Trump whistleblower brewing scandal - Page 8

WilliamSeger · 24th September 2019, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The rule is all executive power is vested in a president.

This is the application of that rule.

You still don't get it. Yes, Trump had the legal authority to fire Comey, but doing so was clearly for the purpose of obstructing justice, a recognized charge in impeachment articles. Yes, Trump has the legal authority to talk secretly with foreign leaders and to use aid to pressure compliance, but that doesn't shield him from being charged with abuse of power for personal gain. If your interpretation of the Constitution were correct, there would be no provisions for impeachment. Articles of Impeachment typical begin with a boiler plate charge of failure to faithfully discharge the duties of the office, and that's all that's required. Once again, you're belaboring a pointless point.

Belz... · 24th September 2019, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Okay so honest question. (And this is honest, no snark, not gotcha.)

We impeach Trump. And we'll say that either leads to removal of office OR political damage enough to cost him 2020.

But, let's say, the Dems still don't win. Another, more mainstream Republican, a "Romney" or a "McCain" let's say, wins 2020.

How much of a win would we consider that? Better then nothing?

Again serious question. It's not a likely scenario but... well have watched the last few years? Unlikely scenarios are pretty popular.

Romney would certainly be more normal and reassuring.

thaiboxerken · 24th September 2019, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

I'm not sure either would hand him the election.

I'm certain that if the democrats do not impeach, then the democratic party's base will stay home and not vote.

JoeMorgue · 24th September 2019, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I'm certain that if the democrats do not impeach, then the democratic party's base will stay home and not vote.

Where's the sense in that? "They didn't get rid of Trump so we won't do it either just to spite them?"

So (and I'm being half serious here) has "spite" just become the biggest driving factor for the political bases?

BobTheCoward · 24th September 2019, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

You still don't get it. Yes, Trump had the legal authority to fire Comey, but doing so was clearly for the purpose of obstructing justice, a recognized charge in impeachment articles. Yes, Trump has the legal authority to talk secretly with foreign leaders and to use aid to pressure compliance, but that doesn't shield him from being charged with abuse of power for personal gain. If your interpretation of the Constitution were correct, there would be no provisions for impeachment. Articles of Impeachment typical begin with a boiler plate charge of failure to faithfully discharge the duties of the office, and that's all that's required. Once again, you're belaboring a pointless point.

All that is moot because the legislature has sole authority to determine a high crime. They have the power to impeach him for the high crime of not committing murder if they wanted.

This really only a applies to a post presidency legal defense.

The Great Zaganza · 24th September 2019, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Okay so honest question. (And this is honest, no snark, not gotcha.)

We impeach Trump. And we'll say that either leads to removal of office OR political damage enough to cost him 2020.

But, let's say, the Dems still don't win. Another, more mainstream Republican, a "Romney" or a "McCain" let's say, wins 2020.

How much of a win would we consider that? Better then nothing?

Again serious question. It's not a likely scenario but... well have watched the last few years? Unlikely scenarios are pretty popular.

Massive win.
Because traditional Republicans know that what comes around, goes around.
Every liberty Trump took with GOP consent is something a D-WH can do, too. Republicans are worried about the number of lawsuits they have lost despite the fact that they have stacked the Courts. They would be loathe to have the powers of the President tested by the SC for fear of an undesirable outcome.
Even Pence would be a vast improvement over Trump.

Meadmaker · 24th September 2019, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

What a strange scandal. No doubt that it happened, Trump is standing up on TV red handed and saying he did it.

"It" is a pretty vague term.

The thing that he has admitted to isn't a crime. There are circumstances that might make it a crime, but he hasn't admitted to those. Don't jump the gun.

JoeMorgue · 24th September 2019, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

I'm sympathetic to this argument. There are a few flaws though:

(1) The person doing the double dog dare is a dimwit.

Yep but a dimwit who keeps winning. At a certain point "LOL Trump is so stupid" starts becoming self-damaging when we can't keep the dimwit in check.

