LaxPower Back-Up Stick

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:41 pm So in the end, based on what you guys say, nothing will happen and Trump and the R clan will (obnoxiously) claim victory. That's how it all plays out?

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:24 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:38 pm Ding ding ding. SCOTUS has previously ruled that impeachment proceedings are not subject to judicial review. So you'll never get to the high drama show down that Nixon faced over the tapes. Which was a federal court order saying you must comply. In the Senate process, it is just one more Congressional witch hunt subpoena to blow off. I'm not sure how much Roberts' signature on the page would change it. But the downside to the Dems would be to big -- presidents almost never ever ever testify in person to Congress. The optics just scream "separation of powers." I just don't see them going there.

So then why the heck did Clinton agree to a deposition? I STILL don't understand why he did that, or why he answered one single question pertaining to legal activity (sex).

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:49 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:32 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:29 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:26 pm I suppose Trump could try to argue that he had a good faith basis to believe the Bidens violated the law and that was why he wanted the Ukrainians to investigate them

If this were true, the FBI would have gone to work, no questions asked . No need for Trump to lift a finger.

Agreed. No doubt in my mind that Bill Barr hasn’t already looked into this and come up empty.

Don't need an indictment. Just motivate the MSM to lay out all the inconvenient details of Bidens-Burisma-Archer-Kerry-State Dept-USAID.

Might not be anything criminal but it sure smells like business as usual.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:00 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:24 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:38 pm Ding ding ding. SCOTUS has previously ruled that impeachment proceedings are not subject to judicial review. So you'll never get to the high drama show down that Nixon faced over the tapes. Which was a federal court order saying you must comply. In the Senate process, it is just one more Congressional witch hunt subpoena to blow off. I'm not sure how much Roberts' signature on the page would change it. But the downside to the Dems would be to big -- presidents almost never ever ever testify in person to Congress. The optics just scream "separation of powers." I just don't see them going there.

So then why the heck did Clinton agree to a deposition? I STILL don't understand why he did that, or why he answered one single question pertaining to legal activity (sex).

Great post a Fan. I remember that from all those years ago. Bill Clinton is one very smart cookie. His response should have been the standard " I am not going to dignify that question with a response" My sex life is no ones business... end of story.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:53 pm

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:41 pm So in the end, based on what you guys say, nothing will happen and Trump and the R clan will (obnoxiously) claim victory. That's how it all plays out?

In a sense, that may be how it works out. But I look at this without the expectation of a conviction by the Chamber of Invertabrates, and still think it has to be done.

It is pretty darn clear that the President is using the tools and powers of his public office to obtain compromising information on a domestic political opponent. He used a private lawyer to spearhead the matter. He used dollars appropriated by the Congress and earmarked for an ally in need as the carrot, and withholding or slow-walking it as the stick. And he wanted to accomplish a private domestic political purpose relating to his reelection campaign, and there is at least some meaningful evidence (testimony from legitimate, knowledgeable and largely apolitical people) that this effort was at the expense of, or placed at risk, the public policy issues associated with Ukraine and NATO and Western national security interests. He used fiduciary powers for private gain.

I can’t regard this as “futile” – that is, because the Senate won’t convict, the House should just roll up the carpet and get back to work on other matters. And I genuinely think anyone who does think that this is futile really doesn’t understand the stakes and the history. The stakes I think – and I apologize for sounding dramatic and overly momentous – are something on the order of the country’s basic respect for the rule of law. If a President – and I mean any President – is permitted to use the immediate functions and powers entrusted to him or her by the electorate to leverage personal political goals and gains, we are reducing ourselves to the rule of strongmen, badly disguised by a thin wrapping paper of faux legal and political legitimacy. We are reduced to a country in which the enormous powers of governance will be used not necessarily to govern, but to win on a personal level. And that is just disturbing to this citizen.

The history is part of this. Someone has to be the counterpoint to this example of using the tools of governance for personal gain and profit – and the House is, practically and constitutionally, the sole entity to carry it out. Even if the Senate acquits the President, our history will at least reflect an ardent, serious, procedurally-sound and fair effort and process by which the President’s actions were exposed, understood, brought into the light of day and into common parlance, and judged pursuant to the governing foundational document that is the contract between and among all of us. And that’s important to me, and I think will be important to my children’s generation. Someone f*cking tried.

On the question of whether the House Managers can retain special counsel, all I remember is that Graham was a Manager in the Clinton Impeachment Trial, and used it to creep his way up the greasy rope. It's how I learned that he had been a JAG lawyer, I think. I would very much like to see Daniel Goldman actually put on a trial and oral argument in the Senate.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:07 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:00 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:24 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:38 pm Ding ding ding. SCOTUS has previously ruled that impeachment proceedings are not subject to judicial review. So you'll never get to the high drama show down that Nixon faced over the tapes. Which was a federal court order saying you must comply. In the Senate process, it is just one more Congressional witch hunt subpoena to blow off. I'm not sure how much Roberts' signature on the page would change it. But the downside to the Dems would be to big -- presidents almost never ever ever testify in person to Congress. The optics just scream "separation of powers." I just don't see them going there.

