Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

134689103

Comments

  • I think you'd need a lot more data about the, um, incidence of incidents before conducting any sane analysis.

    Meanwhile helicopters remain bottom of my list of transport options (well, possibly a little above an orbital launch vehicle). Anything with a part called a Jesus nut should make anyone think twice before boarding.
  • Meanwhile the Cambridge Analytica story seems to be gaining momentum.

    This, the second part of a Channel 4 investigation, shows the company, um, testing out undercover reporters by giving them lots of examples of what they, um won't do to swing election campaigns.

    I'm sure this was an episode of Homeland, too.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Here is a scenario that could happen. Wait until the mid term elections are over and the new Congress is installed. Impeach and convict Pence first--since it is already known he had contact with the Russians during the campaign. Refuse to confirm any VP replacement and then impeach and convict Trump. Then the Democratic Speaker of the house--assuming they will win-- is installed as the President by right of succession.

  • Wow. That's actually how happens?

    Or a really intense movie possibility.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Here is a scenario that could happen. Wait until the mid term elections are over and the new Congress is installed. Impeach and convict Pence first--since it is already known he had contact with the Russians during the campaign. Refuse to confirm any VP replacement and then impeach and convict Trump. Then the Democratic Speaker of the house--assuming they will win-- is installed as the President by right of succession.

    And if the Republicans win Congress back in two years, they can do the same thing. And totally would. Probably right after a Supreme Court Justice retires or dies.

    If it comes to firm evidence of crimes, impeach away. But that plot is the kind of thing that ends republics.
  • I read an article (well, half an article) on why Trump hates Mueller so much. The answer is obvious, but it did either remind or inform me that Mueller has a Purple Heart. That prompted me to look at his wikipedia page, which says in part:
    In July 1968, he was sent to South Vietnam where he served as a rifle platoon leader with Second Platoon, H Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 3rd Marine Division.[6][19] In December 1968, he earned the Bronze Star with 'V' distinction for combat valor for rescuing a wounded Marine under enemy fire during an ambush that saw half of his platoon become casualties.[20][21] In April 1969, he received an enemy gunshot wound in the thigh, recovered, and returned to lead his platoon until June 1969.[22] For his service in and during the Vietnam War, his military decorations and awards include: the Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V", Purple Heart Medal, two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals with Combat "V", Combat Action Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with three service stars, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and Parachutist Badge.[6][22]

    Mueller eventually became aide-de-camp to 3rd Marine Division's commanding general, then-Major General William K. Jones, where he “significantly contributed to the rapport” Jones had with other officers, according to one report.[18][23]

    Reflecting on his service in the Vietnam War, Mueller said “I consider myself exceptionally lucky to have made it out of Vietnam. There were many—many—who did not. And perhaps because I did survive Vietnam, I have always felt compelled to contribute.”[24]

    So once again, President Trump is attacking a man who fought in a war that Trump fought hard to avoid.

    Source
  • cliffdwellercliffdweller Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Here is a scenario that could happen. Wait until the mid term elections are over and the new Congress is installed. Impeach and convict Pence first--since it is already known he had contact with the Russians during the campaign. Refuse to confirm any VP replacement and then impeach and convict Trump. Then the Democratic Speaker of the house--assuming they will win-- is installed as the President by right of succession.

    And if the Republicans win Congress back in two years, they can do the same thing. And totally would. Probably right after a Supreme Court Justice retires or dies.

    If it comes to firm evidence of crimes, impeach away. But that plot is the kind of thing that ends republics.

    "If"??!??


    Note that no one worried about that when Clinton was impeached
  • goperryrevsgoperryrevs Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Eutychus wrote: »
    This, the second part of a Channel 4 investigation, shows the company, um, testing out undercover reporters by giving them lots of examples of what they, um won't do to swing election campaigns.

    I just watched it. It's terrifying. Democracy is dead.
  • agingjbagingjb Shipmate
    The House impeaches on a simple majority; the Senate convicts on a two thirds majority - and that is quite rare on purely partisan numbers.

  • And if the Republicans win Congress back in two years, they can do the same thing. And totally would. Probably right after a Supreme Court Justice retires or dies.

