Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5701  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:28 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Thanks for your detailed set of answers. I'm with you on deploring this position. What do these people think, that a president should never be impeached, no matter what he does? I find it hard to believe there are people who would actually vote for Trump because they feel that way, but they could just throw up their hands and not vote at all.
Yes! They do think this. They support what they call the doctrine of the Unitary Executive, which is just fancy Federalist Society Speak for "autocratic ruler of our choice." I believe many former Trump voters will in fact sit this election out unless a progressive Democrat is nominated. Then they will come out and vote for Trump again. Remember, many of Trump's supporters live in a Fox "News" alternate "reality," which isn't reality at all -- but it allows them to believe that the impeachment efforts are based on partisanship and not the actual established facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Doesn't this allow a precedent to be set that, as long as your impeachable act is in the last 18 months of your term, you're in the clear?
It does, and that's one of the main reasons that Dems went ahead with their efforts despite the election and all the challenges it will bring for their candidates. No doubt you remember this is the exact same tactic McConnell ran for the Merrick Garland vote theft. "It's too close to the election! Let The People™ decide!" What they really mean is, "give us enough time to let the Russians work their magic."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
But who'll pay attention to the committees' findings once the impeachment is over? They're sure not going to impeach him again. And anything that comes to light after the inquiry will be easy for the GOP to handwave away as more partisan witchuntery.
I don't know. The GOP is already using that handwaving tactic, and it's not working out so well. A majority in this country still want impeachment proceedings to occur. Saw a poll this morning that reflected 50% want to impeach and remove, while 43% believe impeachment is not justified. (Interesting correlation there between that figure and the number of people who take their news from Fox, no?)

Schiff made a point of saying that a bill of impeachable offenses was much like an indictment. If facts reveal further impeachable conduct by Trump before articles have been passed to the Senate, then the articles could be superseded with a new bill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Will any future president ever be impeachable for anything? I don't dispute anything you're saying, but these things should take days, not months. What's so hard about deciding a subpoena is valid?
Judicial proceedings are slow and deliberate by design. I'd think hard before changing this function of the courts as having served us decently well for our entire history. In fact, the decision about deciding whether a subpoena is valid has far-reaching consequences throughout our system, both in terms of the respective powers of the legislative and executive branches as well as to what extent to draw the line on the very real concept of executive privilege (not blanket immunity, as Trump wrongly asserted). That's why we get 120-page rulings to answer the questions.

I think the fundamental mistake made in 2016 is that the majority of the population was not really paying attention to the sharp focus on the goals of a segment of the citizenry as approached starting with Newt Gingrich, the Koch brothers, the Federalist Society, etc. These people are on a mission, willing to use scorched earth tactics, and we didn't see it.

We did not appreciate that they would be willing to subvert our entire system of government and happily use Russian assistance to literally tear apart our every tradition and institution in furtherance of their autocratic dreams. This includes a heretofore unknown willingness to support a person obviously unqualified for the job and to ignore/commit any crime to ensure he keeps his useful idiot status. This is their moment. They are going to fight like hell. We must do the same, but with the adjunct requirement of working within the rule of law, which they will not.

Honestly, I don't know if we end up as a western-style democracy at the end of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Don't Biden and Buttigieg also benefit, since they're not bound by the Senate schedule?
They will, but they don't have the built-in war chest that Bloomberg brings. It's handy when you can afford to buy a presidency -- or at least try.
  #5702  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:28 PM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
At this point, I suspect President Trump will declare himself exonerated in just about any plausible scenario: either the House doesn't vote to impeach or the Senate votes for acquittal.
Fuck that. He could be impeached, removed, found guilty in court, sentenced to prison, appeal 85 times (losing each and every one of them), and still claim himself exonerated. And his base and a vast majority of the Republican party, will agree.
  #5703  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:31 PM
Shoeless's Avatar
Shoeless is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Sunflower State
Posts: 6,964
Sorry if this question has already been asked and answered... If so, just point me to the relevant posts.

