Impeachment Hearings
-
benshawks08 said:
I know I’m just a dirty rotten leftist but I am genuinely curious how conservatives feel about the new defense proposed in the impeachment. I found this quote particularly terrifying but maybe I’m just seeing it through my blue shaded glasses?
“And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz argued.
Help me out here conservatives. Explain to me why this kid of presidential power without oversight is good. Genuinely trying to understand this because to my brain it is incomprehensible.
Not a conservative, but generally on the right. Dershowitz is a hack. He made his career as a defense attorney and that’s what he’s doing here. No more, no less.
-
@FarmerJayhawk Do you worry if Trump is now acquitted by the Senate that this line of defense becomes precedent and opens up presidents to do almost anything they’d like to get reelected because they “believe” it’s in the public interest for them to be president? I’m also no law scholar so I’m curious to know if that’s even how that would work.
-
This is going to sound sort of funny.
I am young, I think you all know that. So I’m just now finding my Political Identity. I feel as though I’m a moderate. I have been called shitty names by both sides, that’s how I know… I personally find the current President and his administration unbearable as, I’ve made clear. But I’ve quit worrying about it so much recently.
Why?
Well since Disney + came out, I’ve started watching the Simpsons from Episode 1. I’ve never watched them all the way through before. And, you know what, we have been in this same battle as a country for over 30 years. The things said over 30 years ago are still being said today. Almost exactly. It was hysterical!
And as I’ve now made it through about 8 season (I let it play in the background while I do other things), I am reassured that the U.S. will be just as divided and partisan tomorrow as it is today and was yesterday.
So I’ve quit watching the hearings. I quit being so captivated by it on Twitter and TV. He did what he is being accused of, and he’s going to get away with it. I’ve made peace with that. It’s clear he did it. You have to twist yourself into a pretzel to even try to argue what he was doing was okay. I have a lot of opinions on how this all was handled, but ultimately things will be decided in November. That’s where we are.
What I haven’t made peace with is term limits. Or rather, a lack there of. What the impeachment has made clear to me is that we don’t have an independent body capable of holding a president accountable. Every single position in the Legislative branch should be single-term. You can do one in the House and one in the Senate. They cannot be consecutive. We absolutely need this. People argue experience is more important. I disagree. People are smart. Whether you like AOC or not I don’t care. She has proven that you can go from a bartender to drafting bills without needing multiple terms. “Regular” people are up to the task. I’m an accountant, so independence, from a process perspective, is extremely important to me. Unlimited Term limits in Congress is a disaster that our founding fathers apparently didn’t see coming.
To provide an example from the accounting world, in the Early 2000s, laws were passed that force Public Companies to rotate auditors every 5 years. Why did they do this? Enron was a main reason. For context: the auditors for Enron were getting paid millions of dollars to essentially help coverup the schemes going on by Enron. And instead of doing their job and acting as an independent body, they wanted to keep that account. So they let things slide. They covered up indiscretions and consulted on how to hide things from necessary reporting on the public financials. And they cost thousands of people to go broke. Thousands more to lose jobs. And it was all because they couldn’t do their one damn job, be an independent set of eyes and ears. Thus, the mandatory switching.
Does switching auditors suck? Absolutely. They don’t know your business. They haven’t seen how you account for certain transactions yet. They don’t understand your spreadsheets yet. They don’t know who to test, where to test, how to test. You have to go over all of your processes with them again. It is a huge pain in the ass. But, that independence is what keeps another Enron from happening.
The same thing is happening here. We have people sitting in Congress raking in cash. And instead of ever being compelled to do the thing they actually truly feel is right, they walk party lines and take money from corporations. They are not an independent body. Not even close. They are a corrupt group of people fighting for power and nothing more.
I don’t know that Trump would get impeached even if we had term limits and members could vote freely. I really don’t. But I do know that at least I’d have the confidence that Representatives were independent in their votes and not just toeing the party line because they are up for reelection in 2020.
-
benshawks08 said:
@FarmerJayhawk Do you worry if Trump is now acquitted by the Senate that this line of defense becomes precedent and opens up presidents to do almost anything they’d like to get reelected because they “believe” it’s in the public interest for them to be president? I’m also no law scholar so I’m curious to know if that’s even how that would work.
Not really. I think the outcome was certain no matter what the defense said. Dershowitz could’ve went up there and started yelling get these squirrels off me and Trump would’ve been acquitted. That’s the weird thing about impeachments. The underlying facts are rarely in dispute. Everyone knew Clinton lied under oath and Trump held up aid to Ukraine to push them to investigate the Biden’s. It’s a political judgment about whether these were acts worthy of removal from office.
And FWIW, I think this is pretty clear cut and the Senate should convict.
-
@Kcmatt7 I agree with what you are saying in terms of how much time and effort is spent worrying about this. It blows my flipping mind how much the left is obsessed with DJT and this whole impeachment thing. They knew from the beginning that he was not going to get convicted and yet every waking minutes of their lives is wasted on worrying about this. If you are so concerned about it then show up in November and vote him out. That is how it works.
I am not the most political person , but I do lean right since that is what I was raised around. However, I do have beliefs that lean more left. So maybe I am more of a moderate as well. Who the hell knows in today’s climate.
-
@Kcmatt7 Good points all around. I disagree on term limits. From what we know from research into state legislatures, term limits make representatives less accountable and increase the influence of special interests, professional staff, and the governor. They increase polarization as well since seniority tends to moderate legislators. Paradoxically, they tend to have the opposite effects proponents (quite reasonably!) believe they would, hence their popularity. https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/political-science-term-limits
-
Corrected post.
Do we really want to live in a country where the executive branch can deny Congress the ability to oversee it? That gives the presidency far too much power. If the president can’t be impeached nor indicted aren’t his /her powers as great as any dictators? I find it sad that all members of Congress can think about is their own re-election.
-
SouthernHawk said:
Corrected post.
Do we really want to live in a country where the executive branch can deny Congress the ability to oversee it? That gives the presidency far too much power. If the president can’t be impeached nor indicted aren’t his /her powers as great as any dictators? I find it sad that all members of Congress can think about is their own re-election.
Super glad you brought this up. I think we need to reject the relatively new school of thought that says the branches are co-equal because they are absolutely not if you re-read the minutes to Constitutional Convention and the Federalist papers. Nobody the thought of interbranch dynamics in that way at all. Congress is the superior branch, the executive the inferior. Here’s a simple test: which branch has ultimate authority over who serves in the other two? Congress, because it can impeach whoever it damn well pleases for whatever reason it finds sufficient since A) it has the SOLE power of impeachment per the Constitution and B ) the issue of impeachment is non-justiciable. The courts have no role in the impeachment process.
We as voters need to quit thinking about POTUS as the end all be all and elect members of Congress that will actually reclaim the actual business of legislating. We may get a shove to that since this Roberts Court is as skeptical as any in recent memory about the non-delegation doctrine, which has very significant implications about administrative rule-making power. As an example, the ACA had a (this is a very jargony term, my apologies) SHITLOAD of “the Secretary (of HHS) shall” this or that to actually fill out the skeleton that was the ACA statute. It’s how we got things like the contraception mandate and all that jazz. This Court is skeptical that the legislature actually has the authority to delegate that power to the executive. Hopefully they keep chipping away at it until we get something resembling a functional legislative branch again.
I have more thoughts but went pretty far afield. Oops.
-
Back actually on topic, there aren’t 51 to extend the trial to call and depose witnesses. This will end late Friday/early Saturday. /scene
-
Joe Biden is a fat tick riding on the Body Politic - Trump is the tweezers.
-
Biden would make me mutter on the way home from voting. But no way in hell I’d vote for Trump.
Hoping for Bernie.
-
Thank you FarmerJayhawk for your insightful comments. I agree totally with your opinion with regards to Congress. My dollars are going to support important congressional races including ones in SC and KY.
-
SouthernHawk said:
Thank you FarmerJayhawk for your insightful comments. I agree totally with your opinion with regards to Congress. My dollars are going to support important congressional races including ones in SC and KY.
-
Another gem from Marco Rubio, “Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.”
-
SouthernHawk said:
Thank you FarmerJayhawk for your insightful comments. I agree totally with your opinion with regards to Congress. My dollars are going to support important congressional races including ones in SC and KY.
