Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[megaplayboy]

So, the public hearings are about to start.  The Republicans want to call a bunch of witnesses who have nothing to do with the actual inquiry but instead seem directed at reupping the Hunter Biden "scandal".  Schiff responded by saying that any witnesses must be able to address the following 3 questions:

[Pariah]

I'm not as familiar with the impeachment process as I might be. If the House of Representatives chooses to send impeachment charges to the Senate, is Mitch McConnell obligated to do anything with them? Or can he just bury anything he doesn't personally like, or doesn't believe the president would like, the way he's done for the last 3 years?

[csyphrett]

11 hours ago, Pariah said:

I'm not as familiar with the impeachment process as I might be. If the House of Representatives chooses to send impeachment charges to the Senate, is Mitch McConnell obligated to do anything with them? Or can he just bury anything he doesn't personally like, or doesn't believe the president would like, the way he's done for the last 3 years?

It depends. Judge Roberts is holding the session so there will be a vote. McConnell can have all of his guys vote no like they have been doing. Basically the Republicans would have to do the same thing they have been doing and defend Trump against all comers. The only way to change that is that some of the senators look at their future and nope out

Lindsey Graham, Devin Nunes, and Rand Paul will hold Trump's water no matter what.

CES  

[Lord Liaden]

My understanding is that if the House of Representatives submits articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Senate is required to hold a trial for the official being impeached. Constitutionally there's nothing McConnell could do to prevent that from happening. In the case of a trial of the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, currently John Roberts, would preside over the trial. BTW that's the stage during which the President would receive his "due process," including public proceedings, facing his accusers, calling witnesses and cross-examining (as the Republican elected officials complaining about the proceedings knew very well).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

[csyphrett]

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

My understanding is that if the House of Representatives submits articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Senate is required to hold a trial for the official being impeached. Constitutionally there's nothing McConnell could do to prevent that from happening. In the case of a trial of the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, currently John Roberts, would preside over the trial. BTW that's the stage during which the President would receive his "due process," including public proceedings, facing his accusers, calling witnesses and cross-examining (as the Republican elected officials complaining about the proceedings knew very well).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Republicans charged into a security room with active phones which means the room has to be destroyed and rebuilt  complaining about being left out when most of them are on the committee doing the talking. Republicans are all about doing stupid things and giving the Adam Savage mantra 

CES

[TrickstaPriest]

On 11/8/2019 at 7:22 AM, ScottishFox said:

How is this the hill they want to die on?

 

They are sure they won't die on it.  They bank on limited attention span and supporting their overlords... who have much better attention spans.

[Lord Liaden]

In the name of balance, I have to point out that we only have Amy Robach's vent that the story she'd prepared was solid enough to withstand scrutiny. ABC News made the assertion that "not all of our reporting met our standards to air." Many stories are spiked if editors determine they don't have enough substantiation to be credible. And we have more than one recent example of premature reports having to be rolled back when they were discovered to be in error.

 

Hindsight may be perfect, but it doesn't help decision making in the moment. And it would be dangerous to always take the word of an individual over the word of corporate, just because they're corporate.

[csyphrett]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

In the name of balance, I have to point out that we only have Amy Robach's vent that the story she'd prepared was solid enough to withstand scrutiny. ABC News made the assertion that "not all of our reporting met our standards to air." Many stories are spiked if editors determine they don't have enough substantiation to be credible. And we have more than one recent example of premature reports having to be rolled back when they were discovered to be in error.

 

Hindsight may be perfect, but it doesn't help decision making in the moment. And it would be dangerous to always take the word of an individual over the word of corporate, just because they're corporate.

Reminds me of the Astro City story.

CES

[DShomshak]

5 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

And it would be dangerous to always take the word of an individual over the word of corporate, just because they're corporate.

 

A lawyer friend of mine pointed this out regarding a state Supreme Court candidate who said she wanted the job to be an advocate for minorities and the poor against corporate power. It is in fact possible that in a dispute between a large, rich corporation and a "little guy" that the corporation may be in the right.

 

(He also pointed out -- I shall try to recollect his words as closely as I can -- that this candidate "Literally does not understand the job she's applying for. A judge is not supposed to be an advocate. A judge is who you advocate to.")

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

While the Senate is constitutionally obliged to try the president on the articles of impeachment sent by the House, a constitutional law expert interviewed by All Things Considered said McConnell could run the trial pretty much as he pleases, and neither House nor Senate Democrats can do a thing about it. For instance, he could refuse to allow any witnesses, testimony or evidence of any kind, and just call a vote right away. It could all be over in five minutes. Blatantly, transparently political and spitting on the very idea of the rule of law, but he and Trump would have won.

 

And if Dems then take White House, House and Senate in 2020, I would not be able to fault them for, well, anything they did in retaliation. It is to be hoped the GOP Senators will at least pretend to hold a real trial.

 

Dean Shomshak

[TrickstaPriest]

2 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

And if Dems then take White House, House and Senate in 2020, I would not be able to fault them for, well, anything they did in retaliation.

