Delivering the Articles vs approving a SC nominee (1 Viewer)

[FBG Moderator]

Mmmmm gimmee some yummy bofsidezzzz. Wash my soul clean with the cleansing false equivalence. 

Be way more cool

 

[The Commish]

That was not true with Kyoto Treaty though.  But it is funny how when Obama does an end round the Constitution by bypassing the Senate with his executive agreement it is applauded.  A similar act by Trump on trade or immigration would have been a Fasciat/unAmerican act of treason.  

I was answering your question that i bolded.

Are we moving to some other topic now?  If so,  I'll save you some time and acknowledge the "sides" have many hypocrites. That's not new nor is it a viable retort in any productive discussion. 

 

[Jackstraw]

The Republican Senate is going to aid and abet denying witnesses and covering up email and documentary evidence in a trial of the most important nature in the history of the country. And I would like to respectfully and very cooly like to asset that they are actively engaging in an illegal and unethical coverup in order to retain power. It is very hard for me to acknowledge this thread as anything but a cynical attempt to provide them cover for their completely UnAmerican actions. 

 

[jm192]

The Republican Senate is going to aid and abet denying witnesses and covering up email and documentary evidence in a trial of the most important nature in the history of the country. And I would like to respectfully and very cooly like to asset that they are actively engaging in an illegal and unethical coverup in order to retain power. It is very hard for me to acknowledge this thread as anything but a cynical attempt to provide them cover for their completely UnAmerican actions. 

And the Democratic House ran their own partisan circus.  Pelosi said she wouldn't impeach without Bipartisan support, but here we are.  

You side with the Dems, and feel that they are right--so it's ok for their partisan actions in the House.  But man what a travesty when the side you don't agree with does the same thing--because #Justice.

 

[squistion]

And the Democratic House ran their own partisan circus.  Pelosi said she wouldn't impeach without Bipartisan support, but here we are.  

You side with the Dems, and feel that they are right--so it's ok for their partisan actions in the House.  But man what a travesty when the side you don't agree with does the same thing--because #Justice.

Pelosi assumed with the overwhelming impeachable evidence against Trump (in his own words from the edited memo of the phone call he released and his willful unprecedented defiance of Congressional subpoenas during the impeachment process) that some Republicans, if they had any integrity, would have supported the articles. She rightfully did not expect them to march in lockstep with Trump.

But Pelosi went forward with impeachment knowing (from her own vote counting) that she would not probably receive a single GOP vote. However, from the standpoint of history, she did the right thing and Democrats by the large stand behind her in this decision.

 

[BladeRunner]

The Republican Senate is going to aid and abet denying witnesses and covering up email and documentary evidence in a trial of the most important nature in the history of the country. And I would like to respectfully and very cooly like to asset that they are actively engaging in an illegal and unethical coverup in order to retain power. It is very hard for me to acknowledge this thread as anything but a cynical attempt to provide them cover for their completely UnAmerican actions. 

It's hard to have serious conversations with statements like this.

 

[jm192]

Pelosi assumed with the overwhelming impeachable evidence against Trump (in his own words from the edited memo of the phone call he released and his willful unprecedented defiance of Congressional subpoenas during the impeachment process) that some Republicans, if they had any integrity, would have supported the articles. She rightfully did not expect them to march in lockstep with Trump.

But Pelosi went forward with impeachment knowing (from her own vote counting) that she would not probably receive a single GOP vote. However, from the standpoint of history, she did the right thing and Democrats by the large stand behind her in this decision.

The problem is a lot of people don't feel the evidence is overwhelming.  A lot of people feel that the Democrats have been looking to impeach Trump since November 2016, and finally got enough support to hang their hat on something--and rather than running a fair process, did what they had to get a result.  

And while you see it as "the right thing," others see it as politics. 

And that's what makes the debate/discussion on the rest difficult.  

