Politics Generations

[Amentep]

Old thread:

Last few posts:

32 minutes ago, Raithe said:

 

26 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

 

 

14 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Hee Haw says the donkey.

This is what I was thinking too would be a good idea for US use. It can shoot down mortars! Or Davids Sling which is purported to be able to handle drones and cruise missiles.

 

7 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Hans Gruber had one cool pistol

 

 

 

 

[Gromnir]

@Guard Dog

there is no "standard" for impeachment. is complete up to Congress to decide rules for impeachment and for trial. scholars debate what extreme circumstances would result in Court interference and short o' complete random such as a blindfolded pelosi throwing at a dartboard labeled impeach everywhere but bullseye, consensus is there is no rules for impeachment.

secondhand is a possible issue but less so now that trump released recollections of call. given accuracy o' complaint 'bout call, it is gonna be tougher to dismiss complainant 'cause is secondhand. the "transcript," as dubious as we would be 'bout such, substantial corroborates the whistleblower complaint including even a few minutiae details. so he/she were right 'bout call, but wrong 'bout all else? as such am shocked the transcript were released. were hardly exculpatory. 

there will be records o' where real call transcript were stored. if it were stored in classified as whistleblower suggests, that would also be damning as again, the "transcript" doesn't make any indication that at any time sensitive info were discussed. simple reality o' how conversation were stored would be further corroboration and won't require any source to come forward.

also recall the line we quoted from the ig report as well. has been reported the ig did legwork and interviewed a few o' the complainant's sources before determining "credible." ig kinda went an extra step, but perhaps given the magnitude o' claim, he felt need to do so?  even if the primary sources refuse to cooperate, fact ig already spoke with at least a few sources and ig came away convinced enough to go direct to Congress when dni failed to communicate is significant. sure, if sources voluntarily come forward and change their stories compared to what were said to ig it may create doubt, but will also cause suspicion. 

so, conversation 'tween zelenskiy and trump lines up well. furthermore, the manner in which the conversation were handled will not need witness corroboration in any meaningful sense. final, the ig already spoke with at least a few sources and were convinced enough to conclude credible. 

even in criminal trials, which impeachment and impeachment trial is not, secondhand, or hearsay, isn't actual the complete bar one might s'pose from watching tv. is all kinda exceptions. is doubtful dying declaration exceptions will apply, but government documents exceptions will and so too will be admissions and statements against interest. 

yes, we are gonna get conservative radio and tv talk 'bout biden and quid pro quo and secondhand, but most such is deflection at this stage. 

also, please note the committees which is s'posed involved in the impeachment is including ways and means. why? as we stated earlier in the thread, there is a second whistleblower complaint which were handled proper 'cause the whistleblower went straight to Congress. story has been way under the radar. all we know is it involves accusations that the irs has been mishandling review o' trump taxes. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/20/tax-democrats-trump-1673427

impeachment, as gd knows, is not ouster o' the President. trial comes later. 

oh, and once again, the wh already done wrong regardless o' what you think o' the whistleblower complaint's veracity. the wh attempted to bury a whistleblower complaint even after the ig finding o' credible and urgent. only reason we know 'bout complaint is 'cause ig went direct to Congress. how is this getting sidelined?  am serious starting to consider shady's superpower suggestion 'cause fact almost nobody is talking 'bout wh attempts to obstruct the ig findings and the whistleblower complaint is baffling. 

HA! Good Fun!

[ManifestedISO]

editorial board, NYT

Quote

The decision to impeach a president is inherently political, in the sense — the noble sense — that it must be made in the public interest. But it should never be political in the narrow sense of being dictated by the latest poll or the next election. This is a moment for political courage. Americans deserve a government devoted to addressing their real problems. But to get that, they need a government balanced as the founders intended, with free and fair elections and a president checked by Congress from the selfish exercise of extraordinary power. Mr. Trump has disparaged and degraded the institutions of American governance, and it is now time for them, in historic rebuke, to demonstrate the majesty of representative democracy.

