This thread is intended for a civil, focused discussion on the various impeachment proceedings of President Trump and others in the administration.
Keep in mind that this is a narrowly focused thread, created to more closely manage this topic of discussion. The pros and cons of said impeachment were soft-banned in the General US Politics thread
for a few months, due to incessant arguing. However, there is a high desire to discuss said events and it is of such high prominence that we are willing to give this devoted thread a try.'
Things to keep in mind:
- This is about impeachment, votes on, investigations on, inquiries in, articles on, etc. Other American political discussions should go into the General Politics thread.
- Standard rules apply. Civility and appropriate forum conduct are paramount.
- Circular arguments about pros/cons are what got the topic banned in the first place. If we feel it's going circular, we will intervene. Multiple intercessions will not be looked on kindly.
- As for that intervention, mods will be monitoring and moderating this thread more closely due to the nature of the topic, and its history in the General Politics thread. We will warn and thump in an effort to keep this thread on-topic and civil, but we are more than willing to lock it if people aren't willing to course-correct.
This thread doesn't have to be a case of Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things, but it will be, if necessary.
Edited by nombretomado on Sep 26th 2019 at 5:19:24 AM
Lots of people cared, it's just that they weren't in swing states and thus didn't matter.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
For what I get, in that moment turmp was in the peak of is teflon powers, bouncing anything as exageration from media(because if there were trump, something would have being done already).
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Aside from that, what's being focused on for the impeachment proceedings A) happened while Trump was in office, B) is a direct abuse of power of that office, and C) has a clearly defined paper trail, as evidenced by... well, all the testimony and evidence that's been offered up already.
Edited by ironballs16 on Nov 30th 2019 at 9:31:46 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
That was a fascinating article, and Trump may be guilty of rape, but it still said nothing about trafficking or Epstein.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
There has been some very uncomfortable implications going around due to somethings Trump has said about Epstein and some things that he has been caught doing (Like walking in on girls in beauty pagents) that Trump might very well be a pedo that was very much a friend of Epstein's.
Of course that will never see the light of day as Trump's base and the conservatives in the White House are willing to pull the wool over every wrongdoing he has done or possibly has done.
Well, naturally. One doesnt expect the Democrats to go along with it, though.
Huh. What has the Epstein affair to do with impeachment?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Nothing, so far.
White House says it will not participate in Wednesday's Trump impeachment hearing
Trump’s aides responded defiantly to the first of two crucial deadlines he faces in Congress this week as Democrats prepare to shift the focus of their impeachment inquiry from fact-finding to the consideration of possible charges of misconduct over his dealings with Ukraine.
The Democratic-led House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, tasked with considering charges known as articles of impeachment, had given Trump until 6 p.m. (2300 GMT) on Sunday to say whether he would dispatch a lawyer to take part in the judiciary panel’s proceedings on Wednesday.
“We cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the President a fair process through additional hearings,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, according to a copy of a letter seen by Reuters.
Cipollone - while citing a “complete lack of due process and fundamental fairness afforded the president” in the impeachment process - did not rule out participation in further proceedings. But he signaled that Democrats would first have to make major procedural concessions.
Nadler has given the White House a Friday deadline to say whether Trump will mount a defense in broader impeachment proceedings.
I got a question: Should Jerry Nadler give Trump his Miranda Rights? In other words the warning given to anybody who has been arrested by the police on suspicion of a crime.
See, we keep saying Impeachment is a political process but one that uses the judicial process to gain legitimacy. The closer it looks to a criminal case the better for the Democrats in terms of getting the Jury to vote with the evidence instead of the party line.
If this was a criminal case this would be the point the defendant would be charged with a crime now that the initial investigation has raised sufficient suspicion. That's normally a defining moment in any case - to wit it is normally the denouncement of any police procedural show.
It might also cut through what Trump is really doing by boycotting the hearings this week and beyond - he isn't refusing to give legitimacy to an unfair process, he's actually waiving his right to an attorney.
Edited by singularityshot on Dec 2nd 2019 at 12:10:30 PM
I'm as against Trump as anyone but I don't believe a sitting President can be arrested. They have to be removed from office first. Thankfully, this doesn't apply to his circle of criminal associates that I believe need to be arrested and prosecuted as much as possible.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Dec 2nd 2019 at 12:16:58 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
It's true that he can't be arrested / indicted. There's nothing in that which says he can't have his rights given to him, as if he had been arrested.