 

[[scooter]]

Pelosi said she wouldn't impeach without Bipartisan support

That's not a fair representation of Pelolsi's quote.

First off, the quote was from March -- before the Ukraine quid pro quo. In fact, you could make a strong argument that Trump exploited that very quote to commit a crime (based on the belief that Pelosi wouldn't impeach him).

Second, Pelosi actually said that she wasn't "for impeachment" without bipartisan support -- not that she wouldn't ever do it.

Third, Pelosi does technically have bipartisan support. Remember, Republicans just recently re-defined "bipartisan" to include the slightest amount of support from an opposing faction -- or have you forgotten already that Republicans were crowing about the "bipartisan support" for Trump despite the fact the only 3 non-Republican representatives voted for him? Well, thanks to that failed talking point, Nancy now gets to say that she, too, has bipartisan support for her position.

 

[jm192]

That's not a fair representation of Pelolsi's quote.

First off, the quote was from March -- before the Ukraine quid pro quo. In fact, you could make a strong argument that Trump exploited that very quote to commit a crime (based on the belief that Pelosi wouldn't impeach him).

Second, Pelosi actually said that she wasn't "for impeachment" without bipartisan support -- not that she wouldn't ever do it.

Third, Pelosi does technically have bipartisan support. Remember, Republicans just recently re-defined "bipartisan" to include the slightest amount of support from an opposing faction -- or have you forgotten already that Republicans were crowing about the "bipartisan support" for Trump despite the fact the only 3 non-Republican representatives voted for him? Well, thanks to that failed talking point, Nancy now gets to say that she, too, has bipartisan support for her position.

You're ignoring the point to argue with the details.  

The House Impeachment was a one-sided affair.  And that's ok with many people because they feel that the impeachment is right.  And the Republicans just don't have the integrity to support it.

The Republicans feel that the Democrats don't have integrity and are just doing this as a political move.  

They view points are more or less the same.  Each side has a majority in one house.  Why is it ok for the House to be Partisan, but not the Senate?  Whoever you agree with can do all the Partisan politics they want, but the other side has no integrity if they do the same?  

 

[[scooter]]

Why is it ok for the House to be Partisan, but not the Senate?

Because partisanship is written into the House rules but not the Senate rules.

 

[BladeRunner]

Because partisanship is written into the House rules but not the Senate rules.

Wait...what?  Are you serious?  I'm asking because I don't know and this seems incredulous.

 

[[scooter]]

Because partisanship is written into the House rules but not the Senate rules.

Wait...what?  Are you serious?  I'm asking because I don't know and this seems incredulous.

Of course I'm serious. Senators are required by law to swear an oath of impartiality regarding impeachment. Representatives are not.

 

[jonessed]

So, in 2016, the Republicans in the Senate exploited a loophole in the Constitution to avoid approving/denying Obama’s SC nominee, purely for partisan reasons.  What they did didn’t violate the Constitution, but it did go against the intent of the Constitution.  

Now, the Democrats in the House are exploiting a loophole in the Constitution to try to force a “fairer” impeachment trial in the Senate, for purely partisan reasons.  What they are doing does not violate the Constitution, but it does go against the intent.  

In both cases, the Constitution doesn’t specify a “time limit” in which a SC nominee must be voted on by the Senate, or a “time limit” in which the House must deliver Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.  Why are Liberals who were so upset when the Senate delayed in 2016 OK with the House delaying now?  Why are Conservatives who were OK with the 2016 delay so up in arms now?

Is it just partisan politics, or is there a legitimate Constitutional argument for one situation over the other?

The only thing preventing the Senate from holding a trial is the Senate’s own rules.  The Senate could change the rules with a simple majority vote and start any time they want.  Pelosi has zero say.  McConnell has simply decided that he’s fine with things the way they are.

 

[The General]

Read a thought that Pelosi doesn’t mind holding these until the SoTU. Not a bad theory.

It would continue to highlight that Republicans in Senate don’t want to call any witnesses - this seems guilty I’d think to middle of the road people who don’t pay much attention.

Also has the potential to goad Trump into a bizarre meltdown speech which turns off most except for the rabid MAGA hat folks. A few smartly worded tweets, some public comments by Nancy and donald will have a hard time containing himself. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is probably a Tony thing but I’m not sure regular folks are getting the constitutional subtleties. Right now the story being pushed out is Trump hasn’t been impeached, that the Dems are scared of calling witnesses (yes). I hope Pelosi sends things across in the next couple weeks. If Collins and a couple other R’s back witnesses it will have been worth it.

 

[jm192]

Read a thought that Pelosi doesn’t mind holding these until the SoTU. Not a bad theory.

It would continue to highlight that Republicans in Senate don’t want to call any witnesses - this seems guilty I’d think to middle of the road people who don’t pay much attention.

Also has the potential to goad Trump into a bizarre meltdown speech which turns off most except for the rabid MAGA hat folks. A few smartly worded tweets, some public comments by Nancy and donald will have a hard time containing himself. 

I don't know that it's highlighting anything. 

The action or lack thereof is on Nancy.  I would think more people think she's the responsible party rather than the Republicans.  And If the gameplan is to hope Trump has some sort of meltdown--you guys act like he has a mental melt down every day.  So I'm not sure that accomplishes anything. 

Talk is cheap.  Send it.  Let's wrap it up and get back to governing.

 

[The General]

I don't know that it's highlighting anything. 

The action or lack thereof is on Nancy.  I would think more people think she's the responsible party rather than the Republicans.  And If the gameplan is to hope Trump has some sort of meltdown--you guys act like he has a mental melt down every day.  So I'm not sure that accomplishes anything. 

Talk is cheap.  Send it.  Let's wrap it up and get back to governing.

A lot of this has been playing out over the holidays. Now everyone is getting back into the real world it's time to highlight that people think Trump's aides show testify and there should be more testimony from witnesses who were previously uncooperative. Pretty big numbers in favor of this. Two Republican Senators have said they want the process to slow down.

Dems should just keep repeating what is Donald hiding. Keep it simple. Let it play out over the next couple weeks and see where public sentiment goes.

A Trump pity party for himself during the SoTU would be an extra benefit. The more people that see him as a giant child the better.

 

[jm192]

A lot of this has been playing out over the holidays. Now everyone is getting back into the real world it's time to highlight that people think Trump's aides show testify and there should be more testimony from witnesses who were previously uncooperative. Pretty big numbers in favor of this. Two Republican Senators have said they want the process to slow down.

Dems should just keep repeating what is Donald hiding. Keep it simple. Let it play out over the next couple weeks and see where public sentiment goes.

A Trump pity party for himself during the SoTU would be an extra benefit. The more people that see him as a giant child the better.

But the anti-Trump crowd has said he's been a giant child for 3 years.  So exposing him as a giant child is the strategy?

 

[The General]

But the anti-Trump crowd has said he's been a giant child for 3 years.  So exposing him as a giant child is the strategy?

The main point objective would be for the Senate to do a proper trial. Call witnesses preferably ones that were blocked form testifying because Team Trump knows it will go badly. Big long shot that this will happen but this is the path the Dems have to take. They need to get public support behind this so enough R Senators have to acknowledge. 

Polls I have seen show BIG numbers in favor of this so it should be something the Dems can leverage. They have proven a unique ability to screw up pretty much anything so we'll see.

Trump having a meltdown during the SoTU because Nancy seems to rent space in his head is a nice ancillary benefit.

 

[jm192]

The main point objective would be for the Senate to do a proper trial. Call witnesses preferably ones that were blocked form testifying because Team Trump knows it will go badly. Big long shot that this will happen but this is the path the Dems have to take. They need to get public support behind this so enough R Senators have to acknowledge. 

Polls I have seen show BIG numbers in favor of this so it should be something the Dems can leverage. They have proven a unique ability to screw up pretty much anything so we'll see.

