Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 260: Now Endorsing Every Candidate

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean why not
---

Why stop at two when you can endorse 20?
If there's any dispute we'll settle it in the timeless way, a battle royale.

---

In my standing as an unremarkable citizen of a foreign country who has not even been to the United States of America in over twenty years, I hereby endorse Abraham Lincoln for the 2020 American Presidency

---

Lincolns corpse would be a big improvement tbqh

---

Can't say I'd go for a zombie president.
But i can compromise on that dog that's a mayor somewhere. Has more experience than Pete!

---

Quoting from closed topics is hard (or i'm dumb) so wrt "what did the Senate do with Clinton" discussion that broke out at the end of last topic

From the first paragraph of the bipartisan resolution for Senate Impeachment Trial Procedures for the Impeachment Trial of Bill Clinton that was passed unanimously.

"[some talk about the deadlines the parties have to file responses to the charges and the House reply. The same submissions have just occurred in this case]... and the House have until 12 noon on January 13 to file its replication with the secretary of the Senate, together with the record, which will consist of those publicly available materials that have been submitted to or produced by the House Judiciary committee, including transcripts of public hearings or mark-ups and any materials printed by the House of Representatives or House Judiciary Committee pursuant to House Resolutions 525 and 581. Such record will be admitted into evidence, printed and made available to Senators.

Now with McConnell's proposed rules that he's looking to ram through with just Republican support (and it seems he has at least Romney and Alexander with him on the rules so it'll pass) the Senate will vote on it later - seemingly after opening arguments which means they'll have the House Impeachment Managers likely making their opening arguments without first establishing what the fucking record even is. This would normally also be true that they'd be making the defense fly blind too but given that McConnell has literally stated he's coordinating with the White House in the trial...

Any non-sham court decides these rules before the trial and doesn't just make this shit up as they go.

---

https://twitter.com/TimAlberta/status/1219598119178047488?s=19

Ouch

---

xp1337 posted...

Quoting from closed topics is hard (or i'm dumb) so wrt "what did the Senate do with Clinton" discussion that broke out at the end of last topic

From the first paragraph of the bipartisan resolution for Senate Impeachment Trial Procedures for the Impeachment Trial of Bill Clinton that was passed unanimously.

Now with McConnell's proposed rules that he's looking to ram through with just Republican support (and it seems he has at least Romney and Alexander with him on the rules so it'll pass) the Senate will vote on it later - seemingly after opening arguments which means they'll have the House Impeachment Managers likely making their opening arguments without first establishing what the fucking record even is. This would normally also be true that they'd be making the defense fly blind too but given that McConnell has literally stated he's coordinating with the White House in the trial...

Any non-sham court decides these rules before the trial and doesn't just make this shit up as they go.

Because the Senate found that the House in the Clinton case conducted a legitimate investigation that led to admissible evidence. The defense has alleged and many senators have agreed that the House investigation this time lacked due process, is replete with hearsay, and generally produced no admissible evidence. Given these claims, the Senate needs to vote to decide this.

---

I mean a lot of that probably is true and shouldn't be surprising.

That said, coming from her that's borderline an endorsement. She's pushing for Warren too so that's as good a difference as necessary.

---

"I'd be shocked if the Senate didn't do the same with Clinton. To do otherwise would be to deny Clinton his most basic due process."
*evidence presented the Senate didn't do the same with Clinton*
"[No evidence of being shocked or reevaluating in the face of being dead wrong] Oh well that was fine. But this time it would be wrong."

---

i know very little about impeachment procedures but isn't the entire point of the trial that the senate is going to judge if there's sufficient evidence to impeach trump...? seems kinda weird to me if the senate is going "oh we've already looked into the so-called evidence and it's all bullshit so nobody should be allowed to present it during the trial." why even have a trial then? you might as well immediately dismiss the charges by that logic.

also, if the senate found that there was sufficient admissable evidence in the bill case, why were the charges dismissed during the trial? was the senate like "yup there's evidence but this is a kangaroo court lawl" in that case?

