Impeachment hearings

[_mikwut]

Hi honor,

This seriously bothers me as well. As heuristics go, I'm struggling to find another case where this would hold up outside of the context where mikwut proposes it. If I see two opposing groups in relation to any issue where the groups are holding to their differences yet the facts as I understand them appear to strongly favor the position of one group over the other, I don't assume that the side whose view I don't see supported by the facts as deserving the benefit of the doubt. Quite the opposite. As heuristics go, my experience is to assume tribalism and border defense of tribal identity explains why such partisan rejection of the evidence occurs when the evidence seems so strong in one side's favor. While mikwut has pointed out past impeachments have found some bipartisan support, or in the case of Nixon's resignation almost total bipartisan support, he hasn't presented a case for the heuristic itself being valid. The stonewalling of Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court and the removal of the majority requirement to support the nomination of Neil Gorsuch as a rules change without Republican opposition serve as just one example that we aren't operating in the same political environment as mikwut assumes for his heuristic regarding impeachment.

I'd be curious where he can find supporting examples from the Obama presidency that serious evidence of impeachable offences should be expected to have Republican support in the House.

Says the member of a tribe claiming he isn't participating in any tribalism.

n relation to Biden and the Ukraine? No, they don't. Again, we've been over the issue and anyone including Trump and Giuliani who can't follow the evidence for how Viktor Shokin's removal wasn't a cause led by Biden is putting on blinders. It is clear from the evidence it was considered a necessary act on the part of Ukraine that was based on both NATO and the Obama administration seeing it as a move to clean up past obstruction of justice and corruption represents a level of gross incompetence and ability to be mislead that itself should be concerning. Joe Biden, as VP of the United States was the messenger. Shokin was doing the very thing Joe Biden is accused of trying to do which is just crazy.

I mean, show me proof Trump sincerely believed Hunter Biden and Joe Biden were conspiring to protect the president of Burisma from prosecution and I'll show you evidence Trump should not be in a position of power due to his ability to be manipulated by foreign powers like Russia.

The argument isn't against Biden Sr. but Jr. being placed in the position so obviously because his father is the VP and not any actual credentials for the position. Trump's mind is warranted in keeping that belief and that belief along with other corruption with Ukraine led to his concerns. You can believe the opposite but that isn't proof of What Trump believed. And why do I keep seeing prove to me challenges - Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence.

I want him out of office, i didn't and won't vote for him. But the constitutional standards are not this low. Clinton should not have been impeached for low crimes, every President could be accused of such. For God's sake Roosevelt put Japanese in internment camps. Motivations for countless decisions of Presidents is for their political position and motives. That is almost definitional of politics.

mikwut

[Guest]

Mikwut, for your heuristic to have meaning, you ought to be able to find supporting examples from the Obama presidency that show willingness on the part of Republicans to set aside partisan differences when warranted.

As to Biden, regardless of how one views Hunter Bidens qualifications, again the suspicion Joe Biden actually acted to benefit his son only works as long as a person is unwilling or incapable to engage with the evidence. It's that apparent with minimal scrutiny of the evidence and becomes laughable with serious investigation. Trump holding sincere beliefs that it was a topic requiring the testing of the new President of Ukraine would put him in the category of either unwilling (partisan) or unable (moronic) to recognize this. Throw in the mess with Guliani and it's bordering on farce. It's not defensible either way.

[_honorentheos]

We had a brief conversation elsewhere over whether or not Obama should have been held accountable for the extra judicial killing of Al-Awlaki without due process via drone strike. At the time I was not inclined to argue I would have favored impeachment for that, but as the Trump impeachment drama has progressed I've had to rethink that. As you point out, we seem unwilling to hold Presidents accountable for legitimate and serious wrong doing while we have had clown shows of partisan attempts to undermine or discredit opposing party Presidents to the point it undermined the oversight role of Congress.

Where would we be if Congress had held Roosevelt accountable for establishing concentration camps? Or Eisenhower's CIAs assassination of democratically elected leaders such as in Iran? Bush starting a war on false pretenses? Maybe the problem is partly that we don't hold the executive branch accountable and we should?

[_mikwut]

Honor,

Mikwut, for your heuristic to have meaning, you ought to be able to find supporting examples from the Obama presidency that show willingness on the part of Republicans to set aside partisan differences when warranted.

No I don't. I am specifically referring to Alexander Hamilton's principle shared by the founding fathers of impeachment. Not a general political principle.

As to Biden, regardless of how one views Hunter Bidens qualifications, again the suspicion Joe Biden actually acted to benefit his son only works as long as a person is unwilling or incapable to engage with the evidence.

I did not make that accusation. I stated that the obvious fact that a man who was kicked out of the navy for cocaine and prostitutes, has no experience in the energy field and is placed in the position with Burisma is because of his father's position and that if necessary his influence could helpful. Whether an investigation took place or not is irrelevant. That fact alone demonstrates warranted belief in corruption. When fulfilled or planned.

It's that apparent with minimal scrutiny of the evidence and becomes laughable with serious investigation

Which is usually the case when you are not arguing in response but parroting the arguments and talking points of one side.

Trump holding sincere beliefs that it was a topic requiring the testing of the new President of Ukraine would put him in the category of either unwilling (partisan) or unable (moronic) to recognize this. Throw in the mess with Guaulini and it's bordering on farce. It's not defensible either way.

Then convince the other side. Such obvious matters can do that.

mikwut

[_honorentheos]

What's your take on the evidence against the Bidens, mikwut? I've shared the evidence in multiple threads and can link it again. But first, since you have an opinion I'm curious how far you dug in on your own first. You clearly are at a point in your position that you should be familiar with it already so...

[_mikwut]

Hi honor,

We had a brief conversation elsewhere over whether or not Obama should have been held accountable for the extra judicial killing of Al-Awlaki without due process via drone strike. At the time I was not inclined to argue I would have favored impeachment for that, but as the Trump impeachment drama has progressed I've had to rethink that. As you point out, we seem unwilling to hold Presidents accountable for legitimate and serious wrong doing while we have had clown shows of partisan attempts to undermine or discredit opposing party Presidents to the point it undermined the oversight role of Congress.

Where would we be if Congress had held Roosevelt accountable for establishing concentration camps? Or Eisenhower's CIAs assassination of democratically elected leaders such as in Iran? Bush starting a war on false pretenses? Maybe the problem is partly that we don't hold the executive branch accountable and we should?

Now your talking a language I can agree with. Maybe we should but we have to also stay in our lane with the standards that are very high in doing so. I think the founding fathers definitely recognized with great power mistakes and abuses would inherently occur, but as to avoid impeachment proceedings constantly arising they made the burden for it very high.

mikwut

[_mikwut]

Honor,

I'm not making the accusation against Joe Biden. I am simply pointing out the obvious reality of Jr. being placed in a position for the possible help from his father if necessary. I'm not even saying it happened. I would probably agree with your linked thread and your position respecting Sr. The placement itself which is uncontroversial is enough for me to warrant that Trump saw that as possible corruption, in the past or future is irrelevant.

I would support my contention with the witnesses almost unanimously stating it as a possible conflict of interest. On a board possible is enough.

mikwut

[_honorentheos]

mikwut,

What actually happened? Unwilling or incompetent. Engage with the evidence and show that it would be reasonable to maintain a position of skepticism knowing the facts. You aren't showing knowledge beyond the superficial. That's essentially my point regarding Trump, too.

[_moksha]

At the start of the Republican National Convention, there will be a gala fireworks display set to the music of the Cole Porter song, Anything Goes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4jMG81jGXk

[_EAllusion]

Yes it was me who introduced the argument. It is clearly an element of evidence towards the basis of a sound impeachment. Alexander Hamilton's greatest danger of just that was given that designation for a reason. In those days the Senate was not voted into office but rather was thought of somewhat like Plato's idea of the wisest amongst us to be the final arbiters in order to avoid a completely bipartisan impeachment. That was purposeful to avoid the ability of such partisanship.

This is an ahistorical assertion so out of accord with the facts, I'm not sure how to respond. I can't tell if you are BSing or if you actually believe what you are saying, but please support your contention that Alexander Hamilton favored the election of Senators by state legislatures to avoid partisan impeachment.

Because you take the position that if a party opposes impeachment collectively, then it is illegitimate, you are saying to parties that so long as they stick together, they can place their leaders above the law for any act.

I already showed how silly that is because there exists bipartisanship in all previous impeachments.

1) Andrew Johnson's impeachment was intensely partisan and not a single Democrat voted to convict him. I can't recall if it was zero or almost zero Democrats in the House off the top of my head, but it was either 0 or next to 0 Democrats who voted in favor of impeachment. If you remember anything about the Johnson impeachment from history class, you probably remember the partisan nature of it. You're just making up history here.

2) That's not particularly relevant, because we are dealing with a sample size of 2 (or 3 if you prefer) which is not sufficient to make the generalization you are, and

3) It does not logically follow that parties cannot be sufficient partisan to side with party over propriety in instances of impeachment. All it takes is a mechanism to select party office holders that will place partisan loyalty above propriety. Such mechanisms exist now.

If I had a dollar........ While practicing criminal defense law do you know how many times the prosecution told me the evidence is overwhelming? Every time is the answer to that question. And I promise they were not always right, in fact rarely is evidence "overwhelming", it almost always manifold in its nature to be consistent with more than one narrative. You are simply not humble in regard to the power of belief about certain narratives and facts. I'm sorry.

I think this is another classic example of you adopting a cheap radical skepticism in the face of obviously persuasive facts, but only when it suits you.