What will happen from the impeachment?

[Angra Mainyu]

There are two Articles. You are speaking of the first one, regarding Abuse of Power. Of which could also be added, Giuliani working in Ukraine pushing for this a couple months before the phone call, as attested in the hearings? It can't be much clearer that Trump wanted an investigation. The only potential avenue for more evidence would be Mulvaney confirming the military aid was held back explicitly as part of a deal. Of course, Mulvaney hasn't testified... see below.

The second Article is Obstruction of Congress. There is no gray here. Trump obstructed Congresses investigation. There is no amount of evidence that can be added to support this accusation anymore than it can be. The only question is if it is considered removable from office bad.

No, I'm speaking of both (or more potential ones). That is why I said "or any other reason". It's not even clear to me how many of them will consider that "Obstruction of Congress" is something for which a POTUS can be removed (the causes for removal are based on the Constitution, not on federal law, and I do not know how they're going to interpret that one), but I think if a sufficient number hold that that would be a cause for removal, they're also going to hold that telling them not to testify was within his constitutional powers, so that they don't constitute obstruction of congress in the relevant sense.

Nixon had to give up the tapes based on the SCOTUS case Nixon v US, so there is no reasonable basis to suggest the President can withhold staff and documents from a Congressional investigation.

Speaking of which, if a President can withhold documentation and staff from Congressional investigations, there can be no "Obstruction of Congress", ever. Additionally, such a concept could make impeachment almost impossible, save egregious publicly recorded behavior... like shooting a person on Fifth Avenue.

Well, that depends on what staff and documentation he is allowed to withhold, but I'm not saying that he was within his powers - he wasn't -, but I'm talking about how I think enough senators will probably see it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nixon had to give up the tapes based on the SCOTUS case Nixon v US, so there is no reasonable basis to suggest the President can withhold staff and documents from a Congressional investigation.

Speaking of which, if a President can withhold documentation and staff from Congressional investigations, there can be no "Obstruction of Congress", ever. Additionally, such a concept could make impeachment almost impossible, save egregious publicly recorded behavior... like shooting a person on Fifth Avenue.

Well, that depends on what staff and documentation he is allowed to withhold, but I'm not saying that he was within his powers - he wasn't -, but I'm talking about how I think enough senators will probably see it.

You mean obfuscate? You were arguing about evidence, but at least you cleared that hurdle and are understanding that the GOP's obfuscation will have nothing to do with any actual honest interpretation of the law.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How did you compute a probability of < 50%?

As usual, humans look at the available information (e.g., what we know about the case, about them, etc.), and come up with an intuitive probabilistic assessment. I did the same everyone does in their lives, nearly all of the time. It looks improbable. Not enough Republican senators appear inclined to censure, in my view, though that might change depending on both new evidence or new political developments on unrelated matters.

Why not?

I don't see any reason to suspect Bolton has evidence of things that are particularly more damning than what was said.

from my edited post:

But do you think that "far more" would be needed merely for censure over something inconsequential, like the appearance of conflict of interest? I don't think it would be far more merely for that.

This option would allow swing state Republicans to remain loyal to the President, appear loyal to the Constitution, and give the appearance to Independents that they are not subservient to the President without alienating much of their hardcore Republican base at all. Likewise, for any Republican Senator such as Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, and Marco Rubio who may wish to appeal to the general populace in the future for Presidential election purposes the option of censuring the President makes them electable. There are approximately 13 competitive races plus just these three (not that we know them all) plus all the Dems is very close to the 2/3 needed. So the bar of evidence you are talking for conviction may not be the case for censure.

I will add that this scenario is essentially what happened in Clinton's case and Trump's is far more serious.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Nixon had to give up the tapes based on the SCOTUS case Nixon v US, so there is no reasonable basis to suggest the President can withhold staff and documents from a Congressional investigation.

Speaking of which, if a President can withhold documentation and staff from Congressional investigations, there can be no "Obstruction of Congress", ever. Additionally, such a concept could make impeachment almost impossible, save egregious publicly recorded behavior... like shooting a person on Fifth Avenue.

Well, that depends on what staff and documentation he is allowed to withhold, but I'm not saying that he was within his powers - he wasn't -, but I'm talking about how I think enough senators will probably see it.

