Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 3646 of 4573 (867964)
12-05-2019 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 3639 by Percy
12-04-2019 7:35 PM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
Percy writes:
I agree that the evidence they already have is sufficient for voting articles of impeachment, but the more narrow and shallow the less impact. If I didn't already say it in this thread, I would like to see every Senator go on the record for every impeachable act, not just the Ukraine. House Democrats risk going down in history as giving greater weight to their political fortunes than to their constitutional responsibilities.
I don't think they risk that at all. This is a very clear abuse of power on the part of Trump, and it is important to point out that it is an ongoing abuse of power. If this was something like a one-off crime (e.g. theft at a political party's offices) it might be different, but this is an ongoing campaign to solicit political favors from foreign countries, as shown by Trump's solicitation of help from China. There is an threat to the upcoming election, so it makes little sense to allow obstruction to push the investigations past the 2020 election.
When Trump is impeached and it moves to a trial in the Senate I think there will be much more power behind subpoenas. I don't see any legal path for anyone to refuse testifying, so I think it is a good idea to push into the trial phase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3639 by Percy, posted 12-04-2019 7:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3647 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2019 12:52 PM Taq has replied
 Message 3650 by Percy, posted 12-05-2019 8:46 PM Taq has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3647 of 4573 (867970)
12-05-2019 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3646 by Taq
12-05-2019 11:22 AM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
When Trump is impeached and it moves to a trial in the Senate I think there will be much more power behind subpoenas. I don't see any legal path for anyone to refuse testifying, so I think it is a good idea to push into the trial phase.
But if the subpoenas are issued now they have more time to work through the courts. Lump them all together into one court case of obstruction. Put them out there now, so that obstruction of justice can be documented when they refuse and it goes to court/s.
I would list
  1. Mike Pompeo
  2. Mick Mulvaney
  3. Rudy Giulliano
  4. Lev Parnas
  5. Devin Nunes
  6. Fareed Zakaria (CNN host)
  7. Ukrainian aides to Zelenski (per Fareed)
For starters ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3646 by Taq, posted 12-05-2019 11:22 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3648 by Taq, posted 12-05-2019 1:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 3648 of 4573 (867972)
12-05-2019 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3647 by RAZD
12-05-2019 12:52 PM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
RAZD writes:
But if the subpoenas are issued now they have more time to work through the courts.
I think it is rather cynical to even ask the courts to rule on whether someone has to obey a subpoena. I don't see how someone can question such a basic and fundamental constitutional power. If a citizen stated, "You know, I don't think I have to obey a subpoena," what would happen to them? I would think most courts would laugh at them, and hold them in contempt. People have been jailed for months for simply refusing to testify. How is this not settled law?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3647 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2019 12:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3649 by Chiroptera, posted 12-05-2019 1:16 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 3661 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2019 11:48 AM Taq has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3649 of 4573 (867973)
12-05-2019 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3648 by Taq
12-05-2019 1:06 PM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
How is this not settled law?
Because some peoples' views on "executive privilege" *cough* Kavanaugh *cough* seem to change depending on who's the President.

For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Müller

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3648 by Taq, posted 12-05-2019 1:06 PM Taq has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 3650 of 4573 (867995)
12-05-2019 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3646 by Taq
12-05-2019 11:22 AM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
Taq writes:
If this was something like a one-off crime (e.g. theft at a political party's offices) it might be different, but this is an ongoing campaign to solicit political favors from foreign countries, as shown by Trump's solicitation of help from China.
Trump has committed multiple impeachable offenses, but if only Ukraine articles of impeachment reach the Senate then for that trial its a one-off crime. The first successful removal of a president will require a broad range of charges that are deep in evidence.
There is an threat to the upcoming election, so it makes little sense to allow obstruction to push the investigations past the 2020 election.
Wouldn't wending through the legal challenges only push the trial out to next spring or summer?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3646 by Taq, posted 12-05-2019 11:22 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3651 by jar, posted 12-05-2019 9:01 PM Percy has replied
 Message 3655 by Taq, posted 12-06-2019 12:40 PM Percy has replied
 Message 3663 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2019 11:55 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3651 of 4573 (867996)
12-05-2019 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3650 by Percy
12-05-2019 8:46 PM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
Percy writes:
Wouldn't wending through the legal challenges only push the trial out to next spring or summer?
How long has it taken to get access to il Donald's financials?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3650 by Percy, posted 12-05-2019 8:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3652 by Percy, posted 12-06-2019 7:56 AM jar has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3652 of 4573 (868004)
12-06-2019 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 3651 by jar
12-05-2019 9:01 PM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
jar writes:
How long has it taken to get access to il Donald's financials?
I think you're alluding to Southern District of New York lawsuit. Expedited legal proceedings are possible and probably likely for presidential impeachment lawsuits where the principles are the legislative and executive branches.
An example of the courts moving quickly are the rulings issued by the Florida and US Supreme Courts after the 2000 election.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3651 by jar, posted 12-05-2019 9:01 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3654 by jar, posted 12-06-2019 8:17 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 3653 of 4573 (868005)
12-06-2019 8:05 AM