You’re welcome! I’m glad there’s so much agreement about some of the causes of our current predicament.
To @benshawks08’s quote, I’m not sure if anyone has made a bigger ass of himself than Rubio over the last 4 years. From darling of the GOP and cover of Time to a sad, little man who hasn’t accomplished much of anything.
-
Biggest joke impeachment in our history. Sad thing is. Now every president will be impeached from here on out. I can hear it now. They tweeted something that hurt my feelings. At least Bill Clinton got a blow job out of his impeachment. Even though he lied under oath. But hey this is the new America. Don’t need evidence, just need speculation.
-
DoubleDD said:
Biggest joke impeachment in our history. Sad thing is. Now every president will be impeached from here on out. I can hear it now. They tweeted something that hurt my feelings. At least Bill Clinton got a blow job out of his impeachment. Even though he lied under oath. But hey this is the new America. Don’t need evidence, just need speculation.
Nah, Johnson was impeached for basically not following a law that was clearly unconstitutional, the Tenure of Office Act. Trump was impeached for not spending money specifically appropriated by Congress, breaching his obligation to “take care the laws are faithfully executed,” and doing so to start a foreign investigation into a political opponent. Those facts aren’t in dispute. If you think that doesn’t rise to the level of impeachable that’s fine and I can respect that, but he absolutely did what the House accuses him of doing.
-
Yea they are in dispute. Ukraine got your money on time.
-
So if a country is labeled as the most corrupt in the world. And a new president comes in and says hey let’s pump the brakes. We impeach them? I guess I want to ask how does the son of a VP gets a job he has no experience in. But let’s look the other way. Right?
-
Also how many presidents withheld monies Appropriated by Congress. I think you’ll be surprised when you do a little Google search on it even the great Obama withheld money. But he didn’t get impeached
-
voted 51-49 no more witness - time to get this dam thing over with
-
DoubleDD said:
So if a country is labeled as the most corrupt in the world. And a new president comes in and says hey let’s pump the brakes. We impeach them? I guess I want to ask how does the son of a VP gets a job he has no experience in. But let’s look the other way. Right?
I mean this isn’t a road Trump supporters want to go down … right?
-
DoubleDD said:
So if a country is labeled as the most corrupt in the world. And a new president comes in and says hey let’s pump the brakes. We impeach them? I guess I want to ask how does the son of a VP gets a job he has no experience in. But let’s look the other way. Right?
This logic is not sound.
Was aid held because they wanted to see if the country was corrupt? Or if they would investigate Biden?
If your fear is a country is corrupt, you would and should not ask that country to specifically investigate an American citizen.
He could have just withheld aid and cited he didn’t want to give millions to a new regime yet. Totally justifiable to have conditions on aid.
But only if those conditions are agreed upon U.S. policy. Asking a foreign country to publicly investigate any American Citizen is not the type of condition that should be tied to aid. Much less if that American Citizen is the son of your biggest opponent in the coming election.
He did exactly what he’s accused of. There is nothing to dispute. The testimony of the witnesses in the House were damning. Sondland literally said the President was both aware and that it was a Quid Pro Quo Bidens for Aid.
It is indisputable.
-
Woodrow said:
DoubleDD said:
So if a country is labeled as the most corrupt in the world. And a new president comes in and says hey let’s pump the brakes. We impeach them? I guess I want to ask how does the son of a VP gets a job he has no experience in. But let’s look the other way. Right?
I mean this isn’t a road Trump supporters want to go down … right?
You’d think… but here we are.
Trump, the crusader against Nepotism. Lol.
-
DoubleDD said:
Also how many presidents withheld monies Appropriated by Congress. I think you’ll be surprised when you do a little Google search on it even the great Obama withheld money. But he didn’t get impeached
Withholding funds isn’t impeachable on its own. Doing so to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a domestic political opponent absolutely is. I don’t care who does it, it’s a violation of the law. And I voted for Romney in ‘12, Johnson in in ‘16. There’s no love lost between the left and myself.
-
Yea I agree. Yet we Are promoting a perception as fact. I’ve yet to hear or see any evidence that trump (like me, hate him) actually said investigate joe Biden. Have you?