You mean obfuscate? You were arguing about evidence, but at least you cleared that hurdle and are understanding that the GOP's obfuscation will have nothing to do with any actual honest interpretation of the law.

No, I always talked about the amount of evidence needed to convince vs. the amount of evidence rationally required. I'm not cleared any hurdle. You just misread my posts.

And no, I don't mean obfuscate. Some of them will likely believe what they say due to bias; others will lie. It's usually a mix of both, the particular mix depending on a number of factors including amount of evidence and their psychology.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But do you think that "far more" would be needed merely for censure over something inconsequential, like the appearance of conflict of interest? I don't think it would be far more merely for that.

This option would allow swing state Republicans to remain loyal to the President, appear loyal to the Constitution, and give the appearance to Independents that they are not subservient to the President without alienating much of their hardcore Republican base at all. Likewise, for any Republican Senator such as Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, and Marco Rubio who may wish to appeal to the general populace in the future for Presidential election purposes the option of censuring the President makes them electable. There are approximately 13 competitive races plus just these three (not that we know them all) plus all the Dems is very close to the 2/3 needed. So the bar of evidence you are talking for conviction may not be the case for censure.

Romney sure - he may well even vote for removal. But I'm talking about a sufficient numbers. I grant that censure is much more likely than removal, but I still do not think it's likely either (and I think it would alienate much of their base). Swing-state Republicans also need to win the primaries, at least those not retiring. We'll have to wait and see, of course.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We're seeing the power of Party affiliation surpass the power of constitutional law. This is very different than what happened in Watergate. Trumpo is doing the same thing and getting away with it because of Political Party.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You mean obfuscate? You were arguing about evidence, but at least you cleared that hurdle and are understanding that the GOP's obfuscation will have nothing to do with any actual honest interpretation of the law.

No, I always talked about the amount of evidence needed to convince vs. the amount of evidence rationally required. I'm not cleared any hurdle. You just misread my posts.

That is unfortunate that you think the GOP is actually paying attention to "evidence'.

And no, I don't mean obfuscate. Some of them will likely believe what they say due to bias;

That would be obfuscating.

...others will lie.

More obfuscation.

It's usually a mix of both, the particular mix depending on a number of factors including amount of evidence and their psychology.

For fuck sakes... have you been paying attention at all over the last couple of months?!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Just once I wish one of those testifying had said (in response to the "are you partisan" question), "You voted for Trump so why haven't you recused yourself?"

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That is unfortunate that you think the GOP is actually paying attention to "evidence'.

The GOP is not a person. But surely, members of the OP actually pay attention to evidence, as they are human. Also, usually are biased towards their own party, so they will not assess the evidence rationally, and so usually more evidence would be required to persuade them than would be rationally required. How much more depends on the individual.

That would be obfuscating.

Oh, you mean not obfuscating not necessarily deliberately?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That would be obfuscating.

Oh, you mean not obfuscating not necessarily deliberately?

huh?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But do you think that "far more" would be needed merely for censure over something inconsequential, like the appearance of conflict of interest? I don't think it would be far more merely for that.

This option would allow swing state Republicans to remain loyal to the President, appear loyal to the Constitution, and give the appearance to Independents that they are not subservient to the President without alienating much of their hardcore Republican base at all. Likewise, for any Republican Senator such as Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, and Marco Rubio who may wish to appeal to the general populace in the future for Presidential election purposes the option of censuring the President makes them electable. There are approximately 13 competitive races plus just these three (not that we know them all) plus all the Dems is very close to the 2/3 needed. So the bar of evidence you are talking for conviction may not be the case for censure.

Romney sure - he may well even vote for removal. But I'm talking about a sufficient numbers.

That's what I was talking about: sufficient numbers. You are being dismissive without reason.

I grant that censure is much more likely than removal, but I still do not think it's likely either (and I think it would alienate much of their base). Swing-state Republicans also need to win the primaries, at least those not retiring.

I already addressed this. In a swing state (or competitive race), an inconsequential censure will not alienate a significant number of the base. Let's suppose it did. The people in charge of the party would still not be in favor of funding the coup in the primary against an incumbent because it would be high risk in losing the general. A primary challenge without party endorsement isn't going to happen. Instead, the party heads would be very understanding that the meaningless censure had to happen to secure the seat in the general.