    If it comes to firm evidence of crimes, impeach away. But that plot is the kind of thing that ends republics.

    May the liberal and centrist and flexible conservative justices live long enough to be replaced by similar. I think O'Connor identifies as conservative, but doesn't necessarily vote with the nastier conservatives on the court. She's up there in age, I think. Ginsburg is way up there in age. I gather our Notorious RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsburg)* is trying to hold on.

    *This is a thing. T-shirts, etc. Lots of fans.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    May the liberal and centrist and flexible conservative justices live long enough to be replaced by similar. I think O'Connor identifies as conservative, but doesn't necessarily vote with the nastier conservatives on the court. She's up there in age, I think.

    Sandra Day O'Connor took "senior status" back in 2006, which is kind of a working retirement for Supreme Court Justices. Her place, and her vote on the en banc court, were filled by Samuel Alito.
  • Thanks. I forgot.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    I really feel for Justice Ginsburg. I am sure she was looking forward to retiring upon the election of Hillary Clinton. Now that that didn't happen, I'm sure she feels she owes it to the country to hang in there for as long as her health will permit. Live long and prosper, dear lady.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    This, the second part of a Channel 4 investigation, shows the company, um, testing out undercover reporters by giving them lots of examples of what they, um won't do to swing election campaigns.

    I just watched it. It's terrifying. Democracy is dead.

    These guys seem to be just using tricks as old as politics itself on a new platform. Some of the stuff they talk about - using honey traps, setting up pollies to accept bribes, that's hardly new. Its so hackneyed in fact that it seems like its a bit unreal. It's almost like they get a hint from the potential client to talk about a particularly unsavory tactic, so they do. That wasn't how the stuff about Kenya came out, the examples of the work they were doing, which was seeding lies about the opponent into a volatile environment. Again, not a new strategy.

    I am kind of working things out as I type, but I'm tossing around the idea that this is the dark arts of politics using a new toy - social media. They will be worked out, I suspect, just like a new swing bowler who takes a swag of wickets in his first test, and is carted all over the field by his third.

    This was a Channel 4 in Britain video right? I've heard of them, but I'm not sure what sort of journalism they do, if they are BBC or a private broadcaster. Their story smacked of British tabloids, and I'm thinking about those match fixing stings. These journalists have run a sting on a firm of election consultants. How is what they did materially different from that company setting up an opposition figure, bribing him, and filming it. That was exactly what they did, except that here they used a stooge to pretend to be a Sri Lankan pollie suggesting all this sort of dirty tactics to them.

    These guys are not Mary Magdalene, and I have no problem with the police conducting such an operation as part of an investigation. I do have a problem with a journalist doing something wrong so that they can get film of their target doing the same thing. I don't think what the journalists did was ethical and I don't think the sting was necessary.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    So, inept assassination attempt or just the likely and expected result of the Trump Organization cheaping out on routine maintenance expenses?
    A helicopter carrying Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner had to return to an airport in Washington on Thursday after one of its engines failed, two law enforcement sources told CNN.

    President Trump's daughter and son-in-law were flying from Washington to New York on Thursday afternoon in a two-engine helicopter when one engine failed, causing the chopper to return to Washington.

    The helicopter safely made it back to Ronald Reagan National Airport and the couple scrambled to get on a commercial flight instead.

    The sources could not say why the couple were flying to New York via a helicopter instead of a plane.

    The aircraft was a Sikorsky helicopter owned by the Trump Organization, according to information recorded by the aviation website LiveATC.net.

    If I were betting on this I'd put my money on Trump being unwilling to fork over money for routine helicopter maintenance being the ultimate culprit. I also expect much ado and various conspiracy theories to be launched from the right wing fever swamps.

    We won't know unless the Federal Aviation Administration decides to look at the aircraft's service records. If the director of the FAA is booted we can take that as a clue.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited March 2018
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    This was a Channel 4 in Britain video right? I've heard of them, but I'm not sure what sort of journalism they do, if they are BBC or a private broadcaster. Their story smacked of British tabloids, and I'm thinking about those match fixing stings. These journalists have run a sting on a firm of election consultants. How is what they did materially different from that company setting up an opposition figure, bribing him, and filming it. That was exactly what they did, except that here they used a stooge to pretend to be a Sri Lankan pollie suggesting all this sort of dirty tactics to them.
    The difference is that the journalists' investigation allegedly uncovers the truth, whereas the consultants' aim is allegedly to bury it.

