Comments

Here’s a thread for the latest act of the impeachment theater — 33 Comments

1. Some groundwork:

   The president and the executive branch have the most significant role in making foreign policy and are responsible for carrying it out. With the advice and consent of the Senate, the president makes treaties and appoints ambassadors. The president can hold summit meetings with world leaders. As commander in chief of the military, the president can, by executive order, rapidly project U.S. power around the globe.

   In forming U.S. foreign policy, the president relies on advice from the National Security Council. This group is made up of the vice-president, secretary of state, secretary of defense, head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the nation’s highest military adviser).

   The secretary of state heads the U.S. State Department and often represents the president abroad. The State Department carries out foreign policy decisions and helps develop foreign policy for every region of the world. Attached to the State Department is the U.S. Foreign Service, or diplomatic corps. It is made up of ambassadors (who represent America’s political interests in every county), consuls (who represent America’s business interests), and other officials who specialize in technical matters and issues of foreign aid.

   Congress also plays a role in America’s foreign policy through its power to set duties and tariffs on foreign exports and imports, regulate foreign commerce and immigration, and declare war. It sets quotas on immigration, chooses which countries will benefit for most-favored-nation status in trade agreements, votes on foreign aid, and sets the defense budget. But Congress is usually in the role of accepting, changing, or rejecting policies proposed by the president.

   The Supreme Court plays a limited role in foreign policy. It has jurisdiction over cases involving treaties, admiralty and maritime law, and ambassadors and other public ministers. It also is charged with deciding disputes between states and foreign states and their citizens and subjects.

   At different times, tensions have arisen between the branches in the conduct of foreign policy. Presidents sometimes favor treaties that the Senate does not want to approve. President Woodrow Wilson promoted treaties establishing the League of Nations after World War I, but the Senate opposed the League and refused to ratify the treaties. Other times, tensions have arisen between the Congress’ power to declare war and the president’s role as commander in chief. Presidents have committed American armed forces to major conflicts such as the Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf wars without a declaration of war by Congress.

   The public also plays a role in influencing foreign policy. Advocacy groups for foreign countries often try to influence Congress and the president about issues. Business associations lobby the government about international economic and trade issues. Groups and individuals with strong views on certain foreign policy issues, especially military intervention, often organize protests or other political actions to influence decisions.

2. Chiff hears what he wants to hear even if it isnt said, and says conclusions that were never made as if he knows more, and insures that is what you remember last on hearing.

3. Taylor was articulate and prepared in his statement and replies to Dem questions. Then when Repubs got to him he went got the Mueller flu. Funny how that goes. Will the American public see that? Not likely with most of them at work and the rest getting their news from the Dem operatives, the MSM. Mitch has said there definitely will be a trial because he is too chickenshit to expose the never Trumpers and Rinos in the senate to a vote to dismiss this close to 2020. Trump is toast. That means America is toast.

4. I sometimes wonder if the various unelected bureaucrats in positions of power truly understand how they’re viewed. I assume that they all generally view themselves far more intelligent, wise, and moral than everyone else at least in when it comes what they view as their field of expertise (like foreign affairs or whatever). No doubt they really dislike having (what they view as) some great orange lout of a president ignore them, dismiss them, and shut them out. The shear effrontary! The gall!

   But do they understand how normal people view them? Do they think that they’re deeply respected? Do they believe that most people even care at all about their various machinations? Are they aware that there’s a considerable subset of people out their who view them as absolutely awful, destructive, arrogant, and self serving?

5. Ken:

   It depends on what the meaning of “trial” is. Could be very very short, according to McConnell.

   Or, if it’s longer, it could serve to show how bogus the impeachment was.

6. Here’s Stephen Green writing at PJMedia: “My friend and colleague Charlie Martin predicted yesterday that there would be no actual impeachment, because the Democrat House can’t afford the risk of what might happen in the Republican Senate. Charlie noted:

   Where Eric Ciaramella can be called for public testimony under oath. Where Alex Vindman can be challenged by a former JAG about his violations of the UCMJ. Where people can be called to testify in public what they’ve said in the Star Chamber: that Ukraine never knew about aid being suspended, and that the president of Ukraine denies any pressure.

   Indeed.”

7. Let me also set the ground work (legally) for what is going on, since Neo and others with a law degree have deemed it not necessary to serve such background so that any discussions would make sense in the real world, not in the fantasy world of should and could.

   There is a reason they are stressing the emotional state of the people in the room and the emotional state of the supposed whistleblower.

