|
Post by TNF on Feb 12, 2021 19:24:39 GMT -5
Many need to elaborate more.
You need to elaborate less.
|
|
|
Post by LotharBraunBrownBryant on Feb 12, 2021 19:30:01 GMT -5
Many need to elaborate more. You need to elaborate less.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Feb 12, 2021 19:33:28 GMT -5
So, Lothar, since you are talking to us, I take this to mean that (as with the first impeachment), you think this second impeachment is weak and you wouldn’t convict. You’d make an excellent politician, btw, with your non-answers! People hate when they perceive me as disagreeing with them. Doesn't mean I'm on the opposite side of the specific conclusion you care about. The thing I'm arguing at the moment isn't convict vs not, but proper procedure vs not, and you seem infuriated that I'm not on the same side as you about that and have no interest in letting you dictate how I address the subject. I genuinely do not have an answer as to whether I'd vote to convict, because I'd have to make sure that I'd actually run down every loose end in terms of process and procedure and evidential standards. I have been told I would make an excellent politician by people who were actually serious about it, for this reason. I'd rather get things right according to the specific legal standards, even if I hate the conclusion, than make a public show of doing something popular with my base (not that I have a base; both parties' bases see me as a dangerous extremist for the other side on at least 3 major issues. I'd probably best fit in with a less-Catholic version of the ASP, and even then there's some pretty serious disagreements.) I had to look up ASP on Wikipedia since I’m not familiar with it. So it’s a socially conservative party that is inclusive and believes in small business, charity, and environmental protection. At least I got that in my two minute read of their wiki page. While I get it that you don’t believe in answering complicated questions with simple answers (the big errors of authoritarians and fascists of past centuries is to provide the public with simple answers to complex challenges), the case of this impeachment trial is not complex. It’s simple with video, audio, and social media evidence. You wish to investigate details further prior to opining on it. That’s nice. It’s not necessary to come to a proper decision on whether to convict or not. Seems like a shortcut to you, but not to me. Our government needs standards for future presidential conduct in no uncertain terms. To waffle around and examine process and procedures and evidential standards is a cop out, and implies this isn’t easy to do in this case. The heck it isn’t! Trump was involved for months, like fascist demagogues of the past, in whipping his base into a frenzy, on the basis of self-serving lies, and the ultimate result was foreseeable. I say make a quick and strong statement that this is NOT acceptable political conduct. And destabilizes our republic. But go ahead and ponder all the details before deciding what was in front of our eyes and heard by our ears!
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Feb 12, 2021 19:40:33 GMT -5
Sometimes trials can be short and end quickly without witnesses because the case is obvious. If this were a real criminal trial, the defense would be plea bargaining with the prosecution right now. This is as obvious as a DUI on I-25 with the vehicle pulled over at the Broadway curve going 100 mph at 2 am. They can have a trial, but that 0.2 blood alcohol level speaks for itself.
Trump’s incendiary rhetoric and tweets for months up to and including 1/6/21 speaks for itself, and makes this case open and shut. No need to prolong trial. Tomorrow is closing arguments. No witnesses apparently.
It’s an easy case to decide on the facts, but political partisanship will prevent Senate from doing the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by LotharBraunBrownBryant on Feb 12, 2021 20:01:20 GMT -5
While I get it that you don’t believe in answering complicated questions with simple answers ... the case of this impeachment trial is not complex Even simple cases have to be executed carefully and correctly, with an eye toward how procedural mistakes can both impact conviction and precedent. My most famous relative lost his most famous court case (or maybe second-most; the Hitchcock film may be higher profile than the Kramer film), and then the conviction was overturned on a technicality.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Feb 12, 2021 20:15:40 GMT -5
While I get it that you don’t believe in answering complicated questions with simple answers ... the case of this impeachment trial is not complex Even simple cases have to be executed carefully and correctly, with an eye toward how procedural mistakes can both impact conviction and precedent. My most famous relative lost his most famous court case (or maybe second-most; the Hitchcock film may be higher profile than the Kramer film), and then the conviction was overturned on a technicality. Conviction in an impeachment trial cannot be appealed. Who is your most famous relative?
|
|
|
Post by LotharBraunBrownBryant on Feb 12, 2021 20:31:00 GMT -5
Precedent can still be fucked up.