    I think there's also above the line and below the line opposition research, and that if true, this is very definitely below.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    These journalists have run a sting on a firm of election consultants. How is what they did materially different from that company setting up an opposition figure, bribing him, and filming it. That was exactly what they did, except that here they used a stooge to pretend to be a Sri Lankan pollie suggesting all this sort of dirty tactics to them.

    First off, offering bribes to elected officials, which is a service Cambridge Analytica claims to offer, is illegal. Misrepresenting yourself as a politician and surreptitious recording are not crimes (at least not in that jurisdiction) so there's one difference. And the undercover journalist didn't "suggest[] all this sort of dirty tactics to them", that was freely offered by Cambridge Analytica as the kinds of service on offer with no more prompting than being asked what services they offer (unless the video was selectively edited, which no one has thus far suggested).
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    These guys are not Mary Magdalene, . . .

    She was the one with a history of mental illness and a reputation for being a whore, right? Why is the lack of these characteristics considered to be a hindrance to good journalism?
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    . . . and I have no problem with the police conducting such an operation as part of an investigation. I do have a problem with a journalist doing something wrong so that they can get film of their target doing the same thing. I don't think what the journalists did was ethical and I don't think the sting was necessary.

    Why do you consider undercover journalism to be "unethical"? Is this any different than pretending to be seeking a home loan to see if a bank offers different rates or services based on the race of the applicant (the journalists don't really want a home loan) or taking a car with a burnt out fuse to a repair shop to see if a much more expensive repair will be recommended to fix a problem that doesn't exist (the journalist knows what's wrong with the car but pretends not to)? Those seem to offer exactly the same level of deception as was practiced by Channel 4 in this case.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    These guys seem to be just using tricks as old as politics itself on a new platform. Some of the stuff they talk about - using honey traps, setting up pollies to accept bribes, that's hardly new.
    Yeah, it's the same old tricks, but with the arrival of the internet & social media, they have power and resources and scope like never before. The terrifying bit is that people think their opinions are fair and objective, but they're being propoganda'd without having the chance to realise it. All this is being done in the shadows like never before.

    FWIW, Channel 4 aren't BBC, but they're the best you get in the UK other than the BBC. If you've heard of Film4, it's the same group. ISTM that in recent years, they've been more impressive than Panorama in revealing dodgy dealings. Of course, like most channels there's some tabloid content, but, for example, following the last election, they did an expose of how the Conservatives were illegally using call centres under a fictitious company name in Wales, to manipulate the electorate. https://channel4.com/news/revealed-inside-the-secretive-tory-election-call-centre

    Oh, and yeah, what Croesos said (except maybe the stuff about Mary Magdalene, but that's a tangent...)

  • "If"??!??


    Note that no one worried about that when Clinton was impeached
    Which resulted in acquittal.

    Oh, you think Trump is petty now, wait until you impeach over a tangentially related procedural crime and he skates.

    I stand by my original position. If you think that the Democrats can get cute with impeachment proceedings and manage to grab the White House without the Republicans doing the same thing over much less down the line, you need to put down the impeachment porn and start paying attention.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    So Part 3 of Channel 4's Cambridge Analytica story has been broadcast and "[a]s the report went on air, the firm announced it has suspended chief executive Alexander Nix, pending a full investigation".
    The British data company was secretly filmed discussing coordination between Trump’s campaign and outside groups – an activity which is potentially illegal.

    Executives claimed they “ran all the digital campaign, the television campaign and our data informed all the strategy” for President Trump.

    <snip>

    [ Alexander Nix ] added that his firm could avoid any US investigation into its foreign clients. “I’m absolutely convinced that they have no jurisdiction…,” he said. “We’ll say none of your business.”

    Depending on details, that may be put to the test.

