A different remedy than removal.

[Valmy]

If you need a fictionalised version of a 250 year old document to hold your country together, then maybe your country shouldn't be united.

I don't think thats the case though. Most countries get by just fine without the same constitution worship.

You don't need a fictionalized version of a 250 year old document but you generally need something or other.

[Oexmelin]

Seems like it matters even less ... if neither facts nor law matter, then any opinion offered on such things is immaterial.

It is not immaterial. Everything that foster the debasement of the Constitutional order, and is given the amplitude of Trump TV is not immaterial. If Derschowitz was making fine points of Constitutional law that supported Trump, I'd agree it would be immaterial. But his points are at a level of generality that makes them a lot more easily broadcasted: abuse of power is not impeachable. The aim here is not to save Trump: that's already done. The aim here is to normalize abuse of power. That still require works - and Dershowitz is performing it.   

[dps]

I remember when Clinton was acquitted. The GOP lost a ton of elections after that and even the 2000 presidential race, which Bush had every reason to win in a landslide like he did the Texas Governorship, was a squeaker. They really didn't anticipate how much it would hurt them.

I think it hurt them because a significant number of voters who would normally vote Republican thought that the prosecution attempt was partisan BS, even though everyone by that time knew that the facts he was accused of were true - he had in fact gotten a BJ from an intern and then lied about it, including lying under oath. They thought that because they just didn't think presidential infidelity and lies about the same were impeachment material - that this was just dirt-digging.

The issue in this case is this: will a significant number of voters who usually vote Democrat think that impeaching Trump is partisan BS, even knowing that the facts he is accused of are true - that he attempted to blackmail a foreign government to create fake dirt on a political enemy, then lied about it? It seems to me they are more likely in this case to be angry at the senators that vote for acquittal despite the President's obvious guilt, but then, who can say. 

The President was actually guilty of the charges against him in all 3 instances of impeachment in US history--Johnson had, if fact, violated the Tenure in Office Act (which was a dead letter after his acquittal, although it remained on the books until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1913 or so), Clinton did perjure himself (for the record, I certainly don't think cheating on your wife and then lying about it is an impeachable offense per se, but perjury is, I think), and Clinton did pressure the Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden (which is impeachable if you look at it as "he attempted to blackmail a foreign government to create fake dirt on a political enemy, then lied about it" but isn't if you look at it as he pressured a foreign government to investigate corruption and then exercised the broad discretion we have given Presidents over foreign affairs to withhold aid until that government complied).

To me, all that ends up showing that when it comes to Presidents, impeachment is always political, and facts don't matter.  The Nixon impeachment, had it not been dropped upon his resignation, would have been the exception that proves the rule;  I'm fairly sure many Republicans would have voted to convict him.  It's also probably worth pointing out to our foreign posters that impeachment of officeholders other than the President has been far, far less political.

[Malthus]

I remember when Clinton was acquitted. The GOP lost a ton of elections after that and even the 2000 presidential race, which Bush had every reason to win in a landslide like he did the Texas Governorship, was a squeaker. They really didn't anticipate how much it would hurt them.

I think it hurt them because a significant number of voters who would normally vote Republican thought that the prosecution attempt was partisan BS, even though everyone by that time knew that the facts he was accused of were true - he had in fact gotten a BJ from an intern and then lied about it, including lying under oath. They thought that because they just didn't think presidential infidelity and lies about the same were impeachment material - that this was just dirt-digging.

The issue in this case is this: will a significant number of voters who usually vote Democrat think that impeaching Trump is partisan BS, even knowing that the facts he is accused of are true - that he attempted to blackmail a foreign government to create fake dirt on a political enemy, then lied about it? It seems to me they are more likely in this case to be angry at the senators that vote for acquittal despite the President's obvious guilt, but then, who can say. 

The President was actually guilty of the charges against him in all 3 instances of impeachment in US history--Johnson had, if fact, violated the Tenure in Office Act (which was a dead letter after his acquittal, although it remained on the books until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1913 or so), Clinton did perjure himself (for the record, I certainly don't think cheating on your wife and then lying about it is an impeachable offense per se, but perjury is, I think), and Clinton did pressure the Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden (which is impeachable if you look at it as "he attempted to blackmail a foreign government to create fake dirt on a political enemy, then lied about it" but isn't if you look at it as he pressured a foreign government to investigate corruption and then exercised the broad discretion we have given Presidents over foreign affairs to withhold aid until that government complied).