So then why the heck did Clinton agree to a deposition? I STILL don't understand why he did that, or why he answered one single question pertaining to legal activity (sex).

Great post a Fan. I remember that from all those years ago. Bill Clinton is one very smart cookie. His response should have been the standard " I am not going to dignify that question with a response" My sex life is no ones business... end of story.

Didn't Clinton have to sit for the deposition? I may be recalling this wrong, but I thought that's what Clinton v. Jones was about.

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:47 pm

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:41 pm So in the end, based on what you guys say, nothing will happen and Trump and the R clan will (obnoxiously) claim victory. That's how it all plays out?

Yes, butt It's all about down ticket. How much will the optics hammer the Republican brand?


Well that, and future Presidents will know you can't "investigate" you political opponent.

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:50 pm Horowitz & Durham might emphasize that point.

So then why the heck did Clinton agree to a deposition? I STILL don't understand why he did that, or why he answered one single question pertaining to legal activity (sex).

So in the end, based on what you guys say, nothing will happen and Trump and the R clan will (obnoxiously) claim victory. That's how it all plays out?

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:44 pm

So then why the heck did Clinton agree to a deposition? I STILL don't understand why he did that, or why he answered one single question pertaining to legal activity (sex).

1. While Clinton certainly had his ethical issues, he was not a complete lying lawless d-bag a-hole like Trump. Clinton had respect for his office.

2. Timing. If a president litigates this long enough, he's going to lose. Clinton had already been re-elected in 1996. The GOP wasn't going to go away, so Clinton had an interest in moving the thing along. Starr, with unlimited time, was prepared to subpoena Clinton and eventually would have won.

For Trump, the stonewall to Mueller and to the House work to run the clock until after the 2020 election. Justice delayed is justice denied.

If you really want to nail Trump, let him get re-elected. Then you will have four full years to litigate (and almost certainly win) all these court cases.

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:49 pm

So in the end, based on what you guys say, nothing will happen and Trump and the R clan will (obnoxiously) claim victory. That's how it all plays out?

From my perspective, any of these outcomes are worth the effort:

1. Trump is impeached and acquitted on straight party votes. But the facts come out. Good.

2. Trump is impeached and acquitted with some amount of bi-partisan votes. Better.

3. Trump is impeached and removed. Best.

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:49 pm

So in the end, based on what you guys say, nothing will happen and Trump and the R clan will (obnoxiously) claim victory. That's how it all plays out?

From my perspective, any of these outcomes are worth the effort:

1. Trump is impeached and acquitted on straight party votes. But the facts come out. Good.

2. Trump is impeached and acquitted with some amount of bi-partisan votes. Better.

3. Trump is impeached and removed. Best.

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:24 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:49 pm

So in the end, based on what you guys say, nothing will happen and Trump and the R clan will (obnoxiously) claim victory. That's how it all plays out?

From my perspective, any of these outcomes are worth the effort:

1. Trump is impeached and acquitted on straight party votes. But the facts come out. Good.

2. Trump is impeached and acquitted with some amount of bi-partisan votes. Better.

3. Trump is impeached and removed. Best.

I'll put my money on #1. Yes, good that the facts come out.
Ulitmately though a W is a W is a W and the Rs claim the W.
All is ignored and/or forgotten by the R clan as to the facts,
Trump is the god, and the whole thing amounts to nothing
more than a warrantless witch hunt by the Ds and company.
Their boy was acquitted. Pretty sad all in all.

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:43 pm Turns out Nunes was in on the heist. Lev and Igor are national treasures. Russian national treasures.

njbill wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:01 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:49 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:32 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:29 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:26 pm I suppose Trump could try to argue that he had a good faith basis to believe the Bidens violated the law and that was why he wanted the Ukrainians to investigate them

If this were true, the FBI would have gone to work, no questions asked . No need for Trump to lift a finger.

Agreed. No doubt in my mind that Bill Barr hasn’t already looked into this and come up empty.

Don't need an indictment. Just motivate the MSM to lay out all the inconvenient details of Bidens-Burisma-Archer-Kerry-State Dept-USAID.

Might not be anything criminal but it sure smells like business as usual.

There is no question that what Hunter did was unseemly and certainly created the appearance of a possible conflict of interest. This doesn’t excuse anything, but he has not dealt well with the many tragedies in his life. I actually feel sorry for the guy. Again, it doesn’t excuse the choices he has made.

I keep coming back to the fact, however, that what he did and what his father did are two completely different things. I don’t think any “sins” committed by the adult (mid to late 40s) son should be visited on the father.

If Joe did something wrong, that would be an entirely different thing. But I have seen no proof that he did. Sure, conspiracy theorists can whip up a long list of questions about possibilities, but you can do that about anyone and anything really. Prove to me he did something wrong – don’t just speculate – then we can talk.