Impeachment

[Mr. Deez]

My analysis of what Dershowitz said is not based on any "media" save that which broadcast the words directly from his mouth. He said that a president can take action in the "national interest" and his perception of "national interest" can include getting himself reelected. Seems to cover Nixon's perception of what he was doing. In fairness to Jackhammer, his remarks perhaps conveyed narrower immunity than did the more extensive remarks of the OJ dream steamer.
I meant mchammer. Damn autocorrect.

They had a direct quote from Trump too on Charlottesville. The narrative was fraudulent, because they ignored the context (including other words from Trump that were in direct conflict) in order to induce viewers and readers to believe something false and damaging. It's the kind of thing for which libel laws very clearly should be available but aren't.

This is Dershowitz's defense of what he said, for what it's worth. Link.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Bear with me here.
So........, because an impeachment trial is not a criminal case, an acquittal does not necessarily settle the question as double jeopardy does not apply (only applies to criminal cases). If that is the case what’s stopping the presidents opponents from starting this all over again next Spring? Same charges, same witnesses, same testimony. Like calling this attempt a mulligan and calling for a do-over.
And if this does indeed happen, can’t the House then call all the witnesses they are being denied by the vote this evening?
Sorry, I’m tired and probably not expressing myself adequately, but I would like the more learned posters here to enlighten me (that includes pretty much everybody who posts here).

Yes, the House could do this all over again. If somehow Trump wins but Democrats retake the Senate, expect that they will.

And as I've posted earlier, they could have called all the witnesses this time as well. They could have compelled Bolton's, Mulvaney's, and Pimpeo's testimonies during the impeachment phase when they controlled the process. However, in a move of monumental recklessness anyld idiocy, they decided to rely on the Senate (despite being controlled by the other party) to bail them out of their neglect at trial and secure the testimony for them.

Obviously, the media will frame this as a legislative cover-up, but it should actually go down as the biggest unforced error and indefensible blunder in the history of the House of Representatives. Even if the Senate had allowed them to call witnesses (which I supported), they had no idea what the hell their witnesses were actually going to say. (No, it isn't safe to rely on the New York Times characterization of a leaked book.) They would have learned the testimony for the first time in trial. Very dangerous practice - and for no defensible reason at all. Nancy Pelosi should unquestionably lose the speakership over it.

 

[Joe Fan]

Is that a meaningful gesture? I don't get it.

 

[theiioftx]

Rumor is there will be an intermission and Paul Boesch will interview congressional leadership.

For those of you scratching your head because you did not grow up in the Houston area in the 1970s:
Paul Boesch - Wikipedia

Jose Lothario will swoop in and clear the ring.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

Obviously, the media will frame this as a legislative cover-up, but it should actually go down as the biggest unforced error and indefensible blunder in the history of the House of Representatives.

Nailed it, Mr. Deez!

 

[Crockett]

They had a direct quote from Trump too on Charlottesville. The narrative was fraudulent, because they ignored the context (including other words from Trump that were in direct conflict) in order to induce viewers and readers to believe something false and damaging. It's the kind of thing for which libel laws very clearly should be available but aren't.

This is Dershowitz's defense of what he said, for what it's worth. Link.

 

[Crockett]

I admit I didn't watch the whole q and a. I'll concede Dershowitz knows more about what he meant than I do.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Crock, are you so impressed with my post that you quoted me and just figured, "he said it all?"

 

[Crockett]

Nah -- bleary eyed and not using the little keys on my android very well.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I admit I didn't watch the whole q and a. I'll concede Dershowitz knows more about what he meant than I do.

You really should read the linked article if you didn't.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I admit I didn't watch the whole q and a. I'll concede Dershowitz knows more about what he meant than I do.

That's good, and I think you have more integrity than most. However, why doesn't the political media afford him that same courtesy? Could he have worded it better? Of course, but they took one statement, ignored the context, drew the worst possible inference, and made it "the big story."

When Obama made a reference to visiting 57 states, did the media seriously question whether he knew how many states there were? Of course not. They accepted that he misspoke and went on with their lives.

 

[huisache]

You guys actually paid a lot of attention to a political event you knew the final result of months ago in an attempt to do what?

And partisans of both sides are now screaming at how unfair the whole thing was on the part of the other side. Waaaaah!!!!

My take is that this most resembled a lawsuit with a bunch of real good lawyers with one side doing everything it could to make the other side look like the darkest knaves in the universe and succeeding with half of the jury; the other side was like a group trying to keep anybody from catching the greased pig in a mud filled arena. And succeeding. In a match that was pre ordained from the gitgo.

I understand many of my fellow Americanos enjoy watching wrestling and cage martial arts events and going to monster truck rallies. To each his own.

This November we get to again have our choice between a couple of rats on a slippery slope.

Please pardon the mixed metaphors but some things are impossible to describe without them.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Sober up, Huis. It's still early in the day where you are.

 

[Hideo Gump Jr.]

Yes, the House could do this all over again. If somehow Trump wins but Democrats retake the Senate, expect that they will.

Thank you for your serious response. I’m sure this situation was not something the Framers considered, or even imagined. Maybe this needs to be fine tuned constitutionally (much like presidential succession and term limits). Although that process might be just as contentious as the current one, if not more so.
Think I’ll take a break from this for a while.
See y’all on the Recruiting board.

 

[Crockett]

That's good, and I think you have more integrity than most. However, why doesn't the political media afford him that same courtesy? Could he have worded it better? Of course, but they took one statement, ignored the context, drew the worst possible inference, and made it "the big story."

When Obama made a reference to visiting 57 states, did the media seriously question whether he knew how many states there were? Of course not. They accepted that he misspoke and went on with their lives.

