Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3551  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:03 AM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
How do you know that? There could be a town called Twilo in Kansas, or Nebraska, or something...
How can someone masturbate like a motherfuck without thumbs? We should have a bake sale, or something,
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #3552  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:03 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,971
I agree. It seems to me that Bolton doesn't want to appear to be willing to do the Democrats' bidding, but would be more than happy to stick it to Donald if compelled to do so.

The next 4-6 weeks will be where the tide turns in public opinion. Getting credible witnesses questioned by professional counsel rather than grandstanding politicians in public hearings is going to make or break the case. I'm betting that outside the Fox bubble, hearing these witnesses speak on simple issues and repeated on the nightly news and quoted on news sites will move public opinion from current say 50% in favor of conviction to maybe 70%. When Republican Senators see their numbers start to drop, they will make the calculation that to save themselves they have to ditch the dead weight in the Oval Office.
  #3553  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:31 AM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,385
Even as it stands, if all they have is Trump's base, they probably can't win. But if they don't have Trump's base, they don't even have that much of a chance. The technical term in political science is "boned".
  #3554  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:47 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,156
IF, and it is a big if, the presentation convinced all but that 35% of the voting population base of the actual high crimes this is, then each district and state GOP critter would have an individualized assessment to make. Which way are they less screwed? But for some it’s clear: dump Trump and you’re a primary crump chump. Don’t and you get the nom to be a gen election bomb ...

Honestly some might just retire at that point.
  #3555  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:48 AM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like Bolton wants to testify. "You know, if you were to issue a subpoena I'd have to come in and talk, right?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
Sorta curious what the comment from Boltonís lawyer neans. Is it possible Bolton wonít testify voluntarily but is signaling he will show up if subpoenaed?
Bolton's lawyer is signalling that Bolton is eager for an invitation to testify in the form of a subpeona and, if subpeonaed, Bolton will not let assertions of executive privilege stop him from testifying. I don't think Bolton is taking this stance because he wants to say things that will please Trump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I agree. It seems to me that Bolton doesn't want to appear to be willing to do the Democrats' bidding, but would be more than happy to stick it to Donald if compelled to do so.

The next 4-6 weeks will be where the tide turns in public opinion. Getting credible witnesses questioned by professional counsel rather than grandstanding politicians in public hearings is going to make or break the case. I'm betting that outside the Fox bubble, hearing these witnesses speak on simple issues and repeated on the nightly news and quoted on news sites will move public opinion from current say 50% in favor of conviction to maybe 70%. When Republican Senators see their numbers start to drop, they will make the calculation that to save themselves they have to ditch the dead weight in the Oval Office.
Trump's approval rating shows almost no sensitivity to headlines. At no point in his administration has his approval rating dropped below 37%. It only dropped that low during the government shutdown.Trump's base seemingly comprises overwhelmingly low information voters. My guess is that weeks of hearings might push his approval rating down to 34%. I figure he has no chance of conviction in the Senate unless more than half of Republican voters disapprove of him. That means roughly 25% approval ratings overall, in a world where basically every Democrat already disapproves and the number of high-information Republicans simply dwindles out of sheer embarrassment.

The greatest benefit of the impeachment proceedings will be to create a contemporaneous record of the worst administration in U.S. history.
  #3556  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:51 AM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running with Scissors View Post
I know Bolton is a hard right conservative, but many conservative and liberal politicians consider themselves friends, just disagreeing on policy. Has he actually gone on record implying or saying that he hates Democrats?
Perhaps I should have said liberals instead.
  #3557  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:01 AM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
Bolton's lawyer is signalling that Bolton is eager for an invitation to testify in the form of a subpeona and, if subpeonaed, Bolton will not let assertions of executive privilege stop him from testifying. I don't think Bolton is taking this stance because he wants to say things that will please Trump.
Natasha Bertrand, Politico, on MSNBC yesterday: "John Bolton, we're told, is actually very eager to testify..."
  #3558  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:03 AM
Running with Scissors is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Small blue-green planet
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
Perhaps I should have said liberals instead.
OK, has he actually gone on record implying or saying that he hates liberals? Or just liberal policies?
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit." -- Nigel Tufnel
  #3559  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:11 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
IF, and it is a big if, the presentation convinced all but that 35% of the voting population base of the actual high crimes this is, then each district and state GOP critter would have an individualized assessment to make. Which way are they less screwed? But for some it’s clear: dump Trump and you’re a primary crump chump. Don’t and you get the nom to be a gen election bomb ...