   They are trying to abuse what is called in legal parlance, the excited utterance exception to hearsay (which was expanded in the past few years in family court by using it in domestic disputes and other disputed under the idea that a woman that just suffered some action to her, would be upset and so not lie to a girlfriend or third party that she then talked to (even if displaced by a days)).

   This is why they keep hammering the emotional state of the whistleblower, it is to allow them to push the letter of the law without allowing consideration of the spirit of the law and its intents.

   Under the modem excited utterance exception as codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence4 (and adopted by over thirty states),’ the hearsay rule does not exclude a statement by an out-of-court declarant “relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.”‘ In describing the utility of this exception, modem commentators echo the historical rationale. As Weinstein and Berger explain, “The assumption underlying this exception is that a person under the sway of excitement precipitated by an external startling event will not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication and that, consequently, any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy.” – “MY GOD!”: A Feminist Critique of the Excited Utterance Exception to the Hearsay Rule

   So what they are trying to do is set up the idea that one would hear some information, and be so triggered by it, that ones emotional state would be so distracted by purpose, or agency, that one would utter the truth and not be capable of a lie.

   Their idea is that this is validated more by the whistleblowers choice of running to Schiff and not the proper channels. and like close confidant in a date rape case, or domestic violence case, the item is admissible as truth, despite being hearsay.

   Its an interesting direction to take given that such a condition lends to their need to keep the whistleblower secret and not need the testimony of such.

   Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the excited utterance exception applies regardless of the declarant’s availability to testify at trial. Therefore, the declarant need not testify, even if he or she is available The excitement of the event, which justifies its reliability, also “serves to justify dispensing with any requirement that the declarant be unavailable because it suggests that testimony on the stand, given at a time when the powers of reflection and fabrication are operative, is no more (and perhaps less) reliable than the out-of-court statement.”

   Once having established the complete and utter breakdown of the emotional state of the whistleblower, they no longer have to bring said person in as evidence. You can see this happening in each of the ‘witnesses’ being upset at others hearsay, or statements that may or may not be true, to establish that this is the point, and so, despite being hearsay – it must be true.

   In fact, the identity of the excited utterer need not be known, although courts and commentators advocate caution in cases involving unidentified bystanders. According to many treatise writers, the contemporary excited utterance exception is “well established,”‘ “time-honored,”51 and “abundantly supported by pre-Rules federal cases.” The Supreme Court’s Sixth Amendment jurisprudence provides further indication of the entrenchment of the excited utterance exception. The Supreme Court has twice reaffirmed its faith in the excited utterance exception as historically tested and doctrinal sound.

   so as i said, they build precedence over years in things, that then cant be challenged when they need them for other purposes. we have never had this discussion among others i have tried. but now we kind of have to..

   Since you do not need the witness, Schiff is not going to let the witness testify, and so, there is no actual way to determine the actual witness/whislteblowers state of mind at the time of such an event. Schiff being the head of the investigation, manages to avoid being able to be called or asked any real question, which would go along these lines.

   he excitement of the event, which justifies its reliability, also “serves to justify dispensing with any requirement that the declarant be unavailable because it suggests that testimony on the stand, given at a time when the powers of reflection and fabrication are operative, is no more (and perhaps less) reliable than the out-of-court statement.”

   In fact, the identity of the excited utterer need not be known, although courts and commentators advocate caution in cases involving unidentified bystanders.

   And so, there is what this worm turns on as far as i can tell in law as far as i have studied and can reference easily… the reason its in a feminist critique is that this is critical to admitting false evidence as real evidence that cant be assailed or questioned and so, makes a man in a domestic dispute or some other alleged event, automatically guilty.

   it negates their ability to administer a defense and elevates hearsay in absentia above testimony of actual witnesses. which is a by the letter interpretation, ignoring the spirit of what the law exception is and what its intended use is.

   However Schiff contradicted himself at the begining and later, and i will await for others to go over the transcript and notice a few of those items, which will be more key. Schiff as the person the whistleblower went to, by all accepted standards should have recused himself because of his involvement as a witness of the witness. however, by not doing so, he gets to sit in a protected position where he dictates the processes that negate this action knowing that by the time such a thing went through a court, it would be years after the next election.

   combine this with tall the recent changes to early voting, and what you have is a toxic brew which lets people cast votes on their current emotional state, and then cant change them, no matter what facts come out later.

   do note that these are the same people that can think this way, that claim that a loophole was an accidental oversight… anyone that can twist a straight pretzel into angel wings without breaking it, is not someone that has oversight accidents.

   maybe i should have gone into law… however, i am sure someone will rip me for this analysis before someone else would point out what was wrong, or not wrong with it..

