Impeachment Hearings

[iNow]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It would invalidate Trump's election to POTUS.

No. It wouldn't. He was elected. He took an oath. He broke the oath. He will have removed himself.  It’s not overturning an election. 

I don’t care. Semantics are a useless time waster and we seem to be doing a lot of that these days. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

No. It wouldn't. He was elected. He took an oath. He broke the oath. He will have removed himself.  It’s not overturning an election. 

Opinion. I don't doubt you believe it. But it is hardly proven.

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

No. It wouldn't. He was elected. He took an oath. He broke the oath. He will have removed himself.  It’s not overturning an election. 

And beside that, it was never about turning over an election in the first place. It's just a talking point that's being used, repeatedly.

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Opinion. I don't doubt you believe it. But it is hardly proven.

Part of his oath is to uphold the constitution. The constitution empowers congress to control how US tax dollars get spent and to investigate presidents.

He ignored their mandate to spend appropriated dollars until a whistleblower called him out (until he got caught). 

He also ignored their subpoenas, directed every member of the executive branch to ignore their subpoenas, and even claimed congress lacks the authority to impeach him despite it being directly in the constitution which in his oath he promised to follow and protect. 

Its been proven in at least these two fronts. 

https://apnews.com/22b5861e55084f39b7c7cf92cbbf3333

[J.C.MacSwell]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Part of his oath is to uphold the constitution. The constitution empowers congress to control how US tax dollars get spent and to investigate presidents.

He ignored their mandate to spend appropriated dollars until a whistleblower called him out (until he got caught). 

He also ignored their subpoenas, directed every member of the executive branch to ignore their subpoenas, and even claimed congress lacks the authority to impeach him despite it being directly in the constitution which in his oath he promised to follow and protect. 

Its been proven in at least these two fronts. 

https://apnews.com/22b5861e55084f39b7c7cf92cbbf3333

My understanding is that if subpoenas can be contested, and it requires the courts to decide for them to be enforced. This of course takes time, and the Democrats were unwilling to wait. Presumably that's on them.

[iNow]

They have multiple subpoenas in the courts. They are waiting. The decisions have been made. Then appealed. Even if they win, those subpoenaed can claim privilege and that starts the court cycle all over again. 

See also: Trumps tax returns which after 3 years of trying are still tied up in the courts. 

He’s being charged with obstructing congress. That’s exactly what this is. He’s not even bothered to claim executive privilege. He’s simply dismissed the power of congress completely despite them being a co-equal branch.

You're always so focused on what Democrats are doing wrong. Any thoughts on the jury confirming yesterday that they’re coordinating all actions and completely in cahoots with the defendant?
 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/mcconnell-vows-total-coordination-with-white-house-during-senate-impeachment-trial/

Quote

McConnell Vows ‘Total Coordination’ with White House during Senate Impeachment Trial

Maybe McConnell is too busy ignoring those 400 bills House Democrats have passed (btw, I checked... over 270 of them are bipartisan... and even if they’re not, GOP still has the Senate majority and could vote them down). 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

They have multiple subpoenas in the courts. They are waiting. The decisions have been made. Then appealed. Even if they win, those subpoenaed can claim privilege and that starts the court cycle all over again. 

See also: Trumps tax returns which after 3 years of trying are still tied up in the courts. 

He’s being charged with obstructing congress. That’s exactly what this is. He’s not even bothered to claim executive privilege. He’s simply dismissed the power of congress completely despite them being a co-equal branch.

You're always so focused on what Democrats are doing wrong. Any thoughts on the jury confirming yesterday that they’re coordinating all actions and completely in cahoots with the defendant?
 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/mcconnell-vows-total-coordination-with-white-house-during-senate-impeachment-trial/

Maybe McConnell is too busy ignoring those 400 bills House Democrats have passed (btw, I checked... over 270 of them are bipartisan... and even if they’re not, GOP still has the Senate majority and could vote them down). 

Not defending it whatsoever...except tactically...given that they were bound to be doing this it's smart to put it right out front.

Compare with Schiff claiming he doesn't know the name of the whistleblower...and then it turns out his office was coordinating directly with them (him?).

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not defending it whatsoever...except tactically...given that they were bound to be doing this it's smart to put it right out front.

You don’t want to argue that this will hurt them with their voters or hand the election over to Andy Yang?

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Compare with Schiff claiming he doesn't know the name of the whistleblower...and then it turns out his office was coordinating directly with them (him?).

He wasn’t coordinating and we have no way to know if he’s lying or telling the truth. His office has stated repeatedly that they’ve only worked via the whistleblowers lawyer, not directly with the whistleblower.

I have no reason to disbelieve that, especially given how the people claiming otherwise are lying about so many other things.

 

 

Similarly, the whistleblower is moot at this point. Each and every single one of his/her claims has been corroborated and confirmed by at least 12 people who were 1st hand witnesses to the call. It’s as if the police caught a bank robber with bags of cash and gun in hand, but the jury refused to convict because they didn’t get to talk to the guy who dialed 911 from the bank. So dumb. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, iNow said:

You don’t want to argue that this will hurt them with their voters or hand the election over to Andy Yang?

