House Intelligence Committee Draft Impeachment Report

Discussion in 'The Water Cooler' started by IUclover, Dec 3, 2019.

  1. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    41,349
    Likes Received:
    6,241
    No, we should point out what is accurate in place of his deception.

    How would rage serve getting to the truth?
     
    MrBing likes this.
  2. tooold4

    tooold4 Freshman
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2018
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    417
    For what it's worth, Turley was the more accomplished witness. A calm delivery of a reasonable alternative without stumbling over words during presentation. The Dems missed the chance to ask him to expand on his ideas in order to expose the faults.
    I imagine there was more than a little bit of discussion before the Dems. decided to chose the path they are on. Considerations could have included that the courts would have ruled against the investigation. Another could have included the courts ruling in favor of the subpoenas and the resulting testimony from members of the executive branch not meeting their expectations.
    The Constitutional questions were going to come to the fore anyway, why not put the president in a position to defend his obstruction? The obstruction is the key and the most obvious basis for an article of impeachment. IMIANALO
     
  3. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    36,245
    Likes Received:
    6,768
    You are of course free to criticize my posting style, but it’d be clearer and easier if you did it without the pretext. And if it were the high road you were traveling there’d no need to suggest I’d forgotten what I’d very recently posted. It seems uncivil and hypocritical to insult someone while lecturing them about the virtue of civility. I just foolishly thought we were discussing the subject that was being discussed.
     
  4. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,868
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    I am not claiming that we should pretend he is sincere I am claiming we behave properly in this instance by putting aside questions of motive and considering his argument on its own merits. I am claiming we should respond to his argument. If the argument has merit we should be persuaded. If it doesn't then we should reject it. When we reach our conclusions we should set aside our own partisanship and ask what is best for the country.
     
    HillzHoozier, Digressions and MrBing like this.
  5. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    41,349
    Likes Received:
    6,241
    You haven't been civil yet, Rock. You've been arrogant and presumptuous the whole time we've been discussing this. And your thin skin is clearly showing that my mild and subtle rebuke was more than you can take.

    Grow up.
     
  6. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    36,245
    Likes Received:
    6,768
    Since I’ve not suggested that rage leads to truth I have no idea why you’re asking me this question. What I did instead do was disagree with iu@att’s suggestion that we must address Turley’s absurd both-siderism as though it was a serious argument advanced in good faith. In fact, it is neither, and (as I’ve said several times now) pretending that bullshit is serious argument seems more like dishonesty than civility.
     
    37Hoosier likes this.
  7. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    36,245
    Likes Received:
    6,768
    This is where you should have started. Then I could have gone straight to “piss off” without wasting my time.
     
  8. UncleMark

    UncleMark Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2001
    Messages:
    16,662
    Likes Received:
    13,534
    In my trailer park level of thinking, I'd think that allowing Marbury to apply to fundamentally constitutional disputes between the two other branches -- as opposed to interpreting the constitutionality of statutes -- would be too much. This is one-on-one, without a referee.

    Of course, after I realized the House already invited a referee to weigh in, I now know I'm arguing a moot point.
     
  9. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    41,349
    Likes Received:
    6,241
    I see you have raised the white flag.

    Your surrender and apology are both accepted.
     
  10. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    41,349
    Likes Received:
    6,241
    You sure you want a one-on-one, no referee bout in the context of a wannabe dictatorship? It's bad enough that Trump has stacked the deck with an Article 2 AG and an Article 2 Supreme Court Justice. Do you want to him to throw in the military and law enforcement too?
     
  11. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    41,349
    Likes Received:
    6,241
    Good to know. It's hard to tell sometimes . . . .
     
  12. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,868
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    FWIW I greatly appreciate the dialogue with you and your perspective. Let me try saying it this way. Those on the committee must address Turley's absurd argument that impeachment is entirely the product of partisan feelings. It strikes me that a good way to respond to that argument is to say that it essentially argues that the motives for actions matter more than the merits. Whether or not the Dems have partisan motives in advancing the impeachment charges is no more relevant for the merits of those charges than is Turley's motives for offering his argument in the first place. We should dismiss both concerns as irrelevant and move on.
     
    hoosboot likes this.
  13. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    36,245
    Likes Received:
    6,768
    Not every kossack rapes and pillages, but they all work for the Tsar.
     
  14. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    41,349
    Likes Received:
    6,241
    So do we lump kossacks who rape and pillage in with those who do not? Do we lump all kossacks who do not rape and pillage in with those who do?

    What is your point here?
     
  15. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    36,245
    Likes Received:
    6,768
    I told you to piss off, and I wish you’d accept that.
     
  16. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    41,349
    Likes Received:
    6,241
    As if you have authority to tell me what to do . . .GRIN.

    Now, if you would, please, respond to my very reasonable question, reasonably posed. What the hell are we supposed to make of your comment about kossacks?
     
  17. UncleMark

    UncleMark Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2001
    Messages:
    16,662
    Likes Received:
    13,534
    I'm not sure involving the courts would make a difference. I'd imagine Trump would pull a Andy Jackson if he thought he could get away with it.
     
