Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2401  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:54 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
And if the House Republicans refuse to cooperate in this inquiry and instead decide to pursue their own agenda, that is not bipartisanship, that is hijacking the process and simply working at odds with the majority. In what way is that bipartisanship?
The inquiry as a whole would be bipartisan, in that members from both sides of the House can participate. And what you call hijacking the process, I might call attempting to vindicate the president. I am on the record saying I would like to establish that the president had no grounds to investigate the Bidens.

~Max
  #2402  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:55 AM
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: 41,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Most of the letter is bananas, and I'm only possibly on board with two or three small excerpts. But if you want to dismiss the entire letter with a wave of your hand, why did you ask if "there's any page that isn't full of lies"? If you weren't interested in having that rhetorical question answered, you could have said so earlier.
This is a very weird back-and-forth. You offered some defenses of the specific aspects of the letter, which is what I'd asked for. But I assumed you meant them sincerely, not as an attempt at rationalization. I found them unpersuasive, and when I explained why, you explained that you were trying to rationalize the letter, and implied that since the president's attorneys weren't crazy, the letter probably wasn't. When I explained why I also found that reasoning unpersuasive, you're suggesting my original question was rhetorical.

So let me rephrase: are there aspects of the letter that you find genuinely persuasive, not just in an "I'm trying to figure out an interpretation of the letter that isn't cuckoo bananas," but in an, "I genuinely think this is a good point" way? If it's just those aspects we've already discussed, I'm unconvinced by your reasoning.

I'll also point out that I asked that original question immediately after I read the first three pages of the letter, long before I'd heard the feedback from high-level attorneys and legal professors that the letter makes a mockery of the law.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 10-10-2019 at 11:56 AM.
  #2403  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:55 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Would you still like me to respond to this, in light of post #2398?~Max
Yes, I want you to directly respond to what I wrote.
  #2404  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:56 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Is "fair" the same as "legal"?
No, see post #2397.

~Max
  #2405  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:59 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The inquiry as a whole would be bipartisan, in that members from both sides of the House can participate. And what you call hijacking the process, I might call attempting to vindicate the president. I am on the record saying I would like to establish that the president had no grounds to investigate the Bidens.
But the investigation isn't about whether the President had grounds to investigate the Bidens - even if he did, his direct request for Ukraine to do so, particularly in the context of an apparent quid pro quo and his (illegal) withholding of funds allocated by Congress to Ukraine, are the issues at hand. The Bidens could be guilty as sin (although there's no evidence that this is so) and Trump still would have committed impeachable offenses.
  #2406  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:00 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: 41,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The inquiry as a whole would be bipartisan, in that members from both sides of the House can participate. And what you call hijacking the process, I might call attempting to vindicate the president. I am on the record saying I would like to establish that the president had no grounds to investigate the Bidens.

~Max
The way to establish that is twofold:
1) The president isn't in the position to investigate anyone. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies are. If the president thinks someone should be investigated, those agencies have hotlines he can call.
2) If there are grounds to investigate the Bidens, the only appropriate witnesses for Congress to call are law enforcement officials. The only time Congress needs to be investigating anyone is in order to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Since Biden is no longer in the executive branch, that's no longer necessary.
  #2407  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:00 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
And what positions would that be?
The Representative wants a full House vote on whether to authorize the impeachment inquiry. The Senator said he had not yet seen evidence that the president should be impeached, and would like to see the "facts".

~Max
  #2408  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:00 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
... I am on the record saying I would like to establish that the president had no grounds to investigate the Bidens.

~Max
Trump wasn't investigating the Bidens. Really. Trump didn't ask US intelligence to investigate the Bidens. He wanted Ukraine to do that. That's all kinds of fucked up.
  #2409  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:02 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Given that I've been hearing Republican lawyers, and the attorneys for previous administrations, calling the letter "bananas," ...
Yeah - this inquiry is so weird. I'm a lawyer, tho no expert in impeachment. But usually when there is a dispute, even if I think one party's case weak, I'll generally hear a minimally plausible argument being made. Or you'll hear some non-rabidly partisan commentators suggest that there are some legitimate legal issues at stake. Heck, w/ Clinton, you could legitimately discuss what your "definition of is is."

