Irish oddsmaker gives 33% chance Trump will be impeached
|
Irish oddsmaker gives 33% chance Trump will be impeached
|
I was hoping that the vote would be held tomorrow, not today - then it would have been 21 years to the day that the Republicans did the same thing to Clinton.
--
Rob Kelk Sticks and stones can break your bones, But words can break your heart. - unknown 
Ah, when the crimes were abusing the powers of office to cover up a blow job... Simpler times.
If Trump is going to get convicted of an actual crime (impeachment thus far is not proof he did anything, just an indictment they believe so until the Senate convicts), well, so be it, but I find it telling only one article with a really nebulous at best definition squeaked through and we still don't have all the details what it entails.
At least with Nixon they had it spelled out in black and white all the what, where, why, and how, he just resigned before they could pull the trigger. If this fails, it looks like a power play that backfired. Worse, I heard the Democrats have threatened to withhold all the details of the articles until they get the Senate to play ball, and that would violate Trump's right as an American citizen to a speedy trial, which should not sit right with anyone regardless of politics. If you like him, he deserves a speedy trial. If you hate him, he should tried ASAP and punished for whatever offenses he is guilty like anyone else with a few delays as possible. 
Trump finally has something he has actually earned.
“We can never undo what we have done. We can never go back in time. We write history with our decisions and our actions. But we also write history with our responses to those actions. We can leave the pain and the damage in our wake, unattended, or we can do the work of acknowledging and fixing, to whatever extent possible, the harm that we have caused.”
— On Repentance and Repair: Making Amends in an Unapologetic World by Danya Ruttenberg 
Geth, in what way are the charges and the evidence "nebulous"?
That aside, I don't think the Republicans are going to remove Trump from office. And it's going to be a real shit-show if they don't. Trump has done nothing to hide what he's been doing, and then screams about witch hunts when someone tells him he's breaking the law. If this is what the Republicans are willing to condone.... ....I worry about our future. 
"We pledge allegiance to the Trump
of the People's Republic of Trumpistan And to the Republicans who proudly stand One party, under Trump With liberty and justice for all straight white christian men And may God strike down the Democrats"
--
noli esse culus
In response to Black Aeronaut, I cite this response by Trump:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/up...-final.pdf If he's telling the truth with his response in the above cited link, then he would be right that practically every head of state we ever had is guilty of abusing their power. If he's lying, then fine, burn him at the legal stake. And frankly, while I'll be fine whatever happens, I fall on the side this is a witch hunt. Unlike Nixon, who we had dead to rights as a co-conspirator who worked to obstruct justice, I still don't know which side to believe because the legal sword could cut either way for political reasons. I see this more as Andrew Johnson's impeachment. Yes, he defied a law, but it was flagrantly unconstitutional one the Supreme Court spiked in 1920. As for Trump, abusing power is not a clearly defined crime, and if his side of the story is true, then that charge is a crock. If he's truly guilty, I want to know how his use of power damaged the state just as bad if not worse than the stunts Nixon pulled, and for the sake of both sides I do hope this has a proper trial so we can get the facts either way in black and white with no BS in a manner that leaves the charges, if any are warranted, indisputable to all. (12-19-2019, 08:13 AM)GethN7 Wrote: If Trump is going to get convicted of an actual crime (impeachment thus far is not proof he did anything, just an indictment they believe so until the Senate convicts), well, so be it, but I find it telling only one article with a really nebulous at best definition squeaked through and we still don't have all the details what it entails. Ehm. No. Impeachment is not about crimes. Impeachment is, to quote a rather prominent Republican some 20 years back, not about punishment, it is about cleansing the office and restoring honor and integrity to the office. It is also not a criminal trial. No official has a right to a speedy impeachment. In fact, the Senate doesn't even have the power to assign him legal punishments, as he's not a member of the legislative branch (which would be subject to the appropriate ethics committee), legal punishments are the sole province of the judiciary, and all the judiciary is allowed to do during the impeachment is ensure the process proceeds within the bounds set by the rules. Trump can be tried in a criminal proceeding after he has been removed from office, regardless of how he is removed from office, be it impeachment, resignation or failure to be reelected. And the Senate can decide to send all their evidence and all testimonies to the executive branch after the impeachment proceeding has concluded with the note 'it's probably a good idea to prosecute this in', which the executive branch is not required to heed unless the Senate passes a law to that effect, which would infringe the various States' legal representatives traditional but unwritten right to decide on who to prosecute regardless of political or public pressure. Also, if every head of state the USA has ever known has abused their office, by all means, prosecute them as well, and let the judicial process decide whether or not it is something worth punishing them for. (12-19-2019, 02:24 PM)hazard Wrote:(12-19-2019, 08:13 AM)GethN7 Wrote: If Trump is going to get convicted of an actual crime (impeachment thus far is not proof he did anything, just an indictment they believe so until the Senate convicts), well, so be it, but I find it telling only one article with a really nebulous at best definition squeaked through and we still don't have all the details what it entails. Ok, I stand corrected. 
