The Impeachment Puzzle

[Stavros]

The provocative question is this: can the President be impeached on the available evidence?

1) It seems to me that if the Constitution and the law does not prohibit the President from making money from the Office of the Presidency, there is nothing other than moral outrage that can be expressed or done until the Congress and the Supreme Court change the Constitution.

2) Does the Constitution or the Law of the United States define what 'Executive Privilege' is, where its boundaries lie, and was this not fundamental to the behaviour of Richard Nixon following the break-in and cover-up of the burglary at the Watergate Building? If there is a case, it might relate to the 'private' conversations the US President had with the Russian President, and anyone else for that matter (the Australian Prime Minister would be a candidate0 -but are these conversations protected by 'Executive Privilege' even if the US Commander-in-Chief is freely spilling the intelligence beans to other heads of state, or could they be evidence of treason if, for example the life of a US agent was threatened?

3) If it is shown that the President broke the law, so what? The President can break as many laws as he chooses because he cannot be indicted. This may be a convention rather than a statement of fact in law, but with an army of lawyers telling him when and how to zip his fly, I am sure they have told him he can do anything no matter how outrageous, which is what he likes doing anyway. Again, other than moral outrage, what else does the Democrat opposition have?

4) Can the President create a 'Private State Department' that has its own staff to communicate with the Russians, the Saudi Arabians, the Israelis and the Ukraine, using their own servers, limiting their communications to only a few people? On this I am not sure, but if it is not illegal, and there is no law that says it is, what can Congress do about it, and will the key voters in the Senate not assume this is just an attack on the President by Democrats who have no case with substance to present?

As for Mr Barr, is it not time he resigned now that his position is so obviously compromised?

This is a useful link-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/30/trump-impeachment-five-conspiracy-theories-ukraine-dilemma

[filghy2]

If you start from the premise that the President is entitled to break the law and abuse the powers of his office for his own benefit then I guess that is right. But if the founding fathers were starting from that premise why would they have bothered to include the impeachment clause in the first place? That clause refers to "high crimes and misdemeanours", by the way, so it isn't just a question of criminality.

[broncofan]

The Constitution is not explicit about the boundaries of the executive privilege. It is implied based on the fact that our branches of government are separate and equal and there is a need to maintain some protection from scrutiny for internal decisions. If Congress tries to subpoena executive branch officials and documents I imagine the President will assert executive privilege. There has to be some basis for protecting information other than the fact that it is damaging, embarrassing, or shows him committing impeachable offenses.

Beyond that, there seems to be no doubt what he's done and is doing daily should be impeachable. He seems to be trying to incite civil war on twitter.

As far as his profiteering from hotels, some attorneys did file for injunctions against that in an attempt to enforce the emoluments clause. It is simply a case of people losing any sense of what kind of law-breaking and abuses of power he will be allowed to get away with. All red lines have been crossed.

[broncofan]

He seems to be trying to incite civil war on twitter.

Some ambiguity here. The civil war would not be on twitter.

[broncofan]

That clause refers to "high crimes and misdemeanours", by the way, so it isn't just a question of criminality.

True. He used the powers of his office to solicit a foreign country to secure re-election. Our entire system of government was designed to prevent this kind of entrenchment of power.

As you say, it doesn't matter whether there's a law on point. What would the founding fathers say? Probably that this is a quintessential case for impeachment.

[Stavros]

I appreciate the responses to my OP, but here is a simple fact. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 makes it illegal for any candidate in an election to solicit or receive the support of a foreign government, yet in July 2016 the Republican candidate was explicit in calling on Russia to help him in his campaign against the American candidate, Hillary Clinton -was he arrested? No. Was his campaign under investigation, yes. In other words, he broke the law and got away with it, even though he was not President at the time.


Set that alongside moral indignation and you have a law that is not applied, and a moral outrage that is cast aside as an irrelevance by a man who has in my estimation insulted and abused more Americans than I recall, either as candidate for the Presidency, or the person holding that office. We can agree that it would have been better for the US had this creature not been allowed to stand let alone claim election, but that also raises the question: is Impeachment the solution?


Would it not be better for the Democrats to reach across the aisle to amend the Constitution and the law so that clear, explicit rules govern the Office of the Presidency, from what Executive Privilege can and cannot mean; to ensure financial probity is in no doubt; and to allow a President to be indicted. For when the convention was reached that protecting the Presidency from frivolous lawsuits was made, it was not assumed the President would wish to let alone openly break the law, it was intended to deter outsiders, rather than the insider bolting the door to scrutiny.

If you can't change the President, change the law.

[broncofan]

I'm with you on the recommendation for an amendment defining executive privilege, with guidance for what it covers as well as guidance for what is impeachable, instead of having Congress try to divine the intent of the constitutional framers.

There was some compromise when Congress passed the special prosecutor statute because both parties realized that it would be good to have executive branch officials who are (somewhat) immune to being fired by the President.

If impeachment is still the sole remedy for a President who breaks the law, political considerations come into play, even with more specific rules. Everyone, even prosecutors and Judges have a political affiliation as well if that changes too.

But I agree that codification of what is impeachable and what is protected executive branch material would be useful.

[filghy2]

Would it not be better for the Democrats to reach across the aisle to amend the Constitution and the law so that clear, explicit rules govern the Office of the Presidency, from what Executive Privilege can and cannot mean; to ensure financial probity is in no doubt; and to allow a President to be indicted.

Why would that have any greater chance of success when the Republicans won't even cooperate on legislation to protect the electoral system from outside interference? I'm afraid the only thing that will change their minds is if more Republican supporters start deserting Trump and they fear he will lead them to electoral disaster.

[Stavros]

I'm afraid the only thing that will change their minds is if more Republican supporters start deserting Trump and they fear he will lead them to electoral disaster.

Evidently not Senator Graham, who it seems will do anything for the man he loves...

Storm clouds are continuing to gather around Donald Trump over the Ukraine scandal, but that hasn’t stopped his faithful confidante, Lindsay Graham, from reportedly urging foreign governments to work with William Barr (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/william-barr) in investigating the origins of the Mueller inquiry.