I'll let you look through Kramer and Hitchcock films about court cases and figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by TNF on Feb 13, 2021 3:21:09 GMT -5
The s**t going on behind-the-scenes tonight is potentially epic.
|
|
|
Post by TNF on Feb 13, 2021 11:32:47 GMT -5
Great stuff !!! Witnesses !!! Repubs testifying against Dumb Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Feb 13, 2021 11:51:12 GMT -5
Great stuff !!! Witnesses !!! Repubs testifying against Dumb Hitler. It’s all theater, though. Once McConnell declared he’s voting to acquit, the result is now known. Unless House managers can pull a magic witness out of their hat, which would need to have smoking gun evidence that Trump planned for a storming of the Capitol in coordination with others, with premeditation, this case is decided, unfortunately. Any witness who shows Trump didn’t protect them with national guard or didn’t protect Pence and even attacked him by Tweet after he was “taken out” (according to Tuberville), will also be irrelevant. The ONE and ONLY article is “Incitement to Insurrection”. Trump’s negligence in putting officials in harms way that day would be “reckless endangerment” and require a separate article, which the House failed to do. It’s over.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Feb 13, 2021 12:05:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TNF on Feb 13, 2021 12:27:59 GMT -5
I watched Maher last night. He did a sort of dance, where he covered, but didn't press. I am a HUGE fan of Schmidt, and had no idea he had converted to Judaism.
I was a Boy Scout as a kid, and it was a great experience. Hindsight indicates to me our Scoutmaster was almost certainly gay...not that that matters... but I never heard of any misbehavior. When he was replaced by a militaristic azzhole, everyone was unanimously sad.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Feb 13, 2021 12:47:08 GMT -5
I watched Maher last night. He did a sort of dance, where he covered, but didn't press. I am a HUGE fan of Schmidt, and had no idea he had converted to Judaism. Plan to watch the Maher episode today. Btw, I am NOT a Bill Maher fan anymore. He’s gotten intellectually lazy in his time since turning 65, buying into GOP tropes and attacking liberals and Dems almost as much as Jimmy Dore. He had a crackpot couple on a couple weeks ago that promoted a theory espoused by Steve Bannon about the coronavirus coming out of a Wuhan lab. In fact, that couple is associated with Bannon. The WHO study on the ground in Wuhan the past two weeks is pretty conclusive that this did not escape the lab, and has natural origins. In addition, Maher bashes China frequently as the far right (again led by Bannon) has been doing. In addition, he rails against colleges and “safe spaces”, “cancel culture”, etc. All are memes promoted by the conservative right. Maher, at most, is a centrist playing the role of a liberal. In fact, he’s gotten more conservative as he’s become a senior. Almost has a “get off my lawn” attitude. His first guest this season was Kellyanne Conway, and it was frankly a softball interview. It was a ratings grab. Color me unimpressed. As for Schmidt, he seems very passionate for democracy and against the dangers of growing American fascism. Me too. I have admired him for that, and for his eloquent commentaries on MSNBC. However, we really don’t know these “Never-Trumpers”, personally or professionally. His stories in above tweet he labeled “My Truth”. He didn’t say it is THE truth, or the full truth. I suspect he has troubles in front of him, and I hope he gets through it solely because I think his voice is strong and important. But not sure how trustworthy he is. Remember, prior to Lincoln Project, he sold himself to run Howard Shultz failed presidential effort, which went nowhere. At that time, he was railing against the progressive left. Labeled them socialists. He made a pretty penny (my guess is $1 mil or more ) from billionaire Shultz for that gig. Like his message now, but not sure how much we should trust the messenger anymore. He claims victimhood now in his child experience with a predator. This is convenient now for him to disclose, coming off the John Weaver scandal. He also now claims he’s had fits of anger and depression. That’s laudable that he shows contrition now and explains what he’s been going through. But is shows he’s someone who’s in a bit of trouble right now, sadly. 19thnews.org/2021/02/lincoln-project-toxic-workplace/
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Feb 13, 2021 13:07:45 GMT -5
Dems abandoned witnesses and is now in closing arguments. This is ending today.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Feb 13, 2021 15:52:04 GMT -5
Let’s call the 7 GOP senators who voted guilty, “The Friendship 7”!
Friends of democracy and rule of law.
|
|
|
Post by TNF on Feb 13, 2021 17:04:04 GMT -5
f***ing Mitch. Wants his cake and to eat it too. However, seems to support criminal charges being brought, which I am in favor of.
