|
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 |
On February 14 2021 00:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2021 23:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 13 2021 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 13 2021 04:20 Archeon wrote:
The whole treatment of whistleblower shows how much power the secret services actually have in the USA. Obama promised to open a path to make it legal, still pursued Snowden and Assange. Trump wanted to pardon Assange, then decides to pardon his 200 cronies instead. Biden's "justice" department appeals UK rulings.
If any of this was about justice they'd sue the ones that created the mess worth leaking. But I guess working for the US gov basically gives you a free ticket do whatever horrible shit you want. It's pretty ironic how the same people that declare that "good people have nothing to hide" then pursue the people who show how much shit officials are hiding. Rule of law my ass. Assange is really no whistleblower contrarily to Snowden, and it's absolutely normal the US want to judge and punish him. I don't get that people don't understand that absolute transparency is a joke of an idea. Of course diplomatic communications are confidential. I mean, have you never had to negotiate anything? Rendering public thousands of diplomatic cables indiscriminately is spying 101, and there is absolutely no reason the US shouldn't try to get the guy. The only reason Trump wanted to pardon Assange is that he basically worked to get him elected. The case of Snowden is absolutely different of course. Assange is a foreign journalist living abroad. The US has absolutely no right to prosecute in those circumstances. They*should* have zero authority over him. He really is not a journalist at all. Not by any stretch of the concept.
He is publishing information he deems of public interest to the international public. Wikipedia cites that journalism is the "production and distribution of reports on current events based on facts and supported with proof or evidence" which is literally what wikileaks does. Add to that that wikileaks is buying the information and then publishing it and I fail to see how he's not a journalist and what ground the USA is supposed to try him on.
Is journalism suddenly not journalism because it covers the actions of secret services and diplomats? Do these have a right not to be reported about?
|
On February 14 2021 00:20 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 00:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 13 2021 23:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 13 2021 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 13 2021 04:20 Archeon wrote:
The whole treatment of whistleblower shows how much power the secret services actually have in the USA. Obama promised to open a path to make it legal, still pursued Snowden and Assange. Trump wanted to pardon Assange, then decides to pardon his 200 cronies instead. Biden's "justice" department appeals UK rulings.
If any of this was about justice they'd sue the ones that created the mess worth leaking. But I guess working for the US gov basically gives you a free ticket do whatever horrible shit you want. It's pretty ironic how the same people that declare that "good people have nothing to hide" then pursue the people who show how much shit officials are hiding. Rule of law my ass. Assange is really no whistleblower contrarily to Snowden, and it's absolutely normal the US want to judge and punish him. I don't get that people don't understand that absolute transparency is a joke of an idea. Of course diplomatic communications are confidential. I mean, have you never had to negotiate anything? Rendering public thousands of diplomatic cables indiscriminately is spying 101, and there is absolutely no reason the US shouldn't try to get the guy. The only reason Trump wanted to pardon Assange is that he basically worked to get him elected. The case of Snowden is absolutely different of course. Assange is a foreign journalist living abroad. The US has absolutely no right to prosecute in those circumstances. They*should* have zero authority over him. He really is not a journalist at all. Not by any stretch of the concept. Define it how you want, my point still stands (imo the only difference between Assange and what you would call a journalist is that the information he leaked wasn't prepared and approved by the government)
Are you for real? Sorry but that is such a dumb thing to say. Like, you think the government approved the Washington Post publishing Snowden's material? I mean how much sense does that make?
A journalist publishes stories. Dumping dozens of thousand of stolen confidential documents in the open without even checking what they are about is absolutely not journalism.
If Snowden had received the Manning cables, went through them, found something, and published an article with the relevant document, that would have been journalism and the government wouldn't be after him.
|
On February 14 2021 00:52 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 00:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 13 2021 23:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 13 2021 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 13 2021 04:20 Archeon wrote:
The whole treatment of whistleblower shows how much power the secret services actually have in the USA. Obama promised to open a path to make it legal, still pursued Snowden and Assange. Trump wanted to pardon Assange, then decides to pardon his 200 cronies instead. Biden's "justice" department appeals UK rulings.
If any of this was about justice they'd sue the ones that created the mess worth leaking. But I guess working for the US gov basically gives you a free ticket do whatever horrible shit you want. It's pretty ironic how the same people that declare that "good people have nothing to hide" then pursue the people who show how much shit officials are hiding. Rule of law my ass. Assange is really no whistleblower contrarily to Snowden, and it's absolutely normal the US want to judge and punish him. I don't get that people don't understand that absolute transparency is a joke of an idea. Of course diplomatic communications are confidential. I mean, have you never had to negotiate anything? Rendering public thousands of diplomatic cables indiscriminately is spying 101, and there is absolutely no reason the US shouldn't try to get the guy. The only reason Trump wanted to pardon Assange is that he basically worked to get him elected. The case of Snowden is absolutely different of course. Assange is a foreign journalist living abroad. The US has absolutely no right to prosecute in those circumstances. They*should* have zero authority over him. He really is not a journalist at all. Not by any stretch of the concept. He is publishing information he deems of public interest to the international public. Wikipedia cites that journalism is the "production and distribution of reports on current events based on facts and supported with proof or evidence" which is literally what wikileaks does. Add to that that wikileaks is buying the information and then publishing it and I fail to see how he's not a journalist and what ground the USA is supposed to try him on. Is journalism suddenly not journalism because it covers the actions of secret services and diplomats? Do these have a right not to be reported about?
