Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Belz...

Fiend God
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
96,875
Location
In a post-fact world
I have read somewhere that the Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate is responsible for enforcing the attendance of those summoned by the Senate.

Again: what are they going to do? Send in the S-A-A to arrest Trump? He'll have the Secret Service throw him out.

That's the 'weakness' of the rule of law: it seems that is requires liberal amounts of forebearance, and if you have people in government who just don't play by the rules of the game, then you can't do anything about them.

Not to say that the alternative is any better.

Thread continued from here. You may quote or reply to any of the posts from that thread here.
Posted By: zooterkin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because most people don't read much news, and they sure as heck don't go to political forums.

IMO that's true the world over. Most people are too busy living their lives to invest a lot of time becoming familiar with all of the major issues of the day. Instead they rely on soundbites and/or adopt positions from trusted sources like friends, relatives and celebrities that they respect.

Nuance has very little place in that scenario and a simple, but wrong, message is more easily consumed than a complicated, nuanced one. People are too busy holding down jobs, raising families and making ends meet and most choose to spend their leisure time doing something other than reading manifestos, gathering opinions from a wide range of sources and engaging in informed debate.
 
IMO that's true the world over. Most people are too busy living their lives to invest a lot of time becoming familiar with all of the major issues of the day. Instead they rely on soundbites and/or adopt positions from trusted sources like friends, relatives and celebrities that they respect.

Nuance has very little place in that scenario and a simple, but wrong, message is more easily consumed than a complicated, nuanced one. People are too busy holding down jobs, raising families and making ends meet and most choose to spend their leisure time doing something other than reading manifestos, gathering opinions from a wide range of sources and engaging in informed debate.

This is something of a derail into the UK General Election, so I'm going to spoiler it:

I think this is the biggest mistake Jeremy Corbyn is making at the moment. His Brexit position actually makes a lot of sense - negotiate a fair deal with the EU, and then hold a second referendum where the public can vote once they've been informed of all the good and bad points of what it is they're actually voting for.

The problem is that this is a fairly nuanced take, and one that's easy to paint as being "wishy-washy". The Tory position of "let's get Brexit done" and the Lib Dem position of "we are going to revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU" are much stronger policies, even if they're less workable and less sensible than Corbyn's position.


A quick, easily digestible slogan is always going to win out over "this is a complicated situation, which requires a nuanced solution" simply because, as you say, everybody has got enough going on in their own lives that it's rare for people to be informed, let alone fully informed, about what is actually going on.
 
Further to what's been said about the Republicans not needing Ukrainian investigations to smear Biden, Lickspittle Lindsey Graham has requested documents and transcripts related to Biden and the sacking of corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin, so they're going with the smear anyway.

On a slightly different tack, Sen John Kennedy went on Fox to push the Kremlin's "it wasn't Russia it was Ukraine" CT then back-tracked on CNN where it wouldn't be seen by Fox viewers. Needless to say, Fox won't report said back-tracking, so job done. Trump is, of course, a Fox viewer, so he'll be thinking kindly of Kennedy.

Is there a Republican left who isn't a complete POS?
 
delete, think I misunderstood the post.
 
Last edited:
A quick, easily digestible slogan is always going to win out over "this is a complicated situation, which requires a nuanced solution" simply because, as you say, everybody has got enough going on in their own lives that it's rare for people to be informed, let alone fully informed, about what is actually going on.

And yet they could be informed if they wanted to. No excuse.
 
And yet they could be informed if they wanted to. No excuse.

The obvious excuse is people on political forums are just overinflating the importance of the subject they care about. It isn't more important what other people have going on in their lives.
 
Again: what are they going to do? Send in the S-A-A to arrest Trump? He'll have the Secret Service throw him out.

That's the 'weakness' of the rule of law: it seems that is requires liberal amounts of forebearance, and if you have people in government who just don't play by the rules of the game, then you can't do anything about them.

Not to say that the alternative is any better.

