IMPEACHMENT | The Sequel?
ml1 said:
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.
you got me. as you’ll recall, I actually supported impeachment on oct. 23. And I couldn’t decide on sept. 30. Otherwise I’ve been against.
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:
you got me. as you’ll recall, I actually supported impeachment on oct. 23. And I couldn’t decide on sept. 30. Otherwise I’ve been against.
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 those polls show is that it quickly went from a majority against to a toss-up and has stayed there.
Given the argument that impeachment is a bad idea because it won't have the intended result, and that polls show a very closely split public, how should we think about voting, especially for federal offices? An individual vote has almost no effect. As NJ voters, this is further exacerbated by the fact that the state so overwhelmingly votes for a single party, and in the case of voting for president, by the fact that we're not a very large state. So, should we vote at all? (and for RI and Delaware, should anyone in those states ever vote?)
If yes, then surely some of the logic in support of an individual voting in NJ also can be applied to the question of whether Congress should vote for impeachment? I don't think every formal act of democratic governance can be reduced simply to "will we get the result we hope for" and "what do the polls say."
paulsurovell said:
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.
You actually believed what Trump tweeted on what topics they discussed? Even Lasrov said they didn't discuss election meddling. Do you believe the totality of Trump's tweets - or do you just cherry pick the parts you hope are true?
PVW said:
So, should we vote at all? (and for RI and Delaware, should anyone in those states ever vote?)
Four days after its 1787 ratification vote’s annual overshadowing by Pearl Harbor Day, this native of the First State declaims: Yea!
ml1 said:
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.
I believe I’ve said a number of times why I think impeachment was a bad idea. The essence is that impeachment should be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors that are very clearly and indisputably high crimes and misdemeanors, and I don’t think Trumps actions rise to that standard.
If I haven’t shown my work enough, or if you believe that your opinion on impeachment is superior to my opinion and / or your ethics are superior to my ethics, so be it.
I also believe I’m factoring the political landscape into my calculus more than others seem to be. When Pelosi signed on to impeach after a long period of resisting, I thought wow, she must really have an ace up her sleeve that would result in trump actually being removed from office or really weakened politically. But now we’re just about through the house part of impeachment, it seems the Dems have shown all their cards, and nothing.
trump haters and impeachment proponents can claim agnosticism about the impeachment end result, but I find it hard to believe that they are not disappointed by where we stand now.
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.
So if the Mayor says to the Chief of Police "I have your pay check here but I'd like you to do me a favor. Pull my opponent over for speeding and make a big announcement about it" should the Mayor be impeached?
Smedley said:
I believe I’ve said a number of times why I think impeachment was a bad idea. The essence is that impeachment should be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors that are very clearly and indisputably high crimes and misdemeanors, and I don’t think Trumps actions rise to that standard.
Candidate Trump was very clearly and indisputably unsuited to the office of the presidency, and yet a bit under half the electorate voted for him. If you are looking to the electorate for a signal of what counts as "clear and indisputable," I dare say you may as well give up now. Our political moment is too polarized for just about anything to rally significant majorities to, and any non-political fact will become a highly contested matter of partisanship the minute it becomes pulled into a political context.
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.
just curious - do you think the Clinton impeachment was warranted?
drummerboy 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.
just curious - do you think the Clinton impeachment was warranted?
No. Do you?
Smedley said:
I believe I’ve said a number of times why I think impeachment was a bad idea. The essence is that impeachment should be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors that are very clearly and indisputably high crimes and misdemeanors, and I don’t think Trumps actions rise to that standard.
This is circular logic -- essentially it's not a high crime or misdemeanor because it's not a high crime or misdemeanor.
the only constitutional expert I'm aware of who hasn't weighed in by saying Trump's actions are indisputably high crimes and misdemeanors is the indisputably hackish Jonathan Turley (who opined that the Clinton impeachment was justified). Trump undoubtedly solicited a bribe from Zelensky (the announcement of an investigation, which is clearly a thing of value. Considerable value in fact). I don't know how anyone who acknowledges Trump's action can say it's not clearly impeachable. If you don't want to call it bribery, it's certainly an abuse of power. Here's what Laurence Tribe had to say.