I think we're supposed to hate Assange because exposing the Democrats' BS helped get Trump elected or something, as if that could ever justify their response.
|
While my opinion of Assange is quite low, I don't think extraditing someone who exposed war crimes of an ICC non-signatory country to them should ever be in the cards.
|
On February 13 2021 10:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2021 09:57 Nevuk wrote:I think Trump's defense is basically forcing the senate to call witnesses. I don't think that's intentional, but it's the end effect of gish galloping easily disproven lies. (One of the claims from today were that Trump didn't know Pence was in the capitol... when there are many, many witnesses that he did). They also complained that impeachment managers were using too many media stories... which are all verifiable with witnesses. His lawyers are still refusing to say if Trump or Biden won the 2020 election, also. Oh, and CNN just got an (even more) smoking gun for all of this, in a that Trump called McCarthy in the middle of the coup attempt and told him "They're just more upset than you are" Of course after all of this McCarthy flew down to Mar a Lago to kiss Trump's ring again, so who fucking knows at this point. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
Trump’s comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, “Who the f–k do you think you are talking to?” according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.
[...]
"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html You think witnesses would convince Republicans to convict? You think proving that Trump knew Pence was there would do anything at all to move the scales?
No, that's not what I was saying. If Trump's defense had been "I said those things, not my fault people took it wrong, also this trial is unconstitutional since we're out of office" that'd be fine. That's what democrats expected - it's basically what happened in his last impeachment. They argued process and didn't tell any obvious lies. Instead this time has been lies on the level of "antifa did it, I never said that, I don't know Mike Pence, I've never met Mike Pence, and everyone else is a liar".
They have to call witnesses to correct the record, essentially. If they didn't then confused morons would forever think his defense's lies were true because they never got countered.
It's the same principle as when Lewandowski (Trump's campaign manager) assaulted and bruised a breitbart reporter in front of witnesses. The initial defense was "hey, if it was actually bad then she would have filed charges"... which then forced her to file charges. If he'd just apologized he'd probably have been kept as Trump's campaign manager (cuz c'mon, she worked at BREITBART)
This was also a huge mistake. Per ABC news reporter, his lawyers only agreed to work for him through today.
On February 14 2021 00:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Senate voted 55-45 to see witnesses after Raskin said he wants to hear from Herrera Beutler about McCarthy's interaction with Trump. Not sure if this allows the defense to do the 'but her emails' shit and go and interview Pelosi or whatever they threatened to do.
The senate literally laughed at him when the lawyer tried that. Not figuratively, it was actually a laugh line.
(He then noted that in a civil trial this is the normal process for depositions... missing that this is not a traditional trial. Nor would it be in civil court if it was).
Also of note, Graham (???) voted for witnesses.
On February 14 2021 01:45 Dan HH wrote:
While my opinion of Assange is quite low, I don't think extraditing someone who exposed war crimes of an ICC non-signatory country to them should ever be in the cards.
If the US didn't torture foreign nationals then I would think extraditing him here was fine, he's definitely done illegal things knowingly by anyone's standards. If this were 2011 I would say I thought he was just an inexperienced, kinda clueless journalist who leaked embarrassing but not-interesting information like diplomatic wires (which are the most dangerous to leak when some of the people involved are autocrats). After Russia got him for a while then his releases took on a very targeted turn.
|
If the US didn't torture foreign nationals then I would think extraditing him here was fine, he's definitely done illegal things knowingly by anyone's standards.
Would it though?
I'm not sure i'd support extraditing someone to a country which will, at best, give the guy a show process with the outcome already predetermined.
Do you actually think the guy, regardless of what kinda asshole he indeed is, would get a fair trail? Or do you think it's much more likely that they'll make an example out of him?
And please, no "but our justice system" bullshit, your justice system is as broken as your political one.
That's not even considering the fact that very recently the US denied extradition of Anne Sacoolas, who killed a teenager by dangerously driving on wrong side of the road and then fled the UK - citing "diplomatic immunity". While potentially working for US intelligence services. Which wasn't disclosed to the UK and only came out a week ago or so in a civil court (working for US intelligence services would prohibit diplomatic immunity). She cited "fear of having an unfair trial" as reason for (literally) fleeing the country.