Now I admit that i have not been anywhere near exhaustive in researching this issue. But it is quite impressive how consistent and extreme the commentary is. Non-rabid folk are describing the voluntary release of incriminating info, and subsequent positions as unprecedented. And the Republican response has no apparent legal basis other than an extremely broad interpretation of Presidential privilege, and simply saying, "I don't want to."

Sure, there's no guarantee how things are going to shake out. But I just wanted to clearly express my impression of how extreme the dynamic seems.

Max or anyone - are there any "non-extreme" commentators whom you believe have supported the President's actions and subsequent posture?
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #2410  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:09 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,613
I'm not sure of the strategy though of not allowing a full house vote. It would definitely make things look a little more legit. Is she afraid of some softness in her caucus?
  #2411  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:09 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The Representative wants a full House vote on whether to authorize the impeachment inquiry.
Did the House conduct a full vote on all the inquiries it held during the Obama administration, or is the Representative asking for something special? Where's your concern for "fairness" now?

Quote:
The Senator said he had not yet seen evidence that the president should be impeached, and would like to see the "facts".

~Max
Then surely he would be all for an impeachment inquiry, the purpose of which would be to discover the "facts" and establish whether there was sufficient evidence that the president should be impeached.
  #2412  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:09 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I'm curious as to what is "unfair" about the current process. The House has sufficient evidence that the President may have acted in a sufficiently egregious manner to warrant impeachment, and has launched an enquiry to investigate further. Various witnesses have been called. There's nothing unfair about that. There is no indication that the House are somehow "making things up" (particularly as the President has openly admitted to the things he's being investigated for). He is not (yet) on trial, and he has the right to legal representation every step of the way. That's all entirely fair.
I think it's unfair if, as is alleged, the Republicans aren't allowed to issue subpoenas, call witnesses, ask questions, or generally participate in the inquiry at all, simply because the Democrats have the majority in the House. I think that violates House rules and precedent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
You know what isn't fair? Letting him get away with refusing to comply with a legitimate legal process. Letting him direct others to disregard legally-issued subpoenas (an illegal act).
Whether the subpoenas were legally issued with the authority of the House of Representatives is in dispute.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 10-10-2019 at 12:10 PM. Reason: with the authority of the House of Representatives
  #2413  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:13 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'm not sure of the strategy though of not allowing a full house vote. It would definitely make things look a little more legit. Is she afraid of some softness in her caucus?
I believe the answer has been given more than once already.
  #2414  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:15 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Do you think it would be fair to let Republicans hijack the impeachment process to go after the Bidens?
I do, to an extent, depending on what you mean by "to go after the Bidens". I would subpoena the Department of Justice and ask if they had an open investigation on the Bidens before the phone call. If not, I would almost certainly impeach the president, absent some compelling reason provided by him to ask a foreign country to open an investigation of a political rival. If they did have an investigation, I would ask for the reasons. If there aren't valid reasons, I would impeach the president for abusing his power for political gain.

~Max
  #2415  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:16 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think it's unfair if, as is alleged, the Republicans aren't allowed to issue subpoenas, call witnesses, ask questions, or generally participate in the inquiry at all, simply because the Democrats have the majority in the House. I think that violates House rules and precedent.
Would it be o.k. with you if they were forced to agree that all subpoenas, witnesses, questions etc.pertain to the issue at hand-impeachment?
  #2416  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:17 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think it's unfair if, as is alleged, the Republicans aren't allowed to issue subpoenas, call witnesses, ask questions, or generally participate in the inquiry at all, simply because the Democrats have the majority in the House. I think that violates House rules and precedent.
Does it or doesn't it? I mean, when the GOP controlled the House it openly and deliberately excluded Democrats from all sorts of things including committee procedures and votes they were legally entitled to participate in. If you want to go by "precedent" the Democrats are already bending over backwards to be scrupulously fair compared to previous House behavior.

Quote:
Whether the subpoenas were legally issued with the authority of the House of Representatives is in dispute.

~Max
The validity of the grounds for that dispute are also in dispute. Just because there are two sides doesn't mean they are equally weighted (as Dinsdale's post above demonstrates).
  #2417  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:19 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The inquiry as a whole would be bipartisan, in that members from both sides of the House can participate. And what you call hijacking the process, I might call attempting to vindicate the president. I am on the record saying I would like to establish that the president had no grounds to investigate the Bidens.

