Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[lilpixieofterror]

Obama, Clinton, Bush.

All presidents have been subjected to oversight investigations. All have complied with witnesses and document production throughout their term. Trump is unusual for his lack of cooperation, both in the Mueller investigation and now during his impeachment.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid unless you saw it being made.

--Sam

[Sam]

Which is exactly what they did when they were in charge of the hearings in the House, right? Right?

Well, you've once again avoided answer my question about executive privilege in the case of career employees and documents so there's little hope for this one but it would be excellent if you or Cow Poke would try to identify at least one meaningful way that the HPSCI or Judiciary Committee hearings were different than past investigations (let's say the seven Benghazi investigations) in a way that made them illegitimate.

--Sam

[Sam]

This is why the needle has dramatically moved and Americans are OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of tossing Trump out, eh?

The only "effective" things it has done so far...

A) raise tons of money for Trump and
2) pretty much guaranty him a second term.

We've talked about this before -- that pre-impeachment polling showed ~60% against impeachment and removal, making a significant ~12-point movement toward impeachment rivaling only Nixon -- but you're still stuck repeating the exact same talking points that were knocked down.

Any road, Ipsos now polling removal at higher than 50%. Who knows what happens if the Senate trial actually includes witnesses like it should or if hot war with Iran starts up but, for right now, support for impeachment and removal is higher than polling has ever been since Nixon.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

We've talked about this before --

We have.

[Sam]

Welp, the McGahn appellate oral arguments are underway and, as expected, the Trump administration is continuing to argue that the courts should have no say in the dispute.

Would be good to hear how this squares with the folks complaining that Democrats rushed impeachment by not taking all their subpoenas to court, since that's the remedy the Trump administration is arguing is appropriate today.

--Sam

[rogue06]

Well, you've once again avoided answer my question about executive privilege in the case of career employees and documents

I already told you I don't know. For some reason you continue to pretend that I have not answered this, but that is your problem not mine.

[Cow Poke]

Welp, the McGahn appellate oral arguments are underway and, as expected, the Trump administration is continuing to argue that the courts should have no say in the dispute.

Would be good to hear how this squares with the folks complaining that Democrats rushed impeachment by not taking all their subpoenas to court, since that's the remedy the Trump administration is arguing is appropriate today.

--Sam

First of all, kudos for acknowledging that it's the Democrats pushing this, not the House.

Secondly, BOTH sides are keenly aware of how this all plays out with regards to the upcoming election, and are playing their parts accordingly.

[rogue06]

Any road, Ipsos now polling removal at higher than 50%. Who knows what happens if the Senate trial actually includes witnesses like it should or if hot war with Iran starts up but, for right now, support for impeachment and removal is higher than polling has ever been since Nixon.

--Sam

There are always outlier polls. The fact is that the combined average of the major polls (like what RCP does) has shown support for impeachment drop and more folks now opposing it than supporting it.

I seriously doubt that was the result that the Democrats expected.

[Cow Poke]

There are always outlier polls. The fact is that the combined average of the major polls (like what RCP does) has shown support for impeachment drop and more folks now opposing it than supporting it.

I seriously doubt that was the result that the Democrats expected.

The RCP average, last I looked was pretty much tied - BELOW 50%

[Sam]

I already told you I don't know. For some reason you continue to pretend that I have not answered this, but that is your problem not mine.

You responded to a question I didn't ask, regarding Kupperman and Bolton.

I asked how "understanding that the Trump administration has executive privilege" can fit with blocking career employees and documents that had no contact with the President.

It's not enough to say "Well, I don't know" if you're hinging your criticism on the "understanding" that the admin has executive privilege claims.

Narrow it down to the FOIA releases: how can the administration legitimately claim these are privileged documents when it comes to withholding them from Congress but release them through FOIA. How is that not an obstruction of Congress?

--Sam

[Sam]

First of all, kudos for acknowledging that it's the Democrats pushing this, not the House.

Secondly, BOTH sides are keenly aware of how this all plays out with regards to the upcoming election, and are playing their parts accordingly.

It's House counsel, representing the House. No kudos are needed, though it's illuminating that you think saying "House counsel" or "the House" is trying to hide some secret about which party represents the House majority.

And that's non-responsive. If the argument is "Democrats RUSHED this impeachment by not going to the COURTS to resolve an executive privilege dispute" then how on earth do any of you square DOJ's argument that this matter is entirely between Congress and the WH, with no room for the courts at all?

Whatever you think of how both sides are "playing their parts", it's your arguments about process that have to be addressed. Is this a legitimate matter for the courts and, if so, what's the legal theory showing that it's Democrats, and not the White House, with a weak legal claim?

--Sam

[Sam]

There are always outlier polls. The fact is that the combined average of the major polls (like what RCP does) has shown support for impeachment drop and more folks now opposing it than supporting it.

I seriously doubt that was the result that the Democrats expected.

What I had said to Cow Poke when I first brought this up was that I was open to polling pre-September that showed a higher net approval for impeachment. Both Cow Poke and yourself ignored this, accusing me of cherry-picking polls and talking about outliers.

But the thing is:

You have to show the poll is an outlier before you dismiss it as such. No such effort has been made.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

It's House counsel, representing the House. No kudos are needed, though it's illuminating that you think saying "House counsel" or "the House" is trying to hide some secret about which party represents the House majority....

You're ratcheting up the rhetoric, Sam. I simply said it as the DEMOCRATS in the House --- it was not the House per se --- on a very PARTISAN line.

You're free to believe otherwise.

[Sam]

You're ratcheting up the rhetoric, Sam. I simply said it as the DEMOCRATS in the House --- it was not the House per se --- on a very PARTISAN line.

You're free to believe otherwise.

It is the House per se. The legal counsel is literally representing the House of Representatives.

You said "kudos for acknowledging it's the Democrats pushing this, not the House." I'm sure you're aware of the connotation that aside carries.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

It is the House per se. The legal counsel is literally representing the House of Representatives.

You said "kudos for acknowledging it's the Democrats pushing this, not the House." I'm sure you're aware of the connotation that aside carries.

--Sam

I stand by my statement --- it was such a lopsided partisan procedure, and you can put all the lipstick you want on this porker, but it most certainly was not a unified House by any stretch of the imagination.

It was the Democrats pushing this --- the only correction I would make is that a FEW of them didn't get sucked into this partisan sham.