Impeachment

[Cerin]

When you say someone is being "blatantly partisan", which you have said many times, <snip>

I don't believe I have said 'many times' that particular individuals are blatantly partisan. I said Adam Schiff was blatantly partisan after he publicly used the word 'minions' to describe his Republican colleagues. He also betrayed his extreme bias with his outrageously inappropriate mischaracterization of the phone call transcript in a formal intelligence committee hearing, and in his running of the underground secret inquiry and selective leaking. I challenge you to produce any other example of me calling an individual 'blatantly partisan.'

I called the impeachment hearings grossly partisan because they were conducted in a grossly partisan manner.

. . . you are interpreting what their true motivations are. So no, I don't think you would be foolish enough to only listen to what politicians say.

No, when I call someone 'blatantly partisan' I am assessing their words and actions. I scrupulously avoid imputing motive; I have no way of knowing what is in someone else's heart. I trust that what people say is what they think. I don't know any other way to proceed in life.

[elengil]

I have no way of knowing what is in someone else's heart. I trust that what people say is what they think. I don't know any other way to proceed in life.

I know enough of life to know that people quite often do not say what they think. I compare what they say in one instance to what they have said in other, related instances, and what their actions are. I cannot possibly trust that what people say is what they think unless I can demonstrate consistency in word vs action.

I called the impeachment hearings grossly partisan because they were conducted in a grossly partisan manner.

Indeed, they were: Republicans attempted to make it into a partisan circus by ignoring the rules they had already set, ignoring national security protocols and storming a secure location with their cell phones, staging a ridiculous press conference to demand entrance to hearings that some of them had access to already, and doing everything they possibly could to defend criminal actions by the president - especially by attempting to refocus the investigation onto people who were not involved in any way in the president's criminal activity.


Grossly partisan indeed.

[yovargas]

I trust that what people say is what they think.

Are you saying you assume people don't lie?

People lie. Sometimes their lies are obvious. Reasonable people can make determinations that someone's words are lies. When someone is looking directly at something but they say they don't see it, they are either lying or they are blind. I know these Republicans are not blund. I reasonably conclude they are lying.

Also, the "underground secret inquiry" was neither underground or secret, as Republican house members were there and participated.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The private depositions (the so-called "underground secret inquiry") were perfectly consistent with past practice, and were made all the more important and necessary by Bill Barr and the Justice Department refusing to conduct any investigation of the allegations made in the whistleblower complaint.

[River]

yov, the SCIF's in a basement and non-committee members weren't allowed in during the depositions. The depositions were kept closed because open depositions really aren't a thing. If you can afford to do discovery right, you give witnesses as little opportunity as possible to collaborate and you start from the outside and work in. But, if you're in the right frame of mind, standard procedures can look really nefarious. And a lot of the current propaganda about the process to date only stands if the people listening don't know or understand what the procedures are.

I'd also like to point out that so far, Trump and his party have not offered any factual rebuttals to the charges. They've mainly just yammered about the process. It seems like, if they really had something that could make it all go away, they could get a friendly face in the Senate to hold a hearing, put the key players at the table under oath, and get it done.

I have no way of knowing what is in someone else's heart. I trust that what people say is what they think. I don't know any other way to proceed in life.

I know enough of life to know that people quite often do not say what they think. I compare what they say in one instance to what they have said in other, related instances, and what their actions are. I cannot possibly trust that what people say is what they think unless I can demonstrate consistency in word vs action.

People conceal and/or misrepresent their motives and thoughts routinely. Sometimes to others and sometimes even to themselves. I, for one, don't like to blatantly lie, so if I need to conceal or deceive I either just don't answer or get really careful with words.

[Cerin]

I see that McConnell, at least for now, is rejecting Schumer's ironic pleas for 'fairness.' As he points out, it was the House's job to do a thorough investigation, but they chose instead to rush through the procedure for political reasons so they could impeach the President by Christmas. The Senate is meant to try the articles and evidence the House puts forward, not extend the investigation the House was too impatient to do properly. But will they be able to talk Trump out of his desire for a lengthy trial?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBY5p4n

[elengil]

but they chose instead to rush through the procedure for political reasons so they could impeach the President by Christmas. ...the investigation the House was too impatient to do properly.

So much for not ascribing motives...

[yovargas]

Blah blah blah more complaining about the process without at all addressing the substance of the issue.