Suppose the House votes to impeach, and the Senate fails to convict and remove. Now suppose Trump gets reelected, Dems retain the House, GOP retains the Senate. Is there any reason the House can't attempt to impeach again, provided it's not the same charges? Can they keep something in their back pocket that they could come after him for in his second term?
__________________
I'm not black, but there's a whole lotsa times I wish I could say I'm not white. -- FZ
  #5704  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:42 PM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeless View Post
Suppose the House votes to impeach, and the Senate fails to convict and remove. Now suppose Trump gets reelected, Dems retain the House, GOP retains the Senate. Is there any reason the House can't attempt to impeach again, provided it's not the same charges? Can they keep something in their back pocket that they could come after him for in his second term?
They could impeach him on new charges or even the exact same charges. There is no double jeopardy protection against impeachment but, under the conditions you describe, why would Democrats expect different results from a second impeachment?
  #5705  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:37 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Because Dems aren't interested in doing a thorough job in their impeachment hearing. They are only interested in saying that they had them. There, we've done our jobs, Trump will never be thrown out of office in the Senate trial anyway, obstruction charges laid out by Mueller are just oh so confusing that the public will never be able to understand them, we just want to get this shit over with as soon as possible so we can get back to the election, and blah fucking blah. I understand the politics behind it, but as for me I see this as mostly a gutless and feckless shirking of their duty to uphold the US constitution.
I understand the Senate will not vote to convict and that the impeachment is just an exercise. My complaint is that the exercise has not gone far enough to reveal everything rotten that can be revealed about this administration.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #5706  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:39 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
No doubt you remember this is the exact same tactic McConnell ran for the Merrick Garland vote theft. "It's too close to the election! Let The People™ decide!" What they really mean is, "give us enough time to let the Russians work their magic."
There are two irrefutable counter-arguments to "let's just let the election deal with this mess":

One: Trump cheated in the 2016 election and is trying to cheat in 2020. Why should we let a tainted election determine his fate?

Two: The Founders could have easily written the impeachment clause to only apply to appointed officials, but they didn't. They explicitly included the President, which means they didn't care how soon the next election is. They want the bastard to be run out of town on a rail, now.
  #5707  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:56 PM
Shoeless's Avatar
Shoeless is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Sunflower State
Posts: 6,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
They could impeach him on new charges or even the exact same charges. There is no double jeopardy protection against impeachment but, under the conditions you describe, why would Democrats expect different results from a second impeachment?
I wouldn't expect any different results, but they could drag the next investigation out much longer, just keep hammering away.
__________________
I'm not black, but there's a whole lotsa times I wish I could say I'm not white. -- FZ
  #5708  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:01 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Bill Barr can interpret the law just as widely as we could ever imagine. He could interpret it to mean that the sky is purple, not blue, and if the SC goes against him he could agree with them but then offer a new interpretation saying that the sky is chartreuse and this will have to be fought all of the way to the Supreme Court again because it's a different argument from before and the judicial branch has to give deference to the Executive and presume faithful intent; or, he could simply interpret their ruling as an agreement with his interpretation, despite the plain text saying otherwise. All of the FBI and attorney generals, ultimately, obey the US Attorney General and follow his instruction not the Supreme Court.

For every subpoena, the executive branch simply has to switch to a new argument and force it to go through the entire depth of the court system to get slapped down.

If they run out of creativity, they can simply interpret the SC ruling in their favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Judicial proceedings are slow and deliberate by design. I'd think hard before changing this function of the courts as having served us decently well for our entire history. In fact, the decision about deciding whether a subpoena is valid has far-reaching consequences throughout our system, both in terms of the respective powers of the legislative and executive branches as well as to what extent to draw the line on the very real concept of executive privilege (not blanket immunity, as Trump wrongly asserted). That's why we get 120-page rulings to answer the questions.
This right here is what might be, for me, the most frustrating thing about this process. We have an independent judiciary as a bulwark against dictatorship, but the GOP has figured out how to abuse that system to defend Trump's dictatorial practices. And isn't this essentially Trump's MO in business, too? Lie, cheat, break contracts and fight it in court until the other guy dies or runs out of money.

