1. #7921
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    This guys statement is the first intelligent thing I have read through this whole mess

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...rley-testimony

    President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.
    7
    That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided. Although I am citing a wide body of my relevant academic work on these questions, I will not repeat that work in this testimony. Instead, I will focus on the history and cases that bear most directly on the questions facing this Committee. My testimony will first address relevant elements of the history and meaning of the impeachment standard. Second, I will discuss the past presidential impeachments and inquiries in the context of this controversy. Finally, I will address some of the specific alleged impeachable offenses raised in this process. In the end, I believe that this process has raised serious and legitimate issues for investigation. Indeed, I have previously stated that a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet moving forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy on this record would be as precarious as it would premature. It comes down to a type of constitutional architecture. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of



    ________________

    In the current case, the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent. A House in the future could avoid countervailing evidence by simply relying on tailored records with testimony from people who offer damning presumptions or speculation. It is not enough to simply shrug and say this is “close enough for jazz” in an impeachment. The expectation, as shown by dozens of failed English impeachments, was that the lower house must offer a complete and compelling record. That is not to say that the final record must have a confession or incriminating statement from the accused. Rather, it was meant to be a complete record of the key witnesses that establishes the full range of material evidence. Only then could the body reach a conclusion on the true weight of the evidence—a conclusion that carries sufficient legitimacy with the public to justify the remedy of removal.
    You. Are. Lying.

    Refusing to testify after being called to testify, including subpoenas... is not their fault.

    Blame Trump.

    You really shouldn't lie so much.

  2. #7922
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    It's truly an unimaginable thing that happened. The analogy of cancer is perfectly correct. In cancer, the body turns against itself. Malignant cells attack the body. Here, malignant elements at the top of the executive have attacked the country and the wider body.
    That it's "unimaginable" is exactly the problem, frankly.

    The USA carefully avoided implementing any real checks and balances on the Presidency or, really, Congress for that matter. In fact, it provided them greater leeway and protections than private citizens, to engage in malfeasance and abuse, and not suffer legal penalties as anyone else would.

    You folks should have seen this coming. Not now. 250 years ago. This is one of the single most glaring fuck-ups by the Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution. No other developed country is this helpless against malfeasance by their own government.

    In Canada, just as an example;
    1> The opposition parties could call for a Non-Confidence vote. And any budget vote is a Confidence vote. If the vote on any budget fails, or any separate Non-Confidence motion passes, Parliament dissolves and an election is called.
    2> The Governor General can decide that the government has acted egregiously or has lost the confidence of the people even if a non-confidence vote isn't gonna happen, and can dissolve Parliament and call an election (basically never happens, but it's there).
    3> The Prime Minister is just the Party's leader. Their position is more akin to Speaker of the House than to the President. He can be removed by his party with an internal vote to replace them as leader. They don't even need grounds, just an "ehh, not feeling them any more".
    4> No member of Parliament, and certainly not the PM, has any immunity to legal proceedings. If criminal charges are filed and the member is placed under arrest, their riding has an immediate by-election to replace them. They're pretty much out of office, just by being arrested and charged.

    Compare to the US situation. Budget bills failing and a government shutdown occurring would mean an election was called. The GG (I know the US has no equivalent) could have said "this is all screwy" and called an election. If Trump had been charged with any of the numerous crimes he's accused of (and note, charged. Not found guilty.) he'd be out of office already. And there'd be no protection against those charges, whether by federal or State authorities (so they can't rely on the AG to quash it). The Republicans could have decided, at any point, that it's too big a risk and replaced him with any other Republican. Etc.

    The USA has no checks or balances. This is entirely by (bad) design. It's not that these things are "unimaginable", it's that Americans thought they were magical perfect people who can do no wrong and bad things will never happen, and so you're completely blindsided the moment a figure emerges to educate you that bad people exist.

    It's like not bothering to pass laws banning murder and acting shocked when some fucko goes on a killing spree and you don't have any grounds to stop them. That's your fuckup for letting that happen in the first place. It was eminently "imaginable", you just didn't bother to think ahead and assumed everyone would play nice forever.


  3. #7923
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I'm sensing someone is about to invoke the 5th.
    Plead, drink, or both?

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  4. #7924
    As usual, Gaetz continues on his quest to out smarm Gym Jordan.

  5. #7925
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That it's "unimaginable" is exactly the problem, frankly.

    The USA carefully avoided implementing any real checks and balances on the Presidency or, really, Congress for that matter. In fact, it provided them greater leeway and protections than private citizens, to engage in malfeasance and abuse, and not suffer legal penalties as anyone else would.

    You folks should have seen this coming. Not now. 250 years ago. This is one of the single most glaring fuck-ups by the Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution. No other developed country is this helpless against malfeasance by their own government.

