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

[UNCjigga]

There is some next level trolling going on with Pelosi and Co. announcing the articles of impeachment...and 5 minutes later announcing support for the USMCA trade deal in the House. See, we can walk and chew gum at the same time!

 

[ewdotson]

I'm not super-excited that the House is only submitting two articles of impeachment, but it is what it is. The more important thing though is what a horrifyingly bad precedent it's going to set when the Senate votes to not convict him on the obstruction of congress article. (Note that responsibility for the precedent will be on the Senate republicans, not the house.)

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm not super-excited that the House is only submitting two articles of impeachment, but it is what it is. The more important thing though is what a horrifyingly bad precedent it's going to set when the Senate votes to not convict him on the obstruction of congress article. (Note that responsibility for the precedent will be on the Senate republicans, not the house.)

The more you distill it, the less there is to argue about. Everyone knows more was involved but adding more stuff to the pot doesn't make the soup better.

 

[dainthomas]

The more you distill it, the less there is to argue about. Everyone knows more was involved but adding more stuff to the pot doesn't make the soup better.

I agree with only submitting the most obvious and well-documented crimes. If you submit one that has even a grain of ambiguity or doubt, that's all the righties will focus on. We need to make them stick with lying and diversion, and hope that enough voters see through it to win the presidency and the senate.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not super-excited that the House is only submitting two articles of impeachment, but it is what it is. The more important thing though is what a horrifyingly bad precedent it's going to set when the Senate votes to not convict him on the obstruction of congress article. (Note that responsibility for the precedent will be on the Senate republicans, not the house.)

It's the KISS principle.

 

[vi edit]

McCarthy - "It is not difficult to defend this president."

Welp, not sure I know what it takes to get the Trump taste out of your mouth, but bet that's harder than defending him.

 

[zinfamous]

Damn... damn damn damn damn damn

https://twitter.com/x/status/1203797230408421376

Every single republican is responsible for willfully supporting a direct agent of Vladimir Putin as POTUS.

It isn't any other way.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I agree with only submitting the most obvious and well-documented crimes. If you submit one that has even a grain of ambiguity or doubt, that's all the righties will focus on. We need to make them stick with lying and diversion, and hope that enough voters see through it to win the presidency and the senate.

Yup, using one weak (read: non-airtight) argument gives purchase for Republicans to hold on to, and de-legitimize the entire event, even though it shouldn't.

With the obstruction of Congress charge, the best they've got is claiming that Congress overstepped its grounds and they were expecting a court decision on the subpoenas before responding. I don't think the Senate wants to agree to this notion because it elevates the judicial branch above the others (must have approval to perform subpoenas). If they don't want that, they have to agree to the obstruction charge, and out he goes. The abuse of power one is self-explanatory really and blindingly obvious to anyone. I think the Senate will agree to that one as well, as long as they're rolling Trump under the bus. They don't want that behavior to become normalized for the next D president.

 

[fskimospy]

McCarthy - "It is not difficult to defend this president."

Welp, not sure I know what it takes to get the Trump taste out of your mouth, but bet that's harder than defending him.

I mean he’s not wrong, defending Trump is easy. You just lie and say whatever you want. Actually coming up with honest and logical arguments is way harder but because of their sheer impossibility in this situation Republicans don’t feel burdened by even having to try.

 

[Maxima1]

It's the KISS principle.

They dropped the criminal articles. They're feckless!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1204426904650076160

 

[cytg111]

Every single republican is responsible for willfully supporting a direct agent of Vladimir Putin as POTUS.

It isn't any other way.

I cant see it any other way either. Its Moscow all the way down. ALL the way down.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yup, using one weak (read: non-airtight) argument gives purchase for Republicans to hold on to, and de-legitimize the entire event, even though it shouldn't.

With the obstruction of Congress charge, the best they've got is claiming that Congress overstepped its grounds and they were expecting a court decision on the subpoenas before responding. I don't think the Senate wants to agree to this notion because it elevates the judicial branch above the others (must have approval to perform subpoenas). If they don't want that, they have to agree to the obstruction charge, and out he goes. The abuse of power one is self-explanatory really and blindingly obvious to anyone. I think the Senate will agree to that one as well, as long as they're rolling Trump under the bus. They don't want that behavior to become normalized for the next D president.

I expect an act of jury nullification in the Senate. They'll just lie, ignore the evidence & refuse to convict. Easy-peasy. Fuck you, Libtards.

It's like trying to convict a klansman of murdering a black man in front of an all white Southern jury circa 1960.

 

[Jhhnn]

They dropped the criminal articles. They're feckless!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1204426904650076160

Your concerns are duly noted.

 

[HomerJS]

They dropped the criminal articles. They're feckless!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1204426904650076160

If you look back @Nixon his articles were not going to be criminal they were

contempt of Congress
abuse of power
obstruction of justice

They did not charge with planning break in of the DNC

BTW - Everyone note Nixon was charged and the crime was not completed. Break in failed. GOP loses another defense claiming "Ukraine got the aid"

 

[Maxima1]

Your concerns are duly noted.

