Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There are actually multiple cases where the GAO said the Obama administration broke the law. Some of them Obama himself probably had little role in, but one of them, the terrorist prisoner release in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, he definitely did play a role in, and the GAO concluded that it was a violation of the law.



But that's just it: in both Obama's case and Trump's case, neither violation is a crime, and neither violation is actually punishable. I'm not picking Obama as the example because I'm claiming Obama is particularly bad. I bet you can find similar examples with every president for the last 50+ years. If you find something wrong with this, well, I don't blame you. But again, Trump isn't the first, this is the way government has operated for a long time now, and if you want anything to actually change, then Congress has to act to change the law and impose actual penalties. But as of now, it's not a crime and there is no punishment. And Trump isn't the reason that it's not a crime and there is no punishment.

Most of this is a straw man, and pretty much all of it acts as if the parts of my post that weren't quoted also didn't exist.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

OK, now tell that to Squeegee. He seems to think it's not meaningless.

Can I just ask that you read my posts before attributing positions to me?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Politically accused, political exoneration expected but still pending.

No one on the Republican side publicly agrees with this.

 

[theprestige]

No one on the Republican side publicly agrees with this.

You'd be surprised how little of my world view is dictated by what politicians agree to in public. Did you have an actual argument, or just this lame appeal to authority?

 

[Meadmaker]

It is meaningless in the context of Impeachment.
No Impeachment in the history of the US has required a crime to have been committed.

You are absolutely correct.


And yet, people keep talking about crimes.

 

[theprestige]

It doesn't have to be a crime, but it does have to be *something* that offends the Senate. Crimes are an obvious and easy category.

In an impeachment trial, the Senate is asked to consider three questions:

Did it happen?

Was it misconduct?

Is removal the remedy?

The third question is a political question, not a legal question. Overall, it looks like most Republican senators are answering "yes, yes, no" or "yes, maybe, no".

 

[Segnosaur]

In an impeachment trial, the Senate is asked to consider three questions:

Did it happen?

Was it misconduct?

Is removal the remedy?

The third question is a political question, not a legal question. Overall, it looks like most Republican senators are answering "yes, yes, no" or "yes, maybe, no".

They may be saying that, but what they really mean is "yes, yes, yes (but we're not going to remove him because we're corrupt)".

 

[Meadmaker]

Okay, which part is in dispute here?

1. Trump used the power of his office to engage in a quid pro quo with a foreign country for own personal political gain.
2. The Trump administration actively covered up his actions by, among other things, moving records of his quid pro quo discussions to encrypted classified storage, despite the conversation not having any national security information in it.

I mean, there are more facts in the case, but I figure these are the main two. If these are not sufficient reason to remove a president from office, what is?

Interesting statement of the case there, but I'll skip that and go to the last question.

Suppose, purely hypothetically, that Congress were to order, and the president sign into law, that no US funds were to be given to a group of central American rebels. Then, the president approves sending money to those rebels, in defiance of that law. I think that would be impeachable.

And yet, the president was not impeached. Why not?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Interesting statement of the case there, but I'll skip that and go to the last question.

Suppose, purely hypothetically, that Congress were to order, and the president sign into law, that no US funds were to be given to a group of central American rebels. Then, the president approves sending money to those rebels, in defiance of that law. I think that would be impeachable.

And yet, the president was not impeached. Why not?

Hypothetical whataboutisms are even sadder then just general whataboutisms.

 

[theprestige]

They may be saying that, but what they really mean is "yes, yes, yes (but we're not going to remove him because we're corrupt)".

I disagree with your logic. Deciding not to remove the president isn't a corrupt act, just a political one. This is not a question of absolute right and wrong, that you get to answer in your favor.

 

[Meadmaker]

Hypothetical whataboutisms are even sadder then just general whataboutisms.

Upchurch asked a specific question.


Just in case the youngsters in the audience don't recognize it, my "purely hypothetical" was tongue in cheek. There was nothing purely hypothetical about it. The year was 1986.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You'd be surprised how little of my world view is dictated by what politicians agree to in public. Did you have an actual argument, or just this lame appeal to authority?

Only that Republicans are certain that their supporters can easily be gaslighted, and that I hope they are wrong.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Upchurch asked a specific question.