If a dimwit is running roughshod over everything, what does that make (g)us at this point?

Quote:

(2) A rep who believes in the quaint notion that their oath of office is actually meaningful might be compelled to impeach as a matter of constitutional duty, never mind moral imperatives.

Without rehashing the argument yesterday that I honestly don't want to revisit since we're both on the same side here, I just fundamentally disagree that there is anything wrong with waiting until you can actually do something to... do something.

Quote:

(3) We may be assigning too much weight to the Clinton history lesson.

This is all uncharted territory. We've only had 3 (I'm counting Nixon even though he pulled a "You can't fire me I quit") impeachment proceedings in American history, all under widely different circumstances and in widely different political environments.

We're rolling dice into the dark here.

Quote:

(4) Despite Clinton's surge in popularity after impeachment, Republicans retained control of both houses of congress in the election one month later.

The 1998 Republicans didn't have to worry about handing Clinton a second term, we do.

The Great Zaganza · 24th September 2019, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

"It" is a pretty vague term.

The thing that he has admitted to isn't a crime. There are circumstances that might make it a crime, but he hasn't admitted to those. Don't jump the gun.

Gulliani violated the Hatch act by his own words.

uke2se · 24th September 2019, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Massive win.
Because traditional Republicans know that what comes around, goes around.
Every liberty Trump took with GOP consent is something a D-WH can do, too. Republicans are worried about the number of lawsuits they have lost despite the fact that they have stacked the Courts. They would be loathe to have the powers of the President tested by the SC for fear of an undesirable outcome.
Even Pence would be a vast improvement over Trump.

Yep. Trump is a clear and present danger to US Democracy. Pence is a grifter fundamentalist that will lose the next election.

JoeMorgue · 24th September 2019, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Massive win.
Because traditional Republicans know that what comes around, goes around.
Every liberty Trump took with GOP consent is something a D-WH can do, too. Republicans are worried about the number of lawsuits they have lost despite the fact that they have stacked the Courts. They would be loathe to have the powers of the President tested by the SC for fear of an undesirable outcome.
Even Pence would be a vast improvement over Trump.

So would a temperate or mainstream Republican in 2020 actually have certain advantages long term over going straight to either a mainstream or far progressive Democrat? Would that... calm waters at all?

I mean nobody freak out and start thinking I'm actually proposing this as a solution or hoped for goal, but it's an interesting line of thought.

SuburbanTurkey · 24th September 2019, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So would a temperate or mainstream Republican in 2020 actually have certain advantages long term over going straight to either a mainstream or far progressive Democrat? Would that... calm waters at all?

I mean nobody freak out and start thinking I'm actually proposing this as a solution or hoped for goal, but it's an interesting line of thought.

Not sure it would. Conservatives aren't really interested in mainstream conservatism anymore. They are reactionary and hostile to the establishment. I don't see a path back to Bush era conservatism.

varwoche · 24th September 2019, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Gulliani violated the Hatch act by his own words.

I don't think the Hatch act applies to private citizens.

The Great Zaganza · 24th September 2019, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

I don't think the Hatch act applies to private citizens.

Of course it does.

The Great Zaganza · 24th September 2019, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So would a temperate or mainstream Republican in 2020 actually have certain advantages long term over going straight to either a mainstream or far progressive Democrat? Would that... calm waters at all?

I mean nobody freak out and start thinking I'm actually proposing this as a solution or hoped for goal, but it's an interesting line of thought.

I think it would, since it would open a window in which Dems might end up in control of all three pieces of power.

RecoveringYuppy · 24th September 2019, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

I don't think the Hatch act applies to private citizens.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Of course it does.

Just go to Wikipedia.

shemp · 24th September 2019, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Massive win.
Because traditional Republicans know that what comes around, goes around.
Every liberty Trump took with GOP consent is something a D-WH can do, too. Republicans are worried about the number of lawsuits they have lost despite the fact that they have stacked the Courts. They would be loathe to have the powers of the President tested by the SC for fear of an undesirable outcome.
Even Pence would be a vast improvement over Trump.