Honestly some might just retire at that point.
I'm starting to think the threat of a primary challenge for some of these GOP Senators might not be the deterrent that Orange Julius Caesar is fervently hoping for. His coattails now can't be as big as they were during the midterms (and really, were they all that big?). The political machinery needed to transform the clubhouse errand boy into a viable primary challenger. even in a GOP stronghold, may simply not be there.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)

Last edited by CaptMurdock; 10-31-2019 at 11:11 AM.
  #3560  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:18 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
.... At no point in his administration has his approval rating dropped below 37%. It only dropped that low during the government shutdown....
And this has also been floated as another "strategy" Trump might use to add wrench to impeachment inquiry works.
  #3561  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:31 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
I'm starting to think the threat of a primary challenge for some of these GOP Senators might not be the deterrent that Orange Julius Caesar is fervently hoping for. His coattails now can't be as big as they were during the midterms (and really, were they all that big?). The political machinery needed to transform the clubhouse errand boy into a viable primary challenger. even in a GOP stronghold, may simply not be there.
Filing deadlines are passing every day as well. In Texas, the deadline is December 9th, and Cornyn already has 2 challengers:

https://ballotpedia.org/United_State...in_Texas,_2020
  #3562  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:34 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,166
This may matter:

State Department agrees to turn over Ukraine documents

Quote:
WASHINGTON — The State Department has agreed to release documents related to President Trump’s handling of aid to Ukraine, potentially providing ammunition to the impeachment probe now being conducted by Democrats in the House of Representatives.

The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by American Oversight, a watchdog group affiliated with progressive causes. That lawsuit was initially filed in the spring, after Trump dismissed U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie L. Yovanovitch. Since that firing, a whistleblower complaint and other developments have led to allegations Trump used $400 million in aid to Ukraine as leverage on authorities there to investigate Hunter Biden.

Hunter Biden’s father, former Vice President Joe Biden, is challenging Trump for the presidency.

Last week, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington, D.C., told the State Department it had to turn over Ukraine-related documents, citing “public interest” that he said tilted “heavily in favor of disclosure.”
  #3563  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:37 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,542
Impeachment inquiry just passed in the House (I was watching C-Span). Votes were something like 232-193 (not sure if that's the final numbers), with 2 Democrats voting nay and 1 independent (former Republican Justin Amash, I believe) voting aye and a handful of no votes.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-31-2019 at 11:37 AM.
  #3564  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:46 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I agree. It seems to me that Bolton doesn't want to appear to be willing to do the Democrats' bidding, but would be more than happy to stick it to Donald if compelled to do so.
This almost certainly isn't true but, one could note, all of the testimony that we've seen so far has said that various people went to Bolton, telling him that they were concerned about Trump's Ukraine activities.

From what we know of the whistleblower, he is a person whom a variety of people talked to, telling him that they had concerns about Trump's Ukraine activities. Occam's Razor would tell us that between supposing the existence of two figures who match that description, we should only expect there to be one.

Bolton rage-quit and/or was fired. Shortly after, the whistleblower came into existence.

And, of course, Bolton is the "scorched earth" sort.

Counter to all of that, Trump's just soooo criminal that we probably don't need to bring Occam into this and I'm not sure that this is Bolton's style.
  #3565  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:01 PM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 6,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
IF, and it is a big if, the presentation convinced all but that 35% of the voting population base of the actual high crimes this is, then each district and state GOP critter would have an individualized assessment to make. Which way are they less screwed? But for some itís clear: dump Trump and youíre a primary crump chump. Donít and you get the nom to be a gen election bomb ...

