Because I don’t agree with you but I also don’t feel like a multi post back and forth that won’t change anyone else’s mind. On top of that I’m a little sick, I’m on a tight deadline for work, and kind of irrationally panicked over a covid-19 case an hour north of me within unknown origin. I probably should close this browser tab until another day. Sorry.
Feel better. Would like to continue at a later date. It is okay to agree to disagree with due respect. Just like to hear a little more at some point.
1 Like
@NickN time zones between the USA and Australia precluded me from responding sooner. Fundamentally I think the Republicans made a strategic error by not allowing witnesses in the Senate trial to refute the evidence presented at the House of Reps inquiry/hearing. From the evidence presented at the inquiry/hearing I believe it was a reasonable and justified action by the House of Reps to impeach D Trump. If the witnesses had provided evidence which would have exonerated D Trump, then it could have been used to sway Independents that it was only a witch hunt. The corollary is with no witnesses called the implication, for Independents, is that witnesses would not have exonerated D Trump.
As I said and illustrated it is a nonsense to go on the expunge and expunge the expunge circus. From an historical perspective there will be a much fuller picture than was available contemporaneous with the Senate trial. In my opinion that evidence will indicate that a finding of guilty should have been the appropriate verdict. That will also reflect badly on the Republican Senators who voted for no witnesses and a not guilty verdict.
Westaussie thanks for your well thought out response. Kind of fun to hear takes from those not Yankees.
I will like your feedback from my counterpoint as follows:
-
Republican Senate from even the time after they signed in December were being held for a month in the House making it abundantly clear they would very likely not allow new witnesses.
-
The delay itself was an earnest attempt by Democrats to gain leverage hoping outrage of at least 4 Republican Senators to flip where their witness votes would extend trial for weeks/months.
-
A desired result of extending the trail was to keep negative news feeds on TV each night about the trial while the Democrats picking their Presidential candidate for primary season was starting to heat up.
-
Bernie Sanders, not a democrat but independent caucusing with the party, would be stuck in DC as a jurist being denied precious time to campaign.
-
Not many people are aware that Bolton, the pawn used here as the Witness, likely received upwards of a $2 million advance for the book he was writing. Also there are reports of an employment contract said existing. In it, apparently was if he was to write any book about his time in the White House and National Security office the Government only had 30 days to respond to censorship of book draft requests specifically regarding classified information. That letter was supposedly sent in late December and denied out in its entirety prior to the 1st leak that content in the book was explosive came out during the trial. The impeachment managers and President’s defense team in the trial were well aware of all of this, where as the majority of the press mostly heard reports of only one side of the story.
Question #1 for you: Is something along the lines of a hefty seven-digit book advance for Bolton something you believe is factual?
And regardless if you were even aware of it before now, McDonnell got this out to all his Rep’s Senator’s.
Question #2 for you: Even if you don’t believe Bolton got paid off Bolton is it nonsense to believe the Senators who were undecided on witness vote thought the Dem’s side baked it up nonetheless?
Only 2 of the majority ultimately stayed the course in voting for witnesses, including Mitt Romney.
- Romney might of been a mole for Dems (all along during trial) gathering up some insider intel to say the least. Might be something in it for Romney down the road should he switch parties…
My conclusion:
NEITHER side of the isle made a strategic mistake.
To the contrary in fact as both sides merely played the cards they were dealt…
Question #3 for you: Does any of what I put forward above seem nonsensical? If so, please be specific in explaining your rationale.
@NickN it is good to have a discussion where the merits of the arguments are discussed rather than resorting to a more personal tack. Please see below my response:
-
Whilst I expect that a significant number of people may not have an intimate knowledge of the intricate details of the Senate trail, very few would have no idea about what happens in a trial. Almost everyone would expect a trial to have witnesses.
-
No question that the Democrats hoped to provide some pressure on some R Senators to vote in favour of witnesses.
-
I think that the lack of witnesses works against the Republicans because as I have said previously it is reasonable to assume that if the witnesses gave evidence to exonerate Trump it would have provided a great deal of ammunition to Trump that it was indeed a witch hunt. I expect that part of the advertising leading up to the Presidential election will highlight that it was Trump that did not want witnesses. Of course, the pro-Trump supporters won’t care. However, Independents are likely to find it a compelling argument and will wonder why Trump didn’t want witnesses.
