I honestly haven't watched too much of what Trumpworld has been saying, but I do know that Trump's defenders' argument is that Trump's behavior does not rise to level of impeachment and removal. Okay, I can buy that, well sort of anyway, but what other remedy is there? Have any of these people come up with a solution that would prevent Trump from inviting foreign aid in his election or otherwise corrupting the process? Has anyone laid out a differently remedy to the problem of Trump refusing to allow Congress access to documents and witnesses that they are entitled to under the law? I agree that impeachment is an extreme measure, though probably necessary here, but is there any other alternative? Of course it would help if the President didn't keep saying he did nothing wrong, tell bald face lies about what is happening, and claim he has the power to do whatever he wants.
I don't think Trump's defenders think there should be a remedy.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2020, 10:18:43 AM
IOkay, I can buy that, well sort of anyway, but what other remedy is there?
2020 election
QuoteHave any of these people come up with a solution that would prevent Trump from inviting foreign aid in his election or otherwise corrupting the process?
Not electing him in the first place.
QuoteHas anyone laid out a differently remedy to the problem of Trump refusing to allow Congress access to documents and witnesses that they are entitled to under the law?
Yes, serve a subpoena then move to compel compliance under pain of contempt.
I'm not sure if elections are a good way to deal with electoral fraud.
As Dershowitz (and soon, most Republicans, I venture) now argues that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, I guess all of this is moot. The answer to everything now looks to be to elect a Republican king. Or else.
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 20, 2020, 01:46:01 PM
As Dershowitz (and soon, most Republicans, I venture) now argues that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, I guess all of this is moot. The answer to everything now looks to be to elect a Republican king. Or else.
Yeah, that's what provoked this. The idea that there is no way to stop a President who abuses his power is, quite frankly, shocking.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2020, 02:28:50 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 20, 2020, 01:46:01 PM
As Dershowitz (and soon, most Republicans, I venture) now argues that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, I guess all of this is moot. The answer to everything now looks to be to elect a Republican king. Or else.
Yeah, that's what provoked this. The idea that there is no way to stop a President who abuses his power is, quite frankly, shocking.
That's what impeachment is for. It's true it doesn't seem to work but recall the founders assumed that neither the President nor the Senate would be elected by the people.
One of the things I find horribly fascinating through all of this, is the fetishistic nature of American's relationship with their Constitution. Clearly, the document has been a center of American political discussion for a long, long, time - in a way that I think we would be hard-pressed to find in any other country. And yet, it's not the actual Constitution that was being lauded and celebrated. It has been, and perhaps for a while, a vague token, a fetish called "the Constitution" that has no specific content, but is a hodgepodge of ideas about American greatness, mixed and mashed with a number of others (at times even including the Ten Commandments...). And now that we have politicians who seem, out of cynicism, or ignorance, willing to defend things that are so self-evidently inimical to the constitutional order of the US, we may yet find that a huge swath of the population is not equipped to withstand the right-wing propaganda machine.
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 20, 2020, 05:33:18 PM
One of the things I find horribly fascinating through all of this, is the fetishistic nature of American's relationship with their Constitution. Clearly, the document has been a center of American political discussion for a long, long, time - in a way that I think we would be hard-pressed to find in any other country. And yet, it's not the actual Constitution that was being lauded and celebrated. It has been, and perhaps for a while, a vague token, a fetish called "the Constitution" that has no specific content, but is a hodgepodge of ideas about American greatness, mixed and mashed with a number of others (at times even including the Ten Commandments...). And now that we have politicians who seem, out of cynicism, or ignorance, willing to defend things that are so self-evidently inimical to the constitutional order of the US, we may yet find that a huge swath of the population is not equipped to withstand the right-wing propaganda machine.
It's the foundation of every law we have. I'm not sure why this is surprising.
Quote from: merithyn on January 20, 2020, 05:53:35 PM
It's the foundation of every law we have. I'm not sure why this is surprising.