Honestly some might just retire at that point.
There was a old Pubbie of Niger
Who smiled as he rode on a tiger;
They returned from the ride
With the Pubbie inside,
And the smile on the face of the tiger.
I'm finding it hard to sympathetic. They're in a hole of their own digging.
  #3566  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:07 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Impeachment inquiry just passed in the House (I was watching C-Span). Votes were something like 232-193 (not sure if that's the final numbers), with 2 Democrats voting nay and 1 independent (former Republican Justin Amash, I believe) voting aye and a handful of no votes.
Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey are the two Democrats who voted with Republicans against the resolution.
  #3567  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:09 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,554
Yes, I came here to say that. Here's an NPR story:
" Just two Democrats voted no ó Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.
Amid the debate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called it a "sad day."
"It's a sad day because nobody comes to Congress to impeach a president of the United States. No one," she told reporters. "We come here to do the work, make the future better for our children, for America's future. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and that's what we cannot ignore and will not ignore when the president's behavior indicates that that investigation, that inquiry, is necessary."
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/31/77477...chment-inquiry
  #3568  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:15 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
This almost certainly isn't true but, one could note, all of the testimony that we've seen so far has said that various people went to Bolton, telling him that they were concerned about Trump's Ukraine activities.

From what we know of the whistleblower, he is a person whom a variety of people talked to, telling him that they had concerns about Trump's Ukraine activities. Occam's Razor would tell us that between supposing the existence of two figures who match that description, we should only expect there to be one.

Bolton rage-quit and/or was fired. Shortly after, the whistleblower came into existence.

And, of course, Bolton is the "scorched earth" sort.

Counter to all of that, Trump's just soooo criminal that we probably don't need to bring Occam into this and I'm not sure that this is Bolton's style.
I don't know. My take on Bolton is that he's a war hawk who fancies himself as the greatest patriot of all and that he is very much a hawk with respect to Russia. If he genuinely believes that the Ukraine blackmail has the effect of strengthening Russia's hand then I can totally see him being outraged enough to testify and to build the case for impeachment and conviction. He doesn't see himself as owing Donald anything, if anything he thinks that Donald is his debt for gracing the room with his presence. I'm sure it didn't take long for Bolton to realize what a chump DJT is and that his presidency poses a clear and present danger to the nation.
  #3569  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:20 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Yes, I came here to say that. Here's an NPR story:
" Just two Democrats voted no ó Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.
Congressman Peterson doesn't accept emails from people outside his district, so I sent him an "Appearance Request" inviting him to speak to a group about why he is ashamed to have let down his country in this difficult time.
  #3570  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:27 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,953
So the House Republicans want us to believe that trump wanted to root out corruption in the Ukraine. PLEASE! This president is corruption PERSONIFIED. His interest in Ukrainian corruption was limited to getting a PIECE of it. This explains why they wanted to get rid of the ambassador and replace her with a stooge. This explains Rudy and the "two Shrecks". This explains why Bolton called the whole thing a "drug deal". This explains everything.
  #3571  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:28 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Congressman Peterson doesn't accept emails from people outside his district, so I sent him an "Appearance Request" inviting him to speak to a group about why he is ashamed to have let down his country in this difficult time.
I hate it that congressmen generally don't accept emails from outsiders. If they're going to grandstand on the national stage the least they can do is take the flak from a national audience.
  #3572  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:29 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,542
Peterson is basically a Republican... but he's in a Trump +31 district, so I don't really think there's much point to being pissed off about him in terms of partisan politics. He's probably better than the alternative for that district.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-31-2019 at 12:29 PM.
  #3573  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:33 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,166
New trivia question!

Who is the only Democrat to vote for an impeachment inquiry into Bill Clinton (D) and against an impeachment inquiry for Donald Trump (R)?

