|
Post by joew on Dec 4, 2019 18:36:43 GMT -5
I watched a few hours of the Judiciary Committee hearing today. I had some thoughts beforehand and have some reactions to what I heard.
I never thought that Trump was fit to hold public office, and I still don't. He's making a mess of things, especially in foreign affairs, and I think a lot of what he's done deserves impeachment, including the Ukraine matter.
At today's hearing the Republicans quoted the Democrats very effectively on the point that an impeachment should only be done if the conduct is so bad that even members of the president's party see that it is justified. At present, that is not the case. Any impeachment would be a strictly party line matter in the House, and few Republican Senators would vote to convict. Trump would remain in office and it would probably shore up his support among his supporters.
So my conclusion is that, after they've fully developed their case, the Democrats should pull back from impeaching and leave the record as an element for the 2020 campaign. Then they should concentrate on nominating the candidate who can attract the most voters ffrom across the political spectrum in order to hand Trump a crushing defeat.
As for the Republicans — while it would be nice, from my point of view, to have a narrow GOP majority in the Senate to force some measure of bipartisanship — their complete lack of principle and courage under Trump has me thinking that it's time to destroy the Republican Party and replace it with one that truly stands on principles such as limited government, separation of powers, subsidiarity, and federalism.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Dec 4, 2019 23:41:35 GMT -5
Well said, Joe! I've heard only snippets on the radio as I commute to/from work, and watch summaries/clips on TV in the evening. This morning I heard the testimony of "the Republican guy" who actually sounded quite reasonable, that is, he wasn't a Trump sock puppet and he brought up some unfavorable aspects of the impeachment hearings - the total opposition of all Republicans to any impeachment. One of my patients today told me that the man is actually a Democrat opposed to Trump but invited by the Republican committee members because he does not think the president should be impeached when there is no bipartisan support. I did not hear any of the Democratic testimony but I am sure they too sounded convincing. Yet given the Republican majority in the senate, this effort to remove Trump from office is doomed, so the hearings are seen as a futile political production. Some voters will perceive the Democrats' effort as persecution, and choose to side with "his base" by supporting Trump. Others feel it is a waste of time, even if Trump is a guilty criminal, and this late in his term, his removal from office should be left to the voters. Meanwhile, Democratic senators who are candidates for president will be tied up in DC when they "should be" campaigning, and all attention is focused on impeachment instead of issues.
Inside the Beltway it seems that no (Republican) politician cares about anything except getting re-elected. Every issue is hyperpartisan, demonizing "the other side," furthering divisiveness and making it impossible for any real legislative work to be done. It is a shame that we have come to this.
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Dec 5, 2019 9:34:13 GMT -5
Well, there we go: Nancy Pelosi just called for Articles of Impeachment.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Dec 5, 2019 23:53:35 GMT -5
Watching the news tonight, I saw an interview with some politician who pointed out that the articles of impeachment have no mandated timetable for presentation to the senate for "the trial."
As Joe suggested, leave the articles on the record for consideration in the election campaign and actual voting, avoiding a circus in the senate which the Democrats will "lose" as Senators vote strictly along party lines.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Dec 8, 2019 10:59:41 GMT -5
Sorry I'm late to this thread. I'm worried, too, about a fizzle in the Senate. I wish more witnesses and media folks would stress what the Constitution says and what the language meant at the time.High crimes and misdemeanors had been in use before our constitution and it didn't mean a hanging offense by any means. Turlow's analysis was thoughtful and would be correct if this were a criminal court trying to prove bribery according to today's definition. But anyone can see it was a form of bribery to say, "I'll release your money if you repay me with a public [CNN} declaration of an investigation."
Do you think we need a new constitution? So much is unclear and needs historical context - what the words meant to them and also the world in which they lived.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Dec 8, 2019 20:58:55 GMT -5
Sadly, I don't think we could achieve a new Constitution, as there is far too much divisiveness and partisanship to reach agreement on what should be in any new constitution.
With Republicans rolling over and playing dead to anything Trump demands, and the Democrats splintered between the very progressive wing and the incrementalist wing, I suspect any changes or creation of a new constitution would likely be slanted towards ever more "conservative" content, further concentration of power in the executive branch and increased dictatorial power for the US President.
We've already nearly abolished the three co-equal branches of government. IMHO, we've been sliding in that direction since 1980 at an ever increasing pace. To me this is a much more serious problem than negotiating the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors." All the varied oaths of office involve a commitment to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic; I've sworn to that oath myself three different times.
There are many inside the beltway who place their personal interests ahead of our national interests, but Donald J Trump is the worst ever and by far the most blatant.
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Dec 8, 2019 21:16:33 GMT -5
What are other governments doing right so that they aren't coming to this quagmire that we have now? The USA is young compared to the biggies of Europe and Asia.
