EPTAn example is that a current acquittal sets the precedent that the president can stonewall all inquiries from the opposing party in congress. If the house is 100% republican members, and the president is a democrat, the president can direct the entire executive branch to provide zero documents and zero time as witnesses in hearings, and the house can't do anything about it. That is a move towards autocracy. The irony is that republicans simultaneously claimed there were no adequately close-in witnesses while defending the executive's decision to not let the potential close-in witnesses testify.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2070
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
micronesia
United States24805 Posts
An example is that a current acquittal sets the precedent that the president can stonewall all inquiries from the opposing party in congress. If the house is 100% republican members, and the president is a democrat, the president can direct the entire executive branch to provide zero documents and zero time as witnesses in hearings, and the house can't do anything about it. That is a move towards autocracy. The irony is that republicans simultaneously claimed there were no adequately close-in witnesses while defending the executive's decision to not let the potential close-in witnesses testify. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On February 01 2020 22:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Exactly the same thing happened to Clinton 20 years ago.Friendly Senate acquittal in impeachment trial. So how are todays events shifting things towards autocracy exactly? The bias is coming from you my friend. What are/were they being acquitted of? | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5876 Posts
On February 01 2020 22:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Exactly the same thing happened to Clinton 20 years ago.Friendly Senate acquittal in impeachment trial. So how are todays events shifting things towards autocracy exactly? The bias is coming from you my friend. Because Clinton was being impeached for getting a blowjob and lying about it, whereas Trump was impeached for abusing his power to use the US foreign policy as a tool to go after his political opponent. It was an attempt at character assassination of Joe Biden by connecting him to his son's allegedly suspect career. You don't see the difference? | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5876 Posts
On February 01 2020 23:10 Sent. wrote: Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for getting a blowie. I said "getting a blowjob and lying about it" (under oath), not "getting a blowjob". Edit: Clinton lied under oath about something relatively trivial. Trump hijacked the US foreign policy to destroy a political opponent, and tried to undermine the process of bringing him to justice in many ways. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On February 01 2020 22:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Exactly the same thing happened to Clinton 20 years ago.Friendly Senate acquittal in impeachment trial. So how are todays events shifting things towards autocracy exactly? The bias is coming from you my friend. Excuse me ? Did Clinton do something to American democracy ? Was he allowing cronies to go crazy abroad ? Did he try to involve foreign nations into your politics ? I believe he got impeached cause he lied about a mistress. Nothing to do with improper political behaviour. It was a private matter. Trump should have asked for an investigation to his AG (and even then, the judiciary is supposed to be a separate branch, so he should have referred his "data" to the AG). What he asked was for a foreign country to *announce* an investigation. Not to actually investigate (which is usually kept under wraps until it's time) because it does not help him politically. It's so nakedly dumb that I don't even understand how you can even try to compare. Do bear in mind that the previous ukrainian AG that Biden pushed to fire was doing exactly that : keep investigations into opponents and companies open, in order to have leverage. That is what corruption is. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44374 Posts
It was a lawyer trap. He tried to lawyer his way out of it but forgot that everyone hates lawyers and that you don’t win points for going “hah, it sounded like I meant one thing but technically I said another and if you used a reasonable interpretation of my words and were mislead by common sense then that’s on you”. Impeachment is political and Bill’s ‘technically not a lie’ didn’t win him any friends. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12027 Posts
Always deflect, never engage the argument. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5044 Posts
On February 01 2020 22:35 micronesia wrote: I don't consider the perceived shift towards autocracy to be the result of bias. That doesn't mean no bias exists, but you don't need to be biased to see it. You need to be very biased not to see it. An example is that a current acquittal sets the precedent that the president can stonewall all inquiries from the opposing party in congress. If the house is 100% republican members, and the president is a democrat, the president can direct the entire executive branch to provide zero documents and zero time as witnesses in hearings, and the house can't do anything about it. That is a move towards autocracy. The irony is that republicans simultaneously claimed there were no adequately close-in witnesses while defending the executive's decision to not let the potential close-in witnesses testify. The Democrats rushed the project and refuse to fight for people who wouldn't show, like Bolton. Then the Demcrats had the temerity to say that both A) their case was overwhelming, and B) that the Senate not calling witnesses the House didnt bother to pursue was a cover up and some sort of a failure to do their duty. The courts have been the place where these things have been settled for decades now, and Trump did not and has not defied a single court order on this matter (or any others I'm aware of). This is why the merits shouldn't even have been reached. The House did a poor job and their charges should have been thrown out. May this embolden Trump? Maybe. But giving legitimacy to the way the House behaved is terrible for this constitutional process as well. Really a sorry state they've gotten us into. edit: the second article is a travesty as Turley said and I have posted here. I expect even some Democrats to vote that one down. Might get a few dems for the "abuse of power" one too. Dianne Feinstein told a reporter she was prob going to aquit then had to walk it back almost instantly. This is prob her last term though, do it Dianne! You've always had more of a brain then your past or current Senate mate. | ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
| ||
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
On February 01 2020 21:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Agreed. Right now, I expect Trump to win by a larger margin next election regardless of the Democrat candidate. Imagine the reaction if Benghazi happened during his presidency -- Syria, Libya, private server, and so on. I suppose people would call him a fascist even more than they do now.Catastrophic failure perfectly describes democrat attempts to unseat Trump over the past 4 1/2 years since he became Republican nominee. It was getting old 4 years ago. Blind Freddy saw this one coming. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24805 Posts