No.

I hope it's Yang, and I hope he wins, but I think the impeachment may make it harder for the Democrat nominee to win regardless of who it is.

 I think Yang has a fair amount of support across the political spectrum, so that should help.

[iNow]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

No.

I see. So, apparently everything the democrats do hands the election to Trump... they’re always the keystone cops bumbling and kicking own goals... but nothing the Republicans do hand the election to Tulsi Gabbard or Cory Booker. Double standards a ridiculous. 

Now, back to the topic of impeachment. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

I see. So, apparently everything the democrats do hands the election to Trump... they’re always the keystone cops bumbling and kicking own goals... but nothing the Republicans do hand the election to Tulsi Gabbard or Cory Booker. Double standards a ridiculous. 

Now, back to the topic of impeachment. 

No INow. Your question was about McConnell declaring coordination with the WH, not "everything the Democrats do". 

I stated a while back the Dems should have gone for censure...which would take pressure off some of the more vulnerable Dems and put pressure on many Republicans...ones that find it much more easy to vote against impeachment. Had they done that I think it would have been a smart move...but they wanted more...

I could point out more things I believe the Republicans are doing wrong on this Forum, but they are generally already overstated here (my opinion of course, but when's the last time you took exception to anything stated to the extreme about Trump or the Republicans?). I tend to hold middle positions on most things compared to many here who tend to hold to the left, especially in their talking points.

56 minutes ago, iNow said:

Similarly, the whistleblower is moot at this point. Each and every single one of his/her claims has been corroborated and confirmed by at least 12 people who were 1st hand witnesses to the call. It’s as if the police caught a bank robber with bags of cash and gun in hand, but the jury refused to convict because they didn’t get to talk to the guy who dialed 911 from the bank. So dumb. 

If only that was true...if it was that clear...it might not feel as necessary to overstate the case?

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[zapatos]

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I tend to hold middle positions on most things compared to many here who tend to hold to the left, especially in their talking points.

I don't think anyone here is further to the Right than you are.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't think anyone here is further to the Right than you are.

Overton window likely matters. He’s not extreme if we expand the population beyond just our community. He leans rightish, but tries for moderation. 

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

when's the last time you took exception to anything stated to the extreme about Trump or the Republicans

I’m sure this won’t meet some arbitrary threshold you’ve chosen to set, but just a few days ago this week. Right here in this thread. There are others too, but this is the first that came immediately to mind. 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by iNow

[YJ02]

21 hours ago, iNow said:

What’s the definition of weapons of ANY type? Just curious...

Since we are talking about a war, I assume you want the definition of weapons of war?

 

Quote

noun

any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/weapon

Quote

Weapon, an instrument used in combat for the purpose of killing, injuring, or defeating an enemy. A weapon may be a shock weapon, held in the hands, such as the club, mace, or sword. It may also be a missile weapon, operated by muscle power (as with the javelin, sling, and bow and arrow), mechanical power (as with the crossbow and catapult), or chemical power (as with the rocket and missile and such guns as the cannon, rifle, and pistol). Weapons may also be classified as conventional, destroying by kinetic energy (as with the bullet) or by chemical energy (as with the bomb and grenade). The nonconventional category comprises nuclear weapons, such as the atomic bomb and thermonuclear bomb, as well as weapons of chemical warfare and biological warfare. All the aforementioned are offensive weapons, but such defensive measures as fortification, armour, and the helmet have also been considered weapons.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/weapon

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No.

I hope it's Yang, and I hope he wins, but I think the impeachment may make it harder for the Democrat nominee to win regardless of who it is.

 I think Yang has a fair amount of support across the political spectrum, so that should help.

As for how the Dem's could stll elect one of their own as President

well, since 'don't do an impeachment and alienate so much of the American political middle, is out.... then

Nominate one the moderates

Yang or Gabbard would be my choice. In fact ,I am hoping against hope that Gabbard does get the nomination. Her positions on stopping our role as 'world cop' is very important to me among others.

I think that if they were to do this, and NOT nominate someone from the left side of their lineup- like Sanders or Warren, and not nominate Biden, who would be an albatross to them. If he won, well... put it this way. Is it entirely inconceivable that somewhere in D.C right now, there is some uber conservative "think-tank" somewhere near C street, that is crafting articles of impeachment against Biden? With blanks in key spots for "insert applicable impeachable act here" in the text?

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I don't think anyone here is further to the Right than you are.

That may be true.

[MigL]

Really Zap ?

I don't think JC is at all what one would normally consider 'Right wing'.
I'd be willing to bet JC doesn't own any guns, and has voted for more social services than you can ever imagine having.

Having an opinion about what is just, and what is wrong, doesn't make you 'right wing' or 'left wing'.
( maybe it makes you opinionated, but I've been accused of that too )

[swansont]

On 12/14/2019 at 2:46 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

 If it was clear that Trump had committed legal bribery, it absolutely would have been included.

