The Impeachment Thread

[Tellenbach]

No offense, but in some cases, intent to commit a crime is still a crime. Conspiracy, attempted murder are still crimes.

If they can prove it. Since Trump has withheld aid for multiple countries, that's going to be difficult to do.

 

[anticlimatic]

 

[Jaguar]

And the problem with a former GOP strategist making jokes on CNN is what?

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

didn't click the video; is that McCain's ex campaign manager?

 

[Jaguar]

didn't click the video; is that McCain's ex campaign manager?

You're thinking of Steve Schmidt who is a former Republican. No, that's not him. Were Schmidt on CNN, he'd probably be doing what he does best - brutally insulting the shit out of Trump. That's Rick Wilson on the right. He wrote Everything Trump Touches Dies and the recently published Running Against the Devil: A Plot to Save America from Trump--and Democrats from Themselves.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

You're thinking of Steve Schmidt who is a former Republican. No, that's not him. Were Schmidt on CNN, he'd probably be doing what he does best - brutally insulting the shit out of Trump. That's Rick Wilson on the right. He wrote Everything Trump Touches Dies and the recently published Running Against the Devil: A Plot to Save America from Trump--and Democrats from Themselves.

I was not aware he was a strategist for Evan McMullin's campaign. I hope he runs again, I'd consider voting for him.

 

[anticlimatic]

And the problem with a former GOP strategist making jokes on CNN is what?

Video just reminded me of this thread.

 

[anticlimatic]

The defense has been making a compelling case. I wanted to watch the initial arguments in reverse order, but I might have to pause and start with the house managers side.

 

[Jaguar]

Lindsey Graham says on impeachment, "I have made up my mind... I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror, here."

No one ever expected otherwise, Lindsey. Douche.

 

[anticlimatic]

Crickets in here since the presidents legal rebuttal. Must have been a good one. Probably time to wrap this thing up anyway. Is it even worth my time to go back and watch the house circus?

 

[Jaguar]

^ Doesn't watch news.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Crickets in here since the presidents legal rebuttal. Must have been a good one.

If there was an actual rebuttal in there somewhere, I missed it. I'm actually kinda wondering if Dershowitz is covertly working to get him ousted. "Yeah he did it. He withheld aid for campaign assistance from a foreign power. And?"

I think Philbin was the only one who possibly had an effective argument - and it wasn't a defense of Trump's innocence so much as a loophole about the legal process being done incorrectly (kind of like when someone isn't read their Miranda Rights, so they're released regardless of guilt), but I don't know enough about the law to know. According to Schiff's response, Philbin was talking out of his ass. I don't think there's any way for someone doesn't regularly deal with this kind of legal issue to know who's right.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I'd almost rather he be censured than removed from office.

We don't need a President Pence.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

^Also, his rabid base will ultimately accept being voted out better than removal via impeachment. He has better chance of stirring people up by being a 'victim' of impeachment than by being a 'victim' of being voted out.

 

[Jaguar]

After Blowback, Dershowitz Walks Back Alarming ‘Public Interest’ Defense Of Trump

Too late, bucko. The world now knows you're a lunatic.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

^Also, his rabid base will ultimately accept being voted out better than removal via impeachment. He has better chance of stirring people up by being a 'victim' of impeachment than by being a 'victim' of being voted out.

Plus censure involves a rather humiliating public shaming/scolding by members of congress. That's assuming he'd even agree to come to congress to endure this, of course.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

It's stunning how such a large part of his defense still rests on "they're trying to undo 2016 election results." That's like a lawyer trying to get someone off death row by arguing "they're trying to undo this person's birth" - like, that's the foundation of their argument, insisting that witnesses and evidence presented thus far is indirect and direct witnesses aren't needed and/or more direct evidence doesn't need to be submitted because just "trust us" it's a foregone conclusion that the prosecutor is trying to undo the person's birth. Any calls to bring direct witnesses or more direct evidence just isn't necessary. I don't understand how people are buying this? Maybe that's not entirely fair since the majority of people in this country do want witnesses called - even 69% of Republicans (and that poll was done before Bolton's manuscript came out). But still, how are so many people drinking this koolaid without enough skepticism? How can so many people have blind faith in a proven con artist (*cough*Trump University*cough*)? It's sad and embarrassing how effective this "Waahhh, waaahhhh, it's a partisan attack! " smoke and mirrors approach is. That's the power of confirmation bias and group think though, I guess.

