impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[jimmyjazz 46352]

Just now, Tuco said:

I had never heard the harmonics aspect of it.  I know there were plenty of mistakes going in to it, beyond that.  

It just made things worse.  What Dad's team identified as the key structural problem was the fact that a contractor unilaterally modified some joint designs that severely reduced load capacity.  The vibrations just took things past the point of failure, but that failure might have occurred statically, too.

#sidebar

[TwiceHorn 31647]

23 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Is Charles Fried still around?  Or Graglia?

I love Lino, but he's insane.  In a benign way.

[Chuckie Finster 22759]

11 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

I would like to see the President call the Biden's, Pelosi, Schiff to testify. I think it would blow up in the Republican's face.

Counter that with the Democrats having Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, Giuliani called forth to testify. Throw in some Fraud Guarantee and we'll see where the Republic lands

The unfortunate truth is that none of this truly matters.  Just like there's nothing that will ever get me to root for OU in Dallas next October, at this point there's nothing that will get the vast majority of citizens in this country to reconsider their political affiliation.  Everyone who was truly malleable has already made their choice, hence the 2 years of essentially static approval ratings.  The infinitesimal portion of the country that will be affected by these hearings will not be near enough to catch the attention of any Senators.

The Democrats need to go through this process for the sake of their public duty, but any hopes of a mass change in public opinion should be put to rest.

[Homercles 10206]

2 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

I’d probably tittiebang Pelosi.

[tantric superman 4668]

25 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Is Charles Fried still around?  Or Graglia?

I enjoyed Lino as my con law prof.  Great guy on a personal level.  Standard issue, oversimplified Thomas Sowell type anti-affirmative action stance.

Best story he told was when he was woken up and congratulated on being nominated to the Supreme Court.   The caller had mixed up Lino Graglia with Nino Scalia.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. Listen, it's obvious by your Cheeto stained lips, that you're more than happy to empower further corruption by the President and his band of merry men.

The corruption has gotten so bad now, it's become the norm.

Yeah, I don't really understand why folks are ok with the President's actions. Hypothetically, the next time a disaster hits (Texas, Florida, California, etc), how would you like the President to ask a governor for a favor in return for the aid? What if the favor included looking the other way on carcinogens in your cities' drinking water that was put there due to environmental hazards by companies? Or the announcement that the state of Texas was opening an investigation into Beto and corruption? Once you've allowed a foot in the door, the mob isn't going to suddenly end their racket, and when one mob is eliminated, another branch moves in.

[horncyclist 1391]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Yeah, I don't really understand why folks are ok with the President's actions. Hypothetically, the next time a disaster hits (Texas, Florida, California, etc), how would you like the President to ask a governor for a favor in return for the aid? What if the favor included looking the other way on carcinogens in your cities' drinking water that was put there due to environmental hazards by companies? Or the announcement that the state of Texas was opening an investigation into Beto and corruption? Once you've allowed a foot in the door, the mob isn't going to suddenly end their racket, and when one mob is eliminated, another branch moves in.

Yep, and once the traitors in the Senate clear him, Trump will be emboldened. I fully expect more soliciting of foreign interference in our election. He'll do anything to win and knows there are no consequences. He will be King.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

The unfortunate truth is that none of this truly matters.  Just like there's nothing that will ever get me to root for OU in Dallas next October, at this point there's nothing that will get the vast majority of citizens in this country to reconsider their political affiliation.  Everyone who was truly malleable has already made their choice, hence the 2 years of essentially static approval ratings.  The infinitesimal portion of the country that will be affected by these hearings will not be near enough to catch the attention of any Senators.
The Democrats need to go through this process for the sake of their public duty, but any hopes of a mass change in public opinion should be put to rest.

Well, if none of this truly matters, then if I was leading the democratic party I'd go "Scorched Earth" and set the republican party ablaze in the Senate.

Bring in all the witnesses listed above and lay the facts out, get everyone on record.

[atomheartbevo 89895]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

lulz Rudy is in Ukraine right now doing more of the same shit that started all this

Shady shit ain’t going to legitimize itself.   

[TwiceHorn 31647]

11 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Trump is making baseless arguments. Democrats should not have to go to court to prove that when time is of the essence. It's not that hard.

