Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 239: Saudi You Think You Can Dance?

(+) Yeah! (+)

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I'm not 100% sure on this (and part of this is the dem's shitty messaging), but no, it isn't. The HJC voted on rules for it, and there are certainly ongoing related investigations, but the House itself has to launch a formal impeachment inquiry that should give them more official power to investigate.

The whole thing is peak \/

House Judiciary, the Chair - Nadler - in particular, says they are engaged in an impeachment inquiry and their court filings have said as such. He argues that there is no requirement in the Constitution or the House Standing Rules stating he needs a full House vote to initiate and conduct one and that the floor votes held for Nixon and Clinton were to obtain investigative authorities they did not possess at the time but that they now do under the current House rules.

Republicans are arguing that it is not an impeachment inquiry, just "standard" oversight and that the full House vote is necessary for it to be considered an impeachment inquiry.

Ultimately it may come down to how a judge rules in said court filings.

Here's a NYT article on it all that is probably the most succinct summary of the arguments for/against I've seen: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/us/politics/trump-impeachment-definition.html
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

I'm pro impeach.

But, damn, if people actually believe the Mueller Report was a "complete exoneration" then they are stupid enough to believe that an acquittal in the Senate is some kind of indication that no wrongdoing occurred.

Maybe I'm over estimating the ability of the average person to grasp the details of a given situation and Pelosi is correctly estimating them.

It's easier to believe that the Mueller Report was a "complete exoneration" because Trump can lie to people and say that's what it says, and they'll believe him (because the average person sure as fuck isn't going to read a 400 page report, and Mueller wasn't exactly shouting his conclusions from the rooftops). If there's a complete party line vote on impeachment in the Senate, I'm pretty certain everybody who's convinceable just reads that as purely partisan, and at worst it's a wash. At best, the Dems have told a story throughout the process which convinces a significant amount of people that Trump deserved to be removed whether or not he actually was.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I also wouldn't be entirely surprised if one or two GOP Senators actually voted for impeachment. If that does happen, his potential "totally exonerated" message gets even weaker.

OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if Manchin and maybe Sinema vote to acquit if the votes aren't there (and they wouldn't be) for political convenience.
---

That's true. It would be really fucking disappointing (though not entirely surprising). I could definitely see an almost party line vote with like Manchin/Romney flipped, though. That's probably better than pure party line?
---

The Mueller report explicitly said it did not exonerate Trump. Only by combining it with the principle of innocent until proven guilty does that add up to an exoneration.

A trial does reach a conclusion. An acquittal at trial exonerates a defendant even if stronger evidence against him is later discovered. This would be an acquittal with a majority of the votes, without a need to rely on the 2/3 requirement. A complete and total exoneration which Trump would absolutely take as authorization to push the envelope much much farther.

If you impeach, don't say you weren't warned.
---

As for faith in the people - the people voted for Trump to serve 4 years in 2016. If you attempt to override the democratic will of the people, you proceed at your peril.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That's true. It would be really fucking disappointing (though not entirely surprising). I could definitely see an almost party line vote with like Manchin/Romney flipped, though. That's probably better than pure party line?

This is like the 2016 electoral college. You were always going to have more D electors not vote for Hillary than R electors not vote for Trump. Any D defectors will be taken as proof the whole thing is a witch hunt.
---

HMm I wonder why one of the boards super Trump deep-throating conservatives wouldnt be for impeachment.

red sox 777 posted...

As for faith in the people - the people voted for Trump to serve 4 years in 2016. If you attempt to override the democratic will of the people, you proceed at your peril.

By this logic, if he literally shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue wouldn't impeaching him still be "overriding the democratic will of the people"?
---

https://twitter.com/johnjharwood/status/1176123014586523648?s=21
---

Boris Johnson gets his face absolutely kicked in by the UK Supreme Court as they unanimously 11-0 decide that prorogation was unlawful because it's purpose was to stop parliament from acting without reasonable justification.

Calls for BoJo's resignation have started already. I doubt that happens.

Summary text: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf
Full ruling: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
---

I can't see how a PM who is losing every vote he attempts and who is having everything he tries blocked at every turn, and has now been ruled officially by the highest court in the land to have misled the Queen, can possibly claim to have a tenable position.

---

Yeah, I doubt he resigns of his own accord, but the more I think about it, the more I think his party will force him out.
---

red sox 777 posted...

As for faith in the people - the people voted for Trump to serve 4 years in 2016. If you attempt to override the democratic will of the people, you proceed at your peril.

Republic will of the people. If it was democratic then Hilary would be president.
---

Paragraph 61 of the full court reasoning:

It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason -let alone a good reason -to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament

Reminder - that's the unanimous position of the highest court in the country.
---

Remind me, if Parliament can't come up with any kind of solution, does the UK just essentially get kicked out of the EU? When will that happen?