Back to the original topic of this thread, is that Irish oddsmaker actually a bookie and has he paid anything out to anyone?
-- Bob
I have been Roland, Beowulf, Achilles, Gilgamesh, Clark Kent, Mary Sue, DJ Croft, Skysaber. I have been called a hundred names and will be called a thousand more before the sun grows dim and cold.... 
No. The scummy fuckers
Has to be impeached and out of office. Anyway. Impeachement ios about fitness to serve. Trump's big mistake is that he pissed off his staff enough that they reported it. Time was the Praetorians just murdered you - in modern times they sliup your indescretions Anyway, Fox news are showing a slim majority of Americans favouring impeachement, and more favouring impeachment and removal from office, than not. Even if it is political, it appearrs this Congress is doing exactly what it was asked to do by the people who elected it - investigate the president and make something stick. Same as the last shower were elected blocked the whole works up - but couldn't find anything to stick, so they just screamed about it. Either way it's very much a split right down the middle. Anyway, the jist of it is that - outside the US bubble - it seems very much like a probable thing. Trump looks to have specifically used his powers as President to influnce a foreign government to aid him specifically - and not the United States. Really, the whole system needs to be replaced. It's gotten to breaking point. All these fucking FPTP countries are turning into fucking banana republics because everyone hates the conservatives. But can't agree on how. I love the smell of rotaries in the morning. You know one time, I got to work early, before the rush hour. I walked through the empty carpark, I didn't see one bloody Prius or Golf. And that smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole carpark, smelled like.... ....speed. One day they're going to ban them.
Has anybody checked whether Sen. McConnell is suffering from Alzheimer's?
He's saying that the current impeachment sets a precedent - despite not only having been present for Clinton's impeachment but having actually taken part in it.
--
Rob Kelk Sticks and stones can break your bones, But words can break your heart. - unknown (12-19-2019, 07:12 PM)robkelk Wrote: Has anybody checked whether Sen. McConnell is suffering from Alzheimer's? I'd say it does. This impeachment is being presented with even LESS going for it than Andrew Johnson's, where at least they could point to an actual law being broken (the Tenure of Office Act). Which is why he had this response: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mcconnell-to-pelosi-you-can-keep-your-impeachment-articles/ar-BBYay39?li=BBnb7Kz Pelosi threatened to withhold the articles of impeachment unless the Senate negotiates a deal in the Democrats favor, and Mitch, knowing they are asking for the unreasonable, told her no. He further told her that if they have enough in the House they are willing to forward an impeachment proceeding to the Senate, it's not the Senate's job to make their case stronger, they will go with what the House presents and that's it. Otherwise, the Senate is under no obligation (and they legally aren't) to make the impeachment proceeding any easier than the Constitution requires, and all it requires is the Senate to vote on what the House presents. The House will be adjourning soon, so this simmers until January 7 of next year most likely, and if the Democrats have more on the table then, then so be it. Otherwise, the Senate said they will go with what the House presents and go with that. Given that's how we did it with the last three presidents who ever got hit with impeachment, I'm in concurrence with Mitch on this.
Yeah but...