On February 02 2020 02:46 Introvert wrote: The Democrats rushed the project and refuse to fight for people who wouldn't show, like Bolton. Then the Demcrats had the temerity to say that both A) their case was overwhelming, and B) that the Senate not calling witnesses the House didnt bother to pursue was a cover up and some sort of a failure to do their duty. The courts have been the place where these things have been settled for decades now, and Trump did not and has not defied a single court order on this matter (or any others I'm aware of). This is why the merits shouldn't even have been reached. The House did a poor job and their charges should have been thrown out. May this embolden Trump? Maybe. But giving legitimacy to the way the House behaved is terrible for this constitutional process as well. Really a sorry state they've gotten us into. You can argue that for all the subpoenas that were ignored during the house impeachment inquiry, the house should have fought it out in the courts instead of passing the baton to the senate. I'm not arguing whether, strategically, I agree with how Pelosi and the democrats handled that aspect of the impeachment inquiry and articles of impeachment. Either way, that doesn't change the fact that the USA is shifting towards autocracy, and only bias prevents individuals from seeing that. Also, the precedent I described most likely exists after next week. Appeal to the courts is a weak argument for not calling witnesses. The republicans in congress should, if necessary, be appealing to the courts too on behalf of forcing testimony from senior officials with direct knowledge regarding the topics of the impeachment inquiry. Instead, they aren't interested in witnesses because they are worried it will support the democrats' original arguments. They know Trump committed crimes but don't care so long as they can get re-elected. I suspect they will regret this course of action later when they realize there are bigger things at stake than their re-election. That might be too optimistic of me, though. | ||
|
reborn8u2
16 Posts
On February 02 2020 02:00 KwarK wrote: For the record, Bill didn’t lie. They asked about “sexual relations” knowing he’d gotten a blowjob, he asked them to define “sexual relations” because it’s an ambiguous term and he’s a lawyer by trade, they defined it as contact with a woman’s vagina and then Bill said that within that definition he had not had sexual relations with her. It was a lawyer trap. He tried to lawyer his way out of it but forgot that everyone hates lawyers and that you don’t win points for going “hah, it sounded like I meant one thing but technically I said another and if you used a reasonable interpretation of my words and were mislead by common sense then that’s on you”. Impeachment is political and Bill’s ‘technically not a lie’ didn’t win him any friends. The definition he read just before giving that answer included "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person" He then said no, which was a lie. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/clinton/clintontestimony.html As a result he was held in contempt of court, given a 90k fine, and had his law license taken away for several years. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On February 02 2020 03:12 Xxio wrote: Agreed. Right now, I expect Trump to win by a larger margin next election regardless of the Democrat candidate. Imagine the reaction if Benghazi happened during his presidency -- Syria, Libya, private server, and so on. I suppose people would call him a fascist even more than they do now. How many other Presidents or high-profile public figures indulge in what Trump does though? From ‘everything I don’t like is fake news’ to siccing his followers on basically anyone who disagrees with him, to just his general bullying behaviour and silly Twitter spats, never mind specific actions he’s made while in office. I wouldn’t use the facist word personally but he has a rather pronounced autocratic streak, which tbh I think a significant portion of his base actually think is a good thing as he’s ‘their guy’. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44374 Posts
On February 02 2020 03:12 Xxio wrote: Agreed. Right now, I expect Trump to win by a larger margin next election regardless of the Democrat candidate. Imagine the reaction if Benghazi happened during his presidency -- Syria, Libya, private server, and so on. I suppose people would call him a fascist even more than they do now. There was a private server scandal in his presidency, as well as a Syria one. You’ve just not been staying informed. It's actually pretty funny that the hypothetical scandals you're imagining would topple his presidency are routine and so commonplace that you've forgotten about them. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44374 Posts
On February 02 2020 03:20 reborn8u2 wrote: The definition he read just before giving that answer included "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person" He then said no, which was a lie. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/clinton/clintontestimony.html As a result he was held in contempt of court, given a 90k fine, and had his law license taken away for several years. His argument was that Monica had sexual relations with him but that he did not have it with her. I don't deny it was a spurious argument, my point was the opposite, that he was doing some bullshit and that everyone saw through it. Also you're conflating two separate cases, the case that the Arkansas Bar Association brought against him for bringing the profession into disrepute and the impeachment inquiry. They're different cases. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On February 02 2020 03:17 micronesia wrote: You can argue that for all the subpoenas that were ignored during the house impeachment inquiry, the house should have fought it out in the courts instead of passing the baton to the senate. I'm not arguing whether, strategically, I agree with how Pelosi and the democrats handled that aspect of the impeachment inquiry and articles of impeachment. Either way, that doesn't change the fact that the USA is shifting towards autocracy, and only bias prevents individuals from seeing that. Also, the precedent I described most likely exists after next week. Appeal to the courts is a weak argument for not calling witnesses. The republicans in congress should, if necessary, be appealing to the courts too on behalf of forcing testimony from senior officials with direct knowledge regarding the topics of the impeachment inquiry. Instead, they aren't interested in witnesses because they are worried it will support the democrats' original arguments. They know Trump committed crimes but don't care so long as they can get re-elected. I suspect they will regret this course of action later when they realize there are bigger things at stake than their re-election. That might be too optimistic of me, though. I think Marco Rubio put it well Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office. All the random ass arguments Trumps attorneys put out there which often conflicted with each other are just there as short justifications for the republicans to ignore something actually troubling. If a republican president actually gets removed from office it hurts the public image of the party, so we can't do that as that hurts the "country". | ||
| ||
