|
oxsnard posted:I saw someone post about that earlier, is that confirmed or just expected? Who are the GOP holdouts? The Senate GOP whip himself said this.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
oxsnard posted:What are you gonna do, appeal to the supreme Court? well that's the stupidest thing i can imagine happening, so by Trump's Law we can expect it to happen within the next few months
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:I hope everyone here who is weeping tears of victory is ready for Mitch McConnell to bury the impeachment in a shallow grave. So we could a just skipped the whole thing and got the same end result and polls and voters and protests and anger at Republicans don't matter and Mitch McConnell is now God? Cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:It's the Justice of the Supreme court signing on the subpoena. There's zero percent chance a lower court judge would rule to let you out of it. What are you gonna do, appeal to the supreme Court? I sincerely doubt Roberts will have any power at all. His responsibilities will involve walking into the room, banging the gavel to denote the beginning the proceedings and banging it again to end them. He isn't going to have the power to do jackshit. I think he would prefer it at that. He doesn't want Trump impeached, and he doesn't want to be seen undermining the legitimacy of the SCOTUS. So McConnell essentially relegating him to gavel banger lets him have his cake and eat it too. We can all get mad at McConnell for obviously sabotaging the process, and how deep he digs his grave depends on how absurd he runs the trial. But we won't be able to get mad at the SCOTUS for abandoning their duties, because this is the most literal case of political Calvinball imaginable, and the Senate sets the rules. If they decided that the SCOTUS "presiding" over the trial just means "sitting in a chair and watching it", who the gently caress rules on this? The SCOTUS can't, they have a horse in this race. Are they gonna rule "Yeah, actually, the top of the judiciary can tell the top of the legislature how they do business". That's not gonna happen, none of the justices want to open this can of shitworms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
Ok, so after thinking this over, how does that change the political calculus? Option A: GOP Senators follow the playbook from the house. Divert, goalpost shift, make it into a total circus. This seems like the most obvious route but looking over who the House will be able to subpoena (assuming Roberts plays the neutral party role), that brings in a ton of witnesses who have undoubtedly witnessed numerous Trump crimes. One witness is a complete lunatic wild card, and all of them come from different GOP factions. This brings up the very real potential for other Republicans (including potentially high profile sitting congressmen and senators) to get sucked into crimes Option B: Vote to remove, pretend you had a change of heart after hearing the facts. This has all of the downside of option A. Only upside is if senators think they can save their seats in reelection. I feel like disgruntled MAGA voters departing cannot possibly be outnumber by independents coming back into the fold Option C: somehow convince Trump to resign. After thinking it over, it might be the best option for them. Avoids dirt coming up, perhaps takes away some enthusiasm for the 2020 election and at least has the potential to only piss off mega CHUDs, with the quasi CHUDs talking themselves into it being the Dems fault. I don't think it's possible because Trump is mostly gone mentally, and is more paranoid and deluded that ever. All of these options look good to me
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Xaiter posted:I sincerely doubt Roberts will have any power at all. His responsibilities will involve walking into the room, banging the gavel to denote the beginning the proceedings and banging it again to end them. He isn't going to have the power to do jackshit. I already posted the rules, which exist and are in place, and we've already talked about the basic political reality that even Republicans don't think they have the votes for a rules change. It'd be more useful to talk about that reality rather than just wildly speculate "what if they change the rules so roberts has no authority" when there's no indication that that's even possible. The thing Cornyn says they don't have votes for - dismissal - would actually be politically easier vote than what you suggest here, massively changing the rules for the first time in a couple centuries to neuter the authority of YOUR PARTY'S chief justice
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
Xaiter posted:I sincerely doubt Roberts will have any power at all. His responsibilities will involve walking into the room, banging the gavel to denote the beginning the proceedings and banging it again to end them. He isn't going to have the power to do jackshit. Those are good thoughts, but can the senate not follow its own rules? If they don't have the votes to change the rules, do they just do whatever they want? Who decides?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
 Not sure which one I like better  
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
eke out posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
NoDamage posted:You really think John Roberts is gonna toss Rudy Guiliani in jail for ignoring a subpoena? I hope you're right. But considering the House currently has similar authority and has chosen not to enforce it, I am not gonna get my hopes up. They do not have the same authority. The house isn't successful because it needs federal courts to enforce its subpoenas. Do you see any difference when the most senior person in the judiciary is issuing them? Come on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
