Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 225: Pardon Me For My War Crimes Against Good Titles

(+) Yeah! (+)

Peace___Frog posted...

Wahhhh why are there consequences for the shitty actions taken by the people that I support

Unless theyre Republican.
---

When Mitch said that, Republicans had 40 seats. 6 years later, they were at 54. The voters wanted to stop both parties from doing much so they elected a divided government.

People in the center have this misconception that just because a policy is moderate or bipartisan, it can't be awful. It can, and being bipartisan often makes it worse, because it's more likely to pass. Voters also have limited tools to stop this - who do you vote for to stop centrist policies? Well, they found an answer to that in 2016 but before that, the best they could do was divided government.
---

https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1136273861715120129?s=21

Paul Manafort is being sent to solitary confinement in my district - Rikers Island.

A prison sentence is not a license for gov torture and human rights violations. Thats what solitary confinement is.

Manafort should be released, along with all people being held in solitary.

---

I don't disagree with the notion, but I also don't think released is the word she wanted there tbh. Though if it was I'd love to understand why and whether it goes beyond the idea of rehabilitation vs punishment

That said, my understanding of the situation was that Manafort's solitary is more for his own protection than as punishment. Still a lot questionable from a human rights perspective though.

Reg posted...

I don't disagree with the notion, but I also don't think released is the word she wanted there tbh. Though if it was I'd love to understand why and whether it goes beyond the idea of rehabilitation vs punishment

I think she meant released from solitary, not from prison.
---

If that's what she meant then yeah that's an understandable position. The main argument against it is, as I alluded to, the use of solitary for the inmate's own protection. I think the logic isn't bad, but the specific example is only questionably relevant.

High profile people are kept isolated from general population for a reason, no?

Reg posted...

High profile people are kept isolated from general population for a reason, no?

I think you're confusing solitary confinement with Protective Custody.
---

Ashethan posted...

Reg posted...

High profile people are kept isolated from general population for a reason, no?

I think you're confusing solitary confinement with Protective Custody.

My entire point here is that Manafort is going to be in Protective Custody, not Solitary Confinement. Ergo, AOC citing him as an example of the issues with solitary falls apart and I'm not sure she's the one that understands the difference here.

Yes, solitary is bad and has human rights issues. Protective Custody not so much (though probably still kinda harmful)

Reg posted...

Ashethan posted...

Reg posted...

High profile people are kept isolated from general population for a reason, no?

I think you're confusing solitary confinement with Protective Custody.

My entire point here is that Manafort is going to be in Protective Custody, not Solitary Confinement. Ergo, AOC citing him as an example of the issues with solitary falls apart and I'm not sure she's the one that understands the difference here.

Yes, solitary is bad and has human rights issues. Protective Custody not so much (though probably still kinda harmful)

The NYT tweet she cites calls it solitary confinement so that's probably where the confusion came from.
---

Beto wants to add 35 million people to the voting rolls - the more these Dems talk about their policies the less I like them. The only way a lot of people have to voice their displeasure with their political options is to exercise their right to not vote. The Dems have decided that instead of making an effort to win these people over, they will try to force them to the polls and then threaten them with the prospect of a scary mean Republican.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Beto wants to add 35 million people to the voting rolls - the more these Dems talk about their policies the less I like them. The only way a lot of people have to voice their displeasure with their political options is to exercise their right to not vote. The Dems have decided that instead of making an effort to win these people over, they will try to force them to the polls and then threaten them with the prospect of a scary mean Republican.

Yes, because being added to the voter rolls and allowed to vote (not forced, mind you) is far worse than wanting to vote, only to find that you're not allowed due to having been purged from the voter rolls (almost always by Republican election commissions.)
---

I agree with inviso. If you want the right to not vote to be important,make registration automatic, voting day a holiday, and adopt a voting policy that supports it. Proposals for none of the above/approval voting are not new.

But if there are more people not voting, if devalues the importance of my non-vote!
---

red sox 777 posted...

Beto wants to add 35 million people to the voting rolls - the more these Dems talk about their policies the less I like them. The only way a lot of people have to voice their displeasure with their political options is to exercise their right to not vote. The Dems have decided that instead of making an effort to win these people over, they will try to force them to the polls and then threaten them with the prospect of a scary mean Republican.

Ahh Republicans scared of people being able to vote because they know their ideas are bad.
---

That's a bad take dude.
---

On impeaching now VS later:

For those of you who don't understand the game, here it is:

Pelosi has the numbers to pass articles of impeachment. McConnell has the numbers to ensure Trump is not convicted in that impeachment trial.