-
I presume the point you are trying to make is that the Democrats were trying to muzzle Sanders for that period. He was not the only D Senator who was in the field, so I would question the legitimacy of that point.
-
I am not sure who you are accusing of using Bolton. Without knowing it as a fact I would have thought that that any employment agreement would be trumped (no pun intended) by the ability of the President of the USA to classify any content in his book. Personally, I don’t think that Bolton’s behaviour in this has brought him any credit whatsoever.
Q1. A book is not the same as a statutory declaration where there are penalties for not telling the truth. Evidence given under oath should carry more weight under those circumstances. In my opinion McConnell’s performance with respect to the trial will not be looked on favourably.
Q2. Out of all the R Senators I think M Romney’s reputation will stand up in an historical perspective for his decisions he made during the trial.
Q3. I think we have differing views. To use a trite saying: it is what it is. By that I mean that I am not sure we can determine who is more accurate in the short term. Longer term it may be easier.
Conclusion. I heard most of the House of Reps inquiry/hearing live on CNN and Fox News. In my opinion the House of Reps decision to impeach D Trump was justified. The decision to not have witnesses in the Senate trial was a mistake by the Republicans in my opinion.
PS. I do think that some of the actions by D Trump that have been implicitly or explicitly supported by Republicans will cause angst for Republicans when the boot is on the other foot.
Westaussie: This is good let me add some more flavor and see what you come back with next.
-
Comparison of a “political” trial are not identical to a typical criminal one. In the later, there are dispositions taken beforehand and a witness list of each side are vetted prior to commencement.
Two things for you to comment on:
a) I think the Senate trial saw testimonies of 12 or 13 different witnesses from the House trial; and
b) The House did not allow certain witnesses requested by the minority house (2 that aligned were included) -
Some DEM pressure puts it mild. They apparently singled out Senators who have iffy paths to re-election too.
-
The Dems did not subpoena certain witnesses the 1st go around was calculated. They know courts would probably decide in favor or preventing at least some violating Executive privilege, a clear Constitutional right of every President. This exercise was a test to undermine Executive power and give more to Congress than anything else.
-
Keep up, there is likely going to be a brokered convention. Sanders is better than Trump, but not the preferred choice of the people in power of the Party. Delays even hurt him out of the box in not winning more delegates in Iowa, that’s a fact.
- I am not excusing Bolton or Dems of anything other than well playing a political positioning. His testimony was a court matter as far as the Rep’s were concerned and was never going to see testimony until at least the courts ruled, see #3 above.
Q1 Book is fine. National Security officers know full well its against the law to discuss both classified and privileged discussions not made unclassified or granted by a court order.
Q2. Romney is a hypocrite as defined in Webster dictionary. Look it up. History will record that too.
Q3. Our views are not that different. You bring up a lot of excellent points.
Conclusion: I agree the impeachment was justified. Far from a perfect call. Biden did open the door to say the least. That all being said, still don’t think it rose to the level to remove a sitting president from office.
P.S. Goes without saying, neither side will ever admit successes of the opposing party. That has been going on long before Trump took office.
Uh Oh…My Corona.
I sleep just fine regardless. Thanks for your “concern” however.
Let me preface that politically I support the Australian Labor Party (ALP). The ALP is a centre-left party, I am in the left part of that as a supporter.
1a. I understand that the Senate impeachment trial is not a criminal trial. However, I think it is not relevant because where a person has not pleaded guilty (and I trust you won’t split hairs about whether Trump pleaded guilty or not guilty) there is a reasonable expectation that witnesses appear as part of the determination of the person’s guilt or otherwise. There was a lot of commentary about the fact that witnesses in the Reps’ inquiry/hearing were not first hand witnesses.
1b. Apart from the whistleblower the Republicans could have called first hand witnesses in the Senate trial. I am sure I don’t need to repeat what I have said about that previously.
-
I presume you are not implying that there was any illegality on the pressure placed on the R Senators.
-
The Democrats made a choice. Going to court would have ensured that there would not have been a resolution prior to the 2020 election.
-
Isn’t it a bit early to determine what is likely to happen. Maybe in a week’s time it will be a lot clearer.
-
I don’t have anything more to add.
