EAllusion wrote:What makes it "partisan" in the eyes of those that matter is whether Republicans are going along with it or not. So long as Republicans don't go along with it and Democrats do, it is by definition "partisan."
Of course, the bonus for Republicans is that they will stand together to a man against any consideration of impeachment - as clearly a partisan maneuver - yet only the Democrats will be painted as partisan in their own relative unity for impeachment.
Consider the Republican obsession with the whistleblower's identity even though the whistleblower's identity is irrelevant at this point since what they blew the whistle on was already independently corroborated.
Part of that is a desire for revenge against that person via stochastic terrorism. That person's life is probably in danger. Part of that is to intimidate any other would-be whistleblowers. But another part of that is to paint the whistleblower as part of a partisan hatchet job. "What?" you might say, "It doesn't matter if the whistleblower is Hillary Clinton wearing a mustache. The facts are what matter."
Nah. There's lots of people who just can't follow the story on the level of detail necessary to understand that. So this kind of argument can hold water with them. They get to vote too. It matters. When you don't care about the truth, and partisanship is a matter of solidarity, anything can be made to look partisan.
The House investigating committees have withdrawn their subpoena to Bolton aide Kupperman and stopped litigation over it. They are citing the fact that they want a speedy impeachment process as their basis for allowing him to defy their subpoena. They really, really want things wrapped up soon and will artificially close off valid investigatory leads to do so.
This is so unbelievably dumb. There's not going to be a second impeachment. The politics of that are more fraught than having a protracted one. Trump is going to be given nearly a year, right before an election, to operate without any meaningful oversight after he's shown an open willingness to defy the law and basic morality to manipulate elections in his favor.
I guess we were warned that Democrats are cowards who would rather kneel before their enemies than risk a fight. Wrong subject, right conclusion.
On a totally unrelated note, it's looking distinctly possible the Trump admin also conditioned China trade negotiations on China's willingness to help manufacture propaganda against Biden.
Don't have time to really investigate that one in full detail, though. Gotta close the loop fast. The consultants advising these septuagenarians probably should consider that allowing someone who is willing to manipulate elections impunity is a more surefire way to lose an election than a public battle over the popularity of a longer investigation.
EAllusion wrote:The House investigating committees have withdrawn their subpoena to Bolton aide Kupperman and stopped litigation over it. They are citing the fact that they want a speedy impeachment process as their basis for allowing him to defy their subpoena. They really, really want things wrapped up soon and will artificially close off valid investigatory leads to do so.
This is so unbelievably dumb. There's not going to be a second impeachment. The politics of that are more fraught than having a protracted one. Trump is going to be given nearly a year, right before an election, to operate without any meaningful oversight after he's shown an open willingness to defy the law and basic morality to manipulate elections in his favor.
I guess we were warned that Democrats are cowards who would rather kneel before their enemies than risk a fight. Wrong subject, right conclusion.
McGahn's case is "much closer to resolution by the court than Dr. Kupperman's flawed suit," the House wrote to Kupperman's attorneys on Tuesday. "Unless your lawsuit was admittedly only for purposes of delay, and without a subpoena in force, the Committees expect that your client will voluntarily dismiss the complaint ... and be guided by the decision in McGahn."
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
EAllusion wrote:The House investigating committees have withdrawn their subpoena to Bolton aide Kupperman and stopped litigation over it. They are citing the fact that they want a speedy impeachment process as their basis for allowing him to defy their subpoena. They really, really want things wrapped up soon and will artificially close off valid investigatory leads to do so.
This is so unbelievably dumb. There's not going to be a second impeachment. The politics of that are more fraught than having a protracted one. Trump is going to be given nearly a year, right before an election, to operate without any meaningful oversight after he's shown an open willingness to defy the law and basic morality to manipulate elections in his favor.
I guess we were warned that Democrats are cowards who would rather kneel before their enemies than risk a fight. Wrong subject, right conclusion.
McGahn's case is "much closer to resolution by the court than Dr. Kupperman's flawed suit," the House wrote to Kupperman's attorneys on Tuesday. "Unless your lawsuit was admittedly only for purposes of delay, and without a subpoena in force, the Committees expect that your client will voluntarily dismiss the complaint ... and be guided by the decision in McGahn."
The lawsuit is for purposes of delay. Waving your finger at that does nothing.
That said, my comments were aimed at the all consuming need to have the impeachment over quick.
Ok. It reminds me of Lindsey Graham. Evidence isn't important. The end is determined, let the explanations and lines move to preserve them.