Also just look at the articles of impeachment? Obstruction of justice? Because Trump did not respond to some of the subpoenas by the house. If your check, every president has done that. Why wouldn’t all those presidents even the great Obama get impeached?
Like I said this a which hunt. I’m mean you have Joe Biden on camera demanding a quid pro quo. And his son who has no experience in energy and oil gets the most Cush job in the world. But we don’t investigate that? we don’t look at that? no we speculate on what trump means by what he says, and present evidence off persons testimonies that didn’t even hear the phone call. Let’s not forget trump released the transcripts of such phone call. Also as by standard, there were a A minimum of 20 people that where on that phone call with President Trump. Yea twenty. Yet the evidence lies with persons that heard from a friend that heard it from a friend.
-
The answer to your first question might be answered had the senate heard from witnesses. Secondly, it was not just to some requests for documents but a refusal to turn over all documents. If, as it has been so frequently noted—one is so innocent of any wrongdoing why hide everything. You would think you would want to produce the witnesses and documents to show it.
-
Hey the Dems could of had witnesses, and all the paperwork they wanted. All they had to do was go through the court system. So don’t blame the senate because the House was to lazy to do their job. BTW The Dems had 18 witnesses I believe. Every president has blocked witnesses from speaking and from sending over desired paperwork. None of those presidents got impeached. Innocent people go to jail all the time, my friend. That’s why you get a lawyer, or lawyers. And why is it that Dems want the witnesses they want, but President Trump can’t have his. Fair trial, Fair trail my ass.
If the Dems had a open and shut case then they blew it.
-
Nepotism is a bad practice and unethical. Coercion is a duress crime. Bribery is a crime.
I find it a bit disingenuous for anyone in the Trump family to be casting stones about nepotism. But they are. And it seems far too many people are blind to the irony.
Nepotism is not illegal. Coercion is.
I still fail to understand why a potentially nepotistic act could be considered so corrupt that it was worthy of withholding funds from a country – essentially justifying coercion.
But that seems to be what the verdict was: Coercion – a crime – was justified because of the concern over nepotism (by a political rival).
I call bulls–t on the whole process, all the players and especially our completely self-absorbed, corrupt 2-party system.
In this environment, we should be concerned for the future of democracy.
-
@SouthernHawk Where in SC are you, and which race? There is only one I know of where any vote might make a difference: Cunningham vs whoever is designated by the GOP to reclaim that seat.
Although we live 100 feet from Columbia, where Clyburn will win until fossilized, we are in the gerrymandered part of Richland and Wilson might as well be unopposed. The most interesting race for us is usually county council.
-
DoubleDD said:
Yea I agree. Yet we Are promoting a perception as fact. I’ve yet to hear or see any evidence that trump (like me, hate him) actually said investigate joe Biden. Have you?
Also just look at the articles of impeachment? Obstruction of justice? Because Trump did not respond to some of the subpoenas by the house. If your check, every president has done that. Why wouldn’t all those presidents even the great Obama get impeached?
Like I said this a which hunt. I’m mean you have Joe Biden on camera demanding a quid pro quo. And his son who has no experience in energy and oil gets the most Cush job in the world. But we don’t investigate that? we don’t look at that? no we speculate on what trump means by what he says, and present evidence off persons testimonies that didn’t even hear the phone call. Let’s not forget trump released the transcripts of such phone call. Also as by standard, there were a A minimum of 20 people that where on that phone call with President Trump. Yea twenty. Yet the evidence lies with persons that heard from a friend that heard it from a friend.
Yep, then Chief of Staff Mulvaney admitted to the exact thing the House accuses Trump of doing. It’s not even really debatable. Congress is entitled to whatever documents it requires for an impeachment proceeding. Executive privilege in this context is nonsense. The only time a President can lawfully withhold material documents from Congress is when they don’t have anything to do with Article I power. For example, the House doesn’t have the right to internal Article II documents related to foreign treaties, but the Senate does because it has the sole power to ratify treaties.
Whether DoJ investigates the Biden’s is another matter entirely and not related to this impeachment. There was no transcript. There was a memo written later but not a verbatim transcript.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-acting-chief-staff-mick-mulvaney/
