OT: American Politics

[MindzEye]

I have no issues with holding law enforcement accountable for proper conduct.

Me either, but how many random black guys had to get crack sprinkled on them before it took a criminal in the whitehouse for someone to actually give a proper fuck about procedure being followed to the letter.

 

[lecoqsportif]

Sure, and it sucks, but I don’t worry about hypocrisy anymore.

Bottom line: investigation was legit, Russia intelligence took active measures for Trump, Trump knowingly accepted, Mueller wrote an impeachment referral, Barr quashed and Trump ignored, Trump actively sought to use victim of Russian imperialism as foil for accusation and to whitewash Russian intelligence measures in 2016, Trump got caught (again), Nonna has no choice but the start impeachment, Schiff presented airtight case, Gym Jordan screamed and waved about feces on a stick (whilst wearing a fetching wrastlin’ onesie), Doug Collins had a meltdown, and now, here we are, Dotard about to be impeached.

Trump is guilty as hell. Pretty open and shut at this point. Now Americans just need to decide whether they give a shit or not.

 

[Habsy]

It’s nowhere close to open and shut. Come on now. This is a partisan impeachment. There’s never been a straight partisan impeachment with a bipartisan objection.

To answer your questions no, the majority of Americans won’t give a shit because it comes off as more Washington partisan BS.

 

[lecoqsportif]

It is factually open and shut. It was with Mueller, and it is now with the Zelensky call.

Maybe they should start an investigation about who knew what when Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered. And how did the Sawdis get off scott free after the terrorist attack at the Air Force base? Trump is just arranging for payoffs and then for people to shut up. A Sawdi friendly “NDA”.

 

[lecoqsportif]

What was said during the call with Erdogan when Trump threw the Kurds under the bus? Is Turkish intelligence sitting a info that would damage the Sawdi Boy King? What is Trump’s role? Why is the transcript of that call on the code word server in the WH?

 

[BeLeafer]

We Just Got a Rare Look at National Security Surveillance. It Was Ugly. (Published 2019)

A high-profile inspector general report has served as fodder for arguments about President Trump. But its findings about surveillance are important beyond partisan politics.

www.nytimes.com

Specifically, the application included allegations about Mr. Page contained in a dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent whose research was funded by Democrats. In January 2017, the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Steele’s own primary source, and he contradicted what Mr. Steele had written in the dossier.

The source for Mr. Steele may, of course, have been lying. But either way, officials should have flagged the disconnect for the court. Instead, the F.B.I. reported that its agents had met with the source to “further corroborate” the dossier and found him to be “truthful and cooperative,” leaving a misleading impression in renewal applications.

Funny how with their 'corroboration' the FBI never charged Page, much less successfully prosecute. Lies.

 

[BeLeafer]

The Inspector General's Report on 2016 FBI Spying Reveals a Scandal of Historic Magnitude: Not Only for the FBI but Also the U.S. Media

The massive spying improprieties on the part of the FBI is as much a media scandal as it is a scandal for the agency and its leaders.

theintercept.com

If you don’t consider FBI lying, concealment of evidence, and manipulation of documents in order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign to be a major scandal, what is? But none of this is aberrational: the FBI still has its headquarters in a building named after J. Edgar Hoover – who constantly blackmailed elected officials with dossiers and tried to blackmail Martin Luther King into killing himself – because that’s what these security state agencies are. They are out-of-control, virtually unlimited police state factions that lie, abuse their spying and law enforcement powers, and subvert democracy and civic and political freedoms as a matter of course.

The focus of the first part of the IG Report was on the warrants obtained by the DOJ, at the behest of the FBI, to spy on Carter Page on the grounds that there was probable cause to believe he was an agent of the Russian government. That Page was a Kremlin agent was a widely disseminated media claim – typically asserted as fact even though it had no evidence. As a result of this media narrative, the Mueller investigation examined these widespread accusations yet concluded that “the investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”

 

[Habsy]

This is precisely my issue. I understand the penchant for people to think that it is in defense of Trump, it isn't. In fact, it doesn't really involve Trump, this particular instance involved Carter Page who is the one that had his rights violated, not Trump. The talking heads can spew all the bullshit they want about probable cause etc but the IG report clearly states they willingly omitted and doctored items. No Western democracy can have their top law enforcement agency acting in such manner. The ends do not justify the means when it comes to this. Sure, it isn't new and people have been railroaded badly in the past, that is true. This cannot go unchecked. Congress claims to be able to walk and chew gum, they should do so. I have a strong feeling the Durham report is going to find some people criminally indictable, it just won't be the people we've been hearing about for 2 years.

