Impeachment hearings

[_mikwut]

Is reporting gross misconduct to another branch of government or the people from whom the authority to govern is derived an exception to the rule of law or a case of competing responsibilities? Rights overlap as you know, and much of constitutional law is tied up in dealing with these overlaps. I think this question is more like that. The greater need is to protect the form of democratic government for the notion of executive privilege to have meaning, making it subordinate in line of concern.

I disagree. Advisors of a certain nature are deemed irrelevant under your opinion. Because they are no longer advisors that the Executive can freely discuss, opine, question and rely on. They are watchdogs.

mikwut

[_MeDotOrg]

The ballot box should always win over a partisan vote in either the House or the Senate.

Within the margin of err a nearly split public goes to the prudential nature of not impeaching, it is a drastic measure and would lead to more division. mikwut

So the penalty for a President trying to rig an election is to hold the election the President is trying to rig? Implicit in that statement is the idea that it is okay to rig an election, as long as you can't get members of the party trying to rig the election to vote against rigging the election in their favor. And to call attention to that fact "would lead to more division".

Half of the electorate disagrees with you. They think that not calling witnesses is hiding the truth. You may not like the Washington Post, but you have to respect their motto: Democracy dies in darkness. The Republicans know what the President did was wrong, that is exactly and precisely why they do not want witnesses.

No Press conferences. A Presidential Press secretary who refuses to give press briefings. A President who only gives interviews to one network, his mouthpiece. A Senate that refuses to call witnesses.

Hear no evil, see no evil? Democracy dies in darkness. If you think this is all normal Presidential conduct, you know nothing of history.

[_EAllusion]

Half of the electorate disagrees with you.

If you're talking about opinion polls on this subject, it's more like 3 quarters. It's just that this opinion probably isn't one that drives voter behavior and Republicans know it.

[_EAllusion]

So, after Republicans have argued that impeachment is wrong because the election should be the arbiter of Trump's presidency (concerning an abuse of power attempting to corrupt that very election), how many of those Republicans are going to then oppose the President's election? I'm going with approximately zero.

Case in point, Lamar Alexander argued explicitly that he voted against witnesses in the Senate trial because Democrats had already proved their case such that further testimony and documentary evidence was unnecessary. Putting aside whether that makes a lick of sense, he reasoned what Trump did should not be impeached and rather should be decided in an election (that Alexander says he believes Trump tried to corrupt). When it comes to Trump's obstruction, he said Trump's behavior "undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.” But it's up to voters, not the Senate, to vote him out for this, he argues.

So, in a surprise to absolutely no one, Lamar Alexander is supporting Trump's reelection:

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/31/80158963 ... ment-trial

[_EAllusion]

Stuffed ballot boxes shouldn't be stated in advance they should handled with evidence of their occurrence.

mikwut

Your position is that the Whitehouse has unilateral authority to suppress all evidence.

In any case, the "stuffed ballot boxes" in question here is that the Whitehouse attempted to extort a propaganda from a vulnerable foreign government against Trump's political opponents by refusing to release lawfully appropriated aid and denying diplomatic relations. The evidence that this happened, despite the Trump admin's systematic attempts to suppress all evidence, is overwhelming. This both involves statutory violations and implicates what is meant by the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors. You can say "nuh uh" all you want, but you're wrong.

Who knows, though. Maybe the next "stuffed ballot boxes" will be actual stuffed ballot boxes. What's to stop it?

Your position is that as long as a politically party stands behind its de facto leader in bloc support, they can do whatever they want. Then you get upset when this is called apologetics for autocracy. If you want to have the heart of a collaborator, at least own it.

[_mikwut]

MetDog,

I gave a composite argument not a single component of one.

mikwut

[_Icarus]

Mikwut,

Saying the framers feared partisanship isn't a good argument for what you're asserting because that needs proper context. They never once implied bipartisanship was needed in the context of impeachment. It is more likely the case that the kinds of partisanship they feared is that which we saw take place in the Senate which turns the Constitution on its head. Why is it bad to impeach the President along partisan lines but perfectly OK to blindly defend a clearly corrupt President at all costs along party lines? Your argument presumes Trump's guilt and impeachment is only plausible if there are Republicans in the Senate with enough backbone to agree.

