The Impeachment Inquiry

[TheFallen]

At some point we must face the fact that conservatives and liberals are not going to be able reconcile differences--the marriage had failed. The only sane thing to do is let them do what they want in their States and let us do what we want. Bottom line, we are not very United any more.

It is indeed the ever more Disunited States of America (and I am not sitting on my high horse saying that, since I happen to live in the depressingly similar Disunited Kingdom).

If this devolves into State by State (which conceptually I'd support in many ways, being no fan of Big Government, Big Federalism or Big Bureaucracy), I'm pretty sure that red states would soon experience a major immigration problem - as refugees from blue states under the yoke of the Progressive Left looked to escape numerous aspects of their swivel-eyed and fanatical socialism

Hashi, isn't this effectively already happening in your Lone Star State? I seem to remember your commenting on it more than once...

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Yes. There are people fleeing California in droves for a variety of reasons: high taxes, high cost of living, the homeless epidemic, etc. The problem is they bring their political ideas here and think they will work--their Progressive ideas resulted in a State where they don't want to live so why do think those ideas would work here?

[Gaius Octavius]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: the Eternal Californian. Observe his smug expression. Coming to a conservative community near you.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Let us not forget--the thing to take away from the hearings and the IG report us that an FBI agent falsified an e-mail message to get a FISA warrant to spy on an American citizen and a person working for a political opponent's campaign. That is dangerous.

edit/add: Lindsey Graham, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been reading my comments here. He wants the Senate portion over quickly, so his committee isn't going to call any witnesses. Instead, they will simply use the findings in the House and proceed based on those. He told the "America's Newsroom" show that he expected his committee to conclude its business in about one week, after which the vote would go to the full Senate floor.

What then, Democrats? Impeach again and hope for a different result from the Senate? They know the SCOTUS will stay out of it as it is a political matter, but impeaching again will accomplish nothing.

edit/add number 2: A radio host here this evening said that by most estimates, around 8 Democrats may vote *not* to impeach Trump. He looked up the numbers from the 90s and found that only 5 Democrats voted to impeach Bill. If the current numbers are accurate then more Democrats will vote to exonerate Trump than voted to impeach Bill. That speaks volumes about the two situationss

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The impeachment of Trump is 90% complete--the House Judiciary Committee passed both articles along a strict party-line vote. The vote now goes to the floor and should happen next week.

That decision will decide whether some Representatives come back next term.

Someone at the inquiry--will have to find out who--implied that there was an imbalance of power between Trump and Zelensky because Trump is taller. No, seriously.

[wayfriend]

Some Democrats are raising concerns about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's statement that he will coordinate closely with the White House on the looming Senate impeachment trial, with one House Democrat saying the Kentucky Republican should recuse himself entirely.

"He's working hand in hand with the White House, with the President's attorney, and yet we're supposed to expect him to manage a fair and impartial trial?" said Florida Democratic Rep. Val Demings when asked about McConnell's remarks. "I think he should recuse himself."

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington called the coordination "ridiculous."

"I think it is outrageous for the chief juror who is organizing the trial to be coordinating with the defendant," Jayapal told reporters. [link]

It's all over now except for the

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Too bad, so sad, House Democrats--the Senate gets to handle its portion of impeachment in any way it wants to because impeachment does not qualify for the usual protections or restrictions that apply to criminal trials.

Biden stated that if he is subpoenaed by the Senate he won't show up...which is one of the things for which Trump is being impeached--contempt of Congress.

So...House vote next week, skip a week or two for holidays, the Senate portion should take about a week, then a full vote--we should be done with this crap by mid-January.

What then, Democrats?

[TheFallen]

Wayfriend, your double standards are truly laughable.

On one hand you vigorously moan and bitch (by clear implication, given the article you quoted from) that any impeachment trial in the Senate won't be fair or impartial, because the Senate has a Pub majority and is therefore headed up by a Pub (but it's unsurprising to see you getting your excuses for the impending exoneration in early)...

...but on the other you have absolutely zero issue with any possible prejudice, favour or partisanship within the investigation directly leading to that impeachment... despite it being kicked off by a Dem (Pelosi), headed up by a Dem (Schiff) and voted upon by the HoR with its Dem majority.

Yet again, the urgent plea goes out...

"Nurse? Mirror for Wayfriend, please!"

FFS, get some objectivity and self-awareness.

[Gaius Octavius]

Some Democrats are raising concerns about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's statement that he will coordinate closely with the White House on the looming Senate impeachment trial, with one House Democrat saying the Kentucky Republican should recuse himself entirely.

