Impeaching Donald Trump

[ah693973]

What is the purpose of these arguments Slobodan and Alan?

Are you trying to convince others of Trump's goodness/worth? That would be much easier if you consistently put forth logical, fact based arguments. I think this crowd is smart enough to be swayed by logical fallacies.

It is as if we are in a Monty Python skit. "Oh there, I cut your arm off, I win." "No you didn't." But you are not being humorous (on purpose).

People vehemently, and passionately argue the world is not round, but that doesn't make them right. I find this kind of stubbornness in the face of truth fascinating.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I don't know, maybe your upbringing. Or your life experiences. Or it could be Fox news. The other interesting bit to explore would be genetics, I think that may play a part. We could explore this if you like.

This would be a much better argument if your chart was entitled "Fake Refugees".

Even absent your earlier comments about Slobodan's mother, this post is beyond anything which might be considered acceptable. Combined with them, it is wholly intolerable. Take a week to reflect on what might be considered within the bounds of permissible argument.

Jeremy

[jeremyrh]

Because it is personal.

But not more offensive than your habitual racism.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Chris, the above is all correct, of course, as I also noted in a previous post. I am not arguing that a specific statute needs to be criminally broken for impeachment. Just that impeachment, by design, is a political process where “high crimes and misdemeanors” are open to political, rather than judicial, interpretation.

[Jeremy Roussak]

But not more offensive than your habitual racism.

This is a personal attack which, as I have made clear, I will not tolerate. Begone for a week (at least).

Jeremy

[edit: to include the action I have taken]

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

But not more offensive than your habitual racism.

Oh, dear Lord! 

[jeremyrh]

I'll save you the trouble, Jeremy, I'm done here, and unlike Alan I actually mean what I say. If Josh wants another alt-right echo chamber then he can go for it -  it's not for me to stand in his way.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I'll save you the trouble, Jeremy, I'm done here, and unlike Alan I actually mean what I say. If Josh wants another alt-right echo chamber then he can go for it -  it's not for me to stand in his way.

So far, those you call “alt-right” are outnumbered by the “alt-left” (to adopt your nomenclature). Hardly an echo chamber.

[Alan Klein]

The one most-frequently cited with respect to the transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president that was released by the White House is 52 USC §30121: "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."

However, no statutory violation is constitutionally required to support impeachment and removal from office.

Obviously, at the time the constitution was drafted, there were no federal statutes.  Treason was explictly and very narrowly defined in the constitution itself.  The term bribery, as used in the impeachment clause, was the common law crime of bribery, although Congress subsequently has enacted explicit federal bribery statutes, e.g., 18 USC §201.

High crimes and misdemeanors is also a common law term, one of the oldest (used in impeachments since the 14th Century), and might best be summarized as "abuse of power."  It refers to a corrupt act that is inconsistent with an office-holder's responsibilities.  It may or may not involve violation of a statute and every violation of a statute is not necessarily a high crime or misdemeanor.  It's all but certain that the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" will be a subject of debate in the House of Representatives over whether to impeach Trump and, should it do so, in the Senate over whether to remove him from office.

Chris, The argument that it's just a political act is a argument made recently for convenience by Democrats.  The fact is there isn't much of a crime.  So the Democrat's are lowering the bar.   They couldn't prove collusion; Mueller saw to that.  Obstruction fizzled away because again, Mueller wouldn't play ball when he testified in Congress.  And paying off bimbos and declaring it a violation of campaign finance law seemed too unseemly for impeachment and too much like what President Clinton did to go that route.  So now they lowered the bar willing to even sacrifice Joe Biden's run to get Trump.  It's become a gutter fight.

The founders did not want impeachment to be a political act to get rid of presidents.  They wanted elections to determine this short of an actual crime.  To argue that Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors have no nexus to a crime would mean we don't understand what these terms mean.  You can't just brush it off saying congress can use any meaning they want to impeach.  The people won't stand for it.  When impeachment and conviction votes follow the party lines by every member, then it's a political act.  Trying to dress it up by call a no-crime a crime, just is wrong.  It's especially unacceptable to the people who voted for Trump.  It's an attempt to negate their vote by extra-legal means, call it what you want. 

[Chris Kern]

I am not arguing that a specific statute needs to be criminally broken for impeachment. Just that impeachment, by design, is a political process where “high crimes and misdemeanors” are open to political, rather than judicial, interpretation.

Correct: there is almost no role for the federal courts in an impeachment except to adjudicate claims of privilege as defenses to Congressional demands for evidence and, when necessary, use their contempt power to enforce lawful Congressional subpoenas.