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Dec 9, 2019 9:01:30 GMT -5
Apparently, the "third" option is seriously being considered: Articles of Impeachment being drawn up by the House, voting on impeachment by the House (and there are enough votes for the House to impeach,) and then not sending it to the Senate for trial. This is a fascinating (and legal) strategy.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Dec 9, 2019 10:19:56 GMT -5
Wow, I thought I was keeping up, but that's a new one for me.
I know this isn't the time for a new Constitution, but it keeps hammering on me: most people don't know the basics of how this nation started. We all had decent history courses, didn't we? My 8th grade teacher even made us memorize the Preamble. People's ignorance astounds me. I saw one of those man-on-the-street pieces a couple of years ago with the interviewer asking people to identify the 3 branches of government. No one knew! So they don't know that the founders put equal power in the hands of the people, in courts of law and in the elected leader. They don't know about King George III. Everyone needs a crash course in our roots.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Dec 9, 2019 15:17:11 GMT -5
Remember, half of all Americans have a below average IQ but almost all are allowed to vote anyway. Before we institute required testing for voter qualification, recall how that was used to prevent women, Black people, poor people ("poll taxes") and many others from voting. There is also the adage that direct democracy is a mob with ballots.
Susan, many other governments have quagmires of their own and some that are able to undertake and achieve actions are dictatorships. The UK and Israel are two democracies that have parliamentary governments that at the moment appear to be stymied in leadership. I keep in mind Winston Churchill's sentiment that the US government is the worst form of government there is, except for all the others.
BTW, did you know that Boris Johnson was a native-born US citizen until the IRS began sending him bills for taxes owed, as US citizens are taxed on their world-wide income even if they have never worked here or lived here for any length of time. He settled with the IRS for the capital gain taxes owed for the sale of his London home (the Brits do not tax such income), then renounced his US citizenship attained because he was born in NYC while his father was a graduate student, then the family returned home to England when he was a few months old. (Most countries do not award citizenship just because you were born there.)
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Dec 11, 2019 15:11:22 GMT -5
(Most countries do not award citizenship just because you were born there.) I didn't know the info you imparted. Surprising. I'll also point out that "award citizenship" is a pretty loaded statement. I endorse bestowing citizenship based on where one is born as well as to whom one was born. Citizenship does not belong to any one person or group so I'm not sure how it can be awarded. No one owns it to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Dec 12, 2019 10:02:30 GMT -5
Watching the news tonight, I saw an interview with some politician who pointed out that the articles of impeachment have no mandated timetable for presentation to the senate for "the trial." As Joe suggested, leave the articles on the record for consideration in the election campaign and actual voting, avoiding a circus in the senate which the Democrats will "lose" as Senators vote strictly along party lines. The third option, that Doc described so well, seemed to be big news over the weekend, and is now not being mentioned. It would be quite a shock if Nancy Pelosi pockets the Articles of Impeachment and refuses the long and embarrassing senate trial Agent Orange is saying he wants.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Dec 13, 2019 2:27:16 GMT -5
"Award" or "grant" or "obtain" are commonly used terms with regard to citizenship, but I wasn't intending to make a loaded statement, nor do I have an opinion on whether it is owned. National governments will state who is allowed to be a citizen, and most governments/nations regulate who is a citizen of a given country by evaluating to whom one is born, not where one is born, jus sanguines ("right of the blood") not jus solis (aka "birthright citizenship"). This is a hot topic lately, and a common attitude is that US citizenship is very valuable, definitely an award that some feel should be more limited than is currently the case. Like most countries, the US may willingly sell citizenship to those with enough money ("investment citizenship"), and US citizenship is among the priciest globally. A monetary value is set for citizenship, so "award" may not be inappropriate. Just observing the facts as they exist today, not making a value judgement.
BoatBabe, at this point I think Nancy Pelosi probably won't put those articles of impeachment in her pocket and say no more. The progressive wing of the party has overruled her initial opinion that the risks of an impeachment battle outweighed the potential benefits. That horse is out of the barn, and we appear to be headed for that senate trial which the Trump Party (it's no longer really a Republican party) will win. As has already been demonstrated, no one other than Mitt Romney will side with the Democrats against Trump.
How touching to recall that I began investigating how to obtain dual national status when W was elected, as that was when I began thinking I might prefer to live outside the US. Now W represents "the good old days."
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Dec 13, 2019 10:03:23 GMT -5
Historically speaking, history shines a different light on circumstances and reveals consequences, especially unintended consequences, unknown or misunderstood at the time.
We have lots of different experiences now, so we can look back and say, "You know, it wasn't THAT bad a deal."
