Poor Little Dem's Mad: Taking Their Ball and Going Home

[SkepticThinker]

What? The Socialist Democrats all of a sudden have embraced impartiality?

Don't make me laugh.

ROFLMAO!!


Too late...

Says the person usually making the most partisan comments on the entire forum.

Don't make me laugh.

ROFLMAO!!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Says the person usually making the most partisan comments on the entire forum.

Don't make me laugh.

ROFLMAO!!

Seriously ...

 

[Revoltingest]

You have and I accept that. But I thought you mentioned that impeachment was premature (or maybe that was a different thread?) Now it sounds like you're saying, if Trump wants to obstruct that's fine - because he can. And, therefore (I presume?), if the House wants to impeach that's fine too - because they can.

Obstruction is part of the game.
Ideally, it's done legally.
Note that I don't say he should do it...tis only that I recognize it's one of the tactics of politics.
Similarly, the system allows impeachers to use their tactics.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry in advance for the long post. Let me conclude by telling you why I pursued this line of questioning with you, and then I will relinquish the last word to you.
[/QUOTE]
Hallelujah!
[/QUOTE]
This conversation we have had, where you have decided not to weigh in on what Trump should or should not have done, is further evidence to me of the mind-numbing effect Trump's presidency has had on our country's discourse.
Much of the country seems to have given up on trying to distinguish between what an authority figure can do, versus what they ought to do.
[/QUOTE]
My views are oriented towards policies, ie, things he
should or shouldn't do or have done.
Impeachment is about political infighting, & difficult
for me to take position on, particularly because the
impeachment case is so weak.

I have seen this play out many times now, our conversation being just one example. In a separate conversation with shmogie, for example, I asked him if it was right, in his own opinion, for Trump to withhold any and all evidence related to why aid allocated by Congress was held up, then suddenly released. I had to ask several times. His response, finally: how do you distinguish between right and wrong? I know your response has been different, but shmogie's response is representative of the level of willful blindness I have been encountering. I could not make up that reply if I tried.

Right & wrong in this case are about more than morality,
ie, the law. I don't know that well enuf to say what Trump
can & can't do. The courts will sort it out...possibly.

Ironically, making America "great again" and "draining the swamp", is not very consistent with turning off the part of our brains that remembers how to judge right from wrong. One who accepts power as immense as the Presidency, is not supposed to wield it in just any way they can get away with. They have to take the same oath of office that Presidents took back when America was "great again", an oath which requires them to faithfully execute that office, and preserve the Constitution. Granted, politics is a contact sport. And of course Trump, the Republicans and the Democrats are going to have battles with each other; but sometimes, a flagrant foul is committed and someone needs to blow the whistle. At those times, we need a whistleblower, if you will (yes - pun intended). This is one of those times. But half the country has forgotten what the whistle sounds like.

It seems that you want others to take a side....for or against Trump.
It's a political rather than policy matter. So not only do I care little
about it, I can't say what legal limits there are to each side's power,
nor can I say what is the best politically.
Political questions...
Will impeachment help or hurt either side?
Will it affect governance?
Long & short term?
I won't take a position on what's best based upon whether
it hurts or helps Trump or either party in 2020. Aside from
not being able to predict that, I don't want to be invested in
that outcome.

What gives me hope, is that in spite of the cynicism of the Trump Party...

The mischievous underlined label suggests too much hostility.

....at this moment, it doesn't have to be this way. It is possible to put country before party and we have seen this many times. Nixon had the power to fire all those lawyers in the Saturday night massacre; but it wasn't right and it lead to bipartisan impeachment. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions had the power to involve himself in the Russia investigation; but it wasn't the right thing to do, in his judgment, so he recused himself, in spite of public tantrums by Trump against Sessions and calls to "un recuse". White House attorney Don McGahn was asked by Trump to fire Robert Mueller; but he recognized this would not have been right, so he offered his resignation. When Trump seemed to be publicly flirting with the idea of firing Mueller, Senator Lindsay Graham said if Trump did that it would be the "beginning of the end" of his presidency - not because Trump didn't have the power, but because it wouldn't have been right.

