Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3151  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:21 AM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is offline
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
So at what point is Trump subpoenaed to testify? What happens then?
Kindasorta related, at 10:00 EDT Wednesday a panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an appeal of a decision forcing Mazars (CFSG's accounting firm) to hand over eight years of financial records to the Manhattan District Attorney. This is the case in which CFSG's lawyers argued that a sitting President is immune from any legal proceeding regarding his actions before or during his tenure — an argument which Judge Victor Marrero called "repugnant to the nation's governmental structure and constitutional values."

What makes this at least tangentially related to the topic at hand is that in the same ruling, the judge also cast doubt on the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted:
Quote:
In his 75-page opinion, Marrero wrote that the theory holding that a president cannot be indicted "has gained a certain degree of axiomatic acceptance, and the DOJ Memos which propagate it have assumed substantial legal force as if their conclusion were inscribed on constitutional tablets so-etched by the Supreme Court.” His view, however, was different: “The Court considers such popular currency for the categorical concept and its legal support as not warranted.”
Whether this part of the ruling is addressed in the appeal isn't apparent. If it is, and the judge's opinion is upheld … better lay in lots&lots of popcorn.
  #3152  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:29 AM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
Can he be unethical if he is too stunted intellectually to understand what ethics actually are?
Of course he can. Ethics are manifested through behavior, not understanding. If his intellect is so stunted that it can't guide him ethnically then he is still, by definition, unethical.
  #3153  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:36 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by guizot View Post
Of course he can. Ethics are manifested through behavior, not understanding. If his intellect is so stunted that it can't guide him ethnically then he is still, by definition, unethical.
Undoubtedly his behavior is unethical. I have no question about that.
  #3154  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:30 AM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by OttoDaFe View Post
Kindasorta related, at 10:00 EDT Wednesday a panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an appeal of a decision forcing Mazars (CFSG's accounting firm) to hand over eight years of financial records to the Manhattan District Attorney. This is the case in which CFSG's lawyers argued that a sitting President is immune from any legal proceeding regarding his actions before or during his tenure — an argument which Judge Victor Marrero called "repugnant to the nation's governmental structure and constitutional values."

What makes this at least tangentially related to the topic at hand is that in the same ruling, the judge also cast doubt on the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted:Whether this part of the ruling is addressed in the appeal isn't apparent. If it is, and the judge's opinion is upheld … better lay in lots&lots of popcorn.
These are, indeed, interesting times. I wouldn't mind seeing an Amendment to the Constitution to the effect that A) A sitting President cannot be indicted, and/but B) All relevant statutes of limitation are tolled ("suspended," essentially--the clock doesn't run during the President's term), and investigations into Presidential criminality are expressly permitted. This, of course, will never happen, but a boy can dream, can't he?

On a laugh-to-keep-from-grinding-your-molars note, here's Rudy in a cartoon from Connecticut's own Dan Perkins Tom Tomorrow: Subpoena, Schmubpoena
  #3155  
Old 10-23-2019, 08:20 AM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
...But please, take a step back. At best, AT BEST, this Ukraine fiasco tells us 3 things. One, Trump is a terrible leader, since his own state department employees have testified that they had no fucking clue what was going on. Two, Trump is a terrible communicator, since no coherent message was ever presented to his own staff about his vision for Ukraine. And three, Trump has absolutely no understanding about ethics in government.
...
This is exceptionally well put. Hard to imagine how someone would disagree with all 3 points. But it seems that, at least, many people just don't care.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #3156  
Old 10-23-2019, 09:25 AM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
This is exceptionally well put. Hard to imagine how someone would disagree with all 3 points. But it seems that, at least, many people just don't care.
Yes, I think best case for Trump is that his "amazing presidential intuition" was correct all along, and despite all current available evidence to the contrary, the Bidens were actually engaged in criminal activity in Ukraine, and the crackpot Crowdstrike conspiracy theory is true. Max S seems to be withholding judgement until Trump has laid out his case here, and I can somewhat understand that.

I deeply suspect, however, that we're never going to get anything more from Trump/Giuliani to prove their case other than random crap like this:

BREAKING NEWS twitter nonsense from Giuliani on October 10, which turns out to be a photo of an april printout of a wikileaks dump made public years ago.

Yes, read that again.