8. “…emotional state…”

   Not sure I see the problem here. Can’t they just get him an emotional support pig? (Or, in this case, donkey?)

9. One thing the stock markets abhors is uncertainty. With the US stocks closing at all-time highs on the day that the impeachment hearings started is a clear indication that people are voting with their wallets that it is not going to happen. In sum, it is for entertainment purposes only.

10. sdferr: I too was impressed by that Charlie Martin post that there will be no impeachment because the Senate won’t be playing by the Democrats’ Calvinball rules. I had been thinking along those lines myself.

11. Artfldgr:

    I have deemed no such thing unnecessary.

    Nor does any of it have to do with having a law degree.

    Emotional states are sometimes legally relevant and sometimes not, but I certainly have no problem discussing them.

12. Interesting point, Art. I have no idea as to the validity or relevance here; law is far outside my wheelhouse.

    Two things I would say as a complete amateur: is Eric’s emotional state really equivalent to a rape victim? This whole argument seems to be the “snowflake evidence”…ie our poor dear snowflake is so upset he/she can’t possibly testify. Makes sense for many millennials I guess.

13. “I assume that [bureaucrats] all generally view themselves far more intelligent, wise, and moral than everyone else . . . .” [Nonapod @ 3:51]

    IMO that is exactly what drives to be central planning bureaucrats in the first place; they know better (or so they think) and thus have the self-appointed “right” to tell everyone else how to run their lives. The oft-repeated quote of C.S. Lewis sums it up concisely (emphasis mine):

    C.S. Lewis
    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

14. If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life…

    –Henry David Thoreau, “Walden Pond”

    T: That’s one of the few things I remember from reading “Walden Pond.” I know the feeling!

15. neo on November 13, 2019 at 4:22 pm said:
    Artfldgr:
    I have deemed no such thing unnecessary.
    Nor does any of it have to do with having a law degree.

    spoken like a lawyer addressing a verbal contract..
    i did no such thing because not doing something is doing nothing. right?

    you know… just once give me a break…

    do you ever starve because you forgot it was necessary to eat?
    do you not get insurance on a car, because you think its not necessary?

    ie. you DO whats necessary, you dont do what is not, that is the realm of voluntary

    tell me where, in ALL the posts, you discussed how the feminists changed in the late 1980s the reasonable person doctrine, the hearsay application?

    you never let anyone claim they know anything about you… have you noticed that?
    you ALWAYS squirm out of it and get obtuse they dont understand you, but your explanations dont lead to better understandings… they are about how the persons guess is wrong.. nyah nyah nyan…

    in 15 years, you have never had a post on it, in fact, you tend to avoid anything that actually puts responsibility on the women for what they are actually proud to have done!!!!!!!!!!

    maybe you dont remember all your blog posts, and others, but i actually do.. thats my curse
    here, as far back as 2009 i was trying to bring up that the feminist movement turned communism long ago
    and that these standards were changed… perfect opportunity for talking bout something that has bearing NOW

    Artfldgr on May 29, 2009 at 8:00 pm said:
    “Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

    i quoted tons of women and their works that were driving the current situation from back then
    and it was under the auspices of women not being happy..

    the end of that post was
    the other men they kissed off, they didn’t want them. they married foreign women. they stayed single. they under performed, they lived in their parents basement.
    [edited for length by neo-neocon]

    so perhaps i remember what i wrote, that got deleted and i didnt know?
    we wont ever know will we?

    here, i will try again, and expect to get a, you dont get it or understand post from you
    but what i wont get is the discussion from you… never.. ever… its either ignored, edited, or i am wrong and why, but not the actual discussion…