They still haven't even presented evidence that there was just cause to suspect corruption or U.S. election interference from the Ukraine. The one guy spent a long time proving that Trump stated concerns about it before this all happened, but he didn't issue a single piece of evidence that concern was warranted (Trump stating this 'concern' might simply have been about putting a facade on getting Biden investigated).

And though ultimately, if a foreign power did find something corrupt (and it was legitimate info, not contrived) then I'd agree that it's okay to use that info during an election. But to withhold aid from a foreign power desperately in need of it for such an investigation (or worse, simply public announcements about an investigation)? This is the thing that Republicans have been blowing smoke around since this thing began, this is the "choice" Trump made that Republicans have been unwilling to acknowledge. Until Dershowitz, on Tuesday, who is now arguing that's not impeachable. (Which is just .... ). Republicans have tried dismissing all witness testimony because it's "hearsay", but seem to have no problem with Trump blocking all the witnesses from whom the testimony would be direct (not "hearsay").

- - - Updated - - -

Plus censure involves a rather humiliating public shaming/scolding by members of congress. That's assuming he'd even agree to come to congress to endure this, of course.

Yeah, this would never happen.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

It's stunning how such a large part of his defense still rests on "they're trying to undo 2016 election results." That's like a lawyer trying to get someone off death row by arguing "they're trying to undo this person's birth" - like, that's the foundation of their argument, insisting that witnesses and evidence presented thus far is indirect and direct witnesses aren't needed and/or more direct evidence doesn't need to be submitted because just "trust us" it's a foregone conclusion that the prosecutor is trying to undo the person's birth. Any calls to bring direct witnesses or more direct evidence just isn't necessary. I don't understand how people are buying this? Maybe that's not entirely fair since the majority of people in this country do want witnesses called - even 69% of Republicans (and that poll was done before Bolton's manuscript came out). But still, how are so many people drinking this koolaid without enough skepticism? How can so many people have blind faith in a proven con artist (*cough*Trump University*cough*)? It's sad and embarrassing how effective this "Waahhh, waaahhhh, it's a partisan attack! " smoke and mirrors approach is. That's the power of confirmation bias and group think though, I guess.

They still haven't even presented evidence that there was just cause to suspect corruption or U.S. election interference from the Ukraine. The one guy spent a long time proving that Trump stated concerns about it before this all happened, but he didn't issue a single piece of evidence that concern was warranted (Trump stating this 'concern' might simply have been about putting a facade on getting Biden investigated).

And though ultimately, if a foreign power did find something corrupt (and it was legitimate info, not contrived) then I'd agree that it's okay to use that info during an election. But to withhold aid from a foreign power desperately in need of it for such an investigation (or worse, simply public announcements about an investigation)? This is the thing that Republicans have been blowing smoke around since this thing began, this is the "choice" Trump made that Republicans have been unwilling to acknowledge. Until Dershowitz, on Tuesday, who is now arguing that's not impeachable. (Which is just .... ). Republicans have tried dismissing all witness testimony because it's "hearsay", but seem to have no problem with Trump blocking all the witnesses from whom the testimony would be direct (not "hearsay").

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, this would never happen.

I don't know enough about constitutional law, is there a penalty if a President sentenced to censure refuses to attend? would that then be grounds for removal? I'll have to brush up on the articles of impeachment.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I don't know enough about constitutional law, is there a penalty if a President sentenced to censure refuses to attend? would that then be grounds for removal? I'll have to brush up on the articles of impeachment.

I don't know, but I bet Philbin could argue there's a due process to it and that it's totally normal for a president to drag it on for years in protest before actually doing it. eta: Because that seems to be Philbin's specialty.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I don't know, but I bet Philbin could argue there's a due process to it and that it's totally normal for a president to drag it on for years in protest before actually doing it. eta: Because that seems to be Philbin's specialty.

Problem is there isn't a lot of precedent for this one way or the other, as far as impeachment trials are concerned, so unless it's explicitly stated in the constitution, they're all just bumbling in the dark.