But even if all the conspiracy theories are true, those 3 points would still stand.
  #3157  
Old 10-23-2019, 09:33 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,990
The world was juuuuuust starting to forget about Paul Manafort's corrupt dealings with Ukraine that landed him in Federal prison... so thanks, Rudy, for reminding everyone of how Trump's campaign manager is now behind bars!
  #3158  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:11 AM
carlb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palmetto Bay, FL
Posts: 1,233
I have not thought this through in any detail, so please start picking holes in this idea.

I think the best strategy for the House is to issue a few well-defined Articles of Impeachment that are the most solidly-backed, and the easiest for the public to wrap their heads around. Ukraine seems like the strongest case. I think a few of the more egregious instances of obstruction of justice are good candidates.

But (and, like I said, I have not really spent significant brainpower on this)...

What if they included one or two articles that were a little less certain, to provide cover whereby some of the more persuadable Senate Republicans could vote for acquittal? Essentially give them something where they could say to the less-rabid on the right, "see, I exercised my best judgement, and I voted against the 'fake' issues. But, some of this was just too egregious to stand for."

Yeah, I know. The more I think about it, the more silly this idea seems. Still, I like to think there is a way to loosen up the Senate Republican voting bloc. Hope springs eternal and all that.
  #3159  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:28 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlb View Post
I have not thought this through in any detail, so please start picking holes in this idea.

I think the best strategy for the House is to issue a few well-defined Articles of Impeachment that are the most solidly-backed, and the easiest for the public to wrap their heads around. Ukraine seems like the strongest case. I think a few of the more egregious instances of obstruction of justice are good candidates.

But (and, like I said, I have not really spent significant brainpower on this)...

What if they included one or two articles that were a little less certain, to provide cover whereby some of the more persuadable Senate Republicans could vote for acquittal? Essentially give them something where they could say to the less-rabid on the right, "see, I exercised my best judgement, and I voted against the 'fake' issues. But, some of this was just too egregious to stand for."

Yeah, I know. The more I think about it, the more silly this idea seems. Still, I like to think there is a way to loosen up the Senate Republican voting bloc. Hope springs eternal and all that.
So let me get this straight -- you want Dems in the House to include weak articles of impeachment so GOP senators can vote to acquit but still look ethical by criticizing Trump for his behavior named in the stronger articles?

So GOP senators win re-election and Trump stays in office (but maybe gets his feelings hurt)?

Why on earth would Dems do that?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #3160  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:35 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
So let me get this straight -- you want Dems in the House to include weak articles of impeachment so GOP senators can vote to acquit but still look ethical by criticizing Trump for his behavior named in the stronger articles?

So GOP senators win re-election and Trump stays in office (but maybe gets his feelings hurt)?

Why on earth would Dems do that?
Or are you saying the GOP senators would vote to remove Trump over the real articles, but still cover their asses with the base by pointing to the articles they voted against? Is there even article-by-article voting?

In any event, I think it'd be nuts to present anything but the strongest possible case.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #3161  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:39 AM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlb View Post
What if they included one or two articles that were a little less certain, to provide cover whereby some of the more persuadable Senate Republicans could vote for acquittal? Essentially give them something where they could say to the less-rabid on the right, "see, I exercised my best judgement, and I voted against the 'fake' issues. But, some of this was just too egregious to stand for."
If the 'pubs can attack any of the articles of impeachment, they will go after the weaknesses in that one and ignore the other ones.
  #3162  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:41 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
So let me get this straight -- you want Dems in the House to include weak articles of impeachment so GOP senators can vote to acquit but still look ethical by criticizing Trump for his behavior named in the stronger articles?

So GOP senators win re-election and Trump stays in office (but maybe gets his feelings hurt)?

Why on earth would Dems do that?
If you really want to get it straight, re-read the post. Spelling it out for you, even conviction on a single one of the Articles clears the way for removal. The America-hating fuckstick has to be acquitted on ALL articles, in order to stay in the WH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Or are you saying the GOP senators would vote to remove Trump over the real articles, but still cover their asses with the base by pointing to the articles they voted against? Is there even article-by-article voting?

In any event, I think it'd be nuts to present anything but the strongest possible case.
Okay, never mind.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 10-23-2019 at 10:44 AM.
  #3163  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:45 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,237
Anyway, the answer to your last question is, yes. Each Article is voted on separately.
  #3164  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:52 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Spelling it out for you, even conviction on a single one of the Articles clears the way for removal. The America-hating fuckstick has to be acquitted on ALL articles, in order to stay in the WH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Anyway, the answer to your last question is, yes. Each Article is voted on separately.
Ignorance fought! Thanks, sincerely.