In all these cases, there is something that elevates things above the usual fray of a political dispute, where it is simply one side's opinion vs. another. And that is when the powers of an office are blatantly used in the interests of the officeholder, to the injury of the interests of the United States. Nixon's Saturday night massacre is a classic example - he did that to protect himself from prosecution, not because they were incompetent lawyers, or otherwise somehow to improve the impartial execution of the laws of the United States.

There was a clear conflict of interest at play - as there is when Trump re-purposes funds allocated by Congress to get dirt on a political opponent, as there is when Trump across-the-board non-complies with lawful subpoenas of Congress in an impeachment investigation.

The opposite of an abuse of power or corruption is when you have government officials risking their personal interests in service of what is right; this includes, for example, the whistleblower, and those who were brave enough to testify voluntarily (Vindman, Sondland, Hill, Taylor, etc.) They could have just kept their heads down. Instead, they put their careers at risk, they risked the wrath of a "very stable genius" President and his Trump Party, to dutifully notify White House lawyers and finally Congress (when asked) of their legitimate, genuine concerns. There were conflicts of interest here, too - and these officials put the interests of the country ahead of their own personal interests.

They say you get the government you deserve - I am not sure we deserve such fine individuals in our government. We will find out.

So that is what distinguishes the legitimate use of power, from the abuse of power. That is what distinguishes corruption, from duty to country. Sadly, I have been forced to conclude that the Trump Party, mesmerized as they are by the orange con-man, is no longer able to tell the difference.

/rant and I give you the last word.

It strikes me that you have a litany of complaints about him,
& the sum total add up to impeachmentworthiness, with which
he should fully cooperate. I just don't see it that way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This conversation we have had, where you have decided not to weigh in on what Trump should or should not have done, is further evidence to me of the mind-numbing effect Trump's presidency has had on our country's discourse. Much of the country seems to have given up on trying to distinguish between what an authority figure can do, versus what they ought to do.

I have seen this play out many times now, our conversation being just one example. In a separate conversation with shmogie, for example, I asked him if it was right, in his own opinion, for Trump to withhold any and all evidence related to why aid allocated by Congress was held up, then suddenly released. I had to ask several times. His response, finally: how do you distinguish between right and wrong? I know your response has been different, but shmogie's response is representative of the level of willful blindness I have been encountering. I could not make up that reply if I tried.

This reminds me of Richard Nixon's response to a question of legality in the 12 interviews they had: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

 

[shmogie]

What McConnell should do is hold a fair Senate trial, without coordinating with the Trump campaign.

Too much to ask for him to do his job properly, I guess.

Interesting that you think you know what his job is.

I find it funny that democrats are the first to point out that the house proceedings were not based in the law, where hearsay testimony was admitted, where no crime was attributed, but that impeachment is a political process.

Yet suddenly in the senate standards of the law are important, and there must be a "fair" ( determined by the democrats) trial, and the democrats are making demands as to what the Republicans should do.

Such luscious hypocrisy.

As they said in the house, The Republicans say in the senate, this is not about the law, but about politics, we decide what the rules are, we decide what witnesses if any, can testify. The normal protections of the law do not apply to you or your case from the house. Since this is a political exercise, the head of the Republican party, Trump, will have input into how it should be conducted.

The trial will be fair, and the case from the house will be judged, nothing else.

Time was so important in the house, a joke work product was produced. Now it is unimportant to nancy.

She can continue to play her game as democrat support is eroded, fine by me.

The democrat buffoons, and their speaker of buffoonery can't seem to be able to escape from their self made buffoon land. LOL !

 

[shmogie]

Obstruction is part of the game.
Ideally, it's done legally.
Note that I don't say he should do it...tis only that I recognize it's one of the tactics of politics.
Similarly, the system allows impeachers to use their tactics.

Sorry in advance for the long post. Let me conclude by telling you why I pursued this line of questioning with you, and then I will relinquish the last word to you.
[/QUOTE]
Hallelujah!
[/QUOTE]
This conversation we have had, where you have decided not to weigh in on what Trump should or should not have done, is further evidence to me of the mind-numbing effect Trump's presidency has had on our country's discourse.
Much of the country seems to have given up on trying to distinguish between what an authority figure can do, versus what they ought to do.
[/QUOTE]
My views are oriented towards policies, ie, things he
should or shouldn't do or have done.
Impeachment is about political infighting, & difficult
for me to take position on, particularly because the
impeachment case is so weak.

Right & wrong in this case are about more than morality,
ie, the law. I don't know that well enuf to say what Trump
can & can't do. The courts will sort it out...possibly.

It seems that you want others to take a side....for or against Trump.
It's a political rather than policy matter. So not only do I care little
about it, I can't say what legal limits there are to each side's power,
nor can I say what is the best politically.
Political questions...
Will impeachment help or hurt either side?
Will it affect governance?
Long & short term?
I won't take a position on what's best based upon whether
it hurts or helps Trump or either party in 2020. Aside from
not being able to predict that, I don't want to be invested in
that outcome.

The mischievous underlined label suggests too much hostility.

It strikes me that you have a litany of complaints about him,
& the sum total add up to impeachmentworthiness, with which
he should fully cooperate. I just don't see it that way.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it was the house democrats who obstructed themselves. They had the prescribed and only remedy for executed executive privilege, the courts. By not doing what was required to get witnesses and documents they deemed important, they limited their very own case and denied sprinkiley the knowledge he wants so desperately to have.

This is the first impeachment where one article of impeachment is for a president doing exactly what he has the Constitutional right to do. It is like being arrested for breathing publically owned air.

 

[shmogie]

So if his political opponents want him impeached, he can’t be? This is extraordinarily convenient reasoning that can’t possibly stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Importantly, from the very beginning, he was doing impeachable things. “Russia if you’re listening” was a campaign speech. His campaign chairman and personal lawyer are convicted felons. Even Lindsay Graham threatened on multiple occasions (but has since forgotten) that if Trump took one further step, and fired Sessions or fired Mueller, it would be “the beginning of the end” of his presidency.

The Trump Party likes to say the Dems have long wanted to impeach Trump, as an excuse to avoid actually looking at his behavior.

"Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Russia if you are listening, what crime is this, and why didn't the house cite this as a crime ? Is having a campaign chairman who was convicted of felonies that occurred decades before he held that position, a crime ? Ditto for the lawyer. The attorney general being fired is a crime ? Where does it say so ?

If he was from the beginning do impeachable "things" i.e. treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, why didn't the democrats find them and tell us in what statutes to find them ?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The mischievous underlined label suggests too much hostility.

I am sorry, I promised you the last word - and I will let you have it - but I would be remiss if I let this go unanswered.

I do not call Trump’s party the Trump Party out of hostility.

I call it that to bring attention to an extremely important facet of Trump’s party at this moment. It would be impossible to understand the behavior of Trump’s party without realizing that it has become the Trump Party.

If you interpret that as hostility, I suggest you consider why your first reaction wasn’t to interpret it as a compliment; and whether, perhaps, the truth hurts.

I do apologize if calling Trumps party the Trump Party offends the delicate sensibilities of Trump supporters. But I’m afraid I absolutely insist on calling it as I see it.

I cannot dignify it with the same label as the Party of Lincoln, and no thinking person can explain its behavior today as the party of Reagan or anything else it resembled before it bowed to Trump. And I have far too much respect for what the Trump Party used to be, when it was lead by figures like McCain and Romney, to pretend that it’s the same party today. Please call it what you like. I will call it what it is: the Trump Party.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Russia if you are listening, what crime is this, and why didn't the house cite this as a crime ? Is having a campaign chairman who was convicted of felonies that occurred decades before he held that position, a crime ? Ditto for the lawyer. The attorney general being fired is a crime ? Where does it say so ?

If he was from the beginning do impeachable "things" i.e. treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, why didn't the democrats find them and tell us in what statutes to find them ?

shmogie we’ve been over this already. You think high crimes and misdemeanors has to be a statutory crime.

I disagree - along with most scholarship on the subject, as far as I can tell. Two of the first three articles of impeachment against Nixon were the same as the two articles of impeachment against Trump (abuse of power and obstruction of Congress). You think that’s somehow legitimate only for Nixon, not Trump, because they were coupled with statutory crimes for Nixon; I disagree.

Let’s not rehash that debate.

The point - which I’m afraid you missed again - is that the Trump Party likes to say the Dems have wanted to impeach Trump from the beginning, as if that impulse arose spontaneously from a vacuum. It didn’t. Trump has done many impeachable things before and after his inauguration that invited talk of impeachment - namely the things I mentioned - notwithstanding your personal view that only a statutory crime is impeachable. The Trump Party doesn’t want to think about or defend that behavior as appropriate - quite understandably.

Incidentally, Trump likely violated campaign finance law when he paid off porn star Stormy Daniels; committed obstruction of justice according to Mueller who only chose to not accuse the president of that crime based on a head-scratching legal argument; was wrapped up in Trump University which had to close due to racketeering and the Trump charity which had to close due to systemic corruption (to the point where his children are now legally banned from being involved in any charities in the state of New York). Dems have been arguably slow to impeach given his administration’s constant drumbeat of corrupt behavior from even before he was elected ... and I’m glad they have been, as the bar should be high.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Russia if you are listening, what crime is this, and why didn't the house cite this as a crime ? Is having a campaign chairman who was convicted of felonies that occurred decades before he held that position, a crime ? Ditto for the lawyer. The attorney general being fired is a crime ? Where does it say so ?

If he was from the beginning do impeachable "things" i.e. treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, why didn't the democrats find them and tell us in what statutes to find them ?

shmogie I’m afraid my previous post didn’t entirely answer your questions.

Again the point I was making is the Trump Party like to bring up how there was TALK of impeaching Trump a long time ago.

Yes, there was talk of impeachment. The reason was because Trumps behavior has been wildly inappropriate, tip-toeing to the edge several times of what’s impeachable. Even Senator Lindsay Graham, who is among Trump’s loudest defenders today, at one time acknowledged that Trump was getting close to being impeached, saying if he fired Mueller after firing Comey it would be “the beginning of the end” of his presidency.

So it seems entirely appropriate to me that there was TALK of impeachment, and it is equally appropriate (in my opinion) that there was NOT an impeachment inquiry initially.

What has NOT been entirely appropriate is Trunp’s behavior. And that is what the Trump Party doesn’t like to dwell on, since it was Trump’s corrupt behavior that incited such talk early on - just as it was Trump’s behavior that has lead to his impeachment this time. I don’t think Trump should have been impeached for the “Russia are you listening” campaign speech or Trump’s obstruction of the Mueller probe - just barely, in large part taking into account the Cult of Trump’s opposition to it - but it was ABSOLUTELY appropriate to discuss it. What wasn’t appropriate was for Trump to do those things, and what’s sad is the Trump Party’s unwillingness to criticize him for it.

They want to make it seem like the impeachment talk sprang from nothing because they are incapable of holding their Leader responsible for the consequences of his own actions. It is sad to see the Party of Lincoln being bullied and taken over by such a man.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do apologize if calling Trumps party the Trump Party offends the delicate sensibilities of Trump supporters. But I’m afraid I absolutely insist on calling it as I see it.

I cannot dignify it with the same label as the Party of Lincoln, and no thinking person can explain its behavior today as the party of Reagan or anything else it resembled before it bowed to Trump. And I have far too much respect for what the Trump Party used to be, when it was lead by figures like McCain and Romney, to pretend that it’s the same party today. Please call it what you like. I will call it what it is: the Trump Party.

Still sounds hostile.
Btw, it doesn't offend me....I'm just looking out for you.

 

[shmogie]

shmogie I’m afraid my previous post didn’t entirely answer your questions.

Again the point I was making is the Trump Party like to bring up how there was TALK of impeaching Trump a long time ago.

Yes, there was talk of impeachment. The reason was because Trumps behavior has been wildly inappropriate, tip-toeing to the edge several times of what’s impeachable. Even Senator Lindsay Graham, who is among Trump’s loudest defenders today, at one time acknowledged that Trump was getting close to being impeached, saying if he fired Mueller after firing Comey it would be “the beginning of the end” of his presidency.

So it seems entirely appropriate to me that there was TALK of impeachment, and it is equally appropriate (in my opinion) that there was NOT an impeachment inquiry initially.

What has NOT been entirely appropriate is Trunp’s behavior. And that is what the Trump Party doesn’t like to dwell on, since it was Trump’s corrupt behavior that incited such talk early on - just as it was Trump’s behavior that has lead to his impeachment this time. I don’t think Trump should have been impeached for the “Russia are you listening” campaign speech or Trump’s obstruction of the Mueller probe - just barely, in large part taking into account the Cult of Trump’s opposition to it - but it was ABSOLUTELY appropriate to discuss it. What wasn’t appropriate was for Trump to do those things, and what’s sad is the Trump Party’s unwillingness to criticize him for it.

They want to make it seem like the impeachment talk sprang from nothing because they are incapable of holding their Leader responsible for the consequences of his own actions. It is sad to see the Party of Lincoln being bullied and taken over by such a man.

Trumps behavior is atrocious at times. However, it is not impeachable. John Kennedy's behavior was atrocious, he turned the white house into a poontang palace. He wasn't impeached. Boorish behavior, or serial adultery are not crimes, they do not meet the Constitutional standard.

The Russia are you listening quote is taken seriously by democrats as an attempt by Trump to get Russia into our election. It was not. Taken in context, it was a joke based upon the magical disappearance of 30,000 emails to hillary, from hillary, or about hillary. Facetiously he said re the Russians " maybe THEY can find them." To believe that was a serious invitation to the Russians to meddle in the election is asinine.

Talking of impeachment on the day of the inauguration kills any bipartisan co operation before it has a chance to begin. However, since the dems vowed to not co operate in anything made it even clearer where they were.

We had a two year investigation that was begun on a false and illegal set of premises designed by the democrats, that in the end found no impeachable crimes. Trump has been under investigation by the dems every day he has been in office, looking, looking for an impeachable crime, they still haven't found one.

I fully expect this to continue after he wins in 2020, acute Trump derangement syndrome can't be cured.

This kind of metaphorical assassination of a president you don't like could become just another political tool, and if the Republicans choose to use it, woe to the next democrat president, the harassment will begin when it is announced they won the election. Of course Republican philosophy doesn't include the end justifies the means, so we will see.

It is banana republic style democracy, thanks to the democrat party.

 

[tytlyf]

Trumps behavior is atrocious at times. However, it is not impeachable.

Abuse of power is impeachable. Hence the reason Trump got impeached.

 

[shmogie]

shmogie we’ve been over this already. You think high crimes and misdemeanors has to be a statutory crime.

I disagree - along with most scholarship on the subject, as far as I can tell. Two of the first three articles of impeachment against Nixon were the same as the two articles of impeachment against Trump (abuse of power and obstruction of Congress). You think that’s somehow legitimate only for Nixon, not Trump, because they were coupled with statutory crimes for Nixon; I disagree.

Let’s not rehash that debate.

The point - which I’m afraid you missed again - is that the Trump Party likes to say the Dems have wanted to impeach Trump from the beginning, as if that impulse arose spontaneously from a vacuum. It didn’t. Trump has done many impeachable things before and after his inauguration that invited talk of impeachment - namely the things I mentioned - notwithstanding your personal view that only a statutory crime is impeachable. The Trump Party doesn’t want to think about or defend that behavior as appropriate - quite understandably.

Incidentally, Trump likely violated campaign finance law when he paid off porn star Stormy Daniels; committed obstruction of justice according to Mueller who only chose to not accuse the president of that crime based on a head-scratching legal argument; was wrapped up in Trump University which had to close due to racketeering and the Trump charity which had to close due to systemic corruption (to the point where his children are now legally banned from being involved in any charities in the state of New York). Dems have been arguably slow to impeach given his administration’s constant drumbeat of corrupt behavior from even before he was elected ... and I’m glad they have been, as the bar should be high.