The surprise is not that a Constitution is important. The surprise comes from the fact that political discourse in the US made the Constitution a recurring theme, such a powerful rhetorical device, and yet, left people apparently quite indifferent/ignorant to its
spirit. In most countries, people do not talk nearly as much about the Constitution as the US - unless there is a Constitutional crisis (see: France, 1945-1958; Canada 1982-2000).
Yet, despite such a centrality in American political discourse for so many years, despite people arguing about the Constitution constantly, the fact that many people in power feel confident in uttering something so profoundly inimical to the very nature of the American Constitution seems to indicate the document has mostly a rhetorical value, quite divorced from its actual content.
To put it simply, I have the vague feeling that, in political discourse, "America is Great Because the Constitution Protects Liberty" is the extent to which its value is understood - not much more.
EDIT: In France you have pretty much the same, albeit with the Declaration of the Rights of Man. It's a recurring slogan that has very little actual substance.
Similar happened here in Canada. Trudeau even mandated his minister act in accord with the Charter. Which is even more curious in the Canadian context where the Charter expressly allows Parliament to opt out.
Definitely true that the American constitution worship is bizzare.
Especially so when you consider how much it has changed throughout history.
Yet today it is regarded as something set in stone and not to be touched, with even set (wrong) interpretations held as part of this
Quote from: Tyr on January 20, 2020, 06:48:56 PM
Definitely true that the American constitution worship is bizzare.
Especially so when you consider how much it has changed throughout history.
Yet today it is regarded as something set in stone and not to be touched, with even set (wrong) interpretations held as part of this
There is nothing else that unites this country politically besides the Constitution. It is what created the country, at least as it currently exists. Not "worshiping" it would be bizarre in the context of the history of this country. It is so central to our political identity. Also it sounds like you are agreeing with somebody, Oex said it was NOT surprising it is so central. It is that it is so central yet at the same time so unimportant...which is bizarre.
And I don't get how it is regarded as something that cannot be touched. It has within itself a process for amending it.
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 20, 2020, 06:09:23 PM
The surprise is not that a Constitution is important. The surprise comes from the fact that political discourse in the US made the Constitution a recurring theme, such a powerful rhetorical device, and yet, left people apparently quite indifferent/ignorant to its spirit.
Oh that's an understatement. Most people, current chief executive included, don't have a clue of what's in there.
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 20, 2020, 01:46:01 PM
As Dershowitz (and soon, most Republicans, I venture) now argues that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, I guess all of this is moot.
Dershowitz taught criminal law, not constitutional law and certainly not separation of powers. His opinion counts . . . about as much as anyone else's. Assuming your name doesn't end in von Bulow, not obvious why his opinion should carry any special authoritative weight.
Worship of the U.S. Constitution and it's ideals is necessary as a foundational mythology for American identity. We have little else in common with fellow Americans otherwise.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2020, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 20, 2020, 06:48:56 PM
Definitely true that the American constitution worship is bizzare.
Especially so when you consider how much it has changed throughout history.
Yet today it is regarded as something set in stone and not to be touched, with even set (wrong) interpretations held as part of this
There is nothing else that unites this country politically besides the Constitution. It is what created the country, at least as it currently exists. Not "worshiping" it would be bizarre in the context of the history of this country. It is so central to our political identity. Also it sounds like you are agreeing with somebody, Oex said it was NOT surprising it is so central. It is that it is so central yet at the same time so unimportant...which is bizarre.
And I don't get how it is regarded as something that cannot be touched. It has within itself a process for amending it.
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.
Quote from: Tyr on January 21, 2020, 01:24:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2020, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 20, 2020, 06:48:56 PM
Definitely true that the American constitution worship is bizzare.
Especially so when you consider how much it has changed throughout history.
Yet today it is regarded as something set in stone and not to be touched, with even set (wrong) interpretations held as part of this
There is nothing else that unites this country politically besides the Constitution. It is what created the country, at least as it currently exists. Not "worshiping" it would be bizarre in the context of the history of this country. It is so central to our political identity. Also it sounds like you are agreeing with somebody, Oex said it was NOT surprising it is so central. It is that it is so central yet at the same time so unimportant...which is bizarre.