A big steaming pile of horse manure would be a vast improvement over Trump.

SuburbanTurkey · 24th September 2019, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

"It" is a pretty vague term.

The thing that he has admitted to isn't a crime. There are circumstances that might make it a crime, but he hasn't admitted to those. Don't jump the gun.

Executive abuse isn't codified into the law. The founders left it up to the legislature to police executive abuse via broad impeachment powers. Wielding state power as for the benefit of personal political interests is unambiguously a cause for impeachment.

The Great Zaganza · 24th September 2019, 06:47 AM

I'm an idiot.

I meant Rudi is violating the Logan Act, blatantly and continuously so.

JoeMorgue · 24th September 2019, 06:50 AM

Again there is, was, and sort of always has to be a "We're just going to trust the electorate to not elect a psychopathic man-child who's intentionally trying to destroy the system from within" 4th check and balance over this whole thing.

If the electorate is engaged and honest and at least trying to put people in to power they think are going to do good, even if they wind up being massively wrong on a massive scale, the system can adjust. If Trump was just another "bad" President, even if he was the worst President ever on the same scale by a huge margin, this wouldn't be 1/100th the issue it is.

Putting a troll in office breaks the system. He's not some not level of bad, he's a new kind of bad.

SuburbanTurkey · 24th September 2019, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Putting a troll in office breaks the system. He's not some not level of bad, he's a new kind of bad.

not necessarily. A troll could be removed by impeachment. You have to have a troll and a legislature determined to not check the abuse.

The legislature is failing in its role to check the executive. The courts are still doing an mostly ok job, but many times it is finding that it is not their role to stop executive abuse. SCOTUS and lesser courts is very clearly telegraphing that this is the legislatures mess to clean up, they just won't do it.

ponderingturtle · 24th September 2019, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I believe that failure of the house to impeach him hands him 2020 on a silver platter.

Look he is going to spin either as proving his innocents despite all evidence. Which will voters react to more is hard to be sure. I want to see them have more guts to go after the administration in public but will impeachment be helpful to win the election I don't know.

Hell McConnell wouldn't even let the trial go forward

ponderingturtle · 24th September 2019, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Okay so honest question. (And this is honest, no snark, not gotcha.)

We impeach Trump. And we'll say that either leads to removal of office OR political damage enough to cost him 2020.

But, let's say, the Dems still don't win. Another, more mainstream Republican, a "Romney" or a "McCain" let's say, wins 2020.

How much of a win would we consider that? Better then nothing?

Again serious question. It's not a likely scenario but... well have watched the last few years? Unlikely scenarios are pretty popular.

Hard to say, Trump is as much a symptom as a true cause of problems himself.

RecoveringYuppy · 24th September 2019, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I'm an idiot.

I meant Rudi is violating the Logan Act, blatantly and continuously so.

Getting the name wrong doesn't make you an idiot. Logan Act makes sense.

plague311 · 24th September 2019, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue;12830793[HILITE

]So would a temperate or mainstream Republican in 2020 actually have certain advantages long term over going straight to either a mainstream or far progressive Democrat?[/hilite] Would that... calm waters at all?

I mean nobody freak out and start thinking I'm actually proposing this as a solution or hoped for goal, but it's an interesting line of thought.

Is a different Republican even a possibility at this point? Haven't they suspended the primaries in a myriad of states that will prohibit that from happening?

Meadmaker · 24th September 2019, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Executive abuse isn't codified into the law. The founders left it up to the legislature to police executive abuse via broad impeachment powers. Wielding state power as for the benefit of personal political interests is unambiguously a cause for impeachment.

Unambiguously?

WilliamSeger · 24th September 2019, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

All that is moot because the legislature has sole authority to determine a high crime. They have the power to impeach him for the high crime of not committing murder if they wanted.

This really only a applies to a post presidency legal defense.

Which is also moot and pointless, since it's not a valid defense against actual crimes like obstruction of justice and extortion, and since we don't prosecute former presidents even when they deserve it, anyway.

JoeMorgue · 24th September 2019, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by plague311

Is a different Republican even a possibility at this point? Haven't they suspended the primaries in a myriad of states that will prohibit that from happening?

I honestly don't know. It's a weird time and it's hard to figure out how far out there stuff can reasonably be entertained.

I mean if Trump is impeached and removed I guess Pence in 2020 isn't some totally insane hypothetical.

TragicMonkey · 24th September 2019, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Hard to say, Trump is as much a symptom as a true cause of problems himself.

Yeah, but when a pus-filled toe is a symptom of gout they treat both the gout and the toe.

ponderingturtle · 24th September 2019, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by plague311

Is a different Republican even a possibility at this point? Haven't they suspended the primaries in a myriad of states that will prohibit that from happening?

Of course it is, they can pick who they want at the convention

Meadmaker · 24th September 2019, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I'm an idiot.

I meant Rudi is violating the Logan Act, blatantly and continuously so.

Blatantly? I'm not sure it's so simple. Maybe if we compare his case to others who have been prosecuted inder the act.

BobTheCoward · 24th September 2019, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Which is also moot and pointless, since it's not a valid defense against actual crimes like obstruction of justice and extortion, and since we don't prosecute former presidents even when they deserve it, anyway.

It is a valid defense.

Though not the right word because it wouldn't be resolved at that stage of the trial.

BobTheCoward · 24th September 2019, 07:22 AM

I'm pretty sure the president can authorize Rudy to do it.

varwoche · 24th September 2019, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Just go to Wikipedia.

I have 99% confidence. I don't think wikipedia will manage to close that gap -- that requires going to the source. Going to the source is a good idea in general.

WilliamSeger · 24th September 2019, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by plague311

Is a different Republican even a possibility at this point? Haven't they suspended the primaries in a myriad of states that will prohibit that from happening?

If Republicans were smart, they'd reconsider that decision at this point. Which of course means it won't happen.

WilliamSeger · 24th September 2019, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

"It" is a pretty vague term.

The thing that he has admitted to isn't a crime. There are circumstances that might make it a crime, but he hasn't admitted to those. Don't jump the gun.

Contrary to popular opinion, circumstantial evidence is often much stronger than direct eyewitness testimony, since people are often wrong about what they think happened or could be simply lying about it.

Segnosaur · 24th September 2019, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I'm pretty sure the president can authorize Rudy to do it.

Trump may have the ability to authorize Giuliani to engage in diplomatic relations on behalf of the government, but I suspect there are rules about how it gets done... background checks, congressional oversight, etc. He can't just tell a random person "Go negotiate this treaty".

There is no indication that Giuliani went through any sort of due process to give him the authority to negotiate with Ukraine; therefore, his attempts to negotiate on behalf of the Trump administration were likely a violation of the Logan act.

Segnosaur · 24th September 2019, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Okay so honest question. (And this is honest, no snark, not gotcha.)

We impeach Trump. And we'll say that either leads to removal of office OR political damage enough to cost him 2020.

But, let's say, the Dems still don't win. Another, more mainstream Republican, a "Romney" or a "McCain" let's say, wins 2020.

How much of a win would we consider that? Better then nothing?

Possibly better than nothing, but hard to say. Remember, whatever president replaces Trump in a hypothetical situation will probably continue doing much of the same work that had been going on... Right-wing judges will still be appointed to the courts (probably using the same "Cram them through over all objections" that they have been using for the past few years. Voter suppression will still continue (gotta stay in power somehow...). The debt will continue to rise, since I haven't really seen any republicans claim "Ooops... our tax cuts were a mistake. Lets undo them". They will still probably continue to allow Russian interference (just be a bit smarter about it).

Best case scenario: Trump is impeached and replaced by a Romney/McCain/Pence. All of the inane tweeting, and overt racism ends, and the Republicans lose power in the next election, due to lingering fallout over the Trump presidency. The Democrats can then begin to fix the country.

