Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-26-2019, 08:58 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,907

The House Judiciary Impeachment Case discussion thread.


Oh. You didn't know this was a thing?

The House Judiciary officially opened up the impeachment probe today arguing in a new filing that future requests for information, including Mueller grand jury information, falls under the disclosure exception for a "judicial proceeding" because the committee is officially probing whether to proceed with impeachment.

Filing (second-hand link)

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/statu...209902080?s=19

Articles and commentary:

HuffPost: https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...073155585?s=19

Washington Examiner: https://twitter.com/Heidi_Cuda/statu...140810752?s=19

Washington Post: https://twitter.com/JoshuaMatz8/stat...591313409?s=19

Renato Mariotti: https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/...877712385?s=19

John Dean: https://twitter.com/JohnWDean/status...497879040?s=19

It has started. Nancy signed off on the language, and all future requests by the JC can now be directed as part of their Constitutional duty of checks, balances, and impeachments.

Last edited by JohnT; 07-26-2019 at 08:59 PM.
  #2  
Old 07-26-2019, 09:16 PM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,728
Happy to see they are going ahead with an enquiry. Thought for sure there was going to be little or no action until after the summer recess.
  #3  
Old 07-26-2019, 09:24 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,975
If they do it, this is the right way to do it, IMO. Don't make it a big spectacle -- make it much more about paperwork and court filings than televised hearings.
  #4  
Old 07-26-2019, 09:32 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Kabong View Post
Happy to see they are going ahead with an enquiry. Thought for sure there was going to be little or no action until after the summer recess.
That's probably still the case. But it's a relief to see that it's been started.

Of course, when over a hundred members of your caucus have come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry, it's not exactly a fringe thing anymore.
  #5  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:06 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If they do it, this is the right way to do it, IMO. Don't make it a big spectacle -- make it much more about paperwork and court filings than televised hearings.
I'm guessing Trump will quickly take that option away from the Democrats and go out of his way to make it a big spectacle.
  #6  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:03 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,141
Running in tandem, I'm wondering what's going on the intel side of things. All those redacted pages that they can see, but we can't. And they seem all over solemn and quiet compared to the Goober Gomert and Nonesuch Nunes we were seeing. Did they see something that made them so subdued and sober? Might that have something to do with why it seems so many Dems are climbing on the train?
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #7  
Old 07-27-2019, 12:05 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Running in tandem, I'm wondering what's going on the intel side of things. All those redacted pages that they can see, but we can't. And they seem all over solemn and quiet compared to the Goober Gomert and Nonesuch Nunes we were seeing. Did they see something that made them so subdued and sober? Might that have something to do with why it seems so many Dems are climbing on the train?
Don't forget that Bill Barr now has access to pretty much any intel he wants - on anyone.
  #8  
Old 07-27-2019, 06:48 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,141
Asymmetric information war: Trump and Barr are feeding information to 'whoever they want'
Quote:
.....It’s just one part of a war of asymmetric information that Trump and Barr are conducting against Congress by hiding information critical of Trump, while supporting conspiracy theories. And truth be damned.

In a Fox News interview on Thursday, Trump reached new depths of ignominy. He called the investigation into the connections between his campaign and Russia “treason.” And, lifting a term that certainly deserves to be directed his way, Trump said of the investigation, “This was high crimes.”

And, said Trump, he had authorized Barr to release classified information to “whoever he wants, whether it’s his people, or frankly people like Devin Nunes, who is a star.” ....
Daily Kos
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...ever-they-want

OK, this is Daily Kos Some reluctance with using such a decidedly partisan site, my people are human too. The video clip from Fox Gnaws is supplied. You can listen here:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1154567847500242944

Not good. Would be comforting to think that friend asahi is channeling his inner Eeyore. Sure don't look like it.

Last edited by elucidator; 07-27-2019 at 06:51 AM. Reason: D'oh! A dear, a female dear....
  #9  
Old 07-27-2019, 10:46 AM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If they do it, this is the right way to do it, IMO. Don't make it a big spectacle -- make it much more about paperwork and court filings than televised hearings.
Death by a thousand cuts.
  #10  
Old 07-27-2019, 11:26 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,097
I ask myself, if I were in Trump's shoes, what would I do? I would turn it into a spectacle. I would say "You wanna impeachment? Then impeach me. Let's get it on." I would aim to attack and pressure the House Democrats. Most of the country's already moved on from the Mueller investigation, which is presumably what the articles of impeachment would be based on. So I would probably be tweeting about it and talking it up in interviews incessantly.

