What I said in the title. "High Crimes and misdemeanors" is vague, why haven't we clarified it?
Because impeachment is a political not a legal process, as it should be.
Is vagueness a problem here?
What would be the point? The house of reps has the constitutional role of impeaching for high crimes and misdemeanors. A previous congress couldn't restrict that authority for a future congress by passing a law narrowing its scope, and obviously can't widen the authority.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 12:28:45 PM
Because impeachment is a political not a legal process, as it should be.
:yes:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 12:28:45 PM
Because impeachment is a political not a legal process, as it should be.
A political process and a list of agreed on "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not mutually exclusive.
At the moment it is a process that doesn't work. The purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from an office they are unfit to serve in. The process might work a little better if everyone agrees on what is and isn't impeachable behavior.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 12:28:45 PM
Because impeachment is a political not a legal process, as it should be.
Why should it be? Currently impeachment is the only check on the President. Besides that we are just dependent on a President's good intentions and personal sense of honor. It would be nice if the laws and rules a President was supposed to follow were clear. Without that we just get straight partisan votes for the most part, which renders impeachment all but pointless and toothless and thus unable to fulfill its Constitutional purpose and undermines the checks and balances.
I mean we may not be able to convict a guy who encouraged an insurrection.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2021, 02:55:55 PM
The process might work a little better if everyone agrees on what is and isn't impeachable behavior.
That's not the problem we have with the process. The problem is *waves generally at GOP, specifically at the Quo Vadis GOP thread.*
Quote from: ulmont on January 14, 2021, 03:10:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2021, 02:55:55 PM
The process might work a little better if everyone agrees on what is and isn't impeachable behavior.
That's not the problem we have with the process. The problem is *waves generally at GOP, specifically at the Quo Vadis GOP thread.*
Yeah but even in 1868 and 1998 it was not clear if what Johnson and Clinton did actually qualified for impeachment.
It was never so much "is the President guilty" but "is this high crimes and misdemeanors?" With no satisfying answer coming out of either procedure.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2021, 02:55:55 PM
A political process and a list of agreed on "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not mutually exclusive.
You'd just shift the debate from whether the issue someone's being impeached for is sufficiently serious for them to be impeached to whether it falls within that list. It would make it even more about process and technicalities and try to remove the politics from it so it's a technocratic process.
QuoteAt the moment it is a process that doesn't work. The purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from an office they are unfit to serve in. The process might work a little better if everyone agrees on what is and isn't impeachable behavior.
It wouldn't work better. As I say you'd just get the arguments over whether it's in that list or is there a loophole. The reason it doesn't work is because the political system doesn't work, this is just a symptom like issues passing budgets or legislation or congressional oversight.
QuoteWhy should it be? Currently impeachment is the only check on the President. Besides that we are just dependent on a President's good intentions and personal sense of honor. It would be nice if the laws and rules a President was supposed to follow were clear. Without that we just get straight partisan votes for the most part, which renders impeachment all but pointless and toothless and thus unable to fulfill its Constitutional purpose and undermines the checks and balances.
As above. You'd either remove the argument from politics so it would be about whether or not x was in the list or out on a loophole - which would break down on a straight partisan vote; or you remove the politicians and give it to the courts which I think would probably just exacerbate politicisation there.
Removing a legally elected head of state - the only nationwide elected office - is political and it should be a decision made by politicians who can face the consequences from voters. It's not a technocratic decision.
As above the fact your political system is kind of broke is the issue, not the process. Fiddling with formalities etc isn't going to help with that.
QuoteYeah but even in 1868 and 1998 it was not clear if what Johnson and Clinton did actually qualified for impeachment.
Impeachment = what Congress considers sufficiently serious to remove a President.
You have a reality where a US senator thinks that a publisher dropping them is a violation of the First Amendment. Any kind of legal subtlety is wasted on these people.
Sheilbh, what do you think is the purpose of impeachment?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2021, 05:28:07 PM
Sheilbh, what do you think is the purpose of impeachment?
It's a mechanism to constitutionally remove a President from office. From my understanding (which is low but confident), the two ways that can happen are elections and impeachment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2021, 05:19:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2021, 05:28:07 PM
Sheilbh, what do you think is the purpose of impeachment?
It's a mechanism to constitutionally remove a President from office. From my understanding (which is low but confident), the two ways that can happen are elections and impeachment.
No. It is a mechanism to prevent criminals from seizing the executive branch. It is far more severe than simply losing an election. It is a label that this person is abusing power and is a criminal and a tyrant.
I think that is the problem here. You think this is like some kind of parliamentary vote of no-confidence. It is not.
So a process that intended to be a criminal process should have laws. If it is a political process then the whole thing needs to be reworked because it is not designed to function that way. It would say something like the Congress can remove the President if they lack confidence in their leadership or something.
Quote from: Valmy on January 15, 2021, 10:29:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2021, 05:19:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2021, 05:28:07 PM
Sheilbh, what do you think is the purpose of impeachment?
It's a mechanism to constitutionally remove a President from office. From my understanding (which is low but confident), the two ways that can happen are elections and impeachment.
No. It is a mechanism to prevent criminals from seizing the executive branch. It is far more severe than simply losing an election. It is a label that this person is abusing power and is a criminal and a tyrant.
I think that is the problem here. You think this is like some kind of parliamentary vote of no-confidence. It is not.
So a process that intended to be a criminal process should have laws. If it is a political process then the whole thing needs to be reworked because it is not designed to function that way. It would say something like the Congress can remove the President if they lack confidence in their leadership or something.
No. Impeachment is not a criminal process nor is it designed to judge or punish criminals. It is a political process designed to remove from power those who have judicial functions, because judicial functions can't be used against the holders of the judicial power (and the President has a number of powers that can be considered "judicial"). Criminal prosecution can follow successful impeachment, but doesn't have to. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" may not be violations of the law at all.
Quote from: Valmy on January 15, 2021, 10:29:14 PM
No. It is a mechanism to prevent criminals from seizing the executive branch. It is far more severe than simply losing an election. It is a label that this person is abusing power and is a criminal and a tyrant.
I think that is the problem here. You think this is like some kind of parliamentary vote of no-confidence. It is not.
Yes it's more severe than losing an election, my point was those are the only two ways a sitting president can lose office. Which makes sense because it's the only nation-wide office with a mandate so either they need to lose an election (the electors remove them) or they do something so severe that Congress impeaches them.
And that's the key question in impeachment - is what the President has done so severe that he should be removed? I think that is a healthier and more important thing to focus on than "did what the President do factually fall within one of these categories of crimes?"
I get the difference between a vote of no-confidence, but that also operates differently because it doesn't remove x person from office it causes the government to fall and a new election. So it's a way of basically returning things to the electors to make their choice. We do technically still have impeachment, but it's not clear if it's an obsolete power.
QuoteSo a process that intended to be a criminal process should have laws. If it is a political process then the whole thing needs to be reworked because it is not designed to function that way. It would say something like the Congress can remove the President if they lack confidence in their leadership or something.
I disagree that it was ever intended to be a criminal process or should be thought of as one. I think it was designed as a political process with political consequences.
In any event even if you had a list of crimes you would still need someone to make a finding of fact: did this crime occur? And that process would be political because you're removing the President from office. You'd end up politicising the criminal/justice process rather than somehow de-politicising the process.
For example just off the top of my head, would it be a list of "normal" crimes that exists in the US or would it be separate, more political crimes (inciting insurrection, for example)? And if it's the latter what's the appeals process to work out the meaning or scope of those crimes? You'd either end up in the same position - Congress has to make a decision and it can't be appealed or you'd end up with a lot of time spent in the courts without a much more conclusive answer.
The impeachment process has never worked, and can not work if this is simply a political question. The question senators ask themselves is not "is what the President has done so severe that he should be removed?" it is "Is it politically advantageous for me to remove the President?" The question of whether or not the President committed any given act must still be answered in an good faith impeachment. It is useful to know whether or not the event everyone is debating is actually happened.
Providing an agreed upon list of impeachable acts gives Senators less wiggle room in avoiding the removal of an unfit President and less traction in trying to remove a fit President for purely political reasons. An agreed upon list of impeachable acts won't fix all the problems but cutting out the question of "Is this an impeachable act?" and moving right on to "did this act occur?" at least removes one stumbling block.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2021, 01:16:07 PM
The impeachment process has never worked, and can not work if this is simply a political question. The question senators ask themselves is not "is what the President has done so severe that he should be removed?" it is "Is it politically advantageous for me to remove the President?" The question of whether or not the President committed any given act must still be answered in an good faith impeachment. It is useful to know whether or not the event everyone is debating is actually happened.
