Trump Isn�t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

[Cow Poke]

Ooh, I just came up with a new narrative for Democrats: Trump was totally trying to extort Zelensky, but being the naive, political novice that he is, he didn't realize what was happening, which is why he is now insisting that there was no quid pro quo!

That may actually work!

[Sam]

I get confused which clowns were saying what in the impeachment circus -- was this the hearing where Schiff brought in the 4 constitutional scholars to give their OPINIONS on what the constitution says about impeachment?

I'm going to guess you're going to pretend THEY were "fact witnesses", too.

Not to embarrass you too much but you're talking about Judiciary Committee hearing, chaired by Nadler, not Schiff. And, no, those were not fact witnesses; they were constitutional scholars informing the committee about the requirements and justifications for impeachment.

I understand that it's too much for most people to understand the complicated details of impeachment & related news but this is basic stuff and if you can't bother to keep it straight then it's probably better to not imagine your strong opinions on the subject as anything more than lacking the necessary foundation.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

Not to embarrass you too much but you're talking about Judiciary Committee hearing, chaired by Nadler, not Schiff. And, no, those were not fact witnesses; they were constitutional scholars informing the committee about the requirements and justifications for impeachment.

Not embarrassed at all, Sam, as much as you would love to think so. I said up front I get confused as to which part was what --- the whole boring thing just ran all together.

I understand that it's too much for most people to understand the complicated details of impeachment & related news but this is basic stuff and if you can't bother to keep it straight then it's probably better to not imagine your strong opinions on the subject as anything more than lacking the necessary foundation.

--Sam

Yeah, I understand impeachment quite well, Sam, but like most Americans, the more the Democrats foisted this sham on the American public, the less interesting it became.

Fact is, at whatever point, they had to bring in "constitutional scholars" to add their OPINIONS as to what was next, and stacked the deck there, too.

Anything else on your mind?

[Sam]

Not embarrassed at all, Sam, as much as you would love to think so. I said up front I get confused as to which part was what --- the whole boring thing just ran all together.



Yeah, I understand impeachment quite well, Sam, but like most Americans, the more the Democrats foisted this sham on the American public, the less interesting it became.

Fact is, at whatever point, they had to bring in "constitutional scholars" to add their OPINIONS as to what was next, and stacked the deck there, too.

Anything else on your mind?

Yes: "constitutional scholars" doesn't need scare quotes since all of the witnesses were, in fact, constitutional scholars. That and putting OPINIONS in high caps as though the opinions of constitutional scholars are not to be given substantial weight on constitutional issues betrays an insecurity about making sound judgments.

For what it's worth, if you are genuinely confused about something concerning Trump's impeachment, it would be best not to frame it in a haughty or snarky way, with a tacked on insinuation at the end. It's perfectly OK to be ignorant about a subject -- folks just have to learn to acknowledge that ignorance and turn on learning mode. So, to recap:

Fact witnesses were brought into HPSCI hearings. They explicitly refrained from making judgments whether Trump's actions breached criminal or impeachable lines. Constitutional scholars were brought into JC hearings to lay out whether actions similar to what Trump is accused of could merit impeachment. The JC, and then the full House, took those two considerations and voted on impeachment.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

Yes: "constitutional scholars" doesn't need scare quotes since all of the witnesses were, in fact, constitutional scholars. That and putting OPINIONS in high caps as though the opinions of constitutional scholars are not to be given substantial weight on constitutional issues betrays an insecurity about making sound judgments.

For what it's worth, if you are genuinely confused about something concerning Trump's impeachment, it would be best not to frame it in a haughty or snarky way, with a tacked on insinuation at the end. It's perfectly OK to be ignorant about a subject -- folks just have to learn to acknowledge that ignorance and turn on learning mode. So, to recap:

Wow, how did you pack so much snark into a post about being haughty and snarky?

Sam, calm yourself --- I watched the hearings - pretty much all that was on, and all they were doing was playing to the audience, thinking they could con the American people into believing - in overwhelming numbers - that they were doing something honorable and incredibly important. Somehow, they managed to LOSE support, which I believe stunned them. I think it surprised them so much that they couldn't even bring themselves to forward their farce of a "work product" to the Senate.

Fact witnesses were brought into HPSCI hearings. They explicitly refrained from making judgments whether Trump's actions breached criminal or impeachable lines. Constitutional scholars were brought into JC hearings to lay out whether actions similar to what Trump is accused of could merit impeachment. The JC, and then the full House, took those two considerations and voted on impeachment.

--Sam

Yeah, and how'd that work for them?

Nice talk, Sam.