    In Canada, just as an example;
    1> The opposition parties could call for a Non-Confidence vote. And any budget vote is a Confidence vote. If the vote on any budget fails, or any separate Non-Confidence motion passes, Parliament dissolves and an election is called.
    2> The Governor General can decide that the government has acted egregiously or has lost the confidence of the people even if a non-confidence vote isn't gonna happen, and can dissolve Parliament and call an election (basically never happens, but it's there).
    3> The Prime Minister is just the Party's leader. Their position is more akin to Speaker of the House than to the President. He can be removed by his party with an internal vote to replace them as leader. They don't even need grounds, just an "ehh, not feeling them any more".
    4> No member of Parliament, and certainly not the PM, has any immunity to legal proceedings. If criminal charges are filed and the member is placed under arrest, their riding has an immediate by-election to replace them. They're pretty much out of office, just by being arrested and charged.

    Compare to the US situation. Budget bills failing and a government shutdown occurring would mean an election was called. The GG (I know the US has no equivalent) could have said "this is all screwy" and called an election. If Trump had been charged with any of the numerous crimes he's accused of (and note, charged. Not found guilty.) he'd be out of office already. And there'd be no protection against those charges, whether by federal or State authorities (so they can't rely on the AG to quash it). The Republicans could have decided, at any point, that it's too big a risk and replaced him with any other Republican. Etc.

    The USA has no checks or balances. This is entirely by (bad) design. It's not that these things are "unimaginable", it's that Americans thought they were magical perfect people who can do no wrong and bad things will never happen, and so you're completely blindsided the moment a figure emerges to educate you that bad people exist.

    It's like not bothering to pass laws banning murder and acting shocked when some fucko goes on a killing spree and you don't have any grounds to stop them. That's your fuckup for letting that happen in the first place. It was eminently "imaginable", you just didn't bother to think ahead and assumed everyone would play nice forever.
    I will have to disagree here.

    There was terrific article written up about a year ago walking through the situation we're in now (but referring the Mueller investigation into Russia, as that was the current crisis then) that delved deeply into the Constitutional processes for removing corrupt power and how the Founders originally set it up. It was an interesting analysis into how the founders never anticipated the cult mentality that follows Trump and his idiot-fan-base.

    We have checks and balances that were in place to anticipate abuses of power from all three branches. Impeachment, non-seating of Congress members, or voting out of office from Congress (both sides) all exist right now. They were put into place by the drafters of the Constitution.

    The problem is that no one thought that a political party would put their interests above the country, literally ignoring reality, and hand-waving felony actions by the Executive Branch. And this is a new development. It worked with Nixon - he resigned because the members of Congress put country above party, and off he went. It didn't work with Clinton. And it's clearly not working now.

    The GOP House members in the Impeachment Inquiry are ignoring all of reality, questioning obvious facts, and allowing Trump to define all of their world. The Democrats are laying out a solid case of felony behavior by Trump, specifically Bribery and Extortion for political gain (and I'm setting aside all the other corruption by Trump), and the GOP is willfully choosing to be ignorant, because they are either detached from reality (i.e. Gym Jordan), implicated in the illegal activities themselves (Nunes), or cowards, afraid they'll lose their position and power by doing the right thing.

    And what system of Democracy is set up to prevent this kind of group abuse of power?

    Endus - you mentioned the Canadian government. But what if the ruling majority never refused to vote for a budget, passing them no matter what, to prevent a triggering election? What if the GG refused to literally do their job? What if a no-confidence vote was never brought forward, or confidence was always affirmed down ruling party lines?

    Does Canada have a process in place that couldn't be abused by the ruling party?
    Last edited by cubby; 2019-12-04 at 09:08 PM.

  6. #7926
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The USA has no checks or balances. This is entirely by (bad) design. It's not that these things are "unimaginable", it's that Americans thought they were magical perfect people who can do no wrong and bad things will never happen, and so you're completely blindsided the moment a figure emerges to educate you that bad people exist.

    It's like not bothering to pass laws banning murder and acting shocked when some fucko goes on a killing spree and you don't have any grounds to stop them. That's your fuckup for letting that happen in the first place. It was eminently "imaginable", you just didn't bother to think ahead and assumed everyone would play nice forever.
    American exceptionalism is a dangerous drug. We're well past the point when we should have kicked the habit.

  7. #7927
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    Plead, drink, or both?
    Well played.

  8. #7928
    Immortal Stormspark's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    7,953
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrlaan View Post
    American exceptionalism is a dangerous drug. We're well past the point when we should have kicked the habit.
    I've gone on record recently saying that the US has the most corrupt government in the world. At least dictatorships and theocracies are honest about what they are.

  9. #7929
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormspark View Post
    I've gone on record recently saying that the US has the most corrupt government in the world. At least dictatorships and theocracies are honest about what they are.
    I think the Impeachment Inquiry process has made it pretty clear that it's not the U.S. government so much as it's the GOP House and Senate members who are corrupt. They are looking at factual (confessed) crimes by the Executive Branch (with co-conspirators in the House) and pretending the sky isn't blue.