"He's working hand in hand with the White House, with the President's attorney, and yet we're supposed to expect him to manage a fair and impartial trial?" said Florida Democratic Rep. Val Demings when asked about McConnell's remarks. "I think he should recuse himself."

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington called the coordination "ridiculous."

"I think it is outrageous for the chief juror who is organizing the trial to be coordinating with the defendant," Jayapal told reporters. [link]

It's all over now except for the

Wayfriend, you are spreading anti-semitic tropes with that Donald Duckstein hand-rubbing gif.

[Ur Dead]

I wonder.. does the Senate have to hold the trial immediately or can the
Senate postpone it for a while?
If they do, then some key candidates on the democratic side my be called during some primaries to give testimony.
Now that would be buggering the candidates chances...

[Gaius Octavius]

I wonder.. does the Senate have to hold the trial immediately or can the
Senate postpone it for a while?
If they do, then some key candidates on the democratic side my be called during some primaries to give testimony.
Now that would be buggering the candidates chances...

That's a good question, but I am pretty sure Mitch McConnell ruled out delaying a senate trial. If the House impeaches, then the Senate will duly follow through with a speedy trial.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Some Democrats are raising concerns about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's statement that he will coordinate closely with the White House on the looming Senate impeachment trial, with one House Democrat saying the Kentucky Republican should recuse himself entirely.

"He's working hand in hand with the White House, with the President's attorney, and yet we're supposed to expect him to manage a fair and impartial trial?" said Florida Democratic Rep. Val Demings when asked about McConnell's remarks. "I think he should recuse himself."

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington called the coordination "ridiculous."

"I think it is outrageous for the chief juror who is organizing the trial to be coordinating with the defendant," Jayapal told reporters. [link]

It's all over now except for the

The excuses have already started. Nothing's ever the Democrat's fault, is it?

Sorry, we've seen this movie before. You keep losing because you're making poor choices, not because of anyone else.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I wonder.. does the Senate have to hold the trial immediately or can the
Senate postpone it for a while?
If they do, then some key candidates on the democratic side my be called during some primaries to give testimony.
Now that would be buggering the candidates chances...

Technically, the Senate may hold its portion of the process whenever it damned well feels like it. McConnell and Graham want it done quickly, but they could put it off until after next November's election if they wanted to.

They should do it quickly, but they should subpoena the whole lot of them and see who complies: Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, Ciaramella--they damned sure better subpoena the whistleblower, Biden, Mueller, Comey, Lisa Page, and Strzok.

They won't, of course, because the Senate leadership wants it wrapped right away. Once they do we will finally arrive at the as-yet-unanswered $64,000 question: what then, Democrats?

edit/add: wow--CNN admits that Trump was correct and that both Veronica Escobar (D-TX El Paso) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX Houston) misquoted him when they were pretending to read the transcript of the phone call out loud. Why do Democrats have to lie so often?

[Gaius Octavius]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50634645

In one text, Ms Page called then-candidate Trump "a loathsome human," and Mr Strzok labelled him "an idiot".
"God Hillary should win," wrote Ms Page.
She asked if Mr Trump might clinch the White House, prompting Mr Strzok to assure her: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r9EuE9jZRE

In the above video, there's an exchange between multiple GOP congressmen and Nadler over Nadler's controversial use of a lawyer, Barry Berke, as both a questioner and witness on the panel. Nadler responds by angrily tapping the gavel. They need to replace that gavel with a comically smaller one, just for Nadler and his temper tantrums.


In this post, ur-Nan became "1337."

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I see that news of impeachment has quieted down. Now that the vote is going to the full House, all those Representatives have a lot of soul-searching to do: Republicans have it easy but Democrats in the House have to weigh "do I vote the Party line?" against "do my constituents want this?". Some of those Democrats will lose their re-election bid if they vote to impeach which will make the "we will simply impeach him again" plot more difficult to enact.

On that note, does anyone really think that the House will impeach again when the Senate does not remove Trump from office? I highly doubt it--doing so will prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that that impeachment process is nothing but divisive politics. Pelosi tolerated this one but she won't tolerate a second one at all.

[Gaius Octavius]

In the not-too-distant future, Maxine Waters will be lying on her death bed surrounded by friends and family. As she slips in and out of awareness of her surroundings, she will repeatedly mumble "Impeach fo-tee-fiiive..." Her children will say, "Mama, Donald Trump ain't in office no more. He served 8 years as president." *Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep*

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I see that news of impeachment has quieted down. Now that the vote is going to the full House, all those Representatives have a lot of soul-searching to do: Republicans have it easy but Democrats in the House have to weigh "do I vote the Party line?" against "do my constituents want this?". Some of those Democrats will lose their re-election bid if they vote to impeach which will make the "we will simply impeach him again" plot more difficult to enact.