And I don't get how it is regarded as something that cannot be touched. It has within itself a process for amending it.
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.
What else would bind people who came from other countries?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2020, 09:10:12 PM
Dershowitz taught criminal law, not constitutional law and certainly not separation of powers. His opinion counts . . . about as much as anyone else's. Assuming your name doesn't end in von Bulow, not obvious why his opinion should carry any special authoritative weight.
I may have misunderstood, but hasn't Dershowitz has been named as Trump's defender in the impeachment case? I fear his opinion will gain value because it will necessarily be amplified by the conservative propaganda machine - and because a Constitution is never purely a legal document. It is one that tries to square the circle of the relationship between law, the political community, and authority. To exist, it must have a constraining power in the minds of citizens - not just constitutional lawyers. Trump's almost inevitable acquittal will be decided on the basis of the political - not the judicial, I am afraid.
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 21, 2020, 01:22:23 PM
Worship of the U.S. Constitution and it's ideals is necessary as a foundational mythology for American identity. We have little else in common with fellow Americans otherwise.
That's pretty much it.
We don't have a shared nationality, race or any of the usual stuff, so it's mostly about our shared values. It's a bit of a thinner foundation. Without the "holy words" in the DOI and the Constitution, we don't have much else.
The great thing about myths is that they are fundamentally true, even if they are not factually correct.
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 21, 2020, 02:04:50 PM
Trump's almost inevitable acquittal will be decided on the basis of the political - not the judicial, I am afraid.
Of course it will - the case is being heard by a jury consisting entirely of elected politicians with no jury instructions as to what legal standard to follow.
Thus, Dershowitz' opinion matters.
My point is: the American constitutional order is actively being eroded. To believe that things will return to normal, and crazy opinions will be discarded once such return to normal is achieved is flirting with danger.
I don't know what will happen after Trump is acquitted. After the Mueller thing he immediately made and even bolder attempt to bring foreign interference into the election. God knows what he will do next. He knows he's above the law, he can do anything he wants. After this the only limit will be his imagination.
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 23, 2020, 12:07:45 AM
Thus, Dershowitz' opinion matters.
Seems like it matters even less ... if neither facts nor law matter, then any opinion offered on such things is immaterial.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 23, 2020, 01:33:44 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2020, 01:37:01 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 21, 2020, 01:24:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2020, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 20, 2020, 06:48:56 PM
Definitely true that the American constitution worship is bizzare.
Especially so when you consider how much it has changed throughout history.
Yet today it is regarded as something set in stone and not to be touched, with even set (wrong) interpretations held as part of this
There is nothing else that unites this country politically besides the Constitution. It is what created the country, at least as it currently exists. Not "worshiping" it would be bizarre in the context of the history of this country. It is so central to our political identity. Also it sounds like you are agreeing with somebody, Oex said it was NOT surprising it is so central. It is that it is so central yet at the same time so unimportant...which is bizarre.
And I don't get how it is regarded as something that cannot be touched. It has within itself a process for amending it.
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.
What else would bind people who came from other countries?
Mutual self interest
I hope there is more than that.
Quote from: Tyr on January 23, 2020, 12:25:51 PM
Mutual self interest
Which means that nothing binds them together, given that perceptions of self-interest vary so widely that "mutual self-interest" is as perceptible as fairies and unicorns.
That's the problem with irrational thinking; it relies on made-up constructs. At least the US constitution is real, even if perceptions of it are not always accurate.
Quote from: Tyr on January 23, 2020, 12:25:51 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 23, 2020, 01:51:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 23, 2020, 10:19:52 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 23, 2020, 01:33:44 AM
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.
Quote from: dps on January 23, 2020, 09:52:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 23, 2020, 10:19:52 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 23, 2020, 01:33:44 AM
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).
Quote from: dps on January 23, 2020, 09:52:06 PM
(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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2020, 09:04:11 AM
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.
Quote from: dps on January 24, 2020, 12:15:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2020, 12:18:28 PM
Quote from: dps on January 24, 2020, 12:15:27 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on January 24, 2020, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2020, 09:04:11 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2020, 12:51:45 PM
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.