Funny thing is, Republicans like to piss and moan about frivolous tort cases that tie up corporate legal departments. But I guess IOKWARDI.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #5709  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:33 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So how do you view the Republicans in light of their actions during this?
They are the loyal and honorable opposition of course.
  #5710  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:52 PM
Bumbershoot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 2,584
Looks like Trump is throwing Rudy under the bus, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly:

Trump Denies Sending Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine for Biden Probe

Quote:
Trump: "No, I didn’t direct him, but he is a warrior, he is a warrior"

Asked by O’Reilly what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine, Trump said “you have to ask that to Rudy...”

“Rudy has other clients, other than me"

Last edited by Bumbershoot; 11-26-2019 at 07:56 PM.
  #5711  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:59 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,768
Bill O’Reilly?? He has a job?
  #5712  
Old 11-26-2019, 08:02 PM
Bumbershoot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 2,584
Surprised me, too!
  #5713  
Old 11-26-2019, 08:02 PM
Ike Witt's Avatar
Ike Witt is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lost in the mists of time
Posts: 15,022
I am really wondering what Bolton is hoping for.
  #5714  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:41 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Witt View Post
I am really wondering what Bolton is hoping for.
Phenomenal book sales.
  #5715  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:43 PM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,313
Private depositions today with Reeker and Sandy.
  #5716  
Old 11-26-2019, 10:14 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bumbershoot View Post
Looks like Trump is throwing Rudy under the bus, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly:

Trump Denies Sending Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine for Biden Probe
Mentions of Giuliani by Donald J. Trump during his July 25 call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald J. Trump

I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine.
...
Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.
...
I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.
...
Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call.
  #5717  
Old 11-27-2019, 01:18 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
You do realize that this precedent goes for both sides going forward right? No more oversight means no more oversight in either direction.

Or are you all of a sudden going to have an epiphany about executive authority and oversight once a Democrat is elected president?
I know for a fact every republican in every government position will.
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon
  #5718  
Old 11-27-2019, 01:20 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,979
From Bumbershoot's paywalled link:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Trump
Rudy has other clients, other than me. He's done a lot of work in Ukraine over the years.
I wonder if Rudy can hear the bus revving it's engine.
  #5719  
Old 11-27-2019, 01:55 AM
Bumbershoot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 2,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
From Bumbershoot's paywalled link:

Sorry about that. I was able to read it without paying but when I clicked it just now, at the bottom it said "Last of your three free articles".

This one should be free:

Trump distances himself from Giuliani's Ukraine efforts (CBS News)
  #5720  
Old 11-27-2019, 02:01 AM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 14,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
You do realize that this precedent goes for both sides going forward right? No more oversight means no more oversight in either direction.

Or are you all of a sudden going to have an epiphany about executive authority and oversight once a Democrat is elected president?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I know for a fact every republican in every government position will.
Likewise with the more “conservative” honchos on the Supreme Court. I believe it’s understood that they have a deeply entrenched view of the “Unitary Executive” who has unbridled power and authority over most everything.

I keep wondering what tune the same will sing when a Dem is Prez.
__________________
=========================================
  #5721  
Old 11-27-2019, 02:05 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
Likewise with the more “conservative” honchos on the Supreme Court. I believe it’s understood that they have a deeply entrenched view of the “Unitary Executive” who has unbridled power and authority over most everything.

I keep wondering what tune the same will sing when a Dem is Prez.
I suspect the objective is to rig everything so there is never, ever again a Dem who is Prez.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 11-27-2019 at 02:05 AM.
  #5722  
Old 11-27-2019, 03:07 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
Likewise with the more “conservative” honchos on the Supreme Court. I believe it’s understood that they have a deeply entrenched view of the “Unitary Executive” who has unbridled power and authority over most everything.