Graham is said to have written (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/03/australian-ambassador-to-washington-rejects-key-claim-by-lindsey-graham) to the prime ministers of Australia, Italy and the UK to request their “continued cooperation with attorney general Barr as the Department of Justice continues to investigate the origins and extent of foreign influence in the 2016 election”.
More here-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/oct/03/trump-news-today-live-impeachment-updates-ukraine-bernie-sanders-latest

[broncofan]

While I agree there are ways to convert norms into laws and make constitutional clauses have the sort of detail that statutes have, what we're seeing is excessive partisanship and a failure of Republicans to uphold the rule of law for its own sake.

The Republicans are unwilling to do anything out of fidelity to our system of government. That's a cultural problem. It's also a problem of hyper-partisanship.

I've always thought impeachment should be a Judicial process and not a political one because it is supposed to address wrongdoing and not simply the judgement of our elected officials. Maybe the President should actually face legal jeopardy for crimes while in office as well, though that could become politicized too.

[broncofan]

I don't mean to sound cynical but if you come up with more specific laws for Trump to break, you're only forcing Republicans to come up with more egregious lies to avoid holding him accountable. They're up to the task.

[Stavros]

Two things stand out: yet again the so-called President is breaking the law -the Federal Election Campaign Act 1971 by recruiting a foreign government to help him in his re-election campaign -at what point is this law breaking going to lead to an arrest -first, Ukraine, now China, and individuals joining this private State Department to break the law on behalf of their boss? In the UK a P45 is the form you get when you either resign from a job or get fired. Is it not time to fire P45?

Second, it is clear this man has a colossal psychological problem, that when someone says something or does something that he doesn't like, he doesn't let it go, he obsesses about it. And not just overnight or the week-end. It gnaws at him for years, just as he could never hide the rage and resentment he held, and still holds for Obama. He tells blatant lies about Joe Biden and he will not let go. My guess is that even if 100 governments helped him in his investigations to discover the Bidens did nothing wrong, he will not only carry on, but turn on those 100 governments, accuse them of collusion with Joe Biden, set up an enquiry and send Rudolph the Red-Nosed Oh-Dear to harass and lie to anyone who will listen.

Basically, your President is off his rocker. He is nuts. He is twisted -oh, and he barks at the camera 'Joe Biden is a stone cold crook' when the awful fact is that the actual crook who has broken the law calls himself President.

End it. And end it now.

[filghy2]

Graham is said to have written[/URL] to the prime ministers of Australia, Italy and the UK to request their “continued cooperation with attorney general Barr as the Department of Justice continues to investigate the origins and extent of foreign influence in the 2016 election”.

The idea that Alexander Downer (foreign minister in a previous conservative government) was part of some deep state conspiracy against Trump is one of the most bizarre aspects of this nonsense. The Australian government has already promised to cooperate with Barr's investigation, though they are also saying Downer did nothing wrong and is not under investigation. Hopefully it was just a pro forma response to avoid antagonising Trump. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-04/donald-trump-mueller-inquiry-alexander-downer-conspiracy-theory/11573476

[Fitzcarraldo]

https://theweek.com/speedreads/869572/library-congress-cafeteria-serving-punny-impeachmentthemed-dessert

[Stavros]

“It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election,” said Ellen Weintraub, head of the Federal Election Commission (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/fec-chair-subtweets-trump-after-plea-for-china-to-investigate-bidens.html). “I would not have thought that I needed to say this.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/05/donald-trump-take-everyone-with-him

So arrest the people who have broken the law, and start with the Attorney General! Or is it the case that it is the people in charge of the law wh are breaking it?

The irony of this is that it has boosted the campaign of Joe Biden at a time when, for example, Kamal Harris is losing ground, even in California, and Bernie Sanders is surely too ill to carry on. Can't say much about the others.

But will Republicans now consider challenging the incumbent in the year ahead? Or have they decided it's over for them and they may as well see their tenures through to the bitter end?

[filghy2]

But will Republicans now consider challenging the incumbent in the year ahead? Or have they decided it's over for them and they may as well see their tenures through to the bitter end?

There are three challengers, but it looks like the party organisation is blocking primary votes. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/13/politics/republican-2020-challengers-op-ed-canceled-primaries/index.html

They don't stand much chance anyway because the polls show that 85-90 per cent of Republican voters still support Trump no matter what he does. Unless that changes I can't see too many Republicans in congress turning against him. It's hard to see what could change that given the distorted picture they get from right-wing media - and most of them seem to love him because he is nasty and unscrupulous, as long as people they don't like are on the receiving end.

[Stavros]

I watched a fair amount of the Intelligence Committee proceedings when former Ambassador Yovanovitch gave evidence, and what came out strongly from her evidence was the 'dual purpose' diplomacy which involved her in her official capacity, and the 'privatized' foreign policy pursued by Rudolph Giuliani Jr, and the extent to which she thinks the State Department has been weakened by the determination of the new Government to reduce its personnel and its costs, and no longer rely upon department staff for professional advice.
But even though the Republican members of the Committee paid tribute to the former Ambassador's service record, none of them even attempted to challenge her on the issue that is key to the impeachment articles: the President's recruitment of a foreign government to attack Americans seeking election in the USA, and the use of bribery to force the Ukraine to attack American candidates in the 2020 elections in exchange for military aid to combat the Russian attempt to break the Ukraine into little pieces.
Former Ambassador Yovanovitch was able to describe the behaviour of Giuliani, but was not in post when the allegations of bribery took place.
Nevertheless, the Republicans were keen to describe the proceedings as a 'show trial' and then complain the rest of the session would be held in private, a mechanism which they created when they were in charge of the Intelligence Committee but which they now suggest is a Democrat tactic to deny the public their right to transparency!
That the President intervened in the day's proceedings by tweeting is par for the course, as is his degrading and insulting remarks about a woman who put herself in harm's way while serving her country, something the President has never done.
is it any wonder that Senator Graham has said he will not watch the proceedings or even read a word of any of the depositions to the Committee? If he did, he would have no choice when the time comes to vote to impeach -but as Graham is a monumental hypocrite what else can we expect?
And so much more to come, though John Bolton is holding back, either to make money from a book, or to wait until the Impeachment has crashed in the Senate before exposing the extent of corruption, lies and illegality in the White House -will he even hold back until after the 2020 election to protect his party?

