The “I” word

[Belsnickel]

https://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/lrc-presents-all-the-presidents-lawyers/the-i-word

I have to say, I have been and am still not in favor of impeachment proceedings at this point. However, if you have a listen to this (it's a 30 minute podcast) it provides some interesting information that counters a lot of things said in defense of not impeaching Trump.

For anyone unfamiliar with the podcast, this is an offshoot of Left, Right, and Center from KCRW, which provides an across the spectrum look at the events of the week. This one is specifically about legal issues going on and has the host from LRC, Josh Barro, with Ken White, otherwise known as @popehat. This episode, Josh is out and Ken has a discussion with Gene Healy, VP of the Cato Institute, about impeachment through history and in context for modern times.

Things I learned (all of this is from Gene based on his research):
1. Impeachment of a president requiring an actual law to be broken is a new thing and not original intent, especially since federal crimes really didn't exist then.
2. Andrew Johnson has articles brought up against him based on his questioning the legitimacy of Congress.
3. There have been more impeachment votes than I thought because I had never considered the judicial ones.
4. Madison was all about the impeachment to protect the republic.

While I am sure that Gene's research is solid, I think they failed to take into consideration our political climate. I get from a purely legal perspective that Trump's actions may very well be impeachable offenses based on historical precedent, but I think doing so in the highly charged partisan environment we are in would result in repercussions that would harm the democracy.

I hope some of you get a chance to listen as it's a good discussion.

[fredtoast]

Please no.

I don't want impeachment to become the new "government shut down".

If they try to impeach Trump based on what we have right now it would be a joke and going forward every president whose party did not control the house would face impeachment.

[Benton]

(11-29-2018, 02:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Please no.

I don't want impeachment to become the new "government shut down".

If they try to impeach Trump based on what we have right now it would be a joke and going forward every president whose party did not control the house would face impeachment.

I thought that was the post Clinton climate. There wasn't much talk about impeachung bush because of the war,but there was some with Obama. And I think there would have been some with bush if not for 9/11.

I think that's the direction we've inadvertently gone down, where we're going to attack now regardless of repercussions later.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-29-2018, 02:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Please no.

I don't want impeachment to become the new "government shut down".

If they try to impeach Trump based on what we have right now it would be a joke and going forward every president whose party did not control the house would face impeachment.

Mark it down, kids.  Fred is 100% on point here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Thank you for the link Bell, I'll certainly give it a look.  As far as impeachment goes, the constant calls for it, some starting the day after the election, have actually made it far more difficult to actually do it.  Mueller may come up with something that would have been agreeably impeachable if the topic hadn't been beaten to death for the last two years.  At this point they're going to need an ironclad smoking gun for it to happen.  The extreme elements of the Democratic party, Waters etc. have really poisoned the well on this subject

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2018, 03:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you for the link Bell, I'll certainly give it a look.  As far as impeachment goes, the constant calls for it, some starting the day after the election, have actually made it far more difficult to actually do it.  Mueller may come up with something that would have been agreeably impeachable if the topic hadn't been beaten to death for the last two years.  At this point they're going to need an ironclad smoking gun for it to happen.  The extreme elements of the Democratic party, Waters etc. have really poisoned the well on this subject

Honestly, the well was poisoned before then. While I would agree there has been an uptick since Trump's election, the politicization of the process that really began with the Clinton proceedings poisoned that well, already. Nixon's impeachment would have happened because there was a bipartisan consensus on the need to do it. By making impeachment more partisan and thus political with the Clinton situation it made it so that any attempt at impeachment without solid evidence would seem like partisan hackery.

And this isn't to lay the blame at the feet of the Republicans. While they had a big hand in it, the blame is shared strongly with the Democrats because their defense of Clinton was to make the argument more partisan than just looking at the issue at hand. Maxine Waters, as they discussed in the podcast I linked, was one of those Democrats to call the Clinton attempt a coup.

In the end it boils down to my original opinion: no matter what the historical precedent, our political climate requires much more in the way of objective evidence of criminal activity for impeachment. I know I didn't lay that out explicitly in the OP, but that is what I was saying. Were we blessed with a slate of legislators that the people believed were acting in good faith for the country, then it'd be a different story. But that's not our current government.

[samhain]

(11-29-2018, 02:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Please no.

I don't want impeachment to become the new "government shut down".

If they try to impeach Trump based on what we have right now it would be a joke and going forward every president whose party did not control the house would face impeachment.

It's already a joke.  The extreme elements in both parties will probably always call for impeachment when they lose from here on out.  Too many nutbag conspiracy theorists and folks who don't want to let government work the way it was designed to.  They just want their side to win at any cost.  

There's absolutely nothing that would be more damaging to Trump than being voted out in 2020.  He's already massively butthurt about the not being able to stop the Mueller probe and losing the House.  In fact, I doubt he'd accept it.  He'll probably scream fraud and try to cling to power any way he can.  

Screw it, maybe we should impeach him.  (not serious)

[hollodero]

(11-29-2018, 04:51 PM)samhain Wrote: It's already a joke.  The extreme elements in both parties will probably always call for impeachment when they lose from here on out.

Well, maybe. But in all fairness. In Trump's case, there are several shady things that make the calls for impeachment a bit more understandable as if it were your Mr. Average president.

He profits off his position, rents rooms to diplomats, doubles his golf course fees and such. Tweets as president on his daughters business' behalf. Publicly admits to have fired the FBI director because of Trump and Russia. Calls the Russia investigation a hoax and demands jail time for political opponents. And of course trusts Putin's or MBS' words over his own agencies. That is some heavy stuff.

[Benton]

(11-29-2018, 03:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In the end it boils down to my original opinion: no matter what the historical precedent, our political climate requires much more in the way of objective evidence of criminal activity for impeachment. I know I didn't lay that out explicitly in the OP, but that is what I was saying. Were we blessed with a slate of legislators that the people believed were acting in good faith for the country, then it'd be a different story. But that's not our current government.

If we have to wait until we have honest members of Congress acting in good faith before we can impeach someone for wrong doing, it's unlikely we'll see a president impeached during this century. If that's the bar — and following the actions of the current POTUS — we're condoning future abuses and behavior we haven't (that I know of anyway) seen before in the executive branch.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-29-2018, 03:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, the well was poisoned before then. While I would agree there has been an uptick since Trump's election, the politicization of the process that really began with the Clinton proceedings poisoned that well, already. Nixon's impeachment would have happened because there was a bipartisan consensus on the need to do it. By making impeachment more partisan and thus political with the Clinton situation it made it so that any attempt at impeachment without solid evidence would seem like partisan hackery.

Wait, didn't Clinton lie under oath?  Was not the impeachment process started because of that fact and would not that fact be worthy of impeachment?

Quote:And this isn't to lay the blame at the feet of the Republicans. While they had a big hand in it, the blame is shared strongly with the Democrats because their defense of Clinton was to make the argument more partisan than just looking at the issue at hand. Maxine Waters, as they discussed in the podcast I linked, was one of those Democrats to call the Clinton attempt a coup.

A very fair, and IMO true, statement.

Quote:In the end it boils down to my original opinion: no matter what the historical precedent, our political climate requires much more in the way of objective evidence of criminal activity for impeachment. I know I didn't lay that out explicitly in the OP, but that is what I was saying. Were we blessed with a slate of legislators that the people believed were acting in good faith for the country, then it'd be a different story. But that's not our current government.

Most definitely.  Paradoxically enough, the more information is freely available it appears that people make more uninformed choices.  I suppose that when one had to make a concerted effort to educate themselves they were more likely to acquire an informed opinion.  Now people simply look at Facebook and think they've learned everything there is to know.  Honestly I was baffled/startled to see how many people get their news from Facebook.  I've never done so and wouldn't think to do so.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-29-2018, 02:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/lrc-presents-all-the-presidents-lawyers/the-i-word

I have to say, I have been and am still not in favor of impeachment proceedings at this point. However, if you have a listen to this (it's a 30 minute podcast) it provides some interesting information that counters a lot of things said in defense of not impeaching Trump.

For anyone unfamiliar with the podcast, this is an offshoot of Left, Right, and Center from KCRW, which provides an across the spectrum look at the events of the week. This one is specifically about legal issues going on and has the host from LRC, Josh Barro, with Ken White, otherwise known as @popehat. This episode, Josh is out and Ken has a discussion with Gene Healy, VP of the Cato Institute, about impeachment through history and in context for modern times.

Things I learned (all of this is from Gene based on his research):
1. Impeachment of a president requiring an actual law to be broken is a new thing and not original intent, especially since federal crimes really didn't exist then.
2. Andrew Johnson has articles brought up against him based on his questioning the legitimacy of Congress.
3. There have been more impeachment votes than I thought because I had never considered the judicial ones.
4. Madison was all about the impeachment to protect the republic.

While I am sure that Gene's research is solid, I think they failed to take into consideration our political climate. I get from a purely legal perspective that Trump's actions may very well be impeachable offenses based on historical precedent, but I think doing so in the highly charged partisan environment we are in would result in repercussions that would harm the democracy.

I hope some of you get a chance to listen as it's a good discussion.

As their is no appeal you can pretty much impeach a president for anything. But maybe impeachment should be like prosecution. If you have no chance of a conviction in the senate then you shouldn’t move forward with impeachment. That was my biggest problem with Clinton. There was zero chance in the Senate so it was a giant waste of time. With Nixon it most certainly could have.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2018, 07:01 PM)Benton Wrote: If we have to wait until we have honest members of Congress acting in good faith before we can impeach someone for wrong doing, it's unlikely we'll see a president impeached during this century. If that's the bar — and following the actions of the current POTUS — we're condoning future abuses and behavior we haven't (that I know of anyway) seen before in the executive branch.

I'm not saying we have to wait for that to impeachment to happen. What I'm saying is that without that we need impeachment to be based on solid evidence of objective wrong doing. Anything short of that will endanger our democracy.

(11-29-2018, 08:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, didn't Clinton lie under oath?  Was not the impeachment process started because of that fact and would not that fact be worthy of impeachment?

The events leading up to that, the way things were handled by both parties, and just everything about it made the situation more of a political process than one of congressional oversight. There is a reason the law regarding the special counsel was changed after that situation. I do think Clinton should have been impeached, but the whole situation was politicized from start to finish which tainted the process.

(11-29-2018, 08:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Most definitely.  Paradoxically enough, the more information is freely available it appears that people make more uninformed choices.  I suppose that when one had to make a concerted effort to educate themselves they were more likely to acquire an informed opinion.  Now people simply look at Facebook and think they've learned everything there is to know.  Honestly I was baffled/startled to see how many people get their news from Facebook.  I've never done so and wouldn't think to do so.

I discuss this a lot with people. We have access to more information than ever, but we are very uninformed. Possibly the least informed we've ever been on average. No one is willing to spend the time and effort to look for good information, instead relying on what is handed to them. They don't go to a website and read articles, they only read what is sent to them by email, social media, or some "breaking news" alert. Then they read maybe two paragraphs, missing out on a ton of information.

[fredtoast]

(11-29-2018, 08:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, didn't Clinton lie under oath?  Was not the impeachment process started because of that fact and would not that fact be worthy of impeachment?

He lied about consensual sex at a deposition for a civil lawsuit.  It is pretty unheard of for a person to get charged with perjury under those situations.  He was never charged with a crime and it had nothing to do with his Presidential duties.