    Ending Male Privilege: Beyond the Reasonable Woman

    In her review essay Ending Male Privilege: Beyond the Reasonable Woman, Professor Wildman examines A Law of Her Own: The Reasonable Woman as a Measure of Man by Caroline A. Forell and Donna M. Matthews. Forell and Matthews explain the need for a reasonable woman standard, particularly in cases of sexual harassment, stalking, domestic homicide, and rape. Wildman, while agreeing that those areas exemplify areas of law in which the “spectrum of violence and disregard of women is most evident and problematic,” urges that litigants seeking equality must go beyond the reasonable woman and articulate the systemic nature of male privilege that perpetuates inequality. Wildman suggests that the reasonable woman standard cannot address the comparison mode embedded in the sameness/difference equality debate or the essentialism problem that troubles feminist legal theorists. Using two case examples, Soto v. Flores and Taylor v. State, Wildman illustrates how the reasonable woman standard does not solve these vexing jurisprudential barriers on the road to equality. Rather, a privilege analysis is needed to expose the poverty of the comparison mode and to avoid the trap of essentialism. Only when privilege is revealed can women be full societal participants, claiming law as their own.

    the concept was ended in court… that and the stretching of hearsay till what your seeing now, which is why i used feminist documents to copy from above.. to show they have thought about this and done actions on it for decades… till the idea was unassailable.. you can also point to the change in witness laws where you cant cross examine them… and dont forget how parens patria was expanded without the public grasping that they are no longer parents but wards of children that belong to the state… ergo a parent has no say in stopping their child from getting hormone blockers

    all that stuff i tried to talk about over and over.
    just like i tried to discuss ruta, but your last post was so ignorant of it you said stuff
    its not a contest… which was ridiculous if you actually read it… which you didnt
    it would be like my referring to the play pirates of penzanse and you saying it was way too bloody (assuming pirates)

    you conflated two discussions.. one in which there are other annes
    and one in which countries have their own heroes, and examples, but not like anne at all
    and in all cases… the discussion never happened just the approbation over trying.

    even here, the point of it wont be discussed, the avoidance will be to focus on me and what i claimed
    and ignore the object of the reason of the point it wasnt discussed.
    if i didnt say that, it still would not be discussed!

    so the legal changes that are driving this stuff from the left, remain unexamined
    whats the point then? is the point really to entertain yourself by playing some music on the titanic?

16. physicsguy on November 13, 2019 at 4:22 pm said:

    Interesting point, Art. I have no idea as to the validity or relevance here; law is far outside my wheelhouse.

    which is why i hoped the lawyer would deem it necessary to pick up the ball and discuss the point not whether i am right in examining 15 years of blog posts and noticing whats missing vs whats there!!!

    do note, that she still didnt give us the legal take on it…
    its still not nessary enough for her to add her two cents other than to say i am wrong… cause i dont have negative proof… and cant hold up 15 years of stuff to show whats missing… or that it existed in the parts she cut out that i covered..

    oh well.
    well have to wait since its so important it hasnt had its turn yet

    and to your other half

    physicsguy on November 13, 2019 at 4:22 pm said:
    Two things I would say as a complete amateur: is Eric’s emotional state really equivalent to a rape victim? This whole argument seems to be the “snowflake evidence”…ie our poor dear snowflake is so upset he/she can’t possibly testify. Makes sense for many millennials I guess.

    well, to a reasonable person no..
    but under the victims view which replaced it yes

    so to us, it would not be reasonable he would be that way
    but to the new doctrine that was ages ago in place and i tried to discuss its big down side that would hit eventually (though i never thought it would come together this way!)..

    its the same idea that a white mane cant really understand a black feminist womans oppression.. which is now common too as an expansion of abandoning the reasonable person doctrine!!

    thats why its important to understand this
    otherwise its really confusing to get whats going on
    as people dont realize whats backing it up

    he is only like a rape victim in terms of how can you judge another persons feelings and average them to the oppressive reasonable persons… (i guess implying that the unreasonable should have a place to, but never explored that)

    the point of it all was so the feminists could shut down being shut down for taking extreme emotional points and have them negated as abnormal.. and so, not part of a reasonable legal system..

17. you can go to the supreme court justice sotomayor for a taste of it:
    “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”

    it goes farther back than that… because it had to predate her education that embued her with that idea as a legal view of some sort.

    like neo, she had to say we all misunderstood her.
    Sotomayor Explains “Wise Latina” Comment
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sotomayor-explains-wise-latina-comment/

    but thats because she knew like schiff knows what has actually changed and the public doesnt.. the public still operates under the wrong assumption of the reasonable person, reasonable man, reasonable woman concepts.. which is actually way older than everyone who can type here.