[Stavros]

As above, I watched as much as I could of the Impeachment proceedings in the House. What has struck me is this:
First, there is no heckling in the House, as there is in the House of Commons here -people get up, speak and then sit down. It all sounds and looks mechanical, there is no drama.
Second, the Republicans complained that the impeachment was motivated by sore Democrat losers of the 2016 election, but as I recall, from the moment Bill Clinton was elected the Republicans did everything they could to impeach him from the Whitewater investigations through to the gift he gave them of the lies he told about Monica Lewinsky. So for the Republicans to complain about their lad being targeted in the same way is simple hypocrisy, not least when some of the men defending their leader were involved in the impeachment of Clinton.
Lastly, evidence: Republican stated as if it were a fact that there was no evidence on which to impeach, but never discussed the evidence that was presented to the House Committees in order to rebut it, it was just dismissed, as if the statements by experienced civil servants and other members of the government were worthless when they were dismissed precisely because they were true.

In an extraordinary moment yesterday, Rudolph Giuliani Jr stated as if it were a fact that Marie Jovanovich was a corrupt Ambassador to the Ukraine, I hope she sues him for that, but it sounds desperate, because Giuliani appears to be even more arrogant and indifferent to the law than his boss. How long can this insult to reason continue?

The one issue, discussed time and again, is why the Convention that a sitting President cannot be indicted has not been ended. From the start it is clear this man decided he was going to do anything and everything he could that the lawyers have said cannot result in an indictment, it has damaged the Presidency, which may be one of the aims, and as we already know, will not result in the eviction from the White House of its most foul-mouthed and plain stupid occupant.

Mitchell McConnell who is legally obliged to be impartial in the Senate trial, has already said he will not be, as clear a violation of his oath of office as one can find. Ultimately one wonders if these people care, that maybe their whole purpose is to detach the Senate and the House from the Government of the USA because they no longer believe in a project that began in 1776 if it means sharing, or rendering power to people who are not White, and Christian, and mostly male.

This is not about a man, this is about the survival of the Republic, and it doesn't look robust from this side of Atlantic.

[yodajazz]

The president cannot claim, "executive privilege", if the investigation is related to him breaking the law. Congress is given the right, to investigate the president, for crimes, directly in the US Constitution. Of course Trump's attorneys argue otherwise, and then keep appealing. I think the request for Don McGann to testify, took 6 months, to resolve.

Another issue is the Justice Dept ruling, that a sitting president cannot be indicted. This is not a law, but a department ruling. I think it was for a good purpose, originally to keep others from harassing a president for non job related acts, especially those actions, that may have happened, even before they assume office. I felt this was the case, with Bill Clinton. However Trump's attorneys have taken this to new heights. They claimed in court, that the president could not be investigated, for any reason, even in the infamous example, of Trump shooting someone in the middle of 5th avenue. Trump's team did lose that case. But it took months, and Trump is collecting tens of millions each month, for his re-election.

By the way, did you know that Attorney General Bill Barr's son-in law, is a White House attorney. I joke that, if Trump is removed from office, his son-in-law will be out of a job, and perhaps he, Barr's daughter, and children(?), will have to move into Barr's home. No wonder Barr is working so hard to keep Trump in office. lol

[Stavros]

But is Barr a wind-up monkey for the President, or does he have his own agenda? It seems to me that one of the key reasons why McConnell, Graham and Barr protect and defend a man they know to be corrupt, is that they also know they are smarter than the President, and that their knowledge of procedure in Congress and the law means they use the President to get what they want, tax cuts, the abolition of environmental regulations, and so on. In Barr's case, it is a plea to replace secular and immoral politicis -because if it is secular it is immoral- with his Roman Catholic version of morals and truth, and a President who doesn't believe in anything other than himself and is too stupid to know what procedures are, gives Barr enormous power to do what Barr wants, with not one reference to his actual job as Attorney General of the USA. This is from the article that concerns the speech Barr made to Notre Dame not so long ago- full article in link.

Prominent liberal Catholics have warned the US attorney general’s devout Catholic faith poses a threat to the separation of church and state, after William Barr (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/william-barr) delivered a fiery speech on religious freedom in which he warned that “militant secularists” were behind a “campaign to destroy the traditional moral order”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/19/william-barr-attorney-general-catholic-conservative-speech

[Stavros]

From the evidence Schiff gave today one thing stands out: military aid to the Ukraine sanctioned by Congress was delivered without interruption every year until 2019, and that the only explanation for the delay is that in April 2019 Joe Biden announced he was seeking the Democrats nomination for President in 2020. The following month Giuliani began scheming, looking for a way to discredit Biden, presumably something he discussed with the President. Everything connected to the Ukraine and the Bidens dates only from May 2019, not before.
Giuliani has become more prominent in this part of the trial, but it seems to me that neither he nor the President can extricate themselves from this 'privatization' of Foreign Policy. Giuliani has claimed he was not acting in a way that affected foreign policy, but I don't see how he can be seen to be doing anything else, because the relations between the US and Ukraine as well as the President's relationship with either the Ukraine or President Zelensky or both, cannot be detached from the fact that the President is who he is. I don't believe any President can have a 'personal' relationship with another head of state because, for example, the President of the US might play golf with the President of Mexico but even then policy might be discussed, however informally, and it then becomes a matter of state. The added irony is that if this was not foreign policy, it was still illegal, as Giuliani was seeking to influence a foreign government to aid his bosses election bid which is against the law.
Also there is something I read in either the Post or the NYT that if Giuliani is working without a fee, the President must declare it a gift, but must then admit Giuliani was working on the Ukraine for him. If Giuliani is working 'pro bono' what is the fee for what legal outcome? And if he was being paid, again, what was he being paid for?
It seems to me that if Giuliani and Bolton are not brought before the Senate in this trial, it will be a mockery, which is what some fear it might become.

