Can't tell if serious.
Also, what is the Mazar's case? I feel like I missed something here.
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
Can't tell if serious.
There is the question of at what point does the House start arresting people.
Yeah, that's why I'm inclined to think that they'll start arresting people at some point. But this tedious dragging is still probably necessary, because arresting people unilaterally (which hasn't been done in > 50 years IIRC) is a *huge* bombshell, so they need to build up a documented series of noncompliance in order to justify it (both politically and legally).Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:42 am They just keep pushing the line in the sand because for 2+ years (longer if you count Mitch McConnell), following procedure, protocol (and now laws) doesn't matter. Until someone is held accountable it'll continue. And why not? They get to do what they want and we all march on.
The main issue with impeachment is that it's virtually guaranteed to fail, at least in removing Trump. And given that, there's a real question about what Democrats / the nation would really gain at the end of the day by going through the impeachment process.Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:13 pm See, I think the opposite. I've been repeatedly told that moving towards impeachment (Trump) would be damaging to the fabric of the nation and could potentially harm the democratic process come 2020. I have to believe arresting government officials (appointees, designated agents of, etc...) would have similar (or worse) impacts, no? It feels like the Republicans are saying behind closed doors, "What are they going to do, start arresting people?" and then laughing, knowing full well that nothing is going to happen.
I'm left with the distinct impression that the average American doesn't care about process or the rules. But if one side is having the other side arrested? Oh boy, that's ridiculous! We can't have that, this is an outrage!
I'm just going to throw this out there - sending a clear message that no, we won't accept criminal behavior from our President? I am ok with gaining that. Or maybe putting elected officials on the record for supporting a President that is engaging in criminal behavior? That would be good too. I'm also of the mind that maybe an administration that's fixated on what it means to be impeached won't have the ability to engage in war overseas or continue to upper-deck our economy by way of tariffs.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:27 pm The main issue with impeachment is that it's virtually guaranteed to fail, at least in removing Trump. And given that, there's a real question about what Democrats / the nation would really gain at the end of the day by going through the impeachment process.
I'm all for keeping the pressure on. I just can't see how this ends other than Pelosi and other leaders saying, "Well, we tried everything we could think of and they just wouldn't do what we asked - we're out of options. So get out and vote!"Will Pelosi and democratic leadership ultimately have the stones to do it? I'm not certain, although I think if the Trump administration keeps up their complete stonewalling, I think it's more likely than not.
But does impeachment followed by (I expect) swift acquittal show that we're not accepting criminal behavior from our President?Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:35 pmI'm just going to throw this out there - sending a clear message that no, we won't accept criminal behavior from our President? I am ok with gaining that. Or maybe putting elected officials on the record for supporting a President that is engaging in criminal behavior? That would be good too. I'm also of the mind that maybe an administration that's fixated on what it means to be impeached won't have the ability to engage in war overseas or continue to upper-deck our economy by way of tariffs.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:27 pm The main issue with impeachment is that it's virtually guaranteed to fail, at least in removing Trump. And given that, there's a real question about what Democrats / the nation would really gain at the end of the day by going through the impeachment process.
I'm all for keeping the pressure on. I just can't see how this ends other than Pelosi and other leaders saying, "Well, we tried everything we could think of and they just wouldn't do what we asked - we're out of options."Will Pelosi and democratic leadership ultimately have the stones to do it? I'm not certain, although I think if the Trump administration keeps up their complete stonewalling, I think it's more likely than not.
How does history view Nixon? There seems to be this underlying philosophical difference where unless it will be successful, it shouldn't be attempted. That (IMHO) is part of the problem as it's sending the message that you're not going to be held accountable if we can't make something stick. So as long as "your team" is in control, do whatever you want. Build a wall. Pardon war criminals. Rally against windows - nothing matters.
Americans have a strong culture of winning triumphs all. Only occasionally do we hold cheaters accountable and then only to a limited degree. If you go after Trump legally, you better win.Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:44 pmHow does history view Nixon? There seems to be this underlying philosophical difference where unless it will be successful, it shouldn't be attempted. That (IMHO) is part of the problem as it's sending the message that you're not going to be held accountable if we can't make something stick. So as long as "your team" is in control, do whatever you want. Build a wall. Pardon war criminals. Rally against windows - nothing matters.