~Max
The time to attempt to vindicate the president is during the Senate trial, should it proceed to that point. This is the evidence gathering stage. This is like when the police talk to witnesses and examine evidence and the prosecutor decides whether to pursue charges. You want to short circuit that step. The prosecutor and the police do not need to ask for the defendant or the defense attorney's permission to gather evidence and interview material witnesses.

The GOP is trying to prevent the process from getting off of the ground. That is their contribution to "bipartisanship". You are chasing unicorns here waiting for them to legitimately participate in the process in order to give yourself justification to support their efforts of obstruction.

Ask yourself if Obama did this during Benghazi and refused to let Clinton testify. That is what is happening here. We need to put aside political party favoritism and do what is best for our Country. This is the time. If we can't do that now, then we truly are sunk.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #2418  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:20 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I do, to an extent, depending on what you mean by "to go after the Bidens". I would subpoena the Department of Justice and ask if they had an open investigation on the Bidens before the phone call. If not, I would almost certainly impeach the president, absent some compelling reason provided by him to ask a foreign country to open an investigation of a political rival. If they did have an investigation, I would ask for the reasons. If there aren't valid reasons, I would impeach the president for abusing his power for political gain.

~Max
If you would allow them to hijack the impeachment proceeding under the false pretense of "bipartisanship", then in my opinion you are wrong.
  #2419  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:20 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,877
Republicans want to issue subpoenas as a Party, they can win in 2020. That's the rulez!
  #2420  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:22 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I believe the answer has been given more than once already.
I didn't see it. Could you please assume that it was an honest question and if you don't want to answer, go right ahead and not fucking answer.
  #2421  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:25 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This is a very weird back-and-forth. You offered some defenses of the specific aspects of the letter, which is what I'd asked for. But I assumed you meant them sincerely, not as an attempt at rationalization. I found them unpersuasive, and when I explained why, you explained that you were trying to rationalize the letter, and implied that since the president's attorneys weren't crazy, the letter probably wasn't. When I explained why I also found that reasoning unpersuasive, you're suggesting my original question was rhetorical.
Sorry for the confusion. I read the letter, thought it was wacko, read it a second time, and decided that there are a couple points that I sincerely agree with. Then I extrapolated from those points a strategy that I would use, if I were defending the President's actions, which I am sort of doing in this thread.

I rationalize with sincerity, if that makes sense.

So when you wrote,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Points 1-3 don't apply. Only point 4 does, and it can be summarized this way:
-The only remedy against a criminal president is impeachment.
-If the Senate won't convict, there's no remedy.

But that's not what the letter said.
That is an accurate representation of my honest opinion, despite my having reached it by building off select arguments from a wacko letter. If you challenge my opinion on grounds other than "that's not what the letter said", I will attempt to defend myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I'll also point out that I asked that original question immediately after I read the first three pages of the letter, long before I'd heard the feedback from high-level attorneys and legal professors that the letter makes a mockery of the law.
Sorry about that.

~Max
  #2422  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The Representative wants a full House vote on whether to authorize the impeachment inquiry. The Senator said he had not yet seen evidence that the president should be impeached, and would like to see the "facts".

~Max
The impeachment inquiry is the process by which those facts are gathered.
  #2423  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:33 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Would it be o.k. with you if they were forced to agree that all subpoenas, witnesses, questions etc.pertain to the issue at hand-impeachment?
I fully expect that if the Republicans are allowed to call witnesses, issue subpoenas etc, what we'll see is the issues muddied and trampled on to such an extent that the entire investigation will be bogged down forever. Which is exactly their game plan.

If the Republicans are offered this olive branch, they will set it on fire and use it to burn down whatever they can find. I expect that most of the witnesses they call, and subpoenas they issue would probably be related to Benghazi or Hillary's emails.
  #2424  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:34 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
This doesn't have jack to do with bipartisanship, because the Republicans have no interest in participating in this impeachment process. The only reason they want in is to turn it into an attack on the Bidens, so why don't you tell me how giving them an open invite to hijack the process will be to anyone's advantage?
Would you still like me to respond to this, in light of post #2398?
Yes, I want you to directly respond to what I wrote.
I believe I have since answered the same exact question in a more recent response to another of your posts. Unless you have an objection I'll respond to that thread of posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I do [support hijacking the impeachment process to go after the Bidens], to an extent, depending on what you mean by "to go after the Bidens". I would subpoena the Department of Justice and ask if they had an open investigation on the Bidens before the phone call. If not, I would almost certainly impeach the president, absent some compelling reason provided by him to ask a foreign country to open an investigation of a political rival. If they did have an investigation, I would ask for the reasons. If there aren't valid reasons, I would impeach the president for abusing his power for political gain.