Providing an agreed upon list of impeachable acts gives Senators less wiggle room in avoiding the removal of an unfit President and less traction in trying to remove a fit President for purely political reasons. An agreed upon list of impeachable acts won't fix all the problems but cutting out the question of "Is this an impeachable act?" and moving right on to "did this act occur?" at least removes one stumbling block.
Raz, you skipped over my point earlier: what is the point of such a list? The constitution authorizes congress to remove a president (among others) provided there is impeachment and conviction for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Why would it matter if a previous congress passed a bill clarifying what they wanted that to mean? The modern day congress has constitutional authority to do something--to remove or augment that authority you need an amendment.
More to the point: suppose that before the Bill Clinton impeachment the House and Senate passed a resolution defining "high crimes and misdemeanors" to include lying about banging your intern by majority vote. Would all the democrats in congress be like, "well that settles that...I disagree with the resolution but I guess I'm bound by it" and then the following votes would be unanimous in both houses of congress to impeach and remove Clinton?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2021, 01:16:07 PM
The impeachment process has never worked, and can not work if this is simply a political question. The question senators ask themselves is not "is what the President has done so severe that he should be removed?" it is "Is it politically advantageous for me to remove the President?" The question of whether or not the President committed any given act must still be answered in an good faith impeachment. It is useful to know whether or not the event everyone is debating is actually happened.
But it's a political process. It's not mechanical where there's a clear yes/no answer for some sort of technocratic state to answer; it's not clearly often a legal issue and for the reasons I've said it's not suitable for the legal process. I don't agree that they're asking if it's advantageous for them I think they are going to generally stick with the herd/their party line. If they think what a President did is serious enough they may break that line. I don't Romney voted the way he did because it was politically advantageous for him - I think he thought it was so serious he should break the party line, other Republicans disagreed.
And I'm not sure good faith is a useful concept in politics, because very often it just means did they agree with us. You can be in good faith and reach different conculsions or fail to agree something in negotiations. I think the key in this sort of act where you're removing the President is really that it is legitimate and perceived to be legitimate.
If you have a quick list then I think it's very possible that you reach the position of a party that controls congress impeaching a President from the opposite party on a technical breach of that list- which is good faith. They're just executing the law, but it would be (rightly) perceived as illegitimate. Alternately it's easy to imagine congress not impeaching a President of the same party on something egregious that wasn't foreseen, so it isn't in the list. Which again would be in good faith - just applying the law - but not legitimate.
QuoteProviding an agreed upon list of impeachable acts gives Senators less wiggle room in avoiding the removal of an unfit President and less traction in trying to remove a fit President for purely political reasons. An agreed upon list of impeachable acts won't fix all the problems but cutting out the question of "Is this an impeachable act?" and moving right on to "did this act occur?" at least removes one stumbling block.
But it doesn't. Juries divide on a regular basis over whether something happened or not. There are entire shelves of case law by courts of appeal delineating what constitutes criminal acts and what doesn't, not to mention we'd have to develop thoughts around whether you need the sort of "mens rea" element to be impeachable. You're not cutting out the questions or the politics you're just displacing them onto other points - or alternatively you remove the politicians and you displace the politics from the elected officials to the judiciary.
Why must this be a purely political process? What is your antipathy toward a "technocratic" solution?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 16, 2021, 01:34:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2021, 01:16:07 PM
The impeachment process has never worked, and can not work if this is simply a political question. The question senators ask themselves is not "is what the President has done so severe that he should be removed?" it is "Is it politically advantageous for me to remove the President?" The question of whether or not the President committed any given act must still be answered in an good faith impeachment. It is useful to know whether or not the event everyone is debating is actually happened.
Providing an agreed upon list of impeachable acts gives Senators less wiggle room in avoiding the removal of an unfit President and less traction in trying to remove a fit President for purely political reasons. An agreed upon list of impeachable acts won't fix all the problems but cutting out the question of "Is this an impeachable act?" and moving right on to "did this act occur?" at least removes one stumbling block.