  18. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    36,245
    Likes Received:
    6,768
    That even the “good” kossacks still work for the Tsar. Turley isn’t as bad as, say, Devin Nunes, but his bullshit arguments serve the same purpose as Nunes’s more egregious misbehavior.
     
  19. Stuffshot

    Stuffshot All-American
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,640
    Likes Received:
    2,277
    I would say it this way.

    We should listen to Turley because (1) he is polite and respectful, (2) he disagreed with Trump and Barr on some significant points, (3) he didn't say Trump was innocent, (4) he seemed to be saying only that the House should take more time and investigate further before deciding, (5) Jordan, Gohmert and Meadows didn't care what he said, and (5) he is the best legal expert the GOP could come up with!!

    That's good information to know. That means the best defense Trump could come up with (and force the Republicans to present on his behalf) is you haven't caught me yet -- keep investigating.

    Trump himself connects the dots and emits the smoke that indicates there is a fire.
     
    MrBing, tooold4, Tacoll and 1 other person like this.
  20. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    41,349
    Likes Received:
    6,241
    Thank you.

    As for Turley, I'm not sure that I'd classify him as a "good" kossack, or absolve him from raping and pillaging. That his testimony was packaged more palatably than Nunes' egregiousness doesn't make it palatable. If that's where you're going, I get it and agree.

    OTOH, I don't think Turley's performance today deserves the same level of response that Nunes' egregiousness deserves. I'd like to see Nunes investigated, and, if the facts warrant it, prosecuted and jailed. Turley should just be relegated to a legal eddy somewhere.
     
    MrBing likes this.
  21. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,868
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Let's stipulate that Turley makes his argument in bad faith. Transport him back to 1998 and he makes exactly the opposite argument. My point is that it is wrong to grant that partisanship Turley's, yours, mine or anyone else matters. Turley's argument would be absurd even if he were sincere. The Democrats argument is correct even if it is in their partisan advantage to make it.
     
    hoosboot likes this.
  22. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,868
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    I disagree that we should listen because he is polite and respectful. We should listen to hear if he makes a discernible argument. If he does then that argument should be addressed.
    We shouldn't take anything that Turley offers on his authority. We should evaluate his claims and arguments on their merits. His claim that the House should continue to investigate is belied by the refusal of the President to answer subpoenas and to intimidate and obstruct witnesses from appearing. We should also draw the inference that you make in 5 that these are the best arguments that can be made.
     
    Digressions and hoosboot like this.
  23. Stuffshot

    Stuffshot All-American
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,640
    Likes Received:
    2,277
    You are 1 million percent correct in saying their invalid argument is that "the motives for actions matter more than the merits."

    This is the basis of the Trump-radicals' argument that the investigation is invalid because Strok and Page didn't like him, Comey was biased, other opponents were never-Trumpers, Hillary supposedly paid for the "dossier", no Republican voted for impeachment, blah blah blah Y-A-W-N and EIEIO.

    The uncomfortable truth for the squirming underwear of Trump and his supporters is that no one has the right to be investigated by a neutral stranger. In fact, I'd guess that 99.9% of those in prison were caught because the investigating cops had investigated them previously, knew they were scum and didn't like them.

    The judges are to be neutral -- not the investigators. Trump doesn't get it.
     
  24. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,868
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    So let me try to see if I know where you are coming from. Arguments like those offered by Turley today are not only not advanced in good faith. They are advanced in order to disrupt and distract from good faith discussion. The offering of these arguments is, itself, a profound incivility hidden behind the merest figleaf of rationality and civility. Such abuses are properly met not by patient attempts to correct a misunderstanding but rather by pointing directly at the incivility and contempt that is the only real thing they express. Am I getting it?
     
  25. IUclover

    IUclover Sophomore
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    803
    Likes Received:
    594
    https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/24/is-mueller-uncovering-ukrainian-rather-the-russian-collusion/

    This an op-ed by Turley from Feb. 2019. Just wanted to share it because it's somewhat relevant. He makes a point of possible Ukrainian collusion but, in the end, it all trails back to Russia. Also, lots of terrible people and most of the people are connected to Trump in some way. I have more thoughts but I'll leave it at that. I mean, Turley is good friends with Bill Barr so there's that too.
     
  26. Harry Hondo

    Harry Hondo Senior
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    2,543
    And two of Turley’s law students were Micheal Avanatti and Kellyanne Conway. Both liars and one a criminal.
     
  27. sglowrider

    sglowrider Hall of Famer
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    18,575
    Likes Received:
    13,100
    Location:
    Tiny Red Dot
    Devin Nunes being the ranking member makes a mockery of the whole process. The Republican Party is a lost cause. It is like trying to have a civilized conversation with a fish.
     
  28. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    36,245
    Likes Received:
    6,768
    That’s a lot of it. But “patient attempts to correct a misunderstanding” are of little purpose. There isn’t any “misunderstanding” that’s amenable to correction. There are instead charlatans, rubes, and stooges, and none of them has even the tiniest interest in the truth. You might as well patiently explain to the burglar that it’s regarded as wrong to steal people’s stuff.