I support "Friendship 7"
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Feb 13, 2021 17:59:56 GMT -5
f***ing Mitch. Wants his cake and to eat it too. However, seems to support criminal charges being brought, which I am in favor of. I support "Friendship 7" Apparently they were as brave in their votes as the original Friendship 7 was in going to outer space. Or maybe the other 42 GOPers who voted to acquit are simply cowards!
|
|
|
Post by TNF on Feb 14, 2021 10:08:58 GMT -5
Many are just opportunists, but most are cowards.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 14, 2021 13:27:40 GMT -5
Even simple cases have to be executed carefully and correctly, with an eye toward how procedural mistakes can both impact conviction and precedent. There is no “case” with impeachment proceedings. You cannot have “procedural mistakes” because there is no mandated procedure other than what is decided on an ongoing basis by Congress. Similarly, there is no jurisprudence establishing the concept of “precedent” in impeachment cases. These concepts — procedure, precedent — are established in the legal system, but impeachment is a political tool, not a legal tool. Our legal system was modeled on English common law principles, and that is the origin of the concept of “precedent” which was recognized for hundreds of years based on the Latin concept of stare decisis, which means to stand by things decided. There is nothing in the Constitution, in federal statute, or in federal court cases establishing that “stare decisis” or “precedent” applies in impeachment proceedings. Impeachment was also an English concept, and had been adopted in various forms by colonial and state governments even before the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Court “procedures” have been enacted by statute and by the high courts which have authority over the lower courts in their system — the U.S. Supreme Court for the federal courts, and state supreme courts (which sometimes use other terms) in the state court system of each state. The U.S. Constitution has only the barest of bare bones reference to impeachment procedure (most notably the 2/3 vote requirement for Senate conviction), and we do not have federal statutes mandating procedure in impeachment cases. In Nixon v. US, the US Supreme Court held that the Senate has the unilateral jurisdiction to determine procedures in impeachment trials in the Senate. The Senate from time to time has established rules for impeachment trials, but the nature of Senate rules is they can be changed at any time by majority vote of the Senators present. The result is that with minimal exception the House and Senate have unfettered control over each impeachment case — subject to majority vote in each chamber — and are otherwise unconstrained by precedent, procedure, evidence law or rules, or due process (another concept taken from English law and applied in the US Constitution to matters in which the government threatens or seeks to take a citizen’s “life, liberty, or property”). End of lecture. I disagree with the idea that impeachment requires procedures to investigate, discover, and disclose to the other side every conceivable evidence detail. Courts have those types of procedures but court cases often last 2-5 years, when impeachment is intended to be a faster remedy that only removes a public officer from his/her office (and potentially disqualifies them from future offices), and doesn’t result in taking away anyone’s “life, liberty or property” (or redistributing property as in civil cases between private persons/entities). In any event, McConnell’s statement after the verdict yesterday was both stunning in some respects, and cravenly cynical, as he’s desperate to placate donors who were horrified by what they saw on January 6. The procedural aspect of his rationalization is rather stunning, since the Senate Majority leader has unilateral control over the Senate calendar, and thus has the power to see that any impeachment by the House is never tried in the Senate during the accused’s term barring a change in Senate control. In other words, McConnell concluded that Trump engaged in conduct which absolutely merited impeachment, conviction, and disqualification, but since the Senate was controlled by Republicans at the time, it is proper not to convict or disqualify. It’s basically an admission that as he sees it, a President should never be convicted in an impeachment trial — no matter the conduct, even treason, even selling the US to a foreign government — as long as the President’s party controls the Senate (let’s assume that in the case of the sale of the country, the President shares the proceeds with his party’s US Senators). It is difficult for me to accept that that is the intent of the impeachment clause of the Constitution, and it certainly conflicts with the reasoning (expressed in the Federalist Papers and perhaps elsewhere) behind giving the Senate jurisdiction over impeachment trials after there was consideration of other bodies such as the US Supreme Court. The politically stunning part is his condemnation of “election fraud” rhetoric as baseless, unpatriotic, and dangerous lies. It’s stunning because in my mind it is an indictment by McConnell — ostensibly the current head of the Republican Party — of every Republican, including the House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who voted not to certify the electoral college count in the House and/or in the Senate. I know that in reality McConnell has made the calculation that making peace with Republican donors is more important than ostensibly criticizing fellow Republicans for their unwillingness to accept the outcome of the election (it took McConnell himself nearly 6 weeks to state that Biden won the election). He has concluded that the money will last longer than people’s short memories and poor critical thinking skills.
|
|
|
Post by TNF on Feb 14, 2021 13:57:20 GMT -5
NO question, McConnell is an azzhole, but he's shrewd and has more functioning braincells than ALL Trump supporters combined. Although he's repulsive, it's too bad Democrats have nobody in his league politically. If we did, Republicans would be out of business permanently as of today.
|
|