~Max
~Max
  #2425  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:38 PM
Skypist's Avatar
Skypist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 488
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rol...ns-897392/amp/

A Ukrainian official wanted ambassador Yovanovich removed and Giuliani’s fixers are accused of giving money to “congressman 1” to put pressure on to get rid of her. Rumors are that the congressman may have been Rep Pete Sessions of Texas, who received $3 million from a pro trump PAC and wrote a letter to Pompeo to complain about the ambassador.

Things that make you go hmm .

Apparently these two fixers are Eastern European born but US citizens. Curious how they got citizenship when people who just want honest work are kept away.
  #2426  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:44 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
But the investigation isn't about whether the President had grounds to investigate the Bidens - even if he did, his direct request for Ukraine to do so, particularly in the context of an apparent quid pro quo and his (illegal) withholding of funds allocated by Congress to Ukraine, are the issues at hand. The Bidens could be guilty as sin (although there's no evidence that this is so) and Trump still would have committed impeachable offenses.
We disagree on this point. I have a full explanation in the works in response to drad dog's post #1877 from six days ago. The ball is in my court, so to speak.

~Max
  #2427  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:44 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I believe I have since answered the same exact question in a more recent response to another of your posts. Unless you have an objection I'll respond to that thread of posts.~Max
That's a nice layout of what you would do, but it doesn't come close to answering my question of whether the Republicans should be allowed to turn the impeachment process into a proceeding about the Bidens.
  #2428  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:46 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
The way to establish that is twofold:
1) The president isn't in the position to investigate anyone. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies are. If the president thinks someone should be investigated, those agencies have hotlines he can call.
Yes, sorry, when I wrote president I meant the executive branch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
2) If there are grounds to investigate the Bidens, the only appropriate witnesses for Congress to call are law enforcement officials. The only time Congress needs to be investigating anyone is in order to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Since Biden is no longer in the executive branch, that's no longer necessary.
Agreed.

~Max
  #2429  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:49 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Trump wasn't investigating the Bidens. Really. Trump didn't ask US intelligence to investigate the Bidens. He wanted Ukraine to do that. That's all kinds of fucked up.
If there wasn't some sort of investigation going on by the U.S. I would need some sort of extraordinary defense from the President himself explaining why he shouldn't be impeached for abusing his power.

~Max
  #2430  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:54 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Yes, sorry, when I wrote president I meant the executive branch.


Agreed.

~Max
So if the Dems call an FBI witness to ask if there was an open investigation, would that satisfy you? Or do you still need the Republicans to have subpoena power?
  #2431  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:58 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
The whistleblower wrote a memo describing a conversation with a "visibly shaken" White House official who had listened to the call. According to CBS this is the full text of the memo:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-whi...ews-exclusive/
  #2432  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:58 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
This strategy will backfire on voters like me, who place heavy value on fairness and reject consequentialismx
But love corruption and incompetence? You might care to rethink the things that motivate you in the voting booth.
  #2433  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:04 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: 41,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Yes, sorry, when I wrote president I meant the executive branch.
Definitely the executive branch should be doing the investigating. But it's more specific than that. The FBI (and, to a smaller degree, CIA and NSA and other agencies) are responsible for conducting these investigations. There are really good reasons for handling them this way, and this is the statutorily correct way to handle such investigations. The president doesn't have a role in initiating these investigations.

Now, there is a way that an FBI witness could exonerate the president. If it came out that Trump was asking for Ukraine's help at the behest of the FBI, because for example they were having trouble breaking through a bureaucratic logjam, then that would cast the president's actions in an entirely new light. We would want to see, of course, that it was legitimately initiated by the FBI, not something where Trump told Giuliani to tell Barr to tell the FBI to call him and ask him to talk to Ukraine.

So if you want Republicans to have the right to call that sort of exculpatory evidence, then sure.

But I just made that evidence up. I've seen zero sign that it exists, or that anybody thinks it exists.

