Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,401
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 21, 2020 17:08:21 GMT -5
And the cover up begins. Senate blocks Democrats’ bid to subpoena documentsThe Senate voted Tuesday to block a Democratic bid to subpoena White House emails, memos and other documents related to President Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine that is at the heart of the impeachment case against him. The vote was 53 to 47 to table the amendment to the trial rules, with Republicans prevailing. Mr. Trump’s administration refused to provide the documents — including correspondence among the president and his top national security aides — during the House impeachment inquiry. Democrats argued that the documents are necessary for a fair trial that would hold the president accountable. Republicans have repeatedly said it was the House’s responsibility to gather all the evidence before sending articles of impeachment to the Senate. But the White House stonewalled every request made by the House investigators. Senate blocks Democrats’ bid to subpoena documents
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,449
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 21, 2020 17:18:40 GMT -5
A couple of things: 1) When I started the "Impeachment" thread I intentionally put it on Current Events because I don't think impeachment should be Politics (even though this one seems to be unable to escape it) 2) Wherever this one is, should we lock the Impeachment thread and concentrate the conversation on this thread? I am open to that.
EDIT: Probably should call attention to this: mmhmm deminmaine chiver78
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 8:55:04 GMT -5
I'll admit this is sheer laziness on my part by not looking it up, but I'm curious if any of the few impeachment considerations we've had in history have ever had a majority vote by the same party as the sitting President. Seems like impeachment has become more and more a very political tool, even if it is only threatened/talked about, as a way to fight the opposing party.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 9:31:05 GMT -5
IMO the impeachment of William Clinton was a blatantly political effort to remove a President for the flimsiest of reasons, but then, I am a Democrat. It was one of those weird things where it seems (IMO) that it was pretty clear he was guilty of what he was accused of, but the thing he was accused of in this particular case wasn't anything where impeachment would have been a reasonable punishment.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 9:59:49 GMT -5
It was one of those weird things where it seems (IMO) that it was pretty clear he was guilty of what he was accused of, but the thing he was accused of in this particular case wasn't anything where impeachment would have been a reasonable punishment. Yes, and what he did was lie under oath, which is very clearly against the law. Of course what he lied about was a personal piccadilo that he was pinned to the wall on. What I find so wickedly ironic here is that the turnabout is so in the face of all that. We have a serial cheating, porn star balling, grabbing lethario, whose penis shape we all unfortunately know, being defended by the very man who was so shocked- shocked I tell you- that there was inappropriate sex being committed by the President. And of course, the same Senators (looking at you Lapdog Lindsay Graham) who insisted back then that a president could be impeached for ANY reason- no crime even need be committed- are insisting that the bar for impeachment should be sky high, even beyond selling out your country's interest for personal (campaign) gain. Oh, the irony! I think it also highlights why typically only career politicians end up as President. The ability to say nothing while speaking is underrated. Faced with accusations, and the famous "what does 'is' really mean though". That's almost insanity. It's like my 3-year old when I tell her "You're not acting nicely right now" responds with "I'm acting nicely right NOW" when she stops being naughty, straightens up, and honestly seems to believe that everything is fine because NOW means NOW. That ability to seem to honestly believe after-the-fact that he didn't lie, because he's pecking at specific word meanings, even though he knows he lied...that's politics essentially. There's no chance Trump has that in him. The worst thing Trump can do is talk during his trial.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,449
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 22, 2020 10:04:58 GMT -5
It is an admirable sentiment to want to keep politics out of impeachment, but impeachment is a political act, as the politicians themselves (at least some of them) say. There is a place for it in both threads , as it is current and it is certainly political. Perhaps the conversation in the other thread could be on a more non-political level, but I honestly also doubt that will be sustained. I don't think that the impeachment proceedings against then President Nixon were political. I am not familiar enough with the cases in which judges have been impeached, but I don't think they were particularly political. It is a weakness of the current impeachment proceedings that those bringing the charges have not been able to elevate the argument above politics. It is why I did not support impeachment on the charges contained in the Articles of Impeachment.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 10:10:55 GMT -5
It is an admirable sentiment to want to keep politics out of impeachment, but impeachment is a political act, as the politicians themselves (at least some of them) say. There is a place for it in both threads , as it is current and it is certainly political. Perhaps the conversation in the other thread could be on a more non-political level, but I honestly also doubt that will be sustained. I don't think that the impeachment proceedings against then President Nixon were political. I am not familiar enough with the cases in which judges have been impeached, but I don't think they were particularly political. It is a weakness of the current impeachment proceedings that those bringing the charges have not been able to elevate the argument above politics. It is why I did not support impeachment on the charges contained in the Articles of Impeachment. It seems pretty clearly to be a political process when I hear people (Dems) specifically talking about "Maybe we shouldn't impeach him, because he's not going to get removed by the Senate, and then he's going to be able to claim victory when he's campaigning for 2020". And honestly, I think that's a great point to consider, but it's certainly political when the consideration is "how does this impact the next election". It also seems clearly political when he doesn't get impeached for something in his first year in office. It's a political consideration to look and say "this will have bad optics as if we're trying to overturn the election"...even though he almost definitely did something that could technically be impeachable in that first year. It's practically impossible for any successful politician to act in a non-political matter...at least without foregoing any future in politics. It maybe doesn't have to be a hard party-line political move, but it's got to be political either way if you want to stay in the game.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,401
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 22, 2020 10:12:21 GMT -5
Clinton perjured himself in a civil lawsuit (Clinton v. Jones) resulting in his impeachment.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,449
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 22, 2020 10:30:42 GMT -5
I don't think that the impeachment proceedings against then President Nixon were political. I am not familiar enough with the cases in which judges have been impeached, but I don't think they were particularly political. It is a weakness of the current impeachment proceedings that those bringing the charges have not been able to elevate the argument above politics. It is why I did not support impeachment on the charges contained in the Articles of Impeachment. It seems pretty clearly to be a political process when I hear people (Dems) specifically talking about "Maybe we shouldn't impeach him, because he's not going to get removed by the Senate, and then he's going to be able to claim victory when he's campaigning for 2020". And honestly, I think that's a great point to consider, but it's certainly political when the consideration is "how does this impact the next election". It also seems clearly political when he doesn't get impeached for something in his first year in office. It's a political consideration to look and say "this will have bad optics as if we're trying to overturn the election"...even though he almost definitely did something that could technically be impeachable in that first year. It's practically impossible for any successful politician to act in a non-political matter...at least without foregoing any future in politics. It maybe doesn't have to be a hard party-line political move, but it's got to be political either way if you want to stay in the game. I am reminded of the Mary Chapin Carpenter song lyrics, "It's too much to expect, but it's not too much to ask.…" Remember that the original process for selection of US Senators was not popular vote. I think we are witnessing the wisdom of why that was the case.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,449
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 22, 2020 10:36:32 GMT -5
I don't think that the impeachment proceedings against then President Nixon were political. I am not familiar enough with the cases in which judges have been impeached, but I don't think they were particularly political. It is a weakness of the current impeachment proceedings that those bringing the charges have not been able to elevate the argument above politics. It is why I did not support impeachment on the charges contained in the Articles of Impeachment. I think the proceedings against Nixon became less political as they went on. They started with the Republicans clearly defending him, for what were arguably political reasons (and they assumed the Dems were going after him for the same). What was different was that as the evidence became insurmountable they began to abandon their defense of the President. That was a big difference between then and this particular impeachment. ... And although Nixon short-circuited the process by resigning, it would have resulted in the only time a President would have been removed. I see that as a lesson not learned.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 22, 2020 11:17:44 GMT -5
Ok, that’s enough for me. The fix is in and that’s that. I guess I can tune back in if anything changes that makes it real.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,216
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jan 22, 2020 11:46:31 GMT -5
I would have thought implying a government whistleblower should be executed " because we used to know what to do with traitors" and trying to tweet out the identity to his followers would be enough to get someone impeached.