[filghy2]

It seems to me that if Giuliani and Bolton are not brought before the Senate in this trial, it will be a mockery, which is what some fear it might become.

It seems unlikely, based on the procedural votes so far. The joke is that the Republicans are complaining that there is no new evidence, even though they have voted to block any new evidence - and one of them admitted that virtually none of them had read the House transcripts previously. These people don't even bother to make their arguments consistent, knowing that they can rely on Fox News to spin a bunch of lies which their supporters will lap up.
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/23/21078993/impeachment-trial-republican-talking-points-new-evidence

[broncofan]

Alan Dershowitz is the legal equivalent of a scientist who is a climate change denier. His arguments are pure sophistry. He seems to take the misconceptions of first year law students and use them to construct his arguments which is convenient since he teaches 1L Criminal Law. Take this example: "Even if a President were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a country, that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power."

It's true Presidents can negotiate foreign policy but the negotiation has to be on behalf of the country and not one's self. If you state a general category of activity and remove any reference to the incriminating elements of course it sounds harmless. Imagine describing murder in the following way: "one should not be locked up simply for retracting their index finger on a metal trigger while pointing an object at someone."

He also continues repeating the argument that Congress shouldn't question the President's real reason for doing something while simultaneously arguing the President's conduct needs to be criminal or "crime-like" to be impeachable. Here's the problem. Every major crime except for statutory rape has a mens rea requirement. The difference between guilt and innocence given a particular act will depend upon what the person knew and what they intended. Here are two acts:

1. President Trump bombs a country because he has been provided incontrovertible evidence the country is planning an imminent attack and has a genuine subjective belief they are planning such an attack.

2. President Trump bombs a country because they did not give him a permit to build a hotel and he wants to punish them.

One can perform the same trick with nearly every category of major crime since they all require an act and a particular mental state. If one cannot make judgments about the real reason someone did something and instead has to accept the President has an official purpose we might as well dissolve the republic.

[Stavros]

Thanks, Bronocfan for that sharp rebuttal of Dershowitz, a man so consumed by his self-regard one wonders how he manages to shave in the morning without cutting himself.

One can despair at the way in which the President's team ignores the news and reality, pretending John Bolton has not written a book when it was the White House which leaked its contents to the New York Times. One can gasp at the remarks made by Ken Starr about impeachment proceedings become 'normal' when almost as soon as Clinton took office, Starr was tasked by the Republicans and spent years digging for dirt on the Clintons and came up with nothing until Lewinsky gave him the golden bullet he yearned for.

Look closer at the Ukraine, which few people do, and you see the contours of this scam. It is critical to note that Viktor Shokin was not just regarded as lazy, useless and corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine, hand-picked by corrupt President Poroshenko. When in late 2015 Vice-President Biden issued his 'ultimatum'- fire Shokin or you won't get any aid, it was a sentiment supported by the IMF, the British Government, the EU and numerous aid agencies, some of them in the US, concerned their dollars were being dumped into the river of cash flowing out of the Ukraine into offshore accounts. By the time Poroshenko lost the elections in Ukraine, it is estimated two-thirds of the country's wealth had disappeared into the black hole of offshore accounting, aided no doubt by expert Russian oligarchs some of whom funnelled their wealth into the loans made through Deutsche Bank to the man who now sits in the Oval Office- surely no connection here?
Shokin was not fired in 2015 but in March 2016, and it was the President of the USA who, in that 'perfect' call in July 2019 complained that that 'very good prosecutor' Shokin had lost his job. What is going on here? As Adam Schiff pointed out last week, what emerges from the adventures of Rudolph Giuliani Jr, is the view that the very people he and his boss were involved with, were the corrupt officials that were either sacked before Zelensky entered office, or have been sacked since then. If it had nothing to do with allegations that Ukraine hacked the DNC in the 2016 election campaign, or failed to investigate the Bidens, the conclusion is that what gnawed away at the obsessed minds of Giuliani and his boss, was that Ukraine was going to turn off the tap from which they filled their buckets as much as they could.
Indeed, it is now argued that while Ukraine was mired in corruption, it has smartened up and made significant reforms to end corruption and grow the economy, and Zelensky, viewed as a weakling by Giuliani and his boss, has scored something that the Impeached President cannot deny, because one man is facing the future with confidence, while the other is on trial.

Links:
Profile of 'very good man' Shokin here-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/viktor-shokin-ukraine-prosecutor-trump-biden-hunter-joe-investigation-impeachment-a9147001.html

Background to the issues in Ukraine-
https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-prosecutor-excl/exclusive-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-who-discussed-bidens-with-giuliani-source-idUSKBN1XE20C

Reforms in Ukraine are working-
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/14/with-impeachment-hearings-underway-dont-believe-the-lies-about-ukrainian-corruption/

[Stavros]

I should add, though it is now clear, that Amabassador Yovanovitch was committed to supporting the reform of corruption and that when Proshenko lost the election and it was clear Zelensky was going to sack people known to Rudolph Giuliani Jr and his boss, that she became 'an obstacle' to their interests. The point is that Yovanovitch represented the stated interests of the USA, while Giuliani was working in a 'personal capacity', but what then were the President's personal interests in Ukraine that were not the interests of the USA?
Is Giuliani going to be called as a witness? It seems incredible that key players in this drama are not having their day in court.

[filghy2]

Alan Dershowitz is the legal equivalent of a scientist who is a climate change denier. His arguments are pure sophistry. He seems to take the misconceptions of first year law students and use them to construct his arguments which is convenient since he teaches 1L Criminal Law. Take this example: "Even if a President were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a country, that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power."

