The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[Syt]

At this point I'm tired and fatigued by the constant barrage of right wing spin, propaganda, and "alternative facts" that appears ot be dominating the political discourse in many countries these days.

FWIW I'm coming to the point where I don't particularly think any of it matters any more, because in 20, 30 years we'll have more pressing matters to handle. That said, the current political climate makes me quite wary of what's to come once shit hits the fan.

[Caliga]

Have to agree with Tim. Jackson was definitely the worst piece of shit to serve as President.

Trump's term isn't over yet though.

[dps]

The president never raised any privilege objections, only unlimited Article II powers objections. 

it's a claim of executive privilege.  A ridiculous and unsustainable claim, but a claim nonetheless.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether Trump invoked executive privilege without specifically invoking it.

The important part is that the President claimed he didn't have to comply with the House's demands.  That should have been allowed to play out in the courts before being added as an article of impeachment.

[Caliga]

Enlarging suffrage and extending the vote is good, but it doesn't overcome the above.

Maybe not, but at least Jackson did SOMETHING positive.  Name one positive thing Trump has done.

Also, before being President, Jackson was a great general.  Trump was a con artist.

[Maximus]

Politics have devolved into reality TV entertainment. Even people who hate Trump can't stop listening to him. He'll be your ruler 'til the day he dies.

None of these Trumpeter assertions are actually true.

Yeah, I have no idea what Tamas is on about.  I don't listen to Trump except when I'm involuntarily exposed to that, and I try my best avoiding discussion of anything he said with others.  It is patently obvious as to what's up with him, so any further energy expended on reacting to him is wasted.

Pretty much exactly this.

[grumbler]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether Trump invoked executive privilege without specifically invoking it.

The important part is that the President claimed he didn't have to comply with the House's demands.  That should have been allowed to play out in the courts before being added as an article of impeachment.

But the reason for such a claim is important. 

Prior to Trump, the executive branch of government held that it was subject to Congressional oversight, with the exception of specific subjects that the President claimed were privileged because their release to Congress would be detrimental to the nation's interests or would constitute congressional interference in the executive as opposed to oversight.

The Trump administration does not claim it has the power to protect specific documents and subjects via the claim of privilege, but, rather, that the President's power is unlimited until the moment he is convicted after impeachment.  Therefor, the Trumpeters say, the president is free to refuse to cooperate in congressional oversight for any reason or none (ditto for any duty to obey court rulings); checks and balances are subject only to the whim of the chief executive.

Congressional Republicans have endorsed the President-as-dictator-until-impeached-and-convicted model in spite of their oaths to "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States."

[grumbler]

Also, before being President, Jackson was a great general.  Trump was a con artist.

Jackson as a great general is as big a lie as Jackson as a great president.  The Battle of New Orleans was an amusing example of two bumbling generals striving mightily to outbumble each other, with Pakenham finally winning.

[Valmy]

Also, before being President, Jackson was a great general.  Trump was a con artist.

Jackson as a great general is as big a lie as Jackson as a great president.  The Battle of New Orleans was an amusing example of two bumbling generals striving mightily to outbumble each other, with Pakenham finally winning.

Jackson did succeed against the Creek nation which had been kicking the shit out of the Georgia militia for a few years.

I mean he may not have been a great general, but he was a successful one...especially by US 1812 standards.

[FunkMonk]

My favorite little bit of Jacksonian history is when he invaded Spanish Florida with a small army without official sanction and murdered Indians and runaway slaves as well as two British citizens.

[Valmy]

My favorite little bit of Jacksonian history is when he invaded Spanish Florida with a small army without official sanction and murdered Indians and runaway slaves as well as two British citizens.

The American people always appreciate a man who can get things done. Official sanctions are for wimps, as are Supreme Court decisions.

[alfred russel]

I kind of don't get the strong current vogue of Jackson hate. The case against him seems to be "slavery and indian removal". Neither of those are good by any stretch--but the slavery angle was there for many presidents of the era and indian removal was just around 60k total people. definitely not a trivial number, but in the grand scheme of atrocities against native americans in the western world, not a standout either.

In the centuries it took to effectively extinguish native American political influence in the territory of the current US and reduce them from the dominant population to a rounding error in the census, the only major political leader that seems to be tarnished in current public opinion by the process is Jackson. That strikes me as bizarre.

[Valmy]

I think because Jackson screwed people who had attempted to work with the United States and adopt our ways and sought to fight for their rights in our court system. I mean the Cherokee and the Creeks and so forth were troublesome politically with their pesky insistance upon land ownership but they were certainly not dangerous by that point. I mean I don't approve what happened to the Apaches but I get that both the Mexicans and Americans were terrified of them.

Plus by evicting the Creeks, Jackson helped give birth to Alabama. What a shameful legacy.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Eh, I'm on board with AR here; I don't find Jackson's military record or his Presidency particularly amazing signs of great strategic/tactical ability or great administrative ability. BUT, I think Jackson "hate" by the modern left appears to essentially have been generated at random and perpetuated by a weird echo chamber.

The stuff Jackson is criticized for, all American Presidents in some fashion or another, were guilty of for much of our early history. All of our early Presidents treated Indians like shit, conducted wars against them etc. All of our early Presidents if not slaveowners directly, were not hardcore abolitionists or looking to upset the union by doing anything about slavery. The Adamses were deeply against it personally but were political pragmatists who never would've raised serious issue about it as it'd have doomed their political careers.

To my mind the skills Jackson actually had were in self-promotion and politicking. These aren't always skills that correlate with being a good President, but they usually correlate with becoming President. I think the reason Jackson was venerate so much at one time is because of the mythos largely built by him and his backers, and it was passed down generation to generation. Another thing was Jackson was basically a rough hick in upbringing and personal life, even though he was personally a wealthy landowner by the time he became President. In an era where American politics were much less democratic than they are today, he was seen as being the first common man President, and seen as ushering in an age of greater democratization.

I think his real record is pretty average, with a few huge blunders (like nuking the Bank of the United States.)

[Valmy]

The Adamses were deeply against it personally but were political pragmatists who never would've raised serious issue about it as it'd have doomed their political careers.

Well both Adams did do that at various times (particularly JQ Adams, that was his #1 issue for the latter part of his career), but the Constitutional situation was really different for John Adams as the can had been kicked down the road by the Constitutional convention.

[grumbler]

I don't see how the Jackson revisionists can argue that Jackson was just like every other president, no matter how popular equivelentism has gotten among the intellectual lazy.

Jackson made decisions that he knew were illogical and contrary to national interests (such as destroying the value of US currency) purely for populist reasons.  He stopped essentially all infrastructure development that his own cronies were not profiting from.  He was Trumpian in his disdain for any attempts to exert the constitutional checks and balances, and his establishment of the political spoils system corrupted far more administrations than just his own.

Jackson has a list of positive accomplishments, of course, particularly his sponsorship of universal manhood suffrage, the use of super-inflation to pay off the national debt, and appointing probably the worst Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, but these only partially outweigh the negative aspects of his presidency, no matter what his revisionist fans say.