Impeachment Hearings

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I didn't introduce the 'strawman', Phi.

Sure you did. Obama is to the right of me. Why argue he isn't "right wing' when I mention it? That's what you did with zapatos' observation about JCM, you introduced a militant 'wing' that didn't exist. 

[MigL]

Well, OK.

But I still made it pretty.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Sure you did. Obama is to the right of me. Why argue he isn't "right wing' when I mention it? That's what you did with zapatos' observation about JCM, you introduced a militant 'wing' that didn't exist. 

He wasn't really sure. So he winged it...

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Well, OK.

But I still made it pretty.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

He wasn't really sure. So he winged it...

You guys should buy zapatos a drink if you want him to be your wingman. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Based on what?

 

 

"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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

My argument is based on my belief that the Dems hoped to include "Bribery", but given the preponderance of evidence, even though they may truly believe it was bribery, realize it can be interpreted otherwise...thus "not clear" in the context of what I posted.

I never claimed it was "guesswork" though they clearly think they know what Trump had as his intentions...intentions I have always thought quite plausible, but I can recognize other plausibilities as well. 

Agree it may be smart to have left bribery out...given the fact that they were unable to get harder evidence than what they'd hoped for.

I don't believe I will change your mind, or that you'll change mine...but I'm open to it if I hear something more convincing than a partisan report claiming bribery took place...while leaving it out of articles of impeachment, and especially after they had settled on that as the best line of attack.

Again from a "left" source:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/stephen-lynch-bribery-quid-pro-quo-cnntv/index.html

 

 

35 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You guys should buy zapatos a drink if you want him to be your wingman. 

I've been looking for a Selke level right winger to shadow him for when he's lined up against me!

(sorry...hockey reference...I think MigL advised me not to use them...)

Edited December 16, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't believe I will change your mind, or that you'll change mine...but I'm open to it if I hear something more convincing than a partisan report claiming bribery took place...

The report is based on the testimony, which was not partisan.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

The report is based on the testimony, which was not partisan.

Are you claiming the report has no Democrat bias?

The interpretation of the testimony falls fairly clearly along partisan lines...and I doubt any Republicans took part in making up the report.

But I stand to be corrected...

Edited December 16, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Raider5678]

On 12/14/2019 at 1:56 PM, swansont said:

Why is this relevant? It doesn’t need to be a crime.

I would like it if the impeachment of my president had to be over a crime.

 

On 12/14/2019 at 1:56 PM, swansont said:

Does that standard apply to investigating Trump? Because the administration is sure complaining a lot about that investigation.

It applies to everyone. Your point is.....?

 

[iNow]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

I would like it if the impeachment of my president had to be over a crime.

 

Take it up with the founders. The constitution was written before any federal penal codes even existed, so it kinda had to be available for noncrimes.

Even if codes like this did exist back then, we’d still be left with the confusion over who gets to decide whether or not something is a crime since the president heads the entire Department of Justice (which is responsible for such things). 

[Raider5678]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Take it up with the founders. The constitution was written before any federal penal codes even existed, so it kinda had to be available for noncrimes.

"Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Your argument seriously consists of the idea that the founding fathers didn't think Bribery was a crime. Nor treason. Nor high crimes and misdemeanors. I mean, they must have only meant non crimes, because crimes didn't exist back then. Obviously..... 

 

 

The mental gymnastics required to understand that argument are so bad I'm going to metaphorically break my neck if I try and understand it.

I decided not to pursue law because of the ridiculous interpretations of law that lawyers made just to fit their side of the argument. 

The intentions are clear. You will never convince me the founding fathers didn't mean for impeachment to be used with crimes on the basis of the idea that crimes didn't exist when they wrote it.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Raider5678

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Your argument seriously consists of the idea that the founding fathers didn't think Bribery was a crime.

It was a word. With a definition. But it wasn’t yet a federally defined crime. Seriously. 

The First Congress passed the first federal law against bribery in 1789, which (as I have no doubt you’re aware) was a year after the constitution was ratified in 1788. 

FYI - You’re personal incredulity and scoffing tone doesn’t magically make me incorrect. 

Shall I begin citing the relevant Federalist Papers to help you better understand what our framers meant by their words in Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7?

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

You will never convince me the founding fathers didn't mean for impeachment to be used with crimes on the basis of the idea that crimes didn't exist when they wrote it.

Federal crimes. Please, try to keep up. 

Also, you seem to have ignored the 2nd part of my post where I reminded you that the president himself is the senior-most law enforcement official in our country. Who enforces/defines crimes committed by POTUS?

Trump has committed crimes. Obstruction of Justice based on the Mueller report alone. Impeachment is political, though. Wishing it were otherwise doesn’t make it so. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by iNow

[MigL]

But isn't this the point of the whole discussion so far ?
The whole case is open to interpretation.

The Democrats in Congress will interpret it one way, and vote to impeach.
The Senate will interpret it differently, and the impeachment will fail.

I suppose the ultimate interpretation is by you, American voters, next November.
Will this process have swayed enough voters to turn some Republicans off D Trump ?
Or will the process have alienated some Democrats or other non-Trump supporters ?
Will the average voter even remember this after all the other sh*t the election campaign will likely stir up ?

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

The Senate will interpret it differently, and the impeachment will fail.

 

I'm not sure it's a matter of "interpretation" in the Senate. McConnell has already decided Trump would not be removed from office and is coordination with the defendant on how to proceed. From the perspective of most of the Senate Republicans the facts of the case seem to be irrelevant. They have no intention of kicking out Trump regardless of how the so called trial goes. If they even have a trial.

