Politics IMPEACHMENT 2020: THE BIG SNOOZE (1 Viewer)

[barfo]

I’ve been consistent on here stating that I think Trump is trash. I think there’s not much question about him holding up the aid to gain a favor that was politically advantageous to him. That said, as of right now he is innocent. The Dems have seriously fouled up the process that might prove him guilty. Saying that is “excuses” is kind of silly.

Saying that they fouled up the process is an excuse. It's also just not true.

Trials have delays all the time, of much, much longer than a couple of weeks (which is really what the delay was, the trial was never going to happen over Xmas).

You also claim they should have collected more evidence by forcing the issue in the courts. Might have taken another year, but yes, then they'd have more evidence. But they don't need more evidence. They have enough already that an ordinary court would convict. The Senate won't, but the Senate wouldn't no matter how much evidence the House collected.

You don't need a 'smocking gun' to convict. In a real trial, or in an impeachment trial.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

 

[e_blazer]

Saying that they fouled up the process is an excuse. It's also just not true.

Trials have delays all the time, of much, much longer than a couple of weeks (which is really what the delay was, the trial was never going to happen over Xmas).

You also claim they should have collected more evidence by forcing the issue in the courts. Might have taken another year, but yes, then they'd have more evidence. But they don't need more evidence. They have enough already that an ordinary court would convict. The Senate won't, but the Senate wouldn't no matter how much evidence the House collected.

You don't need a 'smocking gun' to convict. In a real trial, or in an impeachment trial.

barfo

Saying that they fouled up the process is an excuse. It's also just not true.

It's an opinion (mine), not an excuse. I've given my reasons for my opinion previously, but just to be clear, I'd say that failing to get the witnesses you want, at the point in the process where you control that process, is pretty danged stupid.

Trials have delays all the time, of much, much longer than a couple of weeks (which is really what the delay was, the trial was never going to happen over Xmas).

Of course they have delays, which is why there was never this huge bogus rush to vote on the articles of impeachment in the first place.

You also claim they should have collected more evidence by forcing the issue in the courts. Might have taken another year, but yes, then they'd have more evidence. But they don't need more evidence. They have enough already that an ordinary court would convict. The Senate won't, but the Senate wouldn't no matter how much evidence the House collected.

As I pointed out in my previous post, the legal precedent in Nixon's case is that it took well less than a month to get a ruling that his EP claims were bogus.

You don't need a 'smocking gun' to convict. In a real trial, or in an impeachment trial.

In a judicial trial you need sufficient evidence for a decision to be made that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." In this case, as I've said before, it all comes down to intent. Did Trump intend to use his power to get dirt on Biden for political advantage alone, or was there a reasonable decision to request an investigation to determine if a crime had been committed? I know what I believe, but when you're talking reasonable doubt, you'd better have more than belief. I'd be willing to bet that the testimony that the Dems now want so desperately might shed some light on that. Not getting it when they were in control was DUMB. Unlike a jury trial, the impeachment trial is a political process. Justice Roberts is acting simply as a referee. There is nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint to compel the Senate to vote to allow witnesses or, should they vote to do so, to require that the Senate vote to fight any claim of EP should Trump again use that argument to deny allowing witnesses to testify. It would still take the same time to resolve that matter in court.

 

[MARIS61]

 

[barfo]

In the Nixon case over EP, it only took 3 weeks after oral arguments for the court to issue a decision; less than the time than Nancy sat on the articles of impeachment.

IMO, the House bungled the case in not pursuing a similar action against Trump. Now, not having done that, they're forced to rely on a Republican Senate to try to get the witnesses they say they need to prove their charges. How stupid is that?

You are incorrect on the timeline. The special prosecutor (note, we don't have one of those here, because the Justice department is corrupt) subpoenaed the records in April.
The supreme court decision was announced July 24.

So why not wait 3 months? Because it might be much longer this time. Nixon did not try to delay the decision, and in fact probably expedited it by suing to quash the subpoena rather than ignoring it as Trump has done. Nixon went to court, not the prosecutor. Trump would use all tactics available to delay beyond the election.