I don't see how anyone is going to convince Trump to resign. There's a pair of handcuffs waiting for him the second his Presidential DoJ seal of immunity is removed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
eke out posted:They do not have the same authority. The house isn't successful because it needs federal courts to enforce its subpoenas. Rudy isn't dumb enough to ignore a subpoena signed by the Chief Justice. I don't think this particular scenario is worth worrying about too much
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
eke out posted:I already posted the rules, which exist and are in place, and we've already talked about the basic political reality that even Republicans don't think they have the votes for a rules change. Oof, I didn't realize the rules were that old. Jesus! Yeah, changing them now would be a self-inflicted injury at the nuclear level. (maybe? I dunno, maybe the general population doesn't give a poo poo about this wonk stuff, but the media would explode) I was working on the math that if they don't vote to change the rules, they're voting to impeach because they will get loving legally butchered in anything resembling a real trial with actual enforcable subpoena power. Like, voting to acquit after that is just.... Okay, sure, you get through the primary. And then have no chance in the general unless you're from a blood red state. Maybe just resigning afterwards would be the plan?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Those are good thoughts, but can the senate not follow its own rules? If they don't have the votes to change the rules, do they just do whatever they want? Who decides? I spent a few hours trying to figure out exactly how the senate trial will work, and I think how it will go is: The Chief Justice gets to act like a trial judge would in most respects, except that he can be overruled by a majority of the senate. So how much of a shitshow this is comes down to, uh, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and a few retiring GOP senators. I'm not sure if Roberts can enforce subpoenas on his own though, since the power to hold people in contempt of congress seems to be an inherent power of the house and the senate and the impeachment rules (as far as I can tell) just kind of assume people will show up. Not that it really loving matters. Even though every loving GOP senator knows that failing to impeach this moron will establish forever that the president is above the law, and that Trump will take this as an excuse to ignore every rule or constraint on him, I doubt there will be more than 50 votes for removal (if that). The democrats hosed up so loving badly investing so much into Mueller, and then not even trying to make the case for impeachment when the report came out. I get the sense, from talking to a lot of my low-information voting relatives, that a ton of people who don't follow the news closely are just confused by the barrage of investigations and accusations and have no way (because they are lazy and stupid) to evaluate the veracity of this poo poo. But ultimately, it's our collective fault. Most people are too lazy or stupid to read the loving Mueller report or watch the impeachment hearings or do even a cursory amount of research into the veracity of the GOP's conspiracy bullshit. I'm the only person I know who read the whole Mueller report. I'm the only person I know who watches all of these loving hearings. Schiff's right that this is really about whether we can keep our democracy, but unfortunately, I don't think we deserve to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/woodruffbets/status/1197689813652168704quote:Joseph Bondy, Parnas’ New York-based criminal defense attorney, confirmed that his client attended the meeting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:Schiff's right that this is really about whether we can keep our democracy, but unfortunately, I don't think we deserve to. Who gives a poo poo what people 'deserve' in your estimation - the whole point of wanting to disarm capitalism is also wanting to destroy this mindset of people only being protected or taken care of if they 'deserve it'. You keep interested and keep up the fight for democracy because the alternative is fascism, and giving into fascism is just another form of suicide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Who gives a poo poo what people 'deserve' in your estimation - the whole point of wanting to disarm capitalism is also wanting to destroy this mindset of people only being protected or taken care of if they 'deserve it'. I don't like the word deserve. It sucks. No one deserves anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:I don't like the word deserve. It sucks. No one deserves anything. Agreed, there’s almost always a better word to use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Zotix posted:I don't see how anyone is going to convince Trump to resign. There's a pair of handcuffs waiting for him the second his Presidential DoJ seal of immunity is removed. "I don't see how anyone is going to convince Nixon to resign." Nixon Resigns washingtonpost.com/August 9, 1974 'Declaring that he has never been a quitter, Mr. Nixon said that to leave office before the end of his term " is abhorrent to every instinct in my body."' .... 'While the President acknowledged that some of his judgments "were wrong," he made no confession of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" with which the House Judiciary Committee charged him in its bill of impeachment. Specifically, he did not refer to Judiciary Committee charges that in the cover-up of Watergate crimes he misused government agencies such as the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Internal Revenue Service.'
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Who gives a poo poo what people 'deserve' in your estimation - the whole point of wanting to disarm capitalism is also wanting to destroy this mindset of people only being protected or taken care of if they 'deserve it'. I didn't mean that as a moral judgment and maybe 'deserve' was the wrong word. You cannot, as a matter of logical necessity, have a functioning democracy when half of the population is willing to believe a pile of insane conspiracy nonsense and ignore every fact that doesn't reinforce their partisan bias. The conditions necessary for the continued existence of a democratic state cannot be met when half the country lives in a fantasy land where Trump saying something makes that thing true. Democracy requires some common factual ground to base decisions upon. Democracy (under pretty much every theory of democracy I'm familiar with) requires accepting the legitimacy (if not the correctness) of one's political opponents, but it's impossible to respect the legitimacy of a point of view that is grounded in a steaming pile of bullshit that contradicts everything we know about reality. I don't even know what it means to "fight for democracy" when half of the people (within the margin of error) are violently opposed to the norms that make democracy possible in the first place. Fascism isn't the only alternative. Things could just collapse into anarchy or civil war. I don't see how that state of affairs is avoidable if one side sees the other side as an existential threat and will only acknowledge facts that support that view. Edit: Although it is a serious loving problem that most people seem content to ignore the catastrophic crisis that is going on right now because it isn't affecting them yet. I guess you can disagree about whether or not they deserve the consequences of that, but I don't see you you can deny that they are responsible for those consequences, as long as elections are still being held anyway. Gnumonic fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
Xaiter posted:If they decided that the SCOTUS "presiding" over the trial just means "sitting in a chair and watching it", who the gently caress rules on this? The SCOTUS can't, they have a horse in this race. Are they gonna rule "Yeah, actually, the top of the judiciary can tell the top of the legislature how they do business". That's not gonna happen, none of the justices want to open this can of shitworms. I'm not sure this matters because SCOTUS regularly rules on the extent of their own jurisdiction, which is effectively what they'd be doing by interpreting the limitations of what the Senate can do within the "presiding" clause. I'm not sure whether or not they'd actually intervene in this particular case, but they certainly have the jurisdiction to interpret constitutional requirements if they decide that they want to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Quote this post if you want the ‘I want nothing’ Gang Tag whenever it gets uploaded. Tag me. Content: Gym Jordan is a piece of work that I can't wait to vote out of office.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I'm not sure this matters because SCOTUS regularly rules on the extent of their own jurisdiction, which is effectively what they'd be doing by interpreting the limitations of what the Senate can do within the "presiding" clause. I'm not sure whether or not they'd actually intervene in this particular case, but they certainly have the jurisdiction to interpret constitutional requirements if they decide that they want to. Technically, yes. Politically? gently caress, no one wants this fight. That's like a recipe for a Constitutional Crisis. I can't even begin to imagine where the boundaries for such a legal argument exist, but then again, I'm no Constitutional Lawyer. Like... Okay... What does "preside" mean? Does the Senate have to conduct itself like a normal federal trial with the Justice as the judge? But it doesn't say that, so it's usually interpreted as "The Senate can do anything it wants, it decides what is a fair process for conducting itself". So... That means anything. Forcing them to behave any other way would be a change of the actual interpretation, right? And now the judiciary can tell Congress how it must conduct itself, right? I mean, in this example, they just did. Does this open the door to a case against the filibuster for obviously being abused to violate the most basic principal of democracy? What other insanely awful rules could be subject to judicial scrutiny once the SCOTUS can say "Yeah, your rules are obviously trash and unconstitutional.". It's a power the courts have never had before, and it would be a tremendously significant one. Or maybe this isn't the nebulous legal problem it appears to be? Maybe they can actually confine their ruling to "just" the rules for removing the highest elected official in the land.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
It's like the founding fathers predicted the incredibly stupid timeline we found ourselves in, but didn't think it could possible get that stupid
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:Not that it really loving matters. Even though every loving GOP senator knows that failing to impeach this moron will establish forever that the president is above the law, and that Trump will take this as an excuse to ignore every rule or constraint on him, I doubt there will be more than 50 votes for removal (if that). Even though he won’t get removed showing how corrupt he is will at least put a stop to any persuadable person ever buying into “at least he’s draining the swamp.” Yeah there are a lot of chuds who won’t care but making sure he can’t get beyond that base of support (and driving turnout against him) is necessary. It’s not a One Weird Trick to beating Trump, but that’s life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
Xaiter posted:Technically, yes. Politically? gently caress, no one wants this fight. That's like a recipe for a Constitutional Crisis. Roberts will make decisions that can all be overruled by a majority vote, because a majority suffices to change the senate rules. Even if the rules governing the trial state that the chief justice can't be overruled at all they'd still be able to do this because those rules have the same status as any other procedural rules in the senate (such as the filibuster) and can be set aside with a majority vote. Theoretically I guess the whole supreme court could overrule the senate but that's probably practically impossible if the trial is limited to a few weeks, so I'd bet a lot against that happening. A year ago I would have said that this probably won't be an issue because republican senators won't unanimously vote to overrule the judgment of a republican chief justice but who the gently caress knows. Or at least that's how I think it works anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