This idea that we can start impeachment hearings and somehow keep it low profile while calling them impeachment proceedings seems really dangerously naive to me. People are operating on the assumption that Trump wants to keep impeachment out of sight, but I don't see it that way. There's no way to keep impeachment low-profile - because it's fucking impeachment. If I were Trump - and obviously I'm not - I would accept that impeachment is going to be the talk of the town, and indeed the talk of the country. And I would enlist my House allies to put pressure the Democrats move faster than they want to move. And if the economy goes down, if something bad happens, I'd have them blame Democrats for "creating a distraction" over a "fake" investigation. That's obviously not how I see it, but that's how I would react if I were Trump. He could put democrats on the defensive - with impeachment. If you think Democrats look like pussies now, it could get even worse. They could look like divided, confused, unfocused, squabbling, identity politicking pussies who are talking about everything except what the voters in this country think matters to them.
  #11  
Old 07-27-2019, 12:06 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
...And I would enlist my House allies to put pressure the Democrats move faster than they want to move. ....
This is his strategy-- to take over the agenda and dominate. To make the fight serve HIS aims and goals. Smart people (like Nancy Pelosi) have the intestinal fortitude to resist this and keep control of their side of the fight.

Thump LOVES a fight. He jumps into the pit and beckons-- actually dares those who started the fight to jump in with him and go a few rounds. Just like the trolls here. Most people can't resist that, especially when insults are involved. Grownups OTOH shrug, walk away, and fight only on their own ground and their own terms. They refuse the bait.

I think asahi is right: thump will try to co-opt this and I only hope the committee can resist and go on about their "boring but important"* business.




* One of the features in The Week magazine.
__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." --Václav Havel
  #12  
Old 07-27-2019, 12:21 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,907
I do not think it is an original observation that if all the breaking stories from March to September 2017 were instead revealed through the Mueller report, the political situation for Individual-1 would be very different.

"Trump tower meeting? 'I Love It?' Firing Comey like that? Manafort selling campaign data? Holy fucking shit, and that's just 12 pages! How long is this thing? Fuck, we gotta get rid of this guy."

Last edited by JohnT; 07-27-2019 at 12:22 PM.
  #13  
Old 07-27-2019, 12:55 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Of course, when over a hundred members of your caucus have come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry, it's not exactly a fringe thing anymore.
What happens when this number reaches 118? This number would mean that a majority of the House Democratic Caucus have positioned themselves against the party's/Pelosi's position on impeachment/an impeachment inquiry.

Personally, I think impeachment is going to happen.

Incidentally, Michael Moore is pro-impeachment.
  #14  
Old 07-27-2019, 01:15 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,141
Given such numbers would most likely reflect an equal proportion of the voting population, I imagine Granny Nancy would, reluctantly, bend to the people's will. With grave reservations, no doubt, they would examine the questions of where to dig the hole, and selecting an appropriate headstone.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #15  
Old 07-27-2019, 01:19 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
What happens when this number reaches 118? This number would mean that a majority of the House Democratic Caucus have positioned themselves against the party's/Pelosi's position on impeachment/an impeachment inquiry.

Personally, I think impeachment is going to happen.

Incidentally, Michael Moore is pro-impeachment.
I saw this last night. He makes the case beautifully. And also about how the Democrats need a person people can't wait to go the polls for. As he said about voting for Obama, "I can't believe we're gonna do this today".
  #16  
Old 07-27-2019, 01:21 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
.....

Incidentally, Michael Moore is pro-impeachment.
who gives a damn?
  #17  
Old 07-27-2019, 01:23 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I saw this last night. He makes the case beautifully. And also about how the Democrats need a person people can't wait to go the polls for. As he said about voting for Obama, "I can't believe we're gonna do this today".
So, he'd rather have the publicity and something to make a movie about, rather than actually getting trump out of office. He'd rather see another four years of trump, then?

Remember, Mitch will see to it there there will be no trail. Fox will see to it that the hearings are misrepresented to the MAGA folks. Very few people will stay glued to match it in Cspan and the ones that do have already made up their mind. It will be a totally pointless show hearing.

Last edited by DrDeth; 07-27-2019 at 01:26 PM.
  #18  
Old 07-27-2019, 01:37 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,141
In your experience and estimation, people are very predictable?
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #19  
Old 07-27-2019, 02:02 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
who gives a damn?
Moore offers a non-D.C. perspective. As he points out earlier in the linked video, being "an angry white guy, over the age of 50, [with] a high school education", means that, in Moore's own words, "I'm his [Trump's] base". Moore also predicted, against most people's expectations, that Trump was going to win in 2016. So I think his views are worth listening to.
  #20  
Old 07-27-2019, 02:23 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
What happens when this number reaches 118? This number would mean that a majority of the House Democratic Caucus have positioned themselves against the party's/Pelosi's position on impeachment/an impeachment inquiry.

