign election interference.  The Supreme Court fiddles while DC burns around them. 

Give the voters a little more credit.  If President Trump is as bad as you think, how could he possibly be re-elected?

JR

Well, let's remember first of all that Trump lost the popular vote by 3 MILLION votes the first time. 

Second, let's condider that the GOP has spent decades disenfranchising certain voter groups in states like Ohio and Georgia, just to name 2 of many.  And Florida too is a prime example of how hard GOP lawmakers will work to make sure that "certain people" are not allowed to vote.

Third, let's talk about election interference from foreign nations--not even unlikely at this point.  Russian interference in 2016 is well documented, and Mr. Facebook has made it clear that he welcomes all election interference, so long as it makes him richer. 

Fourth, Trump and his crew (his henchmen?  his thugs? ) have shown a willingness to do whatever it takes to be reelected, regardless of legality.  And your people in Congress have gone right along with him. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

As was pointed out last night (you were watching, weren't you?), waiting for a ruling on witnesses in an ongoing crime is not terribly helpful.  Trump continues to solicit foreign election interference.  The Supreme Court fiddles while DC burns around them. 

So I am guessing you did not watch his live interview at 4AM from Davos?

Seriously?  and you think the democratic house is working to rescue the republic? This is pretty simply about political power.

Well, let's remember first of all that Trump lost the popular vote by 3 MILLION votes the first time. 

yes, still teaching us all civics lessons (google the electoral college) another fine feature our founders gave us.

Arguing about the popular vote is like saying gaining yards matters more than making touchdowns in winning football games.

Second, let's condider that the GOP has spent decades disenfranchising certain voter groups in states like Ohio and Georgia, just to name 2 of many.  And Florida too is a prime example of how hard GOP lawmakers will work to make sure that "certain people" are not allowed to vote.

Third, let's talk about election interference from foreign nations--not even unlikely at this point.  Russian interference in 2016 is well documented, and Mr. Facebook has made it clear that he welcomes all election interference, so long as it makes him richer. 

Fourth, Trump and his crew (his henchmen?  his thugs? ) have shown a willingness to do whatever it takes to be reelected, regardless of legality.  And your people in Congress have gone right along with him.

In one of the persuasion books I read recently they observed that people with arguments too weak to win alone , instead present a list of weak arguments hoping the numbers will make them seem more convincing... 

JR

 

[hodad]

t a list of weak arguments hoping the numbers will make them seem more convincing... 

JR

The people with really weak  arguments are the ones who just stick their fingers in their ears and don't listen to anything contrary to their beliefs. 

I had a philosophy prof who liked to say, "Doubt is the cornerstone of belief."  If your beliefs can't stand up to challenges, what  good are they?  You should go listen to Schiff and Jeffries and Demings and Nadler--see if your beliefs stand up to that.  Don't be a coward.  Don't stick your fingers in  your ears and instead allow your beliefs  to be challenged by doubt.   

 

[hodad]

instead present a list of weak arguments hoping the numbers will make them seem more convincing... 

JR

So you're saying that since Dems only presented 2 articles of impeachment, they must have a very strong and convincing case.  8) 8) 8)

 

[JohnRoberts]

So you're saying that since Dems only presented 2 articles of impeachment, they must have a very strong and convincing case.  8) 8) 8)

Thanks for listening... 8)  I will say that one actual impeachable offense would be more than adequate.

The two articles that do not rise to an impeachable standard IMO should be summarily dismissed but in the court of public opinion, where all politics operates, that would not "appear" fair, so this dog and pony show will run its course.  This is all about political persuasion, not law. This would almost be amusing to watch if it wasn't so embarrassing.

The other John Roberts presiding over the senate trial had to chide them (both sides) when making and responding to arguments to be more respectful and civil.

Roberts said that kind of exchange was not appropriate and the legal teams need to be on their best behavior.

“I think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are,” Roberts said.

This John Roberts thinks we need to try to be more civil here too.

JR

PS: I bet if they turned off the cameras in congress this would be done already...

 

[Recording Engineer]

There is nothing to rig, the articles do not rise to high crimes and misdemeanor, as required by the constitution.

Just as you’ve told me: Opinions vary.
And that’s the problem. There should not be opinions, but clear letters. However, lawyers will argue even the clear letters. Put a group of everyday jurors together and collectively,  they’ll see right through the BS.

 

[pucho812]

I am still trying to figure out what high crime and or misdemeanor happened? obstruction of congress? Obama was charged with obstruction of congress. see how that turned out.  Abuse of power? what power did he have to abuse? a phone call in which  every "witness" contradicted themselves? If I were a lawyer I would not put any one of those people on the stand, they would hinder the case. 
AS for the trial in senate, as I stated earlier in the end one side will cheer one will cry foul and we have to suffer for it.  Meanwhile with the Stockmarket doing well, my 401K is doing well, and we now are finishing a new trade deal with china hmmmm.  perhaps things are not nearly doom and gloom as they say.

 

[hodad]

Thanks for listening... 8)  I will say that one actual impeachable offense would be more than adequate.

The two articles that do not rise to an impeachable standard IMO

This is weak sauce--tantamount to sticking your fingers in your ears and not listening.  GAO says Article 1 is a crime.

Article 2:  whether you consider that a crime, allowing a president to get away with obstruction on Trump's level (which is completely unprecedented in our nation's history) seriously disturbs the balance between the coequal branches of govt.  If you say that the president can only be held accountable by Congress, and then allow the executive to deny them the means to hold him accountable, then you start leaving the realm of democracy and entering authoritarianism or monarchy.  Which I believe was a point I made earlier. 

 

[fazer]

So why did the democratic controlled house not take the witnesses they wanted to the court? ??  Why did the speaker of the house hold the articles after the vote???  Why did Adam S.  paraphrase the phone call in a complete political motivated lie???

Why.