Now carlb's idea makes a little more sense -- but I still don't like it, for two reasons:
  1. If the Dems include less serious articles, it will be easy for Pubs to dismiss the entire impeachment as partisan and frivolous.
  2. Voters will only care about the outcome, not the individual articles, so GOP senators won't get any CYA with their base by only voting to remove on the "serious" articles.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #3165  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:07 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,524
Wikipedia has a nicely detailed page about Senate impeachment of federal judges.

Looking through it, there seems to be evidence for the tactic of including 'weaker' articles of impeachment as part of the whole bundle, i.e. some judges were acquitted on multiple charges yet were still convicted of others and so removed from office. Here is one example and here is another.

In fact, when I looked at the Wiki article the other day (before I had read carib's post) I just assumed there had been an effort made to give all the senators opportunity to vote for acquittal on at least one charge in order to give them political cover as necessary.

Whether this tactic could or would be applied to impeachment of the POTUS is unclear.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 10-23-2019 at 11:09 AM.
  #3166  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:11 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,870
Amen. When you're smashing a cockroach you want the biggest brick you can find.

Last edited by DesertDog; 10-23-2019 at 11:11 AM.
  #3167  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:38 AM
sciurophobic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 1,697
When this does go to the Senate the Democrats should put more emphasis on Trump's demand that Ukraine exonerate Russia for interfering in the 2016 election and less on the demand to investigate the Bidens. With the latter I could see many Senators excusing it as fighting corruption and somehow being a legitimate use of presidential power. With the former, however, you have money that the Senate ordered Trump to give to Ukraine to defend itself from its mortal enemy that he withheld to benefit that enemy. Not only that he wanted Ukraine to find evidence that contradicted the findings of the Senate's own Intelligence Committee. Much harder for any Senator to excuse that.
  #3168  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:17 PM
carlb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palmetto Bay, FL
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Ignorance fought! Thanks, sincerely.

Now carlb's idea makes a little more sense -- but I still don't like it, for two reasons:
  1. If the Dems include less serious articles, it will be easy for Pubs to dismiss the entire impeachment as partisan and frivolous.
  2. Voters will only care about the outcome, not the individual articles, so GOP senators won't get any CYA with their base by only voting to remove on the "serious" articles.
Yeah, this is what I had in mind, and I agree that your counters have a lot of validity. I guess I was thinking that, based on the last couple of days, once articles are formally voted upon it's going to be very difficult to completely hand-wave away the worst of Trump's offenses. This could provide an opportunity to sway a few Republican Senators, particularly ones who are already uncomfortable with Trump. If giving them a little political cover helps get a conviction and removal, I'm OK with it. I wish it weren't necessary, but I can live with it.

I was trying to figure out swayable Senators based on their class - figuring that the most recently elected class has more room to maneuver than the class up for re-election in 2020. Turns out, I don't know as much about how dug-in the various Senators are as I thought I might.

For the sake of discussion, here is the list of Republican Senators in Class I, who are not up for re-election until 2024:

Barrasso, John (R-WY)
Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN)
Braun, Mike (R-IN)
Cramer, Kevin (R-ND)
Cruz, Ted (R-TX)
Fischer, Deb (R-NE)
Hawley, Josh (R-MO)
Romney, Mitt (R-UT)
Scott, Rick (R-FL)
Wicker, Roger F. (R-MS)

Romney would seem the most likely to break from the pack, and I've heard some thinking that Cruz might actually be amenable to hearing evidence and voting on it. I would bet that Rick Scott will stay with Trump to the end, and I think Blackburn is unlikely to consider removal. I just don't know enough about the others to offer an opinion.
  #3169  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:20 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
What about the Republican distraction about "no quid pro quo"? What about the claim that since the aid wasn't specifically, dumbly and incriminatingly mentioned, the Ukrainians didn't even know that the aid had been approved and then held by Trump?

Just a single report, for all I know. And I suppose, but I doubt, that it may not be accurate:
"But in fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.
The problem was not a bureaucratic glitch, the Ukrainians were told then. To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the interviews and records.