---

Well evidence can be admissible and not be believed. Evidence can also be admissible and not sufficient to prove the charges made.

And Xp, I don't think I was wrong. The Senate in the Clinton case did vote on whether to admit the House record and they voted for it. That's all McConnell is asking for here - a fair vote. If the House proposes that they admit all of the House record the outcome will be no. But that doesn't mean each individual piece of evidence is going to be ruled inadmissible.

There are well established rules in regular court to aid in deciding on admissibility. While not binding on the Senate, this idea that the House won't be allowed to speak is ridiculous. If the House has any non-hearsay evidence that they've disclosed to the defense ahead of time and doesn't violate the Bill of Rights, they'll get to present it.

---

I know Red Sox is a joke account, but the sad thing is that we live in a society where there are people just like red sox that aren't joke accounts.

---

So to explain a bit further, the prosecution and defense can agree to admit evidence to save time. Like, suppose the prosecution wants to call an expert in psychic readings to testify about what she saw in her crystal ball. The defense could probably object and get her testimony excluded on the ground that psychic readings are not reliable. But if the defense doesn't mind, they could agree to let the testimony in. Maybe the defense thinks the jury will think it's a witch hunt!

It looks like this happened in the Clinton case given the unanimous vote to admit the House record. Note that is not a vote to believe the contents of the House record, only to allow the jury to consider it. In a regular court the judge would rule on admissibility before the jury hears the evidence so that if it's found inadmissible the jury never hears it. That's not possible in the Senate where the senators are judge and jury, but in principle the senators are supposed to not consider evidence found inadmissible.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

why even have a trial then? you might as well immediately dismiss the charges by that logic.

well this is literally the white house position and so by mcconnell's admission the position of the republican senate caucus

The conventional thinking here is that the White House and GOP want to get finished before the State of the Union so that Trump can take a victory lap in front of Congress and/or not risk throwing a rage tantrum if it's still happening and worsening his case. However, seeing as how the State of the Union is currently scheduled for the beginning of the February that means they'd need to speedrun the trial. The maximum fuckery of "no witnesses and maybe no evidence" would certainly aid that.

For her part, Pelosi has noted that Trump could do any number of other things such as submitting the SotU in writing as it was originally done (lmfao as if Trump would pass on the chance to be on camera) or requesting they change/delay the date.

For historical reference, Clinton gave his SotU while the trial was still ongoing. Clinton's trial was almost 4 weeks long which would obviously blow way over the scheduled February 4th date of the State of the Union. The timetable proposed by McConnell could have, in theory, the trial ending next week if they just go max fuckery and prevent any witnesses, etc.

---

If the trial is a sham, the House should just impeach again. He could be the first President to be impeached twice! I can only imagine his reactions.

---

Yes, I think some of the Republican senators are worried about the optics of dismissing the charges even if they know it's the right thing to do. Plus the House could then vote for new articles of impeachment that actually charge real crimes. Probably the safest thing to do to avoid dismissal is to just charge bribery. That is explicitly stated by the Constitution as an impeachable offense so they couldn't really dismiss it.

---

xp1337 posted...

For her part, Pelosi has noted that Trump could do any number of other things such as submitting the SotU in writing as it was originally done (lmfao as if Trump would pass on the chance to be on camera) or requesting they change/delay the date.

Come to think of it, isn't Pelosi the person in charge of inviting Trump to the Capitol to give the SotU address? Could she threaten to rescind his invitation if a fair trial isn't allowed? I feel like Trump would fold pretty easily just because of his need for everyone to pay attention to him.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Come to think of it, isn't Pelosi the person in charge of inviting Trump to the Capitol to give the SotU address? Could she threaten to rescind his invitation if a fair trial isn't allowed? I feel like Trump would fold pretty easily just because of his need for everyone to pay attention to him.

Yes, but there are workarounds. Mitch could invite Trump to give the SOTU in the Senate chamber and tell the House they can watch on TV.

---

Ashethan posted...

If the trial is a sham, the House should just impeach again. He could be the first President to be impeached twice! I can only imagine his reactions.