We'll have to wait and see, of course.

Of course we will have to wait and see, but right now an inconsequential censure is very viable. There isn't really a good reason to poopoo all over it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There can be no censure from the Senate. The republicans there and in the House have been saying he didn't do anything wrong. And this is kinda cool because now it means any president can do the same thing. And then he can refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas. It's all perfectly legal going forward.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is unfortunate that you think the GOP is actually paying attention to "evidence'.

The GOP is not a person. But surely, members of the OP actually pay attention to evidence, as they are human. Also, usually are biased towards their own party, so they will not assess the evidence rationally, and so usually more evidence would be required to persuade them than would be rationally required. How much more depends on the individual.

It is like you stepped out of a cave for the first time in 30 years... regarding your reflections on the GOP.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That would be obfuscating.

Oh, you mean not obfuscating not necessarily deliberately?

huh?

Look at the exchange between Jimmy Higgins and me.

When I replied

And no, I don't mean obfuscate. Some of them will likely believe what they say due to bias; others will lie. It's usually a mix of both, the particular mix depending on a number of factors including amount of evidence and their psychology.

he quoted the part "And no, I don't mean obfuscate. Some of them will likely believe what they say due to bias; " and replied "That would be obfuscating."

Since he includes people who believe what they say in the 'obfuscating' category, I'm asking whether he means obfuscating but not necessarily deliberately.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There can be no censure from the Senate. The republicans there and in the House have been saying he didn't do anything wrong. And this is kinda cool because now it means any president can do the same thing. And then he can refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas. It's all perfectly legal going forward.

There are indeed Republicans in the Senate who are saying Trump did nothing wrong. The vast majority of Senators have not discussed censure though. A few are on record...

For example, Lamar Alexander said what he did was inappropriate, but fell short of being in favor of impeachment. A censure would be compatible with Alexander's take.

Susan Collins is afraid to say anything at this time.

So let me elaborate, those persons are talking about a harsh censure. I am not. I am discussing a compromise on a compromise: a statement that Trump did not intend to do wrong but ought not in the future create an appearance of conflict of interest. This is less than a typical censure and could still be used for all persons to save face.

Senator Pat Roberts said a few Senators might support a censure in exactly this manner, i.e. "depending on what it says."

Senator Kramer said a censure would be an admission of doing something "terribly wrong," but in the scenario I wrote about a long time ago now in the op this isn't true. So the premise is false for that argument.

Now like Collins, Romney also wouldn't comment on censure at this time.

But note according to both Politico and National Review there are Senators who said they'd be in favor of it privately.

Now, again, this is merely out of a small sample because it really hasn't been discussed and in context it's about a vaguely defined censure...not the half-assed kind I have been discussing which ought to have more support.

Lastly, let me just add that if it becomes a thing on the table, I think Democrats should take it. The reason is the same as Pelosi's reason for the impeachment-to protect the 2020 election. Even an inconsequential censure establishes the Legislature as a co-equal branch and puts in writing that Trump ought not behave in such a way. So, if he were to do it again, like with China or Saudi Arabia, having the censure on record would put Dems in a good position to call him on it and either apply real consequences or use it against Republicans at large.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

huh?

Look at the exchange between Jimmy Higgins and me.

When I replied

And no, I don't mean obfuscate. Some of them will likely believe what they say due to bias; others will lie. It's usually a mix of both, the particular mix depending on a number of factors including amount of evidence and their psychology.

he quoted the part "And no, I don't mean obfuscate. Some of them will likely believe what they say due to bias; " and replied "That would be obfuscating."

Since he includes people who believe what they say in the 'obfuscating' category, I'm asking whether he means obfuscating but not necessarily deliberately.

