Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-05-2019, 02:17 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 161
1. Impeachment: I-day cometh. House approves articles of impeachment for both POTUS and VP.

2. Trial by Senate: T-day cometh. Enough damning evidence persuades even GOPs to vote GUILTY.

3. Removal by... who??? Who empties the Oval Office when Tramp refuses to leave? Who has a leash?

I fear the articles or trial may not occur, not if the lawless thug wields The Power first. I've always feared the Tramp impeachment process because it leaves him too much time to work too much evil. He will NOT go quietly - hold no fantasies there. He WILL do whatever he thinks will keep him from dying in prison. A lugury exile? Not likely. A hot war? Don't doubt it.

Yes, I'm paranoid. But am I paranoid enough?
  #52  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:25 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
I am starting to see Pence implicated in the Ukraine impeachment scandal. If Trump and Pence get impeached simultaneously, Speaker Pelosi is 3rd in line to become president.

How should she handle the office? I can see spiking-the-football Nancy: "McConnell stole a SCOTUS nomination, and now we are stealing the White House!" It would be provocative to call it "stealing" since the whole process is entirely legal and avoidable if the current occupants don't commit high crimes and misdemeanors, and also because incredulous Magas would not be able to do anything whatsoever about it.

I can see Ford Nancy: "I humbly accept that I was not elected to this office, and therefore am not planning any major policy initiatives." But, yeah right.

I can see I'm Still the Same Old Nancy: Talks the same. Acts the same. Dresses the same. Just like she is as Speaker. But, if she leads an impeachment investigation that results in yoinking the White House away from the pubbies and installing herself there, it will go down as one of the most famous political moves of all time. She's not an egomaniac I don't think, but it is hard to imagine acting as if nothing big just happened.

I can devise wrong hypotheticals, but right this moment anyway I am not imagining how that actually could/should play out. Maybe some dopers want to take a crack at it.
She should put herself out to pasture, she's served the donor class very well.
  #53  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:29 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
She should put herself out to pasture, she's served the donor class very well.
There’s a thread in Cafe Society on the death of rock drummer Ginger Baker. I think he might have been part of the donor class. Why don’t you go post in that thread?
  #54  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:35 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
There’s a thread in Cafe Society on the death of rock drummer Ginger Baker. I think he might have been part of the donor class. Why don’t you go post in that thread?
Because my creator did not place me here to serve you? Find yourself a safe space.
  #55  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:46 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,712
This has nothing to do with “safe spaces,” and everything to do with paying attention to the purpose of a thread. It’s right there in the title of any thread — explained further in something we call the “OP,” for “opening post.” We also use OP to refer to the person who started that particular thread.

It’s just a good thing to keep in mind, to make this message board work better for everyone involved. I’ve made the mistake of hijacking threads before. It happens.

Last edited by JKellyMap; 10-06-2019 at 03:47 PM.
  #56  
Old 10-06-2019, 09:57 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
You cannot persuade Republican senators to remove Trump and Pence from office unless there's already a satisfactory Republican VP waiting in the wings. If the outcome will be President Pelosi, then the Senate simply will not get to the 2/3 required.
  #57  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:57 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
You cannot persuade Republican senators to remove Trump and Pence from office unless there's already a satisfactory Republican VP waiting in the wings. If the outcome will be President Pelosi, then the Senate simply will not get to the 2/3 required.
True. But "satisfactory" means satisfactory to both parties - a Republican, yes, but a responsible adult, and probably just a caretaker rather than a candidate to avoid the appearance of anointment. The 2020 election dynamics cannot be ignored, and the transition process would have to be choreographed like Agnew-Ford was.

The problem then is, with both Trump and Pence out of the picture, who would the candidates be? Who would be sure not to be one and would still look like a responsible adult, as well as having the stamina and alertness to do the job even on a caretaker basis?
  #58  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:22 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
True. But "satisfactory" means satisfactory to both parties - a Republican, yes, but a responsible adult, and probably just a caretaker rather than a candidate to avoid the appearance of anointment. The 2020 election dynamics cannot be ignored, and the transition process would have to be choreographed like Agnew-Ford was.

