The Fallout of the Impeachment of the 45th.

Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
This topic was birthed by the events of October 23rd, 2019

Impeachment probe deposition under way following Republicans storming hearing room. [https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/republicans-storm-impeachment-inquiry-deposition-laura-cooper/index.html]

Roughly two-dozen House Republicans on Wednesday stormed a closed-door deposition in secure House Intelligence Committee spaces to rail against the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry, a political stunt ratcheting up the GOP complaints about the process that delayed Wednesday's scheduled deposition for five hours.

The conservative lawmakers, led by Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, barged into the deposition and demanded they be allowed to see the closed-door proceedings where members of three committees planned to interview Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Laura Cooper as part of the impeachment probe into President Donald Trump.


The chaotic scene, with Republicans flouting House rules to make a political point, represented a new and more confrontational phase of the Republican attack on House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and the Democratic impeachment investigation.

By early afternoon, pizza and snacks were being brought into the committee area. The Republicans in the committee SCIF - short for a sensitive compartmented information facility -- left around 2 p.m. ET to attend House votes, apparently ending the protest.

The deposition then began around 3 p.m. ET, lawmakers said, a roughly five-hour delay.

A source in the room said that as Cooper was sitting down to testify, the Republicans stormed through the room's three different doors. Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama was yelling at Schiff, but the California Democrat did not engage, the source said. Other Democrats, including Rep. Val Demings of Florida, shouted back at both Byrne and Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, who were yelling about the process.

Demings, according to one source in the room, asked Republicans if they were trying to teach their children "that it's OK to lie, steal and cheat so long as you don't get caught?"

"Don't you have any work to do today?" she said to one Republican member, according to the source.
Cooper left the room while the Republicans refused to vacate the space. The source says the Capitol Police and sergeant at arms have been consulted as members refuse to leave the room, and lawmakers say there are ongoing negotiations about how to end the standoff.

"It was closest thing I've seen around here to mass civil unrest as a member of Congress," said one source in the room.
Republicans say they forced their way in because Democrats are holding impeachment depositions behind closed doors, denying the public the ability to see what's being said by witnesses that could be used to impeach Trump.

"Show your face where we can all see the travesty that you are trying to foist on America and the degradation of our Republic that you're engaged in," said Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the Oversight Committee who has been in all of the depositions so far, said the Republican disruption was justified because "it's finally reached a boiling point where members just said they are so frustrated at the idea that they can't be a part of this and see what's going on."

But the GOP complaints about the process - Republicans who have been in the room have made the same argument about public hearings and releasing transcripts following nearly every deposition - comes as Republicans have focused their objections on the process rather than the substance of what the witnesses have said.
Democrats say that Republican complaints about the process are simply unwarranted. Republicans on the three committees - Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight - have equal time to question witnesses.

Schiff has said that the committee will release transcripts and hold public hearings, but said they are conducting the fact-finding part of the investigation, like a grand jury before a trial, that's done behind closed doors.

He's argued that keeping witness testimony private in the early stages prevents other witnesses from learning what others are saying and aligning their stories.

Democrats also pointed to the Benghazi Select Committee run by former Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who conducted closed-door hearings in that investigation.

"This (investigation) clearly has far too much fact for their comfort level, so they have to stop it from moving forward," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat who was in the room when the Republicans barged in.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said that the Republican tactics would not deter the impeachment investigation.

"The tactics are an effort to delay the inevitable. They are a response to just damaging and pulverizing testimony yesterday," Swalwell said.

They are right, you know. [http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-the-house-gop-pretending-care-about-the-impeachment-process] The Following is an excerpt from an article on one of the several closed door Benghazi panels.

In the summer of 2015, the House Select Committee on Benghazi was still chasing conspiracy theories, holding a series of closed-door hearings with officials and witnesses. As part of the investigatory process, other members of Congress who were interested in learning more were excluded ? and when former House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) tried to crash a deposition, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) blocked him.

On this, Gowdy, who chaired the Benghazi panel, was correct. Not only did he take steps to prevent a political circus - nearly every witness was interviewed behind closed doors - but House rules only permit members to participate in depositions if they serve on the relevant committees. These are not spectator events.

More than four years later, Issa is no longer in Congress, but the number of far-right lawmakers eager to crash closed-door depositions has grown.

A group of House Republicans stormed a secure room where testimony is being heard in the impeachment inquiry on Wednesday, delaying the start of closed-door testimony by Laura Cooper, the top Pentagon official overseeing U.S. policy regarding Ukraine.