He also had a different view at the time of the Clinton impeachment, though he claims to have changed his mind after further research. https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/alan-dershowitz-impeachment-abuse-of-power

What I struggle to understand is why so many people are willing to trash their reputations for the sake of a man they must know would not hesitate to screw them if he thought it served his interests or just to gratify his fragile ego. I know the short answer in most cases is that they're afraid that resisting Trump will end their careers, but surely they must know there will be a reckoning eventually. Do they really think they will never pay a price for this?

[broncofan]

He also had a different view at the time of the Clinton impeachment, though he claims to have changed his mind after further research. https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/alan-dershowitz-impeachment-abuse-of-power

What I struggle to understand is why so many people are willing to trash their reputations for the sake of a man they must know would not hesitate to screw them if he thought it served his interests or just to gratify his fragile ego. I know the short answer in most cases is that they're afraid that resisting Trump will end their careers, but surely they must know there will be a reckoning eventually. Do they really think they will never pay a price for this?
Sadly in the case of Dershowitz he has already trashed his reputation a thousand times over and would do it again for attention. He can't keep up with his own views. When he was first peddling nonsense a couple years ago I couldn't find anyone who has written about Constitutional law who agreed with him.

[Stavros]

He also had a different view at the time of the Clinton impeachment, though he claims to have changed his mind after further research.
What I struggle to understand is why so many people are willing to trash their reputations for the sake of a man they must know would not hesitate to screw them if he thought it served his interests or just to gratify his fragile ego. I know the short answer in most cases is that they're afraid that resisting Trump will end their careers, but surely they must know there will be a reckoning eventually. Do they really think they will never pay a price for this?

I think the key is that these guys all know they are smarter than the President and support him because they can manipulate him to get what they want, which in the case of McConnell has been tax cuts for the wealthy donors to his party. They know that if they cross him they will be sacked, abused, ignored but do not care: the bottom line is this: 'we are richer now than we were before', because it is money that drives their loyalty, just as the 'Peace Plan' for the Middle East is based, not on history or politics, but money, $50 billion of it.
Obama was a cultural revolution for them, the proof that 'their America' is either lost, or in peril. They said to themselves 'never again', but so deep is their hypocrisy that they never congratulate Obama for saving their financial system, for using tax-payers money to bail out the very same people who all but bankrupted their system (other than the little guys who lost their jobs on Wall St), for putting an end to the haemorrhage of 800,000 jobs a month in 2008 to year on year declines in unemployment. As for all that money, is it being invested in the USA? Or real estate? Has it been parked overseas in tax free offshore accounts?
And here we are again: household debt at staggering levels measured in trillions of dollars; consumers failing to meet their credit card repayments every month; the President borrowing a minimum trillion $$ a year to compensate the victims of his failed economic policies.
McConnell and Graham and Romney and all: counting their money while the foundations of their lucrative enterprise is sinking into the ground, and not just because of climate change.

[filghy2]

I think the key is that these guys all know they are smarter than the President and support him because they can manipulate him to get what they want, which in the case of McConnell has been tax cuts for the wealthy donors to his party.

I think the conservative establishment in Germany had a similar idea about Hitler. They may find that they've nurtured a monster they cannot control, with unpredictable implications.

[Stavros]

Watching the proceedings in the Senate where Counsel respond to questions from Senators, I was struck by a question which makes me wonder if I have misunderstood the Federal Election Law of 1971 and the ban on candidates seeking and/or receiving the help of foreign nationals. Is that the law?
The question asked related to the public appeal to Russia in the 2016 Election, and subsequent appeals by the President to the Ukraine and China, and his claim that if he is offered information on rivals in an election by a foreign national he would accept it and it would not be illegal. Indeed, Jay Sekulow argued that because there were no 'campaign contributions' the appeals his boss made could not be construed as being illegal.
I don't now understand what is legal and what is not with regard to foreign nationals, and how any support they give can be construed as a 'campaign contribution'. It then occurred to me, and it should have before, that Nigel Farage, a UK national, appeared on a public platform at rallies organized by the President's campaign in 2016 to endorse him and link the campaign to Brexit; just as Farage then campaigned for Roy Moore in Alabama -but was this iegal, as in both cases the Republican candidates sought and received help from a foreign national in their campaigns?
Extend the thought: would it have been legal for Roger Federer, Daniel Barenboim and JK Rowling (without assuming these three would have wanted to) to have both endorsed Hillary Clinton having been asked to do so, and appeared with her on a platform at a public rally?

I am now confused as to what constitutes a foreign national illegally contributing to an election campaign.

[broncofan]

I looked at the section in the 1971 act and it says "it shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money, or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation in connection with a Federal, State, or local election." It goes on to prohibit solicitations of such contributions using the same language.

I haven't read any cases interpreting this language but I imagine it comes down to "other thing of value". Perhaps a simple endorsement would not be considered a thing of value exchanged, since foreign nationals can express their views, but appearing on the campaign trail would.

I know this language doesn't help much without the interpretation of it but we can speculate about what makes sense. Perhaps if it is the type of activity that people generally do gratuitously like appear one time it's not a contribution, whereas if it requires a certain output of time and effort like campaigning it's a thing of value. In addition, if you have to bargain for it and make a reciprocal promise or commitment, it looks a lot like something of value.

For all Dershowitz' playing down of the simple meaning of quid pro quo, perhaps that's the key. If there's an exchange then it must be of value because you had to bargain for it. So if you solicit opposition research on Biden, and you have to use alternating incentives like inducements and threats, it must be of value. Just a thought.

[Stavros]

If there's an exchange then it must be of value because you had to bargain for it. So if you solicit opposition research on Biden, and you have to use alternating incentives like inducements and threats, it must be of value. Just a thought.


Thanks, and I think this last comment is crucial, because it was not just 'can you do me a favour' it was a phone call preceded by Rudolph Giuliani Jr's 'personal' campaign, fought against the US and Americans with tremendous vigour. Can I assume that Giuliani cannot give evidence in the Senate Trial because of 'attorney-client privilege'? And I note that when the President's Counsel were asked, yesterday, to clarify who was paying Giuliani's bills if he was/is working for the President for free, the man who replied made a point of not answering the question, in fact I don't think he even mentioned Giuliani by name!
So who is paying the bills? And isn't this a pertinent question?

[Stavros]

I watched as much as I could of today's proceedings in the Senate via the NYT website. It is a pity that the cameras do not pan across the chamber so that we can so who is there and what they are doing, and unlike in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, a speaker cannot be interrupted to answer a question. In addition, the lead counsel for the defence rambled on and on to the extent that I wondered if I should go to bed early, an additional sleep-inducing component being the football on BBC-1 which was dire, but as it was barely 8pm I struggled on.

The bizarre moment came with David Schoen arguing that the intent behind the Impeachment is to prevent Trump from running for office again, thereby depriving his supporters of the right to vote for him, when the Impeachment proceedings are taking place because of the strenuous efforts Trump made for two months to prevent the votes of the majority in the 2020 election from being certified -on the one hand a prima facie case of an attempt to strip the voters of their choice in November 2020, with an hypothesis that cannot be proven -a) that Trump wants to run again, and b) in doing so will receive as many or even more votes. The Impeachment, moreover, is about the way in which Trump sought to reverse the election, and the extent to which he is responsible for the illegal, indeed, the Sedition that took place on the 6th January, as any attempt to interfere with the business of Congress is defined in US Law as Sedition.

I am not sure if the Plaintiffs can prove Trump is responsible for the Seditious acts of the 6th of January, but the evidence is stark that he attempted to reverse the election result through illegal means -the phone call with election officials in Georgia being one instance, the repeated calls to Mike Pence to refuse to certify the election in the Senate, even as the riot was in progress, being another.

It will be interesting, if academic, to listen to the rebuttal of Schoen's arguments about Due Process, and whether or not a President no longer in office can be Impeached, but as one of the NYT commentators pointed out, the Trial in the Senate could have proceeded when Trump was still in Office, but McConnell declined to give the Senate the opportunity to do so. Thus the argument that any President could violate his or her Oath of Office on their last day and resign before any Impeachment proceedings begin, is licence to violate the Oath, break the law, indeed, do whatever they want, and that is the opposite of what the Constitution allows.

Does it matter that the proceedings are not being chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

[filghy2]

The bizarre moment came with David Schoen arguing that the intent behind the Impeachment is to prevent Trump from running for office again, thereby depriving his supporters of the right to vote for him, when the Impeachment proceedings are taking place because of the strenuous efforts Trump made for two months to prevent the votes of the majority in the 2020 election from being certified

It's also bizarre to argue simultaneously that he can't be impeached because he is no longer in public office but it would not be right to prevent him from running for office again. In any case, a guilty verdict would not automatically prevent him running again, as that would require a separate vote.

[Stavros]

I watched all of yesterday's proceedings. It was an impressive display if the argument is that the riot on the 6th of January was the logical culmination of a deliberate attempt by Trump to discredit the election, starting months before it had even taken place. The graphic footage demonstrated how physically close the rioters came to their targets, the hammering on the door of Nancy Pelosi's suite as a member of her staff whispered into a phone was particuarly chilling.

What struck me most because I had not been able to see it, was the timeline on the day that traced the events from noon when Trump began his speech, through the events as they unfolded, but crucially, the tweets, and one that is surely the most damning of all, because as soon as he tweeted it, demonstrators, one with a bull horn, were reading it to an already frenzied mob -it raises the truly awful prospect that had they been able to 'get to' the VP, serious violence would have taken place. The tweet in question reads-

“Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

That Pence made it clear to Trump on the morning of the 6th that he could not, and would not violate his Oath of Office has to a great extent buttressed his reputation after years in which his 'servant leadership' attitude enabled Trump to do what he wanted, and we assume Pence rarely succeeded in changing Trump's mind on anything, just as it is alleged members of Trump's staff failed to persuade him to issue a call to the rioters to stop, and go home. Indeed, it is these events in the afternoon of the riot that must surely be the most damning evidece against Trump. With the irony that his passion for tweeting what he is thinking has become the paper trail of a man who appears to have no intention of abiding by his own Oath of Office.

A final thought is that among the messages of support posted before the events of that day, the 'cavalry is coming' was in fact spelt 'calvary', a correction which the Manager corrected, though the allusion to the Crucifixion may be a 'Freudian slip' worthy of analysis.

To be provocative, on the basis of yesterday's evidence, could the Managers offer Senators a choice in their summing up -to contrast the dutiful Pence with the reckless Trump, to the extent that they might argue -a vote to acquit the President is equivalent to marching Mike Pence to the Scaffold? Some choice -but which one would the Republican Senators make?

[Stavros]

Is this the most chilling aspect of the footge played in the Senate yesterday?

"...a number of Republican senators – Rand Paul, Rick Scott, Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio, among others – made a point of ignoring the film. They flipped through papers as a man screamed in pain in the background. Their refusal to look up and find out what was wrong was meant to send out a signal. They scribbled notes as the crowd hunted Mike Pence. Mitch McConnell, who appears in the film, apparently showed no reaction."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/11/the-capitol-attack-film-was-brutal-thats-why-it-must-be-watched

Stacey Plaskett was the only Black woman in the Senate yesterday, and you can be sure 'all of the above' were too busy checking their phones to look at her. 'If the look don't fit, you must acquit'.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Is this the most chilling aspect of the footge played in the Senate yesterday?

"...a number of Republican senators – Rand Paul, Rick Scott, Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio, among others – made a point of ignoring the film. They flipped through papers as a man screamed in pain in the background. Their refusal to look up and find out what was wrong was meant to send out a signal. They scribbled notes as the crowd hunted Mike Pence. Mitch McConnell, who appears in the film, apparently showed no reaction."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/11/the-capitol-attack-film-was-brutal-thats-why-it-must-be-watched

Stacey Plaskett was the only Black woman in the Senate yesterday, and you can be sure 'all of the above' were too busy checking their phones to look at her. 'If the look don't fit, you must acquit'.Yes it is the most chilling aspect of the footage played in the US Senate during the 2nd of the Impeachment Trial,not surprised at all that Trump Enablers Rand Paul,Rick Scott,Tom Cotton and Mark Rubio were ignoring the film,because they are just as responsible as their leader Donald-D.A.M.N Trump is for causing the domestic terrorist attack on the US Capital back on January 6th,and have already made up their minds to acquit him,because they don't want to cross him and his delusional supporters and hold on to power. and those that choose acquit him of any wrongdoing despite all the evidence are going to pay for their decisions in the end.