The same argument can be made for Assange, except that i'd argue that it's much more likely that he won't get a fair trial.
|
On February 14 2021 01:15 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 00:52 Archeon wrote:On February 14 2021 00:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 13 2021 23:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 13 2021 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 13 2021 04:20 Archeon wrote:
The whole treatment of whistleblower shows how much power the secret services actually have in the USA. Obama promised to open a path to make it legal, still pursued Snowden and Assange. Trump wanted to pardon Assange, then decides to pardon his 200 cronies instead. Biden's "justice" department appeals UK rulings.
If any of this was about justice they'd sue the ones that created the mess worth leaking. But I guess working for the US gov basically gives you a free ticket do whatever horrible shit you want. It's pretty ironic how the same people that declare that "good people have nothing to hide" then pursue the people who show how much shit officials are hiding. Rule of law my ass. Assange is really no whistleblower contrarily to Snowden, and it's absolutely normal the US want to judge and punish him. I don't get that people don't understand that absolute transparency is a joke of an idea. Of course diplomatic communications are confidential. I mean, have you never had to negotiate anything? Rendering public thousands of diplomatic cables indiscriminately is spying 101, and there is absolutely no reason the US shouldn't try to get the guy. The only reason Trump wanted to pardon Assange is that he basically worked to get him elected. The case of Snowden is absolutely different of course. Assange is a foreign journalist living abroad. The US has absolutely no right to prosecute in those circumstances. They*should* have zero authority over him. He really is not a journalist at all. Not by any stretch of the concept. He is publishing information he deems of public interest to the international public. Wikipedia cites that journalism is the "production and distribution of reports on current events based on facts and supported with proof or evidence" which is literally what wikileaks does. Add to that that wikileaks is buying the information and then publishing it and I fail to see how he's not a journalist and what ground the USA is supposed to try him on. Is journalism suddenly not journalism because it covers the actions of secret services and diplomats? Do these have a right not to be reported about? I think we're supposed to hate Assange because exposing the Democrats' BS helped get Trump elected or something, as if that could ever justify their response.
Discussion level zero.
I'm not hating on Assange I'm just saying he is in no way a journalist, his philosophy of absolute transparency is so flawed it doesn't make an atom of sense and it's perfectly logical the US go after him.
I explained why dumping indiscriminately stolen information is not journalism but you don't seem ready to engage in anything resembling a discussion so I guess we'll leave it there.
|
|
|
On February 14 2021 02:48 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +If the US didn't torture foreign nationals then I would think extraditing him here was fine, he's definitely done illegal things knowingly by anyone's standards. Would it though? I'm not sure i'd support extraditing someone to a country which will, at best, give the guy a show process with the outcome already predetermined. Do you actually think the guy, regardless of what kinda asshole he indeed is, would get a fair trail? Or do you think it's much more likely that they'll make an example out of him? And please, no "but our justice system" bullshit, your justice system is as broken as your political one. That's not even considering the fact that very recently the US denied extradition of Anne Sacoolas, who killed a teenager by dangerously driving on wrong side of the road and then fled the UK - citing "diplomatic immunity". While potentially working for US intelligence services. Which wasn't disclosed to the UK and only came out a week ago or so in a civil court (working for US intelligence services would prohibit diplomatic immunity). She cited "fear of having an unfair trial" as reason for (literally) fleeing the country. The same argument can be made for Assange, except that i'd argue that it's much more likely that he won't get a fair trial.
He definitely wouldn't get a fair trial. I wouldn't expect him to. Where would he be able to get one though (if there's a foreign country, feel free to let me know? Did he flee that swedish rape trial?)
He's only of value to Russia if he's not in Russia, and he has no real other choice.
It will be pretty much impossible to get him a fair trial of a jury of his peers regardless- a lot of evidence implicating him is classified by most nations with it (ie 5 eyes ? or w/e it's called).
Most places would either torture him or extradite him to be tortured.
That's the issue with the way he ran his practice initially. The safe(and responsible) thing to do is to turn it over to ethical journalists so they can curate what will be released at least somewhat (which is what Snowden did. That Greenwald turned out to be a piece of shit who didn't protect sources only a few year later isn't Snowden's fault) and can prevent you from releasing stuff that'll get you tortured/killed if you don't give the source a heads-up without releasing it.
The teenager killer should definitely get extradited too.
|
On February 14 2021 03:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 02:18 Nevuk wrote:On February 13 2021 10:06 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2021 09:57 Nevuk wrote:I think Trump's defense is basically forcing the senate to call witnesses. I don't think that's intentional, but it's the end effect of gish galloping easily disproven lies. (One of the claims from today were that Trump didn't know Pence was in the capitol... when there are many, many witnesses that he did). They also complained that impeachment managers were using too many media stories... which are all verifiable with witnesses. His lawyers are still refusing to say if Trump or Biden won the 2020 election, also. Oh, and CNN just got an (even more) smoking gun for all of this, in a that Trump called McCarthy in the middle of the coup attempt and told him "They're just more upset than you are" Of course after all of this McCarthy flew down to Mar a Lago to kiss Trump's ring again, so who fucking knows at this point. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
Trump’s comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, “Who the f–k do you think you are talking to?” according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.
