Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[shemp]

The difference between 1974 and now is that we couldn't hear most of the morons.

I admit, that is far more accurate than my statement.

Perhaps someday, if alien archeologists come to this planet and sift through the wreckage, they'll say "These beings made the mistake that we didn't. They gave their idiots a worldwide platform to spread their stupidity."

 

[Aridas]

By Dershowitz‘s argument, would it be legal for Trump shoot Biden, or any political rival, on 5th Avenue because it would increase his likelihood of being re-elected and that’s in the public interest because, in his mind, Trump being president is for the good of the US?

What’s the limit of “when the President does it, it’s not illegal”?

What limit? Trump's lawyers have literally argued that murder is fine if the President does it. Trump trying to... "dismiss" Congress would not be off the table. If even just the Congresscritters who don't support him are imprisoned and thus prevented from voting, it's pretty much game over for the US without violence.

Democrats set this precedent. Clinton unambiguously broke the law.

...And Clinton was hardly the first. Nixon and Reagan come to mind as much more serious precursors to Clinton. Reagan, in particular, didn't end up facing punishment for his crimes. It would be more accurate to say that Republicans set this precedent by impeaching Clinton.

 

[BobTheCoward]

One will get fired from their job - which is what an Impeachment Conviction is.
This is not a criminal trial, it has nothing to do with it.

Conviction is conviction, whether at a criminal trial or not. They do not reflect a qualitative judgement on the behavior committed, only if it was done or not.

 

[Steve]

Barely, but the impeachment never got to the Senate, so there wasn't any opportunity for a senator to recuse himself.

My mistake. You are of course correct. Maybe I wasn't really around in "74.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Regardless "Well this guy got away with so therefore this guy has to" is not a valid argument.

 

[Meadmaker]

DELETE

Too late. You were already quoted.

In truth, though, I'm really responding to the more recent post where I praised a question by Elizabeth Warren, and you called it disingenuous bs.


You're having a very difficult time seeing beyond us and them. It causes you to be primed to misread posts
. Don't feel bad. Lots of people have that problem.

I feel like the next election will be won by the party that manages to alienate the fewest people.

With respect to impeachment, the republican party line is that Trump did nothing wrong, while the Democratic party line is that Trump is a criminal who has to be removed today. In reality, there is a lot of space between those two extremes. The parties, and especially the media voices supporting the parties, aren't recognizing any of that middle ground. I feel like voters will be pushed out of the middle as parties chastise people for their disloyalty.

 

[theprestige]

In Trump's mind I am sure that he thinks abolishing Presidential term limits is in the public interest.

One, I doubt that Trump actually cares that much about the presidency. He's not an ideologue. He's not a career politician.

Two, the president can't abolish term limits anyway. Hell, even Congress can't abolish term limits.

I cannot believe that any sane adult would open the door for that kind of logic with such high stakes.

That's not the logic.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Doesn't care about being President.
He doesn't care about having Presidential Immunities.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

By Dershowitz‘s argument, would it be legal for Trump shoot Biden, or any political rival, on 5th Avenue because it would increase his likelihood of being re-elected and that’s in the public interest because, in his mind, Trump being president is for the good of the US?

What’s the limit of “when the President does it, it’s not illegal”?

I didn't see it myself, so don't know if this is hyberbole for the sake of making a point or for comedy's sake, but I've seen it asserted today that the follow-up to Dershowitz's statement was Schiff asking whether that would imply that Trump could legitimately nuke majority-Democrat states to help himself get elected, and Dershowitz conceded that Trump could.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Well, Dersh suggested that you ought to have mixed motivations.
For example, arresting all Democrat Senators before a vote to Convict to alleviate D.C. traffic would be unimpeachable.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe the moral of the story is that it's a mistake to hang impeachment on charges that require "corrupt intent". Because intent is very hard to prove.

Ironically, the whole question of removal comes down to a question of what's best for the country. Even stipulating that the alleged acts were committed, the Senate still has to decide whether the national interest is best served by removing this president, for these acts, at this time.