The timing of the communications about the issue, which have not previously been reported, shows that Ukraine was aware the White House was holding up the funds weeks earlier than United States and Ukrainian officials had acknowledged. And it means that the Ukrainian government was aware of the freeze during most of the period in August when Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and two American diplomats were pressing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to make a public commitment to the investigations being sought by Mr. Trump."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/u...peachment.html

(As if the quid pro quo was actually the problem with the call. It is not.)
  #3170  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:47 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,823
I've posted this before. It's from Twitter so take it with a grain of salt. But this is the best logic I have seen for having Democrats go beyond Ukraine and follow the money (note that this thread was made nearly two months ago but the logic doesn't change:
Quote:
House Dems know they can vote to impeach Trump right now on multiple bases, including obstruction of justice, violations of the Emoluments Clause, gross unfitness for office, and more. They also know the Senate will NOT convict for any of that.

Rather than rushing to impeach and failing to get a conviction, House Dems are working hard to put together an “ironclad” (using Pelosi’s words) case against Trump. The centerpiece of the ironclad case is that Trump is compromised by money laundering for Russian oligarchs.

Once House Dems get the DB/Mazars documents, they have a team in place to analyze them, namely Daniel Goldman (former SDNY deputy chief of organized-crime unit) and Daniel Noble (former SDNY co-chief of the complex frauds and cybercrime unit).

Goldman and Noble will put together a killer case showing Trump to be a career money launderer for the Russians. This not only makes him a criminal, it also means he’s compromised and beholden to Russia. This is way beyond any of the other evidence against Trump; this is nuclear.
The idea is to make such an overwhelming case that it will be impossible for McConnell to punt in any way and make any Senators who would vote against removal to look really, really compromised themselves.

Coincidentally, this morning the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the Manhattan DA’s subpoena to Mazars for Trump’s tax and financial records.

It did not go well for Trump, which was expected since their defense that you cannot even investigate a sitting president led to this exchange:
Quote:
Billy Freeland @policyjunkie
Extraordinary moment in the 2nd Circuit Trump tax return case. On presidential immunity, Judge Chin asked: “What if he did pull out a gun & shot someone on 5th Ave? Would police be restrained from disabling such a person? Nothing could be done?”

Trump’s lawyer: “That’s correct.”
The prevailing thought is that this case will go to SCOTUS sooner than later but it's not likely the panel will be sympathetic to Trump's arguments.
  #3171  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:03 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 66
I'm watching the news. This is beyond ridiculous. A large group of Republican Congress- people have stormed the closed door inquiry hearing and are refusing to leave. Are these grown-ups adults or petulant toddlers? It's reportedly a mob scene, and they've settled in, refused to leave, and ordered a fricken pizza.
  #3172  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:04 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 66
Obviously yesterday's testimony has scared Trump to death, and he's ordered his toadies to fight back and cause a scene.
  #3173  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:05 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
I'm watching the news. This is beyond ridiculous. A large group of Republican Congress- people have stormed the closed door inquiry hearing and are refusing to leave. Are these grown-ups adults or petulant toddlers? It's reportedly a mob scene, and they've settled in, refused to leave, and ordered a fricken pizza.
They want to be arrested, so that they can get hauled off chanting "Attica, Attica!"
  #3174  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:07 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
I'm watching the news. This is beyond ridiculous. A large group of Republican Congress- people have stormed the closed door inquiry hearing and are refusing to leave. Are these grown-ups adults or petulant toddlers? It's reportedly a mob scene, and they've settled in, refused to leave, and ordered a fricken pizza.
Matt Gaetz and his clique of brownshirts. Plus, they brought in recording devices into a secure room where no recording devices are supposed to be allowed. After the committee was adjourned and the room cleared, Capitol police had to be brought in to sweep the room for recording devices.
  #3175  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:08 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,885
I called Ted Cruz and john Cornyn's offices today and let them have it. Told them that this scene has done nothing but convinced America that the Republican Party is nothing more than a criminal organization.
  #3176  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:43 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,506
The Matt Gaetz clan, literally, really, brought pizza with them.
  #3177  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:55 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 66
My son called me and said this is the Republican version of "Storm Area 51, they can't stop us all!" After Gaetz got thrown out last week, they teamed up. I needed that laugh, because this is seriously disturbing.
  #3178  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:56 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
Obviously yesterday's testimony has scared Trump to death, and he's ordered his toadies to fight back and cause a scene.
I am reminded of the adage about how to argue a court case: if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither: pound the table and shout.

