Fragile Bird Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Hey guys, you have a new Trump tweet phrase you can use! Stop the wirch hunt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 29 minutes ago, Rippounet said: That is not true. Even at a glance, at least some of these points are fair. Whether they are relevant, or based on actual facts, is another question, but there are definitely some valid legal questions raised in this letter. The US constitution is a very vague document and conventions and precedents do matter in such a case. And it worries me. I fear that Democrats, in their haste to get rid of Trump, may themselves overstep the red line and violate at least some conventions. It's silly because there is sufficient evidence to proceed with impeachment by the book, thus preventing any delays or allowing for false equivalencies. It's odd that Pelosi's answer doesn't even try to address the main points raised by the WH letter... Or maybe it's all strategy. After all, impeachment is a political process anyway. Since the Dems know Mc Connell will never give them a real impeachment trial they're content to make noises in that direction and let the WH debate procedures for months if need be, keeping floor votes in store as the climax rather than the opening, hoping that the media attention will rattle at least some moderate conservatives. A kind of half-assed way of trying to have the cake and eating it... I'm not in a position to say whether that's smart or not. Maybe it is smart to ensure the entire thing lasts as long as possible to maximize its impact on the 2020 election. Or maybe it's giving Trump & co yet another chance to spin this as they want. Dunno. Honestly, there IS no book. Impeachment has happened twice, once in the 19th Century. There is a real separation of powers issue here. And norms are being violated the other direction that would accumulate a tremendous amount of power in the Executive Branch, which is probably not warranted. I don't have a problem with a little hardball within the penumbra of the uncertainty of the law, and frankly, operating as if everything were Queensbury Rules and taking the most conservative (little c) route here is naive at best and dangerous to the republic at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Honestly, there IS no book. I know. That's my point. 1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: I don't have a problem with a little hardball within the penumbra of the uncertainty of the law, and frankly, operating as if everything were Queensbury Rules and taking the most conservative (little c) route here is naive at best and dangerous to the republic at worst. That's what I'm not certain of. Impeachment is the ultimate trump (!) card against a would-be autocrat. If the Dems allow Trump to irreversibly taint that process there will be nothing left in the future, the last safeguard will be gone. Forever. Just imagine that this inquiry doesn't go anywhere but the way it's handled somehow allows Trump to convince a majority of Americans that it was all a worthless witch hunt to begin with. And then he does something even worse. Or it doesn't have to be him. It could be someone else, someone smarter. I am uncomfortable whenever Trump & co may be right about something. That's when they get truly dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Just now, Rippounet said: I know. That's my point. That's what I'm not certain of. Impeachment is the ultimate trump (!) card against a would-be autocrat. If the Dems allow Trump to irreversibly taint that process there will be nothing left in the future, the last safeguard will be gone. Forever. Just imagine that this inquiry doesn't go anywhere but the way it's handled somehow allows Trump to convince a majority of Americans that it was all a worthless witch hunt to begin with. And then he does something even worse. Or it doesn't have to be him. It could be someone else, someone smarter. I am uncomfortable whenever Trump & co may be right about something. That's when they get truly dangerous. Yeah, but there is going to be whining whatsoever the Democrats do. Nothing in that letter seems more than lawyering to me. There isn't a perfect "process" because there is no "process." And the erosion of norms you are discussion has already happened. Also, the history of actual presidential impeachments isn't exactly a model of good behavior and rectitude. The original proceeding against Andrew Johnson was 100% a political hit job. The second one was similar. So...you know...not buying your arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 the last safeguard will be gone. Forever. no forever in politics. and no need for despair. review of citations in the letter suggests that they are playing it a bit fast and loose. the citation to the green interview is manipulated. the note regarding due process conflates cases applicable to impeachment trials with investigation, which normally has different rules. i suspect that all of the citations of legal authorities will be found to be similarly manipulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 16 minutes ago, Rippounet said: I am uncomfortable whenever Trump & co may be right about something. That's when they get truly dangerous. The point is, they aren’t right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 17 minutes ago, Toth said: If that's true, then it seems like he didn't expect such a swift reaction of Trump, given that while he had been publicly threatening the Kurds for weeks now, the actual troop movements started only yesterdady. Quote Donald Trump got "rolled" by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a National Security Council source with direct knowledge of the discussions told Newsweek. In a scheduled phone call on Sunday afternoon between President Trump and President Erdogan, Trump said he would withdraw U.S. forces from northern Syria. The phone call was scheduled after Turkey announced it was planning to invade Syria, and hours after Erdogan reinforced his army units at the Syrian-Turkish border and issued his strongest threat to launch a military incursion, according to the National Security Council official to whom Newsweek spoke on condition of anonymity. https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-official-who-heard-call-says-trump-got-rolled-turkey-has-no-spine-1463623 