Raz, you skipped over my point earlier: what is the point of such a list? The constitution authorizes congress to remove a president (among others) provided there is impeachment and conviction for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Why would it matter if a previous congress passed a bill clarifying what they wanted that to mean? The modern day congress has constitutional authority to do something--to remove or augment that authority you need an amendment.
More to the point: suppose that before the Bill Clinton impeachment the House and Senate passed a resolution defining "high crimes and misdemeanors" to include lying about banging your intern by majority vote. Would all the democrats in congress be like, "well that settles that...I disagree with the resolution but I guess I'm bound by it" and then the following votes would be unanimous in both houses of congress to impeach and remove Clinton?
Sorry I didn't respond earlier. Providing an agreed upon list of impeachable acts gives Senators less wiggle room in avoiding the removal of an unfit President and less traction in trying to remove a fit President for purely political reasons. Congress accepts the validity of laws that were passed before by the former Congress, I don't see why that should change concerning an impeachment law.
I don't know if all Democrats, or an even the majority would go for impeachment if they had already agreed that lying under-oath and obstructing justice were impeachable, but it would at least undercut the argument that Clinton's actions weren't impeachable. I've thought a lot about the Clinton case since Trump became President and I think not removing Clinton was a mistake.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2021, 06:26:22 PM
Congress accepts the validity of laws that were passed before by the former Congress
Congress often repeals or amends the acts and laws of prior terms, as they please.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2021, 06:14:16 PM
Why must this be a purely political process? What is your antipathy toward a "technocratic" solution?
Because a technocratic solution doesn't solve the problem, as Sheilbh explained. It simply pushes it out of politics, and into different arenas, which we have clearly set up for different purposes, and which draw their strength precisely from being different from politics. A government is neither a court, nor a managerial board.
In fact, a technocratic solution rather heightens the problem of our current circumstances, where a lot of people, left and right, feel, rightly or wrongly, disenfranchised from the political process itself. The solution doesn't seem to be to make politics even more removed from people and their representatives.
Pushing the problem out of politics (which is currently broken) and into a realm like the judiciary (which currently functions) sounds pretty good to me. The most pressing problem we have at the moment is the President of the United States attempting to over throw the government. A problem we don't have a solution for at this time. Fixing our broken political system so that we can implement a process that will never work might be too ambitious a goal for the next three days. If such action disappoints people who feel disenfranchised because they aren't allowed to murder large swaths of the American public then we must be prepared to make that sacrifice.
Which crimes should be on the list Raz?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2021, 11:36:44 PM
Which crimes should be on the list Raz?
I'd like to see obstruction of justice on the list. Obstruction of Congress is good as well. Maybe something for failing to follow the orders of the court. I'd very much like to see Presidency weakened.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2021, 06:14:16 PM
Why must this be a purely political process? What is your antipathy toward a "technocratic" solution?
So what Oex said.
Also I think technocratic solutions work when there is consensus on what the "correct" solution is, it's just up to the experts/managers to implement. So it's most common in central banking, I think there was a technocratic turn in economic policy until fairly recently - in the UK I wouldn't be surprised to see technocratic institutions around climate in the next few years. Outside of those areas of consensus, in a democracy, I think those decisions need to stay in politis to be legitimate.
Even if you got a technocratic consensus and were able to set some criteria and even if you could convince Congress never to alter it, there would still be politically charged disputes about how to interpret or apply that criteria. In criminal cases, this is resolved by by describing the charge and handing it to a jury whose secret deliberations are basically a black box.
In an impeachment those deliberations are open and so you'd have to resolve e.g. what is "obstruction of justice"? As an example here are the federal jury instructions on obstruction:
Quoten order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, the defendant influenced, obstructed, or impeded, or tried to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice; and
Second, the defendant acted corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening communication, with the intent to obstruct justice.
I see a lot of interpretive issues and judgment calls in there.
But fewer judgement calls than if you haven't already decided that obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. I don't know why convincing Congress to never alter it is a requirement. So long as they don't attempt to alter it retroactively I don't see the problem. Congress alters laws all the time. That's sort of their thing. If Congress decides to pass a law saying that a President can't be removed for obstruction how does that differ from Congressmen standing up during an impeachment hearing saying "obstruction of justice is not an impeachable offense?" At worst it puts us at back at square one.
The impeachment process simply doesn't work and yet we need a process to remove a president that will work. Simply shrugging your shoulders and saying it isn't working because of the current political climate is not particularly helpful. We need to alter the current system so that it will work in this political climate or replace it with one that will work.
We are only staving off disaster because some people in government are at least somewhat dedicated to rule of law and the US constitution. Trump has already order the arrest of his political enemies. We have only avoided a massive crisis before the election because Bill Barr did not follow Trump's order. If Barr arrested Biden (even for just the few hours before an irate judge demanded the immediate release) does anyone still think Republicans in Congress would do anything? We are having an inauguration this week because Trump knows that the Pentagon would ignore orders to declare martial law and make Trump dictator. We can't rely on key people in power ignoring illegal orders anymore. We need something that can remove a dangerous and lawless president quickly.
Yes, democracy is fragile. Always has been. And corruption always has been, purposefully, one of the hardest crimes to prove. Which is why the whole "the army protects our freedom" type of speech that is so prevalent in the US has actually been quite corrosive. It made it as if it was always under threat from armed foreigners, and has allowed legislators to easily dispense with the uncomfortably vague notion of duty, and a bunch of fascists to simultaneously claim to be true to the constitution, while doing everything to subvert it. At least historic fascists were clear eyed about their desire to dismantle their hated constitutions.
The solution you propose may work in a different system, where the president doesn't have considerable executive leeway, and considerable discretion with regards to "national security" - far from the oversight that Congress surrendered. As of now, I don't see how it would solve anything (provided it would even pass in Congress), and would simply undermine further the judiciary.
Again, to reiterate: to push such matters purely into the policing / judiciary arena would further undermine your goal. It would simply allow people to assume the responsibility of maintaining clear lines is up to the police; the decision, up to a (politicized?) judge. The conversation about the nature of the obstruction would take place in a venue shielded from the public's eye. At best, you'd deal with the current circumstances, and would simply provide clearer guidelines for future would-be tyrants to avoid.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2021, 01:34:41 PM
But fewer judgement calls than if you haven't already decided that obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.
But it just adds more questions for judgement calls. Did these facts constitute the offence - i.e. did they really "influence, impede or obstruct" or did they do something else? Then there's all the intent questions.
In the last impeachment I remember a fair few Republicans playing exactly this sort of game with lawyerly arguments about Trump's intent. I don't think you should want to build all of those issues into the process.
Similarly there are with Trump I imagine a number of other things he's done that could be impeachable but may well fall outside the scope of this list.
QuoteThe impeachment process simply doesn't work and yet we need a process to remove a president that will work. Simply shrugging your shoulders and saying it isn't working because of the current political climate is not particularly helpful. We need to alter the current system so that it will work in this political climate or replace it with one that will work.
I don't disagree - but this sort of idea is like fixing the plumbing when the house is on fire. I
QuoteWe are only staving off disaster because some people in government are at least somewhat dedicated to rule of law and the US constitution.
Right and some don't. And how does adding more laws or making them more specific deal with that - why would they suddenly respect and follow this bit of the rule of law/constitution?
Why would codifying an offense cause more questions? :huh: Wouldn't those questions be asked anyway? If congress has impeached someone for committing "X" and during the debate a majority decide that "X" is in fact impeachable wouldn't they move onto whether or not X actually happened?
"The law says that X is impeachable conduct"
"Did the President do X"?
"That's what we will go over in the trial"
vs
"After a long debate we have come to conclusion that "x" is impeachable conduct."
"Did the President do X?"
"What does that have to do with anything?"
As to the thread question...I am not sure a congressional bill that purports to "clarify" a portion of the Constitution would pass constitutional muster. Though, I suppose if the SC can do it...any one of the three branches can. :P
I honestly don't understand most of the objections but I will concede that my idea probably won't help things. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2021, 02:55:55 PM
Why would codifying an offense cause more questions? :huh: Wouldn't those questions be asked anyway? If congress has impeached someone for committing "X" and during the debate a majority decide that "X" is in fact impeachable wouldn't they move onto whether or not X actually happened?
Sure - but I suppose the "is this impeachable conduct?" isn't the hurdle that's been the issue. The House has shown itself capable of impeaching Presidents - it's at the trial/jury stage in the Senate that things start to struggle. And from what I understood of your idea wasn't to codify a "crime" of "high crimes and misdemeanours" but to sort of refer to other pre-existing crimes like obstruction of justice.