Personally, I think impeachment is going to happen.
A vote was held in the house a couple of short weeks ago on impeachment proceedings. 90 Democrats voted to impeach. The resolution was tabled (failed). Cut to the Mueller testimony and a dozen Democrats joined the pro-impeachment side and numbers appear to be growing. My questions is this: Did these new dozen Democrats not bother reading the report? Did they learn something they didn't know before? What about Mueller's testimony compelled them to switch?

My point is this: Every Republican, with the exception of one or two, are lined up and bent over in front of Trump regardless of what he says or does. There is virtually zero dissent in the ranks. Democrats, for all their justified outrage, and preponderance of evidence, can't seem to all get on the same page and present a united front. It's fucking amateur hour. That's why Republicans and Trump get their way every fucking time. Because Democrats are a useless bunch of prevaricating, hand wringing, mealy-mouthed (with a few exceptions), ineffectual fucking wankers.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 07-27-2019 at 02:25 PM.
  #21  
Old 07-27-2019, 02:30 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
A vote was held in the house a couple of short weeks ago on impeachment proceedings. 90 Democrats voted to impeach. The resolution was tabled (failed). Cut to the Mueller testimony and a dozen Democrats joined the pro-impeachment side and numbers appear to be growing. My questions is this: Did these new dozen Democrats not bother reading the report? Did they learn something they didn't know before? What about Mueller's testimony compelled them to switch?
Rep. Al Green's impeachment vote was on the grounds of Trump's bigotry/racism and attacks on the Democratic congresswomen. Green specifically said it was separate from any impeachment that might arise from the Mueller report.
  #22  
Old 07-27-2019, 02:42 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,865
Up until now, at least, trump's had it both ways. He's been able to gin up his base by pissing and moaning about impeachment without having to face the actual reality of it. Why should he get to have all the fun?
  #23  
Old 07-27-2019, 02:54 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
A vote was held in the house a couple of short weeks ago on impeachment proceedings. 90 Democrats voted to impeach. The resolution was tabled (failed). Cut to the Mueller testimony and a dozen Democrats joined the pro-impeachment side and numbers appear to be growing. My questions is this: Did these new dozen Democrats not bother reading the report? Did they learn something they didn't know before? What about Mueller's testimony compelled them to switch?

My point is this: Every Republican, with the exception of one or two, are lined up and bent over in front of Trump regardless of what he says or does. There is virtually zero dissent in the ranks. Democrats, for all their justified outrage, and preponderance of evidence, can't seem to all get on the same page and present a united front. It's fucking amateur hour. That's why Republicans and Trump get their way every fucking time. Because Democrats are a useless bunch of prevaricating, hand wringing, mealy-mouthed (with a few exceptions), ineffectual fucking wankers.
That’s the problem with a so-called “big tent” party. It’s not really a cohesive group. It’s an alliance of factions united to profit from being in political control.
  #24  
Old 07-27-2019, 03:22 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
That’s the problem with a so-called “big tent” party. It’s not really a cohesive group. It’s an alliance of factions united to profit from being in political control.
Imperfect and frustrating as that is, it beats being a party united by hypocrisy and bigotry.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #25  
Old 07-27-2019, 03:25 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Rep. Al Green's impeachment vote was on the grounds of Trump's bigotry/racism and attacks on the Democratic congresswomen. Green specifically said it was separate from any impeachment that might arise from the Mueller report.
Fair enough. That aside, the numbers of Dems in favor of impeachment proceedings has risen since the Mueller testimony. I'm puzzled about what they learned that they did not know earlier. The rest of my criticism stands.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #26  
Old 07-27-2019, 04:14 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Fair enough. That aside, the numbers of Dems in favor of impeachment proceedings has risen since the Mueller testimony. I'm puzzled about what they learned that they did not know earlier. The rest of my criticism stands.
The number of House Democrats in favor of opening an impeachment inquiry has been steadily rising over past weeks, irrespective of Mueller's testimonial appearance. The conclusion of Mueller's testimony may have been a good symbolic time to "come out", but I don't think it necessarily follows that Mueller's testimony was what persuaded them to do so.

I have doubts that there are many, if any, House Democrats that think Trump does not deserve impeachment, so I think any reluctance is mostly about the idea that Republicans acquitting Trump in the Senate would be construed as a political defeat.

I think the main reason that the number of House Democrats favoring impeachment is rising is probably because of the White House's stonewalling of all congressional oversight, which is an untenable situation from Congress' point of view. Other ongoing debates on the subjects of upholding the rule of law, and the actual political consequences of a Senate acquittal, may also be factors.
  #27  
Old 07-27-2019, 05:04 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Fair enough. That aside, the numbers of Dems in favor of impeachment proceedings has risen since the Mueller testimony. I'm puzzled about what they learned that they did not know earlier. The rest of my criticism stands.
Their constituents think it's a great idea. However, likely most of the hoi polloi dont know that "Impeachment" won't actually remove trump*, and most of the rest dont realize that since Mitch wont allow a real trial, it will likely help trump get elected.

