The know-nothing GOP

[JohnRoberts]

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

I wish that would work.... 

The GAO has declared other presidents (including Bill Clinton) with violations of same law.

Not a "high" crime or misdemeanor, as our founders intended for the impeachment remedy.  Our founders were concerned about much wealthier foreign nations buying our president's allegiance, when we were the small dog in the world.  I doubt they anticipated us ever becoming this successful and wealthy, but they were students of human frailty and designed in checks and balances to protect against too much concentration of power in any one branch or subbranch corrupting governance. 

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.

I would be repeating myself (again) and even I am bored hearing myself say the same things over and over.

I hope we do not lower the bar for impeachment so low that this becomes an acceptable political strategy for future divided governments.

JR

 

[Matador]

Not a "high" crime or misdemeanor, as our founders intended for the impeachment remedy.  Our founders were concerned about much wealthier foreign nations buying our president's allegiance, when we were the small dog in the world

You say 'not a high crime or misdemeanor' like it is a settled fact.  I would say they had a fair read on the situation:

[quote author="James Madison"]
Though it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable, from that of the Legislature or of any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging, or be bribed to betray, their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity & honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members, would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.
[/quote]

[quote author="George Mason"]
No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive injustice? When great crimes were committed he was for punishing the principal as well as the Coadjutors. There had been much debate & difficulty as to the mode of choosing the Executive. He approved of that which had been adopted at first, namely of referring the appointment to the Natl. Legislature. One objection agst. Electors was the danger of their being corrupted by the Candidates; & this furnished a peculiar reason in favor of impeachments whilst in office. Shall the man who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?
[/quote]
Let's take a hypothetical:  let's say we elected a president who refused to evoke his or her duty.  After swearing in, they announced that they would be vacationing in Hawaii for their entire term.  They don't even return to DC after being sworn in.

Arguably, they aren't committing any crimes.  So impeachment wouldn't be a remedy for this rogue president...we just need to wait 4 years until the next election?

 

[sodderboy]

How bout’ those cool headphones with the vu’s in them?  Wow!
This discourse shows a complete lack of understanding of the impeachment process, due more to political hate than ignorance.  The dems had their hidden way in the house, and now the reps will have their open way in the senate.

And there is no escaping the politically hateful  propaganda everywhere in our faces- print, broadcast, feevee , anti-social media.
I will repeat that it’s not what you don’t see that’s the important  issue but what you cannot escape seeing.  It’s designed to get everyone REALLY angry at each other. Don’t buy into it!
Mike
PS: if “obstruction of congress “ was a real charge, then congress can impeach a president for vetoing their legislation. Complete rubbish, folks!

 

[hodad]

I hope we do not lower the bar for impeachment so low that this becomes an acceptable political strategy for future divided governments.

JR

Obama was practically impeached for a tan suit and dijon mustard. (Yes, I exaggerate.)  HRC went through nightmarishly extensive investigations (with which she largely cooperated, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary) for minor security lapses that are committed daily by Trump's people.  Al Gore, for the love of pete, was practically excoriated for a handful of fundraising calls made on a government phone.  And yet you think that the standard for impeachment is set too low when it comes to Trump. 

Oh, did I forget to mention that you voted for an admitted serial sexual assaulter when Clinton was impeached for a little consensual adultery?  If you had standards, you could have exercised them in the voting booth in 2016 (or stayed at home, if you preferred.)  But please don't try to claim that the bar for impeachment has been lowered just to get Trump. 

 

[Matador]

It is interesting to notice how carefully the GOP is avoiding taking any stance on whether the behavior was proper, justified, or even standard practice.  In other words, why would you argue that perfectly acceptable behavior isn't impeachable?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Obama was practically impeached for a tan suit and dijon mustard. (Yes, I exaggerate.)  HRC went through nightmarishly extensive investigations (with which she largely cooperated, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary) for minor security lapses that are committed daily by Trump's people.  Al Gore, for the love of pete, was practically excoriated for a handful of fundraising calls made on a government phone.  And yet you think that the standard for impeachment is set too low when it comes to Trump. 

perspective? I was called a racist for 8 years because I disagreed with and was critical of President Obama...  (now I'm called a white supremacist).  :

Oh, did I forget to mention that you voted for an admitted serial sexual assaulter when Clinton was impeached for a little consensual adultery?  If you had standards, you could have exercised them in the voting booth in 2016 (or stayed at home, if you preferred.)

I voted against Hillary, Trump has been a pleasant surprise... a politician that actually does what he promises.

But please don't try to claim that the bar for impeachment has been lowered just to get Trump.

I dislike it when you twist my words.

My hope is that the bar for impeachment does "not get lowered" by this purely partisan exercise being successful. Hopefully the public will vote their strong displeasure in Nov, proving how bad of an idea this was. 

Of course the future has not happened yet, so maybe I'm wrong (again).

JR

 

[hodad]

I dislike it when you twist my words.

JR

I'll cede that point.  How about this rephrasing:  "I find it astonishing that you believe that Trump's misdeeds do not meet the established standards for impeachment." 

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'll cede that point.  How about this rephrasing:  "I find it astonishing that you believe that Trump's misdeeds do not meet the established standards for impeachment."