I know the whistleblower laws where I have worked made it abundantly clear if you did either of those two things you were going to be terminated. I guess the POTUS isn't held to the same standard as us little ivory tower liberal university peons.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,307
|
Post by swamp on Jan 22, 2020 12:04:15 GMT -5
I would have thought implying a government whistleblower should be executed " because we used to know what to do with traitors" and trying to tweet out the identity to his followers would be enough to get someone impeached. I know the whistleblower laws where I have worked made it abundantly clear if you did either of those two things you were going to be terminated. I guess the POTUS isn't held to the same standard as us little ivory tower liberal university peons. Trump didn't mean that he literally should be killed, you know how he is, always joking. And saying what he means.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,216
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jan 22, 2020 12:29:45 GMT -5
I would have thought implying a government whistleblower should be executed " because we used to know what to do with traitors" and trying to tweet out the identity to his followers would be enough to get someone impeached. I know the whistleblower laws where I have worked made it abundantly clear if you did either of those two things you were going to be terminated. I guess the POTUS isn't held to the same standard as us little ivory tower liberal university peons. Trump didn't mean that he literally should be killed, you know how he is, always joking. And saying what he means. Oh that's right. Implying harm towards another person was all a joke to rile up Democrats and oh boy look how high they jumped! Getting upset about threats of harm to another person being issued by the POTUS what a bunch of snowflakes!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 12:38:16 GMT -5
Trump didn't mean that he literally should be killed, you know how he is, always joking. And saying what he means. Oh that's right. Implying harm towards another person was all a joke to rile up Democrats and oh boy look how high they jumped! Getting upset about threats of harm to another person being issued by the POTUS what a bunch of snowflakes! I thought it was a big step forward that it was implied rather than stated outright!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 13:13:33 GMT -5
I just saw an opinion article on Yahoo about "Why Trump's legal argument will probably work". At least it's generating something for writers to write about. The real answer is that it will work because this is a political proceeding disguised as a legal proceeding, and the Senate has a lot of Republicans. It's not about whether the legal argument will work or not. If the Senate had 70 Dems, the same argument is going to get the opposing result from a Senate that has 70 Reps. The legal argument doesn't work or not work, because it's not REALLY a legal proceeding for practical purposes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,062
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 22, 2020 14:43:13 GMT -5
it is a shame that our representatives can't just do their job.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,307
|
Post by swamp on Jan 22, 2020 14:46:51 GMT -5
it is a shame that our representatives can't just do their job. Or at least pretend to be open to hearing evidence before they vote to acquit.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,216
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jan 22, 2020 15:06:31 GMT -5
it is a shame that our representatives can't just do their job. That's what the constitution says but we all know that's not why their districts elected them.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 15:08:08 GMT -5
it is a shame that our representatives can't just do their job. Or at least pretend to be open to hearing evidence before they vote to acquit. I say go the total other way. Why waste taxpayer money, and Congressional time? Just vote immediately and get an early dinner.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,062
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 22, 2020 15:19:08 GMT -5
Or at least pretend to be open to hearing evidence before they vote to acquit. I say go the total other way. Why waste taxpayer money, and Congressional time? Just vote immediately and get an early dinner. because our entire system of government is predicated on a fair and impartial justice?
oh, never mind. you're right. let's go back to the dark ages.
#thiscountryisdoomed
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 15:21:58 GMT -5
I say go the total other way. Why waste taxpayer money, and Congressional time? Just vote immediately and get an early dinner. because our entire system of government is predicated on a fair and impartial justice?
oh, never mind. you're right. let's go back to the dark ages.
#thiscountryisdoomed
But you're not going to get that, so in response to "just pretend" I say "don't pretend". Obviously doing what you SHOULD is best, but absent that, don't waste our time and money pretending.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,062
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 22, 2020 15:25:43 GMT -5
because our entire system of government is predicated on a fair and impartial justice?
oh, never mind. you're right. let's go back to the dark ages.
#thiscountryisdoomed
But you're not going to get that, so in response to "just pretend" I say "don't pretend". Obviously doing what you SHOULD is best, but absent that, don't waste our time and money pretending. in congress? probably not. but I am forever hopeful, hoops.
I simply can't yield to cynicism.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by tbop77 on Jan 22, 2020 16:07:36 GMT -5
Yes, and what he did was lie under oath, which is very clearly against the law. Of course what he lied about was a personal piccadilo that he was pinned to the wall on. What I find so wickedly ironic here is that the turnabout is so in the face of all that. We have a serial cheating, porn star balling, grabbing lethario, whose penis shape we all unfortunately know, being defended by the very man who was so shocked- shocked I tell you- that there was inappropriate sex being committed by the President. And of course, the same Senators (looking at you Lapdog Lindsay Graham) who insisted back then that a president could be impeached for ANY reason- no crime even need be committed- are insisting that the bar for impeachment should be sky high, even beyond selling out your country's interest for personal (campaign) gain. Oh, the irony! I think it also highlights why typically only career politicians end up as President. The ability to say nothing while speaking is underrated. Faced with accusations, and the famous "what does 'is' really mean though". That's almost insanity. It's like my 3-year old when I tell her "You're not acting nicely right now" responds with "I'm acting nicely right NOW" when she stops being naughty, straightens up, and honestly seems to believe that everything is fine because NOW means NOW. That ability to seem to honestly believe after-the-fact that he didn't lie, because he's pecking at specific word meanings, even though he knows he lied...that's politics essentially. There's no chance Trump has that in him. The worst thing Trump can do is talk during his trial.Like bragging about obstructing the impeachment investigation:
“I got to watch enough — I thought our team did a very good job. But honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material,” he said. www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/impeachment-manager-trump-just-confessed-to-obstructing-congress/ar-BBZdQYI?ocid=spartandhp
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,384
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 22, 2020 17:18:49 GMT -5
I just sent an email to Martha McSally asking her to vote to hear and see all the evidence. I told her that we need to set a precedent for how future impeachments go, and I know that when all the evidence is presented, it will prove Trump's innocence.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by tbop77 on Jan 23, 2020 5:58:02 GMT -5
Even President Trump wants witnesses. The Republican senate should give the man what he wants! After Trump’s legal team emphatically supported McConnell’s organizing resolution setting up a potentially speedy trial, the president mused in Davos on Wednesday morning about going the “long way” on his trial, with testimony from a “a lot of people,” including former national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Energy Secretary Rick Perry.And though Trump left the question ultimately to the Senate on how to handle the trial, he made clear how he feels about whether to wind down the trial as quickly as possible: “Personally, I would rather go the long route.” www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-rebuff-trumps-advice-on-impeachment-trial/ar-BBZeiQE?ocid=spartandhp&pfr=1
|
|
Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,882
|
Post by Bob Ross on Jan 23, 2020 11:57:28 GMT -5
It seems pretty clearly to be a political process when I hear people (Dems) specifically talking about "Maybe we shouldn't impeach him, because he's not going to get removed by the Senate, and then he's going to be able to claim victory when he's campaigning for 2020". And honestly, I think that's a great point to consider, but it's certainly political when the consideration is "how does this impact the next election". It also seems clearly political when he doesn't get impeached for something in his first year in office. It's a political consideration to look and say "this will have bad optics as if we're trying to overturn the election"...even though he almost definitely did something that could technically be impeachable in that first year. It's practically impossible for any successful politician to act in a non-political matter...at least without foregoing any future in politics. It maybe doesn't have to be a hard party-line political move, but it's got to be political either way if you want to stay in the game. I am reminded of the Mary Chapin Carpenter song lyrics, "It's too much to expect, but it's not too much to ask.…" Remember that the original process for selection of US Senators was not popular vote. I think we are witnessing the wisdom of why that was the case. The big problem with popular vote is much of the populace is stupid, and those who get elected are often the ones who are the best at fooling the stupid. And with the current advanced technological propagation of media, their job is getting ever so much easier.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 23, 2020 13:08:34 GMT -5
I am reminded of the Mary Chapin Carpenter song lyrics, "It's too much to expect, but it's not too much to ask.…" Remember that the original process for selection of US Senators was not popular vote. I think we are witnessing the wisdom of why that was the case. The big problem with popular vote is much of the populace is stupid, and those who get elected are often the ones who are the best at fooling the stupid. And with the current advanced technological propagation of media, their job is getting ever so much easier. Forget voter ID laws and all the back-and-forth about them. IQ over 160 to vote.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,137
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 23, 2020 13:20:39 GMT -5
The big problem with popular vote is much of the populace is stupid, and those who get elected are often the ones who are the best at fooling the stupid. And with the current advanced technological propagation of media, their job is getting ever so much easier. Forget voter ID laws and all the back-and-forth about them. IQ over 160 to vote. On the bright side, that would make ballot-counting super fast and easy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,062
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 23, 2020 14:31:19 GMT -5
Forget voter ID laws and all the back-and-forth about them. IQ over 160 to vote. On the bright side, that would make ballot-counting super fast and easy. a fraction of 1%, yes?
|
|