[...]
"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html You think witnesses would convince Republicans to convict? You think proving that Trump knew Pence was there would do anything at all to move the scales? No, that's not what I was saying. If Trump's defense had been "I said those things, not my fault people took it wrong, also this trial is unconstitutional since we're out of office" that'd be fine. That's what democrats expected - it's basically what happened in his last impeachment. They argued process and didn't tell any obvious lies. Instead this time has been lies on the level of "antifa did it, I never said that, I don't know Mike Pence, I've never met Mike Pence, and everyone else is a liar". They have to call witnesses to correct the record, essentially. If they didn't then confused morons would forever think his defense's lies were true because they never got countered. It's the same principle as when Lewandowski (Trump's campaign manager) assaulted and bruised a breitbart reporter in front of witnesses. The initial defense was "hey, if it was actually bad then she would have filed charges"... which then forced her to file charges. If he'd just apologized he'd probably have been kept as Trump's campaign manager (cuz c'mon, she worked at BREITBART) This was also a huge mistake. Per ABC news reporter, his lawyers only agreed to work for him through today. https://twitter.com/CeciliaVega/status/1360619858195546115On February 14 2021 00:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Senate voted 55-45 to see witnesses after Raskin said he wants to hear from Herrera Beutler about McCarthy's interaction with Trump. Not sure if this allows the defense to do the 'but her emails' shit and go and interview Pelosi or whatever they threatened to do. The senate literally laughed at him when the lawyer tried that. Not figuratively, it was actually a laugh line. (He then noted that in a civil trial this is the normal process for depositions... missing that this is not a traditional trial. Nor would it be in civil court if it was). Also of note, Graham (???) voted for witnesses. On February 14 2021 01:45 Dan HH wrote:
While my opinion of Assange is quite low, I don't think extraditing someone who exposed war crimes of an ICC non-signatory country to them should ever be in the cards. If the US didn't torture foreign nationals then I would think extraditing him here was fine, he's definitely done illegal things knowingly by anyone's standards. If this were 2011 I would say I thought he was just an inexperienced, kinda clueless journalist who leaked embarrassing but not-interesting information like diplomatic wires (which are the most dangerous to leak when some of the people involved are autocrats). After Russia got him for a while then his releases took on a very targeted turn. Looks like its over today, they took the statement into record instead of witnesses. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-trial-02-13-2021/h_d9267e2e75ad53760eefa7acb11f928c
Morons. They should have called witnesses, especially given Trump had literally no attorneys to defend him. I'd be fine with that being a requirement for all future impeachments so they can't be swept under a rug in a week, in fact (as has happened both last impeachments. They're serious and should be taken seriously).
|
It's a bizarre U-turn to call for witnesses, then abandon the plan, but I understand the pressure. There's no way in hell they're convicting Trump, and McConnell said he's voting to acquit, signalling there's basically no surprises left. Plus, Biden's probably antsy about delaying legislation and voting in his cabinet members, and would prefer this drama to end as soon as possible. But another Trump impeachment with no witnesses feels like a hack job, and this is ultimately a show for the public to demonstrate Trump's culpability in the riot, so there's some unease in that move as well.
|
On February 12 2021 09:05 StalkerTL wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2021 07:59 Zambrah wrote:Yeah I'm actually pleasantly surprised by Schumer too, I think he's been doing a solid job so far. Maybe he's afraid of a primary or something, but tbh I think he's doing well enough that even Im not interested in primarying him and I'm interested in primarying almost everyone.  : Anyone who tries to primary Chuck is going to get curbstomped like Flash curbstomps average players. He might lose New York City but he’s got so many roots in the rest of New York that he isn’t losing his seat until he dies. I think the change in tone so far has been a result of him actually having power. The unfortunate thing about our current senate, thanks to Mitch, is that there is absolutely no reason to have the other party on the negotiation table. Is there something wrong about Senators colliding with the defence? Sure seems impossible to have an impartial jury if Ted Cruz and Friends are fucking around like this.
The Senate isn't a jury and Senators aren't jurors in it - they aren't selected beforehand for impartiality nor held to impartiality and secrecy. This is why Democratic Senators like majority leader Chuck Schumer obviously talk to House managers (Democratic congresspeople prosecuting the case). Or would we expect to screen Democratic politicians for their bias against the defendant here...? They may have some prejudice towards the president, just a possibility.
If anyone were to suggest impeaching Ted Cruz for impropriety during an impeachment trial things might get to be quite circular.
|
On February 14 2021 03:24 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 03:06 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 02:18 Nevuk wrote:On February 13 2021 10:06 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2021 09:57 Nevuk wrote:I think Trump's defense is basically forcing the senate to call witnesses. I don't think that's intentional, but it's the end effect of gish galloping easily disproven lies. (One of the claims from today were that Trump didn't know Pence was in the capitol... when there are many, many witnesses that he did). They also complained that impeachment managers were using too many media stories... which are all verifiable with witnesses. His lawyers are still refusing to say if Trump or Biden won the 2020 election, also. Oh, and CNN just got an (even more) smoking gun for all of this, in a that Trump called McCarthy in the middle of the coup attempt and told him "They're just more upset than you are" Of course after all of this McCarthy flew down to Mar a Lago to kiss Trump's ring again, so who fucking knows at this point. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
Trump’s comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, “Who the f–k do you think you are talking to?” according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.
