Impeachment hearings

[_EAllusion]

It is worth noting that the one Republican out in front on impeachment - Justin Amash - was essentially excommunicated from the party forcing him to quit.

[Guest]

E,

You are giving a party that is acting in relentless bad faith absolute veto power over the legitimacy of impeachment for any act.

When it is the entire party yes. What are you missing? The reverse is also true, you are giving a party legitimacy in impeaching for any act. All your doing is making my argument for me that an utterly partisan impeachment is wrong. And your any act drama is silly, we have seen bipartisan impeachments so that isn't a worry, impeachments with ridiculously vague definitions, standards, methods, and burdens of proof are dangerous.

This is either cynical or naïve, but it is not good.

It is the most mature outlook on it. I think your position is naïve it is politics all the way down man. It is more divisive and doesn't remove.

The problem is Trump has engaged in blatant impeachable acts,

Well that credibility is tainted when even lower standards and burdens were trumpeted for a laundry list of things as soon as he was elected. That kind of language is what gives you away. "Blatant" would lead to bipartisanship. So it isn't, until it is.

and only one party is responding to that with incorrigible dishonesty.

An entire party? This is what you get without balance and nuance. When the press creates priming and suggestibility and awards radical positions. There you go again with "incorrigible" this time. Well other reasonable people don't see incorrigible and that is a problem.

That their partisan solidarity Trump's propriety is the problem.

This is self righteous sanctimony.

If you can only say both sides claim to be right, then I suggest you put on your big boy pants and get better at analyzing those claims.

Both sides right?!? There both sideways man, that's why partisanship is such a big deal when removing an elected president. Big boy pants are strong evidence not connect dots with presuppositions, using our legal rules and evidence rather than suggestibility. Your pants get innocent people in jail and divided countries.

Why don't reasonable people get to call Pelosi on her honesty when she told the American people impeachment needs to be bipartisan?

Do you really believe Biden wouldn't be strongly attacked for the conflict if Trump didn't say anything about it on that call and we just went to elections? Leaving that to the imagination is more powerful against Trump's opponent than a far away country announcing it's looking into it? The Republicans have warrant in being critical of nepotism and Democrats have a point that you need to be careful how you attack nepotism when politics are involved. After that lets move the hell on with governing.

mikwut

[_Jersey Girl]

The reverse is also true, you are giving a party legitimacy in impeaching for any act.

Any act? Did Trump or did he not try to bribe or coerce Ukraine into making an announcement that they were opening an investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden, using military aid as leverage?

[_mikwut]

Jersey,

That is my point. You don't know that and I don't know that (opinion mileage varies greatly, which partisanship is the indisputable evidence of) on the level of American Jurisprudence legal standards. We are talking about removing an elected president. I don't know that directly and neither do you. There is no evidence that cuts the blade inside Trump's head of whether a general notion of corruption including Biden's seeming nepotism extends the parties partisan walls. My point is that Republicans would move toward impeachment if bribery (which includes intent, inside his head) were plain and clear. Partisanship matters, a lot. Groupthink is part and parcel to partisan politics, adherents to the group only see one side. Breaking that partisan wall is where demonstration of meeting the high burdens necessary is met. This is strikingly obvious to those that are not planted in a Republican or Democrat worship.

mikwut

[Guest]

Republicans would move toward impeachment if bribery (which includes intent, inside his head) were plain and clear.

Sorry, it is becoming increasingly obvious that that is simply not true of the current GOP leadership, and you are extremely naïve and/or dishonest to claim that it is. I don't understand how you can avoid the conclusion that prominent Republicans are hellbent on defending Trump, no matter what he has done, or how compelling the evidence against him. Senators like Lindsey Graham, for example, have even gone so far as to belligerently declare that they are determined to not even examine the evidence against Trump, no matter what, and vote for acquittal. This is particularly hypocritical coming from Graham, as he was one of the most outspoken and condemnatory critics of Donald Trump, before it became obvious that he was going to win the election. He and others like him are craven cowards and/or opportunists, echoing the sentiments of Trump's hardcore base who have asserted that nothing Trump could possibly do would dissuade them from supporting him. It is blazingly obvious that these scoundrels care far, far more about what they regard as political expediency, than about what is right or just!

The witnesses on the Democrat side in the recent Judiciary Committee hearing powerfully demonstrated that Trump's actions were highly impeachable, and I don't regard them as anywhere close to being hopelessly naïve. I find them almost infinitely more credible and authoritative on this issue than you! Even the Republicans' expert witness didn't try to argue that what Trump is accused of is not impeachable, only that he thought still more evidence was needed.