Here's a hypothetical to help. As things stand, Trump got caught and so they stopped what they were doing. What if he hadn't gotten caught? What if the pressure is ongoing and Zelensky is moving towards an announcement. Democrats suspect it but they can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because the key witnesses, Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry and Pompeo are being blocked from testifying. Should democrats have to wait for the courts, as more damage is done in that case? No. And there's no reason they should have to wait now. It's entirely up to Congress--not the courts-- to decide what is impeachable and they shouldn't have to wait for the courts to say the obstruction is based on baseless claims. That's ridiculous, against the plain language of the Constitution, and impracticable. 

I agree that Trump's  arguments resisting subpoeanas are without precedent, and therefore essentially baseless.  They also have never been considered by the courts before, so they aren't baseless to the point of frivolity.  They're just losers, bad arguments.

Now, for the sake of objectivity, a party who is subpoenaed, including the President, and third parties affected by the subpoena, have the right to challenge that subpoena.  That's pretty fundamental.  They even have the right to advance terrible arguments, that aren't frivolous, in opposition to subpoenas.

So, while what Trump is doing is uncooperative, even obstructIVE, it isn't obstruction of justice, the crime.**  Absent the time pressure posed by the election, it would be wise to let the McGahn case and others play out and get those witnesses on the record.  It's not NECESSARY, but it would be wise.

The timing here is pretty unfortunate.  The Dems have to proceed on a semi-incomplete record if they're going to do this before the election.

**That said, I think it would be fair to have an article of impeachment that the President has obstructed the proper function of government at every turn relating to any investigation of his actions in a way unprecedented in the history of the United States.

[atomheartbevo 89895]

38 minutes ago, sachick said:

In the senate trial, will the president be able to call any witnesses? Like he's threatened to call Pelosi, Shicff, et.al?

They may not want to go that route, because then Nunez gets called up.  

[atomheartbevo 89895]

31 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Nah. I’m going with the theory it’s because they’re old and don’t understand technology. They’re like the office geezer who prints emails, scans them, and then sends it as an attachment because they don’t know how the “Fwd:” function works.

 

Olds know how to work the fuck out of the email FWD function.   That’s partly why we are in this mess.  

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

3 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Yep, and once the traitors in the Senate clear him, Trump will be emboldened. I fully expect more soliciting of foreign interference in our election. He'll do anything to win and knows there are no consequences. He will be King.

He will also have some 27ish Republican governors he can lean on to compromise/tamper with votes, voter rolls, machines, you name it. GOP is all in. Domestic interference thanks to Mitch McConnell, will have the bases covered.

[horncyclist 1391]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I agree that Trump's  arguments resisting subpoeanas are without precedent, and therefore essentially baseless.  They also have never been considered by the courts before, so they aren't baseless to the point of frivolity.  They're just losers, bad arguments.

Now, for the sake of objectivity, a party who is subpoenaed, including the President, and third parties affected by the subpoena, have the right to challenge that subpoena.  That's pretty fundamental.  They even have the right to advance terrible arguments, that aren't frivolous, in opposition to subpoenas.

So, while what Trump is doing is uncooperative, even obstructIVE, it isn't obstruction of justice, the crime.**  Absent the time pressure posed by the election, it would be wise to let the McGahn case and others play out and get those witnesses on the record.  It's not NECESSARY, but it would be wise.

The timing here is pretty unfortunate.  The Dems have to proceed on a semi-incomplete record if they're going to do this before the election.

**That said, I think it would be fair to have an article of impeachment that the President has obstructed the proper function of government at every turn relating to any investigation of his actions in a way unprecedented in the history of the United States.

I think we're generally in agreement. The timing sucks but Trump has left democrats no choice. And, despite the obstruction, I think the evidence is compelling enough to move forward. Only big thing I see missing are the full details behind withholding of the aid but even with that most of the key ones are there. Democrats met their burden and Republicans (so far) have put forward no defense. 

[Biff Tannen 45758]

38 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. 

Five is RIGHT OUT.

[wildcat09 29447]

42 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Hmm, I guess there is a limit to the number of quotes you can make in one post.  I think I might have a way around this.

 

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Feldman mistakenly says the Constitution defines bribery. Where? It defines treason, but not bribery

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Professor Turley is correct that impeaching a president for demanding judicial review of Congressional subpoenas would undercut our system of checks and balances.
 