The problem then is, with both Trump and Pence out of the picture, who would the candidates be? Who would be sure not to be one and would still look like a responsible adult, as well as having the stamina and alertness to do the job even on a caretaker basis?
Someone like Robert Gates would probably suffice.
  #59  
Old 10-07-2019, 01:49 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,573
I have seen it said on this board that impeaching Trump would deprive the Dems of their biggest advantage, namely, running against Trump.

If we accept that, and if all the noises translate into solid articles of impeachment against both Trump and Pence, then a double impeachment (if that is even an option) is the answer. Expose all their crimes, and expose the GOP as pro-crime if they don't convict. If they aren't pro-crime, the only outcome is President Pelosi.

Of course, we'd have to explain to all our children that justice is merely a word, the law only applies to little people and plan your lives accordingly (I know I am preparing to do that). But this way, the Dems do their Constitutional duty and keep the political benefits of the GOP lurching into election season with that orange turd tied around their necks.
  #60  
Old 10-07-2019, 02:23 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Why would a Republican-controlled Senate vote to remove the last Republican standing between Pelosi and the presidency while she's stonewalling a VP pick?
I'm not sure if this means you agree with me, or that you didn't read the post you were responding to.
  #61  
Old 10-07-2019, 02:26 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
expose the GOP as pro-crime if they don't convict. If they aren't pro-crime, the only outcome is President Pelosi.
It would be far greater political suicide for Republican senators, when faced with their red Republican voters, to depose Trump and Pence in a way that leads to President Pelosi, than it would be for them to be perceived as "pro-crime."

Especially since there is a perfectly fair alternative to "Removing Trump and Pence so Pelosi can be POTUS." That solution is, "Removing Trump and Pence so that a Gerald Ford stand-in like Robert Gates can serve as temporary POTUS." Why exactly would Nancy Pelosi have to be president in order for Republican senators to have been seen as "not being pro-crime?"

Last edited by Velocity; 10-07-2019 at 02:27 PM.
  #62  
Old 10-07-2019, 02:30 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Well.....OK.

Say that Trump is removed from office. Then Pence is president, no matter what Pelosi might say. There might be no VP, though, due to Pelosi's stonewalling. Then the Secret Service had better do a good job of protecting President Pence through January 2021.

Or let's say it's Pence who is impeached and removed, but Trump is not (I can't fathom how that would work, but let's roll with it.) So then it is Trump as a veep-less president? Same scenario as above.
Yes but WHAT IF?:

Pence resigns to avoid impeachment, Trump appoints new VP, congress (the house)* refuses to approve and then Trump is impeached (say a different reason then Pence) and removed from office. That's a pretty ham-fisted way for Pelosi to become President. I don't think Americans are very good at political rioting....but this scenario might get people off their couch.

*Is it a seperate vote? Or House and Senate together?

Last edited by Dale Sams; 10-07-2019 at 02:30 PM.
  #63  
Old 10-07-2019, 02:34 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Pence resigns to avoid impeachment, Trump appoints new VP, congress (the house)* refuses to approve and then Trump is impeached (say a different reason then Pence) and removed from office. That's a pretty ham-fisted way for Pelosi to become President.
The underlined part is the problem here. In this scenario, there is a President Trump, there is no vice president, and the next in succession is Speaker Pelosi.

For Trump to be removed from office, you have to get at least 20 Republican senators to vote to depose him, and that will never happen if Pelosi is next in line. These GOP senators would know exactly what was at stake and what the Democrats were trying to do.

Of course, an assassination or death by natural causes would get Trump out and lead to President Pelosi, so we could expect the Secret Service to have a particularly hairy remaining few months of their job in this scenario until January 2021.

Last edited by Velocity; 10-07-2019 at 02:36 PM.
  #64  
Old 10-07-2019, 03:26 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,553
As long as we're going down this rabbit hole, what should we expect President Grassley to do when Pelosi is expelled from the House and Trump and Pence are both convicted?
  #65  
Old 10-07-2019, 03:42 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
*Is it a seperate vote? Or House and Senate together?
I believe it is a separate vote. At least
Quote:
The Senate approved the nomination of Nelson Rockefeller on December 10, 1974 by a vote of 90 to 7. The House of Representatives gave its approval on December 19, 287 to 128.
Cite. So a Democratic-controlled House could block a new VP.