Collin Peterson, that's who!

How long before Mr. Peterson goes on Faux?

Last edited by JohnT; 10-31-2019 at 12:34 PM.
  #3574  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:36 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Peterson is basically a Republican... but he's in a Trump +31 district, so I don't really think there's much point to being pissed off about him in terms of partisan politics. He's probably better than the alternative for that district.
It's actually a good time to be a leader and explain to your district why this matters. I assume he voted no because he doesn't want Trump impeached. That's incomprehensible to me, but there you have it.
  #3575  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:44 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,736
I wonder why former members of the Senate and House are able to see things more clearly?

Quote:
Former Republican U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton says President Donald Trump has taken "a dozen actions that warrant impeachment" by the U.S. House, though he has not concluded whether Trump ought to be removed from office
  #3576  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:51 PM
gytalf2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 3,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Yes, I came here to say that. Here's an NPR story:
" Just two Democrats voted no ó Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.
Amid the debate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called it a "sad day."
"It's a sad day because nobody comes to Congress to impeach a president of the United States. No one," she told reporters. "We come here to do the work, make the future better for our children, for America's future. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and that's what we cannot ignore and will not ignore when the president's behavior indicates that that investigation, that inquiry, is necessary."
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/31/77477...chment-inquiry
Wow! Pelosi actually sounds like a reasonable, mature, responsible adult. Trump's certainly never gonna sound like one!
  #3577  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:59 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 304
Whew, that was a lot of pages to catch up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
Ken Starr:

Yes, THAT Ken Starr.

There's a whole lot of "Do as I say, not as I do," going around with Republicans who were responsible for the Clinton impeachment. He advocates censuring Trump at most, because impeachment is bad for our democracy. Unless you lie about a blowjob, I guess.

-from The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...hment-so-much/
I won't get into it in too much detail here because I don't want to hijack, but I think we need to stop defending Clinton. Were the Republicans utter hypocrites then and now? Absolutely. But with the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure Clinton shouldn't have been impeached, albeit on slightly altered articles. Perjury and witness tampering, and sexual favors he obtained literally in the oval office, from a young intern, while he was president. If that happened now, by a president of either party, I would likely support impeachment. We need to stop minimizing it as "lying about a blow job." But by all means, we should hold Republicans' feet to the fire about how that impeachment was conducted, and why these charges would deserve any different treatment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...o-quo?ref=home

Does it make a difference if dt doesn't want your presumption?
In actuality, what the near-transcript shows is that he is too dumb/incompetent to NOT do quid pro quo. I think he believes it isn't quid pro quo if the quid and the quo are not in the same sentence. Also, after Vindman confirmed that the ellipses do indicate omissions, I strongly suspect there's a quid pro quo sentence that got removed. (Which would be why he was so confident the record of the call had "no quid pro quo.") I wonder if anyone tried to explain to him that that isn't how it works.

I also mentioned several pages back that there should be a campaign of taunting to get him to testify. It certainly could work to just get him to publicly incriminate himself, too. People should be saying that he's not smart enough to tell us his plan. It probably wasn't even his plan, and he probably didn't even understand it, etc. Although, come to think of it, he publicly incriminates himself all the time, no taunting needed.

Last edited by eschrodinger; 10-31-2019 at 01:01 PM.
  #3578  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:17 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
Trump's approval rating shows almost no sensitivity to headlines. At no point in his administration has his approval rating dropped below 37%. It only dropped that low during the government shutdown.Trump's base seemingly comprises overwhelmingly low information voters. My guess is that weeks of hearings might push his approval rating down to 34%. I figure he has no chance of conviction in the Senate unless more than half of Republican voters disapprove of him. That means roughly 25% approval ratings overall, in a world where basically every Democrat already disapproves and the number of high-information Republicans simply dwindles out of sheer embarrassment.
"Support for the President" and "support for impeachment" aren't the same thing. There are a lot of people out there who don't like Trump, but aren't sure that impeaching him is necessary or appropriate. Those people could be swung around to supporting impeachment without Trump's core support dipping much below ~37%.
  #3579  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:26 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
"Support for the President" and "support for impeachment" aren't the same thing. There are a lot of people out there who don't like Trump, but aren't sure that impeaching him is necessary or appropriate.
Who are these people and how can they follow the testimony and not feel that he crossed a line? Where on earth is the line for those people? Do they even have a line?


