Continuation House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

He isn't. "your" president unless you work for the executive branch. We are not in some chain of command. He can't give us orders.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I think I might qualify as a “Never Trumper”. I found him repulsive since very, very early on in the Republican primary as he mocked and belittled his primary opponents.

Yet when he won, I had mixed feelings. I was energized in the manner of “living in interesting times” - which is itself a Chinese curse. Still, I had no thoughts of getting rid of him through impeachment - the vagaries of the electoral college made him “my” president, for good or ill. I had hopes he would surround himself with good people and listen to their counsel, and, being a fiscal conservative, hoped he could find a way to rein in spending and get a handle on burgeoning deficits and debt.

Remember what all fiscal conservatives know as expressed by Dick Cheney "Deficits don't matter". They are just a way to scam the voters.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

They'd claim the contact with the iceberg was perfect and the Titanic was working better than ever. Even if there was something wrong it wasn't a sinking offence.

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

We learnt pretty early on what a slimy little worm Nunes was but participating in an inquiry into this dirty Trump/Giuliani scheme that he took part in is next level. Hope this ******** ends up in the slammer.

Shouldn't he be required to recuse himself?

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9Igy...jYPu/giphy.gif

AS GOD IS MY WITNESS, I WILL NEVER BE BOBBED AGAIN!

[kellyb]

Worth watching live now. The House has GOT this. I found their pre-impeachment letter thingie flawless (personally.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHcV...ature=emb_logo

It's also on CSPAN now.

[alfaniner]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I heard an interesting take the other day. The Republicans are going to whine that the impeachment is all political. OK, fine. But then again, their defense is also just political. So let's not let them get away with pretending that they are taking some pure high road or anything.

Impeachment is a political process by its very definition. Why should they be whining about it? It's just a narrative they want to project, of course.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Worth watching live now. The House has GOT this. I found their pre-impeachment letter thingie flawless (personally.)

You make the common mistake of thinking that the facts matter.

It's like a scientist debating a creationist or an anti-vaxxer. They think that they have the advantage because the facts are on their side. They don't. What they discover is that the other side just goes up and spews a pile of lies to overwhelm their supposed facts, and it buries the discussion.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

You make the common mistake of thinking that the facts matter.

It's like a scientist debating a creationist or an anti-vaxxer. They think that they have the advantage because the facts are on their side. They don't. What they discover is that the other side just goes up and spews a pile of lies to overwhelm their supposed facts, and it buries the discussion.

Not only that, but the huge pile of evidence is dry and boring whereas simple statements like "Coup against the President" are exciting and easily consumed and repeated.

[alfaniner]

We're only at the Ranking Member's opening statement and if only reinforces my opinion that I ******* hate Republican politicians.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

You make the common mistake of thinking that the facts matter.

It's like a scientist debating a creationist or an anti-vaxxer. They think that they have the advantage because the facts are on their side. They don't. What they discover is that the other side just goes up and spews a pile of lies to overwhelm their supposed facts, and it buries the discussion.

There are a lot of independents and impeachment agnostics out there. This is for them.

It's going perfectly so far. The first constitutional scholar they brought on was AMAZING.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

We're only at the Ranking Member's opening statement and if only reinforces my opinion that I ******* hate Republican politicians.

"Constitutional SCHOLARS are the problem!!! LAW is the problem!!!"


These people are desperate. That's not going to cut it.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by kellyb

"Constitutional SCHOLARS are the problem!!! LAW is the problem!!!"

Hopefully that's not an actual quote.

[JoeMorgue]

And all of that would be great if this was a traditional trial where you can be "technically correct" and had some higher authority to make the other side acquiesce.

I don't doubt that any Legal Scholar with more then 3 neurons in his skull could prove that Trump has done things that meet "the definition" of impeachable offense. That's on the level of proving there's at least one water molecule in the Pacific. I'm sure you can do it.

But the "technically speaking" part that is being missed is technically... impeachable is whatever Congress says it is. If Congress votes that buttering your toast is an impeachable offense it is, if they vote that selling us to Ottoman Empire is not, it isn't. That's it. That's the highest level of "technically speaking." A legal scholar can't tell Congress they are wrong about what is impeachable because what is impeachable is by definition whatever Congress says it is. That's why the language in the Constitution was so vague and didn't spell out line by line was offenses counted. That's a feature, not a bug.

When a prosecutor "proves" (in the legal sense) that an event occurred the defense can't just go "Nope, don't care." The judge, the jury, the greater and broader legal system, a higher court, something, will override it and make the defense believe it, or at least make the defense act as if they believe it.