That's in part because the impeachment (and removal) of Nixon succeeded. Nixon resigned in large part *because* the writing seemed to be on the wall. Trump's not going to resign, in part because there's no real prospect of conviction.Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:44 pmHow does history view Nixon? There seems to be this underlying philosophical difference where unless it will be successful, it shouldn't be attempted. That (IMHO) is part of the problem as it's sending the message that you're not going to be held accountable if we can't make something stick. So as long as "your team" is in control, do whatever you want. Build a wall. Pardon war criminals. Rally against windows - nothing matters.
I couldn't have said it better. One way to look at this is that the Democrats are once again getting beat miserably in the messaging war. The problem isn't that they'll lose in the Senate. That is inevitable. It is that they've haven't figured out that they need to frame that inevitability in a way that helps them. They are pretty much saying they can't tell a compelling story even when they have the facts on their side and are mostly facing complete incompetents, hypocrites, and the worst President in history. What does that say about them?Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:35 pmI'm just going to throw this out there - sending a clear message that no, we won't accept criminal behavior from our President? I am ok with gaining that. Or maybe putting elected officials on the record for supporting a President that is engaging in criminal behavior? That would be good too. I'm also of the mind that maybe an administration that's fixated on what it means to be impeached won't have the ability to engage in war overseas or continue to upper-deck our economy by way of tariffs.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:27 pm The main issue with impeachment is that it's virtually guaranteed to fail, at least in removing Trump. And given that, there's a real question about what Democrats / the nation would really gain at the end of the day by going through the impeachment process.
This is the problem in a nutshell. This inability to communicate and think outside the box may be the death of a nation.I'm all for keeping the pressure on. I just can't see how this ends other than Pelosi and other leaders saying, "Well, we tried everything we could think of and they just wouldn't do what we asked - we're out of options. So get out and vote!"
I could see Trump resigning if he loses in 2020 during the lame duck session, or just before the election if he thinks he'll lose, just so Pence can give him a pre-emptive pardon...El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 1:08 pmThat's in part because the impeachment (and removal) of Nixon succeeded. Nixon resigned in large part *because* the writing seemed to be on the wall. Trump's not going to resign, in part because there's no real prospect of conviction.Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:44 pmHow does history view Nixon? There seems to be this underlying philosophical difference where unless it will be successful, it shouldn't be attempted. That (IMHO) is part of the problem as it's sending the message that you're not going to be held accountable if we can't make something stick. So as long as "your team" is in control, do whatever you want. Build a wall. Pardon war criminals. Rally against windows - nothing matters.
While counterfactual histories are difficult, I expect that history would remember Nixon very differently if he had been acquitted and served out his term.
I think the Senate still has a say in this kind of action but it's hard to tell. I'm basing it on this article about Libya in 2014:LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 3:01 pm For me, the answer starts with the power of the purse. I would slash the AG and any other office that refuses subpoena to nothing and I would explain why. If you are not subject to the rule of law you get no income. If you are interpreting the rule of law in such a way that you are destroying the republic, you get no income. Now, let's look at how senators are receiving and spending federal money...
How else can you respond within the rule of law when the other side uses it as their shit paper? And it sucks because there are going to be lots of innocent people the GOP hold hostage. It's what they do. They're terrorists or tyrants in that regard. Political cartoons should show Mitch running a baby milk factory with missile heads protruding while he talks about his "proudest moment".
The Tripoli Post reports that the vote will not stop U.S. planes from flying missions in Libya, but it's unclear if the ordinance used in the bombings will continue to flow without additional funding.
To maintain the Libyan involvement requested by defense secretary Robert Gates, the president now has to convince the Senate not vote the same as the House.
It's not that success is not guaranteed. It's that failure is.YellowKing wrote:I just hate, hate, hate the idea that Congress shouldn't do their job unless the outcome is guaranteed and the political fallout is minimal. We are essentially saying that from here on out the President can get away with murder as long as his party controls the House or the Senate. I voted for these people to stop Trump, not dick around until the election and then cross their fingers and hope they win.
YK's point that congress has a moral obligation in this case irrespective of the success/failure outcome. That impeachment and removal are not synonyms is irrelevant.Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 4:42 pm It's not that success is not guaranteed. It's that failure is.
both are necessary. Congress *has* to move forward with making as much information as possible regarding these (alleged) crimes public. Only then will either it be confirmed as a big nothingburger (ala Benghazi! and the Email Server, and the IRS "targetting" the tea party groups), or many, if not all of them will be confirmed and plain to see, and the Senate GOP (which mostly moves backwards on this), will be dragged along by their constituents as they see it for themselves even more.GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 5:45 pmYK's point that congress has a moral obligation in this case irrespective of the success/failure outcome. That impeachment and removal are not synonyms is irrelevant.Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 4:42 pm It's not that success is not guaranteed. It's that failure is.
But you've defined your own requirements and then said they can't be easily met. While I'm sure many people would agree with you it's hardly self evident and the only acceptable result. Impeachment is it's own end result. Hell, the impeachment process is it's own end result.
My position hasn't changed, save for being ready to impeach Barr more rapidly (but still after Mueller's public testimony).Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:37 pm In Cross-posting to Qt3, there are a few more points as I pull it together:
***
At this point, Impeachment is a duty which transcends the political calculus. However, the case needs to be built appropriately:
It doesn’t have to be immediate impeachment.
You start with internal evaluations of the 14 remaining cases in the appropriate committees. You move to public testimony from Mueller’s team, Barr, Sanders, Hicks and others involved.
You prepare for any Oliver North moments and be ready to fully and completely discredit them.
Then you move towards impeachment, perhaps of Barr and anyone involved in the 14 cases and obstruction and 2nd generation collusion/conspiracy who is still in the Administration and then you move towards Presidential Impeachment.
Get it out in the open and don’t let DoJ/Trump/Fox/etc. cover it up. Keep it in the public eye throughout 2019/2020. Make them publicly testify under oath about their lies, corruption and willingness to do anything for power. This will also impact the Senate in 2020 if the GOP is faced with overwhelming pubic outcry.
And if they are good enough to deny/deflect in the face of their duty and still get elected, well, it’s still good to have concrete evidence that that’s the world we live in and the rest of us can plan accordingly.
Allowing this to be brushed under the rug is the one thing which is unacceptable for any and all who believe in Constitutional government and a nation of laws which apply to all.
Ultimately that's an assumption. It may very well be a correct assumption. But does that mean Congress shouldn't hold the President accountable for wrongdoing? I mean essentially you just repeated my point with different wording. Whether it's "Democrats might lose" or "Republicans might win," it's the same thing. Congress isn't doing their job because.....optics.Combustible Lemur wrote:The second they hold the vote declining removing the President every Republican and much of the pundit culture will raise their voices in concert. "Senate clears President of wrongdoing. President Trump aquited of all crimes in Democrat led investigations. Legislative Branch findings match Mueller report, No Collusion No Obstruction".
It's less of an assumption than Republicans will grow a sense of ethics finally.YellowKing wrote:Ultimately that's an assumption. It may very well be a correct assumption. But does that mean Congress shouldn't hold the President accountable for wrongdoing? I mean essentially you just repeated my point with different wording. Whether it's "Democrats might lose" or "Republicans might win," it's the same thing. Congress isn't doing their job because.....optics.Combustible Lemur wrote:The second they hold the vote declining removing the President every Republican and much of the pundit culture will raise their voices in concert. "Senate clears President of wrongdoing. President Trump aquited of all crimes in Democrat led investigations. Legislative Branch findings match Mueller report, No Collusion No Obstruction".
I just like the part of the story where the boy who cried wolf gets eaten by wolves.
But again - is impeachment and acquittal holding the President accountable? It just seems like impeachment plans are mostly a mix of "he deserves it" along with a hope and a prayer, but they're not really plans that have a reasonable prospect of achieving anything substantial. And in some ways it's worse than that, insofar as the polling shows impeachment to be wildly unpopular. That *could* change as the hearings progress, but it's not guaranteed to, and so one of the more likely results of the process is that it at least marginally raises Trump's chances of reelection without any material chance of removing him from office.YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:16 pmUltimately that's an assumption. It may very well be a correct assumption. But does that mean Congress shouldn't hold the President accountable for wrongdoing? I mean essentially you just repeated my point with different wording. Whether it's "Democrats might lose" or "Republicans might win," it's the same thing. Congress isn't doing their job because.....optics.Combustible Lemur wrote:The second they hold the vote declining removing the President every Republican and much of the pundit culture will raise their voices in concert. "Senate clears President of wrongdoing. President Trump aquited of all crimes in Democrat led investigations. Legislative Branch findings match Mueller report, No Collusion No Obstruction".
