LouC
October 23, 2019, 1:38am
45
H_Arendt:
That raises an interesting question. Is the most effective impeachment one that focuses on a few clearly understood things or one that bogs down in a longer litany of charges.
Right now there’s a fairly simple story. A major Russian oligarch – Fiskov – who is fighting extradition to the US – hired two minor Russian hoods – Parnas and Fruman. They hired Rudy Giuliani and gave Pete Sessions and a few other Congressman money to support their efforts to take over a Ukrainian energy company, presumably for Fiskov.
Fiskov, presumably acting with Putin’s okay, bought US foreign policy for $650K… $500K to Giuliani and $150K to Sessions
We have had two successful Impeachments of our Presidents. There have not been any convictions on the Articles of Impeachment for either President at trial in the Senate. Both Presidents were acquitted.
No previous event comes as close to being open and shut as this current event regarding Trump’s actions. In my opinion!
What would be considered the “most effective” Articles of Impeachment?
How would one define “most effective”?
Is Impeachment only effective when a person is convicted and removed from office?
Or is most effective defined as Articles that are least ambiguous and supported by the best evidence of the most scrupulous degree.
Is most effective measured by certainty of conviction or certainty of acquittal?
Difficult questions made more so because of the political nature of all of this.
What I will judge most effective will be if I can feel that at trial Senators set aside their obeisance to Party and fully adhered to their best unbiased scrutiny of the evidence and best judgement of guilt or not guilty in numbers great enough to not leave any doubt.
That dipstick Kellyanne is on the short list to replace that chucklehead Mulvaney, from what I hear. So is that nudnik Mnuchin.
LouC:
H_Arendt:
That raises an interesting question. Is the most effective impeachment one that focuses on a few clearly understood things or one that bogs down in a longer litany of charges.
Right now there’s a fairly simple story. A major Russian oligarch – Fiskov – who is fighting extradition to the US – hired two minor Russian hoods – Parnas and Fruman. They hired Rudy Giuliani and gave Pete Sessions and a few other Congressman money to support their efforts to take over a Ukrainian energy company, presumably for Fiskov.
Fiskov, presumably acting with Putin’s okay, bought US foreign policy for $650K… $500K to Giuliani and $150K to Sessions
We have had two successful Impeachments of our Presidents. There have not been any convictions on the Articles of Impeachment for either President at trial in the Senate. Both Presidents were acquitted.
No previous event comes as close to being open and shut as this current event regarding Trump’s actions. In my opinion!
What would be considered the “most effective” Articles of Impeachment?
How would one define “most effective”?
Is Impeachment only effective when a person is convicted and removed from office?
Or is most effective defined as Articles that are least ambiguous and supported by the best evidence of the most scrupulous degree.
Is most effective measured by certainty of conviction or certainty of acquittal?
Difficult questions made more so because of the political nature of all of this.
What I will judge most effective will be if I can feel that at trial Senators set aside their obeisance to Party and fully adhered to their best unbiased scrutiny of the evidence and best judgement of guilt or not guilty in numbers great enough to not leave any doubt.
I agree with your definition and I hope your prediction for the Senate trial is correct. But I have my doubts about the willingness of the Republicans to put principle ahead of party.
So I am also thinking of Impeachment as a communication to the voters, and as such I think it wiser to chose a straightforward narrative rather than a long menu of charges, despite the appeal of many of those charges.
I am assuming now that barring a resignation, Trump will be impeached and it will come down to how the Senate votes. And if may then come down to how voters think about the choices made by the Senate.
The Clinton Impeachment did not reach a conviction, although Clinton clearly was guilty as charged, because the Republicans failed to convince the public that what he had done was grounds to reverse the 1996 election. Clinton’s act – lying to hide infidelity – seemed more appropriate to have ended up as a divorce matter than as a Constitutional High Crime.
What we are seeing is that Trump aligned America’s policy toward Ukraine with Russian interests and then used that to demand political favors. The task of his accusers in the House and Senate will be to provide that narrative to the public – and it is a narrative of much greater impact on the nation’s well being than one of.a man lying to keep a secret from his wife.
3 Likes
Albeit not the same genre there are many examples of authors using a nom de plume. The Bronte sisters, Agatha Christie, Mark Twain to name just a few.
For irony, maybe a Donald Trump mask?
1 Like
LouC
October 23, 2019, 10:34am
51
H_Arendt:
LouC:
H_Arendt:
That raises an interesting question. Is the most effective impeachment one that focuses on a few clearly understood things or one that bogs down in a longer litany of charges.
Right now there’s a fairly simple story. A major Russian oligarch – Fiskov – who is fighting extradition to the US – hired two minor Russian hoods – Parnas and Fruman. They hired Rudy Giuliani and gave Pete Sessions and a few other Congressman money to support their efforts to take over a Ukrainian energy company, presumably for Fiskov.
Fiskov, presumably acting with Putin’s okay, bought US foreign policy for $650K… $500K to Giuliani and $150K to Sessions
We have had two successful Impeachments of our Presidents. There have not been any convictions on the Articles of Impeachment for either President at trial in the Senate. Both Presidents were acquitted.
No previous event comes as close to being open and shut as this current event regarding Trump’s actions. In my opinion!
What would be considered the “most effective” Articles of Impeachment?
How would one define “most effective”?
Is Impeachment only effective when a person is convicted and removed from office?
Or is most effective defined as Articles that are least ambiguous and supported by the best evidence of the most scrupulous degree.
Is most effective measured by certainty of conviction or certainty of acquittal?
Difficult questions made more so because of the political nature of all of this.
What I will judge most effective will be if I can feel that at trial Senators set aside their obeisance to Party and fully adhered to their best unbiased scrutiny of the evidence and best judgement of guilt or not guilty in numbers great enough to not leave any doubt.