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Prof Feldman is wrong in suggesting that the courts have no role to play in deciding whether Congressional subpoenas are subject to claims of executive privilege in the context of impeachment.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Prof. Carlin defines bribery to include “ bad practices.” That would be unconstitutionally vague and dangerous.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The expert witnesses should be cross examined by opposing counsel instead of just being thrown softballs by counsel on their side. Cross examination is essential to test witnesses. Otherwise the witnesses are just lecturing about their preexisting views.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

What a waste of time and resources to have no cross examination of hostile expert witnesses. What a missed opportunity to press witnesses instead of throwing them softballs. Why no cross examination?

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The open ended criteria for impeachment proposed by the Democratic experts are dangerous and place Congress above the law. That’s why the Framers demanded specific criteria that sound of crime, rather than “abuse of office.”
 

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The Republicans should have challenged Professor Feldman’s assertion that “abuse of office" is a constitutional basis for impeachment. These words do not appear in the Constitution and such vague criteria were rejected by the Framers.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The Democratic witnesses have wrongly said that Congress cannot move forward because President Trump has resisted Congressional subpoenas. Of course they can. Simply go to court and get a judicial order.That is the proper course, not impeachment for invoking separation of powers
 

Child molester says what?

[triplehorn 2664]

8 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Yep, and once the traitors in the Senate clear him, Trump will be emboldened. I fully expect more soliciting of foreign interference in our election. He'll do anything to win and knows there are no consequences. He will be King.

This post and your previous one last page make a case for drawing out the impeachment process indefinitely in order to act a seatbelt on ongoing Trump criminality.  Look what happened the day after the Mueller testimony to Congress last summer- Trump was emboldened to extort the Ukrainian president to influence the 2020 election in broad daylight.  Handing the case over to the Senate now for acquittal would be a similar green light.

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, while what Trump is doing is uncooperative, even obstructIVE, it isn't obstruction of justice, the crime.**  Absent the time pressure posed by the election, it would be wise to let the McGahn case and others play out and get those witnesses on the record.  It's not NECESSARY, but it would be wise.

The timing here is pretty unfortunate.  The Dems have to proceed on a semi-incomplete record if they're going to do this before the election.

Pelosi/House are doing both.  They're advancing articles of impeachment based on the House Intel investigation into the Trump/Zelensky bribery scheme right now.  Meanwhile there are 6 different House committees doing impeachment inquiries and a lot more hanging in he courts to build on what they've got.  Have we heard from all 6 yet ?  nope.  Has Pelosi stated a timeline for a full House vote to impeach? nope.  Conceivably the House Judiciary committee could vote on articles of impeachment re Ukraine bribery scheme without progressing to full House floor vote.  Again, they're doing both and it's smart.   Nothing is lost with their current tactics and yet they maintain options.

[horncyclist 1391]

15 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

This post and your previous one last page make a case for drawing out the impeachment process indefinitely in order to act a seatbelt on ongoing Trump criminality.  Look what happened the day after the Mueller testimony to Congress last summer- Trump was emboldened to extort the Ukrainian president to influence the 2020 election in broad daylight.  Handing the case over to the Senate now for acquittal would be a similar green light.

Pelosi/House are doing both.  They're advancing articles of impeachment based on the House Intel investigation into the Trump/Zelensky bribery scheme right now.  Meanwhile there are 6 different House committees doing impeachment inquiries and a lot more hanging in he courts to build on what they've got.  Have we heard from all 6 yet ?  nope.  Has Pelosi stated a timeline for a full House vote to impeach? nope.  Conceivably the House Judiciary committee could vote on articles of impeachment re Ukraine bribery scheme without progressing to full House floor vote.  Again, they're doing both and it's smart.   Nothing is lost with their current tactics and yet they maintain options.

I think the best approach is probably to move forward with articles but continue the lower key investigations in hopes that it keeps him check. The founders never envisioned a Senate majority favoring party over the Constitution. 

[jimmyjazz 46352]

1 minute ago, horncyclist said:

I think the best approach is probably to move forward with articles but continue the lower key investigations in hopes that it keeps him check. The founders never envisioned a Senate majority favoring party over the Constitution. 