The abuses of power they charge, including unforgivable and ongoing obstruction of congressional efforts to invoke the impeachment power to hold the President accountable to his Oath of Office, with ‘actions . . . consistent with [his] previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference with United States elections’ in 2016, are the most serious ever charged against any sitting president. And the evidence supporting the two charges, which the Articles clearly and unambiguously summarize, is so overwhelming that only an unwillingness or inability to face the facts could lead anyone to conclude that President Trump is innocent of the accusations soberly leveled in the Articles.
https://www.salon.com/2019/12/10/experts-on-impeachment-is-this-the-express-lane-version-or-a-democratic-masterstroke/
I've said previously that Trump's actions are impeachable. But just because something is impeachable, doesn't mean you impeach.
I presume you would have impeached all of the following presidents, plus maybe others (from Quora):
1. Andrew Jackson could have been, had the vote on the Trail of Tears gone the other way. It only passed by 2 votes in Congress. Had Congress told Jackson no, he likely would have defied them as he did the Supreme Court earlier. Whether Jackson would go is another matter, but he would have deserved impeachment.
2. James Polk, who like GW Bush, lied to the nation in order to go to war. Polk told the public the lie that US troops had been attacked unprovoked on US soil, repeating a falsehood he knew was false, told to him by a general. Actually he was attacked near a fort he'd built on disputed territory.
3. Reagan for Iran Contra. What the public and Congress also did not know at the time was that Reagan had also secretly provided aid to Guatemala's gov't, in defiance of a congressional ban. Guatemala's dictatorship used that aid to carry out genocide vs Mayan Indians.
4. GW Bush for lying to start a war and for ordering torture.
5. John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law, which was blatantly unconstitutional.
6. Woodrow Wilson passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which, like the legislation passed by Adams, was blatantly unconstitutional.
7. Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment of innocent Japanese Americans without trial.
8. Lyndon Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin.
I think each of those Presidents should have been impeached for those reasons.
But do you mean "impeached" or do you mean convicted and removed from office?
Smedley said:
I've said previously that Trump's actions are impeachable. But just because something is impeachable, doesn't mean you impeach.
I presume you would have impeached all of the following presidents, plus maybe others (from Quora):
1. Andrew Jackson could have been, had the vote on the Trail of Tears gone the other way. It only passed by 2 votes in Congress. Had Congress told Jackson no, he likely would have defied them as he did the Supreme Court earlier. Whether Jackson would go is another matter, but he would have deserved impeachment.
2. James Polk, who like GW Bush, lied to the nation in order to go to war. Polk told the public the lie that US troops had been attacked unprovoked on US soil, repeating a falsehood he knew was false, told to him by a general. Actually he was attacked near a fort he'd built on disputed territory.
3. Reagan for Iran Contra. What the public and Congress also did not know at the time was that Reagan had also secretly provided aid to Guatemala's gov't, in defiance of a congressional ban. Guatemala's dictatorship used that aid to carry out genocide vs Mayan Indians.
4. GW Bush for lying to start a war and for ordering torture.5. John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law, which was blatantly unconstitutional.
6. Woodrow Wilson passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which, like the legislation passed by Adams, was blatantly unconstitutional.
7. Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment of innocent Japanese Americans without trial.
8. Lyndon Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin.
without a threat of impeachment, or without any serious pushback from Congress, we can't know if some of these presidents would have reversed course on any of these actions (e.g., would FDR have released prisoners from the internment camps if Congress had insisted). So if Congress had been inclined to impeach, the threat alone may have been enough to reverse the action. In the cases of signing unconstitutional laws, the Constitutional remedy is for the SCOTUS to overturn the law, not impeachment. In a few of the cases, had the evidence been uncovered during the president's term, yes impeachment would have been something I'd have supported. In the case of Iran-Contra for example, the hearings at the time never established direct involvement by the president, but if they had it would have been right to impeach Reagan. Congress definitely would have had grounds for impeaching W Bush for war crimes, and I would have supported that. The case for lying about WMD would have been a lot harder to prove, because he could have claimed the intelligence was contradictory, and he made his best judgment call.