    “reasonable woman standard”
    a guideline for determining what constitutes sexual harassment, based on suppositions about what a reasonable woman would find objectionable.

    now.. from Fordham Law Review 1993
    The Legal, Ethical, and Social Implications of the “Reasonable Woman” Standard in Sexual Harassment Cases

    Hofstra law review
    by S Ashraf – ?1992
    The Reasonableness of the “Reasonable Woman” Standard: An Evaluation of Its Use in Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment Claims Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

    Mitchel and hamline school of law (never heard of them.. )
    1992 The Reasonable Woman Standard: Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

    in the late 1980s this was changed.. i remember that when it was in the news papers… and i tried to discuss it, as it was a legal change that people even today, dont even realize was systematically changed in these areas above, before it became precedent enough to be used by Schiff..

    but alas… its not just whats in law that counts, but how law works, which is why a non lawyer like me, might get it wrong… and a family court lawyer like neo could straiten us out from long ago.. but given the implications werent so clear to see as someone who sees far in terms of systems and what things mean to exploiting them (a talent i have)… its hard to deem it necessary to have the discussion

    and here it is in a nutshell physics guy

    Sexual harassment law addresses hostile environments by evaluating whether the workplace environment would be considered hostile by a “reasonable woman”. But who is a reasonable woman? Defendant?employers may present one group of women employees as representative “reasonable” women and assert that any of these women’s co?workers who have had different experiences with regard to sexual harassment are not “reasonable”. However, when male employees categorize various groups of female coworkers differently and, subsequently, treat them differently, the experiences of women from one of these groups would not be indicative of the experiences of women from an other group. This “selective sexual harassment” was present in the workplace I studied: while both groups of women were “reasonable”, they had very different experiences, only one of which might be confirmed by a court as the perspective of “reasonable” women. This article advocates for a version of the “reason ble victim” standard to facilitate a closer analysis of hostile environment sexual harassment suits.

    so.. under the reasonable victim standard that replaced reasonable person standard OVER 20 years ago.. a really weak person who freaks out on trumps phone call, gets to have the hearsay rule applied… who are we to say that their being upset enough was unreasonable we werent the victims of trumps call

    This mostly came about, usually after feminists noted that the law wasnt adjudicating in their favor as much as they thought it should.. so obviously, if not enough men were being found guilty, the law had to change in some way so more would be found guilty… (of course the men studying this had no place to bring it to or discuss it, the public wasnt aware of that…or other changes in precedents not actual law rules)

    So here from a law firms website specializing in harassment
    [what are they protecting the whistleblower from? harassment? or more]

    “Reasonable Victim Standard”

    Determining whether or not the victim’s working environment became hostile and abusive as a result of the discriminatory conduct consists of both an objective and subjective analysis. In other words, the victim must first have been actually affected in a way that would make his or her work environment hostile or abusive by being sufficiently offended or harmed. Second, it must be true that a reasonable person in the victim’s position would find the misconduct to be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his or her employment in order create a hostile or abusive work environment. This involves considering and recognizing all of the victim’s circumstances to determine the reasonable effect of all of the relevant factors.

    Under this standard, the court is permitted to consider evidence of the differences in the ways that women and men are subjectively affected by the same behavior (discriminatory conduct) in the workplace to assist in determining whether a reasonable person in the victim’s position would be similarly and sufficiently disturbed.

    the fact they are evne mentioning it and trying to define the splitting of hairs is why i hoped a lawyer would pipe up about it.. and not about my claim.. and silence abut the subject!!!

    from the journal of Gender, social policy And law:
    2002 Reasonable Person versus Reasonable Woman: Does It Matter?

    and given that neo is also a psychogist, and this was a point discussed by the American psychological association, maybe that would be a source too

    in Sexual harassment training..
    Sexual Harassment Training Course: Ellison v. Brady and the “Reasonable Woman” Standard

    Ellison vs. Brady was a landmark sexual harassment case (!990) that set the “Reasonable Woman” standard (later called the “Reasonable Worker” standard) in sexual harassment law, and has helped to discount the notion that all sexual harassment is little more than harmless flirting, or all in fun, with those who complain about it being overly sensitive or histrionic.

    in other words.. the basis for this was that under the reasonable person doctrine, you could claim your snowflake was overly sensitive…

    right? and so, ignore the snowflake whistleblower

    back then i had just lost my son and read all of this and neo was one of the places i came to when i realized that writing mens rights articles and taking the oppositional side would mean humans go extinct refusing to come together… it wasnt a good fix for people… i hoped to have some kind of dialogue over it, not avoidance behavior, and perhaps get some people to realize it who would not live in a jar and speak to others and so on and so on, like a famous shampoo commercial

    Kerry Ellison had been stalked by a coworker, and her complaints to her employers fell on deaf ears. Her case was tossed out both by the EEOC and a district court, with the harassing behavior being dubbed an “isolated” incident, and “genuinely trivial.”