[Frelga]

750+ Historians Urge Congress To Impeach Trump — ‘Flagrant Abuses Of Power Are Precisely What The Framers Had In Mind’ For Removal

In addition to the Ukraine scandal, attempts to obstruct witnesses and documents from within the administration are a “fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law.”

[Cerin]

but they chose instead to rush through the procedure for political reasons so they could impeach the President by Christmas. ...the investigation the House was too impatient to do properly.

So much for not ascribing motives...

Where's the motive ascribed? I'm observing words and behavior. The Democrats were completely open about wanting the impeachment done by Christmas so they could focus on the elections. Nadler said it would take too long to wait for the subpoenas to go through the courts. They were clearly not willing to delay impeaching the President, even if it meant going ahead without the witnesses they wanted.

impatient

1b : intolerant sense 1 impatient of delay

3 : eagerly desirous : anxious impatient to get home

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impatient

[elengil]

You assume they did it for purely political reasons or that they did not do their jobs properly.

Fast does not always mean improperly done. They have enough to form the two articles they brought, and the lack of cooperation by the executive branch was actually one of those articles. There was no need to wait for the courts to force the executive branch to do what it should have done in the first place. Something they should have done, according to the courts previous rulings.

Wanting something done quickly is as much about not wanting to give further platform for the opposition to criticize every aspect up to and including lying about what is going on - like accusations of being denied access to the hearings, accusations brought by, in part, members who had access to those hearings. Hearings that were happening because the DOJ did not do things properly.

It seems this criticism about waiting on the courts is only there because the executive branch wanted to tie up the entire process, delay and slog down the hearings, by dragging it unnecessarily through the courts. For purely political reasons.

[yovargas]

"...including lying about what is going on - like accusations of being denied access to the hearings, accusations brought by, in part, members who had access to those hearings."

I would love to hear the defense of this from those out there defending the right. People who are in the hearings showing up to make a big show of how they aren't being allowed in the "secret underground" hearings. A great show and a bunch of people ate it up.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I see that McConnell, at least for now, is rejecting Schumer's ironic pleas for 'fairness.' As he points out, it was the House's job to do a thorough investigation, but they chose instead to rush through the procedure for political reasons so they could impeach the President by Christmas. The Senate is meant to try the articles and evidence the House puts forward, not extend the investigation the House was too impatient to do properly. But will they be able to talk Trump out of his desire for a lengthy trial?

Let's ask an expert as to whether McConnell's rejection of Schumer's request for witnesses makes sense:

"There have been 15 impeachments in the history of the country. Two of them were cut short by resignations. In the other 13 impeachments there were witnesses," he told CNN's Larry King Live on January 28, 1999, as the Clinton trial played out in the Senate. The number included judges who were charged with impeachment. He added: "The House managers have only asked for three witnesses. I think that's pretty modest."

And who is the "he" in question? Sen. Mitch McConnell, of course.

(Schumer, of course, opposed the request for witnesses at the Clinton trial. When asked about the discrepancy, he said "The witnesses in '99 had already given grand jury testimony. We knew what they were to say. The four witnesses we've called have not been heard from. That is the difference and the difference is totally overwhelming.")

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I thought Mr. Trump's letter to Turkish President/Dictator Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was the most bizarre presidential communication I had ever seen. Not anymore!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics ... index.html

[yovargas]

That kinda just read like a slightly more organized version of his typical Twitter rants. Not sure what the point of that was, though I suppose this will likely get more coverage than his tweets usually do.

I will say that seeing a couple of lines in there actually addressing the charges, instead of the constant whining about process and partisanship, were new to me and a bit refreshing. The argument that he said "do us a favor" and not "do me a favor" isn't much, but at least it's something.

[elengil]

Question for more knowledgeable minds than I:

https://www.businessinsider.com/ruth-ba ... er-2019-12

If the House votes by a simple majority to impeach Trump, the Senate will hold a trial, with Ginsberg's colleague Chief Justice John Roberts serving as the judge.

I know I saw this mentioned once before, but at the time it didn't really sink in. But... having no reason to doubt this being true, what exactly would the implications be? I have been operating on the assumption that McConnell would run the impeachment, but if he is not the 'judge', then what kind of power does he have in this? What kind of authority does Justice Roberts have insofar as can he go so far as to ask for... I dunno, recusals or declare mistrials or whatever? Basically what does it mean for Justice Roberts to preside over this?