 

[Zoraptor]

That bus driver analogy for brexit really is stupid.

Passengers on a bus vote to go to London, with the minority voting to go to Edinburgh. Those that vote to go to Edinburgh spend the entire time whining about how the bus driver is constantly going in the wrong direction and shouting and throwing stuff at the driver, and when the question is asked whether to take the M1 or M6 to go to London they constantly vote to go north instead, all the time insisting they're reflecting the real will of the people. And of course the motorway authority really wants them to go to Edinburgh as well, so actually they can't use the motorway and have to use diversions instead, and- amazing coincidence, surely- the diversions always send them back towards Edinburgh. The original driver worked for the motorway authority, drove the bus into a cul de sac he couldn't back out of then ran off to hide like the most pathetic of spineless pathetic insult to the wormiest worm cowards (and was literally a porcine necrophiliac, lest we forget), only emerging to snipe at his successor drivers despite being the absolute cause of the whole mess and there was absolutely nothing realistically the successor drivers could do to rescue the situation.

But of course it would all be solved by another vote, which would surely get the Right Result this time and we'd be eating deep fried pizza with Glenmorangie chaser at the Fringe Festival a few hours later as the motorway system mysteriously clears up. And, of course, no more pesky votes ever on how to get to Edinburgh so we can avoid all the pesky idiots voting to go there via Milton Keynes.

[Gromnir]

Kurt Volker resigned from his position as the U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine Friday, following reports he collaborated with Ukraine and President Donald Trump.

...

was gonna add a rats + sinking ship image, but would be gauche.

HA! Good Fun!

[ManifestedISO]

wow, Volker is one of five officials summoned to appear before House committees next week 

 

the nothingburger, by Alexandra Petri

Graham gestured to Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), who was gazing happily at the transcript with an expression of calm. “There’s nothing there," Perdue murmured, confidently. Graham pointed to Mike Pence, who was smiling vaguely at nothing in particular.

Spoiler

The senators knew too well that they dared not look at the whistleblower complaint. Not yet. The horror of it was the knowledge that their minds were not yet perfect. It would be awful to look at it and see something. No, they could not look at it. They must not.

So they breezed past the reporters asking whether they had read it. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said he had been too busy running around. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said he was left with “more questions than answers."

Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said they should not begin circling the wagons yet, and a horrible pain erupted on his right temple.

He joined the rush of senators to Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) office, where they clasped their hands and begged, humbly, to be allowed to really see that there was nothing there.

“I want to see a nothingburger,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said sorrowfully. “I am trying to see a nothingburger. But I cannot help but think that I am a little bit troubled by that transcript. It seems like, well, a somethingburger."

Graham sighed a sigh of infinite patience.

“You are worth taking time,” he said. “That is why the party is taking time over you. But you are laboring under some expensive delusions that I wish to root out. You still believe it is possible to be troubled by any action the president might take."

“Yes,” Romney said, looking a little puzzled.

“I know I shouldn’t think that,” Sasse started.

“Would you like to be quite happy and content to support the president in all things?"

“Well,” Romney said, “if I could do so in good conscience.”

Graham emitted another heavy sigh. “Have you considered that the problem after all might not lie with the president, but with you?”

“I had not considered that," Romney said, a little uneasily. “Please, I look at the transcript of the president’s call to the president of Ukraine, and I am, quite frankly, disappointed and put off. It looks like the kind of thing you would not want your president to be doing. I want to see something different. If you would tell me how to see that, it would be a great weight off my mind. I want to see what you see."

Graham looked on, unruffled. “That is good," he said. “To want that. That is the first step. For all of you. You wish to be like me, and I see no crimes here. There is nothing here to see. Nothing to fear or be uneasy about — except that you have not controlled your mind. Certainly no reason to leap to something as grave as impeachment."

“Didn’t you impeach President Clinton?" Sasse inquired.

“President Clinton never was elected, because of the emails.”

Romney blinked repeatedly.