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

I suppose the ultimate interpretation is by you, American voters, next November.

Not really. The only voters who matter are about 70,000 folks in a tiny handful of electoral college states. 

Trump lost by ~3M votes last time. 

He could lose by about 5M votes this next time and still win.

 

...especially in GOP led Wisconsin who just purged about 200,000 voters from the rolls... again.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/judge-orders-purge-of-200-000-voters-in-wisconsin.html

Edited December 17, 2019 by iNow

[MigL]

Oh yeah.
I forgot about your messed up electoral system.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

"Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Your argument seriously consists of the idea that the founding fathers didn't think Bribery was a crime. Nor treason. Nor high crimes and misdemeanors.

Not sure how you conclude that.

Especially since the phrase is "other high crimes and misdemeanors" meaning that bribery is one of them

 

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I mean, they must have only meant non crimes, because crimes didn't exist back then. Obviously..... 

There are specific crimes that only the president could possibly commit, because there are things that only the president can do. There is also the oath of office. AFAIK "Not defending the constitution" isn't a crime, but it is a violation of the oath.

But how many federal crimes were on the books before the constitution was written, i.e. the document that empowers the government to write laws?

 

 

 

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are you claiming the report has no Democrat bias?

I'm saying that the testimony it's based on doesn't.

 

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The interpretation of the testimony falls fairly clearly along partisan lines...and I doubt any Republicans took part in making up the report.

But I stand to be corrected...

I'm not sure how much "interpretation" there is in Sondland being asked if there was a quid pro quo, and him answering "yes"

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

 

 

I'm not sure how much "interpretation" there is in Sondland being asked if there was a quid pro quo, and him answering "yes"

 

The only time he discussed it with Trump, and he claimed Trump answered "no".

I expect there are at least two "interpretations" of each of Sondland's statements, one Democrat, and I will leave it to see if you can guess the other.

Edited December 17, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I expect there are at least two "interpretations" of each of Sondland's statements, one Democrat, and I will leave it to see if you can guess the other.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias

[rangerx]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

But isn't this the point of the whole discussion so far ?
The whole case is open to interpretation.

The Democrats in Congress will interpret it one way, and vote to impeach.
The Senate will interpret it differently, and the impeachment will fail.

I suppose the ultimate interpretation is by you, American voters, next November.
Will this process have swayed enough voters to turn some Republicans off D Trump ?
Or will the process have alienated some Democrats or other non-Trump supporters ?
Will the average voter even remember this after all the other sh*t the election campaign will likely stir up ?

Thanks for pointing out I was in the wrong thread. I quoted zap, but will quote you here instead.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/read-trump-impeachment-letter-to-house-democrats/index.html

This reads like an ultimatum to Republicans to toe the line.

The failure to disassociate one's self from the reality of the impeachment trial is a vote for Democrats, by this standard.

That's what killed Nixon. Republicans came to their senses. They have no such fortitude these days, or at least not yet.

[YJ02]

On 12/14/2019 at 9:33 PM, zapatos said:

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

how far to the right someone is depends on how far to the left you and your perceptions are. all relative to the location of the observer.

 

---ok, bring on the hate

Rudy Giuliani

the way he was basically 'fluffer in chief' for both candidate and pres-elct Trump, one would have thought that he was to have a official position in the government

some people, back then, did wonder why he didn't

now, with his continuing travels, it seems apparent he was always meant to be the hatchet man and dirt digger in charge.

If he had been appointed to a cabinet post or some other official govt position where he were subject to stricter rules, he would be far less effective (i did not say successful) then he has been

and, now he seems pretty confident-with all of his chatter and appearances, that he has something important in his possession

is this a head fake or something real? Is it just more trolling of the democrats?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, YJ02 said:

---ok, bring on the hate

Give it a break, will you?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, YJ02 said:

is this a head fake or something real?

The technical term is ‘gaslighting’

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, YJ02 said:

how far to the right someone is depends on how far to the left you and your perceptions are. all relative to the location of the observer.

Fortunately, this isn't true at all. Where you (as an individual) are on the political spectrum has NOTHING to do with where any other individual is on it. You're being compared to a group of people, not other individuals. But yours is a very common misconception.

After all, if what you said was true, and I was on the extreme left, I could claim Bernie Sanders was on the right. Just because he'd be to the right of me doesn't make him "on the right".

[iNow]

The vote is happening right now. They’re voting independently on each article. Vote 1 will take 15 minutes. Vote 2 will have 5 minutes. 

Edit:

On article 1, 3 members chose not to vote, and 1 voted present. 195 repubs and 2 dems voted against. 229 dems and 1 independent voted for. (2 repubs voted for but switched their vote before time had elapsed). 

Edited December 19, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

43 minutes ago, iNow said:

The vote is happening right now. They’re voting independently on each article. Vote 1 will take 15 minutes. Vote 2 will have 5 minutes. 

Edit:

On article 1, 3 members chose not to vote, and 1 voted present. 195 repubs and 2 dems voted against. 229 dems and 1 independent voted for. (2 repubs voted for but switched their vote before time had elapsed). 

I saw that up on the screen (actually 1, I never saw 2), then it disappeared. I assumed it was just an error that was corrected.

How does that work? What would be the motive for the Republican to vote no then change? Surely not a change of heart after voting...

Beat down after voting yea?

Didn't understand the question, LOL?