This editorial in the NYT, Opinion | Please, Democrats, Don’t Make the Impeachment Articles Too Narrow - The New York Times, precisely captures what the Democrats are doing wrong concerning impeachment. The impeachment needs to be broad in terms of charges brought, and the evidence needs to be deep:
quote:
Turley...argued that the impeachment investigation was too truncated, and that more effort should have been made to coerce testimony from key figures like Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, and John Bolton, his former national security adviser.
...
Democrats had little to lose by taking their time excavating the full record of Trump’s wrongdoing before turning impeachment over for trial to the Republican-controlled Senate.
...
A central point of contention is whether the articles will include Trump’s obstruction of justice in Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russia’s attack on the 2016 election. It is vitally important that they do.
...
But to make clear the full gravity of what Trump tried to do in Ukraine, Democrats need to demonstrate that it was part of a pattern. [emphasis mine]
...
Impeachment isn’t just about holding Trump accountable for a discrete scandal. It’s about trying, against the odds, to stop an ongoing campaign to subvert the 2020 election, one that is building on tactics from 2016.
...
Given America’s political polarization, public opinion on impeachment is unlikely to move much no matter what Democrats do. Nevertheless, they’d be mad to let centrist trepidation stop them from making the strongest possible case for Trump’s removal. Doing that requires a willingness to put Trump’s Ukraine corruption in context.
Democrats have only one chance to impeach the most corrupt and disloyal president in American history. They say they’re rushing through it because it can’t wait. They have a duty to explain not just why Trump betrayed America when he sought to extort election help from Ukraine, but how we know that he’ll nearly certainly try the same thing again.
--Percy

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3654 of 4573 (868006)
12-06-2019 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 3652 by Percy
12-06-2019 7:56 AM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
Actually I was thinking of the House request for Trump financials.
Edited by jar, : think ---> thinking

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3652 by Percy, posted 12-06-2019 7:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 3655 of 4573 (868022)
12-06-2019 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3650 by Percy
12-05-2019 8:46 PM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
Percy writes:
Wouldn't wending through the legal challenges only push the trial out to next spring or summer?
Possibly longer since they will start in the lowest court possible and push through each level of appeals until reaching SCOTUS. Even then, Republicans will claim that it would be unfair to remove a nominated candidate from an election, so I think it is best to get this all done before primaries are in full swing. If you are going to convince Republicans to vote for removal then you need to give them time to nominate a new candidate.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3650 by Percy, posted 12-05-2019 8:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3656 by Percy, posted 12-06-2019 4:01 PM Taq has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3656 of 4573 (868055)
12-06-2019 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3655 by Taq
12-06-2019 12:40 PM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
Taq writes:
Percy writes:
Wouldn't wending through the legal challenges only push the trial out to next spring or summer?
Possibly longer since they will start in the lowest court possible...
There are only three levels of federal courts: District, Circuit and Supreme. Lawsuits would start at the District court level, and, given the critical nature, it's reasonable to expect they'd be fast-tracked.
...and push through each level of appeals until reaching SCOTUS.
There aren't a lot of level of appeals. A loser in District Court can appeal to the Circuit Court, and a loser in Circuit Court can appeal to the Supreme Court. There can be more appeals when application is made to an individual judge (appeal to a 3-judge panel or to the full court) or a 3-judge panel (appeal to the full court), but given the urgency I think each lawsuit would be brought to the full court.
Even then, Republicans will claim that it would be unfair to remove a nominated candidate from an election, so I think it is best to get this all done before primaries are in full swing.
Yes, that would be best, but still not of much value without a broad array of charges and a great depth of evidence.
If you are going to convince Republicans to vote for removal...
I can't see any scenario where enough Republicans would vote to convict on any article. The best that can be hoped for is that Republicans are forced to vote on articles that are broad and deep rather than narrow and flimsy, and that are supported by a majority of Americans.
...then you need to give them time to nominate a new candidate.
Again, I can't see any scenario where the Republicans would need to nominate a new candidate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...06-df3c54b3253e_story.html, an op-ed piece in today's post by David Von Drehle, makes several points relevant to my deepest concerns:
quote:
Striking at a president through impeachment is a serious business and should be done only with a reasonable prospect of success. It requires more more evidence, more persuasion, more clarity, more discipline than other less fraught, less perilous, projects.
What we have instead is an undisciplined House majority giving up on persuading the undecided public.
...
Rather than keep grinding away, using gumshoes and courts to expose more conclusive evidence, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) has hung out the closed sign and dropped the blinds on his impeachment inquiry. His staff spat out a report that could have been titled, Preaching to the Choir.
...
Speaking of a body of evidence that has convinced zero Republican senators and less than half of the American people, professor Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina declared: If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, nothing is impeachable.
Nothing?
This offense that House Democrats can’t be bothered to fully investigate, can’t be troubled to thoroughly document, can’t discipline themselves to coil into a mortal blow this is the very worst thing any president could conceivably do? No crime will ever be impeachable unless this halfhearted mess is seen through to defeat?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3655 by Taq, posted 12-06-2019 12:40 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3657 by Taq, posted 12-06-2019 4:21 PM Percy has replied
 Message 3660 by JonF, posted 12-07-2019 10:19 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 3657 of 4573 (868065)
12-06-2019 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3656 by Percy
12-06-2019 4:01 PM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
Percy writes:
I can't see any scenario where enough Republicans would vote to convict on any article. The best that can be hoped for is that Republicans are forced to vote on articles that are broad and deep rather than narrow and flimsy, and that are supported by a majority of Americans.
The current articles are already supported by a majority of Americans, so that isn't the problem. It is a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless. If more than half the country thinks you should be removed from office, that doesn't bode well for the next election.
The only scenario where Republicans would vote Trump out would be if they saw no way of him winning. This scenario would be helped by a trial that finishes before March so they could run primaries and groom a new candidate. Just from a political standpoint, Republicans would stick with a terrible candidate Trump over a new candidate that starts out way behind the Democratic candidate. Imagine having to find a new candidate a month before the Republican convention.
However, as Faith has shown us, Trump supporters aren't swayed by facts, law, or morality. Trump losing his base is probably not going to happen, so all we are left with is 20 Republicans in the Senate finding a moral backbone, and the chances of that are slim to none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3656 by Percy, posted 12-06-2019 4:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3658 by jar, posted 12-06-2019 5:26 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 3659 by Percy, posted 12-06-2019 5:27 PM Taq has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3658 of 4573 (868072)
12-06-2019 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3657 by Taq
12-06-2019 4:21 PM


and then there were none.
Taq writes:
Trump losing his base is probably not going to happen, so all we are left with is 20 Republicans in the Senate finding a moral backbone, and the chances of that are slim to none.
The danger of that is if Articles of Impeachment are sent to the Senate and then the Senate decides that nothing rises to the level of Impeachment that il Donaldo will understand that to mean he really can do anything he wants with impunity.
We live in Interesting Times.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3657 by Taq, posted 12-06-2019 4:21 PM Taq has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3659 of 4573 (868073)
12-06-2019 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3657 by Taq
12-06-2019 4:21 PM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
Taq writes:
Percy writes:
I can't see any scenario where enough Republicans would vote to convict on any article. The best that can be hoped for is that Republicans are forced to vote on articles that are broad and deep rather than narrow and flimsy, and that are supported by a majority of Americans.
The current articles are already supported by a majority of Americans, so that isn't the problem. It is a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless. If more than half the country thinks you should be removed from office, that doesn't bode well for the next election.
Pick your favorite poll, but according to Do Americans Support Impeaching Trump? | FiveThirtyEight it's currently 47.8%. It's more than are against impeachment - maybe that's what you meant, that more people favor impeachment than oppose it?
The only scenario where Republicans would vote Trump out would be if they saw no way of him winning.
I don't think so. I think any Republican Senator would only vote to convict if they felt it wouldn't hurt their own political fortunes.
However, as Faith has shown us, Trump supporters aren't swayed by facts, law, or morality.
I don't think human beings in general are swayed by facts or logic. Trump supporters are just an especially dramatic example of this.
Trump losing his base is probably not going to happen, so all we are left with is 20 Republicans in the Senate finding a moral backbone, and the chances of that are slim to none.
In all fairness, Democrats aren't much different. Two House Democrats have already come out against impeachment, and they're both from districts that Trump won in 2016.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3657 by Taq, posted 12-06-2019 4:21 PM Taq has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3660 of 4573 (868100)
12-07-2019 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 3656 by Percy
12-06-2019 4:01 PM


Re: Democrats Should Accept Advice of Republican Witness
There's effectively four levels of courts since appeals courts start with a three judge panel but the loser can ask for en banc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3656 by Percy, posted 12-06-2019 4:01 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024