I'm watching Schiff's closing statement. Awesome stuff. But uh. Is that guy in the back crying?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:Roberts will make decisions that can all be overruled by a majority vote, because a majority suffices to change the senate rules. Even if the rules governing the trial state that the chief justice can't be overruled at all they'd still be able to do this because those rules have the same status as any other procedural rules in the senate (such as the filibuster) and can be set aside with a majority vote. Theoretically I guess the whole supreme court could overrule the senate but that's probably practically impossible if the trial is limited to a few weeks, so I'd bet a lot against that happening. A year ago I would have said that this probably won't be an issue because republican senators won't unanimously vote to overrule the judgment of a republican chief justice but who the gently caress knows. That's possible, but not very likely. Technically, yes, the Senate can vote to change its rules at any time. Realistically, they don't. If Roberts makes a really awful ruling, it might be possible to cobble together 51 votes to overrule him, but other than extreme situations a sufficient number of Senators will defer to the Chief Justice's judgment and let it stand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:I don't like the word deserve. It sucks. No one deserves anything. I bought a can of Dr. Pepper yesterday, and the can says 'You deserve this!". It's like, why does a can of pop need to tell me I deserve it? I bought you, so I am going to drink you. I don't need your permission or encouragement. No one "deserves" anything. You get what you can take with your own hands, or what someone is willing to give you. I like donating to charity, but not because I think anyone deserves it. I just think everyone should get a shot at life and happiness, but it's up to them whether or not they get it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:I spent a few hours trying to figure out exactly how the senate trial will work, and I think how it will go is: The Chief Justice gets to act like a trial judge would in most respects, except that he can be overruled by a majority of the senate. So how much of a shitshow this is comes down to, uh, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and a few retiring GOP senators. i feel like its a mix of 3. i feel like it will be a circus but it will go very badly for them and they will try to get trump to resign, trump won't and they will either feel forced to remove him out of desperation or more likely they will aquit him by some margin. than they are possibly hosed harder in November 2020 as is trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:I'm watching Schiff's closing statement. Awesome stuff. Who, Nunes? (I haven't watched his closing statement yet.  )
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
Otteration posted:"I don't see how anyone is going to convince Nixon to resign." Yeah but both houses were blue in 1974, and there was definitely less partisanship/tribalism. The Senate will never get rid of Trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
The Senate will crack at some point, it's just how much pain they can take when the polls start sliding too far in the wrong direction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
Wylie posted:The only real difference between British and American southern accents is speed- if you slow down British, they sound Southern, and if you speed up Southerners, they sound English. I tried this out with videos of people from Louisiana and with Fiona Hill at faster and slower speeds and it did not sound the same. The southerners just sounded southern, but talking fast. Hill sounded like a northern english woman, but extremely drunk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
cr0y posted:The Senate will crack at some point, it's just how much pain they can take when the polls start sliding too far in the wrong direction. its a lose lost for the GOP senate. either keep the hardline chuds who are a minority and pray the 2020 blue wave(because its gonna happen) doesnt break you or hem and haw and stab trump in the back and face possibly primarying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
cr0y posted:The Senate will crack at some point, it's just how much pain they can take when the polls start sliding too far in the wrong direction. I wish polls were going down in more reasonable rates. I'm numb to most things, but seeing how flatlined approval and impeachment polls are makes me sad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
cr0y posted:The Senate will crack at some point, it's just how much pain they can take when the polls start sliding too far in the wrong direction. Why do you assume the polls will start sliding in the other direction? Cuz, as of today at least, these hearings -- in which the GOP is blatantly parroting Russian propaganda that both the intelligence community AND the motherfucking GOP-run senate intelligence committee have conclusively refuted -- have caused approval for impeachment to fall and Trump's support to rise in a bunch of swing states. I hope it does change but after three years of this poo poo, if you're not opposed to Trump, I don't think there's anything on earth that could get you to change your mind. actionjackson posted:Yeah but both houses were blue in 1974, and there was definitely less partisanship/tribalism. Yeah, this. In the 70s there was not an alternative media ecosystem. There wasn't substantial disagreement that the Watergate break-in happened. In 2019 America anyone who feels like Trump did nothing wrong can completely insulate themselves from any evidence to the contrary. I don't think the needle would move even if there were a tape of Trump saying "President Zelensky, I am bribing you to investigate Joe Biden." Fox would pretend it doesn't exist, conservative social media circles would call it a deep state fake conspiracy, and 90% of the GOP would just go along with it. It just seems incredibly implausible that anyone who has been awake for the past three years is persuadable by any amount of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Yeah but both houses were blue in 1974, and there was definitely less partisanship/tribalism. Whether the poo poo smear will desire to retire of all it was the thought. All things are possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
I think that Trump and the right will actually just peddle more and more conspiracy theories that people are out to get them, and put the impeachment forth as "evidence." They will hope that's enough to keep their base and get another EC victory in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
actionjackson posted:I think that Trump and the right will actually just peddle more and more conspiracy theories that people are out to get them, and put the impeachment forth as "evidence." They will hope that's enough to keep their base and get another EC victory in 2020. i think the issue with that is outside the chud base, its way too complex to understand. unlike the crimes that did happen that are easier to summarize. the hardline maga chuds arnt a big enough group to save trump or the GOP anymore. trumps a very well known factor now and is widely hated/disliked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 05:04
|
|