If your Senator says, "I concede that the President did some of the things he's been accused of doing, but I think the national interest is best served by leaving him in office and letting the voters decide," you'd never be able to prove they voted for any reason other than that one. The best you could do is decide, as a voter, not to re-elect them.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I can see Senators making an argument not to convict in good faith
IF
Trump admits that what he did was wrong an works more closely with Oversight and the Gang of Eight in the future.
But Trump absolutely needs to be removed if he keeps on insisting that what he did was "perfect".

 

[Segnosaur]

One, I doubt that Trump actually cares that much about the presidency. He's not an ideologue. He's not a career politician.

He cares about protecting himself from any legal problems he will run into.

The DoJ has been running interference, protecting Trump as best they can (following the concept that 'you can't indict a sitting president'). If/when Trump is replaced, that protection will vanish, and without Barr protecting him he could find himself in serious legal trouble.

 

[Giordano]

So what we have now is the DOJ maintains one cannot indict a sitting President and his defense team (and likely the Republican Senate) maintains that we cannot impeach/convict a President for anything that he/she feels will assist his re-eleection. Their total lack of scruples, truthfulness, and patriotism is amazing. This is beyond my wildest imagination and greatest concerns!

 

[JoeMorgue]

But its all okay because sometimes the left is a little dramatic about stuff so it all evens out.

 

[Giordano]

Is it possible that Dershowitz is really anti-Trump and is slyly attempting to use an Reductio ad Absurdum argument from within to undercut Trump's defense? Or has the Trump administration some incredibly nasty dirt on him (perhaps obtained from the Ukraine government) and is extorting him into mounting a defense no matter how absurd?

Otherwise it is hard to understand how someone well respected in his career so far is willing to throw his reputation away in this manner. Imagine what his legal colleagues think of him now. Imagine how history will treat him.

 

[leonAzul]

My mistake. You are of course correct. Maybe I wasn't really around in "74.

Anyone who says they remember the 1970s wasn't really there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1222574326358183939



Quote embedded in first tweet, and article in subsequent tweet.

Drip drip drip...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So what we have now is the DOJ maintains one cannot indict a sitting President and his defense team (and likely the Republican Senate) maintains that we cannot impeach/convict a President for anything that he/she feels will assist his re-eleection. Their total lack of scruples, truthfulness, and patriotism is amazing. This is beyond my wildest imagination and greatest concerns!

https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1222596424753389569?s=20

The GOP position:

— Presidents can only be impeached for indictable crimes
— But DOJ can’t investigate possible presidential crimes
— Neither can state or local officials
— If Congress tries to investigate, presidents can mass refuse all subpoenas for witnesses and documents

And none of that is an exaggeration. They're all arguments made, in earnest, by Trump's legal team.

While we're at it: https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1222610051430481923?s=20

So that everyone is clear, Trump’s team is simultaneously arguing that the House should enforce its subpoenas in court *and* that it is unconstitutional for a court to enforce the House’s subpoenas.

 

[Paul2]

Dershy helped get OJ off. He's just that much of a whore for money/fame and whatever else.

There's a big difference between an attorney for the defense and an attorney in an impeachment. It's fundamental to criminal trials that a defendant, when put against the power of the government, and with life and liberty in the balance, to be able to present whatever defense is deemed necessary, even for defendants eventually convicted of the most heinous crimes (BTW, OJ did it).

In an impeachment trial, all the defendant is going to lose is their job. Life an liberty are not at risk. The power of the government does not overwhelm the defense, they are on a much more equal footing. Lastly, even a political process has to get down to, at some point, principle and respect for how a democracy works (unless all has already been lost).

The prosecution in a criminal trial has to be devoted to justice, not just convicting the defendant, because the prosecution works for the people. In an impeachment, everyone is working for the people, and so should be devoted to justice, as silly as that sounds in the current environment.