Thread continued from here. You may quote or reply to any of the posts from that thread here.
Posted By: zooterkin
Secret Service agents take the same oath as any other federal law enforcement officer, not substantially different from the one taken by presidents. In other words, a Secret Service agent who prevents the legal arrest of someone under their protection would be violating their oath and the law. An agent responsible for the protection of the president would likely insist on accompanying their charge, but that should be the limit of their objections.

The idea that the Secret Service are responsible to the president personally is incorrect and I expect very few would claim any significant loyalty to the occupant of the office over their duty to the law.
 
And then there's this:

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics...-made-unwanted-advances-on-several-women.html
Gordon Sondland, the Portland businessman in the middle of the Trump impeachment, committed sexual misconduct against three women. The women allege that Sondland retaliated professionally against the women after they rejected his advances. Sondland said the allegations are untrue.

Not really sure what effect this will have on the impeachment inquire. After all, Sondland was at one time "Trump's guy", but he ended up providing some rather damaging testimony against Stubby McBonespurs. Now we know that that testimony was coming from a possible serial sexual harasser.
 
And then there's this:

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics...-made-unwanted-advances-on-several-women.html
Gordon Sondland, the Portland businessman in the middle of the Trump impeachment, committed sexual misconduct against three women. The women allege that Sondland retaliated professionally against the women after they rejected his advances. Sondland said the allegations are untrue.

Not really sure what effect this will have on the impeachment inquire. After all, Sondland was at one time "Trump's guy", but he ended up providing some rather damaging testimony against Stubby McBonespurs. Now we know that that testimony was coming from a possible serial sexual harasser.
Because they are trying to play the "smear them in **** so they smell bad" card. Effectively, if Gordo is "a serial predator" then obviously all his damning evidence before the Impeachment Inquiry is "suspect" and "not to be believed", etc.
 
Last edited:
I see Trump has started to distance himself from this Julieanna bloke, he may have been in the same room once as Trump, he was probably fetching the covfefe.
 
Seriously? What's the point of the impeachment proceedings, then? To make GOP senators feel at least a little bit of shame when they vote to keep President Trump in office?

Some of us still believe in doing our job, even if some of our co-workers are incompetent/corrupt sleazeballs. Of course, your mileage may vary: I'm quite aware that simply Doing the Right Thing is a foreign concept to the modern Republican.
 
Some of us still believe in doing our job, even if some of our co-workers are incompetent/corrupt sleazeballs. Of course, your mileage may vary: I'm quite aware that simply Doing the Right Thing is a foreign concept to the modern Republican.

That's so sweet. But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?
 
Trump not winning in 2020 is literally the only way we can get rid of him that doesn't require a series of miracles so unlikely we might as well be invoking God. And impeaching him sends those odds into the basement.

Yeah, because having their representatives sit on their ass and do absolutely nothing to keep Trump in check is sure to inspire the constituents to come out in droves to vote Blue in 2020. :rolleyes:
 
That's so sweet. But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?

To keep the president in check, as the Constitution intended. If the Senate can't (or refuse to) do their job, that does not imply the House should throw their hands up and abdicate their responsibility, too.

Is this a foreign concept for you?
 
Last edited:
That's so sweet. But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?

Because justice, checks and balances as well as the rule of law are important and must be stood up for.

<snip>

Do you really want a President is accountable to no one?


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rules 0/12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's so sweet. But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?


Oh, and that's simply an adorable attempt to mock those of us who still follow the Constitution. "Awww...they still believe in Constitutional checks and balances. That's so sweet!"

:rolleyes:
 
Oh, and that's simply an adorable attempt to mock those of us who still follow the Constitution. "Awww...they still believe in Constitutional checks and balances. That's so sweet!"

:rolleyes:

..because when you don't have some form of checks and balances on a national leader, there is a very high risk that you end up with North Korea, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Russia, Chile under Pinochet, Argentina under Videla and later, Viola and Galtieri.
 
Curious how many chickens that haven't hatched are being counted here by both the right and the left.