    However, this judgement was reached based on the perspective of people (mostly men) who might not have viewed the defendant’s behavior as damaging or threatening. Ellison took her case to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision, stating:

    “We realize that there is a broad range of viewpoints among women as a group, but we believe that many women share common concerns which men do not necessarily share. For example, because women are disproportionately victims of rape and sexual assault, women have a stronger incentive to be concerned with sexual behavior. Women who are victims of mild forms of sexual harassment may understandably worry whether a harassers conduct is merely a prelude to violent sexual assault. Men, who are rarely victims of sexual assault, may view sexual conduct in a vacuum without a full appreciation of the social setting or the underlying threat of violence that a woman may perceive…. We cannot say a matter of law that Ellisons reaction was idiosyncratic or hyper-sensitive. We believe that a reasonable woman could have had a similar reaction.”

    ending before what i write may get cut..

18. from another law firm, and how its application has expanded to whistleblowers due to it being under harassment..

    Arguing Emotional Distress Damages in Employment Cases

    The court in Ellison v. Brady (9th Circuit, 1991) 924 F.2d 872 created the “reasonable woman” standard to avoid jurors applying apparently the more lenient “reasonable man” standard. In other words, while most men might not be offended by an off-color joke, the instruction to the jury is whether or not the typical woman might be.

    The court could not foresee the emergence of men as victims of sexual harassment, either by other men or by female supervisors. In order to cover such situations, perhaps it is necessary to invoke a new standard, such as the “reasonable victim” standard.

    [snip]

    After emphasizing the unequal position between the profit hungry employer and the salary dependent employee, discuss with the jury the importance of the public policy that defendant violated which will give rise to emotional distress damages. Explain to the jurors the importance to society of whistle blowers. Explain the importance of not discriminating against workers based on gender and race or any other factors.

    Then discuss with the jury the importance of plaintiff coming forward. The heroic nature of plaintiff’s actions in risking his or her job to help other workers and society. It is important that the focus is away from the immediate plaintiff who may be unsympathetic and, on society in general. It is important to convince the jurors, even in a general damage argument, that, they are doing themselves a favor by awarding plaintiff a large compensatory damage verdict, not to make an example of the defendant, which would be punitive damages, but rather to insure that a plaintiff is not punished for coming forward.

    https://www.wmlawyers.com/firm-highlights/publications/emotional-distress-damages-in-wrongful-termination-cases/

    so there you have the reasonable victim standard combined with the whistleblower

    i rest my case without aid of council who deemed it more important to tell me i am wrong about what she deemed important or not important enough to discuss.

19. Calling the impeachment trial bogus is an opinion. Let this process play itself out and see what happens. Bill Taylor gave pretty strong meticulous testimony today. It will be very interesting to hear what Ambassador Gordon Sondland has to say now that we know he was a direct witness to Trump asking about the investigation. Recall that Sondland already reversed his testimony to say that there were, I fact, conditions on the aid and that Trump wanted Ukraine’s president to publicly announce the launch of two investigations into Trump’s political rivals.
    Sondland is a Trump supporter and was hand-picked for his position [he gave a million to the Trump campaign]. So his testimony on November 20 will be pretty important.

20. Impeachment trial? There is no impeachment trial, so bogus would be an apt characterization seems to me. I suppose you must mean impeachment inquiry, which while not bogus precisely is nevertheless odd insofar as it was initiated on a whim of the Speaker and only weeks later ratified by a wholly partisan vote in the House. Moreover the terms of procedure are unlike any heretofore seen in cases of such presumptive magnitude. So bogus is a pretty valid looking opinion all taken in all.

21. sdferr
    Impeachment inquiry. Yes. But no more bogus than the one that impeached Clinton. These are completely partisan affairs. Everyone knows this. The Constitution does not say impeachments need to be one specific thing but not another specific thing. It’s up to the House leaders to decide. If the same thing happens to a Democratic president by a Republican House then so be it. But that in and of itself does not make it bogus. If you don’t think the phone call is a tad problematic then I guess nothing would convince you. Me? I don’t know if it’s impeachable. So I listen to the testimony. Trump’s version of events is not Holy Writ. Although his version of events and who he trusts seems to change so I’m not sure he believes what he says either. That said, he will likely not be removed from office.

