Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
Fri May 17, 2019, 11:29 AM May 2019

Regarding Impeachment

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. ….” – Amendment XVII to the Constitution.


I recently had a brief interaction with a forum member who insists that impeachment is a political process, rather than a legal action. As the person's posts posts verged on insults, I decided to address the topic in an essay here. I have no need to argue about this topic, much less to point out that that someone who believes differently may be ignorant of what the Founding Fathers inserted into the Constitution to protect against a corrupt federal official. Yet the fact that federal judges can be impeached – and indeed have been – should provide a hint that the process is intended to be a legal remedy.

Impeachment is a legal process. It is a civil rather than criminal trial. Indeed, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court hears the trial when it takes place in the Senate. This is obviously consistent with a legal procedure, as the Chief Justice has no official role in anything outside of issues of law.

This does not mean that “politics” might not infect impeachment. Only the most uninformed among us could think that “politics” has not infected both criminal and civil cases throughout our nation's history. For example, the infamous Mann Act was passed in 1912 as a means to prosecute heavyweight champion Jack Johnson, who was immediately charged and convicted of violating that law. Politics were deeply involved – as were sports – yet it was a legal process.

In the mid-1950s, the case Browder v Gayle was decided in federal court. It was a civil case. Yet politics were involved. This is but one of many legal cases dating from the Civil Rights era, where politics were influential in civil law cases. Yet, were one to argue that these were merely political cases, and not legal cases, we would know the person making such a claim did not have a clue as to what they were talking about.

In the 1960s, as older forum members will recall, there were numerous cases that reflected the infection of politics into legal matters. Muhammad Ali's draft case and the trial of the Chicago Seven are but two. Ali would win in the Supreme Court in the '70s, after a clerk had one Justice read “The Autobiography of Malcolm X.” Hence, it was a legal case about religious freedom.

Now, let's look a bit closer at impeachment in the context of a president, and why having at least a shallow grasp of Amendment 17 is important. But even before we go there, let's look at some important information found in Sean Wilentz's 2005 book, “The Rise of American Democracy.” It has to do with then tensions between being a republic versus a democracy.

Wilentz explains that in its infancy, the US was a republic, but “the republic was not democratic.” The word republic comes from the root “res publica” – “public thing” – meaning “to secure the common good through the ministrations of the most worthy, enlightened men.” The word democratic comes from the root “demos krateo,” meaning “rule of the people.” This was considered dangerous, because it gave the power to he “impassioned, unenlightened masses.” (page xvii)
Hence, in the context of impeachment, the civil case would be heard by the “worthy, enlightened men” of the US Senate. And the US Senators were not elected by the “impassioned, unenlightened masses” until Amendment 17 was passed (with a couple of minor exceptions just before it became the law of the land). Now, one common error is that many people believe that before the amendment, all US Senators were old, rich, white men from the exclusive ruling class. Yet not all were “old” – there were middle-aged rich white men in the Senate, as well.

As we know from reading Akil Reed Amar's 2005 book, “America's Constitution: A Biography,” the Founding Fathers provided the Congress “powers to 'try' and 'judge' sundary issues of law and fact” