The Tyrannical Minority

[_honorentheos]

Then let me be explicit in saying going on a fishing expedition is the wrong thing to do. Why? It's making the impeachment power of the House a political weapon that takes probable cause in one case to cast a wide net to look for means of removing a political opponent beyond the immediate case for impeachment. That's turning the impeachment process into the entirety of the Ken Starr investigation. It's a dangerous, anti-democratic extension of the powers of the House to investigate the President to pursue possible infractions on a pretense as part of an impeachment inquiry. Outside of an official impeachment inquiry? Do whatever. It's been done before and will be done again. But that genie, once out of the bottle, will never be put back.

ETA: Before I thought you were mainly arguing that the Democrats should insert the Mueller report and emoluments issues into the impeachment process. While I disagreed, that wasn't on principle but rather based on the strategic belief it would dilute the capital available to the House to make as strong a case as possible. I had no idea you were arguing for what you've argued more explicitly. That's radically dangerous not just strategically dubious.

[_EAllusion]

Then let me be explicit in saying going on a fishing expedition is the wrong thing to do.

It's not a fishing expedition when there is already evidence of wrong doing.

If you are caught hiding a illegally possessed firearm in a dumpster, it is not a "fishing expedition" to find out you did anything improper with that gun. And it's not a "fishing expedition" to suggest that looking into it might stop you from committing gun related crimes for the time-being while there is heat.

Donald Trump has a variety activities that are, in of themselves, impeachable. This includes, but is not limited to what occurred with Ukraine. On the subject of Ukraine specifically, part of what has been uncovered is that Donald Trump has been illegally concealing records of diplomatic calls. We know in the Ukraine instance, because it was investigated, that what he concealed was an attempt to extort a foreign nation into manufacturing propaganda against his political opponent. We don't know what he concealed in other calls, but since part of the wrongdoing under discussion was abusing the public trust through illicit use of the classification system, there is every cause to find out. That's what an impeachment inquiry is for. One of the benefits of doing this is possibly exposing related plots. Another benefit is adding a deterrent on similar future plots. Noting this doesn't make it a fishing expedition. There's legitimate wrongdoing there that demands further looking into.

ETA: Before I thought you were mainly arguing that the Democrats should insert in the Mueller report into the impeachment process.

Yes, they should. There's also that. The Mueller report details out profoundly alarming behavior and is essentially a roadmap to impeachment. It also concerns issues of Russian interference that are likely to be in play in 2020.

That's radically dangerous not just strategically dubious.

Yes, it's radically dangerous to investigate what was going on when the President was abusing national security protocols to conceal evidence of his wrongdoing. This is where we are. Where a person who imagines themselves to be "moderate" is arguing that.

[_honorentheos]

This is an insane expansion of impeachment, EA. Clinton's impeachment followed what you are describing in the Ken Starr investigation but at least the Republicans kept that fishing trip out of the actual impeachment process. Nixon's impeachment proceedings came a year after a House investigation into if Nixon had committed impeachable offenses based on the Watergate break-ins and found grounds for pursuing impeachment due to the administration's involvement and associated cover-up. It wasn't turned into a fishing trip to find anything and everything outside of Watergate one could use to remove Nixon from office.

I'm completely amazed by how brazen your argument has become given the real issue at stake is the need to protect our system of government from abuse and tyranny. Amazing.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

I'm completely amazed by how brazen your argument has become given the real issue at stake is the need to protect our system of government from abuse and tyranny. Amazing.

Protect it by not investigating exposed abuses of power? Way to throw away the exact thing the whistleblower was trying to do...

[_honorentheos]

I'm completely amazed by how brazen your argument has become given the real issue at stake is the need to protect our system of government from abuse and tyranny. Amazing.

Protect it by not investigating exposed abuses of power? Way to throw away the exact thing the whistleblower was trying to do...

Exposed abuses of power do not include ones that are merely hypothesized. What EA proposed is not within the historic boundaries of impeachment and would be a dangerous expansion of impeachment into a political weapon rather than a check against Presidential misconduct.

This entire thread has been largely a debate over how best to hold the President accountable. I had assumed we were debating the merits of an approach constraining that debate to the most clear, understandable case with key witnesses from both sides of the political isle on the one side. Or expanding the debate to include other investigated cases such as Trump's attempts to obstuct the Russia investigation. Both would be within the boundaries of impeachment as historically understood and practised. I think one has more merit but don't consider the other wrong so much as more likely to leave the American people viewing it as a partisan side show. But to argue the impeachment proceedings should be structured to act as a wide net cast to find wrong doing on the part of the President? That is unprecedented and opens Pandora's Box to impeachment becoming a political weapon.

Using it to go fishing for wrong doing is wrong itself. That's not an argument. That's a statement of fact. There are other tools for that including investigations out of committees with oversight of the affected issues in question. EA may argue the Democrats are being cowards for not pursuing those investigations in committee and that could be debated. But it's not the misguided and dangerous approach he is now arguing.

[_EAllusion]

Exposed abuses of power do not include ones that are merely hypothesized.

Fully investigating known instances of wrongdoing to uncover the details is not "hypothesized abuses of power."

I've given a specific example of what I'm talking about that you won't address and does not involve merely fishing for an instance of wrongdoing. That Donald Trump abused national security protocol to conceal diplomatic calls from prying eyes is not "hypothesized." It happened. That, in of itself, is an abuse of the public trust. The one instance we know the most about involved an attempt to conceal an egregious abuse of power to undermine the country's democracy. We probably should find out more about what was going on in other instances when forming an inquiry into his abuse of the public trust.

[_EAllusion]

If the police raid my house on justified suspicion I'm involved in criminal activity, discover me attempting to wipe my hard drives, then discover I was indeed involved in at least some criminal activity, it is not a "fishing expedition" to try and recover what was on my hard drives. That's part of a valid investigation into my wrongdoing.

This isn't a perfect analogy because wiping hard drives isn't in of itself unlawful, but that's roughly what Honor is suggesting is radically dangerous to do.

[_honorentheos]

Exposed abuses of power do not include ones that are merely hypothesized.

Fully investigating known instances of wrongdoing to uncover the details is not "hypothesized abuses of power."

I've given a specific example of what I'm talking about that you won't address and does not involve merely fishing for an instance of wrongdoing. That Donald Trump abused national security protocol to conceal diplomatic calls from prying eyes is not "hypothesized." It happened.

What happened that isn't a fishing trip? Trump's call with the President of Ukraine. Everything else is hypothesized. You want it investigated? The place for that is in committee investigations such as through foreign affairs. If they discover something, then the debate is back to where I had thought we were before rather than this travesty you are pushing.

Your threshold for what you assume to be "known" is dangerous.

[_EAllusion]

What happened that isn't a fishing trip? Trump's call with the President of Ukraine. Everything else is hypothesized.

Good lord. It's not "hypothesized" that there are other diplomatic calls that were concealed in the same unlawful manner as the July call with Ukraine. There's credible witnesses who have said this has happened in the context of other their other accusations turning out to be true. It is part of the Ukraine whistleblower complaint.

Everything is "hypothesized" in this sense until it is investigated. You don't know something wrongful happened until you investigate it and uncover evidence of it sufficient to convince. Demanding having already established the case is an impossible burden and implies all investigation is invalid.

What we have here is Trump engaging in unlawful activity. The full details of what was going on are extremely suspicious, but not fully known. In the one instance we know the most about, we know what we was doing was attempting to extort a foreign nation with Congressionally appropriated funds to create propaganda that would manipulate our domestic election. Of course, we didn't know that either until it was investigated. In other instances, we don't know exactly what was going on, but finding out is perfectly justified as part of an investigation into his unlawful attempts to conceal it.

And this is just one example specifically related to the Ukraine issue. There's a lot more evidence of Trump's gross abuses of power out there than this. It looks like Trump's relentless corruption has been quite effective at making you want to look the other way. It's not that you personally are overwhelmed trying to understand it, but you think Johnny Q. Public is, so it's best to ignore it.

[_EAllusion]

The place for that is in committee investigations such as through foreign affairs.

First, the impeachment inquiry is a perfectly valid place to investigate this. The inquiry is literally an investigation into Presidential wrongdoing. Second, it's the better place because Congress has greater legal authority in the context of an impeachment inquiry to acquire evidence. Third, an impeachment inquiry provides greater soft power to Congress that makes witnesses more likely to talk.