Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

Page 66 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
With the more “conservative” judges on the Supreme Court. I believe it’s understood that they have a deeply entrenched view of the “Unitary Executive” who has unbridled power and authority over most everything.

I keep wondering what tune they will sing when a Democrat is President.

The ignoring of all the impeachable crimes by this President sets a precedent for both sides going forward. No more oversight means no more oversight in either direction. Will they all of a sudden going to have an epiphany about executive authority and oversight once a Democrat is elected president?

Most of the people currently being nominated to courts around the country are not qualified, neutral jurists. They're hardline conservative partisans, sometimes with no qualifications other than "sucked up to Trump".

this article... Not encouraging.

Back to impeachment though as this is established precedent we're discussing. I don't know about Kavanaugh but Gorsuch is far more independent whether one agrees with him or not. Part of his known position is on the independence of the Judiciary and that it owes nothing to Trump. So Thomas and Kavanaugh might want to upend all the decisions regarding Nixon and a hell of a lot more, but that then undoes everything associated with those decisions resulting in utter chaos.

I expect that in the end Trump will fail on many things, possibly sooner than later on many important things.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
But the request was from Congress and part of an impeachment inquiry.

I realize that, however, that involves the President and that Mueller was not about impeachment. I expect that will take much more time.

Here we're talking about Rudy. Rudy might claim some sort of privilege, but Trump killed that by denying that Rudy represented him with Ukraine. If Rudy isn't engaged in official business then EP doesn't apply. If he claims attorney-client privilege, then that is also gone because Trump said that Rudy didn't represent him. Rudy has no defense and if the Administration defies settled precedent then it will not stand for long.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,000
136
I realize that, however, that involves the President and that Mueller was not about impeachment. I expect that will take much more time.

Here we're talking about Rudy. Rudy might claim some sort of privilege, but Trump killed that by denying that Rudy represented him with Ukraine. If Rudy isn't engaged in official business then EP doesn't apply. If he claims attorney-client privilege, then that is also gone because Trump said that Rudy didn't represent him. Rudy has no defense and if the Administration defies settled precedent then it will not stand for long.

All I'm saying is that Congress explicitly told the courts that it needed that information as part of an impeachment inquiry and here we sit, six months later with a good chance of no resolution in sight. I understand that Trump's legal arguments are preposterous and will almost certainly be laughed out of court but much like with Nunes' lawsuits the goal isn't to win, it's to harass and delay. Our problem here is that the government is presumed to be acting in good faith when it makes legal arguments and our system has no answer when the executive decides good faith arguments aren't needed anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trenchfoot

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
I strongly disagree. If the other side throws the rules out the window the correct response is to provide them incentives to play by the rules in the future, which means disregarding the rules yourself.

That's why I'm such a big advocate of packing the courts and things like that. If they steal a SCOTUS seat you add two or three times the number they stole and then go back to them and say 'let's make a deal so that this sort of shenanigans won't happen in the future'. If the Democrats just continue to play by the rules the Republicans will (correctly) determine they pay no price for violating them.

If we follow your path, then what would be the incentive to play by the rules instead of to push the violation even further to advance one group's own interests when they have the chance? The only situation I can imagine here is if one group finds itself in position where they have lost completely enough to not have the opportunity to violate the rules in their favor. If that's the case, then why would the party in charge volunteer to abdicate power?

To me, if the system we have cannot hold here, then the system itself was not viable and in need of replacing. I am well aware that the replacement could be far scarier.
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
Back to impeachment though as this is established precedent we're discussing. I don't know about Kavanaugh but Gorsuch is far more independent whether one agrees with him or not. Part of his known position is on the independence of the Judiciary and that it owes nothing to Trump. So Thomas and Kavanaugh might want to upend all the decisions regarding Nixon and a hell of a lot more, but that then undoes everything associated with those decisions resulting in utter chaos.

I expect that in the end Trump will fail on many things, possibly sooner than later on many important things.