Trump's actions are different from all of these however because the evidence is clear for what he did. And the evidence is clear that he is obstructing Congress. It's really a no-brainer to impeach Trump, and to vote to convict. But we live in times in which one party, and nearly half the country cares a lot more about owning the libs than about the Constitution. And nobody owns the libs better than Trump, and that's the appeal to his cult of personality.
If Hillary Clinton was POTUS, and accused of all the same acts, I'd have to believe enough Democrats would vote for impeachment and conviction to remove her from office. Mostly because there was no Clinton cult of personality, and most Democrats would be fine with Tim Kaine becoming president in place of a president who committed obvious crimes. The Republicans, not so much. They are the party of Trump.
STANV, I mean impeached to start. But to me impeachment is not done for the sake of impeachment itself, rather it is with an end goal in mind. So one commences impeachment with eyes wide open to the possibility of the president being removed from office.
Censure, on the other hand, is done for the sake of censure itself.
Smedley said:
I've said previously that Trump's actions are impeachable. But just because something is impeachable, doesn't mean you impeach.
I presume you would have impeached all of the following presidents, plus maybe others (from Quora):
1. Andrew Jackson could have been, had the vote on the Trail of Tears gone the other way. It only passed by 2 votes in Congress. Had Congress told Jackson no, he likely would have defied them as he did the Supreme Court earlier. Whether Jackson would go is another matter, but he would have deserved impeachment.
2. James Polk, who like GW Bush, lied to the nation in order to go to war. Polk told the public the lie that US troops had been attacked unprovoked on US soil, repeating a falsehood he knew was false, told to him by a general. Actually he was attacked near a fort he'd built on disputed territory.
3. Reagan for Iran Contra. What the public and Congress also did not know at the time was that Reagan had also secretly provided aid to Guatemala's gov't, in defiance of a congressional ban. Guatemala's dictatorship used that aid to carry out genocide vs Mayan Indians.
4. GW Bush for lying to start a war and for ordering torture.5. John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law, which was blatantly unconstitutional.
6. Woodrow Wilson passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which, like the legislation passed by Adams, was blatantly unconstitutional.
7. Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment of innocent Japanese Americans without trial.
8. Lyndon Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin.
A couple of points (some of which have already been pointed out):
1. Just because you think that a law is "blatantly unconstitutional," it was necessarily passed by both houses of Congress and then signed by the President. As ml1 points out, the courts are there for that purpose.
2. As odious and wrong were as the internment camps were, the SCOTUS found them to be constitutional (hopefully, even the current members of the SCOTUS would rule differently today).
3. Each of the other actions were taken by Presidents because they, presumably, believed them to be in the best interests of the nation. This is a notable departure from the current situation (and from the Biden statements about the prosecutor).
nohero said:
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:
Not sure what Pompeo said but what Lavrov said was accurate,
nohero said:
If you listen to the end of the video in the previous post, you'll hear Sergei sling the "McCarthyism" accusation, with which regular MOL readers have become familiar.
(a) This from the big "off-topic-post" complainer.
(b) Glad that Sergei raised the issue.
(c) Glad that Sergie helped negotiate the Ukraine-Russia-France-Germany cease-fire agreement.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
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.
You actually believed what Trump tweeted on what topics they discussed? Even Lasrov said they didn't discuss election meddling. Do you believe the totality of Trump's tweets - or do you just cherry pick the parts you hope are true?
In this case I cherry-picked to reveal the shamefulness of @nohero's post.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
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:
Not sure what Pompeo said but what Lavrov said was accurate,
Lavrov's statement was not accurate.
nohero said:
Lavrov's statement was not accurate.