Obfuscation is the obscuring of the intended meaning of communication by making the message difficult to understand, usually with confusing and ambiguous language. The obfuscation might be either unintentional or intentional (although intent usually is connoted), and is accomplished with circumlocution (talking around the subject), the use of jargon (technical language of a profession), and the use of an argot (ingroup language) of limited communicative value to outsiders.[1]

In expository writing, unintentional obfuscation usually occurs in draft documents, at the beginning of composition; such obfuscation is illuminated with critical thinking and editorial revision, either by the writer or by an editor. Etymologically, the word obfuscation derives from the Latin obfuscationem, from obfuscāre (to darken); synonyms include the words beclouding and abstrusity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation

To determine if the word were used objectively without its usual connotation or not, you'd have to comprehend the context in which it were used.

The connotations a word carries are often subjective, meaning that they might change depending on an individual's experience, geographical location, or time period. In other words, connotation is deeply dependent on context.

https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/connotation#connotation-definition

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Let's suppose it did. The people in charge of the party would still not be in favor of funding the coup in the primary against an incumbent because it would be high risk in losing the general.

Trump would likely be motivated to do so, out of revenge. He doesn't need to fund much, by the way. He just needs to tweet, and maybe show up once or twice.

A primary challenge without party endorsement isn't going to happen. Instead, the party heads would be very understanding that the meaningless censure had to happen to secure the seat in the general.

The party will not go up against Trump. They will other do as he says, or stay out of it.

Of course we will have to wait and see, but right now an inconsequential censure is very viable. There isn't really a good reason to poopoo all over it.

poopoo all over it?
I wasn't even talking about that scenario when you brought it up for some reason. And I'm not poopooing all over it, but just making my assessment that it is improbable. I'm not even saying it will not happen.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Look at the exchange between Jimmy Higgins and me.

When I replied

he quoted the part "And no, I don't mean obfuscate. Some of them will likely believe what they say due to bias; " and replied "That would be obfuscating."

Since he includes people who believe what they say in the 'obfuscating' category, I'm asking whether he means obfuscating but not necessarily deliberately.

Obfuscation is the obscuring of the intended meaning of communication by making the message difficult to understand, usually with confusing and ambiguous language. The obfuscation might be either unintentional or intentional (although intent usually is connoted), and is accomplished with circumlocution (talking around the subject), the use of jargon (technical language of a profession), and the use of an argot (ingroup language) of limited communicative value to outsiders.[1]

In expository writing, unintentional obfuscation usually occurs in draft documents, at the beginning of composition; such obfuscation is illuminated with critical thinking and editorial revision, either by the writer or by an editor. Etymologically, the word obfuscation derives from the Latin obfuscationem, from obfuscāre (to darken); synonyms include the words beclouding and abstrusity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation

To determine if the word were used objectively without its usual connotation or not, you'd have to comprehend the context in which it were used.

The connotations a word carries are often subjective, meaning that they might change depending on an individual's experience, geographical location, or time period. In other words, connotation is deeply dependent on context.

https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/connotation#connotation-definition

There is another way of ascertaining whether another person is using the word with or without the usual connotations, and that is to ask the person what they mean. So, I was asking him when you replied "huh?". So, I proceeded to explain to you that I was asking him.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation

To determine if the word were used objectively without its usual connotation or not, you'd have to comprehend the context in which it were used.

The connotations a word carries are often subjective, meaning that they might change depending on an individual's experience, geographical location, or time period. In other words, connotation is deeply dependent on context.

https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/connotation#connotation-definition

There is another way of ascertaining whether another person is using the word with or without the usual connotations, and that is to ask the person what they mean. So, I was asking him when you replied "huh?". So, I proceeded to explain to you that I was asking him.

Or you could just read context.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There is another way of ascertaining whether another person is using the word with or without the usual connotations, and that is to ask the person what they mean. So, I was asking him when you replied "huh?". So, I proceeded to explain to you that I was asking him.

Or you could just read context.

Yes, but in on-line discussions, miscommunication is rampant. Still, reading context, he said

You mean obfuscate? You were arguing about evidence, but at least you cleared that hurdle and are understanding that the GOP's obfuscation will have nothing to do with any actual honest interpretation of the law.

From there, I got the distinct impression that he meant deliberately.

However, his reply to my post - in which he considers people who say what they believe a case of obfuscation - is not compatible with that interpretation, so I reckoned that despite what appeared to be the case in context, he probably did not mean necessarily deliberately, but I asked to confirm.

By the way, what do you understand, reading context?