34 people indicted along the way were not given lollipops …
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.
Your prediction about Republicans not putting principle before party apparently became true today with the Gaetz sideshow. It won’t be the last time.
1 Like
Gaetz, whom Bloomberg is reporting acted with Trump’s prior knowledge and approval is highlighting a fundamental problem: a large portion of the Republican Party has abandoned any pretense of concern about the rule of law. I asked the question in another thread of what Trump’s next line of defense would be. One answer: physical confrontation preventing the process of from moving forward.
The question this raises is whether there is a faction within the Republican Party that will stand for the rule of law or has Trump completely corrupted the institution. If the latter is the case we are truly in unchartered waters.
H_Arendt:
Gaetz, whom Bloomberg is reporting acted with Trump’s prior knowledge and approval is highlighting a fundamental problem: a large portion of the Republican Party has abandoned any pretense of concern about the rule of law. I asked the question in another thread of what Trump’s next line of defense would be. One answer: physical confrontation preventing the process of from moving forward.
The question this raises is whether there is a faction within the Republican Party that will stand for the rule of law or has Trump completely corrupted the institution. If the latter is the case we are truly in unchartered waters.
He clearly has those in Congress who will defend him no matter what is revealed. We can see it examples of it here where his supporters are in walled denial. The truth and reality is being ignored.
3 Likes
The truth yes, but not reality. Trump is in serious trouble and actions such as Gaetz and Friends disruption are signs of recognizing that the options to defend Trump are limited.
LouC
October 23, 2019, 8:24pm
73
What an incredibly infantile nasty partisan display!
Obese Donald has trained his nasty minions well!
That was far worse than any Sarah Sanders being asked to leave a restaurant, or a Maxine Waters cajoling constituents to confront their Representatives.
We already knew Hellter Stelter was writing a book. It will be a collaboration between all CNN’s “reliable sources”, who also brought us the Hillary-Steele dossier.
The guys who went all in on Trump are fighting for their political lives too.
LucyLou
October 24, 2019, 2:18am
76
It’s like they’re all interchangeable. No special qualifications needed. One could say like human scum.
1 Like
Faustian bargains are usually bad deals.