On that note, does anyone really think that the House will impeach again when the Senate does not remove Trump from office? I highly doubt it--doing so will prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that that impeachment process is nothing but divisive politics. Pelosi tolerated this one but she won't tolerate a second one at all.

Democrats have failed to make the case for impeachment.

"Abuse of power". What? Name the crime. "We don't like what he does" isn't a crime. The Ukrainian president, the OMB, and the transcript are all in sync that there was no bribery. Placing a temporary hold on aid that Obama refused to offer in the first place is neither an abuse nor a threat to national security.

"Obstruction of Congress". What? Not a thing that the Executive Branch can do, as the EB doesn't answer to the House of Representatives.

Anyone who thinks that there's any legitimacy to this farce doesn't understand the Constitution, separation of powers, and coequal branches of the government.

[Gaius Octavius]

Meanwhile on FB I see braindead posts about "stupid Republicans" who don't understand basic civics from high school.

"It's a trial in the House of Representatives! The senate just brings the trial to an end after a verdict was decided in the House."

"Das rite!"

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Meanwhile on FB

Facebook is not the worst place where you will see a vast group of people all buying into the same bullshit echo chamber but it is the most high-profile place. I don't go there, even when Ms. Lebwohl tags me on things.

The last I heard, the vote on the House floor should be this week. It will be interesting to see how many Democrats vote not to impeach--the ones in risky districts cannot afford to impeach else they will lose their re-election bid next November. After that, both Graham (chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee) and McConnell (Senate majority leader) have stated their deisre to wrap up thier part in only a week or two.

What then, Democrats?

In the meantime, today is 16 December 2019 and Trump has not yet been impeached.

edit/add: CNN and Democrats are crying that they think the trial in the Senate won't be "fair" because "Republican Senate leadership abandoned any notion that they had not pre-judged the case". What about the fact that Democrats in the House had pre-judged that they were going to impeach Trump and have been trying to do so since January 2017? Don't forget: Al Green first introduced a resolution to impeach Trump in May 2017 before he would have had much of a chance to do anything.

The CNN article also takes the time to remind us that recent polls indicate that half of registered voters support impeachment. By deafult, that means that about half of registered don't support impeachment...but...even that ignores the fact that impeachment is not up to registered voters--we don't get a say in the process whatsoever.

The other thing to remember is that Democrats are going to try and frame the trial in the Senate as if it were a criminal trial, which is clearly is not. The crying from the Democrats all boils down to one thing: they are spoiled brats and they know they aren't going to get their way.

edit/add 2: Now that I think about it, we need to address the as-yet-unaddressed elephant in the room. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee approved an article of impeachment against Trump for "obstruction of Congress"; in this instance the claim is that he directed or encouraged people in his Administration to ignore Congressional subpoenas. This is an incredibly low bar to set--from this point right now and moving forward into the future, any time a sitting POTUS orders or encourages anyone to defy a Congressional subpoena risks impeachment, regardless of the validity or importance of the subject for which the subpoena was issued.

Congress just approved itself a new power over the Executive, which is something valid for the SCOTUS to address.

What will Democrats say the next time a Republican House issues a subpoena against a Democrat President then impeaches when the subpoena is ignored?

[wayfriend]

I can't in good conscience continue to say that failing to impeach Trump will prove our country is too corrupt to continue as a democracy.

As the House prepares to vote this week on two articles of impeachment, Schumer has been leading Democratic efforts to shape how the expected Senate trial will play out. But already, several leading Senate Republicans, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, have publicly declared their intention to acquit Trump, regardless of whatever evidence is presented.

[...] Graham, one of Trump's closest allies in Congress, said on Saturday at an event in Qatar that he will do everything in his power to quickly end the expected Senate trial and that he's "trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind."

"I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here," Graham said, adding, "What I see coming, happening today, is just a partisan nonsense."

[...] Schumer was not alone in his criticism of Graham and McConnell. On Sunday, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said for Senate Republican leadership to work with the President during an impeachment trial would be a "subversion of constitutional order."

"The Constitution prescribes a special oath for the senators when they sit as a trial in impeachment. They have to pledge to do impartial justice, and here you have the majority leader of the Senate, in effect, the foreman of the jury, saying they're going to work hand and glove with the defense attorney," Nadler, whose committee last week approved the two articles of impeachment, said during an interview with ABC. "Now, that's a violation of the oath they're about to take, and it's a complete subversion of the constitutional scheme." [link]

I will now just say that our country IS too corrupt to continue as a democracy. Because that's what third world government corruption looks like.