Zorral Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said: Trump hasn't ordered Schiff's arrest for treason. Nor, as a practical matter, could he, since the US is a sophisticated democracy and there are internal and external safeguards against such an abuse of power. His words are performative/hortatory. Hot air. This is why the focus on Trump's words is just a giant red herring. It's his deeds, using the power of the presidency, that truly constitute impeachable conduct. However, evidently not enough to have Pompeo and Co. obey Congress's subpoena when they choose not to. Which probably means Giuliani and his three henchmen won't show up or produce the documents, as they are subpoenaed to do, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, Zorral said: However, evidently not enough to have Pompeo and Co. obey Congress's subpoena when they choose not to. Which probably means Giuliani and his three henchmen won't show up or produce the documents, as they are subpoenaed to do, either. Is anyone surprised by this? The surprise would have been if they had showed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 9 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Is anyone surprised by this? The surprise would have been if they had showed up. Not ... really. But Maguire did, so .... I hope they have a plan for this. (Elizabeth Warren would have.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Doing the early AM online news cruise, I stop to study this photograph of Elizabeth Warren in the NYT. How much 'of the people' she looks. How comfortable in steamy Carolina she looks, still neat and tidy. Are her feet in -- sneakers? Imagine, say, Hillary or Pelosi in sneakers. You can't, can you. Though Pelosi looks natural in her designer dresses and heels and jewelry, Hillary looks unnatural in everything she puts on. Nothing she puts on makes her look good, only supremely uncomfortable and unnatural and unattractive. Why is that? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/politics/sanders-warren-wealth-tax.html? As to the subject of the piece, the proposed "wealth tax": Quote “You’re going to completely disincentivize capital investment, which is going to be very, very bad for economic growth,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in an interview in September. “Taxing capital is not a good thing for creating economic growth, and if anything we should be looking at how we create more incentives for economic growth.” However, these people haven't invested in anything and they haven't for a very long time. They pay their investors / stockholders and themselves and their operating officers, but they aren't investing in anything except real estate. The economic growth has taken place only among that segment of the society, and it hasn't expanded the available capital to build infrastructure or anything else. By now a whole lot of voters have noticed this. But Zuckerberg insists this will ruin him, yes, ruin him. So though he was willing to run every damned lie from we know who who who, and still is, he's not allowing ads for Warren to go up on FB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 The plan is simple - cite them for contempt. People seem to forget that one of the three articles of impeachment against Nixon that were voted out of the Judiciary committee was contempt of Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 minute ago, DMC said: The plan is simple - cite them for contempt. People seem to forget that one of the three articles of impeachment against Nixon that were voted out of the Judiciary committee was contempt of Congress. And then what will happen? Will they go to prison? Get fined? Be hauled into the Chambers by the sergeant at arms? Or will the refusniks be able to keep sitting in their a/ced offices drinking kool-ade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 6 minutes ago, DMC said: The plan is simple - cite them for contempt. People seem to forget that one of the three articles of impeachment against Nixon that were voted out of the Judiciary committee was contempt of Congress. Ok, consider them cited. Now what? The Justice Department has to enforce that citation, and they won't. Democrats can put them in the articles of impeachment, but we all know that nobody in this administration is getting removed without votes from 20 Republican Senators. Those Republican Senators will only flip if a meaningful portion of Republican voters support doing so. And Trump flipping the bird to institutional norms is a feature, not a bug, for this administration. He campaigned on doing just that. Republican voters are NEVER going to be clamoring for their Senators to cooperate with the Democratic investigation. It is pretty scary the degree to which Congress is subservient to the Executive recognizing their power. The only thing that can save American democracy is Trump's incompetence. Next time (if there is a next time) we probably won't be so lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 7 minutes ago, Zorral said: And then what will happen? Will they go to prison? Get fined? You can look up the criminal penalties yourself. And then they can include it as an article of impeachment. Not to mention go to court for any documents withheld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Maithanet said: Democrats can put them in the articles of impeachment, but we all know that nobody in this administration is getting removed without votes from 20 Republican Senators. Yeah, that's going to be the case regardless, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 He has not ordered it, but he has tweeted it and demanded Schiff be questioned. Your willingness to analyze this as a rhetorical act is a problem I don't care to uncover, unpack. members of congress are immune by statute to civil suits for acts taken in the course of their legislative duties, and they are constitutionally immune to criminal proceedings for things said in the course of those duties: Quote Senator Gravel disavows any assertion of general immunity from the criminal law. But he points out that the last portion of § 6 affords Members of Congress another vital privilege they may not be questioned in any other place for any speech or debate in either House. The claim is not that, while one part of § 6 generally permits prosecutions for treason, felony, and breach of the peace, another part nevertheless broadly forbids them. Rather, his insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause, at the very least, protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible. The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution -- for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting. Gravel v. United States, 408 US 606, 615-6 (1972) (emphases added). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 minute ago, DMC said: Yeah, that's going to be the case regardless, isn't it? Yes, that's my point. Republicans are going to stonewall the impeachment investigation just like they stonewalled the regular House oversight the past 9 months. Democrats can take procedural steps like citing them for contempt, but in the end it is up to either the justice department (which will never do anything) or the courts (which are very, very slow) to actually enforce those citations. This administration has taken the approach that it is immune to oversight until the Supreme Court says otherwise, and that strategy has been an unmitigated success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Republicans are going to stonewall the impeachment investigation just like they stonewalled the regular House oversight the past 9 months. Sure, my point is the institutional mechanisms at Congress' disposal are clear and haven't changed. Trump's is hardly the first administration to try to stonewall Congress. 