I agree with your definition and I hope your prediction for the Senate trial is correct. But I have my doubts about the willingness of the Republicans to put principle ahead of party.
So I am also thinking of Impeachment as a communication to the voters, and as such I think it wiser to chose a straightforward narrative rather than a long menu of charges, despite the appeal of many of those charges.
I am assuming now that barring a resignation, Trump will be impeached and it will come down to how the Senate votes. And if may then come down to how voters think about the choices made by the Senate.
The Clinton Impeachment did not reach a conviction, although Clinton clearly was guilty as charged, because the Republicans failed to convince the public that what he had done was grounds to reverse the 1996 election. Clinton’s act – lying to hide infidelity – seemed more appropriate to have ended up as a divorce matter than as a Constitutional High Crime.
What we are seeing is that Trump aligned America’s policy toward Ukraine with Russian interests and then used that to demand political favors. The task of his accusers in the House and Senate will be to provide that narrative to the public – and it is a narrative of much greater impact on the nation’s well being than one of.a man lying to keep a secret from his wife.
Good post!
You raise a very good point about “impeachment as a communication to the voters”. That is not something that our Founders probably took into account when they were writing the Constitution. A President, back then, could have been impeached and removed from office long before all of the country would have even known such actions were even being considered.
That is not possible in this day and age with instant communication.
To what I put in bold in your post I agree, but I equally have my doubts about the willingness of the Democrats to put principle ahead of party.
I pray both sides of the aisle make us all proud on principle if not delighted on outcome.
LouC
October 23, 2019, 10:37am
53
Or they could draw on the bag the back end of a dog about to take a dump and no one would know the difference.
LouC:
H_Arendt:
LouC:
H_Arendt:
That raises an interesting question. Is the most effective impeachment one that focuses on a few clearly understood things or one that bogs down in a longer litany of charges.
Right now there’s a fairly simple story. A major Russian oligarch – Fiskov – who is fighting extradition to the US – hired two minor Russian hoods – Parnas and Fruman. They hired Rudy Giuliani and gave Pete Sessions and a few other Congressman money to support their efforts to take over a Ukrainian energy company, presumably for Fiskov.
Fiskov, presumably acting with Putin’s okay, bought US foreign policy for $650K… $500K to Giuliani and $150K to Sessions
We have had two successful Impeachments of our Presidents. There have not been any convictions on the Articles of Impeachment for either President at trial in the Senate. Both Presidents were acquitted.
No previous event comes as close to being open and shut as this current event regarding Trump’s actions. In my opinion!
What would be considered the “most effective” Articles of Impeachment?
How would one define “most effective”?
Is Impeachment only effective when a person is convicted and removed from office?
Or is most effective defined as Articles that are least ambiguous and supported by the best evidence of the most scrupulous degree.
Is most effective measured by certainty of conviction or certainty of acquittal?
Difficult questions made more so because of the political nature of all of this.
What I will judge most effective will be if I can feel that at trial Senators set aside their obeisance to Party and fully adhered to their best unbiased scrutiny of the evidence and best judgement of guilt or not guilty in numbers great enough to not leave any doubt.
I agree with your definition and I hope your prediction for the Senate trial is correct. But I have my doubts about the willingness of the Republicans to put principle ahead of party.
So I am also thinking of Impeachment as a communication to the voters, and as such I think it wiser to chose a straightforward narrative rather than a long menu of charges, despite the appeal of many of those charges.
I am assuming now that barring a resignation, Trump will be impeached and it will come down to how the Senate votes. And if may then come down to how voters think about the choices made by the Senate.
The Clinton Impeachment did not reach a conviction, although Clinton clearly was guilty as charged, because the Republicans failed to convince the public that what he had done was grounds to reverse the 1996 election. Clinton’s act – lying to hide infidelity – seemed more appropriate to have ended up as a divorce matter than as a Constitutional High Crime.
What we are seeing is that Trump aligned America’s policy toward Ukraine with Russian interests and then used that to demand political favors. The task of his accusers in the House and Senate will be to provide that narrative to the public – and it is a narrative of much greater impact on the nation’s well being than one of.a man lying to keep a secret from his wife.
Good post!
You raise a very good point about “impeachment as a communication to the voters”. That is not something that our Founders probably took into account when they were writing the Constitution. A President, back then, could have been impeached and removed from office long before all of the country would have even known such actions were even being considered.
That is not possible in this day and age with instant communication.
To what I put in bold in your post I agree, but I equally have my doubts about the willingness of the Democrats to put principle ahead of party.
I pray both sides of the aisle make us all proud on principle if not delighted on outcome.
I agree with your point about Democrats not putting principle ahead of party. I would never argue that the Democrats are angels. But in this instance, the Republicans have to grapple with their Faustian bargain – supporting a corrupt and incompetent man for the Presidency because he could deliver his base of voters – and.having made that deal how far are they willing to let the corruption and incompetence go. To date, there has no line the Republicans have been unwilling to let Trump cross.
5 Likes
LouC
October 23, 2019, 10:48am
55
I agree!
It is somehow mind blowing for me that the one possible line crossed, for some Republicans, was that line crossed in Syria???
Camp
October 23, 2019, 10:54am
56
Fiction sells well…Why not go after the Trumpophobes and fleece them for some dinero?
The irony is not lost on me.
These investigations into Obama’s Deepstate aren’t anything like the Mueller hoax, probably because they’re not relying on second hand information Crowdstrike or the Steele dossier.
sikofit
October 23, 2019, 4:03pm
60
Are they not reporting the new revelations in your part of the world? Mueller is old news
I don’t expect the fake news to report it why would you?
The Mueller hoax will bit those sick Democrats in the butt, attempted coups have consequences!
freaking hilarious