Anything short of this would not be exculpatory, because it's not just the executive branch as a whole that investigates. It's specific agencies within the branch, and that's by design, and violating that process is what's gotten us to this point.

Edit: actually, I forgot about Giuliani. I cannot think of any evidence that would excuse the president's involvement of his own personal lawyer in an international investigation of a US citizen.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 10-10-2019 at 01:07 PM.
  #2434  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:05 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Max or anyone - are there any "non-extreme" commentators whom you believe have supported the President's actions and subsequent posture?
I don't know any non-extreme commentators who have absolutely supported the President and say he did nothing wrong, except maybe Lindsey Graham if you don't want to call him extreme (ha...). There are some who say we don't know for sure yet. That's my position, and it is shared by at least some Republicans. There are many who say, not only does it look bad, but it is definitely bad.

~Max
  #2435  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:08 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post


Look, if the full House authorizes a committee to investigate the president, then bipartisanship or not, he has to comply with the subpoenas or invoke executive privilege or risk being impeached for obstruction. I would prefer bipartisanship, but that's not legally necessary for impeachment.

But we haven't established that authorization. Whether or not the committees have jurisdiction for the subpoenas they are currently handing out, is for the anybody to decide until the courts or the Senate rule on the matter (if they rule on the matter). Sure, you can impeach him for obstruction and let the Republican Senate decide whether the Democratic House actually exercised their power to subpoena the administration.


~Max
Here is their authorization:

Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 5:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings
  #2436  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:16 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
Here is their authorization:

Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
...
Hell, there's all the proof of illegitimately you need! "Chuse" ain't a word!

And thanx for the response Max. Graham truly confounds me. I recall him on the Daily Show, playing pool and drinking w/ Jon Stewart, going on about how HORRIBLE Trump was. To hear him now - really makes me wonder how he can have any self respect.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #2437  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:20 PM
Rhodes's Avatar
Rhodes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: TX
Posts: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'm not sure of the strategy though of not allowing a full house vote. It would definitely make things look a little more legit. Is she afraid of some softness in her caucus?
If I've understood the thread correctly so far:

As of now, only the majority party can issue subpoenas. Rs and Ds can both question witnesses and examine documents, but only the Ds can decide what direction the investigation takes.

In an official impeachment procedure, both parties will be able to issue subpoenas. Rs may attempt to derail by investigating the Bidens instead, or investigating the investigators, or whatever distraction they can think of.
  #2438  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:26 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Hell, there's all the proof of illegitimately you need! "Chuse" ain't a word!

It's at least as good as covfefe!
  #2439  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:30 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
If I've understood the thread correctly so far:

As of now, only the majority party can issue subpoenas. Rs and Ds can both question witnesses and examine documents, but only the Ds can decide what direction the investigation takes.

In an official impeachment procedure, both parties will be able to issue subpoenas. Rs may attempt to derail by investigating the Bidens instead, or investigating the investigators, or whatever distraction they can think of.
I mean, I guessed there was some fear of triggering something like that but I see no reason why the "official impeachment procedure" is required to go that way.
  #2440  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:31 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'm not sure of the strategy though of not allowing a full house vote. It would definitely make things look a little more legit. Is she afraid of some softness in her caucus?
I expect she sees no need to subject swing-district members to such a vote at this point when more information is likely to come out.

So far, I trust her instincts. AFAICT she's been "right", in the sense of being politically effective, on almost all the "engagements" with the GOP and Trump so far in her Speakership.
  #2441  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:45 PM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skypist View Post
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rol...ns-897392/amp/

A Ukrainian official wanted ambassador Yovanovich removed and Giuliani’s fixers are accused of giving money to “congressman 1” to put pressure on to get rid of her. Rumors are that the congressman may have been Rep Pete Sessions of Texas, who received $3 million from a pro trump PAC and wrote a letter to Pompeo to complain about the ambassador.

Things that make you go hmm .

Apparently these two fixers are Eastern European born but US citizens. Curious how they got citizenship when people who just want honest work are kept away.
At this point, I'm guessing Rudy is going to be facing prison time rather shortly.
  #2442  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:54 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamatoTwinkie View Post
At this point, I'm guessing Rudy is going to be facing prison time rather shortly.
If Rudy doesn't get a pardon, then I'm guessing there is going to be a lot of ship-jumping.
  #2443  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:55 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
I fully expect that if the Republicans are allowed to call witnesses, issue subpoenas etc, what we'll see is the issues muddied and trampled on to such an extent that the entire investigation will be bogged down forever. Which is exactly their game plan.