    I'm not a lawyer, but the question of legality probably hinges on the amount Cambridge Analytica was paid for its services. Foreign individuals or groups cannot make contributions to American political campaigns. This includes "things of value" like data services. They can, however, sell things to American political campaigns. It only counts as a contribution if they charged less than "fair market value". I shudder to think what might be uncovered should anyone with serious investigative powers start digging into exactly what services CA provided the Trump campaign to determine if what they were paid was fair market value.

  • "If"??!??


    Note that no one worried about that when Clinton was impeached
    Which resulted in acquittal.

    Oh, you think Trump is petty now, wait until you impeach over a tangentially related procedural crime and he skates.

    I stand by my original position. If you think that the Democrats can get cute with impeachment proceedings and manage to grab the White House without the Republicans doing the same thing over much less down the line, you need to put down the impeachment porn and start paying attention.


    I think the GOP is gonna do what the GOP is gonna do and I'm not willing to cower in fear or shrink back from justice because of what they may or may not do in some hypothetical future when we regain the White House and not Congress. There's too much at stake-- I would echo your language and say the very republic is at stake as we're experiencing a bloodless (mostly) coup

  • Channel 4 is the broadcast medium, the investigative journalists are Guardian.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I stand by my original position. If you think that the Democrats can get cute with impeachment proceedings and manage to grab the White House without the Republicans doing the same thing over much less down the line, you need to put down the impeachment porn and start paying attention.

    I'm with cliffdweller as far as the glaringly obvious problems with this reasoning go. The idea that Republicans will be restrained from impeaching a future Democratic president over trivial matters drowned ignominiously in its own metaphorical vomit sometime in 1998. The notion that Republicans will feel bound to adhere to the time-honored governing norms of the American Republic is best taken up with Supreme Court Justice Merrick Garland.

    There may be many valid reasons for thinking a Trump impeachment is unwarranted or misguided, such as the seeming necessity of Republican votes in the Senate for success and the extreme unlikeliness of those votes materializing. The idea that a Trump impeachment should be avoided to insure future Republican compliance with Constitutional norms deliberately ignores the blindingly apparent fact that Republican are presently engaged in a project to demolish those norms, and have been for quite some time.
  • Croesos wrote:
    Why do you consider undercover journalism to be "unethical"? Is this any different than pretending to be seeking a home loan to see if a bank offers different rates or services based on the race of the applicant (the journalists don't really want a home loan) or taking a car with a burnt out fuse to a repair shop to see if a much more expensive repair will be recommended to fix a problem that doesn't exist (the journalist knows what's wrong with the car but pretends not to)? Those seem to offer exactly the same level of deception as was practiced by Channel 4 in this case.

    The problem I have is that the Journalist's stooge in this case (I think) suggested offering prostitutes before prostitutes were discussed, and suggested getting incriminating stuff on an opposition pollie by offering a bribe before that strategy was discussed. I call that entrapment, and if the cops do that, the prosecution is a bust (I think).

    The entrapment wasn't necessary for the story, because the story was really how the firm got stuff out of facebook. This was the sexy stuff, because they mentioned prostitutes from Ukraine.

    I guess part of my hesitation to condemn the men in the video comes from my time as a wide-eyed innocent in the lion's den of a commercial law firm. I'm just not sure that what these blokes were doing in a meeting where they were trying to get someone to give them a shedload of cash is all that different to what we junior lawyers were told to do with our clients to get more work (i.e. shedloads of cash). We were told to mirror our clients. Mirror their opinions and their attitudes. We were told not just to pretend to have those opinions and attitudes, but to have them, to actually adopt them ourselves. I remember it well, because it really shocked me. I was a fish out of water, sadly for me.

    Now practitioners of the dark arts of politics are not necessarily lawyers, or vice-versa. But when you were in a marketing meeting with a big potential client, one who could pay you millions in fees, you mirrored the client. If the person sitting in front of you was a problem, then you told the Partner, who might use some other contacts in the organisation to get the work. Getting the work, say almost anything, doing the work, make sure the firm isn't exposed.