---

The default position is that the UK falls out on October 31st.

However, a law has been passed that says the Prime Minister must ask for an extension if the Government has failed to get a deal by the 19th. This date was chosen because it is the day after a 2-day summit with the EU that is seen as the last opportunity to create a deal.
---

GildedFool posted...

The default position is that the UK falls out on October 31st.

However, a law has been passed that says the Prime Minister must ask for an extension if the Government has failed to get a deal by the 19th. This date was chosen because it is the day after a 2-day summit with the EU that is seen as the last opportunity to create a deal.

Ok thanks! And if the EU declines the extension or if they can't make a deal, then the UK is officially out of the EU?

---

This ruling is weird - even if the advice was unlawful, the Queen followed it. How can they overrule the Queen?
---

If the EU declines to give an extension than the UK falls out without a deal yes.

The law passed earlier this month requires the PM to accept any extension date offered by the EU.
---

red sox 777 posted...

This ruling is weird - even if the advice was unlawful, the Queen followed it. How can they overrule the Queen?

The Queen made her decision based on unlawful advice and therefore in the eyes of the law it never occurred. They didn't overrule the Queen's decision because she never made one.
---

They really need an election. Can Boris force one by resigning and having the whole cabinet resign en masse?
---

GildedFool posted...

If the EU declines to give an extension than the UK falls out without a deal yes.

The law passed earlier this month requires the PM to accept any extension date offered by the EU.

This seems wildly undemocratic, as the EU can then extend the deadline forever and essentially overrule the Brexit referendum yes?

---

As I mentioned in an earlier topic, Boris can call a No Confidence vote in himself, but... that might not pass?

I do not know constitutionally what the outcome of no-one wanting to lead Government is.

The Queen can invite someone else to form a government if the current Government falls.

There can't be an election without a Parliamentary vote with a 2/3 majority.

It's kind of a mess.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

GildedFool posted...

If the EU declines to give an extension than the UK falls out without a deal yes.

The law passed earlier this month requires the PM to accept any extension date offered by the EU.

This seems wildly undemocratic, as the EU can then extend the deadline forever and essentially overrule the Brexit referendum yes?

Parliament is being incredibly anti-democratic, yes. They voted down the PM's proposal for a general election. So they want to keep him in office but oppose everything he does, and don't want to risk an election.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

This seems wildly undemocratic, as the EU can then extend the deadline forever and essentially overrule the Brexit referendum yes?

They have to set a firm date. They can set it for... 30 years away I guess.
---

That would be a hilarious conclusion to this fiasco.

---

On the topic of the Supreme Court ruling and its unanimity, I would like to say that this is what happens when you have an independently selected panel of experts and not partisan political appointees.

Nelson_Mandela posted...

GildedFool posted...

If the EU declines to give an extension than the UK falls out without a deal yes.

The law passed earlier this month requires the PM to accept any extension date offered by the EU.

This seems wildly undemocratic, as the EU can then extend the deadline forever and essentially overrule the Brexit referendum yes?

Well it is in the hands of parliament so it's not undemocratic. That law was just to stop Boris from trying to undemocratically force no deal. Parliament can rule he doesn't accept an extension.

Also since you mentioned it earlier: there is no way the EU refuses an extension. They cannot afford to be the bad guy on this, and they especially won't screw over Ireland by forcing no deal and thus a hard border. Of course no deal brexit was never a viable option, just a threat to try and get a hard brexit deal through.

There is clearly no mandate for the deal as is so we need a new referendum. That's all.

GildedFool posted...

As I mentioned in an earlier topic, Boris can call a No Confidence vote in himself, but... that might not pass?

I do not know constitutionally what the outcome of no-one wanting to lead Government is.

The Queen can invite someone else to form a government if the current Government falls.

There can't be an election without a Parliamentary vote with a 2/3 majority.

It's kind of a mess.

Corbyn is expected to call a VONC tomorrow. He will surely win it, and that would mean a post-extension election or a unity government with PM Jezza. Frankly I'm partial to the latter because an election would be a crapshoot. A caretaker government to deal with brexit (likely through a deal v. remain referendum) then call an election would be preferable.
---

https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1176507038832254977

Tulsi manages to be worse than Pelosi

drop the fuck out
---

love to constantly go on Fox News and be shitty
---

It sounds to me like the Queen just needs to take the monarchys power back at this point
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1176507038832254977

Tulsi manages to be worse than Pelosi

drop the fuck out

I think it's pretty telling that, as a reply to that tweet points out, she's one of the few candidates who still are refusing to sign the Indivisible Pledge, and now she's going on Fox shows and things like right wing podcasts more and more.

She's sticking around to be a spoiler.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

It sounds to me like the Queen just needs to take the monarchys power back at this point

I mean no, the problem is having a completely non-descriptive binary referendum on an incredibly complicated issue, having a general election that removed the mandate from those negotiating that issue, then refusing to let people vote on it again. The solution is another public vote simple as.

I do want to get away from brexit to highlight that at their conference Labour voted to back a four day (32 hour) working week for when they are next in government. That would be incredible and a really revolutionary policy that would also help a lot of people.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

the problem is having a completely non-descriptive binary referendum on an incredibly complicated issue, having a general election that removed the mandate from those negotiating that issue, then refusing to let people vote on it again.

That sounds to me like Parliament shouldnt be trusted with governing if they dont understand how to do it
---

can the queen take control of the american colonies again after she's done reestablishing the monarchy? oh and tell her to bring the NHS. please and thank you

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Lightning Strikes posted...

the problem is having a completely non-descriptive binary referendum on an incredibly complicated issue, having a general election that removed the mandate from those negotiating that issue, then refusing to let people vote on it again.

That sounds to me like Parliament shouldnt be trusted with governing if they dont understand how to do it

I mean no, cuz the indecision comes from the people in both the referendum and especially the last election. Trying to leave the single market and the customs union on what was essentially a 50/50 vote was a monumentally stupid move from May though, she should have gone for a very very soft brexit.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Lightning Strikes posted...

the problem is having a completely non-descriptive binary referendum on an incredibly complicated issue, having a general election that removed the mandate from those negotiating that issue, then refusing to let people vote on it again.

That sounds to me like Parliament shouldnt be trusted with governing if they dont understand how to do it

I mean no, cuz the indecision comes from the people in both the referendum and especially the last election. Trying to leave the single market and the customs union on what was essentially a 50/50 vote was a monumentally stupid move from May though, she should have gone for a very very soft brexit.

Sounds like the people need a queen to govern them!
---

John Lewis calls for impeachment:

https://twitter.com/danabashcnn/status/1176529637842870272?s=21
---

And....
https://twitter.com/lebassett/status/1176491489842606080?s=21
!!!
---

Bring it. This is going to be really fun.
---

Call my cynical, but man is that an uninspiring message.
---

Wouldn't they want to investigate first? It seems totally bonkers to impeach based on an anonymous whistleblower.

---

Also this is a monumentally stupid political move. Betting the Dems lose the House in 2020.

---

Trump has straight up admitted impeachable conduct on Ukraine. They said, who knows if impeachment here will mean just a vote or a start to an investigation. Im guessing the most likely scenario is a pretty short investigation where they say that any White House stonewalling on stuff like turning over the whistleblower complaint will be itself impeachable under the assumption that the evidence hes hiding confirms what we expect.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Wouldn't they want to investigate first? It seems totally bonkers to impeach based on an anonymous whistleblower.

Why would they investigate? In their eyes, they already have a million pieces of evidence against Trump. In the eyes of the jury, they have zero. And none of that is going to change.

But yeah, if this is true the Dems just signed their own death warrant for 2020.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trump has straight up admitted impeachable conduct on Ukraine. They said, who knows if impeachment here will mean just a vote or a start to an investigation. Im guessing the most likely scenario is a pretty short investigation where they say that any White House stonewalling on stuff like turning over the whistleblower complaint will be itself impeachable under the assumption that the evidence hes hiding confirms what we expect.

Can you please tell me what "high crime" or "misdemeanor" he admitted to doing?

---

Everyone knows big bombastic investigations into people always end in them being supported, that's why Nixon served his entire term after Watergate, Al Gore won after the Clinton Impeachment, and Hillary Clinton won in 2016.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Everyone knows big bombastic investigations into people always end in them being supported, that's why Nixon served his entire term after Watergate, Al Gore won after the Clinton Impeachment, and Hillary Clinton won in 2016.

Only one of those people were impeached, and that person's party gained seats and won the popular vote in the subsequent election.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Can you please tell me what "high crime" or "misdemeanor" he admitted to doing?

He's admitted to pushing for the Ukrainian president to open an investigation into Biden. He's subsequently admitted that he ordered payments to Ukraine halted a few days before that. He's jeopardized the security interests of the United States by refusing to disburse funds allocated by Congress to a US ally in armed conflict with Russia while simultaneously abusing the powers of his office to attempt to manufacture dirt on his biggest political opponent.

Def of "high crimes and misdemeanors" per Hamilton: "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

Nobody can reasonably argue that Trump is not abusing public trust here.
---