Finally, note that there are numerous legal actions against the administration for withholding evidence. It just isn't true that the House has not tried the courts. For instance we just got a ruling on Don McGahn /Mueller report testimony, after many months - and it isn't even necessarily the final ruling in that case.

barfo

 

[Propagandist]

These type of comments are hard to take seriously for me. The notion that either of the political parties are noble institutions that could somehow be further compromised is almost laughable. I'm sure you have nothing but good intentions in mind, but goddamn man. You’re trying to raise the Titanic talking about salvaging either of the political parties in this country. They’re so far gone it’s not even funny. Even if a good person got elected they’d be stabbed in the back like Caesar. Or more accurately, shot like Kennedy.

The nihilist take is such a cop out. It's like a goth teenager in the 90s: "You just don't understand, dad! Nothing means anything!" What an easy position to take: nothing can be done so fuck it.

And why participate in the discussion if it is just to say everyone is fucked and it's all fucked? Show some positivity. Join this: https://represent.us/anticorruption-act/ Do something.

And I'm not being dramatic about the Republican Party. It is abundantly clear that you consider Trump just another one of "them," but Trump is like no one we've ever had in Office in my lifetime in the worst possible way, and the Titanic is the perfect analogy for the GOP, white-knuckling it and pretending reality is not reality while the ship sinks. Clearly the cover up is in, but no one being honest can't say it isn't a cover up. THAT is why the divide between us grows: I refuse to be told that water's not wet.

 

[e_blazer]

You are incorrect on the timeline. The special prosecutor (note, we don't have one of those here, because the Justice department is corrupt) subpoenaed the records in April.
The supreme court decision was announced July 24.

So why not wait 3 months? Because it might be much longer this time. Nixon did not try to delay the decision, and in fact probably expedited it by suing to quash the subpoena rather than ignoring it as Trump has done. Nixon went to court, not the prosecutor. Trump would use all tactics available to delay beyond the election.

Finally, note that there are numerous legal actions against the administration for withholding evidence. It just isn't true that the House has not tried the courts. For instance we just got a ruling on Don McGahn /Mueller report testimony, after many months - and it isn't even necessarily the final ruling in that case.

barfo

In Nixon's case, it was three weeks after oral arguments that the decision was issued. In an impeachment matter, it's likely that the Supreme Court would take direct jurisdiction over the EP case. Whatever the time might be in reality, the point remains that not fighting it while the issue was in the House doesn't mean that it would be any different of a timeline if it had to be fought while the matter is before the Senate. To my knowledge, there's nothing that precludes Trump from reiterating his claims of EP should the Senate vote to allow witnesses. The only thing that failing to litigate it at the House level did was to take the issue out of the control of the Democrats. Stupid.

 

[Hoopguru]

One thing this has exposed is that new laws need to be written to protect the people from such corruption. trump has lowered the bar about as low as it can go and still be a "democracy" as we are now reaching dangerous territory. It also really concerns me that our presidents best allies are actually our adversaries and the republican party has allowed him to be that way. I prefer our allies be Canada, France, Great Britain, Germany etc. Not Russia, North Korea, Phillipines, Saudi Arabia etc.

He's a shrewd New Yorker in your face dude, that has no diplomacy. If the dems elect Bernie than I know the democratic party has lost it as well.
Even Obama says he's not fit politically or physically to be president.

 

[stampedehero]

Burn out. The Mueller shit didn't pan out for the dems so here we are. People don't really care anymore.

Its the Boy Who Cried Wolf, in real time.

I believe the Mueller investigation cost like 15 million. Not Sure. However, the legal process, especially on this level, is like watching paint dry. We see the perspectives of this country is full exposure now. It's like hungry wolf packs turning on each other.

 

[Hoopguru]

Agree completely. I'd probably vote for either one of those two over Trump. If it's Warren or Sanders, I'll probably do a write-in or maybe vote independent if there's a viable choice.

same here 100%

 

[jonnyboy]

The nihilist take is such a cop out. It's like a goth teenager in the 90s: "You just don't understand, dad! Nothing means anything!" What an easy position to take: nothing can be done so fuck it.

And why participate in the discussion if it is just to say everyone is fucked and it's all fucked? Show some positivity. Join this: https://represent.us/anticorruption-act/ Do something.

And I'm not being dramatic about the Republican Party. It is abundantly clear that you consider Trump just another one of "them," but Trump is like no one we've ever had in Office in my lifetime in the worst possible way, and the Titanic is the perfect analogy for the GOP, white-knuckling it and pretending reality is not reality while the ship sinks. Clearly the cover up is in, but no one being honest can't say it isn't a cover up. THAT is why the divide between us grows: I refuse to be told that water's not wet.