Trump having a meltdown during the SoTU because Nancy seems to rent space in his head is a nice ancillary benefit.

Yeah, I'm over the witness argument.  Call them all. 

Every witness coming and confirming what we've heard in the House isn't going to change anyone's mind. 

The real hope is that Trump is made to look bad in the hearing.  I will be beyond shocked if he is removed.  And if he isn't removed--America will view him as exonerated.  And America loves an exonerated man. 

 

[The General]

Yeah, I'm over the witness argument.  Call them all. 

Every witness coming and confirming what we've heard in the House isn't going to change anyone's mind. 

The real hope is that Trump is made to look bad in the hearing.  I will be beyond shocked if he is removed.  And if he isn't removed--America will view him as exonerated.  And America loves an exonerated man. 

Yup to the bolded.  Mitch and Lindsey are the ones stopping this for Trump is how it appears. How this isn't boiled down into a nice repeatable talking point for every Dem is beyond me. 

To changing anyone's mind, who knows. That's what the testimony is for.

I haven't spent my life parsing this House process / testimony down to the letter but it seemed clear to me that QPQ happened. Best case for Trump is that you buy that it was all a misunderstanding directed by Rudy. Trump told all parties involved to deal with Rudy.  We need to hear from more people.

Nancy playing this great as usual. She has really impressed me with her political savvy. 

 

[jm192]

Yup to the bolded.  Mitch and Lindsey are the ones stopping this for Trump is how it appears. How this isn't boiled down into a nice repeatable talking point for every Dem is beyond me. 

To changing anyone's mind, who knows. That's what the testimony is for.

I haven't spent my life parsing this House process / testimony down to the letter but it seemed clear to me that QPQ happened. Best case for Trump is that you buy that it was all a misunderstanding directed by Rudy. Trump told all parties involved to deal with Rudy.  We need to hear from more people.

Nancy playing this great as usual. She has really impressed me with her political savvy. 

I think she's played it incredibly poorly.  I think a lot of America is suffering from investigation fatigue.  And I think drawing it out longer only worsens that. 

The Republicans keep saying it's "because they know it's weak.  It was the most urgent thing in the world, but now we need to slow it down."  And a lot of people think it looks bad/suspicious. 

 

[The General]

I think she's played it incredibly poorly.  I think a lot of America is suffering from investigation fatigue.  And I think drawing it out longer only worsens that. 

The Republicans keep saying it's "because they know it's weak.  It was the most urgent thing in the world, but now we need to slow it down."  And a lot of people think it looks bad/suspicious. 

Vast majority of people want to see more people testify - in particular the aides the Trump blocked from talking to the House. 

IIRC it was something like 70% of people who identify as independent. That is a huge number. I don't see how republicans move past that if the Dems leverage their messaging properly. What is he hiding! Why won't Donald let them talk? Mitch is Trump's waterboy. Don the Con. 

Pelosi is maneuvering through this very well. 

 

[The Commish]

I think she's played it incredibly poorly.  I think a lot of America is suffering from investigation fatigue.  And I think drawing it out longer only worsens that. 

The Republicans keep saying it's "because they know it's weak.  It was the most urgent thing in the world, but now we need to slow it down."  And a lot of people think it looks bad/suspicious. 

This seems relatively inconsistent.  If it's played poorly then I don't understand the bold because the GOP message has literally been the exact opposite.  That we DO need to slow things down.  That this was the THINNEST of records etc etc etc.  You even show the contradiction in your own post.  Which is it?  I don't see how both can be correct.

 

[The Commish]

Last I toured the polls, 88% were decided one way or the other with that split between them pretty close.  That last 12% who weren't sure were also evenly divided on what should happen next.  Has this poll been done again to see if the numbers have shifted?