Yes, I don't see Roberts and Gorsuch siding with the idea of a King of the United States so much. ....though this is certainly what Thomas, Alito, and likely Brett "Buttchugging Natty Light" Kavanaugh want to see.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,000
136
I think House Democrats would actually like to be in position to be receiving new evidence that could lead to another impeachment down the road just in case Trump gets reelected and the Senate turns blue. Even if they refer to older acts, sufficient new evidence could be grounds for a

If we follow your path, then what would be the incentive to play by the rules instead of to push the violation even further to advance one group's own interests when they have the chance? The only situation I can imagine here is if one group finds itself in position where they have lost completely enough to not have the opportunity to violate the rules in their favor. If that's the case, then why would the party in charge volunteer to abdicate power?

To me, if the system we have cannot hold here, then the system itself was not viable and in need of replacing. I am well aware that the replacement could be far scarier.

It's a common game theory strategy called 'tit for tat' that has a strong and plausible path to superior outcomes in iterative cooperation games.


Given the assumption is that mutual cooperation is the overall best thing for the country, he basic strategy is that your default is to cooperate (ie uphold the system). When your opponent defects though, you similarly defect to 'punish' them. After doing so you return to cooperation. This shows your opponent that defection has costs that you are willing to inflict on them, but also shows that you're willing to cooperate if they are. So sure maybe they hit back and add 5 justices. Then you add 50, or 500. Every time though you hold out an olive branch offering to broker a deal where this judicial gamesmanship is forever removed.

I personally think it's the only viable alternative. If Republicans realize that Democrats won't inflict any costs on them for defecting then there's no incentive to cooperate because defecting is always better. The system only works when both parties have incentives to make it work. Playing by the rules no matter how badly your opponent violates them will also lead to a non-viable system.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
It's a common game theory strategy called 'tit for tat' that has a strong and plausible path to superior outcomes in iterative cooperation games.


Given the assumption is that mutual cooperation is the overall best thing for the country, he basic strategy is that your default is to cooperate (ie uphold the system). When your opponent defects though, you similarly defect to 'punish' them. After doing so you return to cooperation. This shows your opponent that defection has costs that you are willing to inflict on them, but also shows that you're willing to cooperate if they are. So sure maybe they hit back and add 5 justices. Then you add 50, or 500. Every time though you hold out an olive branch offering to broker a deal where this judicial gamesmanship is forever removed.

I personally think it's the only viable alternative. If Republicans realize that Democrats won't inflict any costs on them for defecting then there's no incentive to cooperate because defecting is always better. The system only works when both parties have incentives to make it work. Playing by the rules no matter how badly your opponent violates them will also lead to a non-viable system.

Tit for tat is not what it seemed to me you were describing. It's hard, also, to apply that strategy here. There is unequal, delayed, and non-guaranteed opportunity to respond in kind. But I would advise a kind of tit for tat that is not currently operating wherein votes for censure and articles of impeachment, etc. were commonplace responses to violations of duty, the response being intended to be proportional in nature, and no violation being normalized or countered only through verbal criticism. Bad policy is a different matter. If it does not clearly violate duty but is merely disagreed with, then verbal criticism is appropriate. Of course, impact on ability to act as lawmakers will be impacted by these actions. They should not be done with such intent, performing them as expediently as possible enduring that the action seems proportional to what it is in response to. Even expecting all these measures to fail to get votes and be massively distorted by Republicans, a consistent and predictable proportional response should not be deviated from. It is not necessary that rules be broken in order to respond.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,360
13,682
146
It's a common game theory strategy called 'tit for tat' that has a strong and plausible path to superior outcomes in iterative cooperation games.


Given the assumption is that mutual cooperation is the overall best thing for the country, he basic strategy is that your default is to cooperate (ie uphold the system). When your opponent defects though, you similarly defect to 'punish' them. After doing so you return to cooperation. This shows your opponent that defection has costs that you are willing to inflict on them, but also shows that you're willing to cooperate if they are. So sure maybe they hit back and add 5 justices. Then you add 50, or 500. Every time though you hold out an olive branch offering to broker a deal where this judicial gamesmanship is forever removed.

I personally think it's the only viable alternative. If Republicans realize that Democrats won't inflict any costs on them for defecting then there's no incentive to cooperate because defecting is always better. The system only works when both parties have incentives to make it work. Playing by the rules no matter how badly your opponent violates them will also lead to a non-viable system.
Does this particular form of 'tit for tat' still apply when the players of the game are voted in by a third party that constitutes orders of magnitude more members than the players?
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
I believe it’s understood that they have a deeply entrenched view of the “Unitary Executive” who has unbridled power and authority over most everything.

I keep wondering what tune they will sing when a Democrat is President.

The answer to your pondering is easy to solve once you understand that they do not hold to the concept of unitary executive. Their philosophy can better be summed up as 'I get my way or I start breaking shit'. It is just that simple. When viewed like that there is no hypocrisy, their actions are fully consistent with that philosophy. They get their way or they start to break shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,000
136
Tit for tat is not what it seemed to me you were describing. It's hard, also, to apply that strategy here. There is unequal, delayed, and non-guaranteed opportunity to respond in kind.

Well sure, games are deliberately simplified to examine ideas, they never apply perfectly to the real world.

But I would advise a kind of tit for tat that is not currently operating wherein votes for censure and articles of impeachment, etc. were commonplace responses to violations of duty, the response being intended to be proportional in nature, and no violation being normalized or countered only through verbal criticism.

Won't work. They won't give a single shit about censure and impeachment requires legislative majorities no party is ever likely to achieve. Any response has to be one that can be achieved with only a single party's powers.

The current situation is a great example of this. Trump has clearly committed crimes using his powers of office and I doubt many elected Republicans actually disagree with this evaluation. Democrats have played by the rules, slowly escalating in proportion with the wrongdoing uncovered, etc. The Republicans' answer isn't to debate this on the merits or even to meaninglessly censure Trump. Their response is 'fuck you'.

Bad policy is a different matter. If it does not clearly violate duty but is merely disagreed with, then verbal criticism is appropriate. Of course, impact on ability to act as lawmakers will be impacted by these actions. They should not be done with such intent, performing them as expediently as possible enduring that the action seems proportional to what it is in response to. Even expecting all these measures to fail to get votes and be massively distorted by Republicans, a consistent and predictable proportional response should not be deviated from. It is not necessary that rules be broken in order to respond.

But this is a predictable and proportional response and no rules are actually being broken.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,060
8,607
136
One way to counter Republican law breaking, lying and gaslighting is to expose them to the harsh light of day and reveal to the public at large that they are protecting a criminal mobstyle. The other big take away is that behind closed doors, many in the Republican party realizes that Trump is a net negative. This is a PR boon for the Dems but only if they publicize it.

Better yet, publicizing it means that the Toddler-in-Chief will probably hear about it, leading to all sorts of circular-firing-squad antics by Trump and the GOP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kage69

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
Well sure, games are deliberately simplified to examine ideas, they never apply perfectly to the real world.

I think the reasons that I listed are very compelling as to why your suggestion would not operate like a tit for tat, although that is certainly nothing either of us could prove.


Won't work. They won't give a single shit about censure and impeachment requires legislative majorities no party is ever likely to achieve. Any response has to be one that can be achieved with only a single party's powers.

The current situation is a great example of this. Trump has clearly committed crimes using his powers of office and I doubt many elected Republicans actually disagree with this evaluation. Democrats have played by the rules, slowly escalating in proportion with the wrongdoing uncovered, etc. The Republicans' answer isn't to debate this on the merits or even to meaninglessly censure Trump. Their response is 'fuck you'.

