Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

When to take Impeachment Seriously

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Why do you just assume they had "failed" from their perspective. It's the plutocratic oligarchy things. It's more real than you admit to. Donald Trump is ONE of the plutocrats, even if he was a political outsider. They probably didn't expect the out-of-the-blue trade war - but no one seemed to. And I remind you, most of the gatekeeping element is by plutocrats - the media corporations who host the debates, and the big donors. On the other side of things, Sanders threatened the plutocratic interests with his platform far more than Clinton did.

The Plutocrats had invested very heavily into Jeb!'s campaign.  

No intelligent person could possibly think they could control Trump's terrible instincts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

At this point, my guess is impeachment is a mistake by Dems re 2020, even if Pelosi's hand was effectively forced by this. However, if highly damaging stuff emerges in the process of investigating, it could help Dems in 2020. Either way, very difficult to see how a Republican (Trump or Pence) isn't President until 2021.

I don't buy at all that it's a mistake.

There's a lot of room between "this was a strategic error" and "Trump will be led away in handcuffs."

I think McConnell shutting this down would be a huge win for Democrats, for example.  That's just one way this goes well for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@pilight

My understanding is that what is required for impeachment and conviction is a matter of debate. 'High crimes and misdemeanors' is a vague class. Practically speaking, it seems what is required is what a majority of the House and then 2/3rds of the Senate say is required.

Looking at the Federalist Papers, the framers considered "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be abuses of office, as defined in British common law since the 1300's.  Or as Hamilton said in Federalist #65; "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."  They're offences that can only be undertaken by someone in a position of authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pilight said:

They're offences that can only be undertaken by someone in a position of authority.

Yes, and treason or bribery in the case of a President would be high crimes. No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

McConnell can just flat out refuse to have a trial.

He said on NPR “the Senate has no choice. If the House were to act, the Senate immediately goes into a trial.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pilight said:

He said on NPR “the Senate has no choice. If the House were to act, the Senate immediately goes into a trial.”

Possible he's trying to call Pelosi's bluff, but my guess is that's what he would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Possible he's trying to call Pelosi's bluff, but my guess is that's what he would do.

If Flake is correct in guessing that 30-35 Republicans secretly want to remove Trump, then McConnell might just have the trial, especially if it seems likely Trump wouldn't even be able to beat Elizabeth Warren. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

If Flake is correct in guessing that 30-35 Republicans secretly want to remove Trump

I can easily believe 30-35 Rep Senators would rather Pence to Trump. Seems a different issue whether they'd be willing to vote to remove him, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Possible he's trying to call Pelosi's bluff, but my guess is that's what he would do.

It makes perfect sense.  If the public turns on Trump, he's not going to want to look like he's shielding the president from justice.  If they don't, public hearings will just hurt the Democrats.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

Yeah. I see only 8 GOP Senators voting for conviction, with the possibility of about 8 more of the case becomes extremely compelling to convict. I can’t see 20 GOP turning on Trump in an scenario. 

I'm curious as to which Senators you think would potentially vote to remove on the R side of things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I'm curious as to which Senators you think would potentially vote to remove on the R side of things

Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Gardner, Paul, Alexander, and Portman. This is obviously if there is enough evidence to even bring it to the Senate. I think Cruz, Lee, Johnson, Toomey, Tillis, Daines, Grassley, Rubio, Sullivan also vote impeachment if the evidence is significantly stronger--strong enough to hurt the GOP if they are defending Trump. I think the rest of the GOP will refuse to convict their own president even if Jesus finally returned to Earth and Trump ate him on live television (Perhaps by misinterpreting Communion as cannibalism as the Romans did). Overall, that's 17 possible conviction votes--three short of what's necessary. There's also the chance the GOP is just done with Trump, especially if he's going to lose in 2020. In this case, McConnell and all the rest can get their revenge for Trump's insults and takeover of their party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Gardner, Paul, Alexander, and Portman

If the impeachment proceedings are proving to be popular, in addition to Romney look for Republicans running for re-election in 2020 in blue or purple states. Gardner and Collins are the most obvious ones as far as I can tell. If it's those 3, that's 50-50, so each party can claim Trump was vindicated or the impeachment charges were vindicated, regardless of him staying in office.

Has Paul said anything publicly in support of the recent whistleblower complaint that you know of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pilight said:

Looking at the Federalist Papers, the framers considered "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be abuses of office, as defined in British common law since the 1300's.  Or as Hamilton said in Federalist #65; "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."  They're offences that can only be undertaken by someone in a position of authority.

So, basically what high, elected officials in Federal office tend to do all the time, day in and day out, as NORMAL ROUTINE, thinking absolutely nothing of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

The Plutocrats had invested very heavily into Jeb!'s campaign.  

No intelligent person could possibly think they could control Trump's terrible instincts.

Well, the Plutocrats themselves have their own blocs of support. The Koch Brothers (or Brother, now) support big business Libertarianism. The Haliburton Board of Directors supports Heavy Hawkishness. The Chick-Fil-A proprietary family supports Social Conservatives. George Soros and Oprah Winfrey support Social Progressivism. Warren Buffet seems to support Social Democracy. These are just very well-known examples. I erred in making them sound like a unified bloc, which is not what I intended, and is not at all accurate in that specific vein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, pilight said:

It makes perfect sense.  If the public turns on Trump, he's not going to want to look like he's shielding the president from justice.  If they don't, public hearings will just hurt the Democrats.  

Who is the public?

Isnt it largely made up of people who either like or dislike Trump?  If they like him, they weren’t going democrat anyway.  If they don’t like him, they’re thrilled.

Its hard to imagine someone truly having NO opinion, but then suddenly springing to Trump’s defense during an actual impeachment trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Throw Manchin in as an acquit, and you could have 4 R's and a 50-50 vote.

Also Doug Jones as possible Dem voting to acquit, who is up for re-election in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Who is the public?

Isnt it largely made up of people who either like or dislike Trump?  If they like him, they weren’t going democrat anyway.  If they don’t like him, they’re thrilled.

Its hard to imagine someone truly having NO opinion, but then suddenly springing to Trump’s defense during an actual impeachment trial.

If only the "public" got a better choice than that in the U.S. But, that's the American system - broken, corrupt, rigged, and unrepresentative, full of cheated elections and wasted votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Who is the public?

Isnt it largely made up of people who either like or dislike Trump?  If they like him, they weren’t going democrat anyway.  If they don’t like him, they’re thrilled.

Its hard to imagine someone truly having NO opinion, but then suddenly springing to Trump’s defense during an actual impeachment trial.

There are people who voted for Trump but could be swayed against him if the case is strong enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pilight said:

There are people who voted for Trump but could be swayed against him if the case is strong enough.

Fair enough, but then doesn’t it behoove us to at least try to make the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, who knows? I think he would have to make a pretty strong case that the impeachment charges are illegitimately founded (perhaps he would have some ground to do this given Pelosi seems to have based her beginning of an official impeachment inquiry on hearsay).

I mean, that's what an allegation is. The police don't decide to not open a murder investigation because an accusation that someone did it is "hearsay". If the subsequent investigation and the articles ratified by the House thereafter (essentially the order of indictment) find some serious stuff, enough to impeach, McConell is smart enough to know that that all but forces his hand on a vote. And even if it doesn't, if enough is uncovered to cause Republican dissent, he may not be able to stop a trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Also Doug Jones as possible Dem voting to acquit, who is up for re-election in 2020.

Jones hasn’t been all that moderate, which is surprising. I think he knows he’s unlikely to be re-elected. He would definitely vote with other Dems. Only Manchin might acquit. Jones might abstain at worse, if that’s allowable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

He would definitely vote with other Dems.

Ya, you might be right that he doesn't believe he has much of a chance. If he does, however, that might knock him away from a 'convict' vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Fair enough, but then doesn’t it behoove us to at least try to make the case?

It's certainly worth investigation.  Like any case, you don't want to go to trial unless you're pretty sure of getting a conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pilight said:

It's certainly worth investigation.  Like any case, you don't want to go to trial unless you're pretty sure of getting a conviction.

Won’t get a conviction here, the jury is biased against the defendant.

But we make the most of it and try the case in the Court of Public Opinion instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...