They must have been scared over the moderates defecting over it. Now GOP can argue that not even the Democrats buy it for either Ukraine or Trump-Russia. If it's not added sometime before it goes to the Senate, they show their cowardliness again. It's Obama during 2016 all over again.

Also...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1204151929263263745

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I expect an act of jury nullification in the Senate. They'll just lie, ignore the evidence & refuse to convict. Easy-peasy. Fuck you, Libtards.

It's like trying to convict a klansman of murdering a black man in front of an all white Southern jury circa 1960.

Can you even nullify as the Senate though? And wouldn't that normally require *everyone* to vote for jury nullification (rather than a hung jury), can you really consider it jury nullification on a 2/3rds vote? I feel like the 'nullify' votes would just be abstained... a full nullification would be if literally everyone abstained.

 

[SMOGZINN]

really small.

Can you even nullify as the Senate though? And wouldn't that normally require *everyone* to vote for jury nullification (rather than a hung jury), can you really consider it jury nullification on a 2/3rds vote? I feel like the 'nullify' votes would just be abstained... a full nullification would be if literally everyone abstained.

The Senate gets to choose the jury. It does not have to be the entire body. It is entirely possible they will decide not to allow any Democrats on the jury.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

really small.

The Senate gets to choose the jury. It does not have to be the entire body. It is entirely possible they will decide not to allow any Democrats on the jury.

I clearly don't know anything about this part of the process. I thought the senate itself *was* the jury, as in the Senate itself votes to convict. How can they choose a jury that doesn't include the minority?

 

[fskimospy]

Can you even nullify as the Senate though? And wouldn't that normally require *everyone* to vote for jury nullification (rather than a hung jury), can you really consider it jury nullification on a 2/3rds vote? I feel like the 'nullify' votes would just be abstained... a full nullification would be if literally everyone abstained.

Jury nullification is when the jury knows someone is guilty and decides to acquit them anyway, which seems to apply pretty well to the current situation.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I clearly don't know anything about this part of the process. I thought the senate itself *was* the jury, as in the Senate itself votes to convict. How can they choose a jury that doesn't include the minority?

The Senate gets to decide the rules of the trial. They are allowed to decide who the jury is, it can be the entire Senate, but it does not have to be. In the past it has always been either the entire Senate, or a specific committee, but it is entirely possible that the GOP will decide to hand pick their jurors. It is never been done, but it would take a SCOTUS decision to say it was not Constitutional, and that would probably take more than a year to work it's way through the courts. It is entirely possible the GOP will do some such thing just to delay the entire thing until after the election.
I fully expect some chicanery from Moscow Mitch.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Jury nullification is when the jury knows someone is guilty and decides to acquit them anyway, which seems to apply pretty well to the current situation.

No, I understand that part. I just didn't know that a 'jury nullification' can even be a possible outcome to a Senate impeachment hearing. I feel like this is kind of above those things, like 2/3rds don't get to decide that crimes aren't crimes at that level. You either get to sign your name as 'not guilty' (he didn't do it) or 'guilty' (he did it).

 

[hal2kilo]

No, I understand that part. I just didn't know that a 'jury nullification' can even be a possible outcome to a Senate impeachment hearing. I feel like this is kind of above those things, like 2/3rds don't get to decide that crimes aren't crimes at that level. You either get to sign your name as 'not guilty' (he didn't do it) or 'guilty' (he did it).

Meaning that they will purposely vote not guilty knowing that he is guilty. Don't try to think too hard on this.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The Senate gets to decide the rules of the trial. They are allowed to decide who the jury is, it can be the entire Senate, but it does not have to be. In the past it has always been either the entire Senate, or a specific committee, but it is entirely possible that the GOP will decide to hand pick their jurors. It is never been done, but it would take a SCOTUS decision to say it was not Constitutional, and that would probably take more than a year to work it's way through the courts. It is entirely possible the GOP will do some such thing just to delay the entire thing until after the election.
I fully expect some chicanery from Moscow Mitch.

Well that sounds pretty catastrophic. Ironically the Republicans could make the entire committee Democrats, let them impeach him, then howl about how it was a Democratic takeover (while permitting them to save face by not voting). That could be fun.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Meaning that they will purposely vote not guilty knowing that he is guilty. Don't try to think too hard on this.

Right but voting 'not guilty' isn't the same as jury nullification. I'm pretty sure that the Senate voting jury nullification on impeachment hearings would cause a rift in reality or something, like dividing by zero.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Right but voting 'not guilty' isn't the same as jury nullification. I'm pretty sure that the Senate voting jury nullification on impeachment hearings would cause a rift in reality or something, like dividing by zero.

How do you think jury nullification works in the courts? It's not like they have a ballot that says "guilty, innocent, nullify". It's just as hal2kilo says, voting innocent when you know the party is guilty because you don't like the law or the process is jury nullification.