Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

From the cautious perspective, Frank Bowman* above sees the Arpaio pardon (because of its nature, timing, and the way it was processed he argues it the most abusive POTUS pardon in history) as the "first verifiable impeachable offense". Also, precedent shows it is understood that a President acting from legitimate authority will not by that fact alone be acting unimpeachably (nor is it OK because "I'm the President"). The second he lists is related to Trump's (most?) recent flub, apparently "Mr. Trump’s efforts to induce federal law enforcement agencies to investigate his political enemies". If these are the most direct and discrete alleged (non-criminal) offenses in a legal construction, maybe we can focus our attention on them: are the charges correct on their face? Are they impeachable? Should any impeachment process ride on these alone?

For the rest you remain convinced an electoral remedy must be the appropriate one. You point to the historicity or prior manifestation of some of the charges, or in another form, but of course this raises the questions of, 'were indeed those instances (not) impeachable?' and 'have Trump administration analogs been more egregious, pernicious, or frequent?'

Part of the matter clearly has to do with different views of the necessary application or frequency of impeachment in politics, which we see the Founders were also divided on. That could be a subject for another thread: impeachment, what is it good for? It's a separate question from that of what can be argued in the existing framework.

The partisanship of the Clinton impeachment was demonstrated by the fact that they could find no other distinct charges to levy, and I'd be willing to own that some appropriate ones should have been conceivable under an expansive application of the impeachment power. The GOP Congress appeared more interested in posturing than genuinely removing a sitting President who had to be removed. If all this was impeachable conduct on Clinton's part, then it behooves the Congress to create a comprehensive case and not impeach on the basis of that single breach and fallout.

Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote)[18] and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote).[19] Two other articles of impeachment failed – a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote)[20] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote)

On the other hand, if impeachment were more institutionally frequent it would in turn be more damaging for the party or the Congress to 'come at the king' in a non-serious way - negating one avenue of partisan abuse...


*Your writing styles are similar enough to be in the same family, but you're not a lawyer. What's up with that?

Absent that direct participation, which would have given Putin leverage over him and met this Madisonian provision, I do not see anything impeachable here -- only evidence that calls into question the quality of the campaigns leadership staff. I note, however, that evidence that does meet this standard may exist. If that is found to be the case, it would rise to the level of impeachability in my eyes.

We probably only get that once Mueller is offering his conclusions and recommendations. Meanwhile, the circumstantial evidence keeps piling up.

For instance, the whole new development with Trump Jr. receiving and responding to Twitter PMs from Wikileaks (who were apparently very interested in maintaining a public appearance of impartiality) - deniability is there for the father, right?

Yet there are a number of tweets Big Trump sent that in timing and content seem awfully, coincidentally, directly prompted by the Wikileaks messages...

It looks especially bad given that elements or allies of the campaign were discussing the leaked emails among each other and with Wikileaks long before they were actually leaked. Increasingly the only deniability may lie in a defense centered on Trump's mental incapacity and susceptibility to manipulation (in which case none of the past few years' events should have been allowed to happen.)

If any element of culpable collusion is demonstrated, in combination with a history of financial crimes, the ideal punishment would be to strip all offenders of American citizenship and expropriate their assets. The first at least won't happen, since aside from whether it's even available as a punishment in the legal system it would surely violate international laws to make a citizen a stateless person (i.e. refugee) without their consent.* On the second, New York City could desperately use new public housing...


*This consideration wouldn't apply to those with dual citizenship or more

[Seamus Fermanagh]

From the cautious perspective, Frank Bowman* above sees the Arpaio pardon (because of its nature, timing, and the way it was processed he argues it the most abusive POTUS pardon in history) as the "first verifiable impeachable offense". Also, precedent shows it is understood that a President acting from legitimate authority will not by that fact alone be acting unimpeachably (nor is it OK because "I'm the President"). The second he lists is related to Trump's (most?) recent flub, apparently "Mr. Trump’s efforts to induce federal law enforcement agencies to investigate his political enemies". If these are the most direct and discrete alleged (non-criminal) offenses in a legal construction, maybe we can focus our attention on them: are the charges correct on their face? Are they impeachable? Should any impeachment process ride on these alone?

Again, Presidential pardons have been granted to people who were at divers stages in the judicial process and who were easily as motivated politically in character. Is this an abuse of the public trust at least to some extent? Yes. Does it rise to the impeachable? Probably not. The President can direct those agencies to begin an investigation -- they are functionaries of the branch of government he directs. He cannot dictate the results of that investigation. If clearly gratuitous in character, it would be actionable by the person investigated and they could claim redress of grievances. A bit tacky, short-sighted, and petty by Trump? Absolutely. Does it rise to the impeachable? Probably not. I suspect it would take a prolonged pattern of this type of misuse to clearly demonstrate a breach of trust rising to the level of impeachment. Of course, given a guy who behaves this pettily in the public forum, I cannot rule out the possibility.

*Your writing styles are similar enough to be in the same family, but you're not a lawyer. What's up with that?

I'm an academic. You get used to writing stuff that you KNOW your peers are going to examine for any flaw or uncovered sub-point. Leads to a very controlled writing style in arguing. I suspect any similarity in style comes of this.

We probably only get that once Mueller is offering his conclusions and recommendations. Meanwhile, the circumstantial evidence keeps piling up.

I am deeply distrustful of the bits and pieces leaked to the media and rabidly reported and re-reported. Most players in the Washington game, including special prosecutors, attempt to play the media to enhance leverage. The media, meanwhile, follows THEIR agenda, which is to highlight any and all possible conflicts because that is "sexy," garners ratings, and begets advertising dollars. Coupled with the fact that the clear majority of them are, personally, political liberals (USA def), and the small but persistent potential for subconscious bias against conservatism,* and you have quite a bit of potential for distortion and "trial by media" that isn't well grounded in fact. I strongly prefer to wait for the presentation of much more corroborated evidence.

*Too many USA conservatives react to this as though the bias in the media is a product of some kind of liberal cabal that is steering the agenda toward their "radiant future." This is rather silly and assumes a level of collusion that is every bit as "tinfoil hat" in quality as a number of the more thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories. Any bias is subtle, and unplanned, the result of assumptions and deeply held values that influence your thinking on a level so basic that they are rarely consciously considered. This kind of bias is almost unavoidable and is an inevitable part of qualitative research. I wish they'd acknowledge the possibility more clearly, and like the anthropologists in academe make a concerted effort to account for it in their analyses, but, I fear, that's a bit too much to ask of such deadline-driven folks.

[Montmorency]

As an aside, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness says:

Contracting States shall not deprive people of their nationality so as to render them stateless. (Exceptions: where otherwise provided in the Convention; where nationality has been acquired by misrepresentation or fraud; disloyalty to the Contracting State).

And the US doesn't seem to be signatory anyway, so full steam ahead.

[Fragony]

Totally irrelevant for the discussion but it's simply true, Kim Ju On may have scored a hole in one the first time he played golf, and MAYBE@Y he could drive a when he was 3 years old but the latter part is questionable because he IS short and fat. It's probably not true that he could drive a car when he was 3 years old, his legs wouldn't be long enough to press the pedals, wth? Trump is a visionary

[Beskar]

MAYBE@Y he could drive a when he was 3 years old but the latter part is questionable because he IS short and fat. It's probably not true that he could drive a car when he was 3 years old, his legs wouldn't be long enough to press the pedals, wth?

[Fragony]

Still doesn't fit

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Facts:

Functional dictator and son of same.
Both following the Stalinist "cult of personality" playbook.

So:

Incredibly young driving skills suffices as his Bucephalus story.

Hole-in-one suffices as his Cuchulainn "first time hurling" story.


The Great Leader must evince great signs when young. These signs of greatness mark him as different -- a somehow superior -- being and thus justify the singular position, treatment, and power he now wields.

So these are not unimportant....'facts.'