I keep wondering what tune the same will sing when a Dem is Prez.
Oh they're absolutely included in that group I mentioned above. Most of the people currently being nominated to courts around the country are not qualified, neutral jurists. They're hardline conservative partisans, sometimes with no qualifications other than "sucked up to Trump". The courts have always been political, but by now it's so obvious that anyone still holding out hope is just begging to be played. All of the rulings allowing Trump to basically do whatever he wants by a 5-4 partisan split will suddenly become 5-4 partisan rulings forbidding basically whatever the democrats try to do. Just yesterday, I read this article on Slate... Not encouraging.

Quote:
The list of statutes susceptible to attack under a revived nondelegation doctrine is lengthy. Campaign finance laws that entrust the Federal Election Commission to limit coordination between political campaigns and outside groups? Likely gone. (Such coordination allows candidates to easily skirt campaign finance limits.) Workplace laws that charge the Department of Labor with adjusting wage, hour, and overtime rules? Possibly doomed, as well. Laws regulating drugs, tobacco, firearms, crime, and immigration are shot through with significant delegations to federal agencies. Those may soon be on the chopping block.

Worse, the nondelegation doctrine may be applied in a manner that’s inconsistent—and politically charged—because the standard is so subjective: A “major policy question” is whatever five justices say it is, and there may be overlap between what those justices say and what the Republican Party desires.

Defenders of the nondelegation doctrine like Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh insist that their theory would restore legislative power to Congress. That is misleading at best. The doctrine would limit Congress’ power to delegate authority to agencies, giving courts a new veto over the people’s representatives. It is a theory that aggrandizes the dominance of courts over Congress, not Congress over agencies. And it is resurgent just as Republicans gain control over the judiciary. Kavanaugh’s opinion on Monday gives enemies of federal regulation—over the environment, the economy, our elections, you name it—a gift that could keep giving for decades to come.
  #5723  
Old 11-27-2019, 10:48 AM
Defensive Indifference is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,323
Just a bit of trivia that doesn't seem to fit any other threads ... Adam Schiff was in St. Louis the day before yesterday to attend the groundbreaking of the new National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) facility. He had dinner at a trendy vegetarian restaurant. He's a vegan. [Johnny Carson impression]I did not know that.[/Johnny Carson impression]

https://m.riverfronttimes.com/artsbl...chment-inquiry
  #5724  
Old 11-27-2019, 10:59 AM
DesertDog is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
I was watching Maddow's summary of the ruling on YouTube last night. I lost it when she said, "I've never seen 'kneecapping' in a decision before. I must be reading the wrong kind of decisions."
  #5725  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:10 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defensive Indifference View Post
Just a bit of trivia that doesn't seem to fit any other threads ... Adam Schiff was in St. Louis the day before yesterday to attend the groundbreaking of the new National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) facility. He had dinner at a trendy vegetarian restaurant. He's a vegan. [Johnny Carson impression]I did not know that.[/Johnny Carson impression]

https://m.riverfronttimes.com/artsbl...chment-inquiry
Not to diminish your post in any way, but I feel sad that this thread has gone from "Holy shit, can you believe what Trump did?" to "Guess what? Schiff's a vegan." Sort of a metaphor for the whole damn story.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #5726  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:21 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defensive Indifference View Post
Just a bit of trivia that doesn't seem to fit any other threads ... Adam Schiff was in St. Louis the day before yesterday to attend the groundbreaking of the new National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) facility. He had dinner at a trendy vegetarian restaurant. He's a vegan. [Johnny Carson impression]I did not know that.[/Johnny Carson impression]

https://m.riverfronttimes.com/artsbl...chment-inquiry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Not to diminish your post in any way, but I feel sad that this thread has gone from "Holy shit, can you believe what Trump did?" to "Guess what? Schiff's a vegan." Sort of a metaphor for the whole damn story.
Well, it IS trivia, and to me pretty interesting. But my first thought was, "One more thing for Republicans to sneer at and ridicule about him." That part IS sad.
__________________
“Master, I’ve discovered the answer! Knock and the door will be opened to you.” The master replied, “Who said the door was closed?”
  #5727  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:41 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Well, it IS trivia, and to me pretty interesting. But my first thought was, "One more thing for Republicans to sneer at and ridicule about him." That part IS sad.
No kidding.

"Who you gonna believe? Our awesome patriotic president, or those politically correct socialist vegans?"
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #5728  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:47 AM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,813
Someone who eats his steak well-done vs. someone who eats it not at all. Geez, you guys really are screwed.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #5729  
Old 11-27-2019, 12:35 PM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is offline
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
Someone who eats his steak well-done vs. someone who eats it not at all. Geez, you guys really are screwed.
MHO, it's far, far better to eschew steak altogether than to desecrate it by cremation. Does he put ketchup on it as well?

(Sez the person who hardly ever eats steak, but gets it next to raw when he does.)
  #5730  
Old 11-27-2019, 01:02 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by OttoDaFe View Post
MHO, it's far, far better to eschew steak altogether than to desecrate it by cremation. Does he put ketchup on it as well?

(Sez the person who hardly ever eats steak, but gets it next to raw when he does.)
As Dennis Leary once said, "Just bring me a god damn cow-I'll eat some of it raw and ride what's left home".
  #5731  
Old 11-27-2019, 01:45 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 866
OK, since this thread has devolved into bad meat jokes, I'll risk a lightning rod sub-topic.

Censure.

Since we know the Senate won't remove Trump in an impeachment, would a strong, bipartisan (say, 50 House Pubs and 15 GOP Senators) censure vote be a better outcome (with "better" defined as "more likely to help the Dem candidate win next year") than impeach-and-acquit?

Of course, as I write this I realize I've made a logical mistake. No Pubs will vote for censure. If they know they're going to "win" on impeachment, why would they concede anything? They know they can spin a senate acquittal into "complete exoneration," so why go on record with even the slightest suggestion Trump did anything wrong?

But maybe I'm missing something. And I'm NOT advocating for censure -- I firmly believe Trump's actions in this matter should disqualify him from office. But I can read the writing on the wall, so I'm curious what others think about the c-word.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #5732  
Old 11-27-2019, 01:50 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,197
Why would Trump care about being censured if it doesn't cost him money and/or power?
  #5733  
Old 11-27-2019, 01:53 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,193
Trump's chief job is to anger Democrats.

Having a majority of Democrats vote to send him an angry letter (AKA, a censure) is just a win for Trump.

He's already had a few resolutions against his actions passed (meaning that Republicans signed on), if I remember correctly.
  #5734  
Old 11-27-2019, 02:02 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Why would Trump care about being censured if it doesn't cost him money and/or power?
I don't care what Trump cares about. I care what will help defeat him next year.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #5735  
Old 11-27-2019, 02:02 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
The New York Times:
Quote:
Breaking News: As Rudy Giuliani waged a public campaign to unearth damaging information in Ukraine about President Trump’s political rivals, he privately pursued contracts with Ukrainian officials, documents show
Shimon Prokupecz, journalist:
Quote:
Why all this matters: 1/ “A federal criminal investigation into Mr. Giuliani is examining his role in the campaign to oust Marie L. Yovanovitch and whether he sought to make money in Ukraine at the same time he was working against her...

“Prosecutors and F.B.I. agents in Manhattan are examining whether Mr. Giuliani was not just working for the president, but also doing the bidding of Ukrainians who wanted the ambassador removed for their own reasons, the people said.”
  #5736  
Old 11-27-2019, 02:02 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Why would Trump care about being censured if it doesn't cost him money and/or power?
This. Censure might be meaningful to a normal, reasonable president. Trump is neither.
  #5737  
Old 11-27-2019, 02:08 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,277
I didn't realize we were motivated by what Donald Trump cares about.
  #5738  
Old 11-27-2019, 02:25 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I didn't realize we were motivated by what Donald Trump cares about.
We care about not throwing Brer Rabbit in that there briar patch.
  #5739  
Old 11-27-2019, 02:25 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Witt View Post
I am really wondering what Bolton is hoping for.
Here is my pulled out of my ass guess as to what Bolton's motivation might be.