    That in the meeting the stooge mentions the very very nasty stuff first, and the cavalier nature of the responses, suggests very strongly to me that those blokes were in marketing mode. Maybe they would have done what they say they would, but their responses seemed a bit stereotyped to me, for what its worth. Essentially, I reckon they were bullshitting to get the client in the door. In their business, once a client has signed on, I imagine they are stuck like with flypaper to the practitioner of dirty politics, who would begin to accumulate evidence against the client in the normal course of their work.
  • This sounds like when Republican operatives ran a scam on the Acorn organization, which helped the poor. It may have closed down, afterwards. Big fuss, at the time.
  • A coup to prevent a coup is still a coup.
  • The interview is not coutroom evidence so it can't be thrown out as such. The company itself obviously takes it seriously enough to suspend its CEO pending an investigation. The most notable thing to my mind is when he says that it doesn't matter if the information used is not true. I don't think he'd say that unless he was willing to use such information.

    The oddest thing I find is that the company, with its alleged intelligence resources, did not rumble the journalists.
  • Rumble in what sense, please? Thx.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    The problem I have is that the Journalist's stooge in this case (I think) suggested offering prostitutes before prostitutes were discussed, and suggested getting incriminating stuff on an opposition pollie by offering a bribe before that strategy was discussed. I call that entrapment, and if the cops do that, the prosecution is a bust (I think).
    Journalists and police both have extensive established procedral and legal frameworks that they are expected to adhere to in the course of an investigation. Those for a journalist are not the same as those for police. Unless you're saying that the investigative journalists broke UK media law in the course of their investigation, I don't think CA have much to complain about.

    If only Cambridge Analytica (and, by the sounds of it, your previous employer) had a set of ethical conduct guidelines half as comprehensive as those journalists and police have to follow...
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Rumble in what sense, please? Thx.

    Identify as fake.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Rumble in what sense, please? Thx.

    Identify as fake.

    Ahhhh. Over hear, it's either a sound (like thunder rumbling), or a gang fight. (Sometimes used in reference to an American football game. TV ads for a game will sometimes say "Are you ready to rumble?")

  • There was an interview with the academic, Dr Alex Cogan, who designed the software app on Radio Four's Today programme (link) this morning- he's a psychologist at Cambridge University. The interview starts at 2h 10m and runs until 2h 24m - he says he is being scapegoated. He signed people up for a project to get some data. And that the data is pretty inaccurate, likely to be less than helpful
  • A coup to prevent a coup is still a coup.

    A legal, constitutional process to deal with corruption, illegal activity, and potentially a stolen election is not a coup.

  • If the Republicans did what Gramps has proposed the Democrats should do (impeach the VP on what we have on him now, refuse to confirm a replacement, then impeach the President,) no one here would be using the words “legal” or “constitutional.”
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    This sounds like when Republican operatives ran a scam on the Acorn organization, which helped the poor. It may have closed down, afterwards. Big fuss, at the time.

    Except that James O'Keefe deceptively edited his ACORN videos to make it appear his subjects were saying things they weren't actually saying. As far as I know no one is alleging anything similar about Channel 4's investigation.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    If the VP and President are validly impeachable and convictable the whole thing wouldn't bother me much. As someone implied above, there is absolutely no way Democrats are going to have 2/3 of the Senate after the coming election, so some Republicans would have to agree to convict both people. I wouldn't trust any VP chosen by a president who was worth of being removed from office anyway.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    The problem I have is that the Journalist's stooge in this case (I think) suggested offering prostitutes before prostitutes were discussed, and suggested getting incriminating stuff on an opposition pollie by offering a bribe before that strategy was discussed. I call that entrapment, and if the cops do that, the prosecution is a bust (I think).

    You seem to be laboring under one or more of the common misconceptions about what constitutes entrapment. A helpful illustrated primer can be found here (p. 1 of 29).
  • If the Republicans did what Gramps has proposed the Democrats should do (impeach the VP on what we have on him now, refuse to confirm a replacement, then impeach the President,) no one here would be using the words “legal” or “constitutional.”

    What about when they refused to hold confirmation hearings for a Suprene Court justice? Or when they used a flimsy pretext to impeach a president, knowing there was no grounds there, but using it as a convenient excuse to expose embarrassing personal info (while themselves engaging in worse)?