If he had settled the lawsuit with Paula Jones earlier we would have never heard of Monica Lewinsky.  But it was almost impossible to settle early because Jones was being coached by a team of anti-Clinton political operatives.  Paula never got anything extra by holding out longer, but the anti-Clinton group got a lot of what they wanted.  Clinton had nothing to lose by settling with Jones because he had already admitted marital indiscretions with Jennifer Flowers.

[GMDino]

Listened last night.

Lots of new information for me on the history and how it all works.

Thanks for ANOTHER podcast... ...lol.

At least these are relatively short.  I don't have a long commute anymore!

[hollodero]

Cohen committed crimes on Trump's direction, prosecutors say.

Can I raise the possibility of a future impeachment now or would that still make me a radical?

[GMDino]

(12-08-2018, 10:26 AM)hollodero Wrote: Cohen committed crimes on Trump's direction, prosecutors say.

Can I raise the possibility of a future impeachment now or would that still make me a radical?

The spin I'm seeing is that it was the organization, not Trump himself.

Should be interesting to watch.

But I don't think that even if they had a photo of him giving money to Putin while a woman peed on him that the Republican member of congress would vote for impeachment.

[BmorePat87]

Surprised no one posted about this. Michael Cohen is getting 3 years in prison.

My Attorney Got Arrested

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/12/12/michael-cohen-sentenced-prison-vpx.cnn

[Dill]

(12-08-2018, 11:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: The spin I'm seeing is that it was the organization, not Trump himself.

Should be interesting to watch.

But I don't think that even if they had a photo of him giving money to Putin while a woman peed on him that the Republican member of congress would vote for impeachment.

I'm responding on Dec. 13, after watching Rick Santorum continue to claim there is no evidence Trump's campaign fraud is anything other than a civil matter. Every campaign has some small oversight recording contributions. Nothing there. Even though Cohen has put Trump in the room directing the payment to prevent a scandal before the election, and even thought the chief of the national Enquirer says he quashed the playmate story to keep it out of the election.

And Trump, who began insisting he knew nothing about these scandals and payments, continues to insist even if it did happen it would be a civil matter, not a felony. Like watching someone paint himself into a corner.

[GMDino]

(12-14-2018, 01:56 AM)Dill Wrote: I'm responding on Dec. 13, after watching Rick Santorum continue to claim there is no evidence Trump's campaign fraud is anything other than a civil matter. Every campaign has some small oversight recording contributions. Nothing there. Even though Cohen has put Trump in the room directing the payment to prevent a scandal before the election, and even thought the chief of the national Enquirer says he quashed the playmate story to keep it out of the election.

And Trump, who began insisting he knew nothing about these scandals and payments, continues to insist even if it did happen it would be a civil matter, not a felony. Like watching someone paint himself into a corner.

Now there is "confirmed" reports that Trump was in the room with Cohen and Pecker when one of the payoffs was discussed/agreed upon.

But we'll hear from his supporters that ALL politicians lie, this is a civil matter, no laws were broken, etc...

They just don't care.  They "know" all the things Hillary Clinton "did"...but can completely ignore anything Trump is "accused" of doing.

It's sad.  And I have friends doing it and it bothers the heck out of me.

[Dill]

(12-14-2018, 10:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: Now there is "confirmed" reports that Trump was in the room with Cohen and Pecker when one of the payoffs was discussed/agreed upon.

But we'll hear from his supporters that ALL politicians lie, this is a civil matter, no laws were broken, etc...

They just don't care.  They "know" all the things Hillary Clinton "did"...but can completely ignore anything Trump is "accused" of doing.

It's sad.  And I have friends doing it and it bothers the heck out of me.

That's why I say that Trump support is not an indication of pragmatic choice, based on the usual political calculations voters make about candidates.

It is about identity. Reminds me of some black Americans who cheered when OJ got off, even though they believed he was guilty. For them it was always about the whole system and "getting back" for past injustice.