So I think you'd have the same thing - to take JR's description of obstruction of justice the questions lawyerly Senators would be pushing (to acquit on technicalities) would be:
Did the President influence, obstruct or impeded (or try to) the due administration of justice? Or was it something else? Was it not influence, obstruction, impeding? Or indeed were they not really blocking the "due administration" of justice?
Did the President act corruptly, use threats or force, or any threatening communication or not - was it something else?
Did the President have the intent to obstruct justice? Or was the intent something different?
And - if we're using existing crimes as triggers do we have the same criminal bar - beyond a reasonable doubt?
That's a lot of questions - and that's one crime - you'd have all of those types of elements for every crime you list. If they were smart the President's supporters would be trawling the law libraries for the development of those offences and rulings on what defines and doesn't for each crime to distinguish what the President did from that offence rather than the more substantial, important question of is this conduct so bad as to be impeachable.
I think one potential downside of Trump's impeachment (with the House threshold being a simple majority), is that if the GOP were to win the House in 2022, and Trump followers still dominate, I expect Biden will be summarily impeached...even on the flimsiest of pretexts. And they won't even bother to think about (or care) whether or not the Senate would act on it.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 18, 2021, 02:52:18 PM
I think one potential downside of Trump's impeachment (with the House threshold being a simple majority), is that if the GOP were to win the House in 2022, and Trump followers still dominate, I expect Biden will be summarily impeached...even on the flimsiest of pretexts. And they won't even bother to think about (or care) whether or not the Senate would act on it.
Better than insurrection, their usual MO.
Yeah Toni has a point, but it is pointless to try and de-escalate and/or establish some gentlemen's agreement with this fascist nihilist movement the GOP has turned into.
Yes. As long as the Republicans will not agree that the extreme corruption that Trump represents, and his egregious actions were self-evidently impeacheable, there will not be one institution of the Republic they will not debase. That includes Congress.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 18, 2021, 02:52:18 PM
I think one potential downside of Trump's impeachment (with the House threshold being a simple majority), is that if the GOP were to win the House in 2022, and Trump followers still dominate, I expect Biden will be summarily impeached...even on the flimsiest of pretexts. And they won't even bother to think about (or care) whether or not the Senate would act on it.
Yeah I think that's inevitable. They were desperate for something to impeach Obama for and the least thing and they'll impeach Biden.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2021, 03:14:49 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 18, 2021, 02:52:18 PM
I think one potential downside of Trump's impeachment (with the House threshold being a simple majority), is that if the GOP were to win the House in 2022, and Trump followers still dominate, I expect Biden will be summarily impeached...even on the flimsiest of pretexts. And they won't even bother to think about (or care) whether or not the Senate would act on it.
Yeah I think that's inevitable. They were desperate for something to impeach Obama for and the least thing and they'll impeach Biden.
Except they didn't impeach Obama. They never seriously tried.
And Trump's impeachment kind-of backfired with him getting slightly more popular. And Clinton's impeachment definitely backfired on the GOP.
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2021, 03:26:06 PM
Except they didn't impeach Obama. They never seriously tried.
Yeah. But I wonder about this I think at Obama's stage you still needed a base level of credibility (outside of conservative media) and I can't think of a major scandal under Obama that would really work. Benghazi or the fast and furious came closest but didn't really attach to Obama.
The GOP in the House might change but I think given that most of them voted to overturn election results I think it's plausible they'll jump on the least thing without needing even the base level of credibility. I can certainly see it being an issue of a fight between die hards (Gaetz, Boebert, Cawthorn) v the leadership - if they win.
QuoteAnd Trump's impeachment kind-of backfired with him getting slightly more popular. And Clinton's impeachment definitely backfired on the GOP.
I think Trump's impeachment didn't really have any impact, but I think it was important because if you can't impeach someone for using foreign policy to try and get or create dirt on a political opponent then it's a redundant, decorative feature of the constitution. It becomes the US equivalent of becoming Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2021, 03:42:24 PM
It becomes the US equivalent of becoming Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds.
Heh. I remember having that explained to me on the History of England Podcast. I suppose it beats just passing a law enabling people to resign from Parliament.