22. But no more bogus than the one that impeached Clinton

    Well that’s plain nonsense as a goodly number of Democrats voted an impeachment resolution — resolution, mind you, with all the due process bells and whistles this sorry affair is lacking — along with the bulk of Republicans. Whole different kettle of fish. Quite bipartisan, y’know. So.

23. sdferr
    One big difference is that the Clinton impeachment had special prosecutor Ken Starr to do the closed door investigation. This time, with no special prosecutor, the House intelligence committee did the investigation. Investigations of this nature are closed door. But since it’s not a prosecutor doing it then it definitely seems more alarming. Although 13 Republicans on House committees were allowed into the meetings. They chose not to attend. But now that the hearings are officially public Republicans are present to ask questions.

24. One big difference is that the Clinton impeachment had special prosecutor Ken Starr to do the closed door investigation. This time, with no special prosecutor, the House intelligence committee did the investigation. Investigations of this nature are closed door. But since it’s not a prosecutor doing it then it definitely seems more alarming. Although 13 Republicans on House committees were allowed into the meetings. They chose not to attend. But now that the hearings are officially public Republicans are present to ask questions.

    The House Judiciary Committee conducted six months of public hearings in 1974. Nice try.

25. Montage; Art Deco:

    What’s more, Montage is comparing apples and oranges. An independent counsel (Ken Starr in the case of Clinton) is appointed in order to be an independent investigator. There is zero – and I mean zero – similarity to a group of partisan Democrat politicians in the House, headed by Schiff, one of the most partisan of them all.

    It is ludicrous to compare the two setups.

    There are no crimes even alleged at the moment, but the Starr report gave evidence of many crimes:

    The long-awaited report cited 11 possible grounds for impeachment in four categories: perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of power. These allegations all arose from President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.

    In the report’s introduction, Starr asserted that Clinton had lied under oath during a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, while he was a “defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit” and “to a grand jury.” He additionally alleged that Clinton had “attempted to influence the testimony of a grand jury witness who had direct knowledge of facts that would reveal the falsity of his deposition testimony; attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness’ plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena; attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit that the president knew would be false … ; lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that then they would repeat those lies before the grand jury; and engaged in a pattern on conduct that was inconsistent with his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.”

    Starr included a detailed timeline of Lewinsky’s various sexual encounters with Clinton during her White House internship. He concluded the report with a section entitled “Grounds,” where he provided supporting evidence to each of the 11 grounds for potential impeachment of Clinton—including physical evidence such as the DNA test results of a semen stain on a dress owned by Lewinsky which matched Clinton’s blood sample. Starr also alleged that Clinton had conversations with witnesses during his investigation which he ascribed as “witness-tampering and obstruction of justice by hiding evidence and giving misleading accounts to lawyers for Paula Jones.”
    Stated possible grounds for impeachment

    Specifically, Starr reported:

    There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

    1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

    2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

    3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

    4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

    5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones’s attorneys.

    6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President’s purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

    7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

    8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky’s involvement in the Jones case.

    9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

    10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President’s false statements to the grand jury – and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

    11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 – all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

26. Montage:

    As for partisanship in the Clinton impeachment, it was largely partisan in terms of the voting, but far less partisan than what’s happening today.

    See this:

    Five Democrats (Virgil Goode, Ralph Hall, Paul McHale, Charles Stenholm and Gene Taylor) voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment, but only Taylor voted for the abuse of power charge. Five Republicans (Amo Houghton, Peter King, Connie Morella, Chris Shays and Mark Souder) voted against the first perjury charge. Eight more Republicans (Sherwood Boehlert, Michael Castle, Phil English, Nancy Johnson, Jay Kim, Jim Leach, John McHugh and Ralph Regula), but not Souder, voted against the obstruction charge. Twenty-eight Republicans voted against the second perjury charge, sending it to defeat, and eighty-one voted against the abuse of power charge.

    My personal opinion, then and now, was that it was a stupid move to impeach Clinton. I’m not going to go into the details as to why I believed that and continue to believe it (although I’ve discussed it on this blog before in some detail). But that does not change the fact that although I don’t agree with the impeachment, it certainly was based on grounds that were arguably valid and extremely different from the travesty that’s going on now.

