IMPEACHMENT | The Sequel?
Around 10-12 moderate Democrats are floating censure instead of impeachment
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1204446747935805442?s=20
Smedley said:
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.
I wouldn't be so quick to scorn the value an impeachment vote provides to the future. Along with the original text of the constitution, and the documentary evidence of the debates and discussions that went into producing it, the acts of congress, the executive, and the judiciary in carrying out the constitution inform our understanding of it. The Nixon impeachment proceedings have deeply informed this current one, for instance, despite it being over 45 years ago. The current impeachment proceedings add to that record, and so inform future Congresses.
If these acts are impeachable, and there's clear evidence to support that Trump in fact did these, then I think Congress is derelict in its duty to future Congresses not to act on this. Censure is not appropriate for impeachable acts with clear evidence; impeachment is. Trump's acts clearly meet the bar of impeachable offenses, and future Congresses facing similar acts by future presidents should be guided by our current moment and also move to impeach.
Related to that, I think Congress was right to go with a narrow focus. Impeachment is, as you put it, the nuclear option. By keeping the Articles of Impeachment scoped to what is clearly and indisputably in evidence, rather than broadening it to other impeachable acts that Congress does not have as full evidence on hand now, it sends an important signal of the high evidentiary bar that should be met. (In two years, when Republicans push to impeach the Democratic president on some absurd trumped-up charge, recall this post where I stood for narrow grounds for impeachment well-backed by evidence).
Finally, moving to more immediate and less forward-facing concerns, the truth is that while removal from office is not very likely, we don't actually know the future. To have pursued censure would be to give up on all possibility of formal consequence for Trump before even getting started. To pursue impeachment was to choose a path that, however improbable, actually did hold out the possibility of meting out appropriate constitutional consequences. I don't see how Congress could, in good conscience, have purposely chosen a path that by definition precluded holding Trump accountable rather the pursue the remedy the constitution prescribes for such situations.
Smedley said:
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.
The Republicans wouldn't have voted for censure either. Are you listening to them?
paulsurovell said:
Around 10-12 moderate Democrats are floating censure instead of impeachment
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1204446747935805442?s=20
cowards
PVW said:
Smedley said:
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.
I wouldn't be so quick to scorn the value an impeachment vote provides to the future. Along with the original text of the constitution, and the documentary evidence of the debates and discussions that went into producing it, the acts of congress, the executive, and the judiciary in carrying out the constitution inform our understanding of it. The Nixon impeachment proceedings have deeply informed this current one, for instance, despite it being over 45 years ago. The current impeachment proceedings add to that record, and so inform future Congresses.
If these acts are impeachable, and there's clear evidence to support that Trump in fact did these, then I think Congress is derelict in its duty to future Congresses not to act on this. Censure is not appropriate for impeachable acts with clear evidence; impeachment is. Trump's acts clearly meet the bar of impeachable offenses, and future Congresses facing similar acts by future presidents should be guided by our current moment and also move to impeach.
Related to that, I think Congress was right to go with a narrow focus. Impeachment is, as you put it, the nuclear option. By keeping the Articles of Impeachment scoped to what is clearly and indisputably in evidence, rather than broadening it to other impeachable acts that Congress does not have as full evidence on hand now, it sends an important signal of the high evidentiary bar that should be met. (In two years, when Republicans push to impeach the Democratic president on some absurd trumped-up charge, recall this post where I stood for narrow grounds for impeachment well-backed by evidence).
Finally, moving to more immediate and less forward-facing concerns, the truth is that while removal from office is not very likely, we don't actually know the future. To have pursued censure would be to give up on all possibility of formal consequence for Trump before even getting started. To pursue impeachment was to choose a path that, however improbable, actually did hold out the possibility of meting out appropriate constitutional consequences. I don't see how Congress could, in good conscience, have purposely chosen a path that by definition precluded holding Trump accountable rather the pursue the remedy the constitution prescribes for such situations.
Fair enough, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see deterrence as a strong argument here. The impeachment option is already in the constitution, it’s not like this Congress is adding a law to the books. And the next time a President commits an impeachable act, most likely it will be an entirely different situation, with an entirely different set of actors, in an entirely different political dynamic. So I don’t see how the 2019 Congress moving to impeach trump makes it any more or less likely that a future congress would impeach, and by extension, I don’t think the 2019 congress moving to impeach trump will make president X in the year 20__ less likely to commit impeachable acts.
Smedley said:
PVW said:
Smedley said:
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.
I wouldn't be so quick to scorn the value an impeachment vote provides to the future. Along with the original text of the constitution, and the documentary evidence of the debates and discussions that went into producing it, the acts of congress, the executive, and the judiciary in carrying out the constitution inform our understanding of it. The Nixon impeachment proceedings have deeply informed this current one, for instance, despite it being over 45 years ago. The current impeachment proceedings add to that record, and so inform future Congresses.
If these acts are impeachable, and there's clear evidence to support that Trump in fact did these, then I think Congress is derelict in its duty to future Congresses not to act on this. Censure is not appropriate for impeachable acts with clear evidence; impeachment is. Trump's acts clearly meet the bar of impeachable offenses, and future Congresses facing similar acts by future presidents should be guided by our current moment and also move to impeach.
Related to that, I think Congress was right to go with a narrow focus. Impeachment is, as you put it, the nuclear option. By keeping the Articles of Impeachment scoped to what is clearly and indisputably in evidence, rather than broadening it to other impeachable acts that Congress does not have as full evidence on hand now, it sends an important signal of the high evidentiary bar that should be met. (In two years, when Republicans push to impeach the Democratic president on some absurd trumped-up charge, recall this post where I stood for narrow grounds for impeachment well-backed by evidence).
Finally, moving to more immediate and less forward-facing concerns, the truth is that while removal from office is not very likely, we don't actually know the future. To have pursued censure would be to give up on all possibility of formal consequence for Trump before even getting started. To pursue impeachment was to choose a path that, however improbable, actually did hold out the possibility of meting out appropriate constitutional consequences. I don't see how Congress could, in good conscience, have purposely chosen a path that by definition precluded holding Trump accountable rather the pursue the remedy the constitution prescribes for such situations.Fair enough, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see deterrence as a strong argument here. The impeachment option is already in the constitution, it’s not like this Congress is adding a law to the books. And the next time a President commits an impeachable act, most likely it will be an entirely different situation, with an entirely different set of actors, in an entirely different political dynamic. So I don’t see how the 2019 Congress moving to impeach trump makes it any more or less likely that a future congress would impeach, and by extension, I don’t think the 2019 congress moving to impeach trump will make president X in the year 20__ less likely to commit impeachable acts.
On that topic, in case you missed my posting earlier, you might find this article interesting:
Long Before Trump, Impeachment Loomed Over Multiple Presidents
It doesn't "prove" my point or anything, but I found it relevant, interesting reading that did inform my position here.
If history judges the GOP and Trump appropriately, I think that impeachment will have a strong deterrent effect on future presidents. The failure to impeach would provide cover to future presidents (and their enablers) to disregard the interests of the nation and the mandates of the Constitution.
Smedley said:
Fair enough, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see deterrence as a strong argument here. The impeachment option is already in the constitution, it’s not like this Congress is adding a law to the books. And the next time a President commits an impeachable act, most likely it will be an entirely different situation, with an entirely different set of actors, in an entirely different political dynamic. So I don’t see how the 2019 Congress moving to impeach trump makes it any more or less likely that a future congress would impeach, and by extension, I don’t think the 2019 congress moving to impeach trump will make president X in the year 20__ less likely to commit impeachable acts.
it's more the issue of what message NOT impeaching sends. If Trump is not impeached, it essentially takes all of his many impeachable offenses (even those the House can't be bothered to investigate) off the table in the future. If the GOP is fighting this impeachment tooth and nail, what happens in the future if there's a precedent of not impeaching for abuses of power, contempt of Congress and obstruction of justice?
not impeaching Trump would mean a president could do almost anything. If extortion, bribery and obstruction of justice are a-ok for a president, and trying to influence an election is no big deal, what's left as an impeachable offense.
your comments suggest there is almost nothing you consider impeachable.
ml1 said:
not impeaching Trump would mean a president could do almost anything. If extortion, bribery and obstruction of justice are a-ok for a president, and trying to influence an election is no big deal, what's left as an impeachable offense.
again - have to go back to the overall message - if Republicans control the house and/or senate - you're safe - if you're a Republican president - end of story. It's all about loyalty.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
Whether the House should have voted on Articles of Impeachment is a nice question for a historical discussion about the Presidency of George W. Bush.
It's not relevant to the documented statements and actions of the current President, for which Articles of Impeachment are currently being considered.
It was raised in Nancy Pelosi's town hall on the current impeachment effort. Fully relevant.
No, it's not "fully relevant". Someone asked a question, which does not mean that it's "relevant to the documented statements and actions of the current President, for which Articles of Impeachment are currently being considered".
The transcript of that:
DEAN CHIEN, STUDENT, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: So, Speaker Pelosi, you resisted calls for the impeachment of President Bush in 2006, and President Trump, following the Mueller report earlier this year.
This time it's different. Why did you impose - why did you oppose impeachment in the past? And what is your obligation to protect our democracy from the actions of our President now?
PELOSI: Thank you. Thank you for bringing up the question about - because when I became Speaker the first time, there was overwhelming call for me to impeach President Bush, on the strength of the war in Iraq, which I vehemently opposed, and again not - again, I - I say "Again," I said - said at other places that I - that was my we - all has always (ph) Intelligence.
I was Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee even before I became part of the leadership of Gang of Four. So, I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. It just wasn't there.
They had to show us now - to show the Gang of Four all the Intelligence they had. The Intelligence did not show that that - that was the case. So, I knew it was a - a misrepresentation to the public. But having said that, it was a, in my view, not a ground for impeachment. That was - they won the election. They made a representation. And to this day, people think - people think that that it was the right thing to do.If it's not relevant, why are you posting the transcript?
Because the claim was made that it makes George W. Bush's behavior relevant, so reading it makes more sense than trusting your summary of what was said.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
Details on the agreement among Putin, Zelensky, Macron and Merkel.
It provides partial autonomy for eastern Ukraine. As it should.
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.
Paul's "in other words" has nothing to do with what I wrote.
In other words, he didn't want to address what I asked about his "as it should" claim, which I highlighted. Of course, the whole thing is a frolic and detour from the impeachment discussion.
Speaking of impeachment and Ukraine peace talks, here's a big "F___ YOU!!!" yesterday from Donald Trump and his friend the Russian foreign minister.
Just had a very good meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and representatives of Russia. Discussed many items including Trade, Iran, North Korea, INF Treaty, Nuclear Arms Control, and Election Meddling. Look forward to continuing our dialogue in the near future! pic.twitter.com/tHecH9a9ck
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
Details on the agreement among Putin, Zelensky, Macron and Merkel.
It provides partial autonomy for eastern Ukraine. As it should.
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.
Paul's "in other words" has nothing to do with what I wrote.
In other words, he didn't want to address what I asked about his "as it should" claim, which I highlighted. Of course, the whole thing is a frolic and detour from the impeachment discussion.
You could have said, "Of course I support the agreement even though it includes partial autonomy" but you didn't because you don't support the agreement.
Prediction: @nohero will never say that he supports the agreement because he's against it, but he won't admit it.
paulsurovell said:
You could have said, "Of course I support the agreement even though it includes partial autonomy" ...
Truly, the only thing more embarrassing than being the author of Paul's posts would to be someone who takes Paul's advice on how to post.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
You could have said, "Of course I support the agreement even though it includes partial autonomy" ...
Truly, the only thing more embarrassing than being the author of Paul's posts would to be someone who takes Paul's advice on how to post.
Triple OUICH with a cherry on top.
nohero said:
Speaking of impeachment and Ukraine peace talks, here's a big "F___ YOU!!!" yesterday from Donald Trump and his friend the Russian foreign minister.
Discussing nuclear arms control is "F -- You" in the warmonger's world.
sbenois said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
You could have said, "Of course I support the agreement even though it includes partial autonomy" ...
Truly, the only thing more embarrassing than being the author of Paul's posts would to be someone who takes Paul's advice on how to post.
Triple OUICH with a cherry on top.
Dumb and Dumber.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
You could have said, "Of course I support the agreement even though it includes partial autonomy" ...
Truly, the only thing more embarrassing than being the author of Paul's posts would to be someone who takes Paul's advice on how to post.
My prediction is looking very good.
ml1 said:
your comments suggest there is almost nothing you consider impeachable.
That is your inference but it's an incorrect inference.
QU poll out yesterday shows 51% of voters think Trump should not be impeached.
What is more than half the electorate missing in such a slam-dunk case?
Your stock answer is that people aren't paying attention, but the poll had an option for don't know which 4% of people selected. If people aren't paying attention the way you seem to think they're not paying attention, wouldn't that DK/NA number be well into double digits?
TREND: Do you think that President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you think so?
Yes/
Impeach No DK/NA
Dec 10, 2019 45 51 4
Nov 26, 2019 45 48 6
Oct 23, 2019 48 46 6
Oct 14, 2019 46 48 7
Oct 08, 2019 45 49 6
Sep 30, 2019 47 47 6
Sep 25, 2019 37 57 6 Smedley said:
That is your inference but it's an incorrect inference.
QU poll out yesterday shows 51% of voters think Trump should not be impeached.
What is more than half the electorate missing in such a slam-dunk case?
Your stock answer is that people aren't paying attention, but the poll had an option for don't know which 4% of people selected. If people aren't paying attention the way you seem to think they're not paying attention, wouldn't that DK/NA number be well into double digits?
TREND: Do you think that President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you think so?
Yes/ Impeach No DK/NA Dec 10, 2019 45 51 4 Nov 26, 2019 45 48 6 Oct 23, 2019 48 46 6 Oct 14, 2019 46 48 7 Oct 08, 2019 45 49 6 Sep 30, 2019 47 47 6 Sep 25, 2019 37 57 6
Your stock answer is to rely on polls to make your argument, instead of trying to make your own evidence-based argument. Best I can tell is that you don't support impeachment of Trump because you don't support the impeachment of Trump. Beyond that I don't think you've put forth a rationale for your opposition.
Relying on polls to determine what is right or wrong instead of principle isn't a guide to personal ethics IMHO. I really wouldn't care if 90% of people were against impeachment. The issue is what did the president do, and is it worthy of impeachment and removal.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
your comments suggest there is almost nothing you consider impeachable.
That is your inference but it's an incorrect inference.
QU poll out yesterday shows 51% of voters think Trump should not be impeached.
We don't know how what the polled voters know, about the facts.
Given what you know about the facts, are the 51% correct?
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
your comments suggest there is almost nothing you consider impeachable.
That is your inference but it's an incorrect inference.
QU poll out yesterday shows 51% of voters think Trump should not be impeached.
What is more than half the electorate missing in such a slam-dunk case?
Your stock answer is that people aren't paying attention, but the poll had an option for don't know which 4% of people selected. If people aren't paying attention the way you seem to think they're not paying attention, wouldn't that DK/NA number be well into double digits?
TREND: Do you think that President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you think so?
Yes/ Impeach No DK/NA Dec 10, 2019 45 51 4 Nov 26, 2019 45 48 6 Oct 23, 2019 48 46 6 Oct 14, 2019 46 48 7 Oct 08, 2019 45 49 6 Sep 30, 2019 47 47 6 Sep 25, 2019 37 57 6
What makes you think the people answering yes/no are any more informed than the people saying DK?
ml1 Fine, but still doesn't answer the question of what is 51% of the electorate missing. The only possible answer I can infer from your responses is that those 51% of folks are ethically challenged.
Smedley said:
If people aren't paying attention the way you seem to think they're not paying attention, wouldn't that DK/NA number be well into double digits?
You acknowledged yesterday that you “haven’t been paying much attention to the details,” yet that didn’t prevent you from expressing an opinion.
(I’m glad you did, because you expressed it well, and your exchange with PVW and ml1 was the kind I like to follow on MOL. Still, “don’t know” and silence were an option you had but rejected. In my experience, it’s not a popular option.)
Here's an example of two "low information" voters, who don't understand the issues but have a strong opinion against impeachment:
“Zero evidence that any law was broken. They’re not even alleging that a law was broken. This is an abuse of the Constitution. It is using Impeachment as a campaign tool.” @SenTedCruz
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:
If people aren't paying attention the way you seem to think they're not paying attention, wouldn't that DK/NA number be well into double digits?
You acknowledged yesterday that you “haven’t been paying much attention to the details,” yet that didn’t prevent you from expressing an opinion.
(I’m glad you did, because you expressed it well, and your exchange with PVW and ml1 was the kind I like to follow on MOL. Still, “don’t know” and silence were an option you had but rejected. In my experience, it’t not a popular option.)
I've followed it enough to have an opinion. I have not been watching the impeachment proceedings, that's the basis for my saying I haven't been paying much attention to the details.
Smedley said:
I've followed it enough to have an opinion. I have not been watching the impeachment proceedings, that's the basis for my saying I haven't been paying much attention to the details.
there's your answer. A lot of people probably have an opinion and haven't been paying much attention to the detail. And we can probably assume that roughly a third of the respondents wouldn't be in favor of impeachment of Donald Trump under any circumstances. They are the he "could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any support" voters.
You still aren't giving much of a rationale for why you don't think the president's actions are impeachable. Those of us who are in favor have given a lot of detail on why we are in favor. PVW has given quite a lot, and even links to some of the founders' thinking about impeachment. The arguments in favor of impeachment are strong, based on evidence, reason, and a reading of why impeachment is in the constitution in the first place.
Smedley said:
ml1 Fine, but still doesn't answer the question of what is 51% of the electorate missing. The only possible answer I can infer from your responses is that those 51% of folks are ethically challenged.
actually that doesn't follow from my response. There's nothing in the survey that suggests those 51% are basing their opinions on poll results.
nohero said:
Speaking of impeachment and Ukraine peace talks, here's a big "F___ YOU!!!" yesterday from Donald Trump and his friend the Russian foreign minister.
Here's Sergei following up his visit with his best buddy, making Secretary of State Pompeo look like his stooge:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: "We have highlighted once again that all speculation about our alleged interference in domestic processes in the US are baseless. There are no facts that would support that ...no one has given us this proof because it simply does not exist" pic.twitter.com/LiUItaj1Ch
If it's not relevant, why are you posting the transcript?