Q2. My preferred reference is the Oxford Dictionary or if I want an Aussie perspective I would use a Macquarie dictionary. I was speaking specifically about Romney’s actions at the Senate trial.
Q3. Thanks.
Conclusion. It would appear that Nixon would have been found guilty; hence, his decision to resign. I don’t think that the overriding consideration for the House of Reps should be whether 67 senators will vote guilty in an impeachment trial in determining whether an impeachment inquiry/hearing should be held .
PS I am more used to an adversarial type of government which is what we have in Australia. I am under the impression that there used to be more bi-partisanship in USA politics historically. It would appear that changed prior to Trump’s presidency. However, today there appears to be an absolute unwillingness for either side to work with the other side.
The impeachment was absolutely political. Remember that top Democrats were saying that what Trump did was a matter of national security. It put the US in danger, it wasn’t political at all. When making such claims, you better have all the ducks lined up. It is irrelevant whether the Democrats believed that getting their called witnesses to appear was going to require going to court. If their concern was truly getting a criminal out of office due to crimes he committed, then it shouldn’t matter. If Trump was guilty, he could still be convicted and removed AFTER his re-election. The reason they DIDN’T do that was because they knew that Pence would replace him, which still left a Republican in the White House. If it was about justice, that shouldn’t matter.
The Dems claims were ■■■■■■■■ from the beginning. If your belief is that John Bolton’s testimony in the Senate trial may have persuaded some Republicans to vote to convict Trump, they I would claim it’s just as likely that allowing the whistleblowers testimony in the house impeachment inquiry would have persuaded enough Democrats not to even proceed with their charges. See how that works?? Trump hater Adam Schiff should have recused himself and allowed a neutral person to preside, as should have Nadler. Schiff refused to allow Trump’s team to call witnesses. The DEMOCRATS set the standard of fairness that was to be observed during the process and they’re still pissed at, and not used to Republicans, being united and using their own slimy tactics against them.
If the Democrats didn’t have such piss poor candidates, and had an actual agenda that’s good for America, they would only have to resort to their usual level of cheating and smearing to have a chance of winning. As it is, they took the only gamble they had and it blew up in their faces. But what do you care? You don’t even live here…
1a. + 3. Sure a Trump plea for innocence. Still confusing to me, taking delays out of the equation for a moment, can you shed some light on how you feel in the House inquiry the Dems were justified in skipping standard protocol of even attempting to seeking court orders to force witnesses in? Please include how appreciating any sitting President is surely to invoke executive privilege fits in too recognizing standard practice including Nixon and Clinton prior.
And now on to “ expected” delays with court appeals. Election year coming would of caused chain reaction to force much quicker turnaround. Add proof on how Supreme Court Chief Justice had to quickly drop his afternoon schedule to preside over Senate trial. Plus taking a month to deliver articles. Will you concede that at least Dems made it clear to R-Senators of morse code being telegraphed was political agenda (as clearly no immenient threat keeping POTUS in office)?
-
Your choice word of “some” sparked me to add pressure. Enuf said there.
-
Three Dem Senators, including Sanders and Warren on the far left, none seem to be among the Parties preferred choice to headline of their ticket. Agree?
-
If Bolton was allowed to testify in either inquiry or results do you feel even damaging 1st hand testimony changes materially the end result? Cite one or two theoretical examples if you do.
Q2 According to Oxford dictionary, is Romney a textbook example of a hypocrite in your book? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Q3 Conclusion: Agree Nixon a goner, would of been removed. Difference than from now in Trump being absolutely partisan affairs x 2 Houses. Even Clinton plea bargain including like 11 felonies counts had at least decent amt of bi-partisan support in both Chambers. Neither Clinton or Trump even close to real danger of being removed. Wisdom in why U.S. Founding Fathers set it up for super majority in impeachment still standing the test of time is impressive from my viewpoint. How Is impeachment different in Australia?
P.S. Being a liberal, surprised to hear you are unaware extreme political divide exists here. Imagine how the mostly left press sang the praises of Obama for 8 straight years preceding Trump. Even DJT being polled on Election Day is considered to be greatest underdog in American history to win. How does your left movement compare to Israel? Their left press is more brutal than U.S…
@NickN I have created a new thread in Outside the Beltway for us to continue this discussion as it seems to have evolved beyond the scope of this particular thread.
Haaa haaa haaa!