[...]
"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html You think witnesses would convince Republicans to convict? You think proving that Trump knew Pence was there would do anything at all to move the scales? No, that's not what I was saying. If Trump's defense had been "I said those things, not my fault people took it wrong, also this trial is unconstitutional since we're out of office" that'd be fine. That's what democrats expected - it's basically what happened in his last impeachment. They argued process and didn't tell any obvious lies. Instead this time has been lies on the level of "antifa did it, I never said that, I don't know Mike Pence, I've never met Mike Pence, and everyone else is a liar". They have to call witnesses to correct the record, essentially. If they didn't then confused morons would forever think his defense's lies were true because they never got countered. It's the same principle as when Lewandowski (Trump's campaign manager) assaulted and bruised a breitbart reporter in front of witnesses. The initial defense was "hey, if it was actually bad then she would have filed charges"... which then forced her to file charges. If he'd just apologized he'd probably have been kept as Trump's campaign manager (cuz c'mon, she worked at BREITBART) This was also a huge mistake. Per ABC news reporter, his lawyers only agreed to work for him through today. https://twitter.com/CeciliaVega/status/1360619858195546115On February 14 2021 00:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Senate voted 55-45 to see witnesses after Raskin said he wants to hear from Herrera Beutler about McCarthy's interaction with Trump. Not sure if this allows the defense to do the 'but her emails' shit and go and interview Pelosi or whatever they threatened to do. The senate literally laughed at him when the lawyer tried that. Not figuratively, it was actually a laugh line. (He then noted that in a civil trial this is the normal process for depositions... missing that this is not a traditional trial. Nor would it be in civil court if it was). Also of note, Graham (???) voted for witnesses. On February 14 2021 01:45 Dan HH wrote:
While my opinion of Assange is quite low, I don't think extraditing someone who exposed war crimes of an ICC non-signatory country to them should ever be in the cards. If the US didn't torture foreign nationals then I would think extraditing him here was fine, he's definitely done illegal things knowingly by anyone's standards. If this were 2011 I would say I thought he was just an inexperienced, kinda clueless journalist who leaked embarrassing but not-interesting information like diplomatic wires (which are the most dangerous to leak when some of the people involved are autocrats). After Russia got him for a while then his releases took on a very targeted turn. Looks like its over today, they took the statement into record instead of witnesses. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-trial-02-13-2021/h_d9267e2e75ad53760eefa7acb11f928c Morons. They should have called witnesses, especially given Trump had literally no attorneys to defend him. I'd be fine with that being a requirement for all future impeachments so they can't be swept under a rug in a week, in fact (as has happened both last impeachments. They're serious and should be taken seriously).
Don't worry. Impeachments will be taken seriously again when a Democratic president gets caught wearing loafers or some shit.
|
On February 14 2021 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 03:24 Nevuk wrote:On February 14 2021 03:06 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 02:18 Nevuk wrote:On February 13 2021 10:06 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2021 09:57 Nevuk wrote:I think Trump's defense is basically forcing the senate to call witnesses. I don't think that's intentional, but it's the end effect of gish galloping easily disproven lies. (One of the claims from today were that Trump didn't know Pence was in the capitol... when there are many, many witnesses that he did). They also complained that impeachment managers were using too many media stories... which are all verifiable with witnesses. His lawyers are still refusing to say if Trump or Biden won the 2020 election, also. Oh, and CNN just got an (even more) smoking gun for all of this, in a that Trump called McCarthy in the middle of the coup attempt and told him "They're just more upset than you are" Of course after all of this McCarthy flew down to Mar a Lago to kiss Trump's ring again, so who fucking knows at this point. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
Trump’s comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, “Who the f–k do you think you are talking to?” according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.
[...]