“You are thinking of the past,” Graham said. “Do you think the past exists, Senator Romney?”

“Yes?”

Graham sighed. “Think how much happier you would be if you entertained the possibility that, actually, it did not. Think how happy goldfish are. Would you like to be as happy as a goldfish?" He stared at the two of them, not blinking. “I am happy.”

Graham gestured to Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), who was gazing happily at the transcript with an expression of calm. “There’s nothing there," Perdue murmured, confidently. Graham pointed to Mike Pence, who was smiling vaguely at nothing in particular.

“Would you like to see what Vice President Pence sees when he looks at the president?” Graham asked. “Believe me, it is very beautiful, and nothing at all like what you think you see. Think how happy you would be if President Trump were entirely different, senators.”

“But,” Sasse started.

“Do you think the vice president goes around thinking your Donald Trump is in the White House? Would he look so happy and so eternally unruffled if he thought that? No, of course not. He sees what is truly there: a good, great, brave man who is governing this country better than it has ever been governed.”

Romney sighed. “I wish to see this. If only it were there."

“If it were there!” Graham’s laugh echoed. “Did you hear the director of national intelligence testify? These things only need to bother us if we let them. What is simpler: to alter the president’s behavior, or to discipline your mind, so that you are never bothered by anything that takes place? Please; I think you already know the answer."

“What would Senator John McCain have done?”

“Who?” Graham asked, blinking amiably. “You must try harder. There is nothing to see here, if you would only let yourself see nothing. It is not so hard when you put your mind to it. Now sit. It will be painful, but then it will be over, and you will be much happier. You will be able to look at the complaint, and really see nothing. Wouldn’t you like to see nothing?"

 

[ManifestedISO]

do me a favor, though

 

[smjjames]

1 hour ago, ManifestedISO said:

do me a favor, though

 

That's..... definetly in the legally dubious realm. It seems to fit, but I'm not sure. Isn't legal defense stuff kinda on the edge of that? I mean, I can see how it's definetly shady, but it seems almost borderline..... editwhiletyping: I could also see a massive opening for the Dems to point to it as him being beholden to big money.

Maybe gromnir would be able to make better sense of whether it fits that legally.....

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, I wouldn't rely on an elided one sentence summary of a law to determine the legality or not of a one sentence summary of a conversation.

You'd think the jails would be full of lobbyists if the law practically functioned as that summary implies, since their job is inducing public officials to do what their paymasters want.

[smjjames]

Yea, it just screams 'Lobbyist!' if anything, though without the actual lobbyist middleman. Of course though, he's asking a political organization to help, so, there's going to be some political requirements. Plus it's LaPierre who's already embroiled in money scandals, but the political captive is probably worth any blowback.

As I said, it does open Trump to the accusation of being beholden to big money (which he so obviously is).

[Skarpen]

12 hours ago, Gromnir said:

secondhand is a possible issue but less so now that trump released recollections of call. given accuracy o' complaint 'bout call, it is gonna be tougher to dismiss complainant 'cause is secondhand. the "transcript," as dubious as we would be 'bout such, substantial corroborates the whistleblower complaint including even a few minutiae details. so he/she were right 'bout call, but wrong 'bout all else? as such am shocked the transcript were released. were hardly exculpatory. 

I highly doubt that Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus works in reverse. Iustum in uno, iustum in omnibus is not a thing.

[Gromnir]

again, reddit conspiracy theories aside, is major misconceptions 'bout how lobbyists work. is illegal to offer money for a vote, regardless if is legal defense fund. the reason why prisons ain't filled with lobbyists is 'cause lobbyists don't direct offer money for vote. what does happen is there is a fundraiser for general party or specific candidate which raises $100k and is sponsored and organized by a lobbyist on behalf of _______. lobbyist makes sure the candidate knows how grateful is ________ that the candidate is doing such good work. candidate's previous vote or proposed legislation or whatever were brilliant and good for all americans. 'course everybody knows that lobbyist is doing fundraiser on behalf o' ________ and everybody knows how important the upcoming vote is to _______. doesn't take much for the lobbyist to suggest more fundraisers is coming the candidate's way if they continue to do good work.