It sure as shooting was. This was from the Washington Post. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pompeo-and-lavrov-clash-over-russian-election-interference-in-news-conference-at-state-department/2019/12/10/41414e28-1b87-11ea-9ddd-3e0321c180e7_story.html)
Lavrov said Russia has demanded that the United States provide evidence of election interference, but when asked by a reporter why he doesn’t simply “read the Mueller report,” Lavrov dismissed the suggestion.
“We read it. There is no proof of any collusion,” he said, speaking through an interpreter.
While special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did not establish a conspiracy between Russia and members of the Trump campaign, his office issued an indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers for the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.
In response to Lavrov’s calls for more evidence, Pompeo said this was unnecessary.
“We think we’ve shared plenty of facts to show what happened in the 2016 election with our Russian counterparts. We don’t think there’s any mistake about what really transpired there,” he said.
This made me laugh because it's the exact same conversation I've had with so many Russiagaters on MOL and Facebook, including nohero. They accuse Russia of interfering. You ask them for proof. They have none but then say it's in the Muller Report. The only thing they can find is the 12 indictments which they knew would never happen and they provided no real proof. And they say they have shown you proof and you are just being stubborn. It's nuts.
nan said:
nohero said:
Lavrov's statement was not accurate.
It sure as shooting was. This was from the Washington Post. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pompeo-and-lavrov-clash-over-russian-election-interference-in-news-conference-at-state-department/2019/12/10/41414e28-1b87-11ea-9ddd-3e0321c180e7_story.html)
Lavrov said Russia has demanded that the United States provide evidence of election interference, but when asked by a reporter why he doesn’t simply “read the Mueller report,” Lavrov dismissed the suggestion.
“We read it. There is no proof of any collusion,” he said, speaking through an interpreter. ...
Lavrov does the same thing Trump does (or maybe it's the other way around). "NO COLLUSION", as if that settles everything about Russian interference. Lavrov responds to a question about "interference" and shifts it to "collusion". He knows he'll fool some of the people when he does that.
Listening to the Judiciary Committee this morning. If you're not listening or watching, it seems to boil down to:
Democrats: Here are the facts about what Trump did and how it was investigated by Congress.
GOP: Didn't happen. Pay no attention to any claim about facts.
The R's must have gotten new talking points today. They keep on repeating the "63 million people" who voted for Trump. I haven't yet heard a D point out that 66 million people voted for Hillary.
drummerboy said:
The R's must have gotten new talking points today. They keep on repeating the "63 million people" who voted for Trump. I haven't yet heard a D point out that 66 million people voted for Hillary.
Those 66 million people don't count, since most of them are "on the coasts".
Actual poster that the GOP put up today at the hearing. The "Coastal Impeachment Squad", who clearly aren't "real Americans".
I'm listening to random GOP House members repeat their mantra, "You can't impeach without an underlying crime." They mean a statutory crime. That's NOT what any reputable constitutional scholar has said, or told them (even their own law professor witness).
In case anyone else shares my curiosity about the request “I move to strike the last word”:
Pro Forma Amendments
Although the five-minute rule technically permits only 10 minutes of debate for each amendment, 5 in favor and 5 against the amendment, Members secure additional time through the use of “pro forma” amendments. Pro forma amendments are amendments to strike one or more words of the text under consideration, and they are offered solely for the purpose of gaining recognition to speak for five minutes. In other words, no change to the text under consideration is substantively proposed; the proponent is not actually suggesting a word or words be stricken.
After the proponent and the opponent of an amendment have spoken for their allotted five minutes, another Member who wishes to speak may rise and state:
I move to strike the last word.
The chair then recognizes that Member for five minutes, technically to speak on the pro forma amendment, but in fact to continue debate on the pending substantive amendment.
Any number of pro forma amendments can be offered, but because of a general prohibition against offering the same amendment twice, Members sometimes choose to say instead:
I move to strike the requisite number of words.
If you listen to the end of the video in the previous post, you'll hear Sergei sling the "McCarthyism" accusation, with which regular MOL readers have become familiar.