"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html You think witnesses would convince Republicans to convict? You think proving that Trump knew Pence was there would do anything at all to move the scales? No, that's not what I was saying. If Trump's defense had been "I said those things, not my fault people took it wrong, also this trial is unconstitutional since we're out of office" that'd be fine. That's what democrats expected - it's basically what happened in his last impeachment. They argued process and didn't tell any obvious lies. Instead this time has been lies on the level of "antifa did it, I never said that, I don't know Mike Pence, I've never met Mike Pence, and everyone else is a liar". They have to call witnesses to correct the record, essentially. If they didn't then confused morons would forever think his defense's lies were true because they never got countered. It's the same principle as when Lewandowski (Trump's campaign manager) assaulted and bruised a breitbart reporter in front of witnesses. The initial defense was "hey, if it was actually bad then she would have filed charges"... which then forced her to file charges. If he'd just apologized he'd probably have been kept as Trump's campaign manager (cuz c'mon, she worked at BREITBART) This was also a huge mistake. Per ABC news reporter, his lawyers only agreed to work for him through today. https://twitter.com/CeciliaVega/status/1360619858195546115On February 14 2021 00:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Senate voted 55-45 to see witnesses after Raskin said he wants to hear from Herrera Beutler about McCarthy's interaction with Trump. Not sure if this allows the defense to do the 'but her emails' shit and go and interview Pelosi or whatever they threatened to do. The senate literally laughed at him when the lawyer tried that. Not figuratively, it was actually a laugh line. (He then noted that in a civil trial this is the normal process for depositions... missing that this is not a traditional trial. Nor would it be in civil court if it was). Also of note, Graham (???) voted for witnesses. On February 14 2021 01:45 Dan HH wrote:
While my opinion of Assange is quite low, I don't think extraditing someone who exposed war crimes of an ICC non-signatory country to them should ever be in the cards. If the US didn't torture foreign nationals then I would think extraditing him here was fine, he's definitely done illegal things knowingly by anyone's standards. If this were 2011 I would say I thought he was just an inexperienced, kinda clueless journalist who leaked embarrassing but not-interesting information like diplomatic wires (which are the most dangerous to leak when some of the people involved are autocrats). After Russia got him for a while then his releases took on a very targeted turn. Looks like its over today, they took the statement into record instead of witnesses. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-trial-02-13-2021/h_d9267e2e75ad53760eefa7acb11f928c Morons. They should have called witnesses, especially given Trump had literally no attorneys to defend him. I'd be fine with that being a requirement for all future impeachments so they can't be swept under a rug in a week, in fact (as has happened both last impeachments. They're serious and should be taken seriously). Don't worry. Impeachments will be taken seriously again when a Democratic president gets caught wearing loafers or some shit.
I hope it takes a very long time until we see the next impeachment trial for a president. Why even bother when political motives will crush judicial ones every time? Is the spectacle even worth it, when the senate could spend the time on policies instead?
|
On February 14 2021 04:48 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:On February 14 2021 03:24 Nevuk wrote:On February 14 2021 03:06 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 02:18 Nevuk wrote:On February 13 2021 10:06 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2021 09:57 Nevuk wrote:I think Trump's defense is basically forcing the senate to call witnesses. I don't think that's intentional, but it's the end effect of gish galloping easily disproven lies. (One of the claims from today were that Trump didn't know Pence was in the capitol... when there are many, many witnesses that he did). They also complained that impeachment managers were using too many media stories... which are all verifiable with witnesses. His lawyers are still refusing to say if Trump or Biden won the 2020 election, also. Oh, and CNN just got an (even more) smoking gun for all of this, in a that Trump called McCarthy in the middle of the coup attempt and told him "They're just more upset than you are" Of course after all of this McCarthy flew down to Mar a Lago to kiss Trump's ring again, so who fucking knows at this point. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
Trump’s comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, “Who the f–k do you think you are talking to?” according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.
[...]
"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html You think witnesses would convince Republicans to convict? You think proving that Trump knew Pence was there would do anything at all to move the scales? No, that's not what I was saying. If Trump's defense had been "I said those things, not my fault people took it wrong, also this trial is unconstitutional since we're out of office" that'd be fine. That's what democrats expected - it's basically what happened in his last impeachment. They argued process and didn't tell any obvious lies. Instead this time has been lies on the level of "antifa did it, I never said that, I don't know Mike Pence, I've never met Mike Pence, and everyone else is a liar". They have to call witnesses to correct the record, essentially. If they didn't then confused morons would forever think his defense's lies were true because they never got countered. It's the same principle as when Lewandowski (Trump's campaign manager) assaulted and bruised a breitbart reporter in front of witnesses. The initial defense was "hey, if it was actually bad then she would have filed charges"... which then forced her to file charges. If he'd just apologized he'd probably have been kept as Trump's campaign manager (cuz c'mon, she worked at BREITBART) This was also a huge mistake. Per ABC news reporter, his lawyers only agreed to work for him through today. https://twitter.com/CeciliaVega/status/1360619858195546115On February 14 2021 00:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Senate voted 55-45 to see witnesses after Raskin said he wants to hear from Herrera Beutler about McCarthy's interaction with Trump. Not sure if this allows the defense to do the 'but her emails' shit and go and interview Pelosi or whatever they threatened to do. The senate literally laughed at him when the lawyer tried that. Not figuratively, it was actually a laugh line. (He then noted that in a civil trial this is the normal process for depositions... missing that this is not a traditional trial. Nor would it be in civil court if it was). Also of note, Graham (???) voted for witnesses. On February 14 2021 01:45 Dan HH wrote:
While my opinion of Assange is quite low, I don't think extraditing someone who exposed war crimes of an ICC non-signatory country to them should ever be in the cards. If the US didn't torture foreign nationals then I would think extraditing him here was fine, he's definitely done illegal things knowingly by anyone's standards. If this were 2011 I would say I thought he was just an inexperienced, kinda clueless journalist who leaked embarrassing but not-interesting information like diplomatic wires (which are the most dangerous to leak when some of the people involved are autocrats). After Russia got him for a while then his releases took on a very targeted turn. Looks like its over today, they took the statement into record instead of witnesses. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-trial-02-13-2021/h_d9267e2e75ad53760eefa7acb11f928c Morons. They should have called witnesses, especially given Trump had literally no attorneys to defend him. I'd be fine with that being a requirement for all future impeachments so they can't be swept under a rug in a week, in fact (as has happened both last impeachments. They're serious and should be taken seriously). Don't worry. Impeachments will be taken seriously again when a Democratic president gets caught wearing loafers or some shit. I hope it takes a very long time until we see the next impeachment trial for a president. Why even bother when political motives will crush judicial ones every time? Is the spectacle even worth it, when the senate could spend the time on policies instead? Since Republicans seem to spend little time on policies they have plenty of time for witch hunt impeachments to occupy a Democratic Presidents time, as soon as they get a majority back.