So, this is yet another time where Pelosi knows best.

*Because it's confusing, see in English "Impeachment" means to remove from office, but in the Constitution it's on the first step.
  #28  
Old 07-27-2019, 05:05 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,277
My very experienced HOR person, Peter DeFazio, wrote the following to me as one of his supporters on July 12th. I think it's a fairly comprehensive explanation of what Pelosi's game plan is and why.

Quote:
I am deeply troubled about the actions of this president, his administration, the erosion of our country's democratic institutions, and the spineless Republicans that turn a blind eye. The Constitution clearly lays out the checks and balances among the three co-equal branches of government, yet the Trump administration acts as if it is above the law.

Let me be clear: If the House Judiciary Committee moves forward with an impeachment inquiry, you can be sure I will support it.

I believe Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy, national security, economic stability and American values. He needs to go.

However, the impeachment process is not the most certain or strongest tool to hold the president accountable. The ballot box is.

There is extreme and significant risk that, without taking the time to thoroughly investigate and build a case, a rush to impeachment could end up benefiting President Trump and ensure his re-election in 2020.

We cannot lose the presidency in 2020. A second Trump term threatens our national security, election integrity, the health of our environment, freedoms, and the foundations of our democracy. If Trump wins a second term our democracy may not survive.

For the impeachment process to successfully result in his removal, Congress must build a nonpartisan case with the American people, a large majority of whom still do not support impeachment.

A successful impeachment process requires substantive and thorough investigations. It also requires that each chamber of Congress put country before political party. Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, will do everything in their power to delay impeachment past November 2020 or even more alarming, acquit President Trump of all charges. There is no doubt that Trump would use this to prove he was "exonerated" once again.

Much like its approach to the Watergate scandal, Congress must conduct deliberative investigations, hold hearings, enforce oversight of President Trump's actions, and use the courts when the Trump administration stonewalls investigations. The Watergate hearings led to the discovery of unequivocal evidence to open impeachment proceedings against Nixon and forced his resignation.

It's critical to build an effective case for impeachment before opening an inquiry and while I believe that there are grounds for impeachment and support an inquiry, I strongly believe that the most effective way to accomplish the goal of removing Trump from office is through our electoral process.

The surest way to end the Trump administration is for the American people to unite behind a presidential candidate to take on Trump and restore our country's values.

I recognize that many of you seek justice and a swift restoration of the checks and balances that have made our federal government strong. I share your desire for justice and accountability.

That's why I am using the powers granted by the Constitution, as Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to conduct oversight and investigate this administration. I have oversight of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), which manages federal buildings, including the building that houses the infamous Trump Hotel.

My committee is also investigating the Trump administration's sudden decision to abandon plans to move the Federal Bureau of Investigation from their decrepit building in downtown D.C. to a larger, newer suburban facility.

The FBI had been working with Congress on this bipartisan plan for nearly a decade but it was suspiciously derailed by the GSA, Trump White House, and Department of Justice. The Trump administration directed the GSA to undertake a more expensive plan to temporarily move the FBI, tear down their current building and rebuild in a footprint that can only house half of the agency. These nonsensical and abrupt changes raise serious ethical and legal questions.

The GSA's own Inspector General found that the head of the GSA misled Congress about White House involvement in the decision-making process. The Inspector General also found that Trump's plan to stop the move would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars more and accommodate 2,300 fewer employees.

It just so happens that the Trump Hotel is only a few blocks away from the FBI building; moving the FBI and redeveloping the property for the commercial market could produce new hotel competition and impact business for the Trump Organization.

I'm also investigating other significant conflicts of interests surrounding the Trump Hotel. There is a myriad of constitutional, legal, and ethical issues raised by President Trump serving as both landlord and tenant of a U.S. government building.

The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prevents elected officials from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments and leaders. The lease itself expressly states that elected officials cannot benefit. Yet, foreign governments, like Saudi Arabia and others, are regularly booking large blocks of rooms at prices far above market rates. The financial revenue flowing from foreign governments to President Trump is of serious concern and should trouble every American.

I've demanded GSA respond to my inquiries surrounding the Trump Hotel and I will not rest until I have all of the documents that I've requested. If needed, I will issue subpoenas.

I take my constitutional duty very seriously and I will pursue these investigations to completion. The American people will know the truth about the Trump administration's self-dealing and unethical behavior. My committee will turn over any and all evidence of wrongdoing committed by the president to the House Committee on the Judiciary who would initiate an impeachment inquiry.

We're living in a difficult and dark time in American history, and I want you to know that I too fear for our country and for our children's future. I am deeply disturbed by the Trump administration's subversion of our democracy and the actions of this president.