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
  #3580  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:35 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey are the two Democrats who voted with Republicans against the resolution.
Thanks for saving me having to look it up. My rep was a holdout until now since we are a red state, I'm happy to see she did the right thing. I was worried she was one of the two.
  #3581  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:38 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
Thanks for saving me having to look it up. My rep was a holdout until now since we are a red state, I'm happy to see she did the right thing. I was worried she was one of the two.
One Dem didn't vote. So, you better check.
  #3582  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:43 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Who are these people and how can they follow the testimony and not feel that he crossed a line? Where on earth is the line for those people? Do they even have a line?


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
You're under estimating how little attention some people pay to the news, current events, and especially politics. I know some people who have opinions about Trump but no clue what's going on.
  #3583  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:51 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Who are these people and how can they follow the testimony and not feel that he crossed a line? Where on earth is the line for those people? Do they even have a line?


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Some people might think it will energize his base, or that it's too close to the election, or sets a precedent that Republicans will exploit.

I'm not one of those people, but I felt very conflicted about impeachment before the Ukraine call came to light. One of my biggest concerns about Trump from the beginning has been how much he would damage our democracy in irremediable ways. I think a president should be impeachable for gross incompetence or gross unfitness for office, but I think impeachment sort of presupposes that coming to light after the election. So, on the one hand, I thought he was essentially impeachable from the day of his inauguration, but also that it would drastically break our system of government to do so. (Largely because the narrative would be that Democrats just wanted to undo the results of the election -- which would be true, but it would be because the result of the election was to elect a person supremely unfit for office). I thought firing Comey plus the results of the Mueller investigation would provide specific enough grounds, but the politics and the narrative didn't wind up working.

But the Ukraine call is so specific, so clear, and such an easy concept to grasp, that I think impeachment is worth the risks that come with it. Others might weigh the risks differently. Or see impeachment differently.

Last edited by eschrodinger; 10-31-2019 at 01:54 PM.
  #3584  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:04 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
I'm not one of those people, but I felt very conflicted about impeachment before the Ukraine call came to light. One of my biggest concerns about Trump from the beginning has been how much he would damage our democracy in irremediable ways. I think a president should be impeachable for gross incompetence or gross unfitness for office, but I think impeachment sort of presupposes that coming to light after the election. So, on the one hand, I thought he was essentially impeachable from the day of his inauguration, but also that it would drastically break our system of government to do so. (Largely because the narrative would be that Democrats just wanted to undo the results of the election -- which would be true, but it would be because the result of the election was to elect a person supremely unfit for office). I thought firing Comey plus the results of the Mueller investigation would provide specific enough grounds, but the politics and the narrative didn't wind up working.

But the Ukraine call is so specific, so clear, and such an easy concept to grasp, that I think impeachment is worth the risks that come with it. Others might weigh the risks differently. Or see impeachment differently.
I'm pretty much with you. I thought the Mueller investigation took too long and made little attempt to knock down the barriers being thrown in its path. Then the report was too long and too lawyerly for the common guy to grasp. To move the masses, you need a smoking gun. The Ukraine scandal is the smoking gun. It's much easier for the average guy to wrap his brain around and the witnesses are going to be compelling and convincing.

I don't fret that the possible acquittal by the Senate will gain DJT any supporters who aren't already in his camp, unless the vote to acquit is bipartisan. If anything, acquittal votes are going to hang like millstones around the necks of Republicans.

Last edited by BobLibDem; 10-31-2019 at 02:05 PM.
  #3585  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:18 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,347
Trump "commiting felony bribery" as he funds GOP senators ahead of impeachment. How on Earth is this legal?