|
Trump acquitted along party lines with a few people showing spines.
|
So, Trump is acquitted again. Even impeachment is a toothless procedure, because a President can ask his racist cultists to storm the capitol to try to steal the election, and as long as his asskissers in Congress continue to pucker up, he gets off home free once again. Rules, laws, morals, standards, ethics, and patriotism are all only useful tools to beat Democrats over the head with. Claim you have them, do the exact opposite, then hold your enemy to the standards you never bothered to set in the first place. A true Republican masterpiece.
In case anyone wonders whether I believe someone can be an ethical Republican right now, I don't. I apologize to Conservatives who don't feel represented. If you still vote Republican, you're still supporting the people who hijacked your party. Or you endorse what they're doing. I don't care. Our capitol was attacked in a fascist coup, and one major political party is forcing us to forget about it and move on.
|
On February 14 2021 04:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 04:48 Slydie wrote:On February 14 2021 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:On February 14 2021 03:24 Nevuk wrote:On February 14 2021 03:06 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 02:18 Nevuk wrote:On February 13 2021 10:06 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2021 09:57 Nevuk wrote:I think Trump's defense is basically forcing the senate to call witnesses. I don't think that's intentional, but it's the end effect of gish galloping easily disproven lies. (One of the claims from today were that Trump didn't know Pence was in the capitol... when there are many, many witnesses that he did). They also complained that impeachment managers were using too many media stories... which are all verifiable with witnesses. His lawyers are still refusing to say if Trump or Biden won the 2020 election, also. Oh, and CNN just got an (even more) smoking gun for all of this, in a that Trump called McCarthy in the middle of the coup attempt and told him "They're just more upset than you are" Of course after all of this McCarthy flew down to Mar a Lago to kiss Trump's ring again, so who fucking knows at this point. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
Trump’s comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, “Who the f–k do you think you are talking to?” according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.
[...]
"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html You think witnesses would convince Republicans to convict? You think proving that Trump knew Pence was there would do anything at all to move the scales? No, that's not what I was saying. If Trump's defense had been "I said those things, not my fault people took it wrong, also this trial is unconstitutional since we're out of office" that'd be fine. That's what democrats expected - it's basically what happened in his last impeachment. They argued process and didn't tell any obvious lies. Instead this time has been lies on the level of "antifa did it, I never said that, I don't know Mike Pence, I've never met Mike Pence, and everyone else is a liar". They have to call witnesses to correct the record, essentially. If they didn't then confused morons would forever think his defense's lies were true because they never got countered. It's the same principle as when Lewandowski (Trump's campaign manager) assaulted and bruised a breitbart reporter in front of witnesses. The initial defense was "hey, if it was actually bad then she would have filed charges"... which then forced her to file charges. If he'd just apologized he'd probably have been kept as Trump's campaign manager (cuz c'mon, she worked at BREITBART) This was also a huge mistake. Per ABC news reporter, his lawyers only agreed to work for him through today. https://twitter.com/CeciliaVega/status/1360619858195546115On February 14 2021 00:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Senate voted 55-45 to see witnesses after Raskin said he wants to hear from Herrera Beutler about McCarthy's interaction with Trump. Not sure if this allows the defense to do the 'but her emails' shit and go and interview Pelosi or whatever they threatened to do. The senate literally laughed at him when the lawyer tried that. Not figuratively, it was actually a laugh line. (He then noted that in a civil trial this is the normal process for depositions... missing that this is not a traditional trial. Nor would it be in civil court if it was). Also of note, Graham (???) voted for witnesses. On February 14 2021 01:45 Dan HH wrote:
While my opinion of Assange is quite low, I don't think extraditing someone who exposed war crimes of an ICC non-signatory country to them should ever be in the cards. If the US didn't torture foreign nationals then I would think extraditing him here was fine, he's definitely done illegal things knowingly by anyone's standards. If this were 2011 I would say I thought he was just an inexperienced, kinda clueless journalist who leaked embarrassing but not-interesting information like diplomatic wires (which are the most dangerous to leak when some of the people involved are autocrats). After Russia got him for a while then his releases took on a very targeted turn. Looks like its over today, they took the statement into record instead of witnesses. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-trial-02-13-2021/h_d9267e2e75ad53760eefa7acb11f928c Morons. They should have called witnesses, especially given Trump had literally no attorneys to defend him. I'd be fine with that being a requirement for all future impeachments so they can't be swept under a rug in a week, in fact (as has happened both last impeachments. They're serious and should be taken seriously). Don't worry. Impeachments will be taken seriously again when a Democratic president gets caught wearing loafers or some shit. I hope it takes a very long time until we see the next impeachment trial for a president. Why even bother when political motives will crush judicial ones every time? Is the spectacle even worth it, when the senate could spend the time on policies instead? Since Republicans seem to spend little time on policies they have plenty of time for witch hunt impeachments to occupy a Democratic Presidents time, as soon as they get a majority back.