And in the end it will end the way I said it will end, Trump will not be affected by the impeachment. The Dems really should not have tried to ram it through themselves, it is precisely what the founding Fathers wanted to avoid:

Alexander Hamilton predicted in Federalist Paper 65: “In many cases [impeachment] will connect itself with the preexisting factions ... and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

This is exactly where we sit today. With one side arguing they have clear demonstrations of guilt and the other side claiming that is not so. To the layman American this reeks of partisanship. If one party can impeach a President just because they have the numbers, the future is in jeopardy. If this precedent is set, just wait until the GOP has congress again (both houses) and there is a Dem president they don't like.

There is a fundamental difference of moral, ethical and legal opinions of half the country against the other half and the new civil war is being fought in the courts and now in these committees. I don't see all this as healthy for this country, something is going to snap.

 

[lecoqsportif]

They had to impeach, otherwise they would have abdicated on their responsibility and Trump/Fox would have walked all over them.

Let the Rs, who are no less “partisan”, defend their decision to acquit this corrupt authoritarian. It’s on them.

 

[leafman101]

And in the end it will end the way I said it will end, Trump will not be affected by the impeachment. The Dems really should not have tried to ram it through themselves, it is precisely what the founding Fathers wanted to avoid:

And what about the forperson of the jury openly admitting they will work with the defendant to ensure he gets off before the start of the trial? Founding fathers ok with that? More important to protect the initiation of an impeachment proceeding from the "comparative strength of the parties" than the result?

 

[Wayward DP]

This is precisely my issue. I understand the penchant for people to think that it is in defense of Trump, it isn't. In fact, it doesn't really involve Trump, this particular instance involved Carter Page who is the one that had his rights violated, not Trump. The talking heads can spew all the bullshit they want about probable cause etc but the IG report clearly states they willingly omitted and doctored items. No Western democracy can have their top law enforcement agency acting in such manner. The ends do not justify the means when it comes to this. Sure, it isn't new and people have been railroaded badly in the past, that is true. This cannot go unchecked. Congress claims to be able to walk and chew gum, they should do so. I have a strong feeling the Durham report is going to find some people criminally indictable, it just won't be the people we've been hearing about for 2 years.

And in the end it will end the way I said it will end, Trump will not be affected by the impeachment. The Dems really should not have tried to ram it through themselves, it is precisely what the founding Fathers wanted to avoid:



This is exactly where we sit today. With one side arguing they have clear demonstrations of guilt and the other side claiming that is not so. To the layman American this reeks of partisanship. If one party can impeach a President just because they have the numbers, the future is in jeopardy. If this precedent is set, just wait until the GOP has congress again (both houses) and there is a Dem president they don't like.

There is a fundamental difference of moral, ethical and legal opinions of half the country against the other half and the new civil war is being fought in the courts and now in these committees. I don't see all this as healthy for this country, something is going to snap.

This analysis seems to avoid the salient point, which is whether there was objectively impeachable conduct. And I'm not sure how any person at this point doesn't think that that threshold has been crossed (again, I refer to emoluments, from day fucking one of his presidency the bloody grifter has been pocketing taxpayer money left and right).

The ideological hoops you have to jump through to defend Trump should kinda speak for themselves regarding what is actually happening here...

I mean, quite literally, this is the conversation:
Pro-impeachment: "leveraging important military aid to the Ukraine for personal political gain is not cool. we should probably impeach the guy for it"
Anti-impeachment: "wait, but there wasn't any quid pro quo so what's the fuss?"
Pro: "actually, all the circumstantial and real evidence indicates there was a quid pro quo. and the testimony of the relevant parties confirms it, as much as is possible. and really, it should be called bribery, not a quid pro quo"
Anti: "but the FBI broke the rules when it got FISA warrants"

or, if I mischaracterized the anti positions, please feel free to correct me.

I just do not see any actual arguments on the merits against impeachment. unless you are still trying to argue that what happened in Ukraine was not as described or is somehow okay?

if anything, the reasons to not impeach are far more political.

 

[Habsy]

If you don't think that the "hearings" were a sham I don't know what to tell you.

Now you will see it run through legal means in the senate, there will be a big difference in what is allowable. You will cry foul while others will champion the following of law. Unlike you, and others, I view these two issues separately. The Judicial committee recommended impeaching today down party lines, that's fine. Proceed. Just don't forget about other laws broken along the way when the impeachment stuff is completed.