overt offers o' money for votes or actions is clear illegal. am not saying such overt offers don't happen, but they is illegal and given how easy it is to do the lobbyist thing w/o it being illegal, is best not to pay too much attention to house of cards and movie depictions o' lobbyists. lobbying is done right out in the open, plain view, in part to prevent any chance o' accusations o' bribery. regardless, offer money for votes/not vote is clear and ez illegal.

however, as with so many violations o' law, just 'cause a bad guy did something wrong, it don't necessarily mean he is going to prison. prove bribery is not easy w/o show o' actual money being exchanged, money specific tied to the promised action or inaction. we wouldn't be shocked if nra made an offer to trump to fund his defense in exchange for trump avoiding gun legislation. however, chances are the words used by lapierre were far less direct. sure, everybody in the room no doubt understood what were meant, but is not difficult to create reasonable doubt, particular if witnesses remember different... and even when witnesses is being genuine honest, having everybody remember same event exact same way is prohibitive unlikely. in fact, if every witnesses somehow had exact same recollection o' what were said by lapierre, then we would assume people were lying.

furthermore, given how much money the nra has given to republicans and the trump campaign, am expecting is more than a little difficult to try and prove a most recent payment were specific tied to promise. is not as if lapierrre, in memo portion o' the nra check, is gonna write: "as consideration for Presidential inaction on gun legislation." 

money need not exchange hands for there to be a finding o' bribery, but w/o it, there is proof problems. the nyt article is a good start for a prosecutor, but is still an uphill battle if were no money.

even so, as we noted earlier, insofar as lobbyists general is concerned, legit lobby is so easy to do open and achieve same ends as illegal that there isn't much motivation for folks to go the nefarious route. 

is more enoch's area.

HA! Good fun!

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Gromnir
spelling fails

[Guard Dog]

14 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

oh, and once again, the wh already done wrong regardless o' what you think o' the whistleblower complaint's veracity. the wh attempted to bury a whistleblower complaint even after the ig finding o' credible and urgent. 

Oh yeah. There is no lipstick that will make that pig any prettier. Even if every other fact was false this is damning by itself. 

[Zoraptor]

36 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

again, reddit conspiracy theories aside, is major misconceptions 'bout how lobbyists work.

There's no misconception on my part. I'd suspect that lobbyists are a bit loose with dotting the i's and crossing the t's at times (I very strongly suspect Manafort was far from alone in failing to declare agency in service of a foreign government, for example) but the idea of them offering payola for votes directly I'd be very skeptical of.

It's just that if you compare the short two sentence summary of the supposed LaPierre/ Trump conversation and a short two sentence summary of any hypothetical lobbyist/ politician conversation where support for a position is sought they would end up sounding pretty much identical. "Joe Biden met with health insurance lobbyists and reiterated his opposition to M4A. They were pleased they could continue supporting his campaign" morphing to "Biden met with health insurance lobbyists and asked if they would finance his presidential campaign. They said they would if he continued resisting M4A" are functionally the same exact statements, the latter is just slanted to make it sound shady and potentially illegal. If such a summary were actual evidence of payola the jails would be full of lobbyists and politicians.

Fundamentally, a twitter exchange of summarised and already 2nd hand information is not likely to be an accurate representation of reality.

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Oh yeah. There is no lipstick that will make that pig any prettier. Even if every other fact was false this is damning by itself. 

as much as am now favoring impeachment as a matter o' principle, am thinking this doesn't turn out well for democrats. all one need do is read fox news and breitbart sites to see how some folks is being exposed to this latest insanity. the whistleblower is a snitch and biden is the real bad guy and the fake news media is complicit in a cover-up o' the badness done by democrats. 

nixon had a long laundry list o' misdeeds which were exposed by impeachment, but the country were not actual in favor o' impeachment 'til nixon repeated stonewalled Congressional efforts to get at truth.  even then, national support for impeachment and removal never exceeded 60% and 'mongst republicans, support eventually reached a paltry 31%. it were republican Congressmen who in spite o' middling public support for removal, actual turned tide on removal. 

trump situation is different. trump has been consistent obstructing Congress for a long time and few folks appear to care. so if trump digs in and denies ig testimony and prevents corroborating witness testimony on basis o' privilege and denies access to records o' where actual ukraine conversations were stored, then what? we have also seen just how much the gop Congressmen has rallied behind trump and there don't appear to be much chance they shift 'cause o' principle. 

polarization is far worse today than were the case in 74. even if everything the whistleblower claims gets corroboration, am not seeing public opinion or gop Congress change. all we see in the future is the public more entrenched and their disgust with Congress more pronounced. 

the thing is, we also don't see much o' a choice for Congress. to ignore trump's perversion and diminution o' the Constitution is unacceptable and antithetical to the principles 'pon which the republic were founded. this must needs be the point from which further retreat is unthinkable, unconscionable. failure is the anticipated cost o' resistance but surrender the battle without a fight would be to risk losing our nation's soul. history will condemn us if we passive accept and ignore for fear o' division and disquiet.

as for zor, am gonna give up trying to set you straight on interpretation o' law. bring up manafort failure to disclose to bolster your misinterpretation o' bribery statute and lack o' clarity 'bout lobbyists? sure. sure. crossing i's and dotting t's? HA! nevertheless, have been down this road before and am knowing how utterly pointless it is.

regardless, while we will agree the nyt article description o' conversations 'tween the nra and trump is too vague to establish anything more than tennous prima facie bribery as a practical matter under the statute (were kinda the point o' our reply,) nevertheless, is also true that your responses is bassackwards and clear exhibiting misinterpretation.

"You'd think the jails would be full of lobbyists if the law practically functioned as that summary implies, since their job is inducing public officials to do what their paymasters want."

no. is not what one would think. the summary selective quotes relevant portions o'  the stature, but accurate communicates the specific behaviour which is always off-limits for a lobbyist: paying a politician to vote a particular way. 

argue the nyt article description o' conversation and trump is too vague to establish bribery under the statute? ok. fine. 'course such is just repeating what Gromnir already observed. 

HA! Good Fun! 

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

as much as am now favoring impeachment as a matter o' principle, am thinking this doesn't turn out well for democrats. all one need do is read fox news and breitbart sites to see how some folks is being exposed to this latest insanity. the whistleblower is a snitch and biden is the real bad guy and the fake news media is complicit in a cover-up o' the badness done by democrats. 

nixon had a long laundry list o' misdeeds which were exposed by impeachment, but the country were not actual in favor o' impeachment 'til nixon repeated stonewalled Congressional efforts to get at truth.  even then, national support for impeachment and removal never exceeded 60% and 'mongst republicans, support eventually reached a paltry 31%. it were republican Congressmen who in spite o' middling public support for removal, actual turned tide on removal. 

trump situation is different. trump has been consistent obstructing Congress for a long time and few folks appear to care. so if trump digs in and denies ig testimony and prevents corroborating witness testimony on basis o' privilege and denies access to records o' where actual ukraine conversations were stored, then what? we have also seen just how much the gop Congressmen has rallied behind trump and there don't appear to be much chance they shift 'cause o' principle. 

polarization is far worse today than were the case in 74. even if everything the whistleblower claims gets corroboration, am not seeing public opinion or gop Congress change. all we see in the future is the public more entrenched and their disgust with Congress more pronounced. 

the thing is, we also don't see much o' a choice for Congress. to ignore trump's perversion and diminution o' the Constitution is unacceptable and antithetical to the principles 'pon which the republic were founded. this must needs be the point from which further retreat is unthinkable, unconscionable. failure is the anticipated cost o' resistance but surrender the battle without a fight would be to risk losing our nation's soul. history will condemn us if we passive accept and ignore for fear o' division and disquiet.