    Again, any pretense of fair play or protocol went out the window decades ago. The GOP will clearly do whatever they can get away with, even if it means supporting a man they ALL at one point in time, declared unfit for office. I'm not going to apologize or shrink back from using a legal constitutional process to address an urgent and critical crisis which is precisely what these constitutional processes were established for
  • When the Supreme Court thing happened, everyone here yelled about it being illegal and unconstitutional. Even though it was probably, technically, legal and constitutional, albeit uncouth.

    What I’m hearing is “it’s illegal and unconstitutional when they do it, but they’re going to do it anyway, so we better do it first, only our ends mean that it won’t be illegal and unconstitutional.”

    If there is evidence that Trump has committed serious crimes that are an affront to our democracy (and there’s a solid chance that there is), impeach away. But if you want to come up with cute ways to game the system with the primary aim of getting a Democrat in the White House before January 2021, skip the outrage when the Republicans pull their next stunt.

    I don’t think for a minute that not impeaching Trump will stop the Republicans from playing games down the line. I’m just sick of fellow Democrats proposing things that I know they would call outrageous and illegal if it were the Republicans doing it.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    When the Supreme Court thing happened, everyone here yelled about it being illegal and unconstitutional. Even though it was probably, technically, legal and constitutional, albeit uncouth.

    Where is "here" exactly, and can you cite a few examples of who you mean by "everyone"?
  • I’m not digging through Limbo to prove something that everyone knows, which is that somewhere in that enormous 2016 election thread, there are a whole lot of Shipments saying that the Republicans were trying to unconstitutionally steal a Supreme Court seat.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Yep. The problem here is that the GOP and the current administration are trashing governing principles. The solution is to restore those principles. We can't do that by trashing them ourselves.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I’m not digging through Limbo to prove something that everyone knows, which is that somewhere in that enormous 2016 election thread, there are a whole lot of Shipments saying that the Republicans were trying to unconstitutionally steal a Supreme Court seat.

    Your memory seems faulty. There are exactly five posts "in that enormous 2016 election thread" about Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court. Two of them were by me. None of them actually raises the question of the Constitutionality of the Senate's actions. This seems to be another case of something that "everyone knows" that happens to not be true.
    Ohher wrote: »
    Yep. The problem here is that the GOP and the current administration are trashing governing principles. The solution is to restore those principles. We can't do that by trashing them ourselves.

    The problem is that unilateral disarmament does not seem to be a very effective strategy. It's impossible to "restore" norms that a large number of people refuse to abide by. If they're ignored then they're not "norms". The only way Republicans seem willing to honor norms is if they expect to pay a penalty for breaking those norms.
  • Here's a sixth, with Miss Amanda citing "Constitutional duties as a Senator." Other search terms (what did you use?) might turn up more, but searching Limbo seems to be giving my Firefox fits.
  • When the Supreme Court thing happened, everyone here yelled about it being illegal and unconstitutional. Even though it was probably, technically, legal and constitutional, albeit uncouth.

    What I’m hearing is “it’s illegal and unconstitutional when they do it, but they’re going to do it anyway, so we better do it first, only our ends mean that it won’t be illegal and unconstitutional.”

    If there is evidence that Trump has committed serious crimes that are an affront to our democracy (and there’s a solid chance that there is), impeach away. But if you want to come up with cute ways to game the system with the primary aim of getting a Democrat in the White House before January 2021, skip the outrage when the Republicans pull their next stunt.

    I don’t think for a minute that not impeaching Trump will stop the Republicans from playing games down the line. I’m just sick of fellow Democrats proposing things that I know they would call outrageous and illegal if it were the Republicans doing it.

    You seem to be arguing two things simultaneously here: these sentences imply that impeaching Trump would be illegal and unconstitutional:
    ...What I’m hearing is “it’s illegal and unconstitutional when they do it, but they’re going to do it anyway, so we better do it first, only our ends mean that it won’t be illegal and unconstitutional.”

    ...I’m just sick of fellow Democrats proposing things that I know they would call outrageous and illegal if it were the Republicans doing it.

    Yet at the same time you acknowledge that if he has committed serious crimes that is appropriate:
    If there is evidence that Trump has committed serious crimes that are an affront to our democracy (and there’s a solid chance that there is), impeach away.

