Octopus Overlords

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:16 am All you will show is that the Democrats in the House won't, and we already know that.

Do we? Other than a bunch of bloviating about the president, we have nothing. And even that rings hollow since the Republicans said the same things about him leading up to 2016

All I see them doing is punting to the electorate for 2020.

"No, we couldn't possibly impeach because stupid Joe public is already on the fence and this may push them over. All we can do is pray they get it right in 2020..."

To me, it's comparable to the difference between a blatant criminal being forced to face trial, or a criminal being left alone because trying him would be unpopular. Either one is an injustice. One, though, sets a precedent that all a criminal has to do is make his conviction unpopular and justice won't even make the attempt.

Short of a coup, Trump is out in 2024. Whether he's been out for a few days, or a few years, he's got a ticking clock. 2020 is the short term. 2032 (or 2040, or whatever) will come around. I'd rather have eight more years of Trump in the rear view mirror than a criminal President that we didn't bother to respond to at all. Better that he gamed a legitimate system than proved that the system itself is illegitimate.

And all of this assumes that our data set of one point (Clinton) is meaningful and relevant. We don't know what the result of a Trump impeachment investigation would bring. It could shore him up, or it could undermine him. It's a risk. Ignoring him is a guarantee.

Breaking and meaningless. But it keeps lot of pundits employed.

Is there a word that describes when someone directs another person to not comply with a lawful request? There has to be a single word lawyers use to label that, right? I'm sure it'll come to me.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:49 am Breaking and meaningless. But it keeps lot of pundits employed.

Well....it's not really meaningless when the executive branch orders people not to comply with binding subpoenas. Also presumably greatly increases the chances that either or both decide not to comply with the subpoena (forcing a legal battle over that).

I expect at some point over the next few months we'll be at the stage where a court has ordered final compliance with a subpoena, at which point the person(s) involved will face the choice of complying or going to jail for contempt. I think the odds that at least one person involved chooses contempt are decent. At that point either we'll have access to what's likely to be super incriminating documents (if they comply) or we'll have a genuine (and relatively easy to understand) crisis involving one branch of government defying two others (and which is more likely to be covered by the media as a presidential crisis, as opposed to as a political event).

Either way, that seems like a fairly ideal time to impeach.

As best I can tell, the white house may be asserting executive privilege, however, it sounds like some of the documents requested are not covered as they were from before the Inauguration.

Just to point out that the fast and furious investigation resulted in Obama's administration refusing to turn over documentation and only after 2 years and court orders (after the legal supoenas) did they finally comply.

Solyndra was another congressional request that was contested by Obama's administration until ultimately being ordered to turn over documents by a federal judge.

So this is not unique to drumpf's administration.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:22 am Just to point out that the fast and furious investigation resulted in Obama's administration refusing to turn over documentation and only after 2 years and court orders (after the legal supoenas) did they finally comply.

Solyndra was another congressional request that was contested by Obama's administration until ultimately being ordered to turn over documents by a federal judge.

So this is not unique to drumpf's administration.

Yeah, so we're not really in a crisis yet. But we probably will be soon.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:25 am Yeah, so we're not really in a crisis yet. But we probably will be soon.

Took 2 years to get the Obama administration to actually comply. drumpf might not (hopefully) have that long.

hepcat wrote:The simple fact is that right now polls show that a majority of Americans are against an impeachment.

Of course they do. It's a generic poll question and it's meaningless. Support for impeachment went UP after Clinton's impeachment proceedings started.

We all know the American public doesn't support something until it's on the news 24/7, then they suddenly do.

You guys are certainly making sure the "Teflon Don" reputation holds true.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:04 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:49 am Breaking and meaningless. But it keeps lot of pundits employed.

Well....it's not really meaningless when the executive branch orders people not to comply with binding subpoenas. Also presumably greatly increases the chances that either or both decide not to comply with the subpoena (forcing a legal battle over that).

I expect at some point over the next few months we'll be at the stage where a court has ordered final compliance with a subpoena, at which point the person(s) involved will face the choice of complying or going to jail for contempt. I think the odds that at least one person involved chooses contempt are decent. At that point either we'll have access to what's likely to be super incriminating documents (if they comply) or we'll have a genuine (and relatively easy to understand) crisis involving one branch of government defying two others (and which is more likely to be covered by the media as a presidential crisis, as opposed to as a political event).