Thank you that is less offensive.

JR

 

[Tubetec]

Sexual indescretion and lies was a good enough  excuse to try and impeach Bill  ,
I wonder if they judged his highness  Donald by the same measure how he'd fare out,
Ken Starr I see also makes a reappearance ,but this time on the defence bench ,
Im glad we only have three weeks to think about our election choices here in Ireland ,
US presidential elections are turning into years of mindfuck and propaganda  :-\

 

[boji]

Thanks for the quotes Matador.  Were these selected by you or were they used recently in making a case for impeachment?

It’s designed to get everyone REALLY angry at each other. Don’t buy into it!

++1

 

[Matador]

Thanks for the quotes Matador.  Were these selected by you or were they used recently in making a case for impeachment?

Most came up paraphrased when discussing the Clinton impeachment (which is interesting unto itself - back when Alan Dershowitz was arguing that impeachment didn't need an underlying crime, which of course he's reversed himself 180 now that it involves Trump).

But the quotes themselves come from the national archives.  It's clear that as a body, they didn't view elections as remedies:. Article 2 doesn't say "in cases of impeachment let the voters decide".  It would seem the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language was explicitly added as a catch all to abuses of power that might come up in the future (aka. Madison's "perfidy" remarks).

 

[fazer]

US presidential elections are turning into years of mindf**k and propaganda  :-\

How do you fix this.  Every time we get campaign finance reform,  we get more money in the greatest show on earth.

 

[gltech]

I'm curious. Who among us runs a small business? Up to $2mil gross or so.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm curious. Who among us runs a small business? Up to $2mil gross or so.

I started my first small business back in the 70s-80s, then did a 15 year stint as an employee at a more than $2M business (Peavey), now back to running my own tiny business, but getting old and tired so just about ready to stick a fork in it.

JR

 

[hodad]

I'm curious. Who among us runs a small business? Up to $2mil gross or so.

I did long ago, selling aircraft parts.

 

[hodad]

Not watching the impeachment at the moment, but stole this from a blog:
"Nadler knee-caps the Trump defense team by showing past testimony from Alan Dershowitz defending abuse of power as a reason for impeachment. Then follows up by noting the 2018 note from William Barr making the same statement."

Yeah.  They're always for it until they're against it.  All Republicans have to rest their case on is a giant pillow of lies, flummery, and hypocrisy.  This case has shown quite clearly what a bunch of lying, duplicitous weasels they are. 

 

[pucho812]

Not watching the impeachment at the moment, but stole this from a blog:
"Nadler knee-caps the Trump defense team by showing past testimony from Alan Dershowitz defending abuse of power as a reason for impeachment. Then follows up by noting the 2018 note from William Barr making the same statement."

Yeah.  They're always for it until they're against it.  All Republicans have to rest their case on is a giant pillow of lies, flummery, and hypocrisy.  This case has shown quite clearly what a bunch of lying, duplicitous weasels they are.

many a case can be made about the democrats doing the same thing. This case has shown quite clearly what a bunch of lying, duplicitous weasels they are.  I think you will find a lot of repetition of bad behavior from both parties.  The only difference is when it's the party you support, it's o.k. when it's the other party it is not o.k.

none of it should be o.k. but giving a pass to one and not to the other does not do anyone any good.

 

[Recording Engineer]

many a case can be made about the democrats doing the same thing. This case has shown quite clearly what a bunch of lying, duplicitous weasels they are.

How so in this case, besides the everyday ones of politics?

 

[pucho812]

How so in this case, besides the everyday ones of politics?

Schiff has been at the top of the heap.  first he fabricated what the phone would have been like, then when called on it said he was doing a parody. He also claimed the anonymous whistle blower received death threats. How can a person who is anonymous receive a death threat over an action no one knows they did?  either Schiff knew the whistleblower andis lying that the whistleblower is anonymous or the whistler blower did not receive a death threat.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Not watching the impeachment at the moment, but stole this from a blog:
"Nadler knee-caps the Trump defense team by showing past testimony from Alan Dershowitz defending abuse of power as a reason for impeachment. Then follows up by noting the 2018 note from William Barr making the same statement."

Yeah.  They're always for it until they're against it.  All Republicans have to rest their case on is a giant pillow of lies, flummery, and hypocrisy.  This case has shown quite clearly what a bunch of lying, duplicitous weasels they are.

Take your victories when and where you find them....  :  FWIW during the Clinton senate trial 5 and 10 republican senators crossed the aisle and voted not guilty preventing conviction of President Clinton on either article. I do not expect 2x that many crossing the aisle this time to vote against their own president.
----
Hypocrisy is the lingua franca of swamp dwellers.  8)
----
This still looks like an anti-Trump campaign rally, paid for by the tax payers. Time will tell if voters tolerate this as acceptable behavior, even for the swamp.

JR

PS: I remember when Alan Dershowitz, the noted civil libertarian and constitutional law scholar, was a darling of the left, now he is out of favor for his several public opinions that supported legality of President Trump's actions. Further Dershowitz is being smeared for his defense of scumbag Jeffery Epstein with sexual misbehavior accusations made against him personally. He wrote a book defending himself (“Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo.”).  Weaponized social media can be a dangerous thing.