IMPEACHMENT | The Sequel?
nohero said:
Whether the House should have voted on Articles of Impeachment is a nice question for a historical discussion about the Presidency of George W. Bush.
It's not relevant to the documented statements and actions of the current President, for which Articles of Impeachment are currently being considered.
It was raised in Nancy Pelosi's town hall on the current impeachment effort. Fully relevant.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
Whether the House should have voted on Articles of Impeachment is a nice question for a historical discussion about the Presidency of George W. Bush.
It's not relevant to the documented statements and actions of the current President, for which Articles of Impeachment are currently being considered.
It was raised in Nancy Pelosi's town hall on the current impeachment effort. Fully relevant.
No, it's not "fully relevant". Someone asked a question, which does not mean that it's "relevant to the documented statements and actions of the current President, for which Articles of Impeachment are currently being considered".
The transcript of that:
DEAN CHIEN, STUDENT, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: So, Speaker Pelosi, you resisted calls for the impeachment of President Bush in 2006, and President Trump, following the Mueller report earlier this year.
This time it's different. Why did you impose - why did you oppose impeachment in the past? And what is your obligation to protect our democracy from the actions of our President now?
PELOSI: Thank you. Thank you for bringing up the question about - because when I became Speaker the first time, there was overwhelming call for me to impeach President Bush, on the strength of the war in Iraq, which I vehemently opposed, and again not - again, I - I say "Again," I said - said at other places that I - that was my we - all has always (ph) Intelligence.
I was Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee even before I became part of the leadership of Gang of Four. So, I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. It just wasn't there.
They had to show us now - to show the Gang of Four all the Intelligence they had. The Intelligence did not show that that - that was the case. So, I knew it was a - a misrepresentation to the public. But having said that, it was a, in my view, not a ground for impeachment. That was - they won the election. They made a representation. And to this day, people think - people think that that it was the right thing to do.
nohero said:
jamie said:
I know Turley was mentioned in the Dore thread - thought it should be more productive here. This is what he said during the Clinton impeachment:
"impeachment serves a purpose beyond removal ... the House does not convict but merely accuses. Thus, the House plays an important role in deterring presidential misconduct."
"If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct."
I completely agree with 1998 Turley.
He was a truth upholder then,
He's hackier than that now.
I actually thought Turley was the first decent witness the Republicans produced. I think his argument was wrong, but it was an actual argument one could engage with, as opposed to bad-faith complaints about process or evidence-free conspiracy theories.
For those still struggling with what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors, I thought this piece in the Upshot (NYT section) was nice:
How the Constitution Defines Impeachable, Word by Word
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
nohero said:
"Nitwits"? That's Katie Halper, who with Matt Taibbi hosts one of the most pro-Bernie internet programs.
I was mostly referring to the commentariat braintrust on that thread.
Did any of them call the NY Times "evil"?
I didn't call the Times evil. And if you have some problems with my assertions regarding the Times, there's a whole thread for you tell me about them.
Rep. Collins asked Daniel Goldman whether Biden threatened to withhold the $1 billion unless Poroshenko fired Shokin. Goldman tried to explain that it was a policy decision but Collins wouldn't let him finish. Here's what's important, because some have tried to make Biden's threat to withhold the $1 billion and Trump's withholding the $400 million the same.
Goldman was correct- Biden's threat to withhold the $1 billion was a policy decision:
"Biden was carrying out a policy developed at the State Department and coordinated with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. The $1 billion in loan guarantees was essential leverage because the Ukrainian government needed the credit line to underwrite its budget. At stake was not just Shokin, but a broad package of reforms, including a shake-up of the cabinet, sought by Western powers."
It's important to note that the $1billion that has been mentioned so often does not refer to actual U.S. dollars given to Ukraine, but a loan guarantee that was to be given by the U.S. There was no violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 because the $1 billion hadn't been authorized by Congress.