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 25 minutes ago, sologdin said: the last safeguard will be gone. Forever. no forever in politics. and no need for despair. review of citations in the letter suggests that they are playing it a bit fast and loose. the citation to the green interview is manipulated. the note regarding due process conflates cases applicable to impeachment trials with investigation, which normally has different rules. i suspect that all of the citations of legal authorities will be found to be similarly manipulated. Agree entirely. But I know Pat Cippollone (to my everlasting shame), and I have to grudgingly admit that Pat is an excellent writer, particularly in the advocacy concept, and I think Rippounet and others are falling for Pat's ability to write convincing prose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 39 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Yeah, but there is going to be whining whatsoever the Democrats do. Nothing in that letter seems more than lawyering to me. There isn't a perfect "process" because there is no "process." And the erosion of norms you are discussion has already happened. I've had this argument here before, so I'll state my humble position again: faced with a rogue executive the answer is not to further erode all convention and decency. First because there's no guarantee that whatever liberties one takes will provide any substantial benefit. And second because if no benefit is gained there is a chance that it provides legitimacy and credibility to whatever you're trying to fight in the first place. In other words, emulating your enemy in a game of let's-ignore-the-rules doesn't seem to me a brilliant strategy if there are alternatives. And it seems to me that at this point in time the Dems are not out of options yet. TLDR: don't give in to anger. FFS has no one learned their lesson from Return of the Jedi? 39 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Also, the history of actual presidential impeachments isn't exactly a model of good behavior and rectitude. The original proceeding against Andrew Johnson was 100% a political hit job. The second one was similar. So...you know...not buying your arguments. That's very true. Not sure the lesson to be taken from this fact is one anyone would like though. 38 minutes ago, sologdin said: no forever in politics. and no need for despair. What's life without a little drama here and there? I'm one of those guys who has the luxury of wondering about what (or who) may come after Trump. It seems to me Trumpism without Trump is what will eventually kill the "republic." 38 minutes ago, sologdin said: the note regarding due process conflates cases applicable to impeachment trials to an investigation. Which is not that unreasonable in this case is it? And anyway there's the Hastings case. Now I'm not enough of an expert to know whether Hastings can be taken as precedent here (obviously not in the way Trump & co would want), but I know how to read and there's at least a basis for a pretty scary new Supreme Court decision right there. Because let's not forget that if need be, the SCOTUS can have Trump's back and make whatever dubious arguments the WH is currently making the new rule. Edit: yes, that would mean overruling Nixon v. US. Because why the fuck not? Re-reading Hastings and imagining it with the SCOTUS's imprimatur... Have you tried that? Edit: full disclaimer: I'm reading about this stuff as I go, and it does not make me feel much better... It could very well fall on Roberts to decide whether to protect the impeachment process itself... Re-edit 13 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Agree entirely. But I know Pat Cippollone (to my everlasting shame), and I have to grudgingly admit that Pat is an excellent writer, particularly in the advocacy concept, and I think Rippounet and others are falling for Pat's ability to write convincing prose. He certainly gets me to want to check all this stuff to see how flawed it is. Because he doesn't have to be 100% or even 50% right. Just raising a good point might end up being enough from both the political and legal/constitutional perspectives... Presidents can get away with a lot of stuff thanks to a half-baked argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 56 minutes ago, Rippounet said: I know. That's my point. That's what I'm not certain of. Impeachment is the ultimate trump (!) card against a would-be autocrat. If the Dems allow Trump to irreversibly taint that process there will be nothing left in the future, the last safeguard will be gone. Forever. Just imagine that this inquiry doesn't go anywhere but the way it's handled somehow allows Trump to convince a majority of Americans that it was all a worthless witch hunt to begin with. And then he does something even worse. Or it doesn't have to be him. It could be someone else, someone smarter. I am uncomfortable whenever Trump & co may be right about something. That's when they get truly dangerous. The point is that because impeachment is inherently political Trump's stomping and yelling about how the House is acting extra-constitutionally is a load of crap. The House has broad discretion to investigate just about anything particularly those things in line with power it is expressly granted in Art. I of the U.S. Constitution (like considering Articles of Impeachment). For example there are no specific "grounds for impeachment". An "impeachable action" is whatever the U.S. House of Representatives determines it to be. Once the House votes out articles of impeachment the Senate is obligated to hold a trial for the removal from office of the official so impeached. That question is also political. Will the Senate vote for removal or not? Will party loyalty and fear of Trump's influence supercede duty to nation in this context. We don't know yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: The point is that because impeachment is inherently political Trump's stomping and yelling about how the House is acting extra-constitutionally is a load of crap. But isn't that point mostly based on Nixon v. US (1993) ? 'tis an honest question. As far as I can tell the Constitution itself only has one sentence in Article 1, Section 3 on the subject... And While Hamilton clearly wrote that impeachment was a political process (POLITICAL, ha ha), he didn't go into details either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 20 minutes ago, Rippounet said: But isn't that point mostly based on Nixon v. US (1993) ? 