I’m not saying nothing can be salvaged. I’m saying the two political parties in this country will never be representative of the people if they are allowed to continue as they are. And the only thing unprecedented about Trump is his public displays of stupidity on social media. As far as corruption goes, he’s par for the course. There’s been better and there’s been worse. I’m not going to pretend he’s the worst ever based on some potty-mouthed tweets. Other presidents lied us into wars that killed hundreds of thousands. If your priorities are simply a case study on bad manners, then sure, call him the worst of all time if it makes you feel better. Maybe we just have different priorities.

 

[barfo]

Saying that they fouled up the process is an excuse. It's also just not true.

It's an opinion (mine), not an excuse. I've given my reasons for my opinion previously, but just to be clear, I'd say that failing to get the witnesses you want, at the point in the process where you control that process, is pretty danged stupid.

Except that they didn't ever control getting the witnesses they wanted.

Trials have delays all the time, of much, much longer than a couple of weeks (which is really what the delay was, the trial was never going to happen over Xmas).

Of course they have delays, which is why there was never this huge bogus rush to vote on the articles of impeachment in the first place.

The rush is that there's an election coming up, that Trump is trying to rig in his favor. We can't put Trump in solitary confinement until after the election, although that would sure solve a lot of problems.

You also claim they should have collected more evidence by forcing the issue in the courts. Might have taken another year, but yes, then they'd have more evidence. But they don't need more evidence. They have enough already that an ordinary court would convict. The Senate won't, but the Senate wouldn't no matter how much evidence the House collected.

As I pointed out in my previous post, the legal precedent in Nixon's case is that it took well less than a month to get a ruling that his EP claims were bogus.

As I pointed out in my previous post, your timeline is not accurate.

You don't need a 'smocking gun' to convict. In a real trial, or in an impeachment trial.

In a judicial trial you need sufficient evidence for a decision to be made that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." In this case, as I've said before, it all comes down to intent. Did Trump intend to use his power to get dirt on Biden for political advantage alone, or was there a reasonable decision to request an investigation to determine if a crime had been committed? I know what I believe, but when you're talking reasonable doubt, you'd better have more than belief. I'd be willing to bet that the testimony that the Dems now want so desperately might shed some light on that. Not getting it when they were in control was DUMB. Unlike a jury trial, the impeachment trial is a political process. Justice Roberts is acting simply as a referee. There is nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint to compel the Senate to vote to allow witnesses or, should they vote to do so, to require that the Senate vote to fight any claim of EP should Trump again use that argument to deny allowing witnesses to testify. It would still take the same time to resolve that matter in court.

Well, I think your idea of what the House could have done to compel Bolton, Mick, etc. to testify is probably not very realistic. And, since the Senate would still vote to acquit, what would be the actual point of the court fight anyway?

Imagine for a moment that the House did what you wanted. Now it is July, or maybe October, or maybe 2021. Now the trial begins. Every Republican senator says they don't see anything impeachable, the president did nothing wrong, and even if he did, well, boys will be boys.

barfo

 

[barfo]

In Nixon's case, it was three weeks after oral arguments that the decision was issued. In an impeachment matter, it's likely that the Supreme Court would take direct jurisdiction over the EP case.

That's clearly incorrect, as you can see with Kupperman's case, which stalled in the low-level court of a Trump-appointee.

Whatever the time might be in reality, the point remains that not fighting it while the issue was in the House doesn't mean that it would be any different of a timeline if it had to be fought while the matter is before the Senate. To my knowledge, there's nothing that precludes Trump from reiterating his claims of EP should the Senate vote to allow witnesses. The only thing that failing to litigate it at the House level did was to take the issue out of the control of the Democrats. Stupid.

Note that Trump has not actually claimed executive privilege. He's merely instructed people not to cooperate.

barfo

 

[jonnyboy]

He's a shrewd New Yorker in your face dude, that has no diplomacy. If the dems elect Bernie than I know the democratic party has lost it as well.
Even Obama says he's not fit politically or physically to be president.

Bernie is more favorable over Trump than any other Democratic candidate, according to almost every major poll. Obama is basically a moderate establishment Republican, with a clear bias against Bernie Sanders. His personal opinions have no bearing in the current race, they only serve to discredit non-establishment candidates in a dishonest way.

 

[Hoopguru]

Saying that they fouled up the process is an excuse. It's also just not true.

Trials have delays all the time, of much, much longer than a couple of weeks (which is really what the delay was, the trial was never going to happen over Xmas).

You also claim they should have collected more evidence by forcing the issue in the courts. Might have taken another year, but yes, then they'd have more evidence. But they don't need more evidence. They have enough already that an ordinary court would convict. The Senate won't, but the Senate wouldn't no matter how much evidence the House collected.

You don't need a 'smocking gun' to convict. In a real trial, or in an impeachment trial.

barfo

Impeachment trials seems 100% just political, especially this one.
I wish the house would have been more receptive to allowing witness's, it just seemed they didn't want to give and take, which imo, would help the senate do so.
If everyones evidence on either side is so strong and earthshaking and no more is needed either way, why the fear to give an inch? To me its 100 political regardless of what either side has.
Its gotten to hat point in our society now that everything is so polarized and delicate.
It wasn't that way during Clinton impeachment i don't believe as there seem to be more bi partisan agreement.

 

[Hoopguru]

Bernie is more favorable over Trump than any other Democratic candidate, according to almost every major poll. Obama is basically a moderate establishment Republican, with a clear bias against Bernie Sanders. His personal opinions have no bearing in the current race, they only serve to discredit non-establishment candidates in a dishonest way.

I think your wrong that he'd be more favorable to the American people.

 

[barfo]

Bernie is more favorable over Trump than any other Democratic candidate, according to almost every major poll.

I don't think that's true, at least not according to a brief study of this. In each of the first several polls, Biden has a larger advantage than Bernie.

Obama is basically a moderate establishment Republican, with a clear bias against Bernie Sanders. His personal opinions have no bearing in the current race, they only serve to discredit non-establishment candidates in a dishonest way.

Not sure the underlying story is even true. Obama hasn't said anything (publicly) about Bernie.

barfo

 

[jonnyboy]

I think your wrong that he'd be more favorable to the American people.

“The American people” is a large group with thousands of varying opinions. There is no consensus from “The American people” as a whole. That’s a meaningless phrase.

 

[barfo]

To the original question, I've been watching as much as I can, given the demands of work, sleep, and arguing with e_blazer.
It's fascinating (to me) even though we already know how it ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper.

barfo

 

[e_blazer]

Note that Trump has not actually claimed executive privilege. He's merely instructed people not to cooperate.

Trump never formally asserted EP, but the threat to do so was the underpinning of denying witnesses to testify before the House. Even now, Trump's legal team is contemplating using EP to block any testimony regarding Ukraine communications.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article239499558.html

There is no getting around the legal time required to decide this issue if it is formally asserted.

Well, I think your idea of what the House could have done to compel Bolton, Mick, etc. to testify is probably not very realistic. And, since the Senate would still vote to acquit, what would be the actual point of the court fight anyway?

barfo

And that's the bottom line and always has been. Absolutely the only chance of removing Trump from office would have been to find the "smocking" gun evidence that would have made it remotely possible that some of the more liberal Senators might have been convinced to vote against him. The only way to have even remotely having a chance to do that would have been to get an unassailable piece of evidence against him. Absent that, this is and always has been political theater designed to embarrass Trump and, perhaps, to increase the chances of Democrats unseating some at-risk Republican Senators. Personally, that's all I ever expected.

 

[Hoopguru]

“The American people” is a large group with thousands of varying opinions. There is no consensus from “The American people” as a whole. That’s a meaningless phrase.

Ok, let me put it this way. I don't think the American People with a thousand varying opinions will vote him as their democratic nominee and if so, as President of The United States With Varying Opinions of America.
He should really relocate to Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua if he so hell bent on pushing socialism down the throats of people because thats all he does.

 

[e_blazer]

To the original question, I've been watching as much as I can, given the demands of work, sleep, and arguing with e_blazer.
It's fascinating (to me) even though we already know how it ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper.

barfo

I think Democrats are more invested in this debacle than Republicans and independents. They've been looking for the magic silver bullet to end Trump's time in office practically since day one of his administration. It get's frustrating when you keep missing.

 

[Propagandist]

I’m not saying nothing can be salvaged. I’m saying the two political parties in this country will never be representative of the people if they are allowed to continue as they are. And the only thing unprecedented about Trump is his public displays of stupidity on social media. As far as corruption goes, he’s par for the course. There’s been better and there’s been worse. I’m not going to pretend he’s the worst ever based on some potty-mouthed tweets. Other presidents lied us into wars that killed hundreds of thousands. If your priorities are simply a case study on bad manners, then sure, call him the worst of all time if it makes you feel better. Maybe we just have different priorities.

I just think you work within the system you have until there is an opportunity to change it. One good thing about the current mess we're in? It's like a wake up call; expect major change in the future.

 

[barfo]

Absolutely the only chance of removing Trump from office would have been to find the "smocking" gun evidence that would have made it remotely possible that some of the more liberal Senators might have been convinced to vote against him.

No. Trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and be videotaped doing it, holding the smocking gun. The Republicans would still acquit him.

The only way to have even remotely having a chance to do that would have been to get an unassailable piece of evidence against him.

We already have that. In spades. Trump's defenders haven't even tried to argue otherwise. Their argument is that it doesn't matter, who gives a shit.

Absent that, this is and always has been political theater designed to embarrass Trump and, perhaps, to increase the chances of Democrats unseating some at-risk Republican Senators.

And, not incidentally, to do their duty, according to their oath of office.

barfo

 

[oldfisherman]

Bernie is the LEAST favorable over Trump than any other Democratic candidate,. AND IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE.

FIFY.

 

[barfo]

I think Democrats are more invested in this debacle than Republicans and independents.

I'm sure you are right about that. If someone has accepted that corruption is unimportant and possibly even desirable, why would they be invested in a corruption trial?

barfo

 

[yankeesince59]

That's clearly incorrect, as you can see with Kupperman's case, which stalled in the low-level court of a Trump-appointee.
Agreed.

Note that Trump has not actually claimed executive privilege. He's merely instructed people not to cooperate.
Hence "obstruction".

 

[yankeesince59]

Not sure how many of you have had the opportunity to watch much of the last 2 days' proceedings but the Dems have provided a VERY compelling case...and fwiw, I don't necessarily consider myself a democrat or left leaning, but it seems very clear to me what's happening and what the outcome will very likely be if the GOP has their myopic way, but speaking strictly for myself, I'm becoming more and more pessimistic about our future as a Republic.

 

[CupWizier]

Impeachment trials seems 100% just political, especially this one.
I wish the house would have been more receptive to allowing witness's, it just seemed they didn't want to give and take, which imo, would help the senate do so.
If everyones evidence on either side is so strong and earthshaking and no more is needed either way, why the fear to give an inch? To me its 100 political regardless of what either side has.
Its gotten to hat point in our society now that everything is so polarized and delicate.
It wasn't that way during Clinton impeachment i don't believe as there seem to be more bi partisan agreement.

The problem with that HG is that all the republicans (via trump) wanted was the two Bidens and the whistle blower. The Biden's knew nothing about what trump was trying to accomplish through Ukraine and the whistle blower only alerted the appropriate people from information he was told through the whistle blower program and from there the IG and others opened the investigation. Neither one would be able to bring forth any decent evidence for the impeachment. Unlike people like Bolton, Mulvaney, etc. that trump blocked from testifying. What information could the Biden's provide or the whistle blower provide? The only thing it would accomplish is exposing a person that is protected by the whistle blower act and defame the Bidens which would effect his run for the democratic nomination.

 

[CupWizier]

Trump never formally asserted EP, but the threat to do so was the underpinning of denying witnesses to testify before the House. Even now, Trump's legal team is contemplating using EP to block any testimony regarding Ukraine communications.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article239499558.html

There is no getting around the legal time required to decide this issue if it is formally asserted.



And that's the bottom line and always has been. Absolutely the only chance of removing Trump from office would have been to find the "smocking" gun evidence that would have made it remotely possible that some of the more liberal Senators might have been convinced to vote against him. The only way to have even remotely having a chance to do that would have been to get an unassailable piece of evidence against him. Absent that, this is and always has been political theater designed to embarrass Trump and, perhaps, to increase the chances of Democrats unseating some at-risk Republican Senators. Personally, that's all I ever expected.

Like I mentioned before, if the republicans are going to help protect the president at all costs then at least the impeachment trial brings a lot of information to light so that the public can decide at the polls. Without this coming to our attention, then there may be a lot of people that vote for trump without really knowing what he has actually been doing. Should the democrats just throw their hands up and say "let's do nothing" and allow this scumbag to continue down the same path? To me, they are playing hardball right back at trump and playing his game. That's how you beast him as he needs to be exposed.