[Stavros]

I was not impressed by Counsel for the former President complaining they were not given enough time to prepare a defence when the trial was deliberately delayed by Mitch McConnell, and at a time when other laywers were hired before they jumped ship. I also felt they often did not ask the questions they were asked.

And it seems a tedious process -a Senator tells the President he has a question. A clerk takes the question on a card to the desk where another clerk hands it to the President, who then hands it to third clerk to read it out. Why not let the Senator stand, and be seen asking the question of the lawyers? Very odd.

Lastly, does anyone know what's behind the blue curtains behind the seat of the President?

[Stavros]

A few more thoughts-

I think the House team cannot prove that Trump has direct responsibility for the invasion of the Capitol, if the evidence is the use f words. He did not tell the crowd at his rally to march down Pennsylvania Avenue and enter the Capitol building to stop the certificaton process.

The problem for the defence team, is that because Mike Pence told Trump that morning he would carry out his duty as VP to preside over the certification, and with no legal cases outstanding, there were no legal or procedural means that could prevent the certification, so what was the meaning of Trumps words when they included slogans like 'Stop the Steal' and 'fight like hell'? Just as important, given the audience he was addressing, whether it was in front of him on the Ellipse, or listening or reading via social media, what did they understand by his words, given what they had been 'chatting' about on social media since December?

It seems to me that the evidence is damning, but can a President persist in claiming the election result is wrong after every attempt to prove so has failed? One could dismiss him as 'deranged', 'deluded' but presumably there is no law against that. One imagines Nixon at the very moment he resigned, believed he had done nothing wrong.

More damning evidence has emerged overnight with the claim Trump refused to take action once the riot had been going for over an hour-

"Kevin McCarthy (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/kevin-mccarthy) snapped at Donald Trump (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/donald-trump) when he refused to call off his rioting supporters and reportedly told the president: “Who the f*** do you think you’re talking to?”
The ex-president and the leader of the House Republicans (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/republicans) became embroiled in a heated exchange as Mr McCarthy called and begged Mr Trump to intervene, according to CNN.
When Mr Trump told the lawmaker that the rioters were actually antifa, Mr McCarthy bluntly told him that they were in fact a MAGA mob.
“Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” replied Mr Trump said, according to lawmakers briefed later by Mr McCarthy."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-mccarthy-rioters-impeachment-b1801775.html

One wonders what McCarthy would say were he called as a witness -but as both he and Mike Pence seem to have 'made up' with Trump for his shocking and disgraceful behaviour, maybe he would just shrug his shoulders and say 'well that's just Donald', as if Sedition were 'just one of those things' -that comes around every 244 years....?

[filghy2]

It's interesting that the people who normally argue for originalism in interpreting the Constitution have chosen to ignore evidence that the Founding Fathers intended impeachment to apply to ex-presidents.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/11/donald-trump-impeachment-ex-president-founders-468769

[Stavros]

It's interesting that the people who normally argue for originalism in interpreting the Constitution have chosen to ignore evidence that the Founding Fathers intended impeachment to apply to ex-presidents.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/11/donald-trump-impeachment-ex-president-founders-468769

A) Yes, you are right to point this out.
B) Trump could have been tried as a sitting President had McConnell not delayed the opportunity until after the 20th Jan.
C) The irony is that not only has Trump not conceded to Biden, thus suggesting HE thinks he is still President, but a QAnon theory argues he will be returned to office in March, so has not conceded for that reason. Thus-

"...as soon as Biden was inaugurated, a new conspiracy theory took hold. Trump will return as president in March, they falsely claim.The conspiracy theory is apparently rooted in the belief that an 1871 law turned the country into a corporation -- and any president elected after that is illegitimate.
The last president to be sworn in before that law passed was Ulysses S. Grant on March 4, 1869."
https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/on-eve-of-2nd-impeachment-qanon-supporters-believe-trump-to-retun-in-march

Plus this-
"Social media users have been sharing posts that make various claims related to the QAnon conspiracy theory, including that Martial Law and the Insurrection Act have been invoked; power has been transferred from outgoing President Trump to the military, not President Joe Biden; there have been mass arrests; Biden is not President; and Trump will come back to power on March 4th. There is no evidence to support any of these claims, linked to the widely debunked QAnon conspiracy theory."
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-qanon-military-theories-idUSKBN29R1ZA

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Not surprised at all that 57 Senators {50 Democrats 7 Republicans} voted to convict Donald Trump for the insurrection and domestic terrorist attack that took place at the US Capital on Wednesday January 6 2021,while the other 43 Republican Senators voted to acquit Trump of any wrongdoing despite the evidence against him,and gave him another free pass to do what he wants. and it also shows what the Republican Party has become over the last 4 years,a political party of conspiracy theorists,enablers,delusional and dangerous nutjobs and sympathizers who has allowed him to commit impeachable offenses and get away with them. and looked the other way and chose party over country,and don't care about the constitution and are solely responsible for creating the Demagouge And Malignant Narcissist. and right on cue Donald.D.A.M.N.Trump released a statement saying his movement has just begun. And i sure as hell don't want to hear from those enablers on why they voted to acquit him,or about being the being the party of law and order,because today they showed they're not what they say stand for. and also don't want to hear them calling for unity. because that train has already lefted the station when they chose to embrace conspiracy theories about election fraud .

[filghy2]

The message from the acquittal vote seems to be that a President can do anything they like in the final period of their term without adverse consequences. So why would a future unscrupulous President not try anything to overturn an election loss, regardless of the chances that it might succeed? Particularly when all they need to do to improve their chances is to make sure enough loyalists are installed in the right positions.