The members of the House of Representatives theoretically are required to adhere to common law and constitutional precedent in framing articles of impeachment, although there is no enforcement mechanism.  The Senate has rules that mandate the procedures for the trial of an impeachment.  The Chief Justice of the United States presides when the president is impeached (instead of the vice president, the Senate's usual presiding officer, who becomes president if the president is removed from office); he decides procedural arguments, but he can be overruled by a majority of the senators.  As Chief Justice William Rehnquist famously said during the impeachment trial of President Clinton, "[t]he Senate is not simply a jury, it is a court in this case."

[Alan Klein]

The People are the final court.  If Congress makes a mockery of the impeachment process by making it about politics, they will be rewarded with defeat in the next election as Republicans found out with Clinton. 

[Chris Kern]

The founders did not want impeachment to be a political act to get rid of presidents.  They wanted elections to determine this short of an actual crime.

If you're interested in learning what the authors of the constitution actually intended—impeachment was one of the more extensively-considered issues, by the way—I would encourage you to read James Madison's* notes on the debates of the constitutional convention.  They offer what amounts to an opportunity to eavesdrop on the representatives to the convention in real-time as they construct a system of government.  Madison's journal is arguably the single most important document in U.S. constitutional history: an indispensable source for any serious study of the U.S. federal system.

―――
*For those unfamiliar with Madison, he served as one of the Virginia delegates to the 1787 convention, was a principal drafter of the constitution that ultimately was adopted, and in 1808 was elected fourth president of the United States.  (Edited to correct Madison's place in the presidential sequence.)

[PeterAit]

Speaking of sanctuaries:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/04/montgomery-county-backpedals-sanctuary-policy/

The Daily Caller? Shown to be extremely right-wing biased and often factually wrong. If they wrote that the sky was blue I'd go outside to check. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

[Alan Klein]

He wasn't impeached was he? 😏

[Alan Klein]

If you're interested in learning what the authors of the constitution actually intended—impeachment was one of the more extensively-considered issues, by the way—I would encourage you to read James Madison's* notes on the debates of the constitutional convention.  They offer what amounts to an opportunity to eavesdrop on the representatives to the convention in real-time as they construct a system of government.  Madison's journal is arguably the single most important document in U.S. constitutional history: an indispensable source for any serious study of the U.S. federal system.

―――
*For those unfamiliar with Madison, he served as one of the Virginia delegates to the 1787 convention, was a principal drafter of the constitution that ultimately was adopted, and in 1808 was elected third president of the United States.

Chris I be interested in Reading with Madison had to say about impeachment. Do you know what dates he made his notes?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The Daily Caller? Shown to be extremely right-wing biased and often factually wrong. If they wrote that the sky was blue I'd go outside to check. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

So, just because something is reported in the press you dislike, it didn't happen!? The thing is, the left media doesn't want to report stories like this, as it hurts their narrative.

But I found the same story at ABC. Reputable enough for you?

https://wjla.com/news/local/montgomery-county-reverses-policy-banning-ice-jail

[Chris Kern]

Last weekend, I exhumed some memorabilia from my experience as a young news reporter covering the Watergate investigations and the impeachment of President Nixon.

The first attachment is the cover page from a two-volume set of source materials on the practice of impeachment compiled by the staff of the judiciary committee of the House of Representatives.  The second is the cover page from a book of transcripts of recorded presidential conversations which President Nixon submitted to the judiciary committee.  (These turned out to be heavily ... ahh ... curated by the White House staff.  Several critical transcripts—the ones that ultimately led to Nixon's resignation after senior Republicans such as Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona warned the president that he might well be removed from office—were made available by the White House after a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court a few months later which rejected Nixon's claim that they were protected by "executive privilege.")

Alas, these documents are now somewhat faded with age, like their owner.

[James Clark]

Chris I be interested in Reading with Madison had to say about impeachment. Do you know what dates he made his notes?

They were written concurrently with the 1787 debate over of the Constitution, and are among the oddly few thorough contemporary notes.  As Chris said, they are among the very best writings to learn about the drafters’ viewpoints (even though the Federalist Papers get all the glory . )

[kers]

The People are the final court.  If Congress makes a mockery of the impeachment process by making it about politics, they will be rewarded with defeat in the next election as Republicans found out with Clinton.

Is that where the 2nd Amendment kicks in?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Is that where the 2nd Amendment kicks in?

Yeah, that's funny, but we actually have in mind people in the voting booth.