'tis an honest question. As far as I can tell the Constitution itself only has one sentence in Article 1, Section 3 on the subject... And While Hamilton clearly wrote that impeachment was a political process (POLITICAL, ha ha), he didn't go into details either... Nixon v. US (1993) was about whether Nixon had to receive "fair compensation" for his personal papers taken by the US for historical interest. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals held that he was entitled to "fair compensation" under the 5th Amendment. How is that matter relevant to this discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 I heard a snippet of an interview with Giuliani, on Fox I assume, where he said he’d love to testify before the Senate but he has to discuss that with his client first. He wants to testify about ‘40 years of crimes’ committed by Joe Biden. Just wtf is he talking about? Or is this a tit-for-tat for people talking about crimes committed by Trump over the last 40 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: The SCOTUS would have to reverse Nixon v. US (1993) was about whether Nixon had to receive "fair compensation" for his personal papers taken by the US for historical interest. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals held that he was entitled to "fair compensation" under the 5th Amendment. How is that matter relevant to this discussion? Bearing in mind that I'm digging into this stuff as we speak... Apparently the reversal of Hastings v US (1992) by the DC District Court in 1993 was based on Nixon v US (1993) because it established the principle of the nonjusticiability of impeachment proceedings. It seems that if Nixon v US is reversed the courts are then free to impose constraints on the House for impeachment proceedings, such as standards of proof, adversarial procedure... etc. The original Hastings v US decision from 1992 (mentioned in the WH document) reads: Quote Impeachments are not political in nature. To impeach an Article III Judge, the judge must be brought up on real charges, i.e., High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and receive a real trial before the full Senate as clearly required by the Constitution. Nothing less will do if this nation is to maintain an independent judiciary. Contrary to what has been argued by Senate counsel, this Court holds that the proceeding as it applies to the judiciary is not a political proceeding. It is every bit a judicial proceeding. There is no basis to interpret the Constitution to allow the removal of a judge for political reasons. To do so would be the antithesis of creating and sustaining an independent judiciary. Now I'm aware this kinda makes a mockery of Hamilton's Federalist 65 but... is it completely unthinkable for a conservative Supreme Court to attempt to constrain the House's impeachment power? Just weakening the Nixon decision might be enough to help Trump... I dunno how far Roberts would go, but maybe the Dems shouldn't bet too much on him... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 39 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: The point is that because impeachment is inherently political Trump's stomping and yelling about how the House is acting extra-constitutionally is a load of crap. The House has broad discretion to investigate just about anything particularly those things in line with power it is expressly granted in Art. I of the U.S. Constitution (like considering Articles of Impeachment). For example there are no specific "grounds for impeachment". An "impeachable action" is whatever the U.S. House of Representatives determines it to be. Once the House votes out articles of impeachment the Senate is obligated to hold a trial for the removal from office of the official so impeached. That question is also political. Will the Senate vote for removal or not? Will party loyalty and fear of Trump's influence supercede duty to nation in this context. We don't know yet. First bolded, are they? I thought the Senate could just ignore it if they want or move to dismiss it with an up or down vote. Second bolded, come on now. We know they won’t do anything unless this hits some unforeseeable critical mass. The Republican Party is now a death cult with totally loyalty to Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: First bolded, are they? I thought the Senate could just ignore it if they want or move to dismiss it with an up or down vote. Second bolded, come on now. We know they won’t do anything unless this hits some unforeseeable critical mass. The Republican Party is now a death cult with totally loyalty to Trump. Sadly, I think you may be right: Quote The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment. U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sect. 2 The Senate may not convene a trial for impeachment without the Articles being delivered by the HoR. "The sole power of impeachment" resides in the HoR. Quote The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sect. 3 I believe the Senate is obligated to hold an impeachment trial but the way McConnell will try to squirrel his way out of it is timing. Nothing in the Constitution says when the Senate has to hold such a trial. He could potentially pull the same crap he pulled on Merrick Garland and just wait out the end of Trump's term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 the majority is bound by the senate's rule on this, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Rules are made to be broken. Also, 2019 has been a long lesson on how important the word “shall” is…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Rippounet said: That's what I'm not certain of. Impeachment is the ultimate trump (!) card against a would-be autocrat. The 25th amendment is the ultimate resort. He's demonstrated, along with all his surrounding enablers, amply, that he's earned removal via the terms the 25th amendment provides. That isn't a political process. That is a legal process for someone who has demonstrated utter unfitness for inhabiting the office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 And it will also never happen. So why are you so fixated on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.