It would take the defection of 20 Republican Senators to convict Trump in an impeachment trial. Trump currently has a 90% approval rating among Republican voters. Voting to impeach would piss off those voters and ensure that Senator loses re-election. Nixon did not resign until his approval rating among Republican voters was around 60%. That won't happen to Trump during the Fox News era.

So, if Nancy impeaches, Mitch the Bitch will "exonerate" Trump, and from that day until Election Day, all you're going to hear from the GOP, Republican pundits, Republican Voters, and trolls is "Trump was cleared of all charges/innocent/Russia Hoax."

We are 17 months out from Election Day.

That means we are in the middle of the large Democratic field, as the party's platform is built from an amalgamation of the best ideas of our 20-odd candidates. Right now we need primetime debates, and the primetime media coverage is being fought over fiercely by each of the candidates. Dems need every second of good press they can get.

Trump, on the other hand, is doing barely any campaigning. It's still more campaigning than any other President would be doing, but he's still out there very little in comparison. He's fundraising for the real election season next year, mostly. And planning.

Politically, there are four benefits to an impeachment trial with a guaranteed failure. First, it motivates the base to see their opponent on trial. Second, all of that overwhelming evidence demotivates the centrists aligned with the party on trial. They won't necessarily switch parties, but they're more likely to not vote. Third, it absolutely drowns out all other news coverage. Nobody else will be able to breathe in that media ecosystem without addressing it. And fourth, whoever is on trial in the Senate is nearly-grounded to DC. They won't be out heavily campaigning, they'll be reliant on surrogates for grip-and-grins.

Now, effects 1 and 2 only remain active so long as the trial continues. Once it's over and the trolls get to chant "Russia Hoax" the spell is broken and the motivation leaves an exasperated base and rejuvenated opposition.

Effect 3 is the exact opposite of what the Dems need right now. That kind of media blackout will drown campaigns who can't get their message out, and so can't get funding. You'll see a boost in the Senator-candidates campaigning like Harris, but campaigns like Buttigieg will die a lonely death out in the cold. The simplest solution to this is have the media circus *after* we have chosen a candidate and pushed our message out to the people. If the people know what we stand for, we'll survive the storm more intact.

The fourth effect would be useless right now when Trump is barely campaigning. But it would be incredibly next August-September-October. Imagine a candidate who could barely leave DC, who couldn't go out to see their supporters. It'd be doubly effective on Trump, who thrives off his cult-like rallies.

Lastly, House Democrats get to decide how long the impeachment trial lasts.

So if Pelosi times this right by holding off on impeachment for one year, we could ground and destabilize Trump's 2020 campaign, while mobilizing our own voters, and pushing the Senate vote back until after the election, so that the decision on whether Trump stays President or not is made in the ballot box instead, and we never have to hear "but he was found innocent" once this cycle.

OR

She could impeach right now and we get "bUt HE waS eXoNeRaTeD" for a year straight.

---

^Hate to point to a Reddit comment over an article, but this is the best counter I've seen to my feeling that we need to impeach now:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bxaztz/pelosi_tells_dems_she_wants_to_see_trump_in_prison/eq51xur?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Still think impeaching now is the morally right thing to do, but we're talking about results that best work toward that morally right thing to do...this makes some sense.
---

I'd actually question whether Pelosi has the numbers to impeach. I imagine a lot of 2018 flipped seats might be hesitant to do so since it might threaten their re-election. I mean, she might, but the actual worst-case scenario is she doesn't and the House fails to even do that. News organizations have been tracking the number of House members calling/open to it and I think it's like... 50 or so right now. Obviously that's not to say everyone else is a no, but I don't know if it's smart to assume they're all automatically onboard.

Impeachment hearings would drown all other news out though. And there's an argument to be made there if you believe drowning out issues from the Democrats is a net negative.

Morally and historically I think impeachment should occur. I also happen to think it would be a benefit politically, even with the Senate vote doomed (polling has indicated that the Kavanaugh situation energized Democrats in the midterms more than it did Republicans and that was a similar "doomed" situation)

However, I do think there's a reasonable (as in "I can understand how you got there even if I disagree") argument against it - basically if you believe it hurts politically then from a cold political standpoint it'd be better to not impeach because at the end of the day it won't lead to removal and won't stop the administration's policies so 2020 is what's most important.
---

It is the strategy that makes the most sense to me. But I dunno, I talked to a libertarian coworker the other day making the same point about Pelosi holding off for a more strategic time to launch impeachment hearings (like during the campaign) and he seemed to think that would still be an unfair distraction from Democrats. Of course this is anecdotal, but it feels like people are going to entrench themselves even more in these narratives.