27. I’m recalling about 15 years ago a political consultant commenting on what politicians do in a crisis. He averred that politicians are not adaptable. They do what they know – what’s worked for them before. Reviewing that list, I’m reminded of his recorded conversation with Gennifer Flowers in 1991. “Everything will be alright if we just stick to the story”. Clinton’s default setting is the improvised short con.

28. My personal opinion, then and now, was that it was a stupid move to impeach Clinton.

    Marlin FitzWater had had to contend with the public relations fallout during the interminable Walsh investigation. When a periphery-of-the-periphery figure named Julie Hiatt Steele was indicted by Starr’s office, he had this to say, “That’s what this [independent counsel] law does to people.” The Starr investigation’s last notable accomplishment was reaching an agreement with James McDougal to co-operate with investigators in April of 1997. After that it began going off the rails and it’s mandate was repeatedly expanded to include extraneous matters. (During the Reagan Administration, you had several independent counsels working at once on different investigations; you didn’t have an omnibus independent counsel). I think in retrospect Starr has said he regretting staying on so long and regretting taking new cases.

29. Well that’s plain nonsense as a goodly number of Democrats voted an impeachment resolution — resolution, mind you, with all the due process bells and whistles this sorry affair is lacking — along with the bulk of Republicans. Whole different kettle of fish. Quite bipartisan, y’know. So.

    No, about five Democrats, four of whom usually voted with Republicans on policy matters.

30. Artfldgr:

    I was away from computers all day and just now have finally gotten to see your comments here.

    I don’t have time to wade through them or even edit them for length at the moment. I did skim a few, and I will say this in response to what I did read:

    I edit your posts for length not content. I write “edited for length” when I do it. Basically, I lop off the end. Your comments are too long, I often don’t have time to read what you write.

    I have warned you over and over again and explained over and over again.

    Once in a blue moon I will edit you for content, and I tell you when it’s happening. The content is almost always redundancy and/or insult after insult either to me or to another commenter. But FAR more often my editing of your comments is just for length, and I lop off the end without really reading it.

    It has nothing to do with showing you the content I got rid of, because – as I’ve said over and over and over – it is almost always that I’m getting rid of the length. not the content.

    It shouldn’t be so difficult to understand that.

31. Artfldgr is no doubt smart, even brilliant. But…smart got us into Vietnam (remember Kennedy’s best and brightest?), got us the good old atomic bomb, turned our backs on the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, among other myriad fiascoes. Personally, I’ve long since tired of the sneering attitude (he is after all, so much smarter than the other patrons of The New Neo) and the long windiness. Might I humbly suggest he start his own blog where he can insult all he wants.

32. Artfldgr,

    Those commenters familiar with me know that I have very rarely descended into an ad hominem diatribe here, but you’ve asked for exactly that.

    Shame on you!

    You rant as if this blog is a public forum. It is not. It is a private blog created and sustained by its blogress. Yes, you have a right to your own opinions, but she has a right to do with them as she would. Don’t like it? Then don’t comment.

    In fact, you get much fairer treatment and much more tolerance from her than you would from me. While your comments often include arcane and interesting information, there is a cost/benefit relationship that must be weighed when slogging through them. Regardless of any quality of content,
    opinions do not contribute to a discussion unless they are read. You should thank Neo simply for doing that work; this is not a matter of censorship, this is simple readability. I would have banned them long ago simply on the basis of their recurrent tedium and your recurring arrogance toward any comment that deigns to take issue with your points.

    While, on the one hand, I really don’t give a rat’s patoot if you comment or not; it’s not my blog and it’s easy to skim over your diatribes when such occur, but I do bristle at your arrogance and lack of simple courtesy in personally attacking someone essentially in her own home. It’s much like being invited to dinner and then criticizing the meal while you sit at the table eating.

    Now you might well respond that my complaint is implying that neither she nor commenters should ever be criticized. That, of course, would be untrue and is disproved simply by paying attention to what she and other commenters have written in the past.

    I repeat my initial criticism: Shame on you!

33. Artfldgr, T said it well.
    “I do bristle at your arrogance and lack of simple courtesy”
    =
    rude.

    One reason my wife loves me is because I try hard NOT to be rude.

    My accomplished genius friend is very generous, but also often rude and demanding. (Another genius friend is married, with kids, and lots of fun.)

    If you’re not smart enough to know when you’re being rude, that’s dummer (no b) than most avg. people.

    That’s always sad, and also seems such a waste for any high IQ guy.

    It’s not that hard to be more polite, but one must want to be polite.
    Your writing indicates you don’t even want to be polite.
    Sad.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>