Oh I think there is clear evidence that Trump is extremely perturbed over the proceedings, and they have affected the public willingness to impeach/remove -- although moreso from taking the step than any evidence uncovered by public hearings. I think this does bolster my argument. Even without a majority, articles can be pushed at least to committee. It is not an entirely empty thing to do. And the point isn't that the task succeeds to remove the president, even if it ought to by rule of law. Tit for tat doesn't end because one side gets destroyed nor does someone responding in kind expect to directly benefit from their response. It usually hurts everyone, but the point is to contain the damage by avoiding escalation and preventing the other side from gaining advantage because you are afraid to respond without benefitting directly in return. If that scenario is applied consistently enough, someone eventually realizes that nothing is going anywhere through aggression, so they turn to cooperation.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
Tit for tat is not what it seemed to me you were describing. It's hard, also, to apply that strategy here. There is unequal, delayed, and non-guaranteed opportunity to respond in kind.

Right. This seems like it might end up being a BIG problem. Democrats might not get back the Senate for a LONG time. Senate doesn't look good in 2020 EVEN with Trump for 4 yrs. That's insane. If not 2020, Democrats would likely only get a shot after 6 yrs as almost any elected president's party faces some backlash for the first two.

Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png


 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Question for republicans. If Ukraine hacked the DNC, did they do it in conjunction with Seth Rich, or did they just happen to both do it separately and independently of each other?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Question for republicans. If Ukraine hacked the DNC, did they do it in conjunction with Seth Rich, or did they just happen to both do it separately and independently of each other?

Isn’t it amazing how concerned trump is regarding the DNC being hacked? Have you ever seen a republican so concerned about their political opponent’s welfare? No wonder trump supporters love him so much, he’s so thoughtful./puke

Trump is so concerned with corruption that he held up Ukraine’s aid because of it and only released the aid when Ukraine did absolutely nothing.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Question for republicans. If Ukraine hacked the DNC, did they do it in conjunction with Seth Rich, or did they just happen to both do it separately and independently of each other?

It's the goofiest conspiracy theory ever. The people who hacked the DNC & dumped it all out there via Wikileaks didn't do it to help Hillary. If the Ukrainians did it (as claimed) & blamed Russia it was to help Trump, obviously. Which wasn't the worst of it, anyway. The Russians' extensive social media campaign was obviously highly effective.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
It's the goofiest conspiracy theory ever. The people who hacked the DNC & dumped it all out there via Wikileaks didn't do it to help Hillary. If the Ukrainians did it (as claimed) & blamed Russia it was to help Trump, obviously. Which wasn't the worst of it, anyway. The Russians' extensive social media campaign was obviously highly effective.

In many respects, it's typical of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists can never seem to agree on who the conspirators were or how precisely the conspiracy was carried out. They all agree that the official narrative is false, but there is never a consistent narrative of what really happened. In this case, it doesn't matter who really hacked the DNC. All that matters is that it wasn't Russia, because that narrative implicates Putin, and, by extension Trump. Hence, one day they can say it was a DNC staffer who did it. The next, without skipping a beat or reminding their listeners of their prior theory, they can say it was Ukraine who did it. Nevermind that it's inconsistent that Ukraine created a fake ledger to hurt Trump then hacked the DNC to hurt Clinton. Nevermind that it couldn't have been both Seth Rich and the Ukraine who hacked the DNC. Alternative explanations exist solely to negate the official narrative. They don't need to be internally consistent or even coherent.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
In many respects, it's typical of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists can never seem to agree on who the conspirators were or how precisely the conspiracy was carried out. They all agree that the official narrative is false, but there is never a consistent narrative of what really happened. In this case, it doesn't matter who really hacked the DNC. All that matters is that it wasn't Russia, because that narrative implicates Putin, and, by extension Trump. Hence, one day they can say it was a DNC staffer who did it. The next, without skipping a beat or reminding their listeners of their prior theory, they can say it was Ukraine who did it. Nevermind that it's inconsistent that Ukraine created a fake ledger to hurt Trump then hacked the DNC to hurt Clinton. Nevermind that it couldn't have been both Seth Rich and the Ukraine who hacked the DNC. Alternative explanations exist solely to negate the official narrative. They don't need to be internally consistent or even coherent.

The Ukrainians hired Seth Rich to do it, then killed him so there's no trail back to them! It's like Benghazi!