ETAsk: does this administration have any ethics lawyers? I know they literally cancelled ethics training after the inauguration. Is there an ethics lawyer?

Last edited by dontbesojumpy; 10-31-2019 at 02:20 PM.
  #3586  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:49 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
Trump "commiting felony bribery" as he funds GOP senators ahead of impeachment. How on Earth is this legal?

ETAsk: does this administration have any ethics lawyers? I know they literally cancelled ethics training after the inauguration. Is there an ethics lawyer?
I have little doubt that it's an ethics violation. But there are some high hurdles around making a case that campaign contributions, as opposed to direct payments, are bribes. Among other things, it brings us back to that phrase, "quid pro quo," which must be expressed.

Last edited by eschrodinger; 10-31-2019 at 02:51 PM.
  #3587  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:57 PM
Modesty Blaise is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 207
This thread has been riveting. Really, one of the best threads Iíve read and Iíve read many. Even the hijacks have been kept way down. It has been enjoyable and appreciated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
New trivia question!

Who is the only Democrat to vote for an impeachment inquiry into Bill Clinton (D) and against an impeachment inquiry for Donald Trump (R)?

Collin Peterson, that's who!

How long before Mr. Peterson goes on Faux?
Your posts, in particular have stood out to me. Theyíre always timely and informative, often entertaining and sometimes downright funny.

Thank you from a grateful lurker. Well, mostly lurker.
  #3588  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:59 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I'm pretty much with you. I thought the Mueller investigation took too long and made little attempt to knock down the barriers being thrown in its path. Then the report was too long and too lawyerly for the common guy to grasp. To move the masses, you need a smoking gun. The Ukraine scandal is the smoking gun. It's much easier for the average guy to wrap his brain around and the witnesses are going to be compelling and convincing.

I don't fret that the possible acquittal by the Senate will gain DJT any supporters who aren't already in his camp, unless the vote to acquit is bipartisan. If anything, acquittal votes are going to hang like millstones around the necks of Republicans.
Personally, I think that the Democrats should have impeached Trump for everything that he has done which is impeachable.

They've completely ignored the Trump Foundation, the campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, giving subordinates illegal orders, etc. They should have forced the GOP in the Senate to vote that slam-dunk evidence of criminal activity is, somehow, not a crime and kept forcing them to do it every month for every new thing for two years straight.

Wear the public's willingness to defend Trump down. That the Democrats keep overlooking criminal and corrupt activity just makes it seem like it was all a conspiracy theory even when we're talking about stuff that's already been through court and put people into jail. That's insane. It just helps to insulate Trump from accusations of criminality since people keep pointing stuff out and then no one does anything about it.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 10-31-2019 at 03:00 PM.
  #3589  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:04 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Personally, I think that the Democrats should have impeached Trump for everything that he has done which is impeachable.

They've completely ignored the Trump Foundation, the campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, giving subordinates illegal orders, etc. They should have forced the GOP in the Senate to vote that slam-dunk evidence of criminal activity is, somehow, not a crime and kept forcing them to do it every month for every new thing for two years straight.

Wear the public's willingness to defend Trump down. That the Democrats keep overlooking criminal and corrupt activity just makes it seem like it was all a conspiracy theory even when we're talking about stuff that's already been through court and put people into jail. That's insane. It just helps to insulate Trump from accusations of criminality since people keep pointing stuff out and then no one does anything about it.
I was thinking of a "catch-all clause" in addition to the main ones.

1. Ukraine
2. Obstruction
3. The following 158 acts which taken separately might simply be troubling, but taken together establish the President is fundamentally unfit for office.
  #3590  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:05 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,166
From <checks watch> Tuesday:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
If President Trump had evidence the jury was tampered, he'd arguably be justified in tampering with the jury himself. Now I'm not arguing that he is competent to do this, of course, but it may be within his...