Even setting aside the issue of incitement, the failure to act after the storming of the Capitol should have been grounds enough for a guilty verdict, given the President's sworn oath is to protect the Constitution.

[filghy2]

It seems that, after toying with the idea of ditching Trump, Mitch McConnell decided to back down because he was afraid of losing his job as senate minority leader.
https://www.vox.com/22281591/trump-impeachment-trial-winners-losers-acquitted

[Stavros]

It seems that, after toying with the idea of ditching Trump, Mitch McConnell decided to back down because he was afraid of losing his job as senate minority leader.
https://www.vox.com/22281591/trump-impeachment-trial-winners-losers-acquitted

And as most probably now kn ow -those who have taken this Impeachment Trial seriously -McConnell's breathtaking hypocrisy was evident almost as soon as the vote ended -from an additional article in the link in filghy2's post above-

"On Saturday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a strong case for convicting former President Donald Trump of inciting insurrection — less than half an hour after voting to acquit Trump of inciting insurrection. "
https://www.vox.com/2021/2/13/22282034/mitch-mcconnells-speech-trump-acquittal-impeachment

The man has the temperament you need in a crisis...until you realise he helped create it. I think in political terms that is how a snake is defined. The reckoning for these men may come in 2022 mid-terms, but a lot now rests on how Trump himself begins to act, and in particular, how the court cases against him pan out over the next 2 years.

It is a pity there could not be more open questioning of the counsels on both sides, and indeed, questions posed by Counsels to Senators with the cameras showing who is speaking -I find it very odd how the TV presentation rarely shows what Senators are doing in their seats, in front of their kindergarden desks. What, one wonders, would Ted Cruz say if he was asked about the fate of Mike Pence on a day when he attempted to delay the Certification? Those enablers in the Senate -Cruz and Hawley in partcular, were let off by the House Managers, presumably because baiting indiviidual Senators is 'bad form'? Or risky, even though Cruz and Hawley were never going to convict anyway. But Graham, Grassley, McConnell and others ought to have been challenged directly about the manner in which Trump treated the VP on the day, and the public needed to see and hear their reactions.

I think the rules need to change so the Senate proceedings are more closely scrutinized visually, And the public can see their Senators nodding off, tweeting or reading papers when the trial is taking place. I much prefer the rough and tumble of the House of Commons, and after all the Speaker is there to impose order on the place.

[Laphroaig]

It seems that, after toying with the idea of ditching Trump, Mitch McConnell decided to back down because he was afraid of losing his job as senate minority leader.
https://www.vox.com/22281591/trump-impeachment-trial-winners-losers-acquitted

I'm still trying to get over how McConnell could vote not guilty THEN come out with this speech afterwards.

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1360701901990465543

[broncofan]

I'm still trying to get over how McConnell could vote not guilty THEN come out with this speech afterwards.

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1360701901990465543
I think Mitch wanted to assure people that while he may be corrupt, partisan trash he hasn't lost touch with reality.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

I'm still trying to get over how McConnell could vote not guilty THEN come out with this speech afterwards.

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1360701901990465543Because The King Of Enablers Mitch McConnell is trying too have it both ways.

[fred41]

It's interesting that the people who normally argue for originalism in interpreting the Constitution have chosen to ignore evidence that the Founding Fathers intended impeachment to apply to ex-presidents.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/11/donald-trump-impeachment-ex-president-founders-468769

BTW, thanks for posting this article. I’ve been reading about impeachment because even constitutional scholars argue about it. For myself though, this article is a game changer.

[filghy2]

I'm still trying to get over how McConnell could vote not guilty THEN come out with this speech afterwards.

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1360701901990465543

And if he really believed that Trump was responsible but that an ex-President cannot be impeached then why did he insist on delaying the trial?

There has been some discussion on whether the Democrats erred in not proceeding to call witnesses. The reasoning seems to have been that it would have made no difference so why risk holding up other priorities. This misses the point that, given conviction was never likely, the real point of impeachment was to bring home to the public the full extent of the conduct most Republicans chose to excuse. Not calling witnesses and having only a perfunctory trial makes it easier for Republicans to paper what they've done in the hope that people will move on.
https://newrepublic.com/article/161369/botched-democratic-effort-convict-donald-trump

[Stavros]

There has been some discussion on whether the Democrats erred in not proceeding to call witnesses.


One wonders if the House Managers would have called Mike Pence to give witness, given that his devotion of the concept of 'Servant Leadership' would probaby have resulted in him forgiving Trump his sins, or declining to give evidence because it would undermine his chosen status as servant to the President.

https://stonewoodgroup.medium.com/servant-leadership-the-pence-formula-53f9da4e0c5c

[filghy2]

It looks like Mitch McConnell is now on Trump's hate list anyway.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/16/trump-attacks-mcconnell-in-fiery-statement-469150

Why do these people never learn that loyalty is all one way with this guy? No matter how many favours you've done for him he won't forgive the time you go against him.

[Stavros]

It looks like Mitch McConnell is now on Trump's hate list anyway.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/16/trump-attacks-mcconnell-in-fiery-statement-469150

Why do these people never learn that loyalty is all one way with this guy? No matter how many favours you've done for him he won't forgive the time you go against him.

Becuase this is not politics, it is a cult. McConnell, however much you/we/they may loathe him, is a consummate politician, but Trump to his supporters is an idol, and just the other day, as I have heard before, one of his supporters on the radio said, 'Trump was appointed by God'. I often wonder what sort of God this is, as Trump is as far from godliness as you can get in American politics, and a lot of American society. So the party of Pat Toomey has criticised him for voting with his conscience when he should have been representing them, and they consider Trump to be right, and to be their leader. The more I think about it, the more I find the one person Trump resembles, is L. R. Hubbard, and we know what that led to. The other scary thing is that if Trump is God on earth, does that make Donald Trump Jr the 'Son of God'?