Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

T Even if you flipped Zelensky, the conversation isn't clearly a quid pro quo.

It absolutely is, but it doesn't need to be. It is a crime for a campaign to request anything of value from a foreign national.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

It absolutely is, but it doesn't need to be. It is a crime for a campaign to request anything of value from a foreign national.

Crime of intent. Prove intent.

Also, he’s acting in official, not campaign, capacity. Prove otherwise.

Like the Clapper situation. Everyone knows he lied. But good luck proving intent to deceive Congress.

You have to flip an accomplice if this call is all you have.

ETA: Is Rudy the accomplice to flip? https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...dy-ncna1058196

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Crime of intent. Prove intent.

Also, he’s acting in official, not campaign, capacity. Prove otherwise.

How can you be such a brick? Rudy Giuliani already has a job -- what do you think you're doing?

The burden of proof in a criminal case has everything to do with the nature of a criminal case, which -- as you know, but pretend to keep forgetting -- this is not. Why do you just assume that a Congressman should use the same standard?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How can you be such a brick? Rudy Giuliani already has a job -- what do you think you're doing?

The burden of proof in a criminal case has everything to do with the nature of a criminal case, which -- as you know, but pretend to keep forgetting -- this is not. Why do you just assume that a Congressman should use the same standard?

What the hell are you talking about in that first sentence?

On the second, which is slightly more coherent, who cares what any House member thinks? The only people who count are Senators.

Some bastardized version of crim or civil or mix of both standards will be used by more than 1/3 of senators to justify acquittal. Impeachment standards are vague and court standards speak directly to how to consider evidence.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What the hell are you talking about in that first sentence?

You keep pretending that this is a criminal case, and it is not.

Or maybe you are asking about the second sentence? The President has a personal lawyer who is defending him by saying lots of stupid things. He doesn't need another.

On the second, which is slightly more coherent, who cares what any House member thinks? The only people who count are Senators.

It never gets to the Senate if the House doesn't vote to impeach.

Some bastardized version of standards will be used by more than 1/3 of senators to justify acquittal. Impeachment standards are vague and court standards speak to directly to how to consider evidence.

If you're just trying to construct an ostensible justification for someone whose mind is made up for other reasons he does not want to share, fine. Not sure why you think that's a worthwhile pastime.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It never gets to the Senate if the House doesn't vote to impeach.

Has that ever happened? You can be pretty sure she has the votes or she wouldn’t have started this.

But here is the real question. On FB I have plenty of friends who are lawyers who actually try cases, I asked them a question but got no answer. Here I have friends who are lawyers who’ve never tried a case, but they do read political blogs, so maybe one of you will know?

Are there specific rules for the trial or does the Senate just have control? Rules of evidence? Who decides what to exclude? Is there a specific timeline, or can the Sebate park it for years? Depending on answers to those questions, this could be a big nothing burger that will blow up ugly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Has that ever happened? You can be pretty sure she has the votes or she wouldn’t have started this.

I don't think that's the way she was thinking, and I sure hope it wasn't. She has more options if she keeps the inquiry open, gathering evidence.

But here is the real question. On FB I have plenty of friends who are lawyers who actually try cases, I asked them a question but got no answer. Here I have friends who are lawyers who’ve never tried a case, but they do read political blogs, so maybe one of you will know?

Are there specific rules for the trial or does the Senate just have control? Rules of evidence? Who decides what to exclude? Is there a specific timeline, or can the Sebate park it for years? Depending on answers to those questions, this could be a big nothing burger that will blow up ugly.

I've tried cases, so I'm not sure you want my answer, but see Rule VII here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Has that ever happened? You can be pretty sure she has the votes or she wouldn’t have started this.

But here is the real question. On FB I have plenty of friends who are lawyers who actually try cases, I asked them a question but got no answer. Here I have friends who are lawyers who’ve never tried a case, but they do read political blogs, so maybe one of you will know?

Are there specific rules for the trial or does the Senate just have control? Rules of evidence? Who decides what to exclude? Is there a specific timeline, or can the Sebate park it for years? Depending on answers to those questions, this could be a big nothing burger that will blow up ugly.

There have been two impeachments, I believe: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The rules are do not have much precedent behind them to guide us as to interpretation. So assume in the absence of that, most of the Senate and House will apply standards similar to Fed Evidence rules and caselaw regarding how those are applied.

I think the standard applied (regardless of what technically is required) will effectively be not as high as crim, but not as low as civil. There's more than adequate grey area here, if this call is all the Democrats have, to justifiably acquit w/o appearing political.

The Democrats have just aimed the gun at the bear. Better kill him, because if he skates or pushes trial off until after the next election, this could blow up in the Democrats' faces.

It'll be interesting to see if Pelosi can slow walk this and drip out a bunch of lurid facts about Trump over the coming months. That could harm him. Ty's belief the Rs could ultimately disown Trump will only occur if they know there's such damning evidence that 1/3 of the Senate cannot acquit without looking nakedly political. That will require flipping an accomplice, or more transcripts of much better quality. That's possible. But appears unlikely at the moment.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You keep pretending that this is a criminal case, and it is not.