Does the president actually have to have committed a full blown go to prison crime to be impeached? I thought not. Somehow, I doubt there's a law against leveraging a foreign power for a specifical personal political quid-pro quo - but at the same time using the power of the State for personal benefit is a defining characteristic of most banana republics. And it is definitely an illegitimate use of the office - I'd find it hard to argue that it isn't. It's also been - IIRC - specifically admitted to. I love the smell of rotaries in the morning. You know one time, I got to work early, before the rush hour. I walked through the empty carpark, I didn't see one bloody Prius or Golf. And that smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole carpark, smelled like.... ....speed. One day they're going to ban them. (12-19-2019, 07:33 PM)GethN7 Wrote:(12-19-2019, 07:12 PM)robkelk Wrote: Has anybody checked whether Sen. McConnell is suffering from Alzheimer's? Actually, the text of the impeachment articles is already available to the Senate, and everyone else. https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democr...chment.pdf What Pelosi is doing is not forwarding them to the Senate for the trial process to start until Mitch agrees to actually have a trial rather than a whitewash where he says, "Eh, I don't see anything wrong" and dismisses the whole thing. I.E. they actually call for additional witnesses that Trump forbade to testify to the House. If the Senate requests them and Trump still refuses to allow them to testify and prove his innocence to the first article (the whole Ukraine bit), assuming of course that their testimony actually would do so, then that is a defacto admission of guilt to the second article (obstruction of Congress). (12-20-2019, 12:12 AM)Isodecan Wrote:(12-19-2019, 07:33 PM)GethN7 Wrote:(12-19-2019, 07:12 PM)robkelk Wrote: Has anybody checked whether Sen. McConnell is suffering from Alzheimer's? And this dilemma was already addressed under George Washington when we had the first question over who has the right to do what. The House wanted to review a treaty the Senate was looking at, and Washington pointed out they had no authority under the Constitution to look at it and even he could not circumvent that even if he wanted to. The Senate, and the Senate alone decides how to try the President. The Constitution allows each part of Congress to set their own internal rules for their respective chamber, so the ball is entirely in the Senate's court on this, any concessions made to the House on internal matters specific to the Senate is because they want to humor the House, they are not required to do so. And even if that weren't true, Pelosi looks to me to be asking the Senate a chance to argue a case that should be a slam dunk AGAIN in the Senate that they supposedly have enough the House is filing impeachment charges over. If Trump is dead to rights to the point the House is confident enough this is gonna be impeachment class level of worthy to file, then why sit on it. And I'll answer that question: It's political grandstanding. Let's say the Senate gets the whole thing killed off before they even discuss the matter for whatever reason. The Democrats can then try to claim they did the right thing but the Senate circumvented justice and they can use that as a political ploy to drum up partisan support in 2020. Alternatively, the Senate decides to play along and these charges are defeated, and the Democrats will have committed mass political suicide. Again, we established impeachment had major political consequences regardless of outcome when we tried it with Andrew Johnson. We also established with Clinton that impeachment is not a sure thing death sentence for someone's legal freedom or even reputation. And we also established with Nixon the importance of having a case so ironclad even Nixon's closest shills had to admit defeat, and Nixon himself resigned because the writing was on the wall. If Trump is guilty as sin, the House should take it's chances with the system we have. The Senate is the jury, but the Chief Justice has to preside over the judicial aspects, and if it survives constitutional challenges from the judiciary, the Senate will have to give this the dignity of hearing out on the merits. I for one have faith in the words of the Athenian reformer Solon when he said he was giving Athens the best government they would receive, not necessarily the one they wanted. If the American government is the best we can receive at this present time, we should either trust it to work as it was intended or admit the whole American republic is a failure. Or worse, admit the government we want is the one we prefer does our political bidding all the time.
This whole fucking debacle has shown how close the American system is to failure, if not quite over the edge yet. The absolute division along party lines regardless of pesky morals, facts, or laws is a death knell waiting to happen, and I have to agree with Dartz & co. that the election system is probably the root cause of that, since it actively encourages splitting everything into exactly two sides and pushing them as far apart as possible to make swing voters pick the one they dislike less.
--
noli esse culus 
I mean, like, it's weird what is impeachable. Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court to fuck off while he did a genocide, and he gets to be on our money. Harry Truman's decision to detonate Fat Man was probably unnecessary, as the Japanese government was still trying to figure out wtf happened in Hiroshima. That killed at least 40 kilohumans. Dick Nixon, even just before he was elected, made a deal with the South Vietnamese to prolong the war -- which led a lot of people to die -- and both parties of the deal to lose everything at the end. In a lot of ways, what Trump has done is, on an absolute moral scale, not very bad. The conflict in the Donbass is certainly terrible, but not on the scale of any of the others.
But politics takes lives or saves lives as a matter of course. Even the most humble city councilman makes decisions on, say, road safety or policing, that can quite literally be a life and death decision for someone. A politician who kills few is rarely appreciated, a politician who kills many is typically celebrated. Such is our species. So what exactly were we all mad about again? Well, it comes down to the fact Trump isn't playing the game right. Not only is he doing the game all wrong, but he's cheating. And cheating, well, that's just too far! Burn the land and boil the seas, but you can't cheat me. Trump withheld funding from an ally in a war, because he wanted to get them to announce an investigation into his rival. This is beyond dispute. He confessed to it on live television, and no witness in the impeachment hearings said anything to the contrary. However, they do look like they're in the middle of a cover-up as well. Only recently resigned government employees, as well as current employees who ignored mandates not to testify, made up the evidence. No subpoenaed documents were handed over. Looks like more cheating. But if it is, I don't understand the reason for it -- why cover up something when you've already offered a willful confession? I'm going to go out on a limb here and think that people don't think this kind of cheating is all that important, because everyone cheats. Or at least, everyone in politics cheats. People who cheat themselves are much more likely to think everyone cheats. But see, there's a game to this, and in politics, everyone cheats within the rules. Heck, they even get to make the rules. Like, Congressmen are exempt from insider trading statutes, insofar as their elected duties give them knowledge of law changes. But he's the goddamn President, you know? Cheating outside the law, while simultaneously being the person responsible for executing the law is not acceptable. Cheating with government resources to benefit oneself is considered fairly bad in a republic, especially when it involves arms, like that time Gaius Julius Caesar cheated the law by crossing the Rubicon with an army. This is why the liberals are in an uproar -- the difference between your garden variety cheating like campaign finance rules, and cheating that crosses the line into actual corruption. So I think the main dispute has never been about facts, but about whether or not this is worthy of removal from office. The standard is not about what is good and moral, it's about what is acceptable behavior in politics. This kind of stuff used to be acceptable in the U.S. up until the 1910s until, all of a sudden, it really wasn't. Civilization has a ratchet effect. Unfortunately, we still like doing violence to each other an awful lot, so we haven't got around making that completely unacceptable. But what if it really was about how good and moral Donald J. Trump was? Can anyone offer an argument about how good Trump is? Would you want your child to grow up like him? Come on guys, this is the time! Stand up and say that Trump can't possibly be a criminal, because it's not in his character. Regale us with tales of his wise and moral decisions. Republicans have been doing a great job attacking the witch hunt -- keep it up guys -- but why isn't anyone defending Trump's moral certitude? The House just did the indictment, and the trial is coming up. This is the time to defend your man -- tell us all how our self-proclaimed "chosen one" will lead us with the faith of Joan of Arc and the wisdom of Solomon. Or even just the faith of Billy Graham and the wisdom of Mr. Rogers. Be a character witness. C'mon. I dare you.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
(12-20-2019, 01:41 AM)GethN7 Wrote: I'd say it does. Actually, the text of the impeachment articles is already available to the Senate, and everyone else. https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democr...chment.pdf What Pelosi is doing is not forwarding them to the Senate for the trial process to start until Mitch agrees to actually have a trial rather than a whitewash where he says, "Eh, I don't see anything wrong" and dismisses the whole thing. I.E. they actually call for additional witnesses that Trump forbade to testify to the House. If the Senate requests them and Trump still refuses to allow them to testify and prove his innocence to the first article (the whole Ukraine bit), assuming of course that their testimony actually would do so, then that is a defacto admission of guilt to the second article (obstruction of Congress). [/quote] And this dilemma was already addressed under George Washington when we had the first question over who has the right to do what. The House wanted to review a treaty the Senate was looking at, and Washington pointed out they had no authority under the Constitution to look at it and even he could not circumvent that even if he wanted to. The Senate, and the Senate alone decides how to try the President. The Constitution allows each part of Congress to set their own internal rules for their respective chamber, so the ball is entirely in the Senate's court on this, any concessions made to the House on internal matters specific to the Senate is because they want to humor the House, they are not required to do so. And even if that weren't true, Pelosi looks to me to be asking the Senate a chance to argue a case that should be a slam dunk AGAIN in the Senate that they supposedly have enough the House is filing impeachment charges over. If Trump is dead to rights to the point the House is confident enough this is gonna be impeachment class level of worthy to file, then why sit on it. And I'll answer that question: It's political grandstanding. Let's say the Senate gets the whole thing killed off before they even discuss the matter for whatever reason. The Democrats can then try to claim they did the right thing but the Senate circumvented justice and they can use that as a political ploy to drum up partisan support in 2020. Alternatively, the Senate decides to play along and these charges are defeated, and the Democrats will have committed mass political suicide. Again, we established impeachment had major political consequences regardless of outcome when we tried it with Andrew Johnson. We also established with Clinton that impeachment is not a sure thing death sentence for someone's legal freedom or even reputation. And we also established with Nixon the importance of having a case so ironclad even Nixon's closest shills had to admit defeat, and Nixon himself resigned because the writing was on the wall. If Trump is guilty as sin, the House should take it's chances with the system we have. The Senate is the jury, but the Chief Justice has to preside over the judicial aspects, and if it survives constitutional challenges from the judiciary, the Senate will have to give this the dignity of hearing out on the merits. I for one have faith in the words of the Athenian reformer Solon when he said he was giving Athens the best government they would receive, not necessarily the one they wanted. If the American government is the best we can receive at this present time, we should either trust it to work as it was intended or admit the whole American republic is a failure. Or worse, admit the government we want is the one we prefer does our political bidding all the time. [/quote] The problem, Geth, is that McConnel is on the record as having every intent to ignore his oath of office as a juror in the impeachment process and to vote against impeachment regardless of the evidence. That, on its own, should be grounds for the ethics commission to lean in with a nice and subtle 'we hope you are kidding because otherwise we are going to levy punishments on you until you die. Hopefully not literally'. And I don't mean McConnel actually doing that. I mean McConnel saying that he wants to should be enough for that sort of reaction. And I wouldn't be surprised if Republican Senators have already made the exact same decision but not been as open about it.
Well, that's the thing.
Impeachment is a political exercise by it's very nature. Nixon was well aware that until he was impeached, he was fine, but when it was clear that would toss him out on the street in disgrace then he might wind up in prison, he resigned and took his chances, figuring that would be better than the former. It's literally how the process was designed by the Constitution. Unfair? Well, that can be fixed by an amendment, but until then, here we are, we either take it or leave it. As for Mitch going on record saying he vote how he pleases regardless of evidence, that is actually legal for him to do. Again, it's how the process works according to the Constitution, it's not a standard jury where this could be an ethics violation. Quote:Or even just the faith of Billy Graham Bad choice of words <grin>: Evangelical magazine founded by Billy Graham calls for Trump's removal
-- Bob
I have been Roland, Beowulf, Achilles, Gilgamesh, Clark Kent, Mary Sue, DJ Croft, Skysaber. I have been called a hundred names and will be called a thousand more before the sun grows dim and cold.... (12-20-2019, 07:01 AM)GethN7 Wrote: Well, that's the thing. Which brings the matter full circle. Whether the action is legal or not, it is grounds for censure? In McConnell's case, I'd say it is, but only if he acts as a juror. He's already declared to the world that he is not going to make a decision based on the evidence that will be presented.
--
Rob Kelk Sticks and stones can break your bones, But words can break your heart. - unknown
What McConnel has declared may not be a violation of law, per say.
But it is, however, a violation of his oath of office. While not law, per say, it has the weight of law with very real consequences. No one may be able to try him in a court of law. But he can damn well be removed from office himself.
The problem with the system is that it is assuming good faith from all involved. It is quite clear that the system can no longer rely on that.
I love the smell of rotaries in the morning. You know one time, I got to work early, before the rush hour. I walked through the empty carpark, I didn't see one bloody Prius or Golf. And that smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole carpark, smelled like.... ....speed. One day they're going to ban them. 
Well I know that you can, in theory, impeach a senator.
I'm not sure that you can impeach Mitch practically speaking. I'm not even sure he has to recuse himself if you were to try, speaking as a matter of black letter law.
-Now available with copious trivia!
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