The House definitely seems like they are trying to build up even more grievances. But either way I wish Pelosi would be a little less wishy-washy about impeachment because all these hearings and subpoenas only have any weight if impeachment is on the table, and she certainly tends to act like it isn't.
---

Trump is not going to be bound to DC even if he is on trial. The man has probably been involved in hundreds of lawsuits at a time for decades. And in this one, he knows the jury support him.

And, don't count on the House getting a fair trial in the Senate. The Senate sets its own procedure and there is no appeal from its decisions. Chief Justice Roberts presides but the full Senate can overrule him. If they want, they could give the House 5 minutes to present its case, disqualify all of its witnesses, refuse to admit any of its evidence, and proceed to spend the next 3 months hearing testimony (whether or not it would be admissible in a normal court) about Hillary Clinton's emails.
---

So something I'm not totally on board with here.

Even from a purely moral perspective, it feels to me like impeaching the president in any situation other than when the general public overwhelmingly supports impeachment is not the right action to take. Of course, there's also the fact that the general public is not expected to have the necessary information to make an informed decision on this. Is the philosophy here "educate the public and then start the impeachment process", or "use the impeachment debates, trial, etc themselves to educate the public and then at the end of the day congressman will vote according to what their constituents want anyway"?

Or is it "it doesn't matter what the general public wants we'll do what's 'right' regardless", in which case I just don't agree with this at all.
---

Pelosi is correct on this one. I don't normally side with centrist Democrats over the left but she is absolutely right on this. Impeach Trump, and you all but guarantee his reelection. If you think making some sort of point is worth that, okay, but Pelosi doesn't think so, and she has every right to value winning the 2020 election over making some point, which the Senate will probably not even allow the prosecution to make.

I think you at least need to have a majority in the Senate so that you can control the procedure of the trial. It's very easy for Mitch to simply object to every single witness the House calls on the grounds that all of it is tainted under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine (because it originated in the beginning from an illegal investigation/spying on the Trump campaign). Chief Justice Roberts overrules the objection. Then the full Senate overrules the Chief Justice. You never even get to present any evidence.
---

pyresword posted...

So something I'm not totally on board with here.

Even from a purely moral perspective, it feels to me like impeaching the president in any situation other than when the general public overwhelmingly supports impeachment is not the right action to take. Of course, there's also the fact that the general public is not expected to have the necessary information to make an informed decision on this. Is the philosophy here "educate the public and then start the impeachment process", or "use the impeachment debates, trial, etc themselves to educate the public and then at the end of the day congressman will vote according to what their constituents want anyway"?

Closer to this.

Given the already public information and obstruction (defiance of subpoenas, etc.) I think the case is already there on a wide variety of issues (emoluments, obstruction, etc.) That said, I recognize that most of the public likely isn't plugged in to this stuff, so I see the impeachment hearings as a means to do so - the media will cover it and people will see it. There's also a kind of "lead by example" thing going on here, I don't think you can underestimate that people take cues from leadership even if we pretend it's vice versa. People see (now) Dems not going for impeachment and would be more likely to go "Well, it can't be that bad I guess." Take the approval of gay marriage among the public as an example - watch it on a timeline with major events like Biden and Obama coming out in support of it and the reaction from general opinion.

Also, as a historical reference, here's support for removal of Nixon from Gallup polling with some major events highlighted: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FT_Nixon.png

Now, I know your gut reaction might be that this proves your point because "House Committee recommends impeachment hearings" only occurs when that line hits 50% but my argument here is: 1. In my conception of this, opening an inquiry would be more like the "Senate Watergate hearings" line precisely because of the defiance of subpoenas by this administration. If they're going to defy subpoenas and prevent the House from investigation then stronger measures need to be taken - not to mention this act itself was part of the Nixon articles already so there is precedent!

Also, I do mean "hearings" here. In the Clinton impeachment, House Republicans held no substantial hearings and went straight to the vote (it's actually more embarrassing, they did this all in the lame duck after they lost seats in the midterms - leading to then-Speaker Gingrich resigning because he was sure it'd help them politically.) I am not calling for that model even though I think between the long reported facts and the Mueller report are sufficient at this point that it would be justifiable.

tl;dr: Using Nixon as a loose guideline here, I believe opening an impeachment inquiry is the right thing to do here because this administration's defiance of subpoenas is preventing the House from performing its oversight duties under more "normal" circumstances (and should be considered impeachable itself) so a stronger measure needs to be taken. The hearings would allow the House to investigate and air the evidence to inform the public. Following this would be the actual impeachment vote.
---

pyresword posted...