I would speculate that such a House would simply not hold a vote, the way the Senate didn't vote on Garland. Better political cover that way. Reps in districts where voting against any Republican is a political liability can blame Pelosi for not voting, and their constituents are likely to blame her anyway. Reps in districts who want Pelosi as President won't care.

Of course the same could be true of a GOP-controlled Senate - we just do without a VP, a Cabinet, etc. It would be ugly for everybody.

Which is why it isn't a good idea.

At some point, if we are to have a functioning government, every one will have to compromise. One way or another, it will depend on the results of the 2020 elections. Maybe we will have a whole new House, or even a new Senate. "You started it!" doesn't work forever.

Regards,
Shodan
  #66  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:31 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I believe it is a separate vote. At least Cite. So a Democratic-controlled House could block a new VP.

I would speculate that such a House would simply not hold a vote, the way the Senate didn't vote on Garland. Better political cover that way. Reps in districts where voting against any Republican is a political liability can blame Pelosi for not voting, and their constituents are likely to blame her anyway. Reps in districts who want Pelosi as President won't care.

Of course the same could be true of a GOP-controlled Senate - we just do without a VP, a Cabinet, etc. It would be ugly for everybody.

Which is why it isn't a good idea.

At some point, if we are to have a functioning government, every one will have to compromise. One way or another, it will depend on the results of the 2020 elections. Maybe we will have a whole new House, or even a new Senate. "You started it!" doesn't work forever.

Regards,
Shodan
Christ....someone pass a law compelling them to at least vote.
  #67  
Old 10-07-2019, 11:43 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The underlined part is the problem here. In this scenario, there is a President Trump, there is no vice president, and the next in succession is Speaker Pelosi.

For Trump to be removed from office, you have to get at least 20 Republican senators to vote to depose him, and that will never happen if Pelosi is next in line. These GOP senators would know exactly what was at stake and what the Democrats were trying to do.
bolding mine

I don't think "what the Democrats are trying to do" comes into it. The Dems (mostly) entered into this reluctantly and did so because they felt there was no alternative. Because why? High crimes and misdemeanors, that's why. Bribery (or extortion if you prefer), pressuring foreign countries to fluff conspiracy theories about his political opponent, these are exactly the kinds of crimes the Founders had in mind when they wrote the impeachment rules. Now, the impeachment rules have never directly driven anyone from office, but while we have had some real ringers as POTUS, none of them were as incompetent or criminal as the current one. (AFAIK, let's keep it honest lol)

Turns out, Pence may have participated in some of the exact same crimes. So, Pence is like Cohen, the fall guy that gets impeached. Only, the law demands that they all get impeached.

The law doesn't stipulate giving consideration to which party is or isn't in power. The Founders didn't like parties at all, but were so concerned with preserving liberty that they didn't ban them. They would never have made everything else subservient to them though.

Will the Republicans really do that? Give a pass to such blatant, impeachable behavior because that is what's best for their party? I mean, Rick Gates?!? Is he the Speaker, or is Pelosi?

Maybe the pubbies all swore oaths to the Devil and that's why they act like such a fact-challenged cult. But we do know they all swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If they vote to acquit, they violate that oath. I think even the Devil would notice you doing that and would respect you less for it, even if it was to his benefit or even his idea.

We like to think some of our fellow citizens are pretty dumb; some of us demonize them. But I think they'll notice something like that, even if it is to their benefit.