Worst case scenario: Trump is impeached and replaced, but the replacement Republican president manages to win the 2020 election (with the slogan "I'm still right wing, but won't act as crazy as Trump"). Republicans continue their unethical activities, but just aren't as blatant about it. Democrats have to wait even longer before they start trying to fix Republican damage.

BobTheCoward · 24th September 2019, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Trump may have the ability to authorize Giuliani to engage in diplomatic relations on behalf of the government, but I suspect there are rules about how it gets done... background checks, congressional oversight, etc. He can't just tell a random person "Go negotiate this treaty".

There is no indication that Giuliani went through any sort of due process to give him the authority to negotiate with Ukraine; therefore, his attempts to negotiate on behalf of the Trump administration were likely a violation of the Logan act.

Just like the ability to declassify on a whim, I'm pretty sure the ability to delegate this is just intrinsically reserved to the president

The Great Zaganza · 24th September 2019, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I'm pretty sure the president can authorize Rudy to do it.

he could, but that would allow Congress to investigate everything Rudy does.

24th September 2019, 06:21 AM	#282
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Okay so honest question. (And this is honest, no snark, not gotcha.) We impeach Trump. And we'll say that either leads to removal of office OR political damage enough to cost him 2020. But, let's say, the Dems still don't win. Another, more mainstream Republican, a "Romney" or a "McCain" let's say, wins 2020. How much of a win would we consider that? Better then nothing? Again serious question. It's not a likely scenario but... well have watched the last few years? Unlikely scenarios are pretty popular. Romney would certainly be more normal and reassuring.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

24th September 2019, 06:23 AM	#283
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,705	Originally Posted by Belz... I'm not sure either would hand him the election. I'm certain that if the democrats do not impeach, then the democratic party's base will stay home and not vote.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

24th September 2019, 06:25 AM	#284
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,533	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I'm certain that if the democrats do not impeach, then the democratic party's base will stay home and not vote. Where's the sense in that? "They didn't get rid of Trump so we won't do it either just to spite them?" So (and I'm being half serious here) has "spite" just become the biggest driving factor for the political bases?
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th September 2019 at 06:26 AM.

24th September 2019, 06:33 AM	#288
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,533	Originally Posted by varwoche I'm sympathetic to this argument. There are a few flaws though: (1) The person doing the double dog dare is a dimwit. Yep but a dimwit who keeps winning. At a certain point "LOL Trump is so stupid" starts becoming self-damaging when we can't keep the dimwit in check. If a dimwit is running roughshod over everything, what does that make (g)us at this point? Quote: (2) A rep who believes in the quaint notion that their oath of office is actually meaningful might be compelled to impeach as a matter of constitutional duty, never mind moral imperatives. Without rehashing the argument yesterday that I honestly don't want to revisit since we're both on the same side here, I just fundamentally disagree that there is anything wrong with waiting until you can actually do something to... do something. Quote: (3) We may be assigning too much weight to the Clinton history lesson. This is all uncharted territory. We've only had 3 (I'm counting Nixon even though he pulled a "You can't fire me I quit") impeachment proceedings in American history, all under widely different circumstances and in widely different political environments. We're rolling dice into the dark here. Quote: (4) Despite Clinton's surge in popularity after impeachment, Republicans retained control of both houses of congress in the election one month later. The 1998 Republicans didn't have to worry about handing Clinton a second term, we do.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

24th September 2019, 06:34 AM	#290
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza Massive win. Because traditional Republicans know that what comes around, goes around. Every liberty Trump took with GOP consent is something a D-WH can do, too. Republicans are worried about the number of lawsuits they have lost despite the fact that they have stacked the Courts. They would be loathe to have the powers of the President tested by the SC for fear of an undesirable outcome. Even Pence would be a vast improvement over Trump. Yep. Trump is a clear and present danger to US Democracy. Pence is a grifter fundamentalist that will lose the next election.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

24th September 2019, 06:15 AM	#281
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,092	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward The rule is all executive power is vested in a president. This is the application of that rule. You still don't get it. Yes, Trump had the legal authority to fire Comey, but doing so was clearly for the purpose of obstructing justice, a recognized charge in impeachment articles. Yes, Trump has the legal authority to talk secretly with foreign leaders and to use aid to pressure compliance, but that doesn't shield him from being charged with abuse of power for personal gain. If your interpretation of the Constitution were correct, there would be no provisions for impeachment. Articles of Impeachment typical begin with a boiler plate charge of failure to faithfully discharge the duties of the office, and that's all that's required. Once again, you're belaboring a pointless point.

24th September 2019, 06:25 AM	#285
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,192	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger You still don't get it. Yes, Trump had the legal authority to fire Comey, but doing so was clearly for the purpose of obstructing justice, a recognized charge in impeachment articles. Yes, Trump has the legal authority to talk secretly with foreign leaders and to use aid to pressure compliance, but that doesn't shield him from being charged with abuse of power for personal gain. If your interpretation of the Constitution were correct, there would be no provisions for impeachment. Articles of Impeachment typical begin with a boiler plate charge of failure to faithfully discharge the duties of the office, and that's all that's required. Once again, you're belaboring a pointless point. All that is moot because the legislature has sole authority to determine a high crime. They have the power to impeach him for the high crime of not committing murder if they wanted. This really only a applies to a post presidency legal defense.

24th September 2019, 06:26 AM	#286
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,604	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Okay so honest question. (And this is honest, no snark, not gotcha.) We impeach Trump. And we'll say that either leads to removal of office OR political damage enough to cost him 2020. But, let's say, the Dems still don't win. Another, more mainstream Republican, a "Romney" or a "McCain" let's say, wins 2020. How much of a win would we consider that? Better then nothing? Again serious question. It's not a likely scenario but... well have watched the last few years? Unlikely scenarios are pretty popular. Massive win. Because traditional Republicans know that what comes around, goes around. Every liberty Trump took with GOP consent is something a D-WH can do, too. Republicans are worried about the number of lawsuits they have lost despite the fact that they have stacked the Courts. They would be loathe to have the powers of the President tested by the SC for fear of an undesirable outcome. Even Pence would be a vast improvement over Trump.

24th September 2019, 06:30 AM	#287
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,180	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey What a strange scandal. No doubt that it happened, Trump is standing up on TV red handed and saying he did it. "It" is a pretty vague term. The thing that he has admitted to isn't a crime. There are circumstances that might make it a crime, but he hasn't admitted to those. Don't jump the gun.

24th September 2019, 06:34 AM	#289
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,604	Originally Posted by Meadmaker "It" is a pretty vague term. The thing that he has admitted to isn't a crime. There are circumstances that might make it a crime, but he hasn't admitted to those. Don't jump the gun. Gulliani violated the Hatch act by his own words.

24th September 2019, 06:35 AM	#291
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,533	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza Massive win. Because traditional Republicans know that what comes around, goes around. Every liberty Trump took with GOP consent is something a D-WH can do, too. Republicans are worried about the number of lawsuits they have lost despite the fact that they have stacked the Courts. They would be loathe to have the powers of the President tested by the SC for fear of an undesirable outcome. Even Pence would be a vast improvement over Trump. So would a temperate or mainstream Republican in 2020 actually have certain advantages long term over going straight to either a mainstream or far progressive Democrat? Would that... calm waters at all? I mean nobody freak out and start thinking I'm actually proposing this as a solution or hoped for goal, but it's an interesting line of thought.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

24th September 2019, 06:37 AM	#292
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,885	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue So would a temperate or mainstream Republican in 2020 actually have certain advantages long term over going straight to either a mainstream or far progressive Democrat? Would that... calm waters at all? I mean nobody freak out and start thinking I'm actually proposing this as a solution or hoped for goal, but it's an interesting line of thought. Not sure it would. Conservatives aren't really interested in mainstream conservatism anymore. They are reactionary and hostile to the establishment. I don't see a path back to Bush era conservatism.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

24th September 2019, 06:37 AM	#293
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza Gulliani violated the Hatch act by his own words. I don't think the Hatch act applies to private citizens.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. My authority is total - Trump

24th September 2019, 06:39 AM	#294
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,604	Originally Posted by varwoche I don't think the Hatch act applies to private citizens. Of course it does.

24th September 2019, 06:40 AM	#295
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,604	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue So would a temperate or mainstream Republican in 2020 actually have certain advantages long term over going straight to either a mainstream or far progressive Democrat? Would that... calm waters at all? I mean nobody freak out and start thinking I'm actually proposing this as a solution or hoped for goal, but it's an interesting line of thought. I think it would, since it would open a window in which Dems might end up in control of all three pieces of power.

24th September 2019, 06:42 AM	#296
RecoveringYuppy Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,681	Originally Posted by varwoche I don't think the Hatch act applies to private citizens. Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza Of course it does. Just go to Wikipedia.

24th September 2019, 06:44 AM	#297
shemp a flimsy character...perfidious and despised Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X Posts: 40,164	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza Massive win. Because traditional Republicans know that what comes around, goes around. Every liberty Trump took with GOP consent is something a D-WH can do, too. Republicans are worried about the number of lawsuits they have lost despite the fact that they have stacked the Courts. They would be loathe to have the powers of the President tested by the SC for fear of an undesirable outcome. Even Pence would be a vast improvement over Trump. A big steaming pile of horse manure would be a vast improvement over Trump.
	__________________ If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set. "...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, ~~Trump~~ shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will "[shemp is] a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality." - Shakespeare

24th September 2019, 06:46 AM	#298
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,885	Originally Posted by Meadmaker "It" is a pretty vague term. The thing that he has admitted to isn't a crime. There are circumstances that might make it a crime, but he hasn't admitted to those. Don't jump the gun. Executive abuse isn't codified into the law. The founders left it up to the legislature to police executive abuse via broad impeachment powers. Wielding state power as for the benefit of personal political interests is unambiguously a cause for impeachment.
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 24th September 2019 at 06:48 AM.

24th September 2019, 06:47 AM	#299
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,604	I'm an idiot. I meant Rudi is violating the Logan Act, blatantly and continuously so.

24th September 2019, 06:50 AM	#300
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,533	Again there is, was, and sort of always has to be a "We're just going to trust the electorate to not elect a psychopathic man-child who's intentionally trying to destroy the system from within" 4th check and balance over this whole thing. If the electorate is engaged and honest and at least trying to put people in to power they think are going to do good, even if they wind up being massively wrong on a massive scale, the system can adjust. If Trump was just another "bad" President, even if he was the worst President ever on the same scale by a huge margin, this wouldn't be 1/100th the issue it is. Putting a troll in office breaks the system. He's not some not level of bad, he's a new kind of bad.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th September 2019 at 06:56 AM.

24th September 2019, 06:57 AM	#301
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,885	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Putting a troll in office breaks the system. He's not some not level of bad, he's a new kind of bad. not necessarily. A troll could be removed by impeachment. You have to have a troll and a legislature determined to not check the abuse. The legislature is failing in its role to check the executive. The courts are still doing an mostly ok job, but many times it is finding that it is not their role to stop executive abuse. SCOTUS and lesser courts is very clearly telegraphing that this is the legislatures mess to clean up, they just won't do it.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

24th September 2019, 06:57 AM	#302
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,396	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I believe that failure of the house to impeach him hands him 2020 on a silver platter. Look he is going to spin either as proving his innocents despite all evidence. Which will voters react to more is hard to be sure. I want to see them have more guts to go after the administration in public but will impeachment be helpful to win the election I don't know. Hell McConnell wouldn't even let the trial go forward
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