Welp, so much for that

"President Donald Trump committed criminal bribery and wire fraud, the House Judiciary Committee alleges in a report that will accompany articles of impeachment this week."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/16/judiciary-committee-impeachment-report-trump-committed-multiple-federal-crimes-086096

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Welp, so much for that

"President Donald Trump committed criminal bribery and wire fraud, the House Judiciary Committee alleges in a report that will accompany articles of impeachment this week."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/16/judiciary-committee-impeachment-report-trump-committed-multiple-federal-crimes-086096

 

Welp...the report alleges...

You can of course interpret that as "clear"...others might interpret it as "the House Judiciary Committee would like to think...but not confidently enough to include it in the articles of impeachment"

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Welp...the report alleges...

You can of course interpret that as "clear"...others might interpret it as "the House Judiciary Committee would like to think...but not confidently enough to include it in the articles of impeachment"

It "alleges" because it has not been proven in a trial. That's the phrasing you use.

I mean, if that's your point, then this whole line of argument lacks intellectual honesty. Trump can't be said to be guilty because he hasn't been convicted of anything. But your claim was quite clear that this was about what he would be charged with in impeachment, and now you move the goalposts.

 

[Phi for All]

23 hours ago, MigL said:

Really Zap ?

I don't think JC is at all what one would normally consider 'Right wing'.

You put 'wings' on a strawman! Pretty!

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It "alleges" because it has not been proven in a trial. That's the phrasing you use.

I mean, if that's your point, then this whole line of argument lacks intellectual honesty. Trump can't be said to be guilty because he hasn't been convicted of anything. But your claim was quite clear that this was about what he would be charged with in impeachment, and now you move the goalposts.

 

 

i honestly don't think the House Judiciary Committee considers it clear.

You say "Welp, so much for that" like you found proof. I allowed that your interpretation was possible. I just don't agree with it. I think they are concerned it might muddy the waters...as they don't actually believe it's cut and dried.

Do I have proof of that?No. Do you have proof that it's otherwise? No. You provided evidence that fits either way.

I'm not going to suggest you are intellectually dishonest. I just disagree with you.

 

 

 

Here's an interpretation of why Bribery is not included from the "Left"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/12/why-articles-impeachment-dont-include-bribery-charge/

"The likely strategy is to avoid lawyerly squabbles over whether the precise elements of the federal bribery statute have been satisfied.:"

Which supports my argument.

 

I don't think we need to look at an interpretation from the "Right"...

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

You put 'wings' on a strawman! Pretty!

I didn't introduce the 'strawman', Phi.
I just made it pretty.

[dimreepr]

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

I didn't introduce the 'strawman', Phi.
I just made it pretty.

so a vajazzle.

Edited December 16, 2019 by dimreepr

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

i honestly don't think the House Judiciary Committee considers it clear.

Based on what?

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You say "Welp, so much for that" like you found proof. I allowed that your interpretation was possible. I just don't agree with it. I think they are concerned it might muddy the waters...as they don't actually believe it's cut and dried.

 

"The report, a 169-page assessment of the case for Trump’s removal from office, contends that Trump committed “multiple federal crimes” — ones that Democrats addressed under the broad umbrella of “abuse of power,” the first article of impeachment against the president."

This is not guesswork — they are quoting from the report. 

And it makes sense to me to do it this way. You can pick and choose which abuse of power you want from a list. All he has to be guilty of is abuse of power, and you vote for removal (assuming you haven't made up your mind already, as some senators seem to be saying). Whereas if you list specific specific charges, you could get less than 67 votes for each, even if more than 67 agree that Trump abused his power.

 

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do I have proof of that?No. Do you have proof that it's otherwise? No. You provided evidence that fits either way.

I'm not going to suggest you are intellectually dishonest. I just disagree with you.

 

I didn't say you were intellectually dishonest. I'm saying your argument is, if it hinges on the fact that it's an allegation, which, of course, it must be (by definition) at this point, as if that means something about whether or not they are convinced. They make the allegation.

 

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Here's an interpretation of why Bribery is not included from the "Left"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/12/why-articles-impeachment-dont-include-bribery-charge/

"The likely strategy is to avoid lawyerly squabbles over whether the precise elements of the federal bribery statute have been satisfied.:"

Which supports my argument.

I don't see it that way, as I explain above. The house democrats may be very convinced, but they aren't the jury, the senate is, and IMO it's smart to not give wiggle room to a jury that's may be looking for any excuse to acquit.

[zapatos]

On 12/15/2019 at 8:42 AM, MigL said:

Really Zap ?

I don't think JC is at all what one would normally consider 'Right wing'.
I'd be willing to bet JC doesn't own any guns, and has voted for more social services than you can ever imagine having.

Having an opinion about what is just, and what is wrong, doesn't make you 'right wing' or 'left wing'.
( maybe it makes you opinionated, but I've been accused of that too )

I did not call him "Right wing". Even in a room full of Socialists, someone will be more to the right than the others..

Edited December 16, 2019 by zapatos