  10. #7930
    https://www.whas11.com/article/news/...c-d13c8dbab340

    Rand Paul is trying a new defense: Accusing Schiff of "spying" on Nunes because Nunes popped up in the phone records of an indicted foreign agent.

    So a repeat of the Carter Page nonsense all over again because they refuse to acknowledge reality. If Nunes didn't want to get caught up in this, he shouldn't have been talking to Lev Parnas.

  11. #7931
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Accusing Schiff of "spying" on Nunes because Nunes popped up in the phone records of an indicted foreign agent.
    Also, the police were "spying" on me with that radar gun when I drove past them at 88 MPH.

    This is a new level of pathetic, but I get the feeling this is the expansion pack: there are a lot of levels to go.

  12. #7932
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Also, the police were "spying" on me with that radar gun when I drove past them at 88 MPH.

    This is a new level of pathetic, but I get the feeling this is the expansion pack: there are a lot of levels to go.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blizzard Devs
    Soon.
    The House GOP Impeachment team is heading to new levels of willful ignorance and hypocrisy. And what's the over/under on Gym Jordan being implicated as well?

  13. #7933
    Legendary! Thekri's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    6,167
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    The House GOP Impeachment team is heading to new levels of willful ignorance and hypocrisy. And what's the over/under on Gym Jordan being implicated as well?
    In touching boys or in treason? Or both?

  14. #7934
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    In touching boys or in treason? Or both?
    I would have to say given the voracity of his defense of Trump in these Impeachment Hearings, and what we've already seen of Nunes complicity, I would have to go with both.

  15. #7935
    I just came in to check if you really still think Trump is getting Peachmints? This thread is now half the size of Muhh Russia thread, remember the 1000 page Mueller report Post that was the absolute end of Trump. I think it was deleted after you know, nothing happened at all. Will that happen here?

  16. #7936
    I tried to pay attention to today's hearing, but this is such a boring one. Nadler also is no Adam Schiff, and his committee just isn't as on the ball as the Intelligence Committee. Which isn't to say the intelligence democrats are all phenomenal at hearings, either, but only a handful of people on the Judiciary seem at all prepared to counter the GOP's lunacy in real-time. Watching about half of it, nearly all of them came with prepared scripts and few of them wavered from it at all - no matter how nutty the Republican was before them, no matter how flimsy their argument, leaving the batshit insanity to just float around unchallenged to take up root on Fox News. I had to tap out when Lesko quoted the transcript and said "see lying libcucks, no mention of Biden at all !!!!" and the person immediately after her didn't say "hey, here's the very next paragraph where he references Biden by name."

    I hope Schiff gets some more witnesses to intersperse with the judiciary hearings or this is going to be a rage inducing few weeks.

  17. #7937
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Endus - you mentioned the Canadian government. But what if the ruling majority never refused to vote for a budget, passing them no matter what, to prevent a triggering election?
    You'd still get the regular election periods.
    Members can also be recalled in their own ridings, if they fuck up badly enough.
    There's also the Governor General, who has basically no restrictions. They can be replaced after the fact, if the existing government goes back in, but that's about it.
    Our members of Parliament are also generally much closer to their ridings than members of Congress are in the USA. So there's a lot more direct accountability to those who vote for you.
    Also, again, if you're charged with a crime, you're out and a by-election is immediately called.

    What if the GG refused to literally do their job?
    Then there's all the other measures.

    Yes, it's possible for every single check and balance to fail, but the point is that Canada's government has multiple independent such checks. The USA has precisely one, with the President. Impeachment. Which is political in nature.

    What if a no-confidence vote was never brought forward, or confidence was always affirmed down ruling party lines?
    Confidence usually is, but minority governments are also fairly common, where "party line" can't protect you from a non-confidence vote.

    Does Canada have a process in place that couldn't be abused by the ruling party?
    The one where if you're charged with a crime, you're out of office and a by-election is called.

    Also, our civil service, including the Department of Justice, is professional and not political. Ministers and deputy ministers change with the government, but the rest of the system is apolitical by design; it's really not possible for a Minister to try and force the RCMP to make an arrest, or to get the Department of Justice to file bullshit charges. The professionals would refuse and go screaming to the press. It happened when Harper was trying to shut up government scientists, a few years ago, for instance.

    Any process can be abused. But we have a suite of independent processes, and a lot of them are not political to begin with.


  18. #7938
    House will impeach...that's a given. How many of the gop there will follow the US Constitution is debatable...(which shows us how rotten the GOP are)
    Moscow Mitch really hates his name. But we'll see how much he thinks his own party can bear the stench of kowtowing to Russian interests over his own country.

  19. #7939
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Not sure if you’ve been paying attention, but Drumpf is 100% going to be impeached. Look up what that means.
    100% not going to happen, unless you mean reelected.

  20. #7940
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    100% not going to happen, unless you mean reelected.
    Wow, you really don't know anything about the process...
    Do your homework child and find out the differences between the House of Representatives and the US Senate...

    Run along now.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •