IMPEACHMENT | The Sequel?

Some interesting thoughts on impeachment from the left (really, not like the so-called "left" represented by mainstream Democrats) coming from Chris Hedges.

I'm not against the impeachment. Donald Trump should have been impeached the first week of his presidency under the emoluments clause. But again, the Democrats have failed for several years now to stand up for the rule of law, never mind the Republican Party’s complicity with Trump. But now the only time the Democrats respond to Trump’s lawlessness and innumerable impeachable offenses is when Trump goes after Joe Biden.  

When Trump and his Republican Party go after Biden, the anointed candidate of the donor class, then they respond with impeachment. The Democratic Party’s leaders would not respond before because it wasn't politically expedient. Impeachment is not going to be the panacea that many among the liberal political class thinks it's going to be because the underlying structural decay in American society remains unaddressed.

Hedges is able to hold these thoughts in his head at the same time. That the Democratic Party is itself a corrupted instrument of the elite donor class, that there are many, many offenses for which Donald Trump could have been impeached AND that he should be impeached for his Ukraine caper.

Some folks here could take a page from Hedges, who avoids whataboutism when talking about Trump, even though he's certainly no fan of the Democratic Party.

Author Chris Hedges on Trump, the Democrats and the dying American empire 

Impeaching Trump without addressing America's deeper structural problems, says Hedges, will only make things worse

PVW said:

Here are the Articles of Impeachment

Two articles -- Abuse of Power, and Obstruction of Congress

 Impeachment advocates: how do you like (or not like) these final articles? Right ones? Wrong ones? Too few or too many? 

As I've said I think the end result is a fait accompli so I haven't been paying much attention to the details. I will say "Abuse of Power" doesn't strike me as the highest of high crimes and misdemeanors, and "Obstruction of Congress" strikes me as a bit arcane and indirect, like a Plan B for not getting him on Obstruction of Justice.  

Smedley said:

 Impeachment advocates: how do you like (or not like) these final articles? Right ones? Wrong ones? Too few or too many? 

As I've said I think the end result is a fait accompli so I haven't been paying much attention to the details. I will say "Abuse of Power" doesn't strike me as the highest of high crimes and misdemeanors, and "Obstruction of Congress" strikes me as a bit arcane and indirect, like a Plan B for not getting him on Obstruction of Justice.  

It should have been eight counts as laid out in the article I linked to above.  Speaking of fait accompli, was there any chance that you'd approve of any articles of impeachment that the House approved?  What would it take for you to support impeachment?  Video of Trump excepting huge bags of cash in exchange for releasing the Ukraine aid?  

Smedley said:

PVW said:

Here are the Articles of Impeachment

Two articles -- Abuse of Power, and Obstruction of Congress

 Impeachment advocates: how do you like (or not like) these final articles? Right ones? Wrong ones? Too few or too many? 

As I've said I think the end result is a fait accompli so I haven't been paying much attention to the details. I will say "Abuse of Power" doesn't strike me as the highest of high crimes and misdemeanors, and "Obstruction of Congress" strikes me as a bit arcane and indirect, like a Plan B for not getting him on Obstruction of Justice.  

 I am very puzzled by what you are basing your opinions on. It seems to me that Abuse of Power is the essence of an impeachable act, as defined in the constitution. It was the third article of impeachment against Nixon.

I agree that more counts should be filed.  - but for each one - would that require another 1 to 2 week's worth of testimony to prove is?

Essentially - they have enough to move ahead and I believe they're pretty convincing.  But as we all know - it's all up to the senate.  Which one of those 8 counts laid out in the article would any senator go along with?  As I mentioned before - there's nothing Trump has done or will do that any senator will impeach him on.

jamie said:

I agree that more counts should be filed.  - but for each one - would that require another 1 to 2 week's worth of testimony to prove is?

Essentially - they have enough to move ahead and I believe they're pretty convincing.  But as we all know - it's all up to the senate.  Which one of those 8 counts laid out in the article would any senator go along with?  As I mentioned before - there's nothing Trump has done or will do that any senator will impeach him on.

 agreed that they don't have evidence for six more articles right now.  So they can impeach based on the two charges they have evidence for now.  And the House committees can continue to investigate the others.  

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

 Impeachment advocates: how do you like (or not like) these final articles? Right ones? Wrong ones? Too few or too many? 

As I've said I think the end result is a fait accompli so I haven't been paying much attention to the details. I will say "Abuse of Power" doesn't strike me as the highest of high crimes and misdemeanors, and "Obstruction of Congress" strikes me as a bit arcane and indirect, like a Plan B for not getting him on Obstruction of Justice.  

It should have been eight counts as laid out in the article I linked to above.  Speaking of fait accompli, was there any chance that you'd approve of any articles of impeachment that the House approved?  What would it take for you to support impeachment?  Video of Trump excepting huge bags of cash in exchange for releasing the Ukraine aid?  

 If such a video existed, yes I would support impeachment.

But I don't see how I would support impeachment otherwise. As I've said a number of times, I do not approve of Trump's actions (nor do I approve of President Trump overall). But given

1. the murkiness of this whole Ukraine situation (5th & 6th paragraph of this WaPo piece capture this well); 2. the relative dinkiness of the matter (asking Ukraine for campaign dirt on Uncle Joe, just not a big deal for a lot of people); and 

3. The political reality on the ground assuring this whole thing will end up as a tempest in a teapot.

Add it all up and that was why I favored of censure rather than impeachment.

And now Republicans have a great campaign ad, that of California loony lib Maxine Walters, who has been calling for Trump's impeachment for this, that and the other thing since 2017, standing right behind Nadler as he announces the articles. That'll get out the crossover vote in the midwestern states...only not in the way that Democrats want. An early Christmas for the GOP. 

I don't understand how leveraging the official powers of the presidency to go after your primary political opponent is a "dinky" matter. Nor how putting the security of a country we've pledged to support in jeopardy while doing so is dinky. Nor how destroying the State department, making the ability of the US government to actually carry out foreign policy, is dinky. But yeah, I guess we have a difference of opinion here.

I mean, is the argument basically "Americans don't actually care about democracy and the rule of law, so why bother?"

PVW said:

Smedley said:

PVW said:

Here are the Articles of Impeachment

Two articles -- Abuse of Power, and Obstruction of Congress

 Impeachment advocates: how do you like (or not like) these final articles? Right ones? Wrong ones? Too few or too many? 

As I've said I think the end result is a fait accompli so I haven't been paying much attention to the details. I will say "Abuse of Power" doesn't strike me as the highest of high crimes and misdemeanors, and "Obstruction of Congress" strikes me as a bit arcane and indirect, like a Plan B for not getting him on Obstruction of Justice.  

 I am very puzzled by what you are basing your opinions on. It seems to me that Abuse of Power is the essence of an impeachable act, as defined in the constitution. It was the third article of impeachment against Nixon.

 I do not disagree that abuse of power is impeachable. But as I've said previously, just because something is impeachable does not mean you impeach.

Driving 30 mph on Prospect St. is ticket-able. But that doesn't mean a cop should, or will, ticket. 

PVW said:

Using the power of the presidency to undermine the integrity of the 2020 election is the same as driving 30mph on prospect to you? Yeah, we seem to have some pretty different views on what counts as "important" here.

 Yes, it's exactly the same. That's just what I said. 

Anyway, my broader point is , and has been, that impeachment is the nuclear option and should only be for the most egregious presidential conduct. This doesn't rise to that level, so I would have preferred censure and then leave it to the voters.  

Call me idealistic but I believe if Trump's conduct were truly egregious and worth impeaching over, more than 47.7% of voters would support impeachment. 

Free and fair elections are literally the basis of our entire system of government. But sure, attacking that is not "egregious presidential conduct." Ok.

ETA - "leave it to the voters" is precisely what Trump's actions work to prevent.

Smedley said:

 Yes, it's exactly the same. That's just what I said. 

Anyway, my broader point is , and has been, that impeachment is the nuclear option and should only be for the most egregious presidential conduct. This doesn't rise to that level, so I would have preferred censure and then leave it to the voters.  

Call me idealistic but I believe if Trump's conduct were truly egregious and worth impeaching over, more than 47.7% of voters would support impeachment. 

it's a lot more than supported Nixon's impeachment.

I don't mean this as an insult, but more as a description.  If you're not just playing devil's advocate here, and those really are your thoughts about yourself and most voters, it's a really cynical view of the presidency.  It may be correct, and maybe most people couldn't care less about Trump's corruption, and maybe most people really don't care if a president engages in a blatant abuse of power for his own political gain.  And if all that's true, then maybe the U.S. political process really is ******.

.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

 Yes, it's exactly the same. That's just what I said. 

Anyway, my broader point is , and has been, that impeachment is the nuclear option and should only be for the most egregious presidential conduct. This doesn't rise to that level, so I would have preferred censure and then leave it to the voters.  

Call me idealistic but I believe if Trump's conduct were truly egregious and worth impeaching over, more than 47.7% of voters would support impeachment. 

it's a lot more than supported Nixon's impeachment.

I don't mean this as an insult, but more as a description.  If you're not just playing devil's advocate here, and those really are your thoughts about yourself and most voters, it's a really cynical view of the presidency.  It may be correct, and maybe most people couldn't care less about Trump's corruption, and maybe most people really don't care if a president engages in a blatant abuse of power for his own political gain.  And if all that's true, then maybe the U.S. political process really is ******.

 Maybe it is. I don't know the answer either but I do know that 56% of indie voters do not support impeachment. I guess that makes us the new deplorables?

And with regard to cynicism, I have predicted that Trump will lose next year. You decline to agree, which suggests that you believe after all this, Trump will win.

Whose view of the electorate is cynical?

I'll admit to cynicism. In country after country, we've seen democratic backsliding. It was hubris to think we were somehow exceptional and immune. We are in a global anti-democratic moment.

And I have to say, part of what fuels my cynicism is seeing people shrug off attempts to corrupt our elections as "dinky."

Smedley said:

 Maybe it is. I don't know the answer either but I do know that 56% of indie voters do not support impeachment. I guess that makes us the new deplorables?

And with regard to cynicism, I have predicted that Trump will lose next year. You decline to agree, which suggests that you believe after all this, Trump will win.

Whose view of the electorate is cynical?

it's not the same.  I think there are an awful lot of partisans who make up a solid base for any Republican.  And I think a lot of people don't know much about the impeachment hearings, or they are hearing only the GOP side.  I don't think there's a vast majority of voters who know exactly what Trump did, know that it was an abuse of power, but don't care about it.  I'm more inclined to think that most people aren't really paying attention, and I'm not inclined to think that they are paying close attention but just don't give a damn.

PVW said:

And I have to say, part of what fuels my cynicism is seeing people shrug off attempts to corrupt our elections as "dinky."

 Part of what fuels my cynicism about online message boards is when people mischaracterize what other people say.

"Censure" does not mean "shrug off".

Smedley said:

PVW said:

And I have to say, part of what fuels my cynicism is seeing people shrug off attempts to corrupt our elections as "dinky."

 Part of what fuels my cynicism about online message boards is when people mischaracterize what other people say.

"Censure" does not mean "shrug off".

Censure is not in the constitution. It has no teeth. It's a weak protest completely insufficient to the gravity of the offense -- though I guess we disagree on whether attacking the central component of our governing system is a grave offense.

Smedley said:

 Maybe it is. I don't know the answer either but I do know that 56% of indie voters do not support impeachment. I guess that makes us the new deplorables?

No. 

Smedley said:

 Part of what fuels my cynicism about online message boards is when people mischaracterize what other people say.

"Censure" does not mean "shrug off".

 Censure is "a stern talking to".  It would not deter similar behavior from this President.  If this particular abuse of the power of his office is not considered impeachable, then where is the line?

Obstruction of justice involves a pending or potential judicial proceeding.  Obstruction of Congress involves a congressional investigation or its ability to operate.  Here, Trump directed his subordinates to ignore duly issues Congressional subpoenae.  Therefore, it is obstruction of congress, not of justice.

PVW said:

Smedley said:

PVW said:

And I have to say, part of what fuels my cynicism is seeing people shrug off attempts to corrupt our elections as "dinky."

 Part of what fuels my cynicism about online message boards is when people mischaracterize what other people say.

"Censure" does not mean "shrug off".

Censure is not in the constitution. It has no teeth. It's a weak protest completely insufficient to the gravity of the offense -- though I guess we disagree on whether attacking the central component of our governing system is a grave offense.

 Ok, so censure is toothless. Begs the question, what bite do you expect from impeachment? As of now, the needle on Trumps public support has barely budged, and in all likelihood he’ll be acquitted in the Senate.

Do you expect something different, ie either he’s removed from Office or he loses public support?

If not, what is the bite of impeachment ? Will a nebulous and uncertain “deterrence for future presidents” factor be the bite you’re looking for? If it is it is, but that seems kinda gummy to me. 

nohero said:

Smedley said:

 Part of what fuels my cynicism about online message boards is when people mischaracterize what other people say.

"Censure" does not mean "shrug off".

 Censure is "a stern talking to".  It would not deter similar behavior from this President.  If this particular abuse of the power of his office is not considered impeachable, then where is the line?

And impeachment will deter this president from similar behavior?

Smedley said:

And impeachment will deter this president from similar behavior?

 it puts the entire GOP caucus on the record with regard to whether or not they condone the president's behavior. 

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

And impeachment will deter this president from similar behavior?

 it puts the entire GOP caucus on the record with regard to whether or not they condone the president's behavior. 

That’s exactly what censure would have done.

Impeachment does the same and forces a vote on removal from office. As the nuclear option, that’s much easier for a moderate GOP Rep/Senator to vote no on.

When they’re back in their purple states in town halls ahead of their next election they can say they don’t condone trumps behavior but they didn’t think he should be removed from office. Thank you Democrats.

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

And impeachment will deter this president from similar behavior?

 it puts the entire GOP caucus on the record with regard to whether or not they condone the president's behavior. 

...

When they’re back in their purple states in town halls ahead of their next election they can say they don’t condone trumps behavior but they didn’t think he should be removed from office. Thank you Democrats.

 And do you think that this somehow translates into a vote for Trump? How?

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Details on the agreement among Putin, Zelensky, Macron and Merkel.

It provides partial autonomy for eastern Ukraine. As it should.

https://www.unian.info/politics/10787279-zelensky-putin-agreement-minsk-deal-as-basis-full-ceasefire-demining-steinmeier-formula-document.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter_site

 Why "as it should"?  That sounds like Russia using force to affect the internal governance of Ukraine.

What the article actually says about that: "They express interest in agreeing on all the legal aspects of the special order of local self-government (special status) of occupied areas in Donetsk and Luhansk regions". (Emphasis added)

What Ukrainians think about something like that (from the same news outlet, "Unian.info"): "Only 14.6% of those polled in Ukraine support the idea of granting special status to the self-proclaimed republics – the Donetsk People's Republic' ('DPR') and the 'Luhansk People's Republic' ('LPR') – within the territory of Ukraine."

 In other words you're against the agreement.