For those more concerned with knowing the facts:
(CNN) — The House of Representatives says it no longer needs to subpoena former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman for his testimony, another sign that Democrats don't want or feel they need a prolonged battle to gather more details in their impeachment probe.
"The subpoena at issue in this matter has been withdrawn and there is no current intention to reissue it," the House wrote in a court case filed on Wednesday afternoon about Kupperman's testimony.
The House instead suggested Kupperman should abide by what is decided in a separate case that is further along: its lawsuit against Don McGahn to force the former White House counsel to testify.
The House told Kupperman's attorney on Tuesday it still would be interested in speaking with him in the impeachment inquiry, and that he should sit for a deposition if another federal judge knocks down the White House's blocking tactic in McGahn's case. McGahn was subpoenaed in April to discuss the President's attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation.
McGahn's case is "much closer to resolution by the court than Dr. Kupperman's flawed suit," the House wrote to Kupperman's attorneys on Tuesday. "Unless your lawsuit was admittedly only for purposes of delay, and without a subpoena in force, the Committees expect that your client will voluntarily dismiss the complaint ... and be guided by the decision in McGahn." A House Intelligence Committee official explained why the House withdrew the subpoena for Kupperman, noting the court process "would only result in delay."
"There is no proper basis for a witness to sue the Congress in court to oppose a duly authorized congressional subpoena," the official said. "Nevertheless, given the schedule of our impeachment hearings, a court process that leads to the dismissal of Dr. Kupperman's flawed lawsuit would only result in delay, so we have withdrawn his subpoena."
"If Dr. Kupperman or other witnesses over whom the White House might assert absolute immunity to prevent their testimony are truly interested in honoring their duty to uphold the Constitution instead of hiding behind the White House's improper directions, they have every opportunity to do so, as numerous current and former officials -- both senior and more junior -- have courageously done."
Kupperman had sued prior to his scheduled testimony to get a court's decision on whether he needed to testify. The White House had told him not to appear before Congress, citing immunity for White House officials.
Kupperman is using the same defense lawyer as former national security adviser John Bolton. The federal judge in Kupperman's case has discussed how Bolton could take the same approach in court, which would delay his own testimony. Bolton is scheduled to testify on Thursday, but it is still unclear whether he will show up if subpoenaed. Bolton's team declined to comment on whether Wednesday's developments affected his approach to his scheduled deposition Thursday.
The House is asking federal Judge Richard Leon to dismiss Kupperman's lawsuit. Leon had planned to consider Kupperman's lawsuit throughout this month and December, effectively sidelining Kupperman and potentially Bolton until he made a decision. Leon planned to speak Wednesday evening with the lawyers from the House, Justice Department and for Kupperman over the phone.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Kupperman got a favorable partisan judge that is willing to delay the case. The only reason this constrains Democrats is because they are on a self-imposed artificial timetable. So Democrats simply dropped the case and asked Kupperman to abide by a separate case. That ask has no legal binding, however. It's a signal that one viable defense is simply to try and run out the clock on them.
They can end up putting that in the obstruction basket if they want, but it's meaningless because the Senate is not going to remove Trump on those grounds and it is too fine grain of a detail to matter to the public. All that matters is what can be gained from the impeachment proceedings themselves.
Democrats talk like an organized crime syndicate is in the Whitehouse propped up by partisan allies in the Senate. They probably should behave like that is actually true.
Honor, help me out here. I think you would agree that it has been established that Trump is willing to violate both a sense of civic morality and the law to shade the election in his favor. This includes using the US's international power to get other countries to interfere in the election on his behalf. The Ukraine (and probably China) case involves pressuring foreign governments to participate in a propaganda campaign against his opponents which, in turn, could be used to spur a domestic investigation. But it doesn't have to be limited to that. China, Russia, etc. could attack voting machines in Democratic areas if they really wanted to. There's a lot more possibilities than what has happened up to this point.
What do you think is going to stop Trump and Republican allies from soliciting foreign interference for purposes of winning the 2020 election? I contend that the impeachment inquiry itself is the best possible deterrent as it has the greatest possible ability to put sunlight on those attempts. Having that investigatory power, while not perfect, is a legitimate counter weight.
Since Democrats prefer to shut down the impeachment inquiry as soon as possible and you agree with this wisdom, what do you think it is? What stops illicit attempts to corrupt the election process from Trump and allies, foreign and domestic? Trump's personal benevolence?
Lindsey Graham is using the Joseph Smith argument in defense of Trump: Instead of Smith being too ignorant to have penned the Book of Mormon, Trump is too incoherent to have entered into a quid pro quo extortion scheme.