 

I dislike the whole 'burning down the country in retaliation', but right now there's a real struggle to basically take over the country down or tear it down to pieces.  It makes me feel like the (local) forces trying to do so think the general 'order of democracy' is going to collapse and they want to be on top when it happens.

 

That's just my paranoia speaking, though.

[Ternaugh]

35 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

While the Senate is constitutionally obliged to try the president on the articles of impeachment sent by the House, a constitutional law expert interviewed by All Things Considered said McConnell could run the trial pretty much as he pleases, and neither House nor Senate Democrats can do a thing about it. For instance, he could refuse to allow any witnesses, testimony or evidence of any kind, and just call a vote right away. It could all be over in five minutes. Blatantly, transparently political and spitting on the very idea of the rule of law, but he and Trump would have won.

 

And if Dems then take White House, House and Senate in 2020, I would not be able to fault them for, well, anything they did in retaliation. It is to be hoped the GOP Senators will at least pretend to hold a real trial.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

McConnell wouldn't be the officer presiding over the impeachment trial. For a presidential impeachment, that would be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

[Lord Liaden]

But that's a point of constitutional law I haven't found any details about: is the Chief Justice empowered to set the agenda of the trial, or just govern its conduct during the trial? If it's the Senate that decides how the trial will proceed, and since the GOP controls the Senate...

[ScottishFox]

17 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

In the name of balance, I have to point out that we only have Amy Robach's vent that the story she'd prepared was solid enough to withstand scrutiny. ABC News made the assertion that "not all of our reporting met our standards to air." Many stories are spiked if editors determine they don't have enough substantiation to be credible. And we have more than one recent example of premature reports having to be rolled back when they were discovered to be in error.

 

Hindsight may be perfect, but it doesn't help decision making in the moment. And it would be dangerous to always take the word of an individual over the word of corporate, just because they're corporate.

 

Given the absolute unsubstantiated garbage that they HAVE been willing to run with in the last three years I find the corporate answer here to be 100% unbelievable.

 

Amy goes on a rant for several minutes and she clearly believes that she has WAY more evidence than she needed to run the story including an eye witness they talked out of hiding, pictures, etc. 

They have run stories that were debunked within a single day with onsite footage - Covington Kids being one that comes to mind.

 

This thing got buried in the same fashion Epstein did.  People in power wanted it gone so it was gone.

 

The fact that they reached across to their supposed competition and had a sacrifice made just makes them look all the more guilty of suppressing a real Truth-to-Power story.

 

It still bothers me, tremendously, that Amy seems more upset by being scooped than she does about letting a massive pedophile ring run for another three years.

 

There is no level of hell sufficiently vile for people who would suppress something like this.

[Simon]

ScottishFox will no longer be joining us in this conversation.

[Simon]

For the subject at hand, note the timing in which charges were brought against the ring in question -- that speaks to an investigation that had reached its conclusion.  As frustrating as it may be, investigations of large-scale criminal activity such as that take time (to do properly). While an investigation is ongoing, it is a VERY good idea to ask major news organizations NOT to go live with an expose on the subject of your investigation....and a good idea for a news organization to comply with requests like that.

[Hermit]

Anyone got a Republican Senator who would try for this?

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

[TrickstaPriest]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

For the subject at hand, note the timing in which charges were brought against the ring in question -- that speaks to an investigation that had reached its conclusion.  As frustrating as it may be, investigations of large-scale criminal activity such as that take time (to do properly)

 

That's very good perspective and advice to provide.  All too often people don't recognize the real-world constraints such things have.  I really do hope we see more results from that investigation, since I bet there is substantial materials that were collected.

[DShomshak]

Yeah -- Thanks, Simon, it is indeed frustrating as hell but it is indeed a point to remember.

 

(My late father was an investigative reporter. I know the constraints sometimes became frustrating for him... but when the story did run, he rather enjoyed telling outraged politicians, business owners and assorted criminals to go ahead and sue and see what happens. They rarely did, and the Tacoma News Tribune employed him for a great many years.)

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

Yeah -- Thanks, Simon, it is indeed frustrating as hell but it is indeed a point to remember.

 

(My late father was an investigative reporter. I know the constraints sometimes became frustrating for him... but when the story did run, he rather enjoyed telling outraged politicians, business owners and assorted criminals to go ahead and sue and see what happens. They rarely did, and the Tacoma News Tribune employed him for a great many years.)

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

dean Shomshak

[Pariah]

4 hours ago, Hermit said:

Anyone got a Republican Senator who would try for this?

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

 

I might. My state's Republican junior Senator has made little effort to conceal his disgust for Trump and his shenanigans.

[csyphrett]

5 hours ago, Hermit said:

Anyone got a Republican Senator who would try for this?

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

I got Tillis and Burr and they vote with the GOP almost all the time. I think the last time Burr said no on something was about some national forest here in NC, but I forget the reason now

CES 

[Hermit]

Not sure either of mine would try it, (RE Senators) in TN. Alexander isn't who he used to be.

[megaplayboy]

It would be nice if the fact that the hearings were broadcast on 6+ channels meant a larger than average share of the public was actually tuned in.  

[csyphrett]

Spectrum news was reporting impeachment parties but I don't know if it was pro, or con

CES