 

 

Tribalism is running deep. It is a problem when facts are viewed through political rose colored glasses.  Were the parties reversed and Trump a democrat facing a republican congress we would be in the same situation. His supporters on the left would convince themselves it's all a political witch hunt to take out their champion. And, as you and I both said, the path forward is steep, rocky, and likely leads off a cliff. The Senate is not likely to remove him.

That is why Congress should censure him. Publicly, formally and explicitly and make his bad acts part of the public conversation. Make them a big part of the campaign. Repeat them, repeat them, then repeat them again. After a Congressional Censure there is no defense case, no rebuttal, no year long circus leading into an election. Here is the ugly truth; he's more likely to be re-elected if they try this because it will put the right's backs up to support him.  Take the justice you know you can have. 

Another suggestion. They have just one shot at this. I'd save it to see if he gets re-elected. THEN take him down if. Delay the inquiry a year. Articles of Impeachment can be drafted at anytime. Not a criminal trial so there is no speedy trial issues. 

You already know what I think of the abuses of power by the executive branch. Has there been a President that didn't? Carter or Truman maybe. Eisenhower. It's a really short list. This is more egregious than anything I can remember. But it would be far better if the voters took him out.  Then we can get on with the next abuser of power. 

[Gorgon]

Soo, nothing is going the happen because impeachment needs a two thirds majority ?

[Gromnir]

27 minutes ago, Gorgon said:

Soo, nothing is going the happen because impeachment needs a two thirds majority ?

no.

impeach is simple majority o' those present in house voting in favor of articles of impeachment. 

conviction in senate trial requires 2/3.

nixon example: glass half full or empty? when impeachment process started 'gainst nixon, there were similar little chance o' conviction. impeachment investigation changed opinions o' previous dismissive and/or ambivalent republicans such that nixon eventual quit rather than face inevitability.

for better or worse, is not 1974.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 28, 2019 by Gromnir

[Agiel]

I can only assume that the leaked audio of Trump on what the US "used to do in the old days" to "spies" was based on the fates of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. I'd post a video clip from Angels in America where the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg comes to gloat to the disbarred Roy Cohn on his deathbed but it would appear that it has been taken down.

[Bartimaeus]

Especially fitting, seeing as Roy Cohn was Trump's personal lawyer for a time.

[HoonDing]

tbh impeachment is no longer enough.

[Raithe]

Trump White House - The irony of the Secret System

Days later, the contents of a whistleblower complaint describing the call also detailed the White House's efforts to cover up the word-for-word transcript and other details of the call by removing them from the White House's main digital network and loading them onto a "standalone computer system" with greater security classification—or, rather, a private server.

The White House has since confirmed they did use the secret server.

Trump has called former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server "bigger than Watergate," and made the years-old scandal a centerpiece of his 2016 campaign.

This week's whistleblower complaint asserts that the White House, on more than one occasion, put the President's conversations on the secret computer system:

"White House officials told me that they were "directed" by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials."

"Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective."

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, HoonDing said:

tbh impeachment is no longer enough.

well, impeachment alone is kinda meaningless. the impeachment inquiry is gonna be significant 'cause it will either bring facts which is in question to light, or, and sadly this is more likely in our estimation, it will result in the Contempt of Congress behaviour which were spelling the end for nixon but will be a non-issue for trump. no matter what is the results o' the inquiry, the various committee investigations will be worth following.

nixon, btw, were subject o' five separate inquiries and two o' those inquiries failed to result in articles o' impeachment being voted 'pon by Congress. in case you are interested, is tax avoidance and bombing cambodia which didn't get committee approval while obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt o' Congress which did.

impeach and removal is not like criminal procedure... save for when Congress decides it is. *shrug* is easiest to think o' impeachment as functioning as does a criminal indictment, or in other words, a formal accusation.  impeach is an emotional charged word and tickles the imagination, but impeachment is no more and no less than a formal accusation which is a necessary prerequisite for a senate trial.  senate trial and 2/3 members voting for removal would be needed to actual bring 'bout a change in occupants o' the wh and oval office.