Anyone who thinks this impeachment hearing is over isn't paying attention.

Jonathan Turley was on a news talk show this morning repeating the GOP lie that Trump's being impeached on the basis of one letter. It's Lindsay Graham's oft repeated BS as if time stopped a month ago.

Meanwhile all sorts of interesting new evidence is emerging like Rudy trying to get the CEO of Ukraine's large natural gas company dismissed because it opened up a chance for Trump and Giuliani to make some dishonest money. People involved are all turning on Trump and Rudy.

The Judiciary Committee hearing doesn't start for a week. Trump bitched that the Intelligence Committee hearing was bad because it was held behind closed doors, then bitched it was bad because it wasn't confidential behind closed doors. I wonder what Trump will say now that Trump's attorneys are invited to the next round? Think Giuliani is going to be there while refusing to testify?

That should be interesting.

Meanwhile McGahn will likely have to testify. Bolton is going to see Trump pushing Rudy under the bus. Do you think he can read that wall writing about self preservation?

One of the two partners of Giuliani not only is testifying, Lordy he has tapes and supposedly Trump is on them.

Shift over to perjury in his Mueller Report testimony, tax and election fraud brewing over there in the NY Fed District Court. And what else will be revealed in Trump's taxes? The Democrats have a good case for releasing those tax forms and it's too late for Trump to change out any NY prosecutors involved, whether they serve at his pleasure or not.

Barr, Trump, and many in the public may believe the Mueller Report was sufficiently dead and buried, but like Trump's typical fantasies, not so fast.
 
Last edited:
I see Trump has started to distance himself from this Julieanna bloke, he may have been in the same room once as Trump, he was probably fetching the covfefe.

I suggest investing in Motor Coach Industries. Guess what they make.

Because justice, checks and balances as well as the rule of law are important and must be stood up for.

<snip>

Do you really want a President is accountable to no one?


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rules 0/12.

Only the ones that aren't Democrats or *******.
 
I suggest investing in Motor Coach Industries. Guess what they make.



Only the ones that aren't Democrats or *******.

It's dangerous even if they are in your own party. I don't agree with every Democratic position and my guess is Prestige doesn't universally agree with every Republican position.

What is to stop a President reversing course against your party's principles after he is a King/Dicktator?

I hate to pull a Godwin here but Hitler dramatically changed his stances on lots of issues. Once a leader becomes unaccountable everyone is screwed except the special few.
 
And yet they could be informed if they wanted to. No excuse.


Maybe many do try to stay informed. Everyone thinks their news is the correct news, unbiased and all that. It's a minefield of bullcrap.

People may actually believe CNN is still an impartial news source, or FOX. I can't think of a single source that I completely trust. Not even close.

I come here often to hear the "rest of the story" or at least get a few different takes on it. I learn more here than I can at any news site. Still have to sort through the bull ;)

Which of us has the real news and the correct opinions? None of us.
 
Maybe many do try to stay informed. Everyone thinks their news is the correct news, unbiased and all that. It's a minefield of bullcrap.

People may actually believe CNN is still an impartial news source, or FOX. I can't think of a single source that I completely trust. Not even close.

I come here often to hear the "rest of the story" or at least get a few different takes on it. I learn more here than I can at any news site. Still have to sort through the bull ;)

Which of us has the real news and the correct opinions? None of us.

Most mainstream news is factual. Even the actual news reported on FAUX News not the opinion bs like Fox and Friends.
 
Maybe many do try to stay informed. Everyone thinks their news is the correct news, unbiased and all that. It's a minefield of bullcrap.

People may actually believe CNN is still an impartial news source, or FOX. I can't think of a single source that I completely trust. Not even close.

I come here often to hear the "rest of the story" or at least get a few different takes on it. I learn more here than I can at any news site. Still have to sort through the bull ;)

Which of us has the real news and the correct opinions? None of us.