Impeach McConnell tbqh

---

Unrelated to impeachment, but the recent numbers on government spending show that we spent more on farmers affected by the president's dumb trade war than we have on:

• NASA
• CHIP
• Maintaining our nuclear weaponry
• The entire State Department

I'm sure glad that the power of the purse lies with Congress and that the party of fiscal responsibility is taking things seriously!

Edit for one more piece of context:
Remember the auto bailout and how everyone was alarmed at the cost of it? Yeah, we've already spent over double that on the farmers, and that spending isn't stopping because the trade war is ongoing! Even once it ends, those markets aren't going to all return to American farmers because, get this, the purchasers are now using other suppliers!

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Impeach McConnell tbqh

There is precedent that members of Congress cannot be impeached, but imagine the fun we could have if it were allowed.

House: We impeach Mitch McConnell.
Senate: We acquit Mitch McConnell. Also we received a second set of articles of impeachment impeaching Nancy Pelosi.
House: Wait, we didn't impeach Pelosi.
Senate: Well, we received a document titled "Articles of Impeachment against Nancy Pelosi" so we are going to put her on trial.
House: Well, then we won't present any evidence against her.
Senate: We convict Nancy Pelosi for obstruction of justice for directing the House to refuse to prosecute her.

---

Sometimes Schumer does things to infuriate me and make me wish he wasn't Minority Leader.

but this speech right here is on point and on fire

glad we got good schumer today

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

https://twitter.com/TimAlberta/status/1219598119178047488?s=19

Ouch

Remember when I lost an unloseable election in 2016? Lets do it again. - Hillary Clinton

---

Ok, how much is Donald Trump paying Hillary Clinton to make all these comments? It's like she is trying to make the 2020 Democratic nominee lose.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Ok, how much is Donald Trump paying Hillary Clinton to make all these comments? It's like she is trying to make the 2020 Democratic nominee lose.

If anything she is going to give Bernie a major surge

---

So reflecting a bit more on the impeachment trial:

Democrats spent months telling us that impeachment was not a criminal trial and the House did not have to give the President all the rights the Constitution gives to a criminal defendant. Ok, fair enough. You are allowed to have a kangaroo court hearing in which you don't allow the defense to call witnesses. But by the same reasoning, the Senate is equally empowered to decide what it thinks the standards and rules for an impeachment trial should be. And the Senate can make the standard of proof for an impeachment trial higher than a regular one. Fair is fair.

---

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-documentary/index.html

I'm sure that this is a news story that will no one on this topic will be upset over.

---

Sounds like an endorsement to me tbh

---

I guess this doesn't upset me because we all saw it coming. Everyone who follows this closely knew the establishment was going to literally throw everything at Bernie. He campaigned hard for her, he refused to talk about her e-mails, and his reward is this. It speaks a lot more about Hillary than it does Bernie.

---

red sox 777 posted...

So reflecting a bit more on the impeachment trial:

Democrats spent months telling us that impeachment was not a criminal trial and the House did not have to give the President all the rights the Constitution gives to a criminal defendant. Ok, fair enough. You are allowed to have a kangaroo court hearing in which you don't allow the defense to call witnesses. But by the same reasoning, the Senate is equally empowered to decide what it thinks the standards and rules for an impeachment trial should be. And the Senate can make the standard of proof for an impeachment trial higher than a regular one. Fair is fair.

Impeachment is an indictment

No one gets to call witnesses in defense before being indicted

---

EDIT: Also this isn't really tied to what I just posted but I saw it and lmao

https://mobile.twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1219662797941944322

---

So LOTM, what do you think of that letter versus the absolute viciousness in which Hillary attacked a major contender for the primary?

---

Hillary Clinton blasts Sen. Bernie Sanders in a new documentary, saying "nobody likes him" and declining in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter to say whether she would endorse and campaign for him if he's the Democratic 2020 nominee

Hillary Clinton with that 4D chess gonna endorse Trump to make him lose the support of his base.

Seriously though any democrat unable to endorse whoever wins the upcoming primary can forever shut up about anything to do with politics for the rest of time thanks.