The impeachments are legit. That makes Pelosi legit. Can no one on the dope grasp these legal basics?
  #68  
Old 10-07-2019, 11:48 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
bolding mine

I don't think "what the Democrats are trying to do" comes into it. The Dems (mostly) entered into this reluctantly and did so because they felt there was no alternative. Because why? High crimes and misdemeanors, that's why. Bribery (or extortion if you prefer), pressuring foreign countries to fluff conspiracy theories about his political opponent, these are exactly the kinds of crimes the Founders had in mind when they wrote the impeachment rules. Now, the impeachment rules have never directly driven anyone from office, but while we have had some real ringers as POTUS, none of them were as incompetent or criminal as the current one. (AFAIK, let's keep it honest lol)

Turns out, Pence may have participated in some of the exact same crimes. So, Pence is like Cohen, the fall guy that gets impeached. Only, the law demands that they all get impeached.

The law doesn't stipulate giving consideration to which party is or isn't in power. The Founders didn't like parties at all, but were so concerned with preserving liberty that they didn't ban them. They would never have made everything else subservient to them though.

Will the Republicans really do that? Give a pass to such blatant, impeachable behavior because that is what's best for their party? I mean, Rick Gates?!? Is he the Speaker, or is Pelosi?

Maybe the pubbies all swore oaths to the Devil and that's why they act like such a fact-challenged cult. But we do know they all swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If they vote to acquit, they violate that oath. I think even the Devil would notice you doing that and would respect you less for it, even if it was to his benefit or even his idea.

We like to think some of our fellow citizens are pretty dumb; some of us demonize them. But I think they'll notice something like that, even if it is to their benefit.

The impeachments are legit. That makes Pelosi legit. Can no one on the dope grasp these legal basics?

But Republican senators would reasonably ask why "doing the constitutional and honorable thing" requires having Pelosi, a (D), be president. They would ask why an untainted (R) like Robert Gates, Colin Powell, Jim Mattis or Jon Huntsman couldn't do as the new VP --> prez.
  #69  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:43 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
America-Hating FuckSticK.
Yeah. Thanks. How 'bout don't make us guess or ask next time, k? K.

You got some problem typing out what you meant? Please. Be nice.

Last edited by I Love Me, Vol. I; 10-08-2019 at 03:44 AM.
  #70  
Old 10-08-2019, 09:31 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But Republican senators would reasonably ask why "doing the constitutional and honorable thing" requires having Pelosi, a (D), be president. They would ask why an untainted (R) like Robert Gates, Colin Powell, Jim Mattis or Jon Huntsman couldn't do as the new VP --> prez.
Simple. #1 and #2 committed impeachable offenses and must be removed. That leaves #3 at bat. Why should the Dems allow the Rs to game the system? No, the obvious path is nobody games the system and Pelosi is installed. Because that is the plain reading of the law.
  #71  
Old 10-08-2019, 09:40 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Simple. #1 and #2 committed impeachable offenses and must be removed. ...
I'm confident that 2/3 of the Senate does not share your opinion on this matter.
  #72  
Old 10-08-2019, 09:51 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm confident that 2/3 of the Senate does not share your opinion on this matter.
I'm sure you are correct, and many senators do not think that they should remove a Republican president, just because he committed impeachable offenses.

This is because they are partisan assholes, who would shit on the constitution and install a dictator if this would give them more personal power and money.
  #73  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:26 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
No, the obvious path is nobody games the system and Pelosi is installed.
Again, good luck persuading 20 Republican senators to see it the same way.
  #74  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:46 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
I'm sure you are correct, and many senators do not think that they should remove a Republican president, just because he committed impeachable offenses.

This is because they are partisan assholes, who would shit on the constitution and install a dictator if this would give them more personal power and money.
An alternate theory is that many senators just don't think he has committed impeachable offenses, and the dems are the ones chasing after more personal power because they are partisan assholes.
  #75  
Old 10-08-2019, 11:04 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,573
The whistleblowers are from within the Trump administration, and their stories check out. Therefore this is not a partisan affair. Let's keep this honest, please.
  #76  
Old 10-08-2019, 11:28 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
The whistleblowers are from within the Trump administration, and their stories check out. Therefore this is not a partisan affair. Let's keep this honest, please.
"... the ICIG's preliminary reviewed identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate..."