ETA: You also talked about nepotism concerning Joe and Hunter Biden. Perhaps there was at least the appearance of conflict of interests in the case, but since the elder Biden was not directly involved in the ownership or management of Burisma (as far as I know), how was the hiring of Hunter by that company related to nepotism? On the other hand, there is very clear nepotism in the case of Ivanka and her husband's employment as advisors by Trump.

Besides that, the Bidens, apparently, were not complicit in Burisma's corruption, but actually favored exposing it.

[_subgenius]

[_Gunnar]

I strongly suspect, subby, that in the near term, the USS Republicans, is more likely to sink than the USS Democrats. Its sinking seriously began during the 2018 midterm election.

[_EAllusion]

When it is the entire party yes. What are you missing? The reverse is also true, you are giving a party legitimacy in impeaching for any act.

Not it's not. I am not, nor is anyone on planet earth as best I can tell, arguing that because Democrats are relatively united in supporting impeachment, that either proves or shows it is very likely their basis for impeachment is sound. You, on the other hand, are arguing the fact that Republicans are united in opposition either proves or shows it is very likely impeachment is unsound because the presence of partisanship is a good heuristic for determining the validity of a basis for impeachment.

Even if I was arguing this, which I am not, this is about as naked as tu quque fallacy as exists, and doesn't actually address the criticism you are replying to. 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.

"Blatant" would lead to bipartisanship.

You have no reason to suppose this is true, and given the present moment, it is almost self-evidently false. But, by all means, prove this assertion.

That their partisan solidarity Trump's propriety is the problem.

This is self righteous sanctimony.

It's true.

Big boy pants are strong evidence not connect dots with presuppositions, using our legal rules and evidence rather than suggestibility.

The evidence is overwhelming. You choose to ignore it and throw out a heuristic that says so long as Republicans don't break rank, they must be right, which is just a powerful incentive to act like, well, the way they are acting.

The Republicans have warrant in being critical of nepotism

Lol. Oh yeah, the Republican party definitely is concerned about nepotism. That's what's driving their behavior here.

[_honorentheos]

The evidence is overwhelming. You choose to ignore it and throw out a heuristic that says so long as Republicans don't break rank, they must be right, which is just a powerful incentive to act like, well, the way they are acting.

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.

The Republicans have warrant in being critical of nepotism

In 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.

[Guest]

Hi EAllusion,

Not it's not. I am not, nor is anyone on planet earth as best I can tell, arguing that because Democrats are relatively united in supporting impeachment, that either proves or shows it is very likely their basis for impeachment is sound. You, on the other hand, are arguing the fact that Republicans are united in opposition either proves or shows it is very likely impeachment is unsound because the presence of partisanship is a good heuristic for determining the validity of a basis for impeachment.

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.

Even if I was arguing this, which I am not, this is about as naked as tu quque fallacy as exists

No it isn't because the democrats are indeed hypocritical and not having an argument simply reversed on them. The principle is clearly found in the federalist papers and was given great value in determining impeachment. So the tu quque is pointing at you not me. Nancy Pelosi told the American people impeachment must to be bipartisan it is not.

and doesn't actually address the criticism you are replying to.

Im not addressing a particular criticism I was just stating a fact. You need to provide the proper evidential criteria found in the constitution to support that your view of obvious is found.

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. So I will take the empirical reality over your theoretical idea.

You have no reason to suppose this is true, and given the present moment, it is almost self-evidently false. But, by all means, prove this assertion.

History proves it. Self evident does not shroud itself in a general idea of "abuse of power." Self evident volunteers itself to both sides of the issue. You can look up every synonym you want for self evident and obvious etc... it does not change the reality that there is another narrative consistent with the facts. Blindly saying there isn't is just an example of the very danger Alexander Hamilton spoke of.

This is self righteous sanctimony.


It's true.

I'm glad you agree about your self righteous sanctimony. (That was a joke, I recognize is necessary to say.)

The evidence is overwhelming. You choose to ignore it and throw out a heuristic that says so long as Republicans don't break rank, they must be right, which is just a powerful incentive to act like, well, the way they are acting.

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.

Lol. Oh yeah, the Republican party definitely is concerned about nepotism. That's what's driving their behavior here.

E, for god's sake, politics is driving their behavior, but what you lack is a nuanced view that politics is driving the democrats view. It is simply naïve to think one side as a unpolitical movement of truth and purity. It is silly. Power corrupts everyone, that is why higher burdens of proof, due process, and using the third branch of government is almost always the safer way to proceed.

mikwut