The Senate effectively handed the Executive Branch a blank check to do basically whatever it wants in the future. The Senate's constitutional duty is not to be complicit with corruption of the Executive, its duty is to put a check on the Executive when such violations happen. You keep saying he isn't guilty of any crimes that have been proved, but that's obviously due to the fact that the Senate is complicit in the corruption. We now find out that there are two dozen emails from the President that directly pertain to the funding being withheld from Ukraine and access to those emails have been blocked by Trump's justice dept. We also find out that the Senators who have been desperately trying to cover for the President had been receiving bribes from Trump's legal team. We also find out that Lev Parnas gives testimony supported by documents that implicates numerous GOP/Trump apologists including Cippilone and Lindsey Graham who in a sane world, would be forced to recuse themselves in an impeachment trial of the man orchestrating a corruption scheme in which they were involved.

[Guest]

Your position is that the Whitehouse has unilateral authority to suppress all evidence.

No it isn't.

In any case, the "stuffed ballot boxes" in question here is that the Whitehouse attempted to extort a propaganda from a vulnerable foreign government against Trump's political opponents by refusing to release lawfully appropriated aid and denying diplomatic relations. The evidence that this happened, despite the Trump admin's systematic attempts to suppress all evidence, is overwhelming. This both involves statutory violations and implicates what is meant by the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors. You can say "nuh uh" all you want, but you're wrong.

That didn't happen in a vacuum. It is not an unassailable narrative. So there are rational factual reasons to vote against impeachment. The level of the motive, harm and deliberation is also not unassailable. So one could argue whether the gravity reached the impeachment standard. It is also one beholden to procedures those are rules of law. Pragmatism might find reasons to not just focus on your narrative as if it were Biblical. It could be argued you are stuck in a self-reinforcing process of collective belief formation that triggers a self-perpetuating chain reaction. The more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and greater alarm.

Who knows, though. Maybe the next "stuffed ballot boxes" will be actual stuffed ballot boxes. What's to stop it?

A myriad of things. Believing in the wisdom of bispartisan impeachments is not the same as believing in chaos.

Your position is that as long as a politically party stands behind its de facto in bloc support, they can do whatever they want. Then you get upset when this is called apologetics for autocracy. If you want to have the heart of a collaborator, at least own it.

No. Your position does. Your position believes a president can be removed if a party itself believes so. My position does not. Your position believes that at least one party is just robotic machines and no matter what that will soon bring about autocratic rule. My position is that rational men faced with unassailable facts will break party lines as the constitution foresaw.

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Modern political parties didn't exist until about 40 years after the Constitution was ratified. The idea that the impeachment power was written with their behavior in mind is quite an argument. Framers were concerned with "factionalism," which was in reference to proto-party dynamics of the period, but even that was anticipated so poorly that they had to pass the 12th amendment not long after. What they were concerned with was precisely what has happened in the present where party jealousies overtake branch jealousies and render impeachment judgment a matter of factional loyalty. The idea was the more aristocratic Senate was the place where this was least likely to happen, but you can find writing in the time period (correctly as it turns out) arguing this is wrong.

The worry here, though, is not lack of bipartisanship, but the existence of political parties period.

It does not follow that figures like Hamilton were worried about factionalism that this means they thought impeachment should be bipartisan. It's too much of a nonsequiter to even call it an argument.

[_EAllusion]

No it isn't.

Let me rephrase that. Yes it is. More specifically, you argue for a set of conditions where the Whitehouse has that power.

That didn't happen in a vacuum. It is not an unassailable narrative.

It's about as unassailable as things get. If you want to stake your argument on denying the obvious, then that shows what your position is worth.

Who knows, though. Maybe the next "stuffed ballot boxes" will be actual stuffed ballot boxes. What's to stop it?

A myriad of things.

Lol. Such as?

No. Your position does. Your position believes a president can be removed if a party itself believes so.

I believe this is yet another example where you simply invert your own reasoning and apply it to the other person. It does not follow that because you argue that if a party stands in partisan unity against impeachment, then the basis for impeachment is by definition illegitimate that people disagreeing with you must think that if a party stands in partisan unity in favor of impeachment, it must be good. That makes zero sense.

My position does not. Your position believes that at least one party is just robotic machines no matter what that will soon bring bout autocratic rule. My position is that rational men faced with unassailable facts will break party lines as the constitution foresaw.

mikwut

I'm sorry. I was under the impression you weren't a coma the past year.