Republicans are pounding the table. They're barely bothering to dispute the facts re: Trump and Ukraine -- they're just bitching about the process.

(I have great faith in Nancy Pelosi, but I don't like secrecy much, myself. I hope there's a good reason for it and that it ends quickly.)
  #3179  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:57 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,885
There is no secrecy. The Republicans know what's going on. The issue here is that it's not the right Republicans who know what's going on.
  #3180  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:03 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 66
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...raine-records/

Hmmm... how long until they appeal?
  #3181  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:05 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
(I have great faith in Nancy Pelosi, but I don't like secrecy much, myself. I hope there's a good reason for it and that it ends quickly.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
There is no secrecy. The Republicans know what's going on. The issue here is that it's not the right Republicans who know what's going on.
This. It's in a SCIF because classified information may be revealed. This shit lands less powerful people in prison or a morgue.
  #3182  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:06 PM
MN_Maenad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 566
Wait, aren't there Republicans on those committees that are hearing testimony?
  #3183  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN_Maenad View Post
Wait, aren't there Republicans on those committees that are hearing testimony?
Yes. They weren't prevented from taking part if they were on the relevant committee. This was a bunch of non-committee Republican doofuses who wanted to make a point, and gum up the works.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-23-2019 at 03:08 PM.
  #3184  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:09 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Matt Gaetz and others of the brave Republican security compromising gatecrashers are now tweeting that Hey, you know those tweets I sent from inside the room? Ha-ha, they were sent by staffers outside the room. Ah, this is cool, right?
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...hly-classified
  #3185  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:14 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
<snip>

(I have great faith in Nancy Pelosi, but I don't like secrecy much, myself. I hope there's a good reason for it and that it ends quickly.)
There are very good reasons for it. This is the investigation phase, not the hearing phase.

In prior impeachment proceedings, the investigation was carried out by a special or independent counsel, in secret. Just like Mueller.

In this case, however, Bill Barr has refused to appoint a special counsel to investigate the allegations into Trump's Ukraine conduct. This was inappropriate and wrong, but we are where we are with a corrupt Attorney General acting as Trump's personal protector.

For that reason, the investigation phase of this inquiry has fallen to Congress. It's being held in secret for the same reasons that Mueller's investigation was carried out in secret: First, so witnesses can't coordinate their testimony; second, to protect individuals whose good names may be besmirched if they end up not charged; and third, to keep classified information classified.

Once the investigation has concluded, there will be public hearings by the House to lay out their case to vote articles of impeachment.

Believe me, Republicans want a public hearing far less than they are pretending they do.

If (when) the House votes articles of impeachment, the trial phase of this matter will be held in the Senate, presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts. During the trial phase, Trump will have every opportunity to present his defense to the articles of impeachment.

Last edited by Aspenglow; 10-23-2019 at 03:15 PM.
  #3186  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:14 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 66
“The private ones always produce better results."--Republican, former congressman Trey Gowdy, who conducted the Benghazi investigation into Hillary Clinton a few years ago and pushed back against criticism that most of the hearings were in private.
  #3187  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:16 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
There are very good reasons for it. This is the investigation phase, not the hearing phase.

In prior impeachment proceedings, the investigation was carried out by a special or independent counsel, in secret. Just like Mueller.

In this case, however, Bill Barr has refused to appoint a special counsel to investigate the allegations into Trump's Ukraine conduct. This was inappropriate and wrong, but we are where we are with a corrupt Attorney General acting as Trump's personal protector.

For that reason, the investigation phase of this inquiry has fallen to Congress. It's being held in secret for the same reasons that Mueller's investigation was carried out in secret: First, so witnesses can't coordinate their testimony; second, to protect individuals whose good names may be besmirched if they end up not charged; and third, to keep classified information classified.

Once the investigation has concluded, there will be public hearings by the House to lay out their case to vote articles of impeachment.

Believe me, Republicans want a public hearing far less than they are pretending they do.

If (when) the House votes articles of impeachment, the trial phase of this matter will be held in the Senate, presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts. During the trial phase, Trump will have every opportunity to present his defense to the articles of impeachment.