Also to be clear it's not that the appeal is going to Merrick Garland. It's going to the D.C. Circuit, where Garland is the Chief Judge. I don't think we even know yet whether Garland will be assigned to the panel hearing the appeal. Though it's virtually a lock that Garland will be involved in significant Trump Administration related cases by virtue of being in the D.C. Circuit.Unagi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 8:53 amI just like the part of the story where the boy who cried wolf gets eaten by wolves.
In all seriousness though, I don't think there will be 'prejudice' in this case -- as the previous courts statement ("This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.") seem to indicate this subpeaon is totally legit and it would break a great deal of precident to overrule.
IANAL though.
The people who compiled the information.Holman wrote:
I wonder what checks are in place to ensure that the materials are complete and unaltered.
Well, there are ways to figure out that there's missing documents / information. You review the documents produced, and talk to the people involved in the documents about them and about surrounding facts. If there are significant documents that are missing, usually there will be references to them in the other documents (and the people involved may give clues to that effect as well). That lets you ask more pointed questions to the people producing those documents about what's not there.
You can't have substantive hearings if the subjects of those hearings refuse to show up. You can't have an avalanche of evidence if the administration refuses to turn anything over.Combustible Lemur wrote:Hold real substantive hearings keep digging keep escalating and hope the avalanche of evidence shift enough of the voting populace to make it untenable for any at risk Republicans and a few safe ones to not support impeachment.
How would an impeachment hearing be different? The House already has mandatory subpoena authority under threat of being arrested and held in contempt. I assume with impeachment hearings you would be required to show up...under threat of being arrested and held in contempt, right? I'm not sure how the House could make things any more mandatory.YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 10:51 am
This was pointed out on The Daily podcast today. Impeachment proceedings would give Congress much greater authority to demand cooperation, and would consolidate all the disparate investigations being held now into one primary investigation. You can't just decide to "not cooperate" with an impeachment investigation.
All of those things are true. Except the increased leverage assumption is theoretical. Without the actual use of force there's nothing to make DOJ or Whitehouse comply. It really is high stakes chicken.YellowKing wrote:You can't have substantive hearings if the subjects of those hearings refuse to show up. You can't have an avalanche of evidence if the administration refuses to turn anything over.Combustible Lemur wrote:Hold real substantive hearings keep digging keep escalating and hope the avalanche of evidence shift enough of the voting populace to make it untenable for any at risk Republicans and a few safe ones to not support impeachment.
This was pointed out on The Daily podcast today. Impeachment proceedings would give Congress much greater authority to demand cooperation, and would consolidate all the disparate investigations being held now into one primary investigation. You can't just decide to "not cooperate" with an impeachment investigation.
There is increasing pressure on Pelosi to go this route because the feeling is that the current strategy is going to take too long to produce results - particularly if the administration's strategy is to tie every single request for information up in court. Pelosi feels that the Democrats have the legal advantage, and that we just need to let that process play out. I hope she's right.
We're currently in a high stakes game of chicken with the clock ticking down.
The U.S. Attorney for DC (as with other U.S. Attorney's) reports up to the Attorney General. Which would be a little awkward if the subject of the contempt proceeding were, say, the U.S. Attorney General. Though there's some tradition of U.S. Attorney functional independence, which Barr would no doubt respect scrupulously. Though an independent-minded USAO can create headaches for the Attorney General if they meddle too much.LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 11:39 am If Wiki is to be trusted, then contempt means arrest by the Seargant of Arms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_ ... sentatives
And US Attorney for the DofC will then move forward with proceedings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... f_Columbia
I don't know how/if either of these two office tie back to the DoJ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
Which is to say, "never." My understanding is that an impeachment investigation means that the courts can't rule against various subpoenas and requests as fishing expeditions. An impeachment investigation does not obligate the House to vote on impeachment. So starting it would speed up and solidify the evidence of Trump's crimes without necessarily compelling action against him -- although it would be hard not to take that step once overwhelming evidence is in.