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-08-2019 at 11:29 AM.
  #77  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:38 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
An alternate theory is that many senators just don't think he has committed impeachable offenses, and the dems are the ones chasing after more personal power because they are partisan assholes.
OR maybe we should look at the charges first because maybe they are not really crimes e.g.
Disparaging Congress
Dismissing a cabinet member that was not confirmed during the President's term
A president (as opposed to a judge) committing perjury to a grand jury.
  #78  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:59 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Again, good luck persuading 20 Republican senators to see it the same way.
Look, I've never claimed to know everything. Are you privy to the GOP legal defense against these accusations? Not only did the phone transcript come from the WH itself and confirm the accusations (in the context of evidence of a coordinated campaign to pressure Ukraine for election interference or no aid for you, a campaign that was conducted largely outside official channels, and some of the evidence concealed improperly in a codeword level server with what might as well have been a big waving flag that says "you can tell we're guilty because we're hiding stuff from our own administration"), plus the live freaking video of the POTUS publicly asking Ukraine and now China for dirt on Biden, and now just today Obstruction of Congress by blocking witness testimony. And more!

Until someone can explain to me how there isn't actually a case here, I can't countenance cries of "partisanship!!" as anything other than a distraction attempt away from the solid merits of this impeachment case.

The question is, how many senators are really going to vote to defend conspiring for foreign election interference? America is pretty much toast if we put party ahead of that. No?
  #79  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:55 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Look, I've never claimed to know everything. Are you privy to the GOP legal defense against these accusations? Not only did the phone transcript come from the WH itself and confirm the accusations (in the context of evidence of a coordinated campaign to pressure Ukraine for election interference or no aid for you, a campaign that was conducted largely outside official channels, and some of the evidence concealed improperly in a codeword level server with what might as well have been a big waving flag that says "you can tell we're guilty because we're hiding stuff from our own administration"), plus the live freaking video of the POTUS publicly asking Ukraine and now China for dirt on Biden, and now just today Obstruction of Congress by blocking witness testimony. And more!

Until someone can explain to me how there isn't actually a case here, I can't countenance cries of "partisanship!!" as anything other than a distraction attempt away from the solid merits of this impeachment case.

The question is, how many senators are really going to vote to defend conspiring for foreign election interference? America is pretty much toast if we put party ahead of that. No?

I don't dispute for one moment that Trump has done plenty of things that are impeach-able. (Not sure about Pence, but I'm sure people can cite stuff for that.) You could probably make a 10-page list of impeach-able offenses by Trump.

But as long as Pelosi is next in line, Republican senators would never impeach and depose Trump and Pence simultaneously. Half a century ago, maybe, but not today. We are in a hyper-polarized political society. For 20 Republican senators to vote Pelosi in as the 46th president would be political suicide; they'd be primaried out of office in their very next election in their red states. The only way they'd depose Trump+Pence is if doing so gets them Colin Powell, Nikki Haley or some Republican as the new president.

To say "It's the morally/constitutionally right thing to do" is one thing. To actually get people to do it, when doing so has immensely negative political consequences for their side (having a D-president instead of an R), is another thing entirely.

You're basically saying, "The Constitution requires Republicans to fall on their swords now" and then acting perplexed when Republicans do not, in fact, fall on their swords.

Last edited by Velocity; 10-08-2019 at 02:57 PM.
  #80  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:13 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Pence seems to have been careful to wrap himself in plausible deniability at all turns, though.
  #81  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:13 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,553
Some of the things Trump is accused of are not crimes although the House can decide to make them (questionable) impeachable offenses.
Some of the things Trump is accused of are not illegal but may be impeachable to the point of having a trial and letting the Senate decide.
Some of the things Trump is accused of may be actual crimes.


I still have yet to hear of what Pence has done that rises to the level of an impeachable offense.


ETA: Appropriately ninja'd by ElvisL1ves. Still waiting to hear about what Pence has done.

Last edited by Saint Cad; 10-08-2019 at 03:15 PM.
  #82  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:21 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"... the ICIG's preliminary reviewed identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate..."
What point do you believe you're making here?
  #83  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:26 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
What point do you believe you're making here?
It was a counter-point to "this is not a partisan affair".
  #84  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:02 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"... the ICIG's preliminary reviewed identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate..."
Those ellipses are doing so much work that either you or your source owes an abject apology. The full quote, with the parts you left out bolded, is as follows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intelligent Community's Inspector General
Further although the ICIG's preliminary reviewed identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate, such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible' particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review
I understand why you didn't link to the source, but I do wish you'd present arguments that aren't so thoroughly stripped of context.

Edit: note also, according to the article I linked:
Quote:
The "possible political bias" mentioned --and then dismissed -- in the Intelligence Community Inspector General report refers to the fact that the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Donald Trump's interactions with the Ukrainian President is a registered Democrat, a source familiar with the ongoing investigation told CNN Thursday.
So the only evidence anyone has offered that there's partisanship is that the whistleblower is a registered Democrat. Surely you can see what weak tea that is, and why the ICIG does not think it's particularly damning. Right? Right?

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 10-08-2019 at 04:04 PM.
  #85  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:21 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It was a counter-point to "this is not a partisan affair".
Actually it isn't. Trump corroborated what the whistleblower reported, and furthermore went on to repeat the behavior in full public view with respect to China. This is bipartisan agreement on the facts.
  #86  
Old 10-08-2019, 06:18 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Those ellipses are doing so much work that either you or your source owes an abject apology. The full quote, with the parts you left out bolded, is as follows:

I understand why you didn't link to the source, but I do wish you'd present arguments that aren't so thoroughly stripped of context. ...
I quoted the bits that directly responded to "Therefore this is not a partisan affair."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
... Edit: note also, according to the article I linked:

So the only evidence anyone has offered that there's partisanship is that the whistleblower is a registered Democrat. Surely you can see what weak tea that is, and why the ICIG does not think it's particularly damning. Right? Right?
Given CNN's track record with anonymous sources, I'm not yet convinced "a source familiar with the ongoing investigation" (as cited by CNN) is credible. They certainly aren't sufficient evidence for me to accept it as verified fact. The ICIG report mentioned possible political bias "in favor of a rival political candidate". That sounds to me like more than just being a registered dem.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-08-2019 at 06:19 PM.
  #87  
Old 10-08-2019, 06:34 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
So the only evidence anyone has offered that there's partisanship is that the whistleblower is a registered Democrat. Surely you can see what weak tea that is, and why the ICIG does not think it's particularly damning. Right? Right?
Good luck; Mormons don't drink tea.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #88  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:00 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... Given CNN's track record with anonymous sources, I'm not yet convinced "a source familiar with the ongoing investigation" (as cited by CNN) is credible. They certainly aren't sufficient evidence for me to accept it as verified fact. The ICIG report mentioned possible political bias "in favor of a rival political candidate". That sounds to me like more than just being a registered dem.
BTW, while we're on the topic of the political bias of the "whistleblower", it seems that CNN's anonymous source has once again failed it:

Quote:
Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election.

"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said.

"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.

"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate," said a third person with knowledge of what was said.

All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.
source

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-08-2019 at 07:02 PM.
  #89  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:05 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I quoted the bits that directly responded to "Therefore this is not a partisan affair."
It wouldn't matter if Joe Biden himself had blown the whistle. The evidence is what matters, and unless the evidence itself is from a partisan source, the it's not partisan.

As it happens, the direct source of the evidence is Donald Trump.

The claim that the ICIG finds it partisan is obviously disproven by the part of the quote that you elided.
  #90  
Old 10-08-2019, 09:42 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
As long as we're going down this rabbit hole, what should we expect President Grassley to do when Pelosi is expelled from the House and Trump and Pence are both convicted?
I like the way you think (assuming you're sincere but just wrong about the rabbit hole characterization). If Pelosi is also implicated in the Ukraine scandal, or any other impeachable offense, she should also get the boot and yes, #4 should step up to the plate. I'm Try2B Comprehensive and I approve this message.

Thing is, Pelosi is a congressional lifer and has too much of both class and knowledge of the law to cross that line, or even play footsie with it. If she's guilty, fine, the law applies. But AFAIK the only thing she's guilty of is being a "liberal" (whatever that actually means).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I still have yet to hear of what Pence has done that rises to the level of an impeachable offense.
See Pence: I Participated in the Ukraine Plot But Only As a Patsy
Quote:
Vice-President Mike Pence is knee-deep in the Ukraine scandal. He is floating the absurd defense that, while he did participate in Trump’s plan to extort Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden, he was completely ignorant of what he was doing.
Not that that utterly, finally settles it. The whole thread is contingent on what Articles can actually be drafted and what is the evidence supporting them, it is just awkward to keep repeating that. But it does look devastatingly bad for both #1 and #2 from my perspective. I bet they gotta go. Should Pelosi draw up a list of military adventures that can/should be discontinued? She'll be the commander in chief after all and will be able to do stuff like this even if the Senate denies her a cabinet (she can have acting staff members, or will the MAGAhats view that as horribly scandalous?) After all, if we are serious about cutting waste from the Defense budget, it makes sense to have concrete missions you are willing to cut. Shouldn't she restore food stamps and put the nation on firmer financial footing in anticipation of the next few administrations rolling out social programs?
  #91  
Old 10-08-2019, 09:51 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
It wouldn't matter if Joe Biden himself had blown the whistle. The evidence is what matters, and unless the evidence itself is from a partisan source, the it's not partisan.

As it happens, the direct source of the evidence is Donald Trump.

The claim that the ICIG finds it partisan is obviously disproven by the part of the quote that you elided.
I'm afraid you are not understanding the current Republican usage of the word "partisan".

"Partisan" does not mean "Prejudiced in favor of a particular cause."

"Partisan" in Republican talk means "Refuses to hide the truth if it makes stable genius Trump look bad". A "non-partisan" person here means "someone who will shut the hell up and look the other way."
  #92  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:53 AM
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
I delineated my fantasy “Pelosi’s Path to the Presidency” some time last year. Someone makes a statement impugning the A-HFS’s physical fitness. In an attempt to respond to this, he accepts a challenge to run up the staircase to the top of the Washington Monument. Sycophantic Pence insists on completing the challenge with him (but he has to stay behind the A-HFS for the whole thing, because do I even need to explain why?). Halfway up, the A-HFS has the heart attack he’s been courting for several years. It’s survivable, or would be, but for the fact that he tumbled down some 450 stair steps, breaking his neck. Incidentally, he lands on the Veep, on the way down, squishing him like a bug (an incident which is NOT survivable).

A hastily-sworn-in President Pelosi declares a week-long national period of foot-shuffling, awkward throat-clearing, and not-directly-meeting-anyone’s-gaz-ing.

No muss, no fuss.
Would that be the optimal time for "thoughts and prayers?"
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #93  
Old 10-09-2019, 06:20 PM
alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 14,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The only way that Pelosi becomes President is if one or probably both of them die. Which could of course happen, but it's unlikely.
I've often joked that the best way to ensure the Senate removes Trump from office would be for Pence to go around threating resignation to GOP Senators if they acquit Trump, thus leaving us one Trump heartbeat away from President Pelosi.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
  #94  
Old 10-09-2019, 06:26 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,211
Whoever the next president is, they are going to have one hell of a time restoring the image of the USA in the international community.
  #95  
Old 10-09-2019, 06:32 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Whoever the next president is, they are going to have one hell of a time restoring the image of the USA in the international community.
I don't think that would be hard at all. Bear in mind that Obama was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize just 12 days after he took office in 2009. (The Prize wasn't actually bestowed until months later, but he was already nominated mere days after becoming president.) It was argued that the reason he got the Prize was because the world wanted it to be a repudiation of the Bush presidency.

So I'd expect whoever succeeds Trump to be instantly accoladed by the world, especially if it's a (D) who is the polar opposite of Trump.
  #96  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:09 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I don't dispute for one moment that Trump has done plenty of things that are impeach-able. (Not sure about Pence, but I'm sure people can cite stuff for that.) You could probably make a 10-page list of impeach-able offenses by Trump.