---

why can't hillary just put all her energy into releasing yearly book reccomendations and music playlists like the Obamas

---

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-2020/index.html

He's not right often, but I agree with this take.

We welcome your hatred.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Impeachment is an indictment

No one gets to call witnesses in defense before being indicted

The members of the grand jury are allowed to call witnesses and issue subpoenas to compel their appearance. Here, the majority of the House refused to allow the minority to call its witnesses. So, if Mitch was really being fair, he would apply the same rule in the Senate - only the majority party may call witnesses. But he's actually being nice and allowing both sides to present evidence if they get past the motion to dismiss stage. Very generous of him!

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

So LOTM, what do you think of that letter versus the absolute viciousness in which Hillary attacked a major contender for the primary?

I think a lot of her complaints about him are valid, but she shouldnt be voicing them now and should certainly endorse him if he wins the nomination.

---

"throwing everything at bernie" would mean getting Hillary to endorse Bernie in the primaries!

anyhow Bernie already made the best statement that I'd wish everyone would follow

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/479163-sanders-responds-to-clinton-comments-my-focus-today-is-on-a-monumental

tldr: who the fuck cares

---

More seriously, LOTM, the precedent that the House violated was not that the defense gets to call witnesses, but that the minority party in Congress gets to call witnesses. The minority on any Congressional committee is always allowed to call witnesses - or at least that was the precedent.

---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1219698190129225728

Kinda weird to tell people to look at one of the most damning pieces of evidence against you, but okay!

---

red sox 777 posted...

More seriously, LOTM, the precedent that the House violated was not that the defense gets to call witnesses, but that the minority party in Congress gets to call witnesses. The minority on any Congressional committee is always allowed to call witnesses - or at least that was the precedent.

They were allowed to call witnesses (iirc Sondland and Morrison were their witnesses?). What was rejected was the Republicans either calling witnesses that couldn't possible have any relevant knowledge (e.g. Hunter Biden) or calling a witness in order to illegally retaliate against them (calling the whistleblower in order to reveal their identity and then allow Trump to punish them).

edit: I think Volker might also have been one of theirs

---

Reminds me of that video of maga cultists repeating that line... then admitting that they'd never read it.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

They were allowed to call witnesses (iirc Sondland and Morrison were their witnesses?). What was rejected was the Republicans either calling witnesses that couldn't possible have any relevant knowledge (e.g. Hunter Biden) or calling a witness in order to illegally retaliate against them (calling the whistleblower in order to reveal their identity and then allow Trump to punish them).

edit: I think Volker might also have been one of theirs

Right, well then the Senate may also refuse to hear from witnesses with no relevant knowledge. So strike all the law professors the House heard from, none of whom had any personal knowledge of any of the allegations. And based on the precedent set by the House, the majority of the Senate has complete discretion to decide who has and does not have relevant knowledge. So it may be that the only witnesses are going to be Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. I look forward to them pleading the fifth.

---

Can McConnell at LEAST please call Joe and Hunter Biden before the Iowa caucus if he's going to speedrun the trial anyways? I'd be willing to make this sacrifice.

---

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1219705151503638528

Very legal and very cool!

---

Cippolone's legal strategy appears to be "lying his ass off":

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1219708163362033664

---

I'm not sure how I feel about Trump's thing about holding members of Congress responsible for what happens in their district. Like how much power does Nancy Pelosi have to address homelessness in San Francisco? She's SF's delegate to Congress, not its queen. It seems unfair to blame her for problems outside the scope of her position.

---

red sox 777 posted...

I'm not sure how I feel about Trump's thing about holding members of Congress responsible for what happens in their district. Like how much power does Nancy Pelosi have to address homelessness in San Francisco? She's SF's delegate to Congress, not its queen. It seems unfair to blame her for problems outside the scope of her position.

By his logic, Trump is President of San Francisco; he could fix it!
---

Jakyl25 posted...

By his logic, Trump is President of San Francisco; he could fix it!

But Trump has made it clear that he's only president of the Beautiful red parts of the map that voted for him, so SF is on its own

---