The public and the senate will consider everything through a prism they know: General fed or state rules of evidence and standards of proof. They know this stuff, they see it on TV, it's the only applicable analogue.

Or maybe you are asking about the second sentence? The President has a personal lawyer who is defending him by saying lots of stupid things. He doesn't need another.

Oh, you're so pissy. I'm sorry I won't pick a side and argue with you about what I "believe."

It never gets to the Senate if the House doesn't vote to impeach.

If they vote to impeach or not impeach, who gives a shit? The Senate will not convict in the teeth of an election (unless an accomplice is flipped or irrefutable evidence is presented). Hence, Pelosi's wisdom. She hates where she is right now, but has no choice.

If you're just trying to construct an ostensible justification for someone whose mind is made up for other reasons he does not want to share, fine. Not sure why you think that's a worthwhile pastime.

Because those people will vote on whether Trump is impeached. You, OTOH, can only whine about why he should be impeached and if they don't vote for it, they are letting the country down. I'm not sure why your whining and adducing a pile of facts about how egregious Trump's behavior has been is of any value.

What's of value is how Democrats can time this correctly, and how Trump responds, and whether we have the mother of all shitshows: An election year impeachment of the most divisive President in history, which arguably he desires. This is the Kentucky Derby X 100, with a dozen Super Bowls on top.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If they vote to impeach or not impeach, who gives a shit?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

...who cares what any House member thinks? The only people who count are Senators.

Who the fuck are you even arguing with? No one, repeat: no one on this board thinks this process will result in the requisite number of Senators voting to impeach. Are you dense? There is absolutely nothing Trump could do that would cause even the absolute minimum number of Republican Senators (what is that? 17?) to vote for impeachment. So stop with your ridiculous standards, burden of proof, and all this other bullshit.

The point of this is we all know he should be impeached. We should have a full investigation and all of the evidence should see the light of day. If Republicans want to vote against impeachment afterwards, let them. They absolutely should attach their names to that prick for all of eternity. But I want to see all of the evidence.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No one, repeat: no one on this board thinks this process will result in the requisite number of Senators voting to impeach.

I don't think that's likely now, but I also think everyone is too likely to assume that present trends will simply continue, and we don't expect step changes. Impeachment will change things. It will change the way Trump behaves, and it will uncover more stuff. And other shit will happen in the world -- a war, a recession, an epidemic, something -- and he may be seen as mishandling it. And, don't forget: he has the brainworms.

Eventually, conservatives are going to disown Trump, when he gets unpopular, which is inevitable. It happened to George W. Bush, who was much less of a liability. The only way Trump avoids it is to drop dead soon. When he starts to lose conservative, things will tip, and it could happen while he's still in office.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think that's likely now, but I also think everyone is too likely to assume that present trends will simply continue, and we don't expect step changes. Impeachment will change things. It will change the way Trump behaves, and it will uncover more stuff. And other shit will happen in the world -- a war, a recession, an epidemic, something -- and he may be seen as mishandling it. And, don't forget: he has the brainworms.

Eventually, conservatives are going to disown Trump, when he gets unpopular, which is inevitable. It happened to George W. Bush, who was much less of a liability. The only way Trump avoids it is to drop dead soon. When he starts to lose conservative, things will tip, and it could happen while he's still in office.

I actually agree with Ty. It could get him out. The problem is timing though.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Who the fuck are you even arguing with? No one, repeat: no one on this board thinks this process will result in the requisite number of Senators voting to impeach. Are you dense? There is absolutely nothing Trump could do that would cause even the absolute minimum number of Republican Senators (what is that? 17?) to vote for impeachment. So stop with your ridiculous standards, burden of proof, and all this other bullshit.

The point of this is we all know he should be impeached. We should have a full investigation and all of the evidence should see the light of day. If Republicans want to vote against impeachment afterwards, let them. They absolutely should attach their names to that prick for all of eternity. But I want to see all of the evidence.

TM

Tell this to Ty. He wants to have the argument about the merits. And I think he thinks there'll be an impeachment which might succeed. I think he could possibly be right on the latter if an accomplice is flipped. I wonder how the politics and procedural games will employed and I'd like to handicap who'll win and who'll lose in the election as a result.

I could not care less about arguing guilt or innocence because that's immaterial. I'm only fucking with him in my responses there because, why not? I'll defend Idi Amin against a blowhard convicting prematurely. But what's material is if and how the Democrats can get someone to flip on Trump to make the case conclusively.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On the second, which is slightly more coherent, who cares what any House member thinks? The only people who count are Senators.

Are you saying Ty was wrong to refer to "Congressmen" instead of "Senators?" If so, he was not. Both Senators and Representatives are Congressmen.

LessinChiangMai