Just in case the youngsters in the audience don't recognize it, my "purely hypothetical" was tongue in cheek. There was nothing purely hypothetical about it. The year was 1986.

"Some Democrat got away with something once so Trump can't be touched" isn't any better.

Most of us grow out of "But Timmy got away with it, why are you punishing me!" when we leave grade school.

 

[Segnosaur]

Interesting statement of the case there, but I'll skip that and go to the last question.

Suppose, purely hypothetically, that Congress were to order, and the president sign into law, that no US funds were to be given to a group of central American rebels. Then, the president approves sending money to those rebels, in defiance of that law. I think that would be impeachable.

And yet, the president was not impeached. Why not?

Hypothetical whataboutisms are even sadder then just general whataboutisms.

I don't think his statement was totally hypothetical... I suspect he was talking about the Iran/Contra affair.. there, congress specifically prohibited funding of the Contras (a rebel group in Nicaragua), but the Reagan administration ended up funding them through money earned by selling weapons to Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair

Multiple indictments were issued over the scandal (many of whom ended up getting Pardoned by Bush Sr.) In theory Reagan might have been subject to impeachment over it. Why wasn't he? I can think of a couple of reasons:
- Its unknown just how much Reagan actually knew, whether he was directly involved or others were functioning without his knowledge. (Compare that to Trump, where we know that he was directly involved)
- The scandal was first revealed late in Reagan's second term, so even if they did launch impeachment proceedings, his term might have ended before the impeachment proceedings ended. (Compare that to Trump, where there is a possibility he may be re-elected for another 4 year term)

 

[Segnosaur]

I disagree with your logic. Deciding not to remove the president isn't a corrupt act, just a political one. This is not a question of absolute right and wrong, that you get to answer in your favor.

If the president is acting in a corrupt manner (as we know he is), and you are a congress-critter who chooses not to remove him, then you are tainted by the same corruption.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't think his statement was totally hypothetical... I suspect he was talking about the Iran/Contra affair.. there, congress specifically prohibited funding of the Contras (a rebel group in Nicaragua), but the Reagan administration ended up funding them through money earned by selling weapons to Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair

Multiple indictments were issued over the scandal (many of whom ended up getting Pardoned by Bush Sr.) In theory Reagan might have been subject to impeachment over it. Why wasn't he? I can think of a couple of reasons:
- Its unknown just how much Reagan actually knew, whether he was directly involved or others were functioning without his knowledge. (Compare that to Trump, where we know that he was directly involved)
- The scandal was first revealed late in Reagan's second term, so even if they did launch impeachment proceedings, his term might have ended before the impeachment proceedings ended. (Compare that to Trump, where there is a possibility he may be re-elected for another 4 year term)

Also: the Cold War was on. I think people gave a lot of a slack to government during that era, because of the perveived existential threat.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again even if all this is true our current standard can't be "Trump can do anything he wants until we somehow go back in time and punish every Democrat for every bad thing they've ever done."

The people who bang on the "All politics is dirty so none of this matters" drum the most are also the ones that should understand without difficulty "Therefore some actions will have to be taken that weren't in the past and we can't help that being unfair retroactively."

"But so and so did this and got away with it" is not a valid excuse for inaction.

And again this is all in the insane fantasy world where nothing Trump is doing is uniquely bad in anyway.

 

[Meadmaker]

"Some Democrat got away with something once so Trump can't be touched" isn't any better.

If you check your history books, you will find that the president in 1986 was a republican. The house and Senate were controlled by Democrats at the time the incident became publically known.

 

[theprestige]

Upchurch asked a specific question.


Just in case the youngsters in the audience don't recognize it, my "purely hypothetical" was tongue in cheek. There was nothing purely hypothetical about it. The year was 1986.

"Hypothetical" is also a weird complaint. It seems to me that any sensible attempt at law or policy must envision hypothetical scenarios and try to address them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you check your history books, you will find that the president in 1986 was a republican. The house and Senate were controlled by Democrats at the time the incident became publically known.

Okay.

"Some democrats let a Republican get away with something once therefore Trump can do whatever he wants." then, it's the same argument.

Let me save you the trouble, the next hypothetical you make will be the same argument. "We have to let Trump do whatever he wants because of (insert excuse here.)"