[Sam]

Worked out about as expected: facts were brought to light, moved the needle on the need to remove Trump from office for his corrupt actions, and caused a sizeable minority of right-wing partisans to reduce themselves further, such that they can only manage to repeat the same talking points again and again, constantly distancing themselves from even the concern of being thoughtful or factual.

That's not great for society, of course, but it does show people where they are.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

Worked out about as expected: facts were brought to light,

Well, lots of hear say stuff, anyway.

moved the needle on the need to remove Trump from office for his corrupt actions,

Ummmmm.... needle moved the wrong way, Sam.

and caused a sizeable minority of right-wing partisans to reduce themselves further, such that they can only manage to repeat the same talking points again and again, constantly distancing themselves from even the concern of being thoughtful or factual.

That's not great for society, of course, but it does show people where they are.

--Sam

You kinda left out the part about the Independents becoming even more convinced this whole thing is a sham.

But, hey - ya gotta hang onto what you can!

[Sam]

Well, lots of hear say stuff, anyway.



Ummmmm.... needle moved the wrong way, Sam.



You kinda left out the part about the Independents becoming even more convinced this whole thing is a sham.

But, hey - ya gotta hang onto what you can!

Average support for impeachment as of 2019.10.1: 45.2%
Average support for impeachment as of 2019.12.25: 47.8%

Average Independent support for impeachment as of 2019.10.1: 40%
Average Independent support for impeachment as of 2019:12.25: 42%

Not hard to look up and get those numbers right.

[Cow Poke]

Average support for impeachment as of 2019.10.1: 45.2%
Average support for impeachment as of 2019.12.25: 47.8%

Average Independent support for impeachment as of 2019.10.1: 40%
Average Independent support for impeachment as of 2019:12.25: 42%

Not hard to look up and get those numbers right.

Depends on the poll, Sam.

poll impeach.jpg

[Sam]

Depends on the poll, Sam.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41717[/ATTACH]

That's why you average polls, just like in elections.

And you claimed that "the needle moved the wrong way", implying net negative support both in general and among Independents. That's false, shown to be false, and it would be good practice to acknowledge when you've said something false instead of shifting the focus.

--Sam

[Sam]

Also worth taking impeachment proceedings in full context: how one views the "impeach and remove" questions needs to be couched in the broader continuing support for impeachment proceedings:

Image 120.jpg

[Cow Poke]

That's why you average polls, just like in elections.

Take a closer look, Sam - that's the Real Clear Politics AVERAGE.

And you claimed that "the needle moved the wrong way", implying net negative support both in general and among Independents.

That's what the RCP average shows, yeah.

That's false, shown to be false, and it would be good practice to acknowledge when you've said something false instead of shifting the focus.

--Sam

Sure, Sam - cause you're always right.

Hey, earlier, when you were posting about.... well, lemme grab that right quick....

Welp, I think that'll do. We've all shown our cards and played our hands and everyone can look and see who's acting like a partisan and who's acting like a reasonable person.

--Sam

Is that what this is all about Sam? You 're so insecure that you need to be seen as "the reasonable person"? Seeking the "approval of men"?

[Cow Poke]

Also worth taking impeachment proceedings in full context: how one views the "impeach and remove" questions needs to be couched in the broader continuing support for impeachment proceedings:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41718[/ATTACH]

Well, the problem with that, as you well know, Sam, is that it's up to the Senate to convict and remove, and barring something absolutely earth-shattering, it ain't happening.

[Sam]

Take a closer look, Sam - that's the Real Clear Politics AVERAGE.



That's what the RCP average shows, yeah.



Sure, Sam - cause you're always right.

Hey, earlier, when you were posting about.... well, lemme grab that right quick....



Is that what this is all about Sam? You 're so insecure that you need to be seen as "the reasonable person"? Seeking the "approval of men"?

If I were seeking the approval of folks on here, my ideas and standards would be similarly malleable.

You said something false about how impeachment proceedings had moved the needle "the wrong way" and said something false about Independents.

I'm interested in getting people to learn and say true things and avoid false or foolish things. I consider it a key foundation to the Christian faith.

Others operate differently but that's their road.

--Sam

[JimL]

Well, the problem with that, as you well know, Sam, is that it's up to the Senate to convict and remove, and barring something absolutely earth-shattering, it ain't happening.

And the majority of American people, according to an ABC poll, shows 7 out of 10, - 71% to 22%, including 64% of republicans, believe that witnesses and documentary evidence should be allowed in trial. A majority believe that Trump should be impeached and removed from office, and that's before the trial has even begun. And a majority also believes that Trump improperly pressured Zelensky as well as that he obstructed congress.
I don't think it's not going to be as easy for the Senate to sweep Trumps lawless unconstitutional behavior under the rug as you hope it will be, CP.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/expec...ry?id=67761813