The decisions that elected leaders and voters make over the next 17 months could determine if our democracy survives. We must set our sights on the ultimate goal and the long-term health of our democratic republic.

Stay strong, stay in the fight, and know that I'm fighting for you in Washington D.C.

In unity,

Peter
He then sent a note on the 19th after Al Green's impeachment resolution:

Quote:
Without a doubt, President Trump's recent remarks about four duly-elected Members of Congress were racist and xenophobic, Aspenglow.

From the early days of his campaign, he's frequently used hate speech tropes and dog-whistles but, as President of the United States, he's moved to full-throated racist attacks. His words and actions are unacceptable.

However, racism and bigotry, while incredibly abhorrent, are not impeachable offenses. Impeachment is one of the most serious actions that Congress can take, and it must be based on a solid, factual record of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Rather than being tabled, I believe that this week's resolution on impeachment should have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where these critical matters are currently being investigated.

As I have said, should the Judiciary Committee move forward with an impeachment inquiry, I will offer my full support.

Next week, former special counsel Robert Mueller will publicly testify before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees which will finally allow for a high profile, public accounting of the findings detailed in the Mueller report.

Six House committees are currently investigating serious allegations against President Trump. We should use the evidence from those investigations to compile a comprehensive list of potentially impeachable offenses to build a strong case to form the basis for an impeachment inquiry.

The long-term health of our democratic republic depends on it.

Peter
Mr. DeFazio was one of the 5 who came out in favor of impeachment after Mueller's testimony.
  #29  
Old 07-27-2019, 05:06 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
My very experienced HOR person, Peter DeFazio, wrote the following to me as one of his supporters on July 12th. I think it's a fairly comprehensive explanation of what Pelosi's game plan is and why.



He then sent a note on the 19th after Al Green's impeachment resolution:



Mr. DeFazio was one of the 5 who came out in favor of impeachment after Mueller's testimony.
What a great letter! He is to be congratulated!
  #30  
Old 07-27-2019, 05:10 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
What a great letter! He is to be congratulated!
He's a fabulous representative. We're lucky to have him. Smart as hell, very experienced, in touch with his constituency. I trust him.

ETA: I'm extremely impressed with our Senators, too. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden. Both very activist and leaders against this corrupt mess of an "administration."

Last edited by Aspenglow; 07-27-2019 at 05:11 PM.
  #31  
Old 07-27-2019, 05:21 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Fair enough. That aside, the numbers of Dems in favor of impeachment proceedings has risen since the Mueller testimony. I'm puzzled about what they learned that they did not know earlier. The rest of my criticism stands.
I have a guess about that. I think it happened in the second meeting, the intelligence committee. They get to see stuff the rest of us don't see. Seems to me, they were noticeably more sombre.

As for the loyalty of Republicans, they have a higher loyalty, their incumbency. If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #32  
Old 07-27-2019, 07:38 PM
don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 1,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
A vote was held in the house a couple of short weeks ago on impeachment proceedings. 90 Democrats voted to impeach. The resolution was tabled (failed). Cut to the Mueller testimony and a dozen Democrats joined the pro-impeachment side and numbers appear to be growing. My questions is this: Did these new dozen Democrats not bother reading the report? Did they learn something they didn't know before? What about Mueller's testimony compelled them to switch
It's more a matter of what their constituents - at least the Democratic ones - learned, or learned that there was strong evidence for, even if little evidence was revealed. The folks back home are more likely to support an impeachment inquiry now.

That theory at last gives me some insight to Pelosi's possible plan (the PPP). Building on Mueller and examining supporting documents* while in recess gives vulnerable Dems, especially those who turned their districts last year, an opportunity to go home, make the case for action, and pay attention to feedback. If they can balance that with the kitchen table issues both impeachment and maintaining the House majority move forward.

*Of course, Barr, is as usual, the big slobbery dog in the manger. He'll fight in court with the same executive-privilege/no-legislative-purpose gun he always uses. Without a formal impeachment inquiry - and maybe with one - unitary executive is the hill he's chosen to die on. My biggest fear is that he'll take that all the way to the Supreme Court and win. I hope Pelosi's keeping that in mind..

Last edited by don't mind me; 07-27-2019 at 07:39 PM. Reason: so close
  #33  
Old 07-27-2019, 07:53 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,097
I think what the Democrats need is something like their own version of the Contract With America, which is what Newt Gingrich's GOP came to town with in 1995. They need a marketing and sales pitch.