Here's the thing. While most news outlets have a bias one way or the other, I trust those who rigorously fact check their stories and generally rely on multiple sources (or when single sourcing, that source is a known reliable one with a good reputation) before they go to air with a story. This is the reason why I tend to rely on NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC as my primary video news sources, and WaPo and NYT as primary "print" media sources for US political news.

But even more than that, I trust sources that will retract a story when they get it wrong or report falsely. The above mentioned outlets do this every time they get it wrong (which isn't actually very often. - its rare that a false story gets past their tough fact-checking standards).

However, this is entirely not the case with Faux News. They clearly do not have rigorous fact checking because they regularly air incorrect stories or false reporting, and then when the are outed for it, rather than issue a retraction, they gloss over the errors with an attitude of "Oh well, moving right along". The only reason I ever tune in to Faux News is to quickly catch up on what lies they are telling their viewers this week.

I have yet to find a right-bias news source as diligent in their reporting as the others I mentioned earlier.
 
Secret Service agents take the same oath as any other federal law enforcement officer, not substantially different from the one taken by presidents. In other words, a Secret Service agent who prevents the legal arrest of someone under their protection would be violating their oath and the law. An agent responsible for the protection of the president would likely insist on accompanying their charge, but that should be the limit of their objections.

The idea that the Secret Service are responsible to the president personally is incorrect and I expect very few would claim any significant loyalty to the occupant of the office over their duty to the law.

Sure, sure. In theory. But what about actual reality?
 
And then there's this:

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics...-made-unwanted-advances-on-several-women.html
Gordon Sondland, the Portland businessman in the middle of the Trump impeachment, committed sexual misconduct against three women. The women allege that Sondland retaliated professionally against the women after they rejected his advances. Sondland said the allegations are untrue.

Not really sure what effect this will have on the impeachment inquire. After all, Sondland was at one time "Trump's guy", but he ended up providing some rather damaging testimony against Stubby McBonespurs. Now we know that that testimony was coming from a possible serial sexual harasser.

I just assumed he'd done something like that. It's a requirement to work for Trump that you engage in sexual misconduct.
 
Here's the thing. While most news outlets have a bias one way or the other, I trust those who rigorously fact check their stories and generally rely on multiple sources (or when single sourcing, that source is a known reliable one with a good reputation) before they go to air with a story. This is the reason why I tend to rely on NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC as my primary video news sources, and WaPo and NYT as primary "print" media sources for US political news.

But even more than that, I trust sources that will retract a story when they get it wrong or report falsely. The above mentioned outlets do this every time they get it wrong (which isn't actually very often. - its rare that a false story gets past their tough fact-checking standards).

However, this is entirely not the case with Faux News. They clearly do not have rigorous fact checking because they regularly air incorrect stories or false reporting, and then when the are outed for it, rather than issue a retraction, they gloss over the errors with an attitude of "Oh well, moving right along". The only reason I ever tune in to Faux News is to quickly catch up on what lies they are telling their viewers this week.

I have yet to find a right-bias news source as diligent in their reporting as the others I mentioned earlier.

The Wall Street Journal meets your needs.
 
That's so sweet. But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?



Back when I said "We need "So little doubt that even the most corrupt ******** in the Senate finally feel some shame in trying to publicly claim there's still some doubt" levels of evidence", I wasn't just thinking about Senators. That line applies to just about everyone still supporting the Republican Party at this point, which means you.

There's no way you can't honestly see how bad the evidence against Trump is. The problem is, you apparently don't seem to care about that. You're happy playing these stupid reindeer games instead of doing what you know is right. So when I talk about "feel some shame in trying to publicly claim there's still some doubt" levels of evidence, I'm talking about you. These hearing need to continue until there's enough evidence on the table that even you finally throw your hands up and admit Trump needs to go, and needs to go now.
 
The Wall Street Journal meets your needs.
I don't read it much because I don't subscribe, but I see it as valuable because it's also owned by Murdoch. If it reports anything negative about Trump it's much harder for conservatives to write it off as "fake news." The WSJ needs to retain its credibility as a serious news source. Fox News has no such issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom