|
Metoo
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/18
Posts: 1,524
Last seen: 2 hours, 24 minutes
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: LogicaL Chaos] 1
#26393985 - 12/21/19 12:42 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LogicaL Chaos said: To me, the soley Democratic support for impeachment shows how the US political system is broken and needs a new design. To have only Democratic support in the House shows that there is clearly bias in the interpretation of what is considered "Presidental Abuse of Power" and Republicans are just not seeing the bigger issue at hand here.
Yes and no. The Fathers were not dumb and foresaw the political polarity likely to develop in the future. To prevent this additional politically motivated bias from affecting a process like impeachment they specifically prescribed bipartisan support as a pre-requisite for initiating it. So, in that sense, the system has a safeguard against the current scenario of the country ripping itself apart for no gain (Senate will acquit) but the Dems violated it by going after Trump without GOP support.
To start an impeachment push without control of the Senate and without GOP support was just trying to humiliate and weaken Trump - something politicians do to one another all the time. Impeachment was never meant to be used in this way, regardless of how convinced you are that Trump has abused his position
Edited by Metoo (12/21/19 12:44 PM)
|
Metoo
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/18
Posts: 1,524
Last seen: 2 hours, 24 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I'll ask an open question for anyone on the left about whether you think Clinton should have been impeached or not?
(I personally think it was a stupid issue to go after Clinton for, but then again, it seems he did lie under oath.)
I am not on the left but agree with you - it was a silly transgression but his lies made it into an impeachable offence. Since there was a degree of bipartisan support and appetite for a scrap the wheels got grinding...
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: Metoo]
#26393993 - 12/21/19 12:50 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
He just said matter-of-factly that the whole community will divide into parties over an issue such as impeachment. He didn't say that isn't allowed to happen. He said it will seldom fail to happen.
He wanted the conclusions based on demonstrations of guilt or innocence, rather than comparative strength of parties. The republicans did not attempt to demonstrate innocence during the hearing. They just tried to avoid the question and make a big distracting commotion, but their comparative partisan strength did not allow for the shenanigans to be successful in the congress.
In the senate, they have already announced they will bring Hamilton's concern to life and use their comparative strength of party to acquit rather than demonstrate innocence to acquit.
Quote:
Mr Hamilton wanted impeachment to be bipartisan
. Where does he say that?
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I'll ask an open question for anyone on the left about whether you think Clinton should have been impeached or not?
(I personally think it was a stupid issue to go after Clinton for, but then again, it seems he did lie under oath.)
I don't understand how he was ever asked such a question in an under oath situation. Did important United States business hinge on whether or not he had his pants on all day that day?
Because if it didn't, then that encounter is the business of Bill Clinton, his wife, and Monica Lewinsky. And nobody else's.
|
Metoo
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/18
Posts: 1,524
Last seen: 2 hours, 24 minutes
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394017 - 12/21/19 01:09 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JohnRainy said:
He wanted the conclusions based on demonstrations of guilt or innocence, rather than comparative strength of parties. The republicans did not attempt to demonstrate innocence during the hearing. They just tried to avoid the question and make a big distracting commotion, but their comparative partisan strength did not allow for the shenanigans to be successful in the congress.
I agree - recognizing the gravity of deposing a democratically elected president he wanted a process based on a judgement of innocence and guilt, not relative strength of the political forces in play. Then - crucially - he understood the level of rationality required for this could not happen if a partisan motion was executed because all pre-existing animosities would kick in and the process would degrade into a show of partisan influence. How right was he!
I think part of the issue is a popular misconception that impeachment is just another tool to use when a president misbehaves. The way I understand the writings of Hamilton impeachment was not a free for all but a very serious measure to be applied only in specific situations - and only with non-partisan support.
Edited by Metoo (12/21/19 01:49 PM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: Metoo]
#26394098 - 12/21/19 02:18 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Metoo said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I'll ask an open question for anyone on the left about whether you think Clinton should have been impeached or not?
I am not on the left but agree with you - it was a silly transgression but his lies made it into an impeachable offence.
Quote:
JohnRainy said: ...that encounter is the business of Bill Clinton, his wife, and Monica Lewinsky. And nobody else's.
Exactly. We all agree it was silly, but the crime was lying.
But when it comes to Trump, I'm not even clear if there was some kind of quid pro quo. I'll play this again for those that missed it the first time I posted it (watch from 4:39 - 7:30).
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
Are we reading the same Alexander Hamilton? Because I have him saying...
Quote:
In such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
And you have him saying
Quote:
the level of rationality required for this could not happen
He did not say it could not happen. He said there is great danger of it not happening. The congress, as best can be determined from what happened, did not devolve into an irrational decision based on the comparative strength of the parties, the decision was quite rational and supported by the facts, the witnesses and the expert opinion.
Guilt was demonstrated, as Hamilton hoped would happen.
On the other hand, the senate devolved immediately into a decision based on comparative strength of parties, and not a demonstration of innocence. And the trial hasn't even begun.
Innocence will not be demonstrated, as Hamilton feared.
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
But when it comes to Trump, I'm not even clear if there was some kind of quid pro quo.
Quote:
Mr. Sondland testified that he “never” thought there was any precondition on the aid. But two weeks later, he amended his testimony, saying he had indeed told the Ukrainians that the military aid was tied to the investigations.
“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in his new statement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/us/politics/gordon-sondland-impeachment-hearings-testimony.html
Quote:
U.S. Ambassador Gordon Sondland told House impeachment investigators Wednesday that President Donald Trump directed Rudy Giuliani to pursue a “quid pro quo.”
The requests by Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, involved granting a White House meeting for Ukraine’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Sondland testified.
“Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations” into the 2016 U.S. presidential election and Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings, where former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter had been a board member, Sondland said.
“Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president,” Sondland said in his opening statement.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/trump-ordered-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-through-giuliani-key-witness-sondland-testifies.html
Edited by JohnRainy (12/21/19 03:29 PM)
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 3 hours, 11 minutes
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy] 1
#26394237 - 12/21/19 03:40 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Bipartisanship is over. Probably permanently. The GOP impeached Bill Clinton for lying about blowjobs. The GOP Senate refused to vote on Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court. The 2000 election was decided by the Republican nominee's brother. Expecting cooperation at this point is just naïve.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394243 - 12/21/19 03:45 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Your news clips are from the EXCACT SAME testimony that my video showed clips of. My video shows the parts of the testimony that your mainstream news sources failed to cover.
Your news clips talk about the "bombshell" that Jimmy Dore appears to debunk.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (12/21/19 03:51 PM)
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
Simplified response now.
Jimmy pointed out incomplete coverage of testimony from some media. The republicans established that Sondland did not receive instructions from Trump directly regarding this abuse of power.
He testified that President Trump directed his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to pursue a “quid pro quo” with Ukraine.
Edited by JohnRainy (12/21/19 06:24 PM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394520 - 12/21/19 07:00 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JohnRainy said: Well, I watched the part from 4:39 to 7:30, and I did not hear this from Sondland,
“Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations” into the 2016 U.S. presidential election and Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings, where former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter had been a board member, Sondland said.
Actually, that was briefly covered from 5:49 - 5:59. Obviously you'll be able to find some things not included the two two minute video summary I provided; I was pointing out something you probably hadn't seen before.
Quote:
JohnRainy said: Nor this
“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,”
If that was part of the testimony, why did Jimmy omit it?
You're asking me why Jimmy omitted a statement from 5 Nov while covering the 20 Nov testimony?
Quote:
JohnRainy said: Mick Mulvaney said “Did he (the president) also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that’s it, that’s why we held up the money,”
Again, that was from well before the 20 Nov testimony. And Mulvaney since walked that back.
Quote:
JohnRainy said: More Sondland...
"Sondland complained the State Department and the White House had made preparing for his testimony “less than fair” by prohibiting access to his own documents to prepare for his testimony, and that he could not work with his staff at the U.S. embassy in Brussels to prepare. He added that he asked the State Department and the White House for his materials multiple times, but they refused to let him see them.
“Having access to the State Department materials would have been very helpful to me in trying to reconstruct with whom I spoke and met, when, and what was said,” he said. "
The White House directed Giuliani to disregard subpoenas the Congress issued in order to properly investigate all this.
Sondland said the White House blocked him from accessing 'his materials' he needed to prepare for his testimony.
You're the first I've heard argue this is the impeachable offense.
Quote:
JohnRainy said: Jimmy's little thing there was about some portion of the media omitting the republican cross examination where it was demonstrated that the United States ambassador did not directly get the instructions to hold up the military aid from the president himself.
Correct. And yet Sondland was the key witness.
Quote:
JohnRainy said: "Asked about using Rudy Giuliani, a private citizen, as an unofficial envoy, Mulvaney responded: “You may not like the fact that Giuliani was involved, that’s great, that’s fine. It’s not illegal, it’s not impeachable...the president gets to set foreign policy and he gets to choose who to do so, as long as it doesn’t violate any law.”
Quote:
the president gets to set foreign policy and he gets to choose who to do so
Does the president also get to block witnesses from appearing to congressional hearings under subpoena too?
Is this impeachable? Can you tell me in your own words what you think is impeachable? Maybe that will help me understand your position.
Edit: I just saw your simplified response. I'll get back to you on that in a moment...
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394522 - 12/21/19 07:03 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JohnRainy said: He testified that President Trump directed his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to pursue a “quid pro quo” with Ukraine.
Ok, let's discuss that. Do you have the video (or transcript)?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
Skimming the above post I would have to think all that White House stonewalling would be obstruction of justice. How else can you characterize defying a congressional subpoena?
Quote:
He testified that President Trump directed his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to pursue a “quid pro quo” with Ukraine.
Ok, let's discuss that. Do you have the video (or transcript)?
here is a brief Sondland excerpt.
Edited by JohnRainy (12/21/19 07:42 PM)
|
Metoo
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/18
Posts: 1,524
Last seen: 2 hours, 24 minutes
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy] 1
#26394588 - 12/21/19 07:59 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JohnRainy said: The congress, as best can be determined from what happened, did not devolve into an irrational decision based on the comparative strength of the parties, the decision was quite rational and supported by the facts, the witnesses and the expert opinion.
Guilt was demonstrated, as Hamilton hoped would happen.
On the other hand, the senate devolved immediately into a decision based on comparative strength of parties, and not a demonstration of innocence. And the trial hasn't even begun.
Innocence will not be demonstrated, as Hamilton feared.
One lot of partisans - who you seem to agree with - believe the guilt has been demonstrated and the final vote was not just due to their comparative strength in the Congress. The other lot of partisans - who you disagree with - saw a different movie in which after an irrational political spectacle the vote was just a show of strength, despite no evidence for it presented.
Both sides have their arguments and none is objectively more right than the other - this is why we sometimes have hung juries after 12 random people have seen the same evidence but cannot agree on what it all meant. It is not that 6 of them were stupid and the other 6 wise but simply humans based on their individual characteristics judge the same events differently.
Hamilton knew it and understood that if two political groups take opposing stands on an issue no agreement will be reached and the vote will simply reflect their relative strength within congress or senate. To base removal of a democratically elected president on the numerical advantage one or the other party enjoys at the time the vote is taken was not what he had in mind so he advised against partisan impeachment.
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: Metoo]
#26394659 - 12/21/19 09:14 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Hamilton was aware of the vulnerabilities of the system the system the US has, and we just saw it in action. It produced what it produced. Clunky as hell and I really, really, balk at the notion that congressional subpoenas were ignored without consequence. That doesn't happen in straight halls of power. Those people should be arrested and charged for not complying with a subpoena. But the White House controls the justice department and that Barr fatso isn't going to do anything.
If Ive got it all wrong, and the impeachment and trial was all merely based on strength of parties, then the dems are kicking the repubs ass at the charade.
They were able to put on a pretty convincing show with their witnesses and experts, and Trump played right into it by ostensibly obstructing congress leading to a second article of impeachment.
The Senate isn't even pretending to be objective about this. They cannot be bothered to even put on a charade. There is no question they are are basing their acquittal on comparative strength of parties.
Let Trump answer to the charges, let witnesses be called, let there be cross examination, enforce subpoenas issued to insiders in this affair, especially Giuliani. You know, like a real trial.
Without a charade, there is no question that the conclusion is partisan.
What would Hamilton say about this senate trial if he had the same info I had? Which house would he say better demonstrated their case? Which house would he say displayed more blind partisanship in reaching their conclusions?
Edited by JohnRainy (12/21/19 09:28 PM)
|
Tantrika
Miss Ann Thrope




Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26394699 - 12/21/19 09:48 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I'll ask an open question for anyone on the left about whether you think Clinton should have been impeached or not?
(I personally think it was a stupid issue to go after Clinton for, but then again, it seems he did lie under oath.)
personally seem to be all over the political compass like a Tulsi meme and also not a US citizen, so this is an outside view
think Clinton being impeached for lying about getting a blowjob from a White House employee was a little dumb but think that if Clinton had gotten a blowjob from a foreign diplomat or embassy worker for another nation, impeachment would have been necessary
the above embeds into my view and issue with the office of the Presidency tho
Clinton was supposed to represent Americans on the international scale, and do not feel that a happening between US citizens impacts that if he had been involved with a foreign individual tho, then that opens up questions about the capacity to continue acting effectively on the global stage while the rest of the world largely doesn't care about how US laws impact US citizens, we are aware of just how much weight the country throws around on a global stage
my "issue" with the office of the President tho is that the position is empowered with a ton of National clout as well and there are US voters who want a President that will act well in the National sphere and fuck what the rest of the world thinks while my view is that a lot of those powers should be relinquished to State or Municipal areas of government while the office of the Presidency 'should' focus on the considerable influence the US can impress on the rest of the world
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'



Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 1 day
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: Tantrika]
#26394728 - 12/21/19 10:21 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: The founders didn’t even believe there would be parties in American politics. OPs analysis is absurd.
SUDDENLY THE DEMS ARE ALL HOT AND BOTHERED ABOUT THE FOUNDING FATHERS, THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, AND THER CONSITITUITON...
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394731 - 12/21/19 10:29 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JohnRainy said: here is a brief Sondland excerpt.
So the quid pro quo was to exchange a white house visit for an announcement of a Biden investigation. It wasn't in exchange for military aid. Is that correct?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Metoo
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/18
Posts: 1,524
Last seen: 2 hours, 24 minutes
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394781 - 12/21/19 11:05 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JohnRainy said:
What would Hamilton say about this senate trial if he had the same info I had? Which house would he say better demonstrated their case? Which house would he say displayed more blind partisanship in reaching their conclusions?
In my reading of things he would not judgde the relative merits of arguments on both sides - this is not a constitutional issue - but would simply conclude that, in absence of non-partisan support, the impeachment motion should not proceed.
|
|