I don't think they envisioned a party system at all.  The split didn't happen until after the Constitution was drafted.

[RomaVicta 30048]

The GOP Reps in the House have chained themselves to Trump. Now the senate GOPs can do the same thing.

How will that look if Trump's financial records are released and it's finally revealed that he's guilty of fraud?

How will that look when Lev finishes his flip and drags in Guiliani? 

The GOPs will be tied to a minority of virulent, racist, idiots.

I suspect the GOP will be implicated in a broad foreign bribery scheme. I see no reason to think what we know about the Eastern European money, the NRA, Lev&Igor, Manafort, and Flynn are anything other than the tip of the tip of the corruption ice berg. Somewhere, enterprising reporters must be digging out this story. Reporters who aren't afraid to believe a mortifying truth.

Maybe the GOPs are all in on Trump because it's the only victory available to them. It will be short term. It will likely permanently cripple the republic, but ultimate defeat and maybe jail will be delayed for these traitors. 

Sadly, even when they go down, the GOPs will leave a ruined nation crowned by a the diamond tiara of a tiny percentage of super wealthy supported blindly by serfs who can't see past the red, white and blue shit in their eyes.

A shining shit hill on a city. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

This was lulz yesterday 

 

[TXSG8R 3362]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

The GOP Reps in the House have chained themselves to Trump. Now the senate GOPs can do the same thing.

How will that look if Trump's financial records are released and it's finally revealed that he's guilty of fraud?

How will that look when Lev finishes his flip and drags in Guiliani? 

The GOPs will be tied to a minority of virulent, racist, idiots.

I suspect the GOP will be implicated in a broad foreign bribery scheme. I see no reason to think what we know about the Eastern European money, the NRA, Lev&Igor, Manafort, and Flynn are anything other than the tip of the tip of the corruption ice berg. Somewhere, enterprising reporters must be digging out this story. Reporters who aren't afraid to believe a mortifying truth.

Maybe the GOPs are all in on Trump because it's the only victory available to them. It will be short term. It will likely permanently cripple the republic, but ultimate defeat and maybe jail will be delayed for these traitors. 

Sadly, even when they go down, the GOPs will leave a ruined nation crowned by a the diamond tiara of a tiny percentage of super wealthy supported blindly by serfs who can't see past the red, white and blue shit in their eyes.

A shining shit hill on a city. 

They will all claim they didnt know, "the evidence at the time" sort of stuff and continue on their way.  The problem is their tribes wont hold them accountable.  Constituents will parrot the same stuff, and go about their business.  

[RomaVicta 30048]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This was lulz yesterday 

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

35 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

I think we're generally in agreement. The timing sucks but Trump has left democrats no choice. And, despite the obstruction, I think the evidence is compelling enough to move forward. Only big thing I see missing are the full details behind withholding of the aid but even with that most of the key ones are there. Democrats met their burden and Republicans (so far) have put forward no defense. 

I look forward to the Airing Of Grievances in the Senate. This is gonna be great!

[Loco 3754]

 

[triplehorn 2664]

10 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

The GOP Reps in the House have chained themselves to Trump. Now the senate GOPs can do the same thing.

How will that look if Trump's financial records are released and it's finally revealed that he's guilty of fraud?

How will that look when Lev finishes his flip and drags in Guiliani? 

The GOPs will be tied to a minority of virulent, racist, idiots.

I suspect the GOP will be implicated in a broad foreign bribery scheme. I see no reason to think what we know about the Eastern European money, the NRA, Lev&Igor, Manafort, and Flynn are anything other than the tip of the tip of the corruption ice berg. Somewhere, enterprising reporters must be digging out this story. Reporters who aren't afraid to believe a mortifying truth.

Maybe the GOPs are all in on Trump because it's the only victory available to them. It will be short term. It will likely permanently cripple the republic, but ultimate defeat and maybe jail will be delayed for these traitors. 

Sadly, even when they go down, the GOPs will leave a ruined nation crowned by a the diamond tiara of a tiny percentage of super wealthy supported blindly by serfs who can't see past the red, white and blue shit in their eyes.

A shining shit hill on a city. 

It certainly has setup potential for GOP seeking re-election.  Clowning it on televised impeachment hearings now will look indefensibly shitty later when more comes out.  They're giving their opponents pre-packaged campaign ads if/when it gets several notches worse into 2020.