Led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., the GOP members - who don't sit on the committees that are questioning witnesses in the impeachment inquiry - entered the secure room, known as a SCIF, in the basement of the Capitol Visitor's Center.
These House Republicans know the rules, but they broke them anyway as part of a little stunt.

According to Bloomberg News, Donald Trump knew in advance about these far-right members' plan to barge into a secure hearing room - and the president supported the scheme. In fact, The Daily Beast reported that Trump effectively encouraged them to obstruct the impeachment inquiry.

To hear the White House's more ridiculous congressional allies tell it, they're justified in launching stunts like these because hearings related to the impeachment inquiry are being held in secret. At first blush, I imagine some Americans might even think guys like Matt Gaetz and his cohorts have a point: given the importance of the process and the outcome, why is so much work being done behind closed doors?

The truth is, even the most unhinged members of Congress know the answer. They?re only pretending to be dumb. The New York Times recently explained why witnesses are testifying in private:

The Democrats are trying to collect as much information as possible as quickly as possible. Big made-for-TV hearings are a chaotic and clunky way to try to build a body of evidence. They allow witnesses to line up their stories in advance and could easily backfire on Democrats trying to build a public narrative in real time.

Most congressional veterans would tell you that from a fact-finding point of view, you are better off following the Watergate model: Investigate in private first, then choreograph a series of public hearings that recreate for the public what the investigation found.

So, here we are. The people who represent us in our government are the actual equivalent of those playground kids you used to play tag with who always wanted you to go to jail once they tagged you, but would invent rules while your tag didn't matter.

I'm trying to parse the actual decay we all find ourselves here in America.

I mean, we blame these senators and this Administration, but we wouldn't have these people in charge if they didn't get the votes. And we're stuck with people who take in the garbage they spew every day and call it gourmet.

These are just a few [https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/10/22/iowa-voters-impeachment-inquiry-marquez-lead-pkg-vpx.cnn] of the voters who make up this country that can't even parse the fact that the President Breaking the rules of the United States Code is a big deal. These and people like them who believe the Democrats are on a fishing expedition for actually following the law.

The real bomb hasn't even dropped yet, but I feel the Fallout of it now. Truth means nothing any more. We live in a country where people are so ill-informed of the actual gravity of the potential crimes committed that they consider it an annoyance. Laura Hubka, the chair of Howard Country Democratic Party in Iowa (she was featured in the video I just linked to) states that the impeachment process is actually hindering her job trying to convince Independents to vote Democrat.

This is why I always got Pelosi trying to cool everyone down. I freaking hate this Administration. There's so much smoke and the scent of burning foundation coming from it that I'm tired of everyone telling me it's just vaping, bruh.

But if Trump did anything successfully, it was to immediately paint the democrats as sad whiners. Wasn't hard since Obama's tenure, where that was placed on them when they lost control of the House and the Senate. Even though every investigation into trouble lead to actual jail time for people, it was never enough to bring down Trump. It wasn't even enough to slightly tarnish his image in the eyes of his cult. In fact, everything lionized him more. Pelosi rightfully realized that for some reason, Trump's personality is stronger than logic with his masses.

And Time has shown her right. As these people and countless others have shown, Nothing Matters when it comes to Trump. The cult and the loyal believe their indignation more than they believe in the processes to find facts.

So, Trump won't be in office forever. And quite frankly, that fact worries me a great deal. Because the groundwork has been lain already. I fully believe any successful vote for Impeachment will split this nation apart. The cult and the loyal will never accept it.

Even with the facts, there are people actually thinking this is a 'Lynching' even though Trump admitted to doing this a long time ago and frankly going through the process seems asinine to me. Then Mulvaney admitted to it and we're still here. And Taylor explained that he was told that not to say the words 'Quid Pro Quo', but to make them understand that they get nothing unless Ukraine says what Trump wants to hear.

People. Still. Think. This. Is. A. Witch. Hunt.

Even with the admittals, even with testimony, even with the transcripts... There are people who see this evidence and think their Chosen One is being persecuted. I do not see an Successful Impeachment going down peacefully.

That leads to option 2. Impeachment attempt, and nothing coming out of it. The Democrats will lose even more ground. They will be mocked more. They will seem even weaker than before (Again, what Pelosi was worried about), and the ground they lose will be unthinkable. Sure, Trump is an ass that backfired his way through life somehow successfully... But the democrats lost. Meaning they suck worse and people would rather back the winner.

There is nothing but recovery that will have to be done after the Impeachment of the 45th, no matter if the democrats win or if the Republicans win. Space Buddha willing, I'll be in Canada and showering the stank of this nation off of me. But seeing how many people blindly follow this Administration and their tactics along with the amount of independents who just don't care because they aren't directly affected... I can't see anything but negativity from this Impeachment (no matter the results) for a long time to come.

Does anyone else see it differently?
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,933
764
118
Slightly. Sure, the results of this will be bad, but the results of not doing this would be bad. Trump et al are ruining the US, there's no way to avoid things being bad, you just cross your fingers and hope to pick a lesser evil if one becomes available.

Trump cultists are going to be Trump cultists whatever happens.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
12,294
1,486
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I think we are seeing why Pelosi was so hesitant to impeach. I'm not really sure how much real enforcement of the rules there is here, like, there are rules but how do you enforce them? What might be worse then impeaching would be showing how toothless our ability to really enforce the rules is for people with a certain amount of power. Really all it takes is one side who will completely ignore the rules, like republicans will do because they are kinda scum, or at least they are very willing to accept scum and not clean it up.

I don't think trump really has the support to split the nation, but he does have the ability to bring down any notion we had of a system of rules and such. He really does have the ability to destroy our idea of what it means to be an american, the idea that we have a president and not a king.
 
Apr 17, 2009
1,751
0
0
On the assumption that the impeachment does rid you guys of Trump, who takes over? I'd guess it would jump tp Pence, he seems to have kept himself somewhat separated from all the other scandals, unlike a lot of people who've already taken a fall for Trump's crimes. But is that a better or worse option? I've no doubt he's a more savvy political player, but he seems to lack Trump's charisn'tma so might not pull in votes in the coming election
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,095
4,284
118
Worgen said:
I don't think trump really has the support to split the nation, but he does have the ability to bring down any notion we had of a system of rules and such. He really does have the ability to destroy our idea of what it means to be an american, the idea that we have a president and not a king.
The big concern about Trump was not that he'd be a dictator himself, but that he'd break down a lot of democratic conventions and normalise it, encouraging and empower future presidential autocracy. Congressional authority is being sorely tested by this presidency - if it fails to hold its ground, it's an ominous sign and potentially lays the basis for further erosion.

If the president can behave corruptly and even criminally and face no repercussions, that tells every future president what they can get away with. Inevitably eventually one is going to turn up with both competence and malign intent, and the USA might end up the same sort of pseudo-democracy as Russia is.

Palindromemordnilap said:
On the assumption that the impeachment does rid you guys of Trump, who takes over? I'd guess it would jump tp Pence, he seems to have kept himself somewhat separated from all the other scandals, unlike a lot of people who've already taken a fall for Trump's crimes. But is that a better or worse option? I've no doubt he's a more savvy political player, but he seems to lack Trump's charisn'tma so might not pull in votes in the coming election
Compared to Trump, I don't care how bad Pence or anyone else is in terms of policy as long as they play by the rules. Trump is a cancer on democracy itself.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
15
23
Palindromemordnilap said:
On the assumption that the impeachment does rid you guys of Trump, who takes over? I'd guess it would jump tp Pence, he seems to have kept himself somewhat separated from all the other scandals, unlike a lot of people who've already taken a fall for Trump's crimes. But is that a better or worse option? I've no doubt he's a more savvy political player, but he seems to lack Trump's charisn'tma so might not pull in votes in the coming election
Wouldn't Pence ALSO go out with Impeachment? He should be in jail next to Trump. He is 100% guilty of Trump's crimes too, HE IS THE SECOND IN COMMAND! I know we joke that the VP is pointless, but he is supposed to be Trump's right-hand.

Plus anyone who goes 'But Pence', well either we have Trump AND Pence, or just Pence. Pence is already in power, so people need to stop pretending as if we are bringing him out of storage.

Trump's entire administration, including those he fired all deserve to be put in jail for their evil deeds.
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
Thaluikhain said:
Slightly. Sure, the results of this will be bad, but the results of not doing this would be bad. Trump et al are ruining the US, there's no way to avoid things being bad, you just cross your fingers and hope to pick a lesser evil if one becomes available.

Trump cultists are going to be Trump cultists whatever happens.
I agree with you that Trump needs to go. I've said that from the jump.

But this will lead to a fractured country. For who knows how long. To more than I'd like to admit, this is their Slavery/States Autonomy moment of the beginning of the Civil War. We already seen what some of his cultist do when things are relatively fine for him. They go out and shoot people, hold hate rallies, and the like. What happens if their literal demagogue is ousted? One Stephen Paddock showed that one man could create nearly one thousand causalities with one action. And the nearest motivation that that the best minds of the FBI can come up with is that he wanted to die in infamy [https://fortune.com/2019/01/29/fbi-report-vegas-shooter-motive/].

How many of these Heavily Armed and sadly 'trained' Right-Wing Militia have within them ten Stephen Paddocks each? Twenty? A number I don't even want to comprehend?

That isn't to say do not do the proceedings. Trump has to go. For what I believe to be the literal benefit of humankind. I just think we would have all won the lottery ten times over if we don't have any causalities over it.

Now, that's the absolute worst case scenario. And while it's one that I'm losing some water weight sweating over, it pales to comparison my major issue with this:

I simply no longer trust around 2/3rds of my current fellow citizens any more.

Because it's easy to talk about the boogeymen of the Cult. But in reality, we have to also see the common folk like the people I talked about in my OP. The regular people who are just farmers (who Trump is actively hurting [https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article234742677.html]), apparent seamstresses (Trump has been hurting the Textile Market [https://www.just-style.com/analysis/us-china-tariff-war-the-textile-and-apparel-hit-list-updated_id136519.aspx]), and Democratic chairs who actually finds their jobs harder because Independents can't bring themselves to look at the facts of the situation and realize that this is an actual problem.

Because they don't want to.

I get Republicans because of Tribalism. It's a Helluva drug. But these independents who are simply tired of hearing the bad things that Trump is doing that they are actively turning on Democrats. What?! That makes zero sense to me. It's like a mother punishing her son for telling on his sister because she stole money from their mom's wallet. Sure, he might be annoying in the way he tells on his sister, but his sister stole money from her. Her daughter committed a crime. Against her. That should be the major focus on her mind, as it should be the major focus of every citizen of the United States that we are getting more and more evidence that the Trump Administration took parts in Felonies.

Again, I get the Republicans. Tribalism. But for any amount of Independents [https://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/be-careful-what-you-wish-for] who are taking these proceedings as Democrats are sucking on some sour grapes and they are doing anything to get rid of Trump is too high of a number. They don't have the luxury of Tribal Blinders. They can't say it's not Dining Table Politics. Because a corrupt leader of the nation is the simple end-all of all Politics. There is no question of that.

Palindromemordnilap said:
On the assumption that the impeachment does rid you guys of Trump, who takes over? I'd guess it would jump tp Pence, he seems to have kept himself somewhat separated from all the other scandals, unlike a lot of people who've already taken a fall for Trump's crimes. But is that a better or worse option? I've no doubt he's a more savvy political player, but he seems to lack Trump's charisn'tma so might not pull in votes in the coming election
There is a possibility that Pence took part of these illegal actions [https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/463983-democrats-question-pence-perry-on-travel-to-ukraine].

The Democrat asked Pence why his trip was canceled and also questioned him on his travel to the country in September.

"You met with President Zelensky in Warsaw, Poland. When asked by a reporter on that trip whether you could 'assure Ukraine that the hold-up of that money has absolutely nothing to do with efforts, including by Rudy Giuliani, to try to dig up dirt on the Biden family,' you did not answer the question," he wrote to Pence.

?As the summary of the call with President Zelensky demonstrates, President Trump requested a foreign government help investigate his domestic political opponent. While I hope that he was alone in making such an inappropriate request, your statements regarding your discussions with Ukraine officials raise questions whether you may have helped carry that message," he added.
As a smarter man than Trump, Pence will not outright state that he took part of these obviously illegal proceedings. But that's ok, because Trump did it for him [https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-pence-ukraine-phone-calls-1512771].

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that reporters should ask Mike Pence to release details of his conversations with Ukraine, seemingly drawing his vice president into the scandal that has engulfed the administration.

"I think you should ask for Vice President Pence's conversation, because he had a couple of conversations also," Trump said at a news conference on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
For that, we still must go back to 52 U.S. Code 30121 [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121]

(a)Prohibition: It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b) "Foreign national" defined: As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,933
764
118
ObsidianJones said:
But this will lead to a fractured country. For who knows how long. To more than I'd like to admit, this is their Slavery/States Autonomy moment of the beginning of the Civil War. We already seen what some of his cultist do when things are relatively fine for him. They go out and shoot people, hold hate rallies, and the like. What happens if their literal demagogue is ousted? One Stephen Paddock showed that one man could create nearly one thousand causalities with one action. And the nearest motivation that that the best minds of the FBI can come up with is that he wanted to die in infamy [https://fortune.com/2019/01/29/fbi-report-vegas-shooter-motive/].

How many of these Heavily Armed and sadly 'trained' Right-Wing Militia have within them ten Stephen Paddocks each? Twenty? A number I don't even want to comprehend?

That isn't to say do not do the proceedings. Trump has to go. For what I believe to be the literal benefit of humankind. I just think we would have all won the lottery ten times over if we don't have any causalities over it.
Absolutely. Well, I'd argue that the US is already fractured, it's just polite not to mention it, but yeah, people will die. People will also die if Trump isn't challenged. Like you say, militias are waiting to kill people over something or other, it's going to happen. Maybe we'd see a bunch all of a sudden if Trump is impeached, isn't of the odd one every so often until something else big sets them off.

ObsidianJones said:
I simply no longer trust around 2/3rds of my current fellow citizens any more.

Because it's easy to talk about the boogeymen of the Cult. But in reality, we have to also see the common folk like the people I talked about in my OP. The regular people who are just farmers (who Trump is actively hurting [https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article234742677.html]), apparent seamstresses (Trump has been hurting the Textile Market [https://www.just-style.com/analysis/us-china-tariff-war-the-textile-and-apparel-hit-list-updated_id136519.aspx]), and Democratic chairs who actually finds their jobs harder because Independents can't bring themselves to look at the facts of the situation and realize that this is an actual problem.

Because they don't want to.

I get Republicans because of Tribalism. It's a Helluva drug. But these independents who are simply tired of hearing the bad things that Trump is doing that they are actively turning on Democrats. What?! That makes zero sense to me. It's like a mother punishing her son for telling on his sister because she stole money from their mom's wallet. Sure, he might be annoying in the way he tells on his sister, but his sister stole money from her. Her daughter committed a crime. Against her. That should be the major focus on her mind, as it should be the major focus of every citizen of the United States that we are getting more and more evidence that the Trump Administration took parts in Felonies.
Also very true. But, by comparison, say a nice respectable boy rapes a girl. She reports it. The community, on the whole, turns against one of them.

Admittedly, Trump is hurting the US as a whole, but I think it applies. Nobody wants to know there's something monstrously wrong going on they need to do something about.
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
By the way, I forgot to mention that what the Republicans did Storming the SCIF was highly against the rules [https://www.justsecurity.org/66699/gop-storming-of-secure-facility-for-impeachment-proceedings-an-explainer/]. Possibly Criminal.

As an initial matter, while there are criminal statutes that would otherwise come into play here, it is not useful to discuss them here because, under the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a member of Congress cannot be criminally prosecuted for an action he or she takes as part of the individual's legislative work.

However, a member of Congress can definitely be censured by the House for violating a House Rule. In this case, the Parliamentarian has already determined that this action was a violation of the rules governing depositions.

Additionally, while it is unclear whether the House Security Policy Manual, which governs how SCIFs are operated, or similar documents constitute "rules" for which a violation can be penalized, it is a close-enough question that the Office of Congressional Ethics should investigate the matter. That office should pay close attention to claims like those made by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy that these members did not know any better, particularly in the case of lawmakers with an intelligence or military background or those who otherwise should be aware of security protocols because those standards would have been imparted to them by the security officer at the front desk before they entered the SCIF. At the very least, pleading ignorance rings hollow for any members who, after being told by the security officer and the Sergeant at Arms that they must surrender all electronic devices, still refused to do so. [https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1187071454199894016?s=20]
It's clear that they had other work today, and that they weren't invited. So to me, the storming wasn't an action that he or she takes as part of the individual's legislative work. It wasn't on their docket to attend. In fact, the opposite was the case. They weren't being paid to do said action, so that doesn't seem like anything that was dutifully apart of their "individual's legislative work".

But hey, I'm just a guy on the internet. I'm not really someone who can weigh in on these things... But these following people are [https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-was-reportedly-aware-house-gop-intended-to-disregard-security-measures-storm-deposition/].

Mieke Eoyang, the Vice President of the National Security Program for Washington think tank Third Way, further explained why Wednesday's ploy potentially endangered U.S. interests.

"Foreign adversaries are constantly trying to figure out what goes on inside those rooms to figure out what the U.S. knows about them, to out U.S. high-level sources in their governments, to know what the US government knows and use it against us," Eoyang remarked [https://twitter.com/MiekeEoyang/status/1187032803977973760].

She explained that members of Congress, many of whom do not generally utilize sophisticated security measures, are extremely high-value targets for foreign intel services. "This means they may not know they have been compromised. For example, their phones can be turned into listening devices without their knowledge," she wrote. "But in 'storming the SCIF' without observing the security protocols, Rep. Gaetz et al., endangered our national security [and] demonstrated they care more about a political stunt than protecting intelligence information. I cannot emphasize enough how serious this is."

Attorney Bradley P. Moss, who specializes in national security, federal employment and security clearance law, was appalled that lawmakers would disregard essential safeguards for nothing more than political theater.

?I am without words to respond to such a patently political breach of security protocols just to score a cable hit tonight on Hannity," Moss told Law&Crime. "Rules matter and these lawmakers just showed how little they actually care about them."

According to former Acting U.S. Solicitor General and Supreme Court lawyer Neal Katyal, the GOP's escapade could - or at least should - result in a criminal investigation.

"I've been in SCIFs a lot. The stupidest thing someone can do is bring an electronic device. You would lose your security clearance [and] may even face criminal prosecution. If these reports are accurate, those remedies should be looked at," Katyal commented. [https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1187050940022444033?s=20]
Remember kids, The Always Tough-On-Crime Republicans are Party of Law And Order ... Until they get mad. Then they can do whatever they want and no one ever thinks about holding them accountable.

Oh, and yes. Reportedly... Trump also knew about this and did nothing to stop his cronies from potentially committing another crime.

Thaluikhain said:
Absolutely. Well, I'd argue that the US is already fractured, it's just polite not to mention it, but yeah, people will die. People will also die if Trump isn't challenged. Like you say, militias are waiting to kill people over something or other, it's going to happen. Maybe we'd see a bunch all of a sudden if Trump is impeached, isn't of the odd one every so often until something else big sets them off.
Hell, 15,000 people have already died [https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28472403/15000-americans-died-medicaid-expansion-obamacare/] because of Republicans' position on Medicaid (more over, the implications of Obamacare... you know, actually working).

But here's the thing. This is why I talk about the fallout of this Impeachment. A segment that felt like they were dying out was re-vitalized almost back to whole. We now see a good amount of people in this country are willing to burn this country to the ground while gleefully holding the match as long as they can say they rule over the embers. And another equally large segment is ok with it as long as they can find some amount of cover in the ashes.

We can't take away these people's ability to vote. We can't force them to think about the country instead of their inane biases and desires. Even when Donald Trump falls to natural term limits or Impeachment, no matter what, he will forever be a signal that we will never get over the desire to ruin this country to rule it.

If natural term limits expires, great for these people. It will be a symbol that nothing, not even crimes and flagrant dismissal of the Laws that are supposed to govern this nation, can stop their movement if they get it started. And worse yet, Impeachment. The very thing I wish for.

Donald Trump will become a Martyr. We know the damage they can bring. Just look at Incels and Elliot Rodger [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43892189].

ObsidianJones said:
Also very true. But, by comparison, say a nice respectable boy rapes a girl. She reports it. The community, on the whole, turns against one of them.

Admittedly, Trump is hurting the US as a whole, but I think it applies. Nobody wants to know there's something monstrously wrong going on they need to do something about.
Actually, what normally happens is the Community as a whole pick sides. The morally questionable might cite "Boys will be boys" or "She wanted to have the sex, but now that everyone knows it she needs to protect her honor". The other side might use her as a stepping platform to promote their way of thinking, demonization of Patriarchy (not wholly a bad thing), and other goals.

But at the end of it, there are just a few people who see the situation for what it is, sans politics: a girl had her safety taken away from her, as well as has been violated. That boy must stand for that crime.

I hate Trump. I make no bones about it. It's not my identity. It's not my every waking moment. I have far greater things that weighs on my shoulders. But I was content to let him serve out his term as long as he wasn't corrupt.

But he is showing a lot of signs of corruption. Mainly by stating it out right. It's not so much that nobody wants to know there's something monstrously wrong. It's that no one thinks anything is wrong when they are winning. And sadly, here's where politics comes back into it.

Because as long as there's a Republican in the White House, a Good deal of that population think they are winning.
 

Tireseas_v1legacy

Plop plop plop
Sep 28, 2009
2,419
0
0
Saelune said:
Palindromemordnilap said:
On the assumption that the impeachment does rid you guys of Trump, who takes over? I'd guess it would jump tp Pence, he seems to have kept himself somewhat separated from all the other scandals, unlike a lot of people who've already taken a fall for Trump's crimes. But is that a better or worse option? I've no doubt he's a more savvy political player, but he seems to lack Trump's charisn'tma so might not pull in votes in the coming election
Wouldn't Pence ALSO go out with Impeachment? He should be in jail next to Trump. He is 100% guilty of Trump's crimes too, HE IS THE SECOND IN COMMAND! I know we joke that the VP is pointless, but he is supposed to be Trump's right-hand.
Because it's either going to be Pence or Trump. The only way impeachment results in removal is that Republican Senators are able to minimize their policy losses in the form of who sits in the seat. Unless Pelosi can somehow make a full and enforceable assurance that she won't fulfill her duties as third in line to the Presidency (one that even the most trusting people in her are likely to be skeptical of), the Senate GOP has a very very very powerful reason to not vote for removal. The threshold to hit is 67, which even with Trump is going to be hard to hit. Pence is very unlikely to meet the threshold for removal.

Make no mistake, Pence may not have been at the center of the Ukraine Quid Pro Quo, but it's rather incredulous that he was unaware of it, even if he was far enough away to have some plausible deniability. But President Pence may be the price we need to pay to remove Trump, and if the last month is any indication, normal Republican rule, as absolutely shitty it would be, is substantially preferable to what we have now.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,725
615
118
Country
USA
Nancy Pelosi is not trying to cool everyone down, afraid of Trump's ravenous cultists. She's just playing politics. She's never been against impeachment, she's just been stalling impeachment, for years at this point, so that impeachment proceedings will have maximum negative impact on the 2020 election. Ask yourself why, when they apparently have these smoking guns from Mulvaney and Taylor, they're slowing down their impeachment timeline [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/us/trump-impeachment-democrats.html] rather than voting on it now? The impeachment investigation is a campaign tactic, nothing more.

Republicans crashing the closed door meeting is not the degradation of constitutional order, it's playing politics. They don't care to be in there, they'll all find out what was said soon enough anyway, it just a political stunt. It's protest politics: they're doing some non-violent rule breaking to draw people's attention, because they believe a headline saying "Republicans storm hearing in protest of closed-door impeachment investigation" draws more attention to the closed door hearings than their storming the same way blocking a road in protest of a police killing draws more attention to the police killing than the people in the blockade. Is it good? No. But it's a shameless political stunt, not ravenous dogs out for blood.

You've got to look at these things and see the politics. It's just all politics. There is no violent fallout from the impeachment process.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 27, 2020
604
125
48
Country
Sverige
Palindromemordnilap said:
On the assumption that the impeachment does rid you guys of Trump, who takes over? I'd guess it would jump tp Pence, he seems to have kept himself somewhat separated from all the other scandals, unlike a lot of people who've already taken a fall for Trump's crimes. But is that a better or worse option? I've no doubt he's a more savvy political player, but he seems to lack Trump's charisn'tma so might not pull in votes in the coming election
I am of the opinion that if the sitting president has committed an impeachable offence the senate has a moral duty to remove them from office, no matter the consequences.

Even so, I'd prefer Pence as president over Trump. Pence has, as a former governor, experience in the business of governing, and he actually knows how to conduct himself. If he holds positions I disagree with(not that my opinion matters, that's for the American people to judge who they think is the best to govern) I don't see how that is much different from Trump's policies.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,307
1,514
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
tstorm823 said:
Nancy Pelosi is not trying to cool everyone down, afraid of Trump's ravenous cultists. She's just playing politics. She's never been against impeachment, she's just been stalling impeachment, for years at this point, so that impeachment proceedings will have maximum negative impact on the 2020 election. Ask yourself why, when they apparently have these smoking guns from Mulvaney and Taylor, they're slowing down their impeachment timeline [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/us/trump-impeachment-democrats.html] rather than voting on it now? The impeachment investigation is a campaign tactic, nothing more.

Republicans crashing the closed door meeting is not the degradation of constitutional order, it's playing politics. They don't care to be in there, they'll all find out what was said soon enough anyway, it just a political stunt. It's protest politics: they're doing some non-violent rule breaking to draw people's attention, because they believe a headline saying "Republicans storm hearing in protest of closed-door impeachment investigation" draws more attention to the closed door hearings than their storming the same way blocking a road in protest of a police killing draws more attention to the police killing than the people in the blockade. Is it good? No. But it's a shameless political stunt, not ravenous dogs out for blood.

You've got to look at these things and see the politics. It's just all politics. There is no violent fallout from the impeachment process.
I agree with all the political stunt stuff. Not so sure about the violent fallout. There have been riots over fuel, extrication and metro tickets this year, so they have rioted for less
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,307
1,514
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Bedinsis said:
Palindromemordnilap said:
On the assumption that the impeachment does rid you guys of Trump, who takes over? I'd guess it would jump tp Pence, he seems to have kept himself somewhat separated from all the other scandals, unlike a lot of people who've already taken a fall for Trump's crimes. But is that a better or worse option? I've no doubt he's a more savvy political player, but he seems to lack Trump's charisn'tma so might not pull in votes in the coming election
I am of the opinion that if the sitting president has committed an impeachable offence the senate has a moral duty to remove them from office, no matter the consequences.

Even so, I'd prefer Pence as president over Trump. Pence has, as a former governor, experience in the business of governing, and he actually knows how to conduct himself. If he holds positions I disagree with(not that my opinion matters, that's for the American people to judge who they think is the best to govern) I don't see how that is much different from Trump's policies.
The Dems should have impeached Clinton. He abused his office and paid no consequences.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
12,294
1,486
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
trunkage said:
Bedinsis said:
Palindromemordnilap said:
On the assumption that the impeachment does rid you guys of Trump, who takes over? I'd guess it would jump tp Pence, he seems to have kept himself somewhat separated from all the other scandals, unlike a lot of people who've already taken a fall for Trump's crimes. But is that a better or worse option? I've no doubt he's a more savvy political player, but he seems to lack Trump's charisn'tma so might not pull in votes in the coming election
I am of the opinion that if the sitting president has committed an impeachable offence the senate has a moral duty to remove them from office, no matter the consequences.

Even so, I'd prefer Pence as president over Trump. Pence has, as a former governor, experience in the business of governing, and he actually knows how to conduct himself. If he holds positions I disagree with(not that my opinion matters, that's for the American people to judge who they think is the best to govern) I don't see how that is much different from Trump's policies.
The Dems should have impeached Clinton. He abused his office and paid no consequences.
Clinton was impeached.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,307
1,514
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Worgen said:
trunkage said:
Bedinsis said:
Palindromemordnilap said:
On the assumption that the impeachment does rid you guys of Trump, who takes over? I'd guess it would jump tp Pence, he seems to have kept himself somewhat separated from all the other scandals, unlike a lot of people who've already taken a fall for Trump's crimes. But is that a better or worse option? I've no doubt he's a more savvy political player, but he seems to lack Trump's charisn'tma so might not pull in votes in the coming election
I am of the opinion that if the sitting president has committed an impeachable offence the senate has a moral duty to remove them from office, no matter the consequences.

Even so, I'd prefer Pence as president over Trump. Pence has, as a former governor, experience in the business of governing, and he actually knows how to conduct himself. If he holds positions I disagree with(not that my opinion matters, that's for the American people to judge who they think is the best to govern) I don't see how that is much different from Trump's policies.
The Dems should have impeached Clinton. He abused his office and paid no consequences.
Clinton was impeached.
Sorry. I misspoke. I wished impeachment actually meant something. Like consequences for doing bad stuff. Because it certainly doesn't do that.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
12,294
1,486
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
trunkage said:
Worgen said:
trunkage said:
Bedinsis said:
Palindromemordnilap said:
On the assumption that the impeachment does rid you guys of Trump, who takes over? I'd guess it would jump tp Pence, he seems to have kept himself somewhat separated from all the other scandals, unlike a lot of people who've already taken a fall for Trump's crimes. But is that a better or worse option? I've no doubt he's a more savvy political player, but he seems to lack Trump's charisn'tma so might not pull in votes in the coming election
I am of the opinion that if the sitting president has committed an impeachable offence the senate has a moral duty to remove them from office, no matter the consequences.

Even so, I'd prefer Pence as president over Trump. Pence has, as a former governor, experience in the business of governing, and he actually knows how to conduct himself. If he holds positions I disagree with(not that my opinion matters, that's for the American people to judge who they think is the best to govern) I don't see how that is much different from Trump's policies.
The Dems should have impeached Clinton. He abused his office and paid no consequences.
Clinton was impeached.
Sorry. I misspoke. I wished impeachment actually meant something. Like consequences for doing bad stuff. Because it certainly doesn't do that.
All that can come from impeachment is to remove someone from office and I think prevent them from working for the government again. Nothing else, further criminal cases would have to come after that.
 
Apr 17, 2009
1,751
0
0
ObsidianJones said:
There is a possibility that Pence took part of these illegal actions
Oh I have no doubt there?s some thoroughly shady shit Pence has been up to, I?m just interested to see if an impeachment committee can actually prove it. Or has he managed to keep enough distance even if Trump is trying to drag him closer? Being sure Pence is corrupt in your head is very different to providing the paper trail in court