aside:

nixon v. united states maybe gets mentioned by a few legal experts on tv or in papers. president nixon didn't go to court regarding impeachment. the nixon in the case we mention were a federal judge who, along with another judge, appealed his impeach and removal to The Court. unanimous decision. is determined that validity o' impeachment and senate trial is a nonjusticiable political question and even issues o' process is beyond the scope o' The Court's authority. once impeachment proceedings begin in earnest, SCOTUS plays role of pontius pilate.

HA! Good Fun!

ps there were a united states v. nixon which were involving the inquiry o' nixon. is why the recent nonsense where trump had doj claim he is not subject to criminal process while in office is so wacky. again, is a unanimous Court which decides nixon must hand over tapes as result o' criminal subpoena. made very clear executive privilege is no bar to criminal process. unambiguous. however, not technical an impeachment case.

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Gromnir
attempt to clarify possible confusion... not that we believe anybody actual cares.

[smjjames]

Isn't the SCOTUS (the head Justice usually anyway, I think) involvement mostly just a formality? Pretty sure all they do is act as mediator and make sure proper procedure is followed and whatever.

As a distraction from the US stuff, have some Brexit drama: There's speculation that a no confidence vote could be called next week sometime.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/28/20888815/nra-russia-senate-report-tax-exempt-investigation-irs-new-york-dc-james-attorney-general Does anybody find the argument that the NRA would basically dissolve if they were no longer tax exempt kind of bogus? Not that I like the NRA, just that they'd have revenue sources like membership fees. Sure, they'll lose some members and have to downsize, but that's different from closing down entirely.

Edited September 28, 2019 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, smjjames said:

Isn't the SCOTUS (the head Justice usually anyway, I think) involvement mostly just a formality? Pretty sure all they do is act as mediator and make sure proper procedure is followed and whatever.

the chief justice acts as the presiding officer during the senate trial. is not SCOTUS involvement. just the chief justice. furthermore, the presiding officer role is largely ministerial, which is one reason why the trial o' andrew johnson were such a complete and utter charlie fox. 

for those who is advocating impeachment and removal, is worth reading 'bout the andrew johnson trial as a cautionary tale. am personal current favoring impeachment with recognition o' a possible trial to follow, but that don't mean we is convinced a trial of trump would be less disastrous than were johnson.  gonna need pry trump's hands off the resolute desk to get him outta office, and we do not see him placing the good o' the nation before his personal interests. if trump were to be tried, am convinced he would burn as many people and institutions as possible along the way. would be beyond catastrophic.

from larry tribe's book 'bout impeachment:

"Many Americans who voted for Trump view themselves as belonging to a victimized, disenfranchised class that has finally discovered its champion. For some of them, Trump’s appeal is less what he will accomplish programmatically than whom he will attack personally. Were Trump removed from office by political elites in Washington, DC—even based on clear evidence that he had grossly abused power—some of his supporters would surely view the decision as an illegitimate coup. Indeed, some right-wing leaders have already denounced the campaign to remove Trump as a prelude to civil war. This rhetoric, too, escapes reality and indulges pernicious tendencies toward apocalyptic thinking about the impeachment power."

the book consistent and repeated warns o' the dangers o' impeachment.  'course since mid 2017, tribe has become one o' the most vocal supporters o' impeaching trump.

but perhaps change is needed. the 2019 presidency is so different than what were envisioned by the founders in 1787. separation o' powers and checks and balances current only works if you got a person in the oval office who believes in the Constitution or who is concerned 'bout legacy and has at least some notion o' a greater good.  maybe we needed trump to show us all just how broken the executive can be?

am just not seeing an alternative to impeach. if trump is once again allowed to violate Constitutional limits, then what precedent is set? 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 28, 2019 by Gromnir