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Dec 15, 2019 1:31:32 GMT -5
When we think of Dubya as "the good old days" and "not that bad," it's because he was sane. What a sorry criterion for a not-utterly-depraved president.
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Dec 15, 2019 14:51:50 GMT -5
When we think of Dubya as "the good old days" and "not that bad," it's because he was sane. What a sorry criterion for a not-utterly-depraved president. Sane is looking pretty good right now. Actually, I must admit: it took me 3 or 4 decades to appreciate LBJ and his exemplary contributions.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Dec 16, 2019 0:36:07 GMT -5
These days, I appreciate the concept of a president who is sane. W also had the sense, or encouragement, to hire many qualified individuals in his cabinet and stuff. In contrast to his orangeness who eliminates any hiree that shows evidence of sanity or thoughtfulness. Yes men only need apply.
I'm largely with you BB, about LBJ. Going to college, becoming aware during the Viet Nam War, I couldn't get over that fact that 58,000+ of my age-mates perished because of his expansion of that war. Yes maybe Kennedy started it, and Nixon continued it, but the bulk of the blame sat/sits on the shoulders of LBJ.
This week we learned that the government has been continuing the same sort of shenanigans for the past 18 years in Afghanistan - through Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump administrations. I know, Clinton was out by 9/11 but the WTC was bombed in 1994 and the threat was ignored.
Trump is worsening the situation for health care, poverty and hunger. Not to mention - everything else. But I do not see all these impeachment hearings helping in any way. It will probably be worse during the Senate trial.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jan 10, 2020 1:49:32 GMT -5
Feeling somewhat bedraggled with this endless dreary political news, in this dreary, cold, rainy post-holiday period, I felt some relief to see a high profile story about the British royals. Harry and Megan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, are "stepping back" from their "senior royal" duties. They say they plan to divide their time between the UK and North America.
What is the meaning of this?
Will they live happily ever after?
I guess it is true that Charles and Diana produced "the heir" (William) and "the spare" (Harry).
Can I refocus my attention from Serious News and follow the Sussexes instead? That little Archie is so cute!
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Jan 10, 2020 9:59:34 GMT -5
Indeed, on all accounts.
When bedraggling fatigue strikes, it is best to do something else. Anything else. Have a laugh, have a dance, have a nap.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 11, 2020 13:52:19 GMT -5
Apparently the British tabloids were just bl**dy toward the Sussexes, especially Her Highness, but I wonder if the new arrangement will solve the problem. Well, it will give them other scenes and other activities to occupy their minds,
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jan 11, 2020 16:52:54 GMT -5
I think you are right Joe. It seems there is a very strong racist streak in the populace - not just the UK but everywhere I guess. Certainly we've seen a lot more overt racism here in the US since President Trump has been courting his racist base segments, and encouraging crude behavior and attitudes. Meghan is beautiful and so light-skinned she could "pass" but it seems many still adhere to that old concept of "one single drop" and see only that "she's black."
[As grandma of two beautiful biracial grand-daughters, this worries me a lot. Furthermore, their father and other grandmother are immigrants from Africa, and there is so much hostility to immigrants - mostly if they are persons of color - that this frightens me. Never mind of course that they were asked to come here because grandmother's skills and position were of value to the US]
Harry has long been quite popular as, being "the spare," he was more free to be a somewhat less rigid senior royal. Also he does so much resemble his beloved mother Princess Diana. But he was raised "really royal" and I don't know if he and Meghan can get out from under that ingrained past.
It seems to me that perhaps Canada would be a good location for them. Still part of the Commonwealth so the royals are highly regarded and are "special," but they would be of a lower profile there. I remember how excited everyone was when William and Kate and one or two of their "littles" visited BC a few years back. The future King and Queen must live in England but the Sussexes don't have to.
Have any of you noticed what a talented photographer Kate is? Many of the most beautiful family photos that are published were taken by her.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 16, 2020 0:34:52 GMT -5
Oh my, I'm way behind again. Everything remotely (heh) electronic in my house has been ailing or completely bedridden. For a while 2 TVs had no sound, which is a terrible burden to someone who's been fixated on the news since hanging chads. My printer was diagnosed and treated for what seemed like a fatal disease, but now it's had a relapse. Worst of all, my 7-8 year-old computer was pronounced "very sick" by the accommodating Comcast guy who was only supposed to fix the TVs but amiably took a look at my aged Toshiba. None of this is of the slightest interest to you all except in that it accounts for my not commenting or commiserating. So here we are on Jan.15th, the Articles have been delivered, and Lev the thug has suddenly gotten very voluble. Interestingly, I bought the "thug" moniker and was prejudiced enough to think he was just a boneheaded enforcer. Tonight Rachel Maddow interviewed him and he was definitely not a bonehead. He looks like a stocky bar bouncer with a lamentable comb-over, but he was articulate and at ease. Excerpts will no doubt be played over and over, so if you didn't see the program you'll see some clips. I felt as if we were being schooled in the everyday reality of fixers and schemers. Rachel was obviously trying not to say WTF to every revelation, while he was almost nonchalant. Tomorrow should be an interesting day.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jan 16, 2020 1:19:13 GMT -5
Perhaps I've not followed closely enough even though we have been snowbound for a couple of days. Between the power outages I have watched the debates and quite a bit of TV news, but I still do not know who "Lev the thug" is.