Excellent explanation. Thank you for laying it out so clearly.
  #3188  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:17 PM
Intergalactic Gladiator's Avatar
Intergalactic Gladiator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
My son called me and said this is the Republican version of "Storm Area 51, they can't stop us all!" After Gaetz got thrown out last week, they teamed up. I needed that laugh, because this is seriously disturbing.
I'm totally going to borrow this. It's brilliant.
  #3189  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:20 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intergalactic Gladiator View Post
I'm totally going to borrow this. It's brilliant.
😁

He's a sharp man, my son!
  #3190  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:21 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
Excellent explanation. Thank you for laying it out so clearly.
Most welcome.
  #3191  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:40 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 66
Does anyone have a list of the House members who crashed the deposition? Id like to know if I need to yell at my congressman.

The deposition just finally got underway, incidentally. A five- hour delay because petulant babies who can't understand the rules.
  #3192  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:41 PM
Pazu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Up a creek
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
My son called me and said this is the Republican version of "Storm Area 51, they can't stop us all!" After Gaetz got thrown out last week, they teamed up. I needed that laugh, because this is seriously disturbing.
It would be worth it if any of their illicit recording devices got footage of Republican congress members "Naruto-running" towards the hearing room.

(Not really.)
  #3193  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:53 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
Does anyone have a list of the House members who crashed the deposition? Id like to know if I need to yell at my congressman.

The deposition just finally got underway, incidentally. A five- hour delay because petulant babies who can't understand the rules.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/10/2...-of-the-purse/

I would like to note that 12 of these contemptible criminals are on the investigatory committees.
  #3194  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:54 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazu View Post
It would be worth it if any of their illicit recording devices got footage of Republican congress members "Naruto-running" towards the hearing room.

(Not really.)
https://twitter.com/ScottThuman/stat...255250433?s=20
  #3195  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:55 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
I've posted this before. It's from Twitter so take it with a grain of salt. But this is the best logic I have seen for having Democrats go beyond Ukraine and follow the money (note that this thread was made nearly two months ago but the logic doesn't change:The idea is to make such an overwhelming case that it will be impossible for McConnell to punt in any way and make any Senators who would vote against removal to look really, really compromised themselves.

Coincidentally, this morning the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the Manhattan DA’s subpoena to Mazars for Trump’s tax and financial records.
On one hand: oh please please please let this happen. I so very much want to see Trump exposed as an international money laundering criminal.

On the other: doesn't any scenario that involves Trump's tax returns assume that his returns are complete and correct? I mean, if you're already laundering money for Russian oligarchs, why would you have qualms about not mentioning it on your 1040?

Last edited by jsc1953; 10-23-2019 at 03:56 PM.
  #3196  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:18 PM
Running with Scissors is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Small blue-green planet
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
On the other: doesn't any scenario that involves Trump's tax returns assume that his returns are complete and correct? I mean, if you're already laundering money for Russian oligarchs, why would you have qualms about not mentioning it on your 1040?
I'm going with the assumption that there's more to be learned from Trump's returns than that he's not as rich as he claims to be, otherwise he wouldn't be going to court to prevent them from being released to anyone.
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit." -- Nigel Tufnel
  #3197  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:43 PM
CairoCarol is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 5,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
they've settled in, refused to leave, and ordered a fricken pizza.
Personally I'd like nothing more than to help plan what to do if they pull this again. First - are there bathrooms available without leaving the space? If so, step one is to lock them or otherwise put them out of commission.

Step two - "hey, just to prove we can still behave like civilized human beings, we've brought a few cases of soda to share. Drink up!"
__________________
If I waited for memory to serve, I'd starve.
  #3198  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:48 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,265
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman asks sergeant at arms to “take action” against Republicans who charged into the SCIF.
  #3199  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:11 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman asks sergeant at arms to “take action” against Republicans who charged into the SCIF.

Many of the Republicans engaged in the protest were at a White House on Tuesday meeting with Trump, and a person familiar with the matter told CNN that Trump had advance knowledge of the plans to enter the space.
  #3200  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:16 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by CairoCarol View Post
Personally I'd like nothing more than to help plan what to do if they pull this again. First - are there bathrooms available without leaving the space? If so, step one is to lock them or otherwise put them out of commission.

Step two - "hey, just to prove we can still behave like civilized human beings, we've brought a few cases of soda to share. Drink up!"
Cute, but I'd prefer zip ties and frog marches.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
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 08:00 AM.

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