Most media is aimed at folks who are angry and choose to consume media that enhances that. It's infotainment and to my mind the conservative voices, including the president's are some of the angriest out there. There are still great news sources for thoughtful people but they try the patience of those looking to confirm what they feel.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Most media is aimed at folks who are angry and choose to consume media that enhances that. It's infotainment and to my mind the conservative voices, including the president's are some of the angriest out there. There are still great news sources for thoughtful people but they try the patience of those looking to confirm what they feel.

Do you understand why they might be angry or why they don't freak out when Trump calls them the "enemy of the people?" It's because of stories like this that always seem to go one way. It's because of incidents like the Don Lemon episode. Everytime they do stuff like that, their credibility just gets weaker and weaker, and their sphere of influence gets narrower and narrower.

 

[Crockett]

Media is plural for medium. There are all sorts of them out there and many are stridently leftist, angry and unfair. Many are stridently right wing, angry and unfair. If you let people you don't like dictate how you communicate and view the world, you are giving them too much power. If I watch something and feel more stimulation to my adrenal gland than my cerebral cortex I move on. CNN, MSNBC and Fox get little of my time. The evening news shows are too short and cluttered with junk to provide much insight. During the 30 minutes I sometimes spend with ABC, NBC or CBS evening news, I often feel there are more words describing side effects of medication than the great political issues of the day.

 

[Garmel]

It's infotainment and to my mind the conservative voices, including the president's are some of the angriest out there.

Conservatives are nowhere comparable to the SJWs in regards to anger. Not even close.

 

[Horn6721]

This is truly a WTH and eyeopening

 

[mchammer]

Regarding what the House did:

 

[Monahorns]

Like I have said here and attached articles explaining this, Impeachment is inherently political. What we saw with the Trump Impeachment and Senate hearing are how the Framers intended it.

It's dirty, nasty, and personal. That's politics. That the State. It is a bully and thief. The sooner you all understand the nature of the State the better. It isn't a force for good. It is a force for force. At best, that force is used to protect those underneath it. That's it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Media is plural for medium. There are all sorts of them out there and many are stridently leftist, angry and unfair. Many are stridently right wing, angry and unfair. If you let people you don't like dictate how you communicate and view the world, you are giving them too much power. If I watch something and feel more stimulation to my adrenal gland than my cerebral cortex I move on. CNN, MSNBC and Fox get little of my time. The evening news shows are too short and cluttered with junk to provide much insight. During the 30 minutes I sometimes spend with ABC, NBC or CBS evening news, I often feel there are more words describing side effects of medication than the great political issues of the day.

The biggest problem isn't the presence of what I'd call "partisan advocacy media." They do make political polarization worse in general, but they don't really drive conservative anger. For example, the Right may not like Rachel Maddow, but she doesn't really piss them off, because she doesn't put on a pretense of objectivity. Furthermore, they can choose not to watch her.

What really drives conservative anger is when a bunch of Rachel Maddows dominate what is supposed to be and frequently claims to be legitimate journalism. They will basically do what she does. They'll toss in some factual reporting, but they will very heavily apply the Left's spin on it, reinforce the Left's narratives (regardless of their factual merits), and attack the Right's narratives (regardless of their factual narratives). However, they will have the audacity to try to claim the respect, reputation, credibility, and privilege that comes with being a serious journalist. It's the fraudulent pretense that really enrages people.

For example, if Jim Acosta just admitted that he was a partisan liberal hack, nobody would care. He has a right to his opinions and a right to advocate for them. However, when he masquerades as a White House correspondent while behaving like a partisan liberal hack, that's when the Right has a problem.

And to be clear, I don't have a problem with the press being tough on Trump. They should be, and that is part of having a free press. However, that toughness shouldn't be one-sided, and it very clearly is. Furthermore, that toughness can't cross the line into half-truths, omitted important facts, and sometimes flagrant falsehoods. That isn't a free press. It is a partisan propaganda wing.

 

[UTChE96]

This is truly a WTH and eyeopening

There is seriously something wrong with Hawaiians to elect that POS.

 

[nashhorn]

It is a force for force

I would add “and for personal financial gain”.

 

[huisache]

grand juries are appointed by judges and that is the extent of their involvement. The judges are not present for the proceedings, just the prosecutor. And I have been practicing for 42 years and have never turned over grand jury testimony to a defense lawyer or had a prosecutor turn it over to me as defense counsel. Grand juries as a rule are there to give the state the authority to proceed and the only side that presents evidence is the government.

 

[OUBubba]

Every corporation I've worked for, if the CEO rec'd a blow job from a subordinate (esp in his office), he'd have been fired. No questions asked. If the proof is there, he'd hit the door

I think it's laughable you don't see the problem getting sexual favors from subordinates at work on site (or off). Predictable, yet laughable. Clinton wasn't some manager at the 7-11. Get real

There is a long and undistinguished list of **** that trump has done that most CEO’s would be fired for.

 

[Monahorns]

I would add “and for personal financial gain”.

Once you own the monopoly on violence, what else is there to do with it? Taking everyone else's stuff is step 2.

 

[WorsterMan]

Please show me those 12 felony convictions. I never voted for Bill.

I used the word "convictions" - that was incorrect, I should have said 11 grounds for impeachment.

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

 

[horninchicago]

There is a long and undistinguished list of **** that trump has done that most CEO’s would be fired for.

I'm sure you have a link to these things that were proven to have been done. Or is it things that were alleged to have been done, just like everything else the last 3 to 4 years, and just like every other famous person with false claims against them?

 

[bystander]

Don’t let the door hit ya:

Disgruntled employee. Period.