[TexEx15 17577]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. 

If ever there was a time for a holy hand grenade.

[Tuco 5084]

27 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

I think the best approach is probably to move forward with articles but continue the lower key investigations in hopes that it keeps him check. The founders never envisioned a Senate majority favoring party over the Constitution. 

The founders did not account for political parties when they formed the Constitution.  The whole concepts of "majority" and "minority" wouldn't make sense.  All of this - parties selecting committee chairs, whips, etc. - are later inventions. Hell, even the notion of the President naming his Vice President was an invention later. Can you imagine how much difference this would be if the GOP (and DNC) couldn't punish Congressman and Senators for following their conscience?  

Of course, the founders were wrong.  The structure of government led to the party system, and very quickly.  Washington was the last non-partisan to be elected, and he watched his fellow founders divide into camps.  He watched two of his brilliant advisors, Jefferson and Hamilton,  wage political battles which necessitated parties for strength. This was his warning in his farewell address. 

Quote

 

"In contemplating the causes which my disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterising parties by Geographical discriminations—Northern and Southern—Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations: they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection....

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, controul, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force---to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils, and modified by mutual interests.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reigns of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

 

I don't consider Washington to be a visionary of political philosophy, like others were.  But, yeah, he hit the fucking nail on the head here. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Tuco

[triplehorn 2664]

gee why might that be ?  what an easy read.  ain't gonna happen.

 

 

[jimmyjazz 46352]

I'm not political strategist, but I'll go on record as saying I'm gonna go in the opposite direction of whatever Trump recommends.

[Pig Bellmont 8745]

this is all a little on the nose

[Tom 2959]

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

Hmm, I guess there is a limit to the number of quotes you can make in one post.  I think I might have a way around this.

 

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Feldman mistakenly says the Constitution defines bribery. Where? It defines treason, but not bribery

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Professor Turley is correct that impeaching a president for demanding judicial review of Congressional subpoenas would undercut our system of checks and balances.
 

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Prof Feldman is wrong in suggesting that the courts have no role to play in deciding whether Congressional subpoenas are subject to claims of executive privilege in the context of impeachment.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Prof. Carlin defines bribery to include “ bad practices.” That would be unconstitutionally vague and dangerous.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The expert witnesses should be cross examined by opposing counsel instead of just being thrown softballs by counsel on their side. Cross examination is essential to test witnesses. Otherwise the witnesses are just lecturing about their preexisting views.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

What a waste of time and resources to have no cross examination of hostile expert witnesses. What a missed opportunity to press witnesses instead of throwing them softballs. Why no cross examination?

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The open ended criteria for impeachment proposed by the Democratic experts are dangerous and place Congress above the law. That’s why the Framers demanded specific criteria that sound of crime, rather than “abuse of office.”
 

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The Republicans should have challenged Professor Feldman’s assertion that “abuse of office" is a constitutional basis for impeachment. These words do not appear in the Constitution and such vague criteria were rejected by the Framers.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The Democratic witnesses have wrongly said that Congress cannot move forward because President Trump has resisted Congressional subpoenas. Of course they can. Simply go to court and get a judicial order.That is the proper course, not impeachment for invoking separation of powers
 

 

Alan Dershowitz also argued it should be legal for an adult to fuck kids, has represented a who's who of some of the biggest scumbags of the last 30 years, has been a Trump boot licker for 3 years, and has become a regular Fox News contributor.

I'm going to have to go ahead and value his opinion at less than zero.

[GRHorn 105]

20 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

You have a higher post count than me, slick.

 

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I'm the president of a large western democracy that is sliding into fascism.

 

[Anastasis 23471]

 

 

[DixonHur 11405]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not political strategist, but I'll go on record as saying I'm gonna go in the opposite direction of whatever Trump recommends.

Nothing over the past few weeks of proceedings has given me any indication that the Dems won't fuck this shit up.

The fact they didn't go hard after Turley was dereliction of duty as far as I'm concerned.  His sworn argument during the Clinton impeachment, was the exact opposite of his testimony from yesterday.  An he followed that up with an op-ed just a few years ago arguing the same as he had during the Clinton Impeachment. 

I know others have said it might have been a good idea because sound bites or whatever, but that's weak shit in my opinion.  It's like having 4 of a kind, but playing it safe because someone might have a straight/royal flush.  Then folding on the river after someone makes a big bet.

[Anastasis 23471]

I like the value at 5.

Bribery, Obstruction, Abuse of Power are the low hanging fruit.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Anastasis

[henrygandorf 29198]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I like the value at 5.

Bribery, Obstruction, Abuse of Power are the low hanging fruit.

i know everyone on the left wants to keep it lean and mean - and in a normal world, that would make the most sense.  keep it easy for voters to digest and understand.

but they need to start pushing the fact that it doesn't matter what they do, the senate won't convict.  most of america still doesn't fully grasp this.  therefore it's all about the court of public opinion, which is why trump keeps touting the perfection of a single phone call.  keeping it narrow actually helps him, because it makes the case look thin (which is what they ran with yesterday - wafer thin).  forces the public into a binary choice about one phone call and a handful of witnesses.

so fuck it, go the other way.  charge him with the whole truckload - murder, conspiracy, conduct unbecoming...but seriously.  emoluments is a slam dunk.  obstruction of justice and congress are two separate things.  witness intimidation.  drag it out because there are so fucking many.  go 8 or 10 or 12.  even if they're not all lay-ups.  you know how stupid the gop would look knocking down 5-6 articles, while not paying attention to another 3-4?  "well, this one is baseless and silly."  "so does that mean the other 9 are legit?!?"

get in front of cameras and explain that.  hey guys, sorry, but this is complicated.  he's violated so many laws, he continues to do it faster than we can count, so this may take a minute.  the list is fucking long, stand by.

why not?  it's all theater at this point anyway.

[Lat22 4046]

I can assure you that most of America fully grasps what has been going on.

[Anastasis 23471]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

why not?  it's all theater at this point anyway.

I agree with your calculus.

1. Bribery.

2. Abuse of power.

3. Obstruction of justice.

4. Obstruction of congress.

I don't think they do any of the emoluments stuff, but that could get you to 5.  Four also has good value imo. 

[CycleTex87 2991]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

So you're saying the case is predicated on an overloaded and incorrectly built structure compromised by dynamic loads that are harmonically tuned to said structure's natural frequency, because disco?

(My Dad was a consultant on the post-mortem.)

The Bee Gees got nothing to do with it Dude. 

[henrygandorf 29198]

5 minutes ago, Lat22 said:

I can assure you that most of America fully grasps what has been going on.

i can assure you that you are incorrect.  an alarmingly high number of americans still think "impeachment" means removal.

they don't understand how the senate works, or that they've all made up their mind.  people hear "trial" and assume the "jury" might actually listen to the facts before they decide.

i also heard someone just last week bemoan the fact that the gop held the majority in the senate, otherwise trump would be gonzo.  i had to inform them that it's a 2/3 vote to remove, which is why it's never happened.  even if the senate was 60-40 dems, it wouldn't happen.

you'll never go broke underestimating what america fully grasps.

[Upgrayedd 5822]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i can assure you that you are incorrect.  an alarmingly high number of americans still think "impeachment" means removal.

they don't understand how the senate works, or that they've all made up their mind.  people hear "trial" and assume the "jury" might actually listen to the facts before they decide.

i also heard someone just last week bemoan the fact that the gop held the majority in the senate, otherwise trump would be gonzo.  i had to inform them that it's a 2/3 vote to remove, which is why it's never happened.  even if the senate was 60-40 dems, it wouldn't happen.

you'll never go broke underestimating what america fully grasps.

More could quote what the rules are for advancing on The Voice.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20543]

2 hours ago, shnsajax said:

So someone was trying to quote Alan Dershowitz 9 times in Surly in one post as an argument?

 

Yes. Unfortunately, it was all bullshit, since Dershowitz mischaracterized/took out of context the Professor's words. 

[RomaVicta 30048]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

The founders did not account for political parties when they formed the Constitution.  The whole concepts of "majority" and "minority" wouldn't make sense.  All of this - parties selecting committee chairs, whips, etc. - are later inventions. Hell, even the notion of the President naming his Vice President was an invention later. Can you imagine how much difference this would be if the GOP (and DNC) couldn't punish Congressman and Senators for following their conscience?  

Of course, the founders were wrong.  The structure of government led to the party system, and very quickly.  Washington was the last non-partisan to be elected, and he watched his fellow founders divide into camps.  He watched two of his brilliant advisors, Jefferson and Hamilton,  wage political battles which necessitated parties for strength. This was his warning in his farewell address. 

I don't consider Washington to be a visionary of political philosophy, like others were.  But, yeah, he hit the fucking nail on the head here. 

Wow. I love Washington. I think scholars are drawn to Jefferson and others because they were scholars.

There is no US without Washington. What you quote is brilliant observation. I'm ashamed to say that I've never read it before. I love Washington even more now. He raised jackasses and built America's first front porch at Mt. Vernon. He arranged for the freeing of his slaves after Martha's death.

He handed back to the people the immense power he had been entrusted with. Statues of him all over the world portray him extending the scroll of power back to the people.

It is such a shame that he's been reduced to a marble statue to be sniggered at for the myth that he had wooden teeth.

 

[DDD Dad 14365]

3 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

Impeachment is a constitutional process.  If you are going to use treason as a reason to impeach you must use the definition in the Constitution.

 

 

You really are out of your element here.

Maybe you should listen to the grown ups talk and learn something.

[Huckleberry 33166]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

I guess I might be misunderstanding this market, but if not then you can guarantee yourself money by splitting evenly among the No buys (in terms of number of units purchased of each option, not dollars spent on each option). Guaranteed 1% profit. Example if you want to spend $10,000:

Purchase 2,020 units of each no option. You will end up with $1,757.40 No on 0; $1,959.40 No on 1; $1,515 No on 2; $1,131.20 No on 3; $1,757.40 No on 4; $1,878.60 No on 5+. That's a total of $9,999 invested. Now without doing detailed math, the basic idea is that no matter which one of those numbers is the actual  number of articles passed by 3/31, you will get 2,020 x 5 = $10,100 in return.

This all assumes, of course, that the website's cut is baked into those prices (which I assumed because each Yes/No pair adds up to more than $1).

Easy to spot because the no probabilities against the $1 payout add up to 4.95<5.

Of course the real problem is that you are guaranteeing yourself only a 1% return after nearly 4 months. Obviously plenty of better ways to invest money. But if those are still the prices on 3/30 then you could do a lot worse than a guaranteed 1% return in a single day.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Huckleberry

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

9 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Wow. I love Washington. I think scholars are drawn to Jefferson and others because they were scholars.

There is no US without Washington. What you quote is brilliant observation. I'm ashamed to say that I've never read it before. I love Washington even more now. He raised jackasses and built America's first front porch at Mt. Vernon. He arranged for the freeing of his slaves after Martha's death.

He handed back to the people the immense power he had been entrusted with. Statues of him all over the world portray him extending the scroll of power back to the people.

It is such a shame that he's been reduced to a marble statue to be sniggered at for the myth that he had wooden teeth.

 

Trump vs. Washington wasn't covered in the Yougov/Economist poll the way Trump vs. Lincoln was, but I imagine it would go something like this (among certain respondents):

"Trump is way better than Washington. Trump has his real teeth, his real hair, and he never cut down a cherry tree like Washington did."

[GopherRock 1771]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I agree with your calculus.

1. Bribery.

2. Abuse of power.

3. Obstruction of justice.

4. Obstruction of congress.

I don't think they do any of the emoluments stuff, but that could get you to 5.  Four also has good value imo. 

I don't think that 13 cents is a good price on 4 only. Once Ways and Means gets his financials I could see a 5th article coming from that for tax fraud. I also like 9 cents for 5+. That translates to about +860 after vig and transfer fees are computed, if my math is right. 

[American Swindle 102]

It's great to see so many Surly brethren concerned about corruption in government.  Maybe the anti-war community could respect the take below as I see at as the correct way to look at what should really constitute impeachment.  Yeah, I know, not a popular opinion around here. 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31647]

5 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Trump vs. Washington wasn't covered in the Yougov/Economist poll the way Trump vs. Lincoln was, but I imagine it would go something like this (among certain respondents):

"Trump is way better than Washington. Trump has his real teeth, his real hair, and he never cut down a cherry tree like Washington did."

Dubious.  Very dubious.