I hope I'm way wrong on this and wouldn't having other posters dig this post up months from now and saying "We told you so!" But my fear is that impeachment will become the Democratic party's picture frame, whether they intend it to or not.
  #34  
Old 07-27-2019, 08:21 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,907
No need to feel alone as I was already telling Representative Castro the same thing a year ago. Glad you caught up.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=856350

Last edited by JohnT; 07-27-2019 at 08:23 PM.
  #35  
Old 07-27-2019, 08:22 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
...The House Judiciary officially opened up the impeachment probe today arguing in a new filing that future requests for information, including Mueller grand jury information, falls under the disclosure exception for a "judicial proceeding" because the committee is officially probing whether to proceed with impeachment.

... It has started. Nancy signed off on the language, and all future requests by the JC can now be directed as part of their Constitutional duty of checks, balances, and impeachments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If they do it, this is the right way to do it, IMO. Don't make it a big spectacle -- make it much more about paperwork and court filings than televised hearings.
I agree. Not only should the Democrats refrain from making chest-thumping speeches or tweets about how Now We Are Impeaching, they should quietly approve a definite schedule for hearings and court filings that stretches out a year, at least.

They can schedule Mueller's lieutenants for the weeks beginning after they come back from August recess. None of those people will need to be subpoenaed. Of course Barr will attempt to muzzle each and every one of them---but making public Barr's attempts to keep Trump's secrets secret, will be part of the process.

And they should start and/or continue with the subpoena process for the reluctant witnesses from Trump's inner circle, so that the courts will have ruled by the time the testimony from Mueller's people has run its course.

There are other witnesses who can speak to wrongdoing by Trump. Have a week or two of testimony devoted to violations committed during the Inauguration; another week or two for irregularities with staffing at Trump properties; more for the issues with Chinese spies at Mar-a-Lago; more for security clearance shenanigans; and more for profiteering at the Mexico border. And on and on. Put it all on a schedule. The schedule might have to change, but at least map out the coming year for all to see.

The hearings should not be ballyhooed as "this is the thing that will change minds"---instead the focus should be on "this is the case that is being built against Trump, one day of testimony after another after another after another."

Just keep a steady drumbeat of revelations coming, day after day, month after month.



Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm guessing Trump will quickly take that option away from the Democrats and go out of his way to make it a big spectacle.
Yes, he will. But he will be hampered if there aren't any Democrats making "look at us, we're impeaching!" statements anywhere, whether on camera or on social media. He'll have nothing to react to; nothing to play off.

It will take incredible discipline. But the Democrats can do it if they try.
  #36  
Old 07-27-2019, 08:55 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
...
Yes, he will. But he will be hampered if there aren't any Democrats making "look at us, we're impeaching!" statements anywhere, whether on camera or on social media. He'll have nothing to react to; nothing to play off.

It will take incredible discipline. But the Democrats can do it if they try.
Exactly this. (My emphasis.) Give him nothing to react to. And if he starts a fight out of nothing, ignore it! Don't let him dictate the terms. Keep control of your own side. Let his insults and rants go in one ear and out the other. When you ignore him, it doesn't mean he's "getting away with something." Insults and challenges do not have to be responded to (contrary to what some have suggested here).

And it will absolutely take incredible discipline! Nancy can do it. I hope there are other Dems who can, too.
__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." --Václav Havel

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 07-27-2019 at 08:56 PM.
  #37  
Old 07-28-2019, 06:25 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Exactly this. (My emphasis.) Give him nothing to react to. And if he starts a fight out of nothing, ignore it! Don't let him dictate the terms. Keep control of your own side. Let his insults and rants go in one ear and out the other. When you ignore him, it doesn't mean he's "getting away with something." Insults and challenges do not have to be responded to (contrary to what some have suggested here).

And it will absolutely take incredible discipline! Nancy can do it. I hope there are other Dems who can, too.
Absolutely: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL must be the Democratic slogan (even if only internally). (my emphasis in your quote)
  #38  
Old 07-28-2019, 08:36 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, he'd rather have the publicity and something to make a movie about, rather than actually getting trump out of office. He'd rather see another four years of trump, then?
I don't know what he'd rather have happen and neither to do you. But since what he said obviously suggests that he would rather a Democrat be elected, I'll go with that. There are plenty of things he can make a movie about already. He doesn't need to go manufacture them.

And I have nothing to "remember" about Mitch stopping the trial. You know, since we haven't even gotten there yet.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 07-28-2019 at 08:38 PM.
  #39  
Old 07-28-2019, 08:40 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Because Democrats are a useless bunch of prevaricating, hand wringing, mealy-mouthed (with a few exceptions), ineffectual fucking wankers.
I never do this, but:

This!
  #40  
Old 07-28-2019, 10:59 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
.

My point is this: Every Republican, with the exception of one or two, are lined up and bent over in front of Trump regardless of what he says or does. There is virtually zero dissent in the ranks. Democrats, for all their justified outrage, and preponderance of evidence, can't seem to all get on the same page and present a united front. It's fucking amateur hour. That's why Republicans and Trump get their way every fucking time. Because Democrats are a useless bunch of prevaricating, hand wringing, mealy-mouthed (with a few exceptions), ineffectual fucking wankers.
And, you think that is a good thing? That no matter what Mitch or trump does, not matter how many crimes, how deep the racism, how clear the acts of treason, they just go along with it?

I'd rather have the non-United front, showing that the Dems can think for themselves that they are allowed to disagree.

Rather than than than a bunch of racist, nazi, mindless yes men who cant think for themselves.
  #41  
Old 07-28-2019, 11:09 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,097
One problem that impeachment presents is how to define an impeachable offense. Moreover, when should a country really start the process of trying to use extra-democratic means to remove an office holder.

Even if you have some current FBI or DoJ officials testifying that the president committed illegal acts, does it hold that we necessarily impeach? Is Congress obligated to impeach even when a majority of the American public is not really on board?

Being able to make an argument for impeachment that satisfies a constitutional law professor is one thing, but what if the country isn't bothered by the alleged criminality to want the president removed?

This is the tempest that Democrats are sailing into: potentially removing a president without the consent of a clear majority of people. Hate Trump all you want, but I would be careful when handling these live wires.
  #42  
Old 07-29-2019, 01:19 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think what the Democrats need is something like their own version of the Contract With America, which is what Newt Gingrich's GOP came to town with in 1995. They need a marketing and sales pitch.
I think that makes sense in a midterm election. But in a Presidential election, the party's nominee will choose the message.
  #43  
Old 07-29-2019, 01:45 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This is the tempest that Democrats are sailing into: potentially removing a president without the consent of a clear majority of people. Hate Trump all you want, but I would be careful when handling these live wires.
Funny that there isn't a clear majority in favor of impeachment before anyone's bothered to make the case for it. Who'd'a thunk?
Quote:
One problem that impeachment presents is how to define an impeachable offense.
You don't define one; you run prospective impeachable offenses up the flagpole and see who says, "fuck yeah, that's impeachable."

Stuff like ten apparent instances of obstruction of justice, five of which have been shown to meet the standard for criminality? Fuck yeah. Children in cages taking care of babies in cages? Fuck yeah.
Quote:
Moreover, when should a country really start the process of trying to use extra-democratic means to remove an office holder.
If anyone thinks they're trying to remove Trump via impeachment, I think they're deluded.

But what's extra-democratic about this? We're a representative democracy, which is the normal type of democracy for any group that's too large to convene in a single room. And our elected representatives would be initiating a procedure enshrined in our Constitution.

Clearly there's about 40% of the population that wouldn't think Trump should be impeached if he had the Democratic Party HQ bulldozed. But you can bet that Democratic leaders will be paying attention to how it's playing with the other 60% when they make their case: you may have noticed that while Republicans will cheerfully do whatever they want, regardless of popular opinion, Democrats get scared at the least hint of opposition. I am totally unworried that the Dems would schedule a vote on impeachment unless the winds of popular support were blowing their way.
  #44  
Old 07-29-2019, 01:57 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
You don't define one; you run prospective impeachable offenses up the flagpole and see who says, "fuck yeah, that's impeachable."
Should congressional majorities always do this when the president is a member of the opposition party? Just run various charges up the flagpole and see who's interested?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Stuff like ten apparent instances of obstruction of justice, five of which have been shown to meet the standard for criminality? Fuck yeah. Children in cages taking care of babies in cages? Fuck yeah. If anyone thinks they're trying to remove Trump via impeachment, I think they're deluded.
Nothing new we're talking about. It's not going to make Democrats more popular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
But what's extra-democratic about this? We're a representative democracy, which is the normal type of democracy for any group that's too large to convene in a single room. And our elected representatives would be initiating a procedure enshrined in our Constitution.
Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should.
  #45  
Old 07-29-2019, 02:26 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,461
Quote:

Nothing new we're talking about. It's not going to make Democrats more popular.
How can you know this? Upon what, *exactly*, do you base this?
  #46  
Old 07-29-2019, 03:13 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
How can you know this? Upon what, *exactly*, do you base this?
The last two years.

Everything that has been raised as impeachment bait is essentially old news. I have no idea why people think that going from "oversight" to "impeachment" is going to suddenly make the public outraged when they could have been outraged by many of the things he said on the campaign trail in 2016.

I'm not saying never impeach, but I wouldn't bother unless it's something we haven't seen before.
  #47  
Old 07-29-2019, 04:11 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The last two years.

Everything that has been raised as impeachment bait is essentially old news. I have no idea why people think that going from "oversight" to "impeachment" is going to suddenly make the public outraged when they could have been outraged by many of the things he said on the campaign trail in 2016.

