The Tyrannical Minority

[_honorentheos]

It is hypothesized that there was unlawful activity and hidden content damning to Trump. That's not a known. It's a suspicion based on the testimony the administration had put other communications with foreign leaders in the box, so to speak, and inductively concluding the content is criminal and thus being hidden to protect Trump at the expense of the American people.

So, yes. Everything is hypothesized until it is investigated. Historically there has been a threshold between investigation leading to the formal impeachment proceedings and the inquiry leading to the drafting of articles of impeachment. You want to make impeachment itself into a public excursion into uncharted waters with an expectation you'll find even more reasons to impeach. That's an expansion and a dangerous one.

Again, there is precedent and a place for what you want to see done.

[_EAllusion]

The concealment, in of itself, is a serious act of wrongdoing. It is valid to investigate it. That there is reasonable suspicion even more serious wrongdoing will be uncovered when doing so doesn’t change the fact that a threshold of wrongdoing has been met.

What’s dangerous is your head in the sand approach to Presidential misconduct.

[_EAllusion]

After a high speed chase in which the driver is seen throwing bags out the window, cops eventually stop the perpetrator. One final bag lands in their feet with a bloody knife in it.

Some random yahoo: Maybe someone should look into what's in those other bags.

honorentheos, superdetective: My God! Do you understand what a dangerous precedent that is? It's not for you or I to hypothesize what might be in those bags. We don't know. Our job is to deal with this bloody knife. You might like it, but this driver has rights.

But, shouldn't you look into why he was so desperate to get away from you that he was willing to break the law to do it?

honorentheos, superdetective: Holy Christ, man! Think about how that will look to a jury. The defense team would say we're biased against this person. We'll lose our bloody knife case. Think about it.

So no further investigation then?

honorentheos, superdetective: Leave it to pros, buddy. If it were up to you, we'd be searching every random person's bags going on some wild fishing expedition for crimes. I sleep at night a little better knowing you are not a cop.

[_honorentheos]

Precedent.

[_EAllusion]

Precedent.

The precedent that overwhelming evidence of gross misconduct by the President should be fully investigated is a good one. It's one that Presidents should rightly fear. It should mold their behavior.

What you probably have in mind is this being exploited to argue in favor of actual fishing expeditions where there isn't compelling evidence of wrong doing. Yes, bad actors can always try to exploit valid powers for ill purposes. At the end of the day, if Congress can't make a meaningful distinction between valid and invalid cases for investigation into impeachable conduct based on quality of evidence, then we've lost our structure of government anyway.

Shortly after Trump was exposed attempting to compel Ukraine into investigating the Biden family (which really just means aiding in the manufacture of propaganda against), he reiterated this behavior in front of cameras. Just right out in the open. When doing so, he included a call on China to do the same. At approximately the same time, evidence was being uncovered that the Trump admin explored something like what it did with Ukraine with China too with trade policy as a possible carrot. We don't know much more than that because Congress decided not to really investigate it. That was a conscious decision to look the other way based on a desire to stage-manage impeachment proceedings that are probably going no where. This is asinine. It's irresponsible and inept. There is plenty of evidence to be worth calling in witnesses and seeing what can be found out. That isn't a fishing expedition because there is already ample evidence of misconduct. It's fleshing out the details.

On an obliquely related note, Joe Biden even today is continuing to campaign on the idea that if he is elected, Republicans will cooperate with him in a bipartisan and respectable fashion. The problems we are seeing with Republican behavior are Trump related and with Trump gone, they'll "come to their senses."

On the one hand, I get that he's on autopilot and is trying to appeal to the Democratic primary electorate's love of bipartisanship. On the other hand, this would come across as delusional for any politician to say. But Joe Biden? Republicans currently are engaged in an attempt to whip up an international conspiracy against him. It's not just Trump. Republican elites from all over are actively doing that or, at best, are watching in silence as their allies do it. Contemplating the contrast is like trying to stare in the sun.

The sad thing is it isn't difficult for me to imagine a future in which Biden is the Democratic nominee and continuing to preach this line while Republicans who "will work with him" go on TV to talk about how he should be in prison.

If a Democrat is elected President and Republicans take the House are they going to have a ginned up impeachment trial as a "turn about is fair play" move? Yeah, there's a decent chance that's gonna happen. There was a lot of chatter over impeaching Clinton among Republican politicians before the election. That's just the reality we're in. It's very different than the one Joe Biden either exists in or pretends to for electoral purposes.

[_honorentheos]

At the end of the day, if Congress can't make a meaningful distinction between valid and invalid cases for investigation into impeachable conduct based on quality of evidence, then we've lost our structure of government anyway.

Agreed. Remind me again what Congress is doing.

[Guest]

Stepping away from bad analogies for the moment, let's suppose during the hearings a bombshell gets dropped and one of the witnesses testifying on the Ukraine call states they are aware of another phone call made between Trump and, oh let's say Mohammad Bin Salman where the witness heard Trump promise to turn a blind eye to the murder of Khashoggi and sell the Saudis weapons at a discount if MBS paved the way for a big real estate project for Trump that was purely for Trump's personal gain. Of course that gets pursued. But that's not what you seem to be arguing. You seem to be arguing for the House to start issuing supoenas for anyone who sat in on a Trump call to have them testify if they were aware of the content of any other calls besides the July Ukraine call that might involve misconduct on the part of the President. That's a fishing expedition turning the formal impeachment proceedings into a weapon for political ends rather than a tool for maintaining the republic when threatened. There's a reason Gerald Ford's nomination to replace Spiro Agnew was pushed forward as Nixon's impeachment went to formal proceedings. The Democrats, through impeaching Nixon, could have taken the White House with a felony charge on Agnews head making as good a case as exists in the entire admin was corrupt. But that would have undermined the mechanisms of democracy and, I think unarguably wisely, moved to accept Ford as the new VP in order to protect the nation as a prime consideration that informed the pursuit of justice when it came to Nixon's criminal activity. In today's climate, I suspect that situation might turn out far differently. We are certainly in dangerous territory given the claim both sides are acting for the greater good without apparent underlying principles. Oh, wait. I'm forgetting the people actually tasked with this job aren't pursuing the EA mandate. Someone should tell them there's a guy on the internet who knows what's best for the country and they better course correct fast or he will...I don't know. Complain about stuff on the internet I guess. Maybe he will make a bad analogy and parody their position because lolz.

[_EAllusion]

Agreed. Remind me again what Congress is doing.

Ignoring valid evidence of wrongdoing to stage-manage an impeachment inquiry based on a misguided understanding of what is the most successful electoral strategy for November of 2020.

[_EAllusion]

Precedent.

The precedent that overwhelming evidence of gross misconduct by the President should be fully investigated is a good one. It's one that Presidents should rightly fear. It should mold their behavior.

What you probably have in mind is this being exploited to argue in favor of actual fishing expeditions where there isn't compelling evidence of wrong doing. Yes, bad actors can always try to exploit valid powers for ill purposes. At the end of the day, if Congress can't make a meaningful distinction between valid and invalid cases for investigation into impeachable conduct based on quality of evidence, then we've lost our structure of government anyway.

Shortly after Trump was exposed attempting to compel Ukraine into investigating the Biden family (which really just means aiding in the manufacture of propaganda against), he reiterated this behavior in front of cameras. Just right out in the open. When doing so, he included a call on China to do the same. At approximately the same time, evidence was being uncovered that the Trump admin explored something like what it did with Ukraine with China too with trade policy as a possible carrot. We don't know much more than that because Congress decided not to really investigate it. That was a conscious decision to look the other way based on a desire to stage-manage impeachment proceedings that are probably going no where. This is asinine. It's irresponsible and inept. There is plenty of evidence to be worth calling in witnesses and seeing what can be found out. That isn't a fishing expedition because there is already ample evidence of misconduct. It's fleshing out the details.

On an obliquely related note, Joe Biden even today is continuing to campaign on the idea that if he is elected, Republicans will cooperate with him in a bipartisan and respectable fashion. The problems we are seeing with Republican behavior are Trump related and with Trump gone, they'll "come to their senses."

On the one hand, I get that he's on autopilot and is trying to appeal to the Democratic primary electorate's love of bipartisanship. On the other hand, this would come across as delusional for any politician to say. But Joe Biden? Republicans currently are engaged in an attempt to whip up an international conspiracy against him. It's not just Trump. Republican elites from all over are actively doing that or, at best, are watching in silence as their allies do it. Contemplating the contrast is like trying to stare in the sun.

The sad thing is it isn't difficult for me to imagine a future in which Biden is the Democratic nominee and continuing to preach this line while Republicans who "will work with him" go on TV to talk about how he should be in prison.

If a Democrat is elected President and Republicans take the House are they going to have a ginned up impeachment trial as a "turn about is fair play" move? Yeah, there's a decent chance that's gonna happen. There was a lot of chatter over impeaching Clinton among Republican politicians before the election. That's just the reality we're in. It's very different than the one Joe Biden either exists in or pretends to for electoral purposes.

Ugh, Dr. Shades. Those were different posts. You are ruining the logical separation by combining them.

[_honorentheos]

Agreed. Remind me again what Congress is doing.

Ignoring valid evidence of wrongdoing to stage-manage an impeachment inquiry based on a misguided understanding of what is the most successful electoral strategy for November of 2020.

Says guy on the internet.