Most legal scholars do not support the idea that congress can define the non defined as a crime, only liberal scholars, who will change their tune if if is employed against a democrat president.

If all the things you say are true, the democrats would have a plethora of statutory crimes, yet they cite not one, why I wonder ?

Obstructing congress is a joke. Invoking a Constitutional right is not an impeachable crime. Congress has no power to void executive privilege, only the judicial branch does. Yet congress made no effort to legally get what they needed, instead, they impeached Trump because he would not just give his prosecutors/persecutors more papers to trawl through or witnesses to interrogate. Hilarious.

Abuse of power, as defined by democrat members of the House of Representatives. An offense which can mean anything to anyone. An offense based in the eternal conflict between the executive and legislative branches for power,and the expansion of pathological political hatred. A conglomeration of opinions refined to a set of opinions.

You seem to confuse me with a trumpette, I am not. He creates chaos and thrives in it. He sets his mind on a goal and uses no finesse, but rather bulldozer tactics to achieve it, By his speech and tone he creates firestorms, and doesn;t care. He is a street fighter, and uses street fighter tactics in political combat. There is more. Yet his policies or methods or language are not criminal, just very off putting for many, including me.

On the other hand, his administration has accomplished much that I find very acceptable. I will happily vote for four more years.

 

[shmogie]

Abuse of power is impeachable. Hence the reason Trump got impeached.

Abuse of power is an impeachable offense ? The Constitution says that treason, bribery ( both statutory crimes) or OTHER (statutory crimes) high crimes and misdemeanors, are subject to impeachment.

Tell me where abuse of power is listed in any statute, law, penal code, whatever. Please tell me where it is defined, to be applied, and what it's elements are.

You will find it nowhere as relates to the presidency.

So there is no objective standard for abuse of power. It is solely an opinion held by the democrats in the house, and will be judged as such.

Show me treason ,bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, real crimes, and I will support impeachment.

Otherwise, democrat opinions hold very little weight with me. If I am going to give value to opinions, they will be Republican ones.

 

[tytlyf]

Abuse of power is an impeachable offense ?

Yes, in this case bribery. AKA, abuse of power

 

[shmogie]

Yes, in this case bribery. AKA, abuse of power

Why wasn't bribery and it's elements listed in the grounds for impeachment ? After all, it is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, abuse of power is not.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Russia are you listening quote is taken seriously by democrats as an attempt by Trump to get Russia into our election. It was not. Taken in context, it was a joke based upon the magical disappearance of 30,000 emails to hillary, from hillary, or about hillary. Facetiously he said re the Russians " maybe THEY can find them." To believe that was a serious invitation to the Russians to meddle in the election is asinine.

The only way that joke can be taken seriously is either....
1) One is so anti-Trump that one can only see the worst possible inference.
2) There was follow up on the offer, ie, Russia found the emails, & was paid by the media.
The 2nd didn't happen.
The 1st exemplifies how impeachment isn't about crimes...it's
politically motivated. Finding crimes is merely the justification.
The real issue is whether the particular Prez is loathed enuf
bi-partisanly. Clinton wasn't. Likely Trump won't be.
(If Dems really believed crimes warrant impeachment, then
they'd have convicted Clinton. But they still liked him.)

 

[QuestioningMind]

What? The Socialist Democrats all of a sudden have embraced impartiality?

Don't make me laugh.

ROFLMAO!!


Too late...

Poor nowhere man wouldn't recognize impartiality if it kick him in the groin. The fact that he claims Democrats aren't impartial is the epitome of ironic.

 

[QuestioningMind]

His lying was to a grand jury, which is indeed a crime.
People go to prison for that. But despite his guilt, they
didn't convict. I chalk it up to their belief that keeping
him in office was the greater good...or lesser evil.
That strikes me as reasonable, given that unlike criminal
prosecution, both impeachment & the trial are political
in nature.

As you have already pointed out, congress isn't a court of law, so congress had absolutely no authority to convict him of perjury. What they DID have the authority to do was determine if his 'crimes' were sufficient reason to boot him from office. And what they concluded was that his crimes were against his wife and his marriage and not crimes against the nation.