I'm not saying never impeach, but I wouldn't bother unless it's something we haven't seen before.
They saw things on the campaign trail, yes. This is not about the campaign trail. This is about impeachable offenses. I know what these are, that is, the ones Mueller listed in his report. I assume you do to. But what makes you think the average Democrat, or any other person for that matter, has? Why can't it be that bluster doesn't affect opinion that much, but possible, likely crimes, will?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 07-29-2019 at 04:14 PM.
  #48  
Old 07-29-2019, 04:36 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
They saw things on the campaign trail, yes. This is not about the campaign trail. This is about impeachable offenses. I know what these are, that is, the ones Mueller listed in his report. I assume you do to. But what makes you think the average Democrat, or any other person for that matter, has? Why can't it be that bluster doesn't affect opinion that much, but possible, likely crimes, will?
Christ, the guy basically admitted he has a penchant for groping women (a crime), which was later corroborated by scores of women. And did it matter? Nope - got elected by the country eyes wide open anyway. Hell, he admitted in an interview that he pushed Comey out because of "the Russia thing" - obstruction of justice, last I looked. We didn't need Mueller for that. We didn't need Mueller to establish that Trump is a criminal and a con man. I hate to say it, but people really and truly don't care about that - not in 2019. They just...don't. You do. I do. But the average American that ended up getting this guy elected does not.

Viewers aren't going to see "crimes" they're going to see one party trying to weaken a president they don't like, which is how they've been seeing it for the past 2 years.

Last edited by asahi; 07-29-2019 at 04:36 PM.
  #49  
Old 07-29-2019, 05:02 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Christ, the guy basically admitted he has a penchant for groping women (a crime), which was later corroborated by scores of women. And did it matter? Nope - got elected by the country eyes wide open anyway. Hell, he admitted in an interview that he pushed Comey out because of "the Russia thing" - obstruction of justice, last I looked. We didn't need Mueller for that.
There may be people, Democrats or otherwise, who aren't aware of things as of now that would come out during an impeachment hearing and then trial. In fact, I'm sure there are. You know why? Because most people in the country aren't like you and I, in that they don't follow this shit in detail like we do, discuss it everyday, get different viewpoints, and then decide where we stand. I'd bet oh 80% of the American public has no idea who the fuck Mueller is. But here's the thing: I don't know if impeachment would help or hurt Trump. As I've said elsewhere though, I can see reasons to think it would and reasons to think it would not, and acknowledge each as a real possibility. You don't seem to be open to this idea.

Quote:
We didn't need Mueller to establish that Trump is a criminal and a con man. I hate to say it, but people really and truly don't care about that - not in 2019. They just...don't. You do. I do. But the average American that ended up getting this guy elected does not.

Viewers aren't going to see "crimes" they're going to see one party trying to weaken a president they don't like, which is how they've been seeing it for the past 2 years.
This is a perfect example that I said why *exactly*. But, sorry, "they just don't" doesn't help when it comes to Dem voters. I know you said "who got him elected". But Im talking about Dems,not them,.

Not sure if you have brought up polls, but others have, so to respond to them and *maybe* you, since I've thought about this for a while:

I haven't looked for any polls recently about if Democratic voters are for or against impeachment. If there is one out there that says not only that a large percentage are against it, but also why they are against it, and the reasons are along the lines of that they don't think Trump deserves it and it would lessen their chances for voting for a Dem, that would support the idea. If on the other hand a major reason, for example, is because they're sick of DC, don't trust either side, and don't want an impeachment to muck up their TV schedules or whatever, then that would not support it. A simple poll of Dems that says only that they are against it is pretty meaningless, IMO.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 07-29-2019 at 05:04 PM.
  #50  
Old 07-29-2019, 05:21 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Should congressional majorities always do this when the president is a member of the opposition party? Just run various charges up the flagpole and see who's interested?
It certainly has to be one of the criteria. If after you've made your best case as the Judiciary Committee debates articles of impeachment, and only a minority think they're important, then yeah, you should bag it. Just like the GOP should have in 1998, after they'd made the midterms a referendum on impeachment, and lost.
Quote:
Nothing new we're talking about. It's not going to make Democrats more popular.
Of course none of it's new. Big fucking deal! The point is that while there's always some new Trump outrage, (ETA: the big stuff has gotten lost in the rest of the garbage, and) nobody's bothered to say, "these are the ones that are beyond the pale, nobody who does these things should be allowed to continue as President. All that other stuff is bad, but someone can be a total shitheel and still be President. This is the stuff that goes way beyond that." The impeachment process will do that.
Quote:
Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should.
You said it was "extra-democratic." I explained why it wasn't. I gather you concede the point, since this is in no way a rebuttal.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 07-29-2019 at 05:22 PM.
Closed Thread

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 10:46 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