But as long as Pelosi is next in line, Republican senators would never impeach and depose Trump and Pence simultaneously. Half a century ago, maybe, but not today. We are in a hyper-polarized political society. For 20 Republican senators to vote Pelosi in as the 46th president would be political suicide; they'd be primaried out of office in their very next election in their red states. The only way they'd depose Trump+Pence is if doing so gets them Colin Powell, Nikki Haley or some Republican as the new president.

To say "It's the morally/constitutionally right thing to do" is one thing. To actually get people to do it, when doing so has immensely negative political consequences for their side (having a D-president instead of an R), is another thing entirely.

You're basically saying, "The Constitution requires Republicans to fall on their swords now" and then acting perplexed when Republicans do not, in fact, fall on their swords.
Well I'm not blind to this line of reasoning. All I can say is that the one thing everyone in America seems to agree on is the GOPs lack of good faith and disregard for the law. You and many others have faith in it the way you are sure that 2 + 2 = 4. Meanwhile, conservatives are absolutely Counting on their representatives to do the wrong thing.

I suppose the political calculation is that putting party above the highest crimes which undermine the entire American project is less damaging than honestly following the evidence where it leads. Me, I see being so utterly contemptuous of the law as Senators is pretty damn close to falling on their swords, they just bleed out a little slower.

Anyway, we're not prophets. We can't say for sure that the GOP will burn "faithless criminals" onto their brand in front of the whole world for all eternity.
  #97  
Old 10-10-2019, 05:17 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I don't think that would be hard at all. Bear in mind that Obama was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize just 12 days after he took office in 2009. (The Prize wasn't actually bestowed until months later, but he was already nominated mere days after becoming president.) It was argued that the reason he got the Prize was because the world wanted it to be a repudiation of the Bush presidency.

So I'd expect whoever succeeds Trump to be instantly accoladed by the world, especially if it's a (D) who is the polar opposite of Trump.
I agree with that sentiment, but not the action taken. Bush was horrible and Obama was good, but Obama absolutely didn't earn the Nobel Peace Prize, nor should said prize be a middle-finger toward unsavory politicians.
  #98  
Old 10-10-2019, 05:42 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,466
It's hard enough for me to imagine the Republican Senate actually doing the right thing in any circumstance. If it means accepting President Pelosi, no freaking way. And really, they SHOULDN'T have to. Yes, Electoral College, Russian collusion and all, but they DID win the election. There's no reason the results of that election should be overturned except to the extent necessary to remove the current criminal buffoon from office. If, as is looking likely, Pence is found to have been a co-conspirator, some mechanism should be worked out to get someone like Romney or Condoleeza into the Oval Office Ideally that person should not be a candidate for re-election in 2020, and should concentrate on re-establishing normal government functions, not trying to implement a new policy agenda.
  #99  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:58 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,573
I'm not on board with all those 'shoulds' at all. I can't see why the Dems would consider such a concession- #1 and #2 are implicated in the same impeachable offenses at the same time. They both go. The people didn't elect Condoleeza Rice or Mitt Romney Speaker of the House. If you want to make the entire government look rigged, get rid of the POTUS and Veep and just install whoever the hell They The Corporations or whatever want!

It's a unique circumstance. We've never had impeachable co-conspirators before. But just like the EC decides who wins the election and them's the rules, the Speaker becomes POTUS when #1 and #2 are out.

Political impossibility? Um, they seemed happy enough to follow the EC rules and claim the White House for themselves. But they blew it when they turned criminal, and I'm sorry, they don't get some kind of mulligan after selling out the country to foreign countries. I mean, wtf? That's not overturning the last election, that's honoring it. Pelosi is speaker, is she not?
  #100  
Old 10-11-2019, 01:23 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
... I can't see why the Dems would consider such a concession- #1 and #2 are implicated in the same impeachable offenses at the same time. They both go. The people didn't elect Condoleeza Rice or Mitt Romney Speaker of the House. If you want to make the entire government look rigged, get rid of the POTUS and Veep and just install whoever the hell They The Corporations or whatever want! ...
You "can't see why the Dems would consider a concession"? Really? They'd consider it because they don't have the votes to impeach President Trump and Vice-President Pence. They DON'T. HAVE. THE. VOTES. That's reality.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017