Trump Thread

[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.