7 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Democrats can take procedural steps like citing them for contempt, but in the end it is up to either the justice department (which will never do anything) or the courts (which are very, very slow) to actually enforce those citations My understanding is the US attorney for DC takes up contempt citations, to be specific. Also, you're exaggerating how slow the courts are a bit, particularly pertaining to impeachment proceedings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Zorral said: However, evidently not enough to have Pompeo and Co. obey Congress's subpoena when they choose not to. Which probably means Giuliani and his three henchmen won't show up or produce the documents, as they are subpoenaed to do, either. They will be compelled to do so, ultimately. No question this administration's disregard of the rule of law has reached new heights. But Pompeo is also squarely in the cross-hairs now, and this letter reeks of panic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnot OG Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 5 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said: Trump hasn't ordered Schiff's arrest for treason. Nor, as a practical matter, could he, since the US is a sophisticated democracy and there are internal and external safeguards against such an abuse of power. His words are performative/hortatory. Hot air. This is why the focus on Trump's words is just a giant red herring. It's his deeds, using the power of the presidency, that truly constitute impeachable conduct. This has been proven to be false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said: This has been proven to be false. Name the political opponent Trump has been able to have arrested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Zorral said: I guess I'm the only one here who doesn't watch tv. (Gotta say though, this saves me a whole lot of stress and sour stomach!) I do watch a lot of streaming -- but not tv per se. You can watch MSNBC, Democracy Now, and the like on YouTube nowadays. I only watch streaming ,downloaded or chromecasted content myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 3 hours ago, DMC said: ou can look up the criminal penalties yourself. And then they can include it as an article of impeachment. Not to mention go to court for any documents withheld. However, as was stated above, if the Justice Department and the Senate don't go along with that, So. Frackin'. Saying They are in contempt means nothing. They won't even get a Censure, which Andrew Jackson did receive and it rankled, O it burned. He worked obsessively to get that Censure removed from the record, even after he left the WH. That's what I meant, really. If They don't obey the rules, the regs and the laws, what are the Dems going to do? Elizabeth Warren isn't POTUS yet. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And Zuckerberg and FB is going to do his best to make sure she never is. "In leaked audio, Mark Zuckerberg said he would sue over Elizabeth Warren’s antitrust plan if she was elected president." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-mark-zuckerberg-facebook.html? The amount of bs in these words rival what comes out of the WH: Quote In the audio recording clipped and published by The Verge, Mr. Zuckerberg ties his criticism of Ms. Warren’s plan to concerns about election interference. “It’s just that breaking up these companies, whether it’s Facebook or Google or Amazon, is not actually going to solve the issues,” he said. “And, you know, it doesn’t make election interference less likely. It makes it more likely because now the companies can’t coordinate and work together.” It's the same as the same ilks saying reining in the obscenely bloated corporate earnings of those at the top with destroy incentives for making investments-- when they have so much money and they still don't invest it in anything except buying more of the same sort of entities that are just like them and yet another house they don't live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 abide parliamentary procedure is what they must do. we have this recommendation on the authority of comrade guevara in his guerrilla warfare: Quote Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted. the trump regime checks these boxes. put your berets and AKs away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 25 minutes ago, Zorral said: However, as was stated above, if the Justice Department and the Senate don't go along with that, So. Frackin'. Saying They are in contempt means nothing. They won't even get a Censure, which Andrew Jackson did receive and it rankled, O it burned. He worked obsessively to get that Censure removed from the record, even after he left the WH. That's what I meant, really. If They don't obey the rules, the regs and the laws, what are the Dems going to do? Well, the answer to your question is, again, my point is these are the mechanisms at Congress' disposal, they've always been these mechanisms, and Trump is hardly the first president to resist them. Also, in terms of GOP MCs' unwillingness to stand up for their own branch of government, that is - as it's always been - based on the opinions of their constituency. Which means it's ultimately the constituency that has changed - in that there's a substantial portion of the electorate that will in all likelihood be perfectly fine with Trump openly and actively behaving as if Congress has no oversight power. It's virtually impossible to construct durable institutional checks when that's the case. Anyway, there's some inaccuracies in your first graph. First, no, the Senate does not have to go along with any contempt citation passed by the House (or vice versa), each chamber is independently empowered with contempt charges. Second, censure is the same way - only the Senate censured Jackson (before it was expunged). Moreover, censure is generally not used against other executive branch officials (I can't think of any example of such) - I mean with contempt there why bother? Finally, if you look at the history of contempt citations since Watergate, most were successful in inducing some type of compliance - particularly when the citation has to do with withheld documents. ETA: Also, forgot, Jackson's censure was expunged before he left office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 Very curious what this is about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 10 minutes ago, Mexal said: Very curious what this is about... It's about how Mr. President had a "perfect call" and nothing was illegal at all, EVER! Except for Joe Biden, who keeps Ukrainian energy orphans in the basement of his pizza power plant to sell to coastal elites for fake news about Jew hating immigrants. ETA: I forgot to ramble off something incoherent about socialism in that word salad so... SOCIALISM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.