Even from a purely moral perspective, it feels to me like impeaching the president in any situation other than when the general public overwhelmingly supports impeachment is not the right action to take.

For what it's worth, there's a decent chunk of the general public who base their political views on what "their" politicans support. There's probably a non-trivial amount of people who oppose impeachment now but would change their minds if the Democrats started making serious moves towards doing it.
---

xp1337 posted...

pyresword posted...

So something I'm not totally on board with here.

Even from a purely moral perspective, it feels to me like impeaching the president in any situation other than when the general public overwhelmingly supports impeachment is not the right action to take. Of course, there's also the fact that the general public is not expected to have the necessary information to make an informed decision on this. Is the philosophy here "educate the public and then start the impeachment process", or "use the impeachment debates, trial, etc themselves to educate the public and then at the end of the day congressman will vote according to what their constituents want anyway"?

Closer to this.

Given the already public information and obstruction (defiance of subpoenas, etc.) I think the case is already there on a wide variety of issues (emoluments, obstruction, etc.) That said, I recognize that most of the public likely isn't plugged in to this stuff, so I see the impeachment hearings as a means to do so - the media will cover it and people will see it. There's also a kind of "lead by example" thing going on here, I don't think you can underestimate that people take cues from leadership even if we pretend it's vice versa. People see (now) Dems not going for impeachment and would be more likely to go "Well, it can't be that bad I guess." Take the approval of gay marriage among the public as an example - watch it on a timeline with major events like Biden and Obama coming out in support of it and the reaction from general opinion.

Also, as a historical reference, here's support for removal of Nixon from Gallup polling with some major events highlighted: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FT_Nixon.png

Now, I know your gut reaction might be that this proves your point because "House Committee recommends impeachment hearings" only occurs when that line hits 50% but my argument here is: 1. In my conception of this, opening an inquiry would be more like the "Senate Watergate hearings" line precisely because of the defiance of subpoenas by this administration. If they're going to defy subpoenas and prevent the House from investigation then stronger measures need to be taken - not to mention this act itself was part of the Nixon articles already so there is precedent!

Also, I do mean "hearings" here. In the Clinton impeachment, House Republicans held no substantial hearings and went straight to the vote (it's actually more embarrassing, they did this all in the lame duck after they lost seats in the midterms - leading to then-Speaker Gingrich resigning because he was sure it'd help them politically.) I am not calling for that model even though I think between the long reported facts and the Mueller report are sufficient at this point that it would be justifiable.

tl;dr: Using Nixon as a loose guideline here, I believe opening an impeachment inquiry is the right thing to do here because this administration's defiance of subpoenas is preventing the House from performing its oversight duties under more "normal" circumstances (and should be considered impeachable itself) so a stronger measure needs to be taken. The hearings would allow the House to investigate and air the evidence to inform the public. Following this would be the actual impeachment vote.

Again, all of this relies on the House getting anything resembling a fair trial in the Senate. The Republican Party views this whole thing as a witch hunt and they will give it the process a witch hunt trial would deserve. You need 50%+1 to control the trial proceedings.
---

The House Judiciary Committee would be in charge of the investigations and hearings regardless of the Senate. They'd have months to conduct the process, set the narrative, and make their case. If they successfully lay out a compelling case for impeachment and win over the public (which is the actual goal of the hearings) and the Senate still goes for a farce trial against public opinion, I'm sure Democrats would love that.
---

https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1136653145369526272?s=21

Such a fucking disgrace
---

The House Judiciary Committee isn't going to uncover anything that Robert Mueller hasn't already found. And once the House has voted for impeachment, the Senate has jurisdiction. The HJC can't investigate anything if the Senate holds a speedy trial and acquits the president.
---

https://twitter.com/KannoYoungs/status/1136678934207221761

DHS-OIG investigation of 4 ICE facilities finds: nooses in cells, spoiled and molding food, and overly restrictive segregation.

I was going to link directly to the report (the tweet has it, it's a 28 page PDF) but since it has some pictures of the sites I opted not to.

Also in the report: All 4 facilities had expired food, two failed to provide recreation outside housing units, two had dilapidated and moldy bathrooms, one did not provide appropriate clothing and hygiene items, and one allowed only non-contact visits despite being able to accommodate in-person visits.
---

red sox 777 posted...

The House Judiciary Committee isn't going to uncover anything that Robert Mueller hasn't already found. And once the House has voted for impeachment, the Senate has jurisdiction. The HJC can't investigate anything if the Senate holds a speedy trial and acquits the president.

What Mueller found is already well beyond the minimum for impeachment
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The House Judiciary Committee isn't going to uncover anything that Robert Mueller hasn't already found. And once the House has voted for impeachment, the Senate has jurisdiction. The HJC can't investigate anything if the Senate holds a speedy trial and acquits the president.

What Mueller found is already well beyond the minimum for impeachment

Right, I'm saying that holding months of hearings to score political points won't work. The info is already out there. An actual impeachment trial will get the public's attention, but the Senate will control that.
---

Public awareness is key really, there was an article about Republicans being shocked to hear Mueller say the report didn't exonerate Trump because none of them read it. They only heard opinions of Barr and a bunch of people who didn't read it either.
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

Public awareness is key really, there was an article about Republicans being shocked to hear Mueller say the report didn't exonerate Trump because none of them read it. They only heard opinions of Barr and a bunch of people who didn't read it either.

And nothing will change if the House holds hearings about it but doesn't impeach. If they do impeach, the Senate has the power to make it an absolute disaster for the Democrats.
---

red sox 777 posted...

The House Judiciary Committee isn't going to uncover anything that Robert Mueller hasn't already found. And once the House has voted for impeachment, the Senate has jurisdiction. The HJC can't investigate anything if the Senate holds a speedy trial and acquits the president.

The House has the ability to formally declare impeachment inquiries and hearings. They have yet do to so, and all these other hearings would seem tiny by comparison. They also do this before filing the Articles of Impeachment aka "voting to impeach." THEN it goes to the Senate. But the House is in total control of the narrative until then.

You also make the mistake of assuming no new info would be found when we know at the absolute minimum there is redacted information the Judiciary Committee doesnt have access to. And also the mistake of assuming the impeachment inquiries would be solely limited to the Mueller Investigstion. Democrats may want to pursue other avenues. That's what all these fights over his tax returns and business dealings are about, building grievances while hoping Trump screws up in ways that help their case against him.
---

They've been talking about impeachment for years. Unless they actually vote for it, the public won't care.
---

They would literally hold a vote on opening the impeachment process.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

They would literally hold a vote on opening the impeachment process.

If it doesn't produce a result quickly, the public will lose interest or thinks it means Trump is exonerated because clearly they lack the evidence to proceed, or they would do so.
---

The Nixon impeachment inquiry went on for 6 months so I really doubt that's true at all.
---

You think people know how long the Nixon inquiry went on, much less to apply it logically here?

Also, what could possibly be more insulting to voters than impeaching a candidate during an election campaign? What are his supporters supposed to do if he is removed from the ballot at the last minute? The electorate will not tolerate this kind of attack on the right of the people to choose their president. If you do this you will ensure big GOP majorities in both houses of Congress that are totally devoted to president Trump.

This really isn't in the best interest of the country and I hope it doesn't happen. If you want to impeach, do it now - not during the election.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

The Nixon impeachment inquiry went on for 6 months so I really doubt that's true at all.

The Nixon inquiry produced big changes in the opinion of both the public and Republican senators. This one won't, because they won't find any new evidence.
---

The thing Red Sox is forgetting is that impeachment would lead to a Trump testimony, and an inevitable charge of Perjury.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The thing Red Sox is forgetting is that impeachment would lead to a Trump testimony, and an inevitable charge of Perjury.

Trump would just refuse to testify. Plead the Fifth.
---

Strike while the iron is hot. If they wait too close to the campaign it'll be seen as a political stunt. And when the left does political stunts people get ticked off and centrists cry, but the right can just rig the election and look bashful when caught.

It doesn't matter. Pelosi is not going to go for impeachment, and quite literally nothing changes if it does happen except the media circus loses its star. No real policy implications.

https://twitter.com/NSAGov/status/1136376127272968199

When your social values are in perfect alignment with the NSA...
---

i bet those fuckers also love breathing
---

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/NSAGov/status/1136376127272968199

When your social values are in perfect alignment with the NSA...

Lmao this reach is so bad, its honestly sad.

Anyway:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447392-biden-reverses-stance-on-hyde-amendment-after-blowback

lolbiden
---

Imagine supporting Trump and quite literally ever voting for republicans if you dislike the NSA

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Lmao this reach is so bad, its honestly sad.

Remember: Smuffin believes in breathing Air, much like Hitler did.
---