    Obviously the conditional "if" is important there, but I think it's increasingly a sure thing. And the point of an impeachment hearing is precisely that-- to determine if indeed there have been serious crimes.

    No one is talking about "gaming the system" here. We're talking about using the system to do precisely what the system is designed to do in precisely the way it was intended to be used for exactly the purpose it was intended for (the same could not, btw, be said of the refusal to hold hearings on a SCOTUS appt).

    Really, your argument just keeps coming back to your initial claim that bad behavior on our part will result in bad behavior on behalf of the GOP and even your hyperbolic implication that that would imperil the republic. My objection rests on:

    1. It's not "bad behavior" to use the system as it was intended to be used to remove a leader who is unfit for office
    2. Again, the GOP clearly does not need any provocation to engage in bad behavior. At this point they have lost sight of any ideological goals they may/may not have once had, whether they be outlawing abortion or small government or low taxes. At this point their one and only goal is to win at all costs. And in so baldly showing their hand, they have given us the advantage: we don't need to be deterred by fears of retaliatory strikes, because we know they will already use any means-- ANY means-- to win, whatever we do.
    3. What is "imperiling the republic" is the coup that we are currently experiencing-- the take over of our government by a foreign power, intent on serving interests other than our own. Using legal, constitutional means that were put in place for exactly that eventuality does not put us in peril, refusing to act in the face of this attack does.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Something I learned way back when I took government in high school, you don't have to prove a crime in order to impeach a president. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is really undefined in constitutional law. Later on in Political Science in college my prof said you can drive a truck through that clause.

    I would not say that the Democrats could not get a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. There is a lot of anger out there. But, even if they don't, Trump may have angered and alarmed enough moderate Republicans that they may just vote him out. Pence may be a different story because the Republicans will want to protect the White House. Democrats would definitely need 2/3rds to do that. This is all hypothetical, through.
  • This one isn't going to be settled any time soon, so I'm going to stick to my principle, and allow you to do the same without further argument.
  • I think the real shortage here is one of true leadership.

    I couldn't swear that everything the Democrats and the Obama campaign did was ethical and above board, but Obama was elected on the basis of charismatic, positive, unifying leadership. A former senior French minister I worked for on one occasion described him as the most charismatic person he had ever met.

    Similarly Macron is not above media manipulation; neither is the Pope. But all of these people provide positive leadership. That is what is needed to rescue the US in my view.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Here's a sixth, with Miss Amanda citing "Constitutional duties as a Senator." Other search terms (what did you use?) might turn up more, but searching Limbo seems to be giving my Firefox fits.

    That's actually the fifth post I linked to, if you'll follow the one that says "posts". "Constitutional duties as a Senator" is a bit vague. Everyone agrees that "advise and consent" is one of the Constitutionally designated powers of the U.S. Senate. ABR seems to be referring to Flake's spurious assertion that he was obligated to not consider the judicial nomination of any president with less than one year left in his term, an argument of very dubious Constitutionality.

    The search terms I used were to search for either "Merrick" or "Garland". It's possible other terms may turn up further results, such as this one by me demonstrating the obvious spuriousness of "no judicial nominations by presidents in their last year in office". It should be noted that demonstrating that a supposed Constitutional justification for why something can't be done is complete bullshit is not the same as arguing that there's a Constitutional requirement that the opposite action must be done, which is what you're accusing some anonymous "whole lot of Shipments" of arguing.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Something I learned way back when I took government in high school, you don't have to prove a crime in order to impeach a president. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is really undefined in constitutional law. Later on in Political Science in college my prof said you can drive a truck through that clause.

    I would not say that the Democrats could not get a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. There is a lot of anger out there. But, even if they don't, Trump may have angered and alarmed enough moderate Republicans that they may just vote him out. Pence may be a different story because the Republicans will want to protect the White House. Democrats would definitely need 2/3rds to do that. This is all hypothetical, through.

    I have to agree with you. I get the idea that Republicans, like our Conservatives, are far more obedient to the party line than their opponents. Many Republicans will have to hold their noses very hard, but they will keep a Republican in the White House, any Republican, even Trump, rather than allow any Democrat the slightest chance of getting in there.
Sign In or Register to comment.