    Also, a central purpose of this sort of propaganda isn’t to persuade, but to foster confusion, cynicism, and apathy. When supposedly disinterested academics like Turley are speaking like Russian propagandists it calls into disrepute not merely the process, but the very idea of truth. The real threat flows not from incivility, but from fascist lies and manipulation. None of this should be politely normalized.

    The defense of Trump doesn’t merely include bad faith bullshit. It’s entirely comprised of bad faith bullshit. This is a separate fact, and it’s corrosive for its own reasons that shouldn’t be dismissed merely because it’s regarded as uncivil to point this out.
     
  29. sglowrider

    sglowrider Hall of Famer
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    18,575
    Likes Received:
    13,100
    Location:
    Tiny Red Dot
    Oh Rock. Ye of little faith. This is the perfect tweet explanation:



    [​IMG][​IMG] So good!! The funniest president ever.

    #Trump2020!!!

    [​IMG]
     
  30. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    36,245
    Likes Received:
    6,768
    Trump’s explanation is best understood if you imagine it being delivered by Tony Soprano to his crew at the Bada Bing. They all fall down laughing.
     
  31. sglowrider

    sglowrider Hall of Famer
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    18,575
    Likes Received:
    13,100
    Location:
    Tiny Red Dot
    :cool:You know I actually have a Bada Bing tshirt. The reference is wasted on most over here.
     
    71 sglowrider, Dec 5, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  32. MonroeCity

    MonroeCity Junior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes Received:
    485
    It will be interesting to see what the media has to say about this.
     
  33. stollcpa

    stollcpa Hall of Famer
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    11,645
    Likes Received:
    9,707
    Guess you didn’t care about the friends of the 3 progressives. :rolleyes:
     
  34. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    36,245
    Likes Received:
    6,768
    Here’s a take that seems to fall in your lane, and it makes a good point.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...earing-what-legal-experts-agreed-upon/603094/
     
    iu_a_att likes this.
  35. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,868
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    We don't explain why burglary is wrong and must be punished for the benefit of the burglar. We explain for the benefit of the public and those who want to understand the principles that drive, will drive and out to drive our collective decision making. This is a core foundation of a society based on reason and not rage, as Turley proposes.
    My suggestion would be, in the context of an impeachment proceeding, to dispose of the arguments with some care. Should our democracy manage to muddle through, the arguments made by both sides will become part of the historical record. They will inform future decisions. The threat of partisans sewing confusion, cynicism and apathy is a real threat. It is ever present. That threat is best met with clarity, principle and energy. Those attributes of judgment will not be perceived as civil by the burglars of the moment but actually constitute the height of civility.
    It is not uncivil to point it out. But it need not be pointed out in an uncivil manner. I guess the model here should be the judge confronting the convicted burglar prior to sentencing.
     
  36. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,868
    Likes Received:
    2,111
  37. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    36,245
    Likes Received:
    6,768
    I see little evidence that we have a society based on reason or that there is any significant market for patient explanations. Instead, we have a society that elected as its president an obviously corrupt, obviously unfit, and obviously absurd cartoon character. In that society 90 percent of Republicans think that’s perfectly fine, and all the Very Serious People think the real problem is people like me, who trigger the butthurt white people who’ve done this. I should STFU, I’m repeatedly told, so we can all discuss this like grownups.

    That seems absurd to me. The entire problem, I think, is that we passed the point of reasoned discussion long ago — if indeed that is a thing that actually happens in the real world. I’ve become dismayed by what I will uncivilly call people’s abject stupidity. The real strength of America, I’ve always been taught, is the wisdom of the American people, who won’t act out like petulant children, at least in the long run. But what I’ve increasingly seen, as straight Christian white guys lose their place of privilege, is virulent subversion of what I had imagined were our core principles. The core principle I’m coming to see, though, is that straight Christian white guys demand preeminence, and they’ll blow the whole thing up to keep it. I’m dismayed by the insistence of posters I respect that what’s most important in this situation is for people like me to more carefully modulate their comments on obscure internet message boards. As though I’m the one preventing the reasonable conversations that Trumpbots long to have. It makes me want to check what color the sun is.

    I’ve never spoken this way before because I’ve never been so alarmed before. I think everyone should be alarmed.
     
  38. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    36,245
    Likes Received:
    6,768
    I agree that article is well done. I disagree that there is much use in it, though, because it will have exactly no influence on the people who need to hear it, just like yesterday’s testimony. People who are prepared to make fools of themselves with loony debunked conspiracy theories will dismiss that and anything else that gets in their way.
     
    Digressions likes this.
  39. sglowrider

    sglowrider Hall of Famer
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    18,575
    Likes Received:
    13,100
    Location:
    Tiny Red Dot
  40. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,868
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Well, the utility of it won't be noticed in the here and now. If there is a future in democracy, perhaps 1000 years from now, the debate that is taking place in our era will be germane then.
     

Share This Page