Either way, that seems like a fairly ideal time to impeach.

But they have directed everyone not to comply. These are not the first, why should we expect them to be different. Certainly they won't be the first changed with contempt.

"Breaking! Same old shit!"

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:33 am You guys are certainly making sure the "Teflon Don" reputation holds true.

One of the major dangers that was identified when he was elected was that norms and values would be irrevocably altered, and we're seeing evidence of that here. That there are Dem supporters that want to look the other way and vote Democrat in 2020 and hope for the best just like they do every time for every election shows just how far the lines for norms and values have moved.

There isn't a previous president who wouldn't have had huge consequences, either from the public or their own political party if they had behaved as this guy is behaving. But, as Smoove likes to point out, this is a president who is on record as paying off a porn star to keep quiet about plowing her while his wife was pregnant and the public just shrugs. Hell, it's not even the most egregious thing he's done on a personal level, let alone as president impacting the fate of the nation.

You think drumpf is bad? The next drumpf will be worse, except he won't be a moron. His self enriching and personal whims will be far better hidden and covered by "sound policy". Hell, we might see it in 2020 from a Dem, because who cares, there's always next election to fix the problem.

So yeah, norms and values have been altered just as they were predicted to be, and this is what you're left with. Ignoring and hoping.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:33 am You guys are certainly making sure the "Teflon Don" reputation holds true.

And you guys are certainly making sure that the "hysterical Trump hater" label that Trump employs to trivialize any action against him holds true.

Some of us would rather wait and hold impeachment proceedings only after more evidence is uncovered and perhaps pulls more towards the light, or just wait and do something that actually has meaning beyond a slap on the wrist.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:19 pmHell, we might see it in 2020 from a Dem, because who cares, there's always next election to fix the problem.

No we won't because the broken Senate will not protect a Dem. If we get one from them they get until the midterms when the Reps get back the house and they get impeached and convicted.

Remus West wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:25 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:19 pmHell, we might see it in 2020 from a Dem, because who cares, there's always next election to fix the problem.

No we won't because the broken Senate will not protect a Dem. If we get one from them they get until the midterms when the Reps get back the house and they get impeached and convicted.

Sure, unless they are more intelligent than drumpf (hard to imagine), in which case it becomes a lot harder, and with no public support (if drumpf is any indication), impeachment is a non-starter anyway.

hepcat wrote:Some of us would rather wait and hold impeachment proceedings only after more evidence is uncovered

I'm not holding my breath waiting for more evidence to be uncovered from a White House who refuses to cooperate in any way, shape, or form. Impeachment proceedings are a step in getting that evidence quickly.

And you don't think Trump blatantly defying those orders wouldn't fall under the heading of "more evidence"?

Patience is all some of us are asking for. Slow and steady wins the race sometimes.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:31 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:25 am Yeah, so we're not really in a crisis yet. But we probably will be soon.

Took 2 years to get the Obama administration to actually comply. drumpf might not (hopefully) have that long.

We'll see. There's already a district court decision (against Trump) on a similar subpoena, which is already scheduled on an expedited basis with the relevant court of appeals. Based on that schedule we should have a final court of appeals decision within a couple months. Unless the SCOTUS takes the case (unlikely, but not impossible) we should have a final court of appeals decision by the fall.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:32 pm

hepcat wrote:Some of us would rather wait and hold impeachment proceedings only after more evidence is uncovered

I'm not holding my breath waiting for more evidence to be uncovered from a White House who refuses to cooperate in any way, shape, or form. Impeachment proceedings are a step in getting that evidence quickly.

When the people involved are facing jail time, I think it's fairly likely that at least one of them decides to cooperate. So we get either additional evidence or an outright crisis.

Trump would pardon them for holding out. There's a ticking time bomb for a Constitutional crisis and impeachment. The election may come first.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:28 pm

Remus West wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:25 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:19 pmHell, we might see it in 2020 from a Dem, because who cares, there's always next election to fix the problem.

No we won't because the broken Senate will not protect a Dem. If we get one from them they get until the midterms when the Reps get back the house and they get impeached and convicted.

Sure, unless they are more intelligent than drumpf (hard to imagine), in which case it becomes a lot harder, and with no public support (if drumpf is any indication), impeachment is a non-starter anyway.

