Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-11-2019, 05:54 PM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
I agree, the articles are weak. The Dem's are scared of the Trump base and won't fight.
Scared of what? Losing their votes?
  #102  
Old 12-11-2019, 05:59 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
That may be a bit murky. Roberts will preside over the Senate trial, but where does it say he can compel the President to respond to anything?
I'm referring to the quote and cite from post #90:
"Chief Justice John Roberts could rule on the scope of executive privilege with respect to these high-ranking administration officials as well as any diplomats, national security staff or budget office staff barred up until now by the White House from providing evidence. Under the Senate rules, the chief justice’s decision would be final, subject only to a vote of the full Senate."
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...7ci-story.html

I don't know how authoritative the writer is, or whether what he says would apply the president himself.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #103  
Old 12-11-2019, 06:15 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,347
Quote:
,,,subject only to a vote of the full Senate."
A majority vote or does it have to meet the 2/3 standard?

Last edited by elucidator; 12-11-2019 at 06:16 PM.
  #104  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:04 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 8,940
Majority
  #105  
Old 12-11-2019, 09:22 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegee View Post
Majority
Precisely. Meaning the Chief Justice would only be in a position to agree with a Democratic attempt to compel Trump’s testimony if the Republicans were on board.

If we got to that point, Trump is looking at a conviction. I doubt we’d ever get to that point.
  #106  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:13 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
If the Executive branch isn't checked by the Legislative branch or the Judicial branch, then who, exactly is it that can check the Executive? Nobody? Sounds like an argument for unchecked king-like power for the President. We don't do that in this country.
That's my point- what if Trump just flat-out refuses via his absolute immunity doctrine? That's when that doctrine gets tested- does Congress send someone to haul him in, regardless? Do the Secret Service agents obey Congress or the President if they have to use force? What if that happens, and the Senate STILL refuses to convict?

This stuff scares me.
  #107  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:55 AM
cieskokid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 11

Remember this?Q


Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
I agree, the articles are weak. The Dem's are scared of the Trump base and won't fight. They think that we can come back from the Trump presidency and want to be seen as statesmen. As I said before, there is no coming back from the fact that Trump was elected president of the US. It was over right then and there. We are a broken country and it can not and will not go back to the way it was before Trump. That's why Biden will lose.

The Dem's should have went all out.
The Dems massively fumbled w/the Mueller Report, which I haven't see mentioned here. That had 10 DOCUMENTED instances of obstruction of justice by Drumpf.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ustice-summary
True, Mueller's legalese testimony and, IMHO, much too carefully guarded "conclusions" sort of doomed the effectiveness of the Report as a tool 2remove the Doofus-In-Chief but for whatever reason Pelosi and Schumer also didn't grab hold of it & use it as the means of impeaching the "President". I'll say it again - 10 DOCUMENTED instances of Trump's obstruction of justice & they didn't do a f*%$kng thing with 'em.

Last edited by cieskokid; 12-12-2019 at 12:56 AM.
  #108  
Old 12-12-2019, 09:34 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 6,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
Scared of what? Losing their votes?
Getting shot.
  #109  
Old 12-12-2019, 09:36 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Precisely. Meaning the Chief Justice would only be in a position to agree with a Democratic attempt to compel Trump’s testimony if the Republicans were on board.

If we got to that point, Trump is looking at a conviction. I doubt we’d ever get to that point.
Not all the Republicans -- just 4 of them. And not to vote to convict, just to vote to hear witnesses, up to and including Individual #1.

I don't think that's impossible.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #110  
Old 12-12-2019, 11:05 AM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
I have to agree with you on everything except the last bit; This is not going to end well for anybody in the entire country.

Cut to 2028: The President, who is a Democrat, sends a sack of taxpayer cash to Sri Lanka, in exchange for "documented evidence" that her chief Republican rival in the upcoming election is a satan-worshipper who murdered children. She then instructs the FBI to investigate, and come up with the exact conclusions she's written down. She forbids anyone to cooperate with any Republicans whatsoever. If Republicans complain - tough shit.
Whatever the next Democrat President does, Republicans will say it is wrong, even if it is in exact alignment with what this President is doing. Look no further than the rules the House used for impeachment hearings. The Republicans were calling them unfair and biased and these are the exact rules the Republicans came up with. Look at the duplicity of the statements made by Lindsey Graham about the purpose of the process. It will not matter one bit what this President or any other Republican did when it comes to judging future behavior of Presidents. It will only matter if that President has the right designation after their name (R or D).
  #111  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:13 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Could Roberts actually compel Trump to testify if the Dems call him? I'd skip work to watch that live.
Trump does not have to appear to defend himself, because there is little chance of an upside in doing so. It could go bad, it could have no effect, or it could even turn out well for him (which I think is extremely unlikely, hence my "little chance" comment above). But the risk of the former is too great, given that there is no way in hell enough Republicans are going to vote to throw him out. But even if he could be compelled to testify, he need only take the fifth. And that will be fine, because again, he's not going to be convicted. It might make him look bad in the election, assuming he takes the fifth or makes a complete ass of himself otherwise, I suppose, but then as I've said before, his base is solid and he won't be harmed by it enough to make a difference. That being said, I'd skip work for a month to watch that, and I get paid by the hour!

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 12-12-2019 at 12:16 PM.
  #112  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:26 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by cieskokid View Post
The Dems massively fumbled w/the Mueller Report, which I haven't see mentioned here. That had 10 DOCUMENTED instances of obstruction of justice by Drumpf.
I agree with this. And I think that one of the reasons brought out for not going after Trump for those things, namely that they were to hard to grasp, was ridiculous. For instance, what is hard to understand about the fact that it was wrong of Trump to try to get White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller, the very person who was leading the investigation of him?
  #113  
Old 12-12-2019, 06:09 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 86,358
Personally, I'd like to see them list all of his crimes, right down the the Misrepresentation of National Weather Service Data. Because impeachment is the only way to hold the President accountable for federal crimes.
  #114  
Old 12-12-2019, 07:58 PM
bengangmo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 9,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Trump does not have to appear to defend himself, because there is little chance of an upside in doing so. It could go bad, it could have no effect, or it could even turn out well for him (which I think is extremely unlikely, hence my "little chance" comment above). But the risk of the former is too great, given that there is no way in hell enough Republicans are going to vote to throw him out. But even if he could be compelled to testify, he need only take the fifth. And that will be fine, because again, he's not going to be convicted. It might make him look bad in the election, assuming he takes the fifth or makes a complete ass of himself otherwise, I suppose, but then as I've said before, his base is solid and he won't be harmed by it enough to make a difference. That being said, I'd skip work for a month to watch that, and I get paid by the hour!
Can he take the 5th?
this is not a criminal trial - is there the same protection against self incrimination as in a criminal trial?
And even if he can - how does it look to the country if he refuses to answer?
  #115  
Old 12-12-2019, 08:47 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengangmo View Post
Can he take the 5th?
this is not a criminal trial - is there the same protection against self incrimination as in a criminal trial?
And even if he can - how does it look to the country if he refuses to answer?
I think it looks the same way it does now: half the country is against impeachment and wants to be able to have the option of removing him in next year's election. It's been this way since the Mueller investigation.

Trump is openly defying the Constitution. I think he's vexed by the possibility of actually being stabbed in the back by a GOP senator, which is a huge source of anxiety. He deals with that stress by summoning his inner rage and taking his fury out on people at his rallies and on twitter. I think in a perverse way, all of this high drama energizes him. It also makes him dangerous.
  #116  
Old 12-12-2019, 08:50 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Personally, I'd like to see them list all of his crimes, right down the the Misrepresentation of National Weather Service Data. Because impeachment is the only way to hold the President accountable for federal crimes.
I've wondered if it wouldn't have been better just to censure him instead. Don't get me wrong - he absolutely deserves impeachment more than any president in US history. But the Dems are not going to succeed with it, and I fear it will make him even stronger.

I would not be at all surprised to see the DoJ start investigating Democrats just because they can.
  #117  
Old 12-12-2019, 09:08 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengangmo View Post
Can he take the 5th?
this is not a criminal trial - is there the same protection against self incrimination as in a criminal trial?
And even if he can - how does it look to the country if he refuses to answer?
Things you say can always be held against you, whether in a criminal proceeding or not, so the 5th amendment always applies (unless you've made some sort of deal).

It should go without saying, claiming the 5th is not a good look for someone who claims to be innocent of every crime. But I expect there are many law graduates of Matlock university who would see it as total and complete exoneration, to say nothing of owning the libs.
  #118  
Old 12-12-2019, 11:35 PM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I've wondered if it wouldn't have been better just to censure him instead.
Trump's been called worse things by better people. Censure would result in him putting out one half-assed rage tweet and then carrying on as if the whole thing never happened. As much of a snowflake as Trump is, his downfall won't be because someone expressed official disapproval of his actions. He doesn't care.
  #119  
Old 12-13-2019, 02:50 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
I have to agree with you on everything except the last bit; This is not going to end well for anybody in the entire country.

Cut to 2028: The President, who is a Democrat, sends a sack of taxpayer cash to Sri Lanka, in exchange for "documented evidence" that her chief Republican rival in the upcoming election is a satan-worshipper who murdered children. She then instructs the FBI to investigate, and come up with the exact conclusions she's written down. She forbids anyone to cooperate with any Republicans whatsoever. If Republicans complain - tough shit.
Heck, I was picturing a president shopping around various corrupt regimes to find one that was willing to indict and request the extradition of an American who just happened to the president's likely political rival, or just somebody the president doesn't like. Then the president orders the State and Justice Departments to expedite the paperwork and as soon as the rival (who may be crisscrossing the country while on the campaign trail) steps into a venue that has a U.S. District Judge the president can count on, have the rival arrested, get him or her a hasty hearing before the judge and then turn him or her over to agents of Grufunkistan or whatever and hustled out of the country.

Unlikely? Impossible? Give the system a few years of Trumpian degeneration and we'll see.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #120  
Old 12-13-2019, 10:53 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengangmo View Post
Can he take the 5th?
this is not a criminal trial - is there the same protection against self incrimination as in a criminal trial?
And even if he can - how does it look to the country if he refuses to answer?
I'm saying he can answer or not answer, they can't make him say anything specific. And it won't matter anyway, because we all know how the vote is going to go, for the most part at least. I suppose they're might be a few defections from one side or the other. But I would guess to some that Trump saying, essentially, "I refuse to answer that question because this whole thing is a sham, and you can go fuck yourself" would make him look great in the eyes of many people.
  #121  
Old 12-13-2019, 01:29 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I'm saying he can answer or not answer, they can't make him say anything specific. And it won't matter anyway, because we all know how the vote is going to go, for the most part at least. I suppose they're might be a few defections from one side or the other. But I would guess to some that Trump saying, essentially, "I refuse to answer that question because this whole thing is a sham, and you can go fuck yourself" would make him look great in the eyes of many people.
Prejudging and predeciding is what the rebups want. It is the best they can hope for. Why play into it? The point is not to do something impossible. It's to make them pay as high a price, as a party, for this as you can, if they resort to blocking democracy.

On a day when the outgoing Kentucky republican governor pardoned a child rapist and hundreds of others we are looking at making some moves to protect democracy here, not decide we lost it before we go into the ring.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...s-rapists.html

Last edited by drad dog; 12-13-2019 at 01:29 PM.
  #122  
Old 12-13-2019, 01:53 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Prejudging and predeciding is what the rebups want. It is the best they can hope for. Why play into it? The point is not to do something impossible. It's to make them pay as high a price, as a party, for this as you can, if they resort to blocking democracy.
Sure, they want that. Not sure about your meaning of "playing into it".
  #123  
Old 12-13-2019, 02:06 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Sure, they want that. Not sure about your meaning of "playing into it".
Um "why do they want it?" might be a good way to begin critical thinking about it. Right now is a great opportunity.
  #124  
Old 12-14-2019, 10:41 AM
Sirreal72 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Warner Robins, GA
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly do Hunter Biden's decisions have to do with Joe's candidacy? I mean, if someone has a ne'er-do-well child, that shouldn't necessarily disqualify them or even have anything to do with their political viability.

And really, how weak is it to dredge up some dumb stuff Hunter Biden did to discredit his dad? Especially when your own (GOP) candidate is a walking laundry list of crookedness, unethicality and sex scandals?
Have you ever heard of Billy Carter? There was once a time when politicians did all they could to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Something about the "dignity of the office". Sadly, those days are gone.
  #125  
Old 12-14-2019, 02:13 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirreal72 View Post
Have you ever heard of Billy Carter? There was once a time when politicians did all they could to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Something about the "dignity of the office". Sadly, those days are gone.
Billy would be no problem for a rebup potus, but a big problem for a democratic potus. Right now today.
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 02:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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