I think Bolton is more of an ideologue than he is a partisan. I think he does what he does and takes the actions he takes based on the fact that he really believes that that is what is best for the country. I think he's totally wrong and batshit insane, but I think he generally believes what he says. Along these lines I believe he realizes the Trump is very bad for the security of the United States, and would be very pleased to see Trump kicked out of office and run out of town on a rail. On the other hand he also realizes that he only has a career on the right side of the spectrum, and if he gets cast as a deep state never Trumper he'll never be able to work again. So he wants to spill the beans, but he wants to be forced to do it. That way he can say, that he would never willingly betray the president, but once he was put under oath, he just had to tell the truth.

Basically he's like that sympathetic guard who releases the hero from his holding cell but asks the hero to hit him in the face a few times and tie him up so he doesn't get in trouble.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 11-27-2019 at 02:26 PM.
  #5740  
Old 11-27-2019, 03:03 PM
Defensive Indifference is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Not to diminish your post in any way, but I feel sad that this thread has gone from "Holy shit, can you believe what Trump did?" to "Guess what? Schiff's a vegan." Sort of a metaphor for the whole damn story.
Yeah, I know what you mean. It's all become so quotidian.

But as a vegetarian and a St. Louisan, I thought that was a cool story.
  #5741  
Old 11-27-2019, 03:20 PM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by OttoDaFe View Post
MHO, it's far, far better to eschew steak altogether than to desecrate it by cremation. Does he put ketchup on it as well?
Gosh. How'd you ever guess? Yes. Yes he does: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#79313164769e

https://www.eater.com/2017/2/28/1475...up-personality

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-...t-steak-2018-2
  #5742  
Old 11-27-2019, 03:22 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Here is my pulled out of my ass guess as to what Bolton's motivation might be.

I think Bolton is more of an ideologue than he is a partisan. I think he does what he does and takes the actions he takes based on the fact that he really believes that that is what is best for the country. I think he's totally wrong and batshit insane, but I think he generally believes what he says. Along these lines I believe he realizes the Trump is very bad for the security of the United States, and would be very pleased to see Trump kicked out of office and run out of town on a rail. On the other hand he also realizes that he only has a career on the right side of the spectrum, and if he gets cast as a deep state never Trumper he'll never be able to work again. So he wants to spill the beans, but he wants to be forced to do it. That way he can say, that he would never willingly betray the president, but once he was put under oath, he just had to tell the truth.

Basically he's like that sympathetic guard who releases the hero from his holding cell but asks the hero to hit him in the face a few times and tie him up so he doesn't get in trouble.
You are CORRECT sir!
  #5743  
Old 11-27-2019, 03:47 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bumbershoot View Post
Looks like Trump is throwing Rudy under the bus, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly:

Trump Denies Sending Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine for Biden Probe
What if Giuliani stumbled upon the whole Ukraine/Biden thing as a result of his involvement in other matters in that part of the world, and that he originated the idea of going after Biden? Then he brought it to Trump earlier this year, and of course Trump immediately got on board. When I read this article in that context, my first thought is that Trump is saying to O'Reilly that he did not have Giuliani go out cold and try to find stuff starting last year. That is what Trump means when he said he didn't direct him. We know of course from the Zelensky conversation that Trump wanted the Ukranian to call Rudy, but that doesn't contradict Trump not directing Rudy from the beginning.

Trump:

Quote:
"Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great."
Trump later said: "I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out."
Assuming for the sake of argument that Trump is not in fact a criminal mastermind, but instead a hapless, bumbling idiot*, then the above quote fits in with this idea. This certainly doesn't absolve Trump of wrongdoing, and he should still be thrown out on his ass...

*Which of course goes without saying.

ETA: I only know what O'Reilly and Trump said in the interview from what is in this CNN article.
__________________
The essence of youth is believing things last forever. -Eric Sevareid

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 11-27-2019 at 03:50 PM.
  #5744  
Old 11-27-2019, 04:04 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,095
Benefit of the doubt is there for those that deserve it.