 

[Habsy]

They had to impeach, otherwise they would have abdicated on their responsibility and Trump/Fox would have walked all over them.

Let the Rs, who are no less “partisan”, defend their decision to acquit this corrupt authoritarian. It’s on them.

Nobody ever claimed the GOP was less partisan. I don't think that at all.

 

[Altair]

The more this impeachment process goes on, the more I think this was a mistake.

In the court of public opinion, nothing has changed. Dems think hes guilty, Republicans think he isn't. So failure there.

Senate will not find him guilty, obvious failure there.

But most sadly, this takes time away from the 2020 guys and gals running to beat him. That's like a sad own goal.

 

[Habsy]

And what about the forperson of the jury openly admitting they will work with the defendant to ensure he gets off before the start of the trial? Founding fathers ok with that? More important to protect the initiation of an impeachment proceeding from the "comparative strength of the parties" than the result?

How is that different than crying for impeachment from the day he was sworn in, if not earlier?

This is partisanship, you seem to think I am saying just on one side. It will not look good on the Dems however if the full house votes yes on a partisan line but no on a bipartisan line and I think that is exactly what you will see happen. Futhermore, I heard Graham say he is thinking about just not taking it up and dismissing the impeachment. I think that is a big mistake. They have claimed all along that this was a witch hunt, that these are lies etc. The Country needs to hear their "proof" about their defense. Dismissing this without testimony will look like a coverup.

 

[Habsy]

The more this impeachment process goes on, the more I think this was a mistake.

In the court of public opinion, nothing has changed. Dems think hes guilty, Republicans think he isn't. So failure there.

Senate will not find him guilty, obvious failure there.

But most sadly, this takes time away from the 2020 guys and gals running to beat him. That's like a sad own goal.

This. Those that hate him won't change their minds for nothing, those that love and support him would look the other way if he shot someone on live tv. The numbers have not moved, if anything he gained a small percentage in battleground states. Now I am expecting all that to revert to the mean next year but as of today, it has shown zero benefit to the Dems aside from appeasing their base, which is what Trump does as well.

 

[Habsy]

I may be wrong but some here appear to think that Congress is a more powerful branch than the executive branch. It isn't. This isn't a parliamentary system. While the house claims overreach, so does the whitehouse, and they're both correct on some points. That's why the third branch is there to decide. Much of this should have been settled in the Judicial branch.

Also, when the impeachment fails the Senate, the House can still go for a censure and I think they'd get bipartisan support for it. There are many people that think this is the appropriate action.

 

[leafman101]

How is that different than crying for impeachment from the day he was sworn in, if not earlier?

This is partisanship, you seem to think I am saying just on one side. It will not look good on the Dems however if the full house votes yes on a partisan line but no on a bipartisan line and I think that is exactly what you will see happen. Futhermore, I heard Graham say he is thinking about just not taking it up and dismissing the impeachment. I think that is a big mistake. They have claimed all along that this was a witch hunt, that these are lies etc. The Country needs to hear their "proof" about their defense. Dismissing this without testimony will look like a coverup.

The fact that anyone was "crying for impeachment from the day he was sworn in" does not in itself make any impeachment is a farce.

Truth is despite "crying for impeachment from the day he was sworn in" they didn't actually do it until they had him.

Of course he is going to be saved by guys who have the founding father rolling in their graves though. That much I can't argue with.

 

[Wayward DP]

If you don't think that the "hearings" were a sham I don't know what to tell you.

Now you will see it run through legal means in the senate, there will be a big difference in what is allowable. You will cry foul while others will champion the following of law. Unlike you, and others, I view these two issues separately. The Judicial committee recommended impeaching today down party lines, that's fine. Proceed. Just don't forget about other laws broken along the way when the impeachment stuff is completed.

see, again. you would rather focus on finding process flaws than address the substance of the allegations.

the hoops some people jump through to defend Trump. sorry, 'not defend Trump'

 

[Wayward DP]

This. Those that hate him won't change their minds for nothing, those that love and support him would look the other way if he shot someone on live tv. The numbers have not moved, if anything he gained a small percentage in battleground states. Now I am expecting all that to revert to the mean next year but as of today, it has shown zero benefit to the Dems aside from appeasing their base, which is what Trump does as well.

there's a convincing argument to be made that the politically expedient option for the Dems, as so many people have told us here, was to avoid impeachment.

there's also a convincing argument to be made that the moral option for the Dems, politics be damned, was to try to impeach.

you actually seem to argue in favour of the latter argument, without actually acknowledging any moral considerations anywhere whatsoever.