 

[jm192]

This seems relatively inconsistent.  If it's played poorly then I don't understand the bold because the GOP message has literally been the exact opposite.  That we DO need to slow things down.  That this was the THINNEST of records etc etc etc.  You even show the contradiction in your own post.  Which is it?  I don't see how both can be correct.

I'm sorry, my typing was probably confusing. 

I think drawing it out exhausts the American people more.

However, the Democrats expressed the mindset that this was urgent.  This had to hurry because Donald Trump was actively harming America and the constitution.  Now they have decided we need to slow down. 

I think the GOP wanted to slow it down in the house.  I don't think they believed they could prevent impeachment.  The Dems have been talking about since before Trump was elected.  I do think they wanted to get up and talk a ton on tv and paint it as a sham to convince the American people. 

They've done that.  Now they control it.  I don't believe--and I don't think the GOP believe--there is anything a witness can say to flip enough Republican votes to remove the president.  

On the flip side--the Dems wanted to rush through and get this done.  Now I think they realize the Senate outcome.  So they want to drag it out.  They want to talk a lot.  They want to convince Americans that Trump is bad. 

I don't think the Senate hearings are to remove the President at this point.  It's a contest to see who can convince America that they're side is right.   

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They've done that.  Now they control it.  I don't believe--and I don't think the GOP believe--there is anything a witness can say to flip enough Republican votes to remove the president.  

You can’t think of anything, even hypothetically?

 

[The Commish]

I'm sorry, my typing was probably confusing. 

I think drawing it out exhausts the American people more.

However, the Democrats expressed the mindset that this was urgent.  This had to hurry because Donald Trump was actively harming America and the constitution.  Now they have decided we need to slow down. 

I think the GOP wanted to slow it down in the house.  I don't think they believed they could prevent impeachment.  The Dems have been talking about since before Trump was elected.  I do think they wanted to get up and talk a ton on tv and paint it as a sham to convince the American people. 

They've done that.  Now they control it.  I don't believe--and I don't think the GOP believe--there is anything a witness can say to flip enough Republican votes to remove the president.  

On the flip side--the Dems wanted to rush through and get this done.  Now I think they realize the Senate outcome.  So they want to drag it out.  They want to talk a lot.  They want to convince Americans that Trump is bad. 

I don't think the Senate hearings are to remove the President at this point.  It's a contest to see who can convince America that they're side is right.   

Yes...both have said it needs to be slowed down and both have said it needs to be sped up.  Personally, I think it needs to be done correctly and I don't really care how long that takes.  Both have presented a case for speed and slowness depending on their political whims and over 85% of the country feels strongly one way or the other.  I don't think people are paying all that much attention anymore.  They've made up their minds about Trump.  What's left?  Their opinions of their Reps and Senators.  

 

[tonydead]

Last I toured the polls, 88% were decided one way or the other with that split between them pretty close.  That last 12% who weren't sure were also evenly divided on what should happen next.  Has this poll been done again to see if the numbers have shifted?

The Quinnipiac has been silent since Dec 16th when it was 45% for impeachment and removal and 51% not.

 

[jm192]

You can’t think of anything, even hypothetically?

Not anything that sways Republican minds.  I mean honestly, what do you think they can say?

"Yup, he did it.  He ordered the money to be held.  He told Ukraine they wouldn't get the money if they didn't investigate Biden."

The House Republicans argued that Trump had the authority to investigate Hunter's misconduct in Ukraine.  They didn't view it as election tampering. 

I assume most testimony confirms what we've heard or goes against it.  And "further proving" what Trump did isn't going to convince them the he:

A:  Did it

B:  Did it to cheat in the election.

 

[The Commish]

The Quinnipiac has been silent since Dec 16th when it was 45% for impeachment and removal and 51% not.

This is a different question than the one I was referring too.  The one I was asking about was more about their confidence level in their opinion.  There wasn't any nuance with respect to "impeachment" vs "impeach and remove" etc.  Those kind of don't matter to me anymore since the impeachment part is over.