Republican Congress impeached Clinton over 20 years ago now at the tail end of his administration. That's it. For all the talk of making Obama a one-term president, his abuses of power, blahblah, the House never impeached Obama during the like 6 years of a Republican majority, nor even during the last 2 years of Obama's presidency when Republicans had won the Senate. They never even referred articles of impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee, making Obama the first such president in 28 years to suffer no such blemish.
The idea of frivolous impeachment being a uniquely Republican pastime is perception bias wildly busy at work, because of the fact that Republicans in Congress always seem to demonize the opposite side, and have no actual constructive agenda they push. This, incidentally, is also true of Democrats in Congress, which is why Congress is universally loathed. And while true in general, Republicans have largely refused to coopt the process of impeachment as a clown show to demonstrate to their base how bad they think the other side is. They just haven't used it in that way.
+ Show Spoiler +You will find Republican votes to acquit Clinton far outweigh Democratic votes to acquit Trump either time as well.
If we're to keep score of witch hunt impeachments, the Democrats are hugely leading in recent memory, it's a Democratic spectacle. Because there is simply no publicity otherwise. As tight as left leaning thought controls the media, and as widely as it permeates culture, in the last 20 years they simply haven't had comparable national political success. Congress has been surprisingly red when you look back like 30 years, it's an impressive feat if you compare what you'd expect from looking at polls and presidential election margins.
+ Show Spoiler +
Democrats are therefore politically nervous because in reality their record of power is actually shaky, and impeachments and the general zeitgeist about the orange devil is a way of lashing out. It's not driven by any existential threat of Trump (hello, we're still here), but the insecurity of losing their own position. I think they really believed they could never lose the presidency again.
Why? Here's why. You say Republicans spend little time on policies, yet most people (sans Google) would also be hard pressed to name a Democratic legislative achievement in the last 20 years besides Obamacare, and healthcare is still expensive. The policies both sides talk about are, for the most part, nothing more than opposing pipe dreams, and if you can get people to believe your opponent is literally the worst thing to ever happen to the country, then saying you spent 4 years fighting to get rid of him looks like it would be a good ad campaign for your side. Right? The problem is it's going to have backfired, because now falling flat on their faces for the second time, they are forced to admit they wasted 4 years failing to get rid of him when there was an incredibly unique chance to move the country forward. Negativity isn't viable in the long-term. How do you not fall over yourself to work with a guy who literally used to be a Democrat, and whose sole motivation is his ego wanting attention for doing things that people love regardless of what they are.
Another simple fact about the second impeachment was that the House, in such a rush to get the articles in before the end of the term, didn't bother to investigate before the trial. Or rather, didn't investigate before askingfor a trial. Because of the lingering questions about impeaching someone after they've left and they didn't want to possibly miss the chance. It's quite unfortunate because there are lots of open and unanswered questions about who knew what when, which could have come out if this was handled in a way that left any potential for serious outcome besides political theater with no utility.
|
People don't remember every policy that comes out of Congress, they just remember that during Mitch McConnell's tenure as leader, nothing happened. Unless it was a bill that capitulated to Republicans and gave them everything they wanted, it got no vote. You could take bets on how many bills were sitting on his desk, waiting for a vote.
On February 14 2021 06:08 oBlade wrote:
If we're to keep score of witch hunt impeachments, the Democrats are hugely leading in recent memory, it's a Democratic spectacle.
Where's the witch hunt? What have Democrats impeached Trump for that he hasn't done? He's done literally everything he's been charged with, everything he's said that he's done, and then some. What do you think he is innocent of?
|
Well, glad it's over and done with. No way they were going to rack up 67 votes but 7 Republican defectors is a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png)