To me, all that ends up showing that when it comes to Presidents, impeachment is always political, and facts don't matter.  The Nixon impeachment, had it not been dropped upon his resignation, would have been the exception that proves the rule;  I'm fairly sure many Republicans would have voted to convict him.  It's also probably worth pointing out to our foreign posters that impeachment of officeholders other than the President has been far, far less political.

Impeachment is political but I disagree that facts don't matter.

The question here is this: what is the political impact of an unsuccessful impeachment - that is, one that doesn't result in a conviction?

In the case of Clinton, this harmed the Republicans. Will it harm the Democrats in the case of Trump?

I don't know for sure obviously, but my guess is that it will not have the same effect because the facts are different.

Clinton was guilty of perjury to be sure, but the average voter felt he'd been trapped into it - put in a position  where he'd have to either publicly disclose something shameful (extramarital sex) or commit perjury. The point is that the shameful thing he did was morally bad, but had nothing to do with his actual duties as President, bad as it reflects on his character. While an argument could be made than any sex with an underling like an intern is inherently coercive, this is not an argument likely to appeal to Republican swing voters. Most importantly, his actions (screwing an intern) have no effect on the American political system. 

Trump is guilty of acts which fall squarely within his duties as President (foreign relations). His acts, if proven, squarely affect American democracy - using his powers as President to gain political advantage for himself.

The argument goes that while Republican-leaning swing voters thought the Republicans had gone too far in pursuing the President's sex life in the Clinton case, Democrat-leaning swing voters will not feel that the Democrats have gone too far in pursuing Trump's foreign policy adventures in the Trump case, and are not likely to quit voting Democrat as a result; on the contrary. So the two cases may not have the same political outcome, in the likely event that a Republican-dominated Senate refuses to convict Trump (despite his proven guilt). 

[The Minsky Moment]

(which is impeachable if you look at it as "he attempted to blackmail a foreign government to create fake dirt on a political enemy, then lied about it" but isn't if you look at it as he pressured a foreign government to investigate corruption and then exercised the broad discretion we have given Presidents over foreign affairs to withhold aid until that government complied).

I suppose people can look at things however they want but there is no "broad discretion we have given Presidents over foreign affairs to withhold aid until that government complied."  The President has virtually no discretion to do that at all unless he both notifies and secures consent from Congress, none of which happened here. The GAO already has flagged this as a violation of the law.  And the law isn't some obscure ancient budgetary legislation, it was enacted specifically during the Watergate era as a control on Presidential abuse of power.

As far as investigating corruption goes, it is by now well established that Trump expressed no interest in investigating any kind of corruption in the Ukraine.  His only interest in investigating involves the name Biden.

[dps]

And the law isn't some obscure ancient budgetary legislation, it was enacted specifically during the Watergate era as a control on Presidential abuse of power.

So was the War Powers Act, which no President since has felt constrained by.

[Admiral Yi]

So was the War Powers Act, which no President since has felt constrained by.

That's not true.  Wubya went to Congress and got an AUMF before invading the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[dps]

So was the War Powers Act, which no President since has felt constrained by.

That's not true.  Wubya went to Congress and got an AUMF before invading the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yeah, but IIRC he said he didn't have to.

[The Minsky Moment]

And the law isn't some obscure ancient budgetary legislation, it was enacted specifically during the Watergate era as a control on Presidential abuse of power.

So was the War Powers Act, which no President since has felt constrained by.

It's not true that Presidents haven't felt constrained by it - on the contrary, while disputing constitutionality every President has asserted to be in compliance with it.  The closest thing to an outright violation was Clinton's bombing campaign, which went slightly over the 60 notification limit, but was complete within the 90 day limit for withdrawal of forces without authorization.   The WPA is also sui generis because its constitutionality is hotly disputed.  No one to my knowledge has ever disputed the constitutionality of the Budget Impoundment Act.

But this is all besides the point because no one is claiming that President Trump should be impeached based on violation of budgetary impoundment rules.  Rather, the question is whether Trump's defenses to the charge of political motivation have any credibility.  They don't.

[dps]

Rather, the question is whether Trump's defenses to the charge of political motivation have any credibility.  They don't.

Well, I don't disagree with that.