It's just trying to create that analogous moment that the public can latch onto.
Queen of Good Things, Honest
I think you're misunderstanding the function of the Miranda Rights. Their purpose is to make a suspect's off-the-cuff statements admissible in court as evidence against them. Police will often skip them if the evidence seems strong enough without.
Trump is POTUS in an impeachment trial of POTUS. His statements are already counted as evidence against him.
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
Okay then, maybe reading the Miranda Rights was not the right approach to what I feel the Democrats should be trying to achieve.
I just feel that the Democrats should try and challenge the narrative that Trump is setting down about it being a witch hunt without due process. The more that narrative takes hold, the easier it becomes for Senate Republicans to vote party line and acquit Trump. Trump is spinning this decision as a principled stand in an effort to not give the inquiry legitimacy.
The counter narrative that I feel could be effective is to say that this decision is the equivalent of Trump waiving his right to an attorney.
Aren't they combating that narrative by having due process? My understanding is that, whatever the GOP claim, they've been following rules and procedures throughout.
I think the idea of giving Miranda Rights is that "You have the right to stay silent. Anything you say after this point can and will be used in court against you" (sp?) is the iconic phrase of US criminal procedure. Anyone familiar with US crime shows knows it.
So giving Trump that notice is a clear signal understandable to everybody that this is an actual criminal process.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Hasn't it been repeatedly noted that this isn't a criminal process, though? I've seen several people note impeachment is a political process.
That's what I've been getting at. Since this is a battle for public opinion we should rely on how the public perceive the criminal process. I'm going to guess here that most people do not have direct experience of the criminal process, so most people are going to be getting their knowledge from TV such as police procedural and courtroom dramas. Since the conclusion of nearly any episode of a police procedural is the arrest and reading of the rights to the perpetrator then trying to do the same for Trump might trigger the same connection in the minds of the public.
It's a political process yes. But it has all the trappings of a criminal process (trial by jury, judge presiding, defendants and prosecutors etc) and the closer the Democrats make it seem like a criminal process the harder it becomes for Republicans to vote to acquit on party lines.
Figure of Hourai
No, it just makes the party line vote easier because they can say "not a crime" ad nauseum.
Avatar Source
Agreed, impeachment is not a criminal process, pretending that it is would just play into the Republican's hands.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Queen of Good Things, Honest
Notably, Trump has actually been requesting that the Senate hearing take the form of a criminal trial. He wants that because we all know that the final vote in the Senate will end with Republicans shielding Trump. He will not be removed from office.
Democrats want the narrative surrounding the final vote to be that Republicans refuse to do their congressional duty and hold the President accountable for his crimes. Republicans want the narrative to be a complete and total exoneration. Democrats want Trump to be "not convicted", while Republicans want Trump to be "found innocent".
Thus, the optics of a criminal trial concluding in such a fashion would serve to enhance the idea that Trump was tried fairly and found innocent of wrongdoing. That plays to the Republicans' benefit, not ours.
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
You actually only need to mirandize a suspect if you intend to conduct a custodial interrogation. Something they just blurt out is usually considered hearsay, though there are some exceptions.
They should have sent a poet.
The only plus to Trump's Demand for a "Trial" is it will make the Senate Process a complete and utter circus which is what the GOP does not want. They wanted it quick clean and done so they could spin it however they please. Mitch most likely had planned to do the absolute bare minimum when it came to the Senate Impeachment hearings. But with Trump's demands for a "Proper Trial" Mitch now has to treat the thing...well...somewhat properly that means more air time for the whole affair more time for parade all his dirty laundry.
Right at the start of Primary season since I can't see the Senate starting its part of the process before the new year. Which again the GOP...DOES NOT WANT.
Queen of Good Things, Honest
...
Wait, no, that's the opposite of right. I think what I meant to say was, I accept your correction.
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/11/trump-impeachment-hearings-rape/602428/
The Atlantic did a follow up that was basically, "Why the fuck didn't this get more press?"
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.