(How am I doing Max?)

.... Constitutional authority to tamper with juries and, it may be said, select the judge. Where is the law saying he can't?
Today:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
Trump "commiting felony bribery" as he funds GOP senators ahead of impeachment. How on Earth is this legal?

ETAsk: does this administration have any ethics lawyers? I know they literally cancelled ethics training after the inauguration. Is there an ethics lawyer?
Translation: I give up.

Last edited by JohnT; 10-31-2019 at 03:06 PM.
  #3591  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:10 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Personally, I think that the Democrats should have impeached Trump for everything that he has done which is impeachable.

They've completely ignored the Trump Foundation, the campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, giving subordinates illegal orders, etc. They should have forced the GOP in the Senate to vote that slam-dunk evidence of criminal activity is, somehow, not a crime and kept forcing them to do it every month for every new thing for two years straight.

Wear the public's willingness to defend Trump down. That the Democrats keep overlooking criminal and corrupt activity just makes it seem like it was all a conspiracy theory even when we're talking about stuff that's already been through court and put people into jail. That's insane. It just helps to insulate Trump from accusations of criminality since people keep pointing stuff out and then no one does anything about it.
And I think that, again, would be a way that Trump would irretrievably break our democracy. I'm not saying it would be wrong in principle. But I also don't think it would "wear the public's willingness to defend Trump down." On the contrary, I think it would make the public stop paying any attention to alarms being raised about his actions, and the public would let Republicans do the same thing to a Democratic president, no matter how competent and ethical.

ETA: I think a general article of impeachment for unfitness, citing specific evidence, may not be a bad idea.

Last edited by eschrodinger; 10-31-2019 at 03:13 PM.
  #3592  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:13 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I agree. It seems to me that Bolton doesn't want to appear to be willing to do the Democrats' bidding, but would be more than happy to stick it to Donald if compelled to do so.

The next 4-6 weeks will be where the tide turns in public opinion. Getting credible witnesses questioned by professional counsel rather than grandstanding politicians in public hearings is going to make or break the case. I'm betting that outside the Fox bubble, hearing these witnesses speak on simple issues and repeated on the nightly news and quoted on news sites will move public opinion from current say 50% in favor of conviction to maybe 70%. When Republican Senators see their numbers start to drop, they will make the calculation that to save themselves they have to ditch the dead weight in the Oval Office.
I hope you are right, but I'm starting to get worried. More and more damning evidence has been coming out on almost a daily basis, and the public opinion needle doesn't seem to be moving. Hopefully the hearings will draw more people's attention, but I don't know that we're going to find out anything that will come as a huge surprise to anyone who's been paying attention up to now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
I'm starting to think the threat of a primary challenge for some of these GOP Senators might not be the deterrent that Orange Julius Caesar is fervently hoping for. His coattails now can't be as big as they were during the midterms (and really, were they all that big?). The political machinery needed to transform the clubhouse errand boy into a viable primary challenger. even in a GOP stronghold, may simply not be there.
Well, of course Mr. Trump has utilized his brilliant executive leadership skills to build a highly organized and professional political machine capable of recruiting and assisting high-quality candidates. Oh, wait.
  #3593  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:45 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
They've completely ignored the Trump Foundation, the campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, giving subordinates illegal orders, etc. They should have forced the GOP in the Senate to vote that slam-dunk evidence of criminal activity is, somehow, not a crime and kept forcing them to do it every month for every new thing for two years straight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I was thinking of a "catch-all clause" in addition to the main ones.

1. Ukraine
2. Obstruction
3. The following 158 acts which taken separately might simply be troubling, but taken together establish the President is fundamentally unfit for office.
Prosecutors on TV shows (which is where all my legal knowledge comes from) often introduce a bunch of evidence unrelated to the charges to establish the character and behavior patterns of the accused. Is that a real thing? And if so, can the Dems present all the Mueller stuff, etc, as such evidence -- even if the only actual charges relate to Ukraine and obstruction?