[Cerin]

(Schumer, of course, opposed the request for witnesses at the Clinton trial. When asked about the discrepancy, he said "The witnesses in '99 had already given grand jury testimony. We knew what they were to say. The four witnesses we've called have not been heard from. That is the difference and the difference is totally overwhelming.")

I've been unable to find out who the witnesses were at Clinton's Senate trial. I thought I recalled that witnesses there were taped depositions from the House inquiry. I doubt anyone would object to having taped depositions from Schiff's underground hearings or even from Nadler's non-witnesses shown at this trial. I would be very surprised to learn that the Senate called new witnesses in Clinton's trial in an end-run around the courts to make up for the House's sloppy work, but if that is the case, then Schumer has ground to stand on.

edit

I'm afraid the above answer isn't very clear. I'm agreeing that the difference Schumer is remarking on is notable, in that his request represents an effort to get the Senate to do investigative work that is Constitutionally the House's responsibility, which evidently was not the case in Clinton's trial.

All of the Senators I've seen quoted have agreed that it will be difficult for McConnell to get 51 votes for anything, as there are numerous views on what is the best way to proceed. I've also seen it suggested that it might be easier for Schumer to get 51 votes than for McConnell, due to vulnerable Republicans worrying about appearances.

[River]

So I did some googling and landed on hte Wikipedia article for Clinton's impeachment trial. It would probably have been faster for you to do this, Cerin, than write that post. Anyway, they were a few days into the trial when they decided to call some witnesses and rather than put people on the floor they opted to take depositions and play the tapes.

Over three days, February 1–3, House managers took videotaped closed-door depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Clinton's friend Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. On February 4, however, the Senate voted 70–30 that excerpting these videotapes would suffice as testimony, rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial. The videos were played in the Senate on February 6, featuring 30 excerpts of Lewinsky discussing her affidavit in the Paula Jones case, the hiding of small gifts Clinton had given her, and his involvement in procurement of a job for Lewinsky.

[Cerin]

River, since it obviously bothers you, please quit looking up things I wonder aloud about. I don't have very good internet skills, so if I try to find something and am not able to, please just conclude I don't care enough to spend more time on it. It turned out to be irrelevant in this case, anyway, because the answer I needed was contained in Voronwë's quote, which I read too carelessly the first time.

Again, to be clear, if I remark that I was unable to find information, it means that my poor internet skills were insufficient to the task and I was unwilling to spend any more time searching for tangential information. The next time you take it upon yourself to look up information I have commented on, please take the responsibility for your actions and refrain from remarking that I should have done my own homework, or how I could have found it faster than it took me to write a reply. You have no idea how much time I spend looking or how much time I spend on my posts. I will consider it harassment the next time you tell me what I should have done or how long it would have taken me to do it, and I will have to complain to our beloved administrator, who needs no such headaches, I am sure.

Again, please do not look up information unless it is information YOU WANT. If it is information you want, then don't refer to me when you post it! Can I be any clearer? I would prefer you didn't spend your time looking up things I wonder about, but as it is your right to do as you please, kindly do as YOU please without implying that you did it on my behalf. I don't want you doing research on my behalf. Please leave me out of any decisions YOU make on what YOU want to post about.


I would note to the community at large that I don't believe it is against the terms of service to remark that one has been wondering about something that one doesn't care enough about to spend hours researching. I'm pretty sure I am not the only person who has done this, but I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who has been harassed about it. If I mention I've been unable to find information, it's probably, as it was above, to acknowledge the fact that my post isn't informed by facts that would probably be pertinent if I knew them; it should never, ever be interpreted as an expectation that someone else will look up the information for me.

edit spelling, grammar, clarification

[Túrin Turambar]

The two articles of impeachment passed 230-197 and 229-198. The vote was almost completely on party lines, although a couple of Democrats didn't vote yes for one or the other of the articles (either present or no). The fact that the GOP seems united and the only dissent is on the Democratic side makes it look extremely unlikely that the Senate will convict in its trial expected in January.

Interesting moment when Nancy Pelosi had to restrain the Democrats from applauding the passage of the motion. I can understand why, as it gave it a real impression of being a partisan rather than a legal exercise. I'm curious how this will affect the President's standing in the opinion polls.