Do you really find it hard to imagine a Rep house and Senate removing a Dem POTUS on any chumped up charge they can think of with the way things currently stand? Hell, if Obama had faced the same open divide in the nation that tan suit may have been his undoing.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:28 pm Trump would pardon them for holding out. There's a ticking time bomb for a Constitutional crisis and impeachment. The election may come first.

I think there's a potentially interesting question about whether the President *can* pardon someone for contempt of a court order. Either way, if Trump did that, that would be the best impeachment scenario that you could hope for. The media coverage around that would be spectacular.

Remus West wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:29 pm Do you really find it hard to imagine a Rep house and Senate removing a Dem POTUS on any chumped up charge they can think of

You didn't wanna write "trumped" did you?

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:22 am Just to point out that the fast and furious investigation resulted in Obama's administration refusing to turn over documentation and only after 2 years and court orders (after the legal supoenas) did they finally comply.

Solyndra was another congressional request that was contested by Obama's administration until ultimately being ordered to turn over documents by a federal judge.

So this is not unique to drumpf's administration.

Also, a Court said that some of the documents requested (demanded) were, in fact, covered by exec priv. Essentially, the ones they didn't release in the first place.

This one's new.

I've seen recommendations of impeachment proceedings against Barr before, which may make some sense. Mnuchin's new, though I can see the logic.

Grifman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:17 am The simple fact is that currently the majority of Americans are opposed to impeachment. You can’t even consider it until you have a majority. To undertake impeachment without a majority of Americans supporting it is political foolishness.

If Nixon was still alive he would totally support this position. Another poll today has impeachment and removal at around 40%. However, the bottom line is hoping for 50% as a bar to have an impeachment inquiry sets too high a level of public support for *anything* nowadays much less anything that tops at 60% support. To put it in other terms, 2/3s of persuadable persons want impeachment and removal right now ((100% - 40% deplorables) / 40% to impeach and remove)).

The only reason that impeachment isn't happening is Democratic leadership. They are afraid of it. Why? IMO - they dont have the guts. I know who would do it though - there is zero chance the Republicans wouldn't have seized on this opportunity.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:49 pm Also, a Court said that some of the documents requested (demanded) were, in fact, covered by exec priv. Essentially, the ones they didn't release in the first place.

I don't understand this. They refused to release documents. They had to be ordered to release documents by a federal judge. They then released documents. That some were in fact covered by executive privilege (and thus not ordered released) is irrelevant since we're discussing the administration's lack of compliance until ordered to do so by a judge. If some of the documents were covered by executive privilege, some were not.

It's possible some of the documentation that the drumpf administration is refusing to release is also covered by executive privilege. We'll probably need a federal judge to find out, just as we did with Obama's administration.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:22 pm And you guys are certainly making sure that the "hysterical Trump hater" label that Trump employs to trivialize any action against him holds true.

And sometimes godwin's law doesn't apply when calling someone a nazi. So what? The reason that there is even label for "hysterical drumpf hater" is precisely this. If you throw enough shade at anyone who criticizes drumpf, then literally *any* criticism, valid or not, becomes "hysterical drumpf hater".

The point being, if you throw enough shade ahead of time, you don't have to work as hard later. What's weak is that you're using their argument FOR THEM and calling it valid.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:22 pm Some of us would rather wait and hold impeachment proceedings only after more evidence is uncovered and perhaps pulls more towards the light, or just wait and do something that actually has meaning beyond a slap on the wrist.

You have been arguing "no impeachment" because of how it will affect the 2020 elections. If this is your new stance then fine. How long do you want to wait?

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:34 am

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:16 amWithout a conviction by the Senate, impeachment is practically worthless.

Here's where we disagree. The GOP has managed to maintain a two year run without being put on the official record regarding anything Trump has said or done. It's long overdue - we need to know exactly where they all stand - all the elected officials running our government. Having Mitch McConnell run interference so they can coast through midterms and reelection is unacceptable.

That's being naive. What does "putting them on the record" really do? We know how they feel about Trump - behind his back they despise him and think he's nuts but in public they continue to back him. What are you going to get exactly by putting them on the record? So they take a public stand supporting an idiot of a president - so what? Is that going to change any votes? Ninety percent of Republicans support Trump, probably a similar or higher number of Democrats hate him. As for Independents, what will this do exactly? Impeachment, unsuccessful as it will be, will accomplish absolutely nothing - it's the 2020 election that matters.

Remus West wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:29 pm Do you really find it hard to imagine a Rep house and Senate removing a Dem POTUS on any chumped up charge they can think of with the way things currently stand? Hell, if Obama had faced the same open divide in the nation that tan suit may have been his undoing.

Haha, what? Of fucking course we're talking about when the house, senate and presidency are all shared by 1 party. We already say Benghazi used to pillory the Obama administration and more importantly, Clinton's shot at the presidency.

Neither party accepts acceptable behaviour from the other party's president. That's not what I was talking about.

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:38 pm That's being naive. What does "putting them on the record" really do?

It uh...puts them on the record. So now and forever they're officially tied to the Trump Administration and the absurdity of his reign. Trump enacts tariffs that punish farmers? Let's get a roll call on the people that agree. Trump wants to build a wall? What do we all think. Trump wants to cut out funding that goes to hiring firefighters and preventative forest maintenance services in CA (go ahead, look it up, just happened) - let's take a vote and see what we think about his position.

They are doing everything they can to benefit from sitting silently in the corner while Trump maintains visibility, front and center. They are complicit and they deserve to officially be tied to his insanity if for no other reason than to make sure there's an accounting. When it comes time to vote, where they stood and what they did can be hit with the spotlight. In the same way they paint Democrats as anti-gun, anti-life maniacs, it's time to make sure those that stand with Trump get the full credit they deserve.

Or they could start standing up to him. Either or.

Also F Mitch McConnell.

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:38 pm That's being naive. What does "putting them on the record" really do?

"My opponent actually voted to acquit Trump despite -overwhelming- evidence of his crimes" is much stronger than "My opponent likes Trump."

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:48 pm And you don't think Trump blatantly defying those orders wouldn't fall under the heading of "more evidence"?

Patience is all some of us are asking for. Slow and steady wins the race sometimes.

Sure. And soon enough it will be...it is too close to the election to impeach.

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:42 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:48 pm And you don't think Trump blatantly defying those orders wouldn't fall under the heading of "more evidence"?

Patience is all some of us are asking for. Slow and steady wins the race sometimes.

Sure. And soon enough it will be...it is too close to the election to impeach.

I'm kind of wondering if Pelosi's strategy is to slow-roll the process until impeachment hearings dominate the campaign season, setting the stage for November and denying the senate a chance to acquit until after the election.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:14 pm

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:38 pm That's being naive. What does "putting them on the record" really do?

It uh...puts them on the record. So now and forever they're officially tied to the Trump Administration and the absurdity of his reign. Trump enacts tariffs that punish farmers? Let's get a roll call on the people that agree. Trump wants to build a wall? What do we all think. Trump wants to cut out funding that goes to hiring firefighters and preventative forest maintenance services in CA (go ahead, look it up, just happened) - let's take a vote and see what we think about his position.

Uh, this is all irrelevant as none of these have anything to do with impeachment, so impeachment hearings will not put them on the record for any of these items.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:06 pm

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:38 pm That's being naive. What does "putting them on the record" really do?

"My opponent actually voted to acquit Trump despite -overwhelming- evidence of his crimes" is much stronger than "My opponent likes Trump."

Again, who are you going to convince? Republicans support him with 90% favorability. Democrats hate just as much. You've yet to explain how exactly this will move the needle in any significant way. You need to show that impeachment will move the needle for any significant or important group of voters. So far no one has done that.

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:22 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:06 pm

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:38 pm That's being naive. What does "putting them on the record" really do?

"My opponent actually voted to acquit Trump despite -overwhelming- evidence of his crimes" is much stronger than "My opponent likes Trump."

Again, who are you going to convince? Republicans support him with 90% favorability. Democrats hate just as much. You've yet to explain how exactly this will move the needle in any significant way. You need to show that impeachment will move the needle for any significant or important group of voters. So far no one has done that.

Are there only two kinds of voter?

The independents are everything, and most of them are low-information enough that a sustained impeachment inquiry could seriously educate them. Most Americans know very little of the facts discussed by politically engaged types.

Also, I support the tools of justice being employed for the sake of justice.