I know none of that will sway GOP senators if Mitch tells them to acquit, but it might convince a few hundred thousand undecided voters that, "Hey, this guy's really a scumbag!"
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #3594  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:52 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Prosecutors on TV shows (which is where all my legal knowledge comes from) often introduce a bunch of evidence unrelated to the charges to establish the character and behavior patterns of the accused. Is that a real thing? And if so, can the Dems present all the Mueller stuff, etc, as such evidence -- even if the only actual charges relate to Ukraine and obstruction?

I know none of that will sway GOP senators if Mitch tells them to acquit, but it might convince a few hundred thousand undecided voters that, "Hey, this guy's really a scumbag!"
I can't speak for TV, but in real courtrooms the use of character evidence is limited by rules like this:

Quote:
Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a personís character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
I would guess the rules of evidence don't apply in an impeachment trial.
  #3595  
Old 10-31-2019, 04:08 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I can't speak for TV, but in real courtrooms the use of character evidence is limited by rules like this:



I would guess the rules of evidence don't apply in an impeachment trial.
Since when is it a trial?
  #3596  
Old 10-31-2019, 04:12 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I can't speak for TV, but in real courtrooms the use of character evidence is limited by rules like this:
Quote:
Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a personís character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
I would guess the rules of evidence don't apply in an impeachment trial.
I think the Senate might vote on whether, or which, rules of evidence would apply. I seem to vaguely recall that happening in the Clinton impeachment trial, and I think they may have voted to have Rehnquist rule based on the Federal Rules of Evidence. I can't look it up right now, though.

In addition to the rule quoted above, there is a rule stating that character evidence is generally inadmissible, but there are exceptions when character is an issue in the trial. That exception is interesting to think about in the impeachment context. If character is considered to be at issue, then it can be proved by both opinion about his character and by specific instances of conduct.

Oddly enough, one other exception to the rule barring character evidence has to do with evidence relating to a witness's character for honesty. It can only be proved by reputation or opinion evidence -- not specific instances. So, if Trump we're to testify, there could potentially be a bunch of character witnesses talking about his reputation and character for dishonesty.
  #3597  
Old 10-31-2019, 04:17 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Since when is it a trial?
Since the Constitution.
Quote:
Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
  #3598  
Old 10-31-2019, 04:23 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
Oddly enough, one other exception to the rule barring character evidence has to do with evidence relating to a witness's character for honesty. It can only be proved by reputation or opinion evidence -- not specific instances. So, if Trump we're to testify, there could potentially be a bunch of character witnesses talking about his reputation and character for dishonesty.
Wow, the law is weird. So if I'm establishing Trump's dishonesty ...
  • The 10,000+ documented falsehoods he's spoken or written since taking office are not admissible, but
  • Some random person's opinion that "Trump is an inveterate liar" is admissible?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #3599  
Old 10-31-2019, 04:34 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,505
In relation to the impeachment rules vote, I think that the Democrats are making a mistake to televise this.

Impeachment is like sex with a condom on. Even if you do everything perfectly, the end result is that nothing happens.

The removal trial, in the Senate, is the actual deal.

Previewing material weakens it. People are already moving away from (according to the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate) pro-impeachment simply because time has passed and counter accusations have had time to flow freely, even as proof has mounted of the crime. There is no proof that cannot be railroaded, given enough lead up time to do so. Parading it around, months in advance, is just a chance to see like you're doing something - to gain favor with your constituents - while fundamentally screwing the effort to oust Trump.

Schiff is, unfortunately, just the a-hole to try and make it his big moment on the tele.

I have zero hope that he will restrain himself and both he and Pelosi are to blame for failing this game. If the House goes big, they're playing games for cash, not doing their job.
  #3600  
Old 10-31-2019, 04:39 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,542
I think if they get Colonel Vindman on the stand, in public and in uniform, with Republicans slandering him in public, that could be hugely effective in terms of the perception of voters.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
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 01:54 AM.

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

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017