In this case, that's exactly what can and will happen. The "Prosecutor" is going to prove their case, and the "Defense" isn't going to care. Note I didn't say the defense is going to say they didn't prove it, I said the defense is not going to care. And we're already at the top level. There's no higher court or process to appeal to. There's no Ref to stop this fight after the Republicans lowblow you again while you lay on mat going "But the rule book says you can't do that..."

Proving something and convincing someone of something are two very different thinks. The Dems are wasting all our times proving WE ALL ALREADY KNOW.

Yes a child with a sliderule could prove Trump has committed impeachable offenses. But the same child can prove Brett Hart didn't tap to Shawn Michaels in Montreal but Shawn left with the Belt.

There is no force in the machinations of everything going on right now that is going to hold the Republicans to anything the Democrats prove no matter how well they prove it.

Stop proving, start convincing. If you can't do either, give up, and start the revolution. Either way stop wasting our time.

[Frank Newgent]

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Impeachment is a political process by its very definition. Why should they be whining about it? It's just a narrative they want to project, of course.

The problem with emphasizing the political nature of impeachment is that it suggests the trial in the Senate is merely political. If these issues are all merely political, then a refusal to remove the president legitimately comes down to political considerations. It's bad for the Republican party (at least in the short term) to remove Trump from office, and so they have good reason not to.

I don't think this is a merely political act. I think that Trump's behavior is legitimately bad for the nation whether it's good for the GOP or not. Anyone who refuses to remove Trump because it's politically inexpedient to do so is failing in his duty.

Now, I may be interpreting the word "political" differently than you, but if so, I'm not sure how you mean it.

[plague311]

I read a Fox article saying the Republicans witness is going to blast the impeachment. That's all the right needs to bombard their base and the base will never think of it again.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by kellyb

There are a lot of independents and impeachment agnostics out there. This is for them.

How many of them are even watching?

And you miss the point: creationists win the creation/evolution "debates" all the time, even when the audience is "independents and agnostics." Because it's not about facts. Even with independents and agnostics, rhetoric matters.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by plague311

I read a Fox article saying the Republicans witness is going to blast the impeachment. That's all the right needs to bombard their base and the base will never think of it again.

I heard that he said at the time that Clinton lying about a private affair was clearly an impeachable offense, but that there is nothing here that rises to that level.

Good luck with that.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

How many of them are even watching?

Enough, I hope.

The only chance we've got is that this mythical neutral party of very, very quiet people turns out to actually exist.

Everyone who's already been "in the discussion" is not changing their mind, I think that's the one thing that has been proved to all of our satisfaction by this circus.

For the first time in my life I hope the "Silent Majority" concept has some real truth to it.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I heard that he said at the time that Clinton lying about a private affair was clearly an impeachable offense, but that there is nothing here that rises to that level.

Good luck with that.

Yeah, that Turley guy was hilariously disingenuous. He didn't even seem to be trying, honestly. Not sure what his deal is, but his heart wasn't even in his words, it seemed to me, at least.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Yeah, that Turley guy was hilariously disingenuous. He didn't even seem to be trying, honestly. Not sure what his deal is, but his heart wasn't even in his words, it seemed to me, at least.

It is depressing. If you're gonna lie to me at least have the decency to do it in a way where I go "Holy crap. You're actually going sit there, look me in the eye, and really act like you believe it?"

It's no fun they aren't even into it.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

How many of them are even watching?

No idea, and I don't think anyone knows how many would be "enough."

But some effect will be there, and that's a good thing.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

He isn't. "your" president unless you work for the executive branch. We are not in some chain of command. He can't give us orders.

One doesn't work "for" the executive branch, one has a job that is part of the institution. And, no one "gives" orders; orders are communicated from superior to subordinate.


Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Yeah, that Turley guy was hilariously disingenuous. He didn't even seem to be trying, honestly. Not sure what his deal is, but his heart wasn't even in his words, it seemed to me, at least.

Haven't watched much, but I don't like the lawyer who is leading the questioning right now.

"Did you write such-and-such?"

"Yes, but there was a significant caveat..."

"It was a yes or no question. Did you write such and such?"

(Not perfect quotes, obviously.) I would've preferred that Turley could include his caveat. Else, the quoted passage may well have been very misleading.

[Stacyhs]

The only dissenting Constitutional expert of four, Prof. Turley, stated that there was a "paucity of evidence" supporting Trump having committed an impeachable offense.
I honestly don't know what more evidence he would require than what we already have.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

We're only at the Ranking Member's opening statement and if only reinforces my opinion that I ******* hate Republican politicians.

Notice how the Republican is practically shouting. He's outraged! Yep, don't want anyone miss it.

Nadler is a tad disappointing compared to Schiff when it comes to rebutting crap.


I'm waiting for people to really cross-examine Turley. I have a lot of things he should be asked that so far, no one is asking.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Notice how the Republican is practically shouting. He's outraged! Yep, don't want anyone miss it.

Reminds me of Graham's theatrics during the Kavanaugh hearings.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The only dissenting Constitutional expert of four, Prof. Turley, stated that there was a "paucity of evidence" supporting Trump having committed an impeachable offense.
I honestly don't know what more evidence he would require than what we already have.

And what adds to my annoyance with that BS, he made the same statements long before the witnesses testified in the hearings.

He also repeated the GOP line that Trump hasn't been able to defend himself. Turley seemed to think the SCOTUS needs to answer the subpoena refusals before one could call it obstruction.

But it's ridiculous because Trump just moves the goal post again and again. What does Turley say about that? Nothing.


The GOP questioner is bringing up Biden's actions with Ukraine aid but left out the personal gain and attacking one's political rival.

The GOP members keep repeating the talking point the public is tired of this yada yada. No they aren't.

[The Great Zaganza]

The Judiciary Committee has always been a clown-show because it is so public compared to the Intelligence Committee.
"Nothing new" is the best Republicans can hope for, and they might get it.

[varwoche]

In the proceeding, Karlan's "Barron" comment about kings was funny but unwise.

Originally Posted by Karlan, approximately

Trump can name his son Barron, but he can't appoint Barons.

Hay will be made. These evil people are dragging in an innocent child!

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I think it is clearer than you think.

1) Is trump alleged to have done something people think is wrong?

Yes. Not even trump seems to think what he is accused of is acceptable.

2) is there evidence for it?

Yes.

3) would pursuing it be in line with legislative checks against the executive?

Yes.

Then its far less evidence for Graham's position.

In that way, we are one step closer to believing the Democrat intent compared to Graham.

You forgot,
4. Does Dear Leader make the Sun to shine?
If so disregard points 1 through 3.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Gohmert's going with the 'Ukraine did it' CT and claims there are witnesses to that effect that weren't called.


They are also claiming Trump was interested in corruption. The Democrats have not done themselves any favors ignoring a rebuttal of that Trump lie. If it continues it becomes an alt-fact, probably already is.

[JoeMorgue]

Even a year ago I would have argued that even the Republicans wouldn't fully buy into a full on conspiracy theory just to kneejerk defend their tribe.

Now it's a near certainty. They are actually going to argue some sort of shadowy deep state is out to get Trump.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Gohmert's going with the 'Ukraine did it' CT and claims there are witnesses to that effect that weren't called.

Do these idiots not understand that they are playing into Putin's hands?

Or are they in on it?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Even a year ago I would have argued that even the Republicans wouldn't fully buy into a full on conspiracy theory just to kneejerk defend their tribe.

Now it's a near certainty. They are actually going to argue some sort of shadowy deep state is out to get Trump.

Which of course raises the question: does anyone ebelieve that this sort of thing will stop when Trump leaves? Or will it become the new normal?

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

It is depressing. If you're gonna lie to me at least have the decency to do it in a way where I go "Holy crap. You're actually going sit there, look me in the eye, and really act like you believe it?"

It's no fun they aren't even into it.

Low-energy liars. The boss will not be happy.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Which of course raises the question: does anyone ebelieve that this sort of thing will stop when Trump leaves? Or will it become the new normal?

I don't know. This is like the political singularity, we can't see what's beyond it.

If "Post-Truth" as a concept gets fully established and it works or even seems to... it might be the new norm.

I want to think that simple intelligence to base concept that "facts exist" will swing us back to center sooner or later but "There are this things called facts and what they are tends to matter" is a point I keep having to defend a lot in a lot of different contexts more and more... *shrugs.*

Again this is what skeptics have been dealing with forever but now it's going to apply to literally everything. Full scale, across the board reality denial.

If this goes worse case scenario reality is going to become functionally identical to a Jabba or Figbooter thread.

[The Great Zaganza]

There is much more at stake for Republicans than the Trump Presidency: it is their entire ideology that Federal Government cannot work and must therefore be defanged, defunded and deregulated.
If Democrats manage to make the system work, if they can actually pull off an Impeachment supported by evidence, this would prove that only Republicans are incapable of governing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Do these idiots not understand that they are playing into Putin's hands?

Or are they in on it?

For some of them, it is the latter.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Gohmert's going with the 'Ukraine did it' CT and claims there are witnesses to that effect that weren't called.


They are also claiming Trump was interested in corruption. The Democrats have not done themselves any favors ignoring a rebuttal of that Trump lie. If it continues it becomes an alt-fact, probably already is.

He is interested in corruption, he is very much for it. See his attacks on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.