You don't get it when all you do is lie 24/7.
__________________
"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
  #5745  
Old 11-27-2019, 04:06 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
What if Giuliani stumbled upon the whole Ukraine/Biden thing as a result of his involvement in other matters in that part of the world, and that he originated the idea of going after Biden? Then he brought it to Trump earlier this year, and of course Trump immediately got on board. When I read this article in that context, my first thought is that Trump is saying to O'Reilly that he did not have Giuliani go out cold and try to find stuff starting last year. That is what Trump means when he said he didn't direct him. We know of course from the Zelensky conversation that Trump wanted the Ukranian to call Rudy, but that doesn't contradict Trump not directing Rudy from the beginning.
Literal truth is a very effective method of lying.

My car doesn't have a gas cap, for example.

Q: Did you put sugar in the gas tank?
A: Didn't touch the gas cap.

Whether Trump was being literal or lying, who knows.

Quote:
This certainly doesn't absolve Trump of wrongdoing, and he should still be thrown out on his ass...
Yep.
  #5746  
Old 11-27-2019, 04:15 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
OK, since this thread has devolved into bad meat jokes, I'll risk a lightning rod sub-topic.

Censure.

Since we know the Senate won't remove Trump in an impeachment, would a strong, bipartisan (say, 50 House Pubs and 15 GOP Senators) censure vote be a better outcome (with "better" defined as "more likely to help the Dem candidate win next year") than impeach-and-acquit?

Of course, as I write this I realize I've made a logical mistake. No Pubs will vote for censure. If they know they're going to "win" on impeachment, why would they concede anything? They know they can spin a senate acquittal into "complete exoneration," so why go on record with even the slightest suggestion Trump did anything wrong?

But maybe I'm missing something. And I'm NOT advocating for censure -- I firmly believe Trump's actions in this matter should disqualify him from office. But I can read the writing on the wall, so I'm curious what others think about the c-word.
Yeah, I think your fourth paragraph adequately sums up the problem with this idea. The Chicago Tribune came out with an editorial in favor of censure yesterday, which motivated me to finally get around to cancelling my subscription. Really should have done that long ago.
  #5747  
Old 11-27-2019, 04:40 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Yeah, I think your fourth paragraph adequately sums up the problem with this idea. The Chicago Tribune came out with an editorial in favor of censure yesterday, which motivated me to finally get around to cancelling my subscription. Really should have done that long ago.
That's the editorial that got me thinking about it! Here's the sentence that steamed my shorts:
To impeach and expel represents the overturning of an election, and thus the effective suspension of our democratic system due to dire emergency.
The election which would supposedly be overturned by this impeachment and removal happened three years ago! According to this logic, no president should ever be removed, no matter what they do, because it's a "suspension of our democratic system."

I guess they believe that, in case of a "dire emergency," it would be worth it, but seeking (but ultimately failing) to leverage the power of the presidency for personal political gain doesn't qualify. Nor do obstruction of justice and witness intimidation to cover up that effort. Never mind that all that was done to gain an advantage in the next election -- we must protect the democratic process!
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #5748  
Old 11-27-2019, 04:46 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,170
Right wing media, November 2016: we are a republic, not a democracy!

Right wing media, November 2019: we can’t allow threats to our democracy!
  #5749  
Old 11-27-2019, 04:58 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
That's the editorial that got me thinking about it! Here's the sentence that steamed my shorts:
To impeach and expel represents the overturning of an election, and thus the effective suspension of our democratic system due to dire emergency.
The fuck? It is using our democratic system to remove the dire emergency.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #5750  
Old 11-27-2019, 05:06 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
The fuck? It is using our democratic system to remove the dire emergency.
Despite that befuddling "logic," I'm not cancelling my Chicago Tribune subscription, because they also publish Steve Chapman, who writes:
"If Trump is not impeached and removed, the message will be that presidents can get always with virtually anything. If he isn’t held fully accountable for his abuses, he will set a new low standard for acceptable conduct. And we can expect the same, if not worse, from future presidents."
He's no liberal by any stretch, so his consistent and insightful criticisms of this administration carry even more weight.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 11-27-2019 at 05:08 PM.
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 09:42 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