24th September 2019, 06:59 AM	#303
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,396	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Okay so honest question. (And this is honest, no snark, not gotcha.) We impeach Trump. And we'll say that either leads to removal of office OR political damage enough to cost him 2020. But, let's say, the Dems still don't win. Another, more mainstream Republican, a "Romney" or a "McCain" let's say, wins 2020. How much of a win would we consider that? Better then nothing? Again serious question. It's not a likely scenario but... well have watched the last few years? Unlikely scenarios are pretty popular. Hard to say, Trump is as much a symptom as a true cause of problems himself.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

24th September 2019, 07:03 AM	#304
RecoveringYuppy Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,681	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza I'm an idiot. I meant Rudi is violating the Logan Act, blatantly and continuously so. Getting the name wrong doesn't make you an idiot. Logan Act makes sense.

24th September 2019, 07:04 AM	#305
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 8,461	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue;12830793[HILITE ]So would a temperate or mainstream Republican in 2020 actually have certain advantages long term over going straight to either a mainstream or far progressive Democrat?[/hilite] Would that... calm waters at all? I mean nobody freak out and start thinking I'm actually proposing this as a solution or hoped for goal, but it's an interesting line of thought. Is a different Republican even a possibility at this point? Haven't they suspended the primaries in a myriad of states that will prohibit that from happening?
	__________________ "Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

24th September 2019, 07:04 AM	#306
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,180	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Executive abuse isn't codified into the law. The founders left it up to the legislature to police executive abuse via broad impeachment powers. Wielding state power as for the benefit of personal political interests is unambiguously a cause for impeachment. Unambiguously?

24th September 2019, 07:05 AM	#307
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,092	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward All that is moot because the legislature has sole authority to determine a high crime. They have the power to impeach him for the high crime of not committing murder if they wanted. This really only a applies to a post presidency legal defense. Which is also moot and pointless, since it's not a valid defense against actual crimes like obstruction of justice and extortion, and since we don't prosecute former presidents even when they deserve it, anyway.

24th September 2019, 07:08 AM	#308
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,533	Originally Posted by plague311 Is a different Republican even a possibility at this point? Haven't they suspended the primaries in a myriad of states that will prohibit that from happening? I honestly don't know. It's a weird time and it's hard to figure out how far out there stuff can reasonably be entertained. I mean if Trump is impeached and removed I guess Pence in 2020 isn't some totally insane hypothetical.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

24th September 2019, 07:09 AM	#309
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,390	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Hard to say, Trump is as much a symptom as a true cause of problems himself. Yeah, but when a pus-filled toe is a symptom of gout they treat both the gout and the toe.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

24th September 2019, 07:10 AM	#310
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,396	Originally Posted by plague311 Is a different Republican even a possibility at this point? Haven't they suspended the primaries in a myriad of states that will prohibit that from happening? Of course it is, they can pick who they want at the convention
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

24th September 2019, 07:13 AM	#311
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,180	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza I'm an idiot. I meant Rudi is violating the Logan Act, blatantly and continuously so. Blatantly? I'm not sure it's so simple. Maybe if we compare his case to others who have been prosecuted inder the act.

24th September 2019, 07:16 AM	#312
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,192	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Which is also moot and pointless, since it's not a valid defense against actual crimes like obstruction of justice and extortion, and since we don't prosecute former presidents even when they deserve it, anyway. It is a valid defense. Though not the right word because it wouldn't be resolved at that stage of the trial.
	Last edited by BobTheCoward; 24th September 2019 at 07:19 AM.

24th September 2019, 07:22 AM	#313
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,192	I'm pretty sure the president can authorize Rudy to do it.

24th September 2019, 07:33 AM	#314
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy Just go to Wikipedia. I have 99% confidence. I don't think wikipedia will manage to close that gap -- that requires going to the source. Going to the source is a good idea in general.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. My authority is total - Trump

24th September 2019, 07:43 AM	#315
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,092	Originally Posted by plague311 Is a different Republican even a possibility at this point? Haven't they suspended the primaries in a myriad of states that will prohibit that from happening? If Republicans were smart, they'd reconsider that decision at this point. Which of course means it won't happen.