The $400 million withheld by Trump had been authorized by Congress and was for actual U.S. dollars to be given to Ukraine, and by withholding it without approval of Congress, Congress set the policy by authorizing the $400 million. Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. I wish the Democrats would emphasize this more than they have. I
cramer said:
Rep. Collins asked Daniel Goldman whether Biden threatened to withhold the $1 billion unless Poroshenko fired Shokin. Goldman tried to explain that it was a policy decision but Collins wouldn't let him finish. Here's what's important, because some have tried to make Biden's threat to withhold the $1 billion and Trump's withholding the $400 million the same.
Listening to the back-and-forth, when Representative Collins wants to rush through his points before the witness can respond with the facts, he goes into this farm foreclosure auctioneer rapid-fire patter.
drummerboy said:
what is a point of order anyway?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_order
https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/archives/house_po.htm
I would guess that a Point of Order in a Committee is similar.
Citizenship comes at a high price....watching the hearings has me wondering what could have been provided to the American people with the millions of dollars squandered on this farce? No matter the final outcome, what is to be gained with Election Day less than a year away? VP Pence will keep the chair in the Oval Office warm, but there will be no work done in Washington for many more months.
There are 24 Democrats and 17 Republicans bloviating and embarrassing themselves in a public forum on view to the world. The spread assures how the votes will be cast, and the results.
mtierney said:
Citizenship comes at a high price....watching the hearings has me wondering what could have been provided to the American people with the millions of dollars squandered on this farce? No matter the final outcome, what is to be gained with Election Day less than a year away? VP Pence will keep the chair in the Oval Office warm, but there will be no work done in Washington for many more months.
There are 24 Democrats and 17 Republicans bloviating and embarrassing themselves in a public forum on view to the world. The spread assures how the votes will be cast, and the results.
The president you supported stole millions of dollars from the military to build a wall Congress explicitly refused to appropriate money for. I know it's a lost cause, but some self-awareness on your part would be a refreshing change.
ETA -- oops, I grossly understated this. That's billions, not millions.
I think this shows the overall GOP strategy in the hearing of (1) act like jerks and (2) be juvenile.
Daniel Goldman responds to the attacks by Doug Collins and a triggered Matt Gaetz has another outburst pic.twitter.com/VgFfKZSPAd
cramer said:
The $400 million withheld by Trump had been authorized by Congress and was for actual U.S. dollars to be given to Ukraine, and by withholding it without approval of Congress, Congress set the policy by authorizing the $400 million. Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. I wish the Democrats would emphasize this more than they have. I
I wasn't watching but I read a comment that said Ted Lieu raised the Impoundment Control Act. What Trump did was illegal - it should have been raised with Turley.
As Rep. Swalwell notes, nobody asks “what did Trump know and when did he know it?”
He knew everything, he directed everything, he was at the center of everything. pic.twitter.com/2c8SGrpdg7
— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) December 9, 2019 I wonder if Fiona Hill will welcome this great news.
And for that matter, how many of you welcome this news?
If you do, please "Like" this comment.
If fewer people end up dying, that'll be good news. I wonder, though, if Ukraine will have to concede more than they would have had the US fully supported them, rather than signaling that our support was conditional upon working for Trump's reelection campaign.
To add a bit to the previous comment -- a pause in fighting is always good news. Don't expect me to cheer for rewarding the violent invasion and annexation of one country by its neighbor, though.
Details on the agreement among Putin, Zelensky, Macron and Merkel.
It provides partial autonomy for eastern Ukraine. As it should.
paulsurovell said:
Details on the agreement among Putin, Zelensky, Macron and Merkel.
It provides partial autonomy for eastern Ukraine. As it should.
Why "as it should"? That sounds like Russia using force to affect the internal governance of Ukraine.
What the article actually says about that: "They express interest in agreeing on all the legal aspects of the special order of local self-government (special status) of occupied areas in Donetsk and Luhansk regions". (Emphasis added)
What Ukrainians think about something like that (from the same news outlet, "Unian.info"): "Only 14.6% of those polled in Ukraine support the idea of granting special status to the self-proclaimed republics – the Donetsk People's Republic' ('DPR') and the 'Luhansk People's Republic' ('LPR') – within the territory of Ukraine."
paulsurovell said:
I wonder if Fiona Hill will welcome this great news.
And for that matter, how many of you welcome this news?
If you do, please "Like" this comment.
Of course Fiona Hill would welcome news of a ceasefire in Ukraine. It's stupid to even ask that question. She's been working for peace there.
She also, no doubt, has a "trust but verify" attitude about any agreement, ceasefire or otherwise. Some of her comments in 2015 about that year's ceasefire: "The main ceasefire agreement, the second one in fact that’s been negotiated in Ukraine to try to stop further fighting between the Ukrainian military and rebels on the ground in the Donbass region, has clearly broken down. The efforts on the part of the Europeans, the French and the German leaders, have been very much focused on trying to at least get a lull on the ground so that they can regroup and try to get the Ukrainian government also focused on economic political reform to try to stabilize what is really a rather perilous situation in the country on the security, political, and economic front."
She is accurate and clear-eyed about dealing with Putin: "He’s very much the one in control. Part of the problem of course is that most of these conversations tend to take place through interpreters and Putin is one of these people who really deliberately chooses his language very carefully to give him wiggle room in the future out of any commitments that he might have made. He also tends to view all of these as sparring bouts. Putin is quite the expert on Judo and I think every single part of the diplomatic and military game he judges in terms of individual bouts and he’s always trying to win and outmaneuver everybody. This is really the case where he played the role of peacemaker apparently in helping ostensibly create the ceasefire and then of course he backed away from any kind of responsibility, saying that the responsibility for enforcing this was entirely on the part of the Ukrainian government, “Russia has nothing to do with any of this at all,” no pressure whatsoever to put on the rebels in the Donbass and we’ve seen the rebels in the Donbass push forward very aggressively, which really helps them consolidate their gains on the ground. So, he’s clearly giving them plenty of cover to basically operate from a position of strength and to be able to roll back the Ukrainian military. So, it’s a very difficult situation and it’s highly unlikely that the French and German leaders will be able to get anything concrete out of this."
Anyway, back on topic. Today is "no further questions" day.
The famous question from the Watergate hearings was, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" We don't have to ask that of President Trump. He knew everything, and from the beginning. How? President Trump was the central player in this corrupt scheme. pic.twitter.com/FQHiapeCrK
Here are the Articles of Impeachment
Two articles -- Abuse of Power, and Obstruction of Congress
PVW said:
Here are the Articles of Impeachment
Two articles -- Abuse of Power, and Obstruction of Congress
jamie said:
Good news - any ETA on when Crimea will be returned to Ukraine?
When Ukraine is returned to Russia.
mtierney said:
Citizenship comes at a high price....watching the hearings has me wondering what could have been provided to the American people with the millions of dollars squandered on this farce? No matter the final outcome, what is to be gained with Election Day less than a year away? VP Pence will keep the chair in the Oval Office warm, but there will be no work done in Washington for many more months.
Work is being done. I believe that the work being done by the Trump administration is detrimental to the Country.
Many things could be done with the money being spent on Impeachment but, first of all, Trump's actions caused the spending of that money. Secondly we would still have major disagreements as to how that money should be spent. For instance trump keeps saying that he wants to build a Wall at the Southern border. He said Mexico would pay for it but now he wants the American Taxpayer to pay for it. He and most of his supporters thing that that is a good way to spend money. I believe that most see it as a waste of money.
We can continue to agree to disagree but I wish that once in a while you would explain your thinking and how you arrived at one opinion or another instead of just stating an opinion and changing the subject when someone wants to engage in a discussion.
mtierney said:
Citizenship comes at a high price....watching the hearings has me wondering what could have been provided to the American people with the millions of dollars squandered on this farce?
hmm, what could we get for the millions of dollars we pay for Trump to play golf?
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Did any of them call the NY Times "evil"?