If the Republicans are offered this olive branch, they will set it on fire and use it to burn down whatever they can find. I expect that most of the witnesses they call, and subpoenas they issue would probably be related to Benghazi or Hillary's emails.
Yes, there will never be a truly "bipartisan" process in this, because the Republican Party has degenerated into a massive spin machine, which exists for no other purpose than to keep its members in office, and has no interest in running the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max s.
This strategy will backfire on voters like me, who place heavy value on fairness and reject consequentialismx
Very few voters have the slightest clue about what is actually happening--the majority are viewing this with about as much discernment as they watch reality TV shows. They wouldn't know "fairness" from their back end--not even the fantasy fairness you think would happen with Republican input.
  #2444  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:58 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think it's unfair if, as is alleged, the Republicans aren't allowed to issue subpoenas, call witnesses, ask questions, or generally participate in the inquiry at all, simply because the Democrats have the majority in the House.
Who suggested that Republicans can't ask questions?

What subpoenas did Democrats issue in 1998?
  #2445  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:00 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I do, to an extent, depending on what you mean by "to go after the Bidens". I would subpoena the Department of Justice and ask if they had an open investigation on the Bidens before the phone call. If not, I would almost certainly impeach the president, absent some compelling reason provided by him to ask a foreign country to open an investigation of a political rival. If they did have an investigation, I would ask for the reasons. If there aren't valid reasons, I would impeach the president for abusing his power for political gain.

~Max
Well, I agree that the House investigators need to rule out the possibility that there was an actual, legitimate criminal investigation into the Bidens, and that Trump hasn't mentioned the existence of this investigation so far for, um, reasons. But do you actually think there is some realistic chance that this will turn out to be the case?
  #2446  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:05 PM
SmellMyWort is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The Representative wants a full House vote on whether to authorize the impeachment inquiry. The Senator said he had not yet seen evidence that the president should be impeached, and would like to see the "facts".

~Max
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The impeachment inquiry is the process by which those facts are gathered.
This. And isn't the House still in recess? Can they even take the vote that the republicans are demanding at this point?
  #2447  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:06 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Well, I agree that the House investigators need to rule out the possibility that there was an actual, legitimate criminal investigation into the Bidens, and that Trump hasn't mentioned the existence of this investigation so far for, um, reasons. But do you actually think there is some realistic chance that this will turn out to be the case?
More importantly, should this totally unrelated(and unevidenced) topic be brought up at all during the impeachment proceedings?
  #2448  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:10 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,177
It was mentioned above, but I must say that the arrest of two Giuliani henchmen today on charges that include "conspiracy, making false statements to the Federal Election Commission and falsification of records" all connected with illegal contributions to a pro-Trump super PAC is big news. The websites of the major networks I monitor are all covering it, of course, and you can tell it's bad news for Trumpists because at this time there's not a peep about it out of Fox News, which is busy reporting on the sexual misconduct of Matt Lauer and the head of NBC (also, Joy Behar is mad at Ellen DeGeneres -- have to keep up with the important news!)

As they say, the hits just keep on coming. And there's more to come -- investigators weren't planning to arrest this pair yet but had to do it now because they were planning to abscond from the country. This sordid corruption seems par for the course for anything in any way connected with Trump.

Last edited by wolfpup; 10-10-2019 at 02:13 PM.
  #2449  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:18 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
...
So far, I trust her instincts. AFAICT she's been "right", in the sense of being politically effective, on almost all the "engagements" with the GOP and Trump so far in her Speakership.
So far her record vs. Trump is unimpeachable.
  #2450  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:19 PM
Skypist's Avatar
Skypist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 488
Jay Sekulow made a statement that none of this has anything to do with trump!

Never mind that these turkeys were doing Giuliani’s bidding in Ukraine, which was requested by trump. And there are pictures of them with trump so he can’t say he never met them.

This does feel like a big deal but I’m scared trump can stop it.

I really am curious about these guys being US citizens. Did they come here as children and become naturalized? Or have an American parent? Or were they naturalized as an adult? They sure have a lot of foreign ties and no compunction about working for the good of foreign entities to screw over US laws.
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 06:56 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