I have heard some good reports about Rachel Maddow but I generally will not watch either Fox News or MSNBC because every time I drop in for a few minutes, all I see and hear is shouting. So I stick with PBS, CNN, and sometimes the network news. Frankly, I get a lot of news from FlyerTalk and a couple of doctor internet boards - not really a news source, but posts will link to a news item, then posters discuss. More viewpoints that way. I don't care for liberal or conservative echo chambers, as they involve preaching to the choir.
Occasionally I wonder what ever happened to Glenn Beck, the Fox commentator, but I don't enough to Google him. He went to high school here in B'ham, same place two of our three kids attended. Western Washington the State is very true blue, so it is hard to believe someone could emerge as conservative as Beck. Also, he seemed rather ignorant, and the high school involved is known as producing high-achieving academic grads.
Sigh, electronicals. Printers seem always terribly unreliable and low quality no matter how much one spends, and our computers always seem to need upgrading every 4 years or so. I had 3 or 4 Toshibas in a row and they were great, but the last time I bought a new laptop (2 years ago or so) I switched to Lenovo because Toshiba seemed to be dropping in quality. Lenovo seems to require odd power source tips though, never ones in the typical "universal power supply" packages.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Jan 16, 2020 14:08:21 GMT -5
It is all just a miasma. If it were the Dems behving like tRump and his gang of thugs, the Rebumblekins would be lived with rage and indignation. I cannot fathom the mindset of people like McConnell and Graham. Do they not care even a little bit about the suvival of the country (and, indeed, the world, if they keep denying climate change)? Are they so besotted with power and greed that they can't see straight? I miss Gerald Ford.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jan 16, 2020 15:29:29 GMT -5
Almost all of them, of either party, care most about being re-elected. For Republicans at present, that means aligning with Trump, regardless of how they feel about his policies and persona, which are abhorrent. I watched PBS the last two nights when they did a 4 hour special on the transition from Obama to Trump. They interviewed former Senator Jeff Flake, R-AZ who was a conservative but was reasonable. Sad - he like many other reasonable Republicans, has left.
Perhaps when senators are sworn in as jurors, swearing to protect and preserve the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, follow the law and all that stuff, they may change...wait, they already did that when sworn in as senators and it hasn't worked.
Where is that guy (Joe Welch, I think it was, back in the day) who stood up to Joe McCarthy and said "Have you no decency sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" We need a turning point like that.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Jan 16, 2020 16:36:11 GMT -5
Yes, it was Joe Welch. I recently watched a show about Joe McCarthy--very frightening similarities to today, but at least the Republicans finally woke up.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 24, 2020 23:02:55 GMT -5
Well, I've watched a fair amount of the trial in the Senate. I think the House managers have made a compelling case that Trump used his office to try to force Ukraine to investigate the 2016 election and the Bidens. This was purely for his political advantage and directly against the interests of the United States. (And he's still at it and trying to get China to investigate too.) Then he unconstitutionally defied the right of the House of Representatives to investigate the case. I can't imagine how his lawyers can justify what he did, and is doing or justify leaving him in office.
I hope that enough Republicans will join the Democrats to call witnesses like John Bolton and subpoena documents and that the additional evidence will be compelling even to some of the hitherto Trump loyalists. If he stays in office, there's no telling what Putin will think he can get away with after the 2020 election. I wouldn't be surprised if he launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine, followed by one of the Baltic States, and Trump wouldn't lift a finger to protect either.
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Jan 25, 2020 0:15:58 GMT -5
No matter the outcome of this impeachment, trump-supporters will not accept the truth. Either the Dems are warping the facts and got away with mistreatment of 45 or See, we were right all along. This is so divisive. Friendships, marriages, families are at stake. I'm sure many have already gone under.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jan 25, 2020 1:14:24 GMT -5
I do not understand why Trump loves Putin so much. Don't they remember that Russia is the enemy, they want to bury the US?
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Jan 25, 2020 9:20:38 GMT -5
HE'S A BIG FAN OF DICTATORS. tHAT'S WHAT HE ASPIRES TO BE.
|
|