Impeachment

[River]

Didn't Mulvaney make a public statement to the effect that there was a quid pro quo? Or are we to assume Mulvaney was lying on television?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes Mulvaney said that (and that we should "get over it") but then but out a statement saying that what he said didn't mean what he said.

[RoseMorninStar]

What a bunch of inept buffoons. It's like watching the Stooges (which I can't stand).

[elengil]

Yes Mulvaney said that (and that we should "get over it") but then but out a statement saying that what he said didn't mean what he said.

[Cerin]

I was really curious about this one because I genuinely would like to hear a legitimate argument against the impeachment

You can piece this together from the Republican statements and questions during the hearings.

Mr. Kent testified that Pres. Obama had 'demanded' of Ukraine that Burisma be investigated for corruption. The company hired Hunter Biden, the investigation was ended, Mr. Kent voiced concern about the Biden hiring but was blown off. For the Repubs, this translates as Pres. Trump asking for cooperation to resume investigating Burisma and the Biden hiring being a legitimate request, because the Trump White House is concerned about corruption in a country to which we are giving huge amounts of aid, just as the Obama White House was. Trump's request had nothing to do with the election. Joe Biden isn't exempt from being investigated just because he is running for the Democratic nomination for President. (The following wasn't touched on in the hearings, just my own thinking, but I've never understood the 'for his own gain' angle because Biden isn't mentally sharp and I think Trump would prefer to run against Biden than against any of the younger, more energetic, more mentally sharp candidates; if one views Biden as the weakest candidate, then Pres. Trump was actually working against his own interests if he had been trying to damage Biden as a candidate and so prevent him from winning the nomination).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There are a number of problems with that narrative. First and foremost, Trump showed no interest in addressing corruption in Ukraine in any form other than investigating the Bidens and investigating the Putin-inspiring conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. Second, Ambassador Yovanovich was particularly known for trying to address corruption in Ukraine and rather than supporting her Trump viciously attacked her and recalled her early. Third, Trump specifically stated that the didn't care about Ukraine and only cared about the "big stuff" like investigating Biden. And whatever you think of Biden as a candidate, polls have consistently shown him as the candidate most likely to beat Trump, so it makes sense that Trump would seek to weaken him in whatever way he can. Legal or otherwise.

[Frelga]

It will all be revealed when they find the Crowdstrike server.
/heavy sarcasm

[RoseMorninStar]

There are a number of problems with that narrative. First and foremost, Trump showed no interest in addressing corruption in Ukraine in any form other than investigating the Bidens and investigating the Putin-inspiring conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.

Or investigating corruption ANYWHERE else.

[elengil]

There are a number of problems with that narrative. First and foremost, Trump showed no interest in addressing corruption in Ukraine in any form other than investigating the Bidens and investigating the Putin-inspiring conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.

Or investigating corruption ANYWHERE else.

Including putting his own DOJ on the allegations! For 3 years!!

But boy, we sure investigated the origins of the FISA warrant!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The House is apparently going forward with only two articles of impeachment, styled as "Abuse of Power" (which encompasses the main charges related to compelling Ukraine to conduct or at least announce investigations of Biden and the 2016 election in order to help Trump win reelection) and "Obstruction of Congress". They have apparently decided against including a third article for "obstruction of justice" related to the Mueller investigation. I thought they might elect to include the latter in order to give moderates something to vote against, but it seems that the moderates wanted nothing to do with that at all. And remember, Schiff and Pelosi were both against proceeding with impeachment on that basis until the Ukraine situation came up, so this consistent with their position.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here are the actual Articles:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics ... index.html

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

I feel like ultimately, with the votes in both the House and the Senate likely to be completely party line votes, this whole process will ultimately do more harm than good. Trump gets away with things as usual, and the corrosive partisanship that is eating away at our country becomes ever more deeply entrenched.

[RoseMorninStar]

yov, sadly I agree but I also think the effort was necessary. It's obvious that Trump is a man of privilege who has scammed the system and operated like a mobster his entire life. T He should be shown for who he is even if some choose not to see it. That is their failing and history will judge them harshly. That those who support Trump would (and should) hold someone of the opposite party to account for the same behavior but won't for 'one of their own' just shows how depraved they are.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think that remains to be seen. History seems more and more to view the impeachment of Bill Clinton as a purely partisan attempt to attack a flawed human being for his private human failings (which were shared by all too many of his attackers) that had little to do with the way that he conducted his duties as president. The all-but-certain impeachment of Mr. Trump has everything to do with how he has conducted his duties as president, and his abuse of those duties. I could be wrong, but I think that history will look back at this moment very differently than the impeachment of Clinton.

While I agree with you that on the surface the party line votes in both Houses of Congress will only serve to heighten (if that is even possible) the partisan divide, I would argue that the alternative is worse. If you truly believe that Mr. Trump's conduct is dire threat to our very system of government, as I do, taking no action at all is worse than taking action that proves to be futile at best.

x-posted with Rose.

[Cerin]

I've read several articles this evening explaining that there will not be enough votes for the Senate trial to call controversial witnesses (they need 51 votes to call witnesses that Roberts rejects), and that both McConnell and Graham (I'm not clear on which one of them runs the trial in the Senate) favor not calling witnesses at all. So it appears this is shaping up to be super quick and everybody will be free to go home and campaign.

[Frelga]

https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/sta ... 01568?s=19

[River]

Someone needs to mail that man a copy of the Constitution.

The sad thing is, there will be people in his audience foolish or uneducated enough to believe it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

So the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee spent all day and night proposing ridiculous amendments and making speeches that had nothing to do with impeachment to drag the process out as long as possible, and then were utterly outraged when Chairman Nadler decided to postpone the vote until tomorrow morning rather than hold it after midnight.

Amazing.

[Cerin]

I listened to a good bit of it. The amendments were ridiculous, imo, only in that they had no chance of passing in a partisan proceeding. Did you expect the Republicans to go down without a fight? The speeches I heard all had to do with impeachment except for two, one on each side. Democrats spoke as much as Republicans did. The minority was upset not because Nadler chose to postpone the vote, but because he did not have the courtesy to consult them about it or even give a heads up. The radio hosts were just as surprised as the Republicans at the abrupt decision, and agreed it was because Nadler wanted to have better media coverage for the vote.

[River]

Gosh, it must be terrible to have to report in to do your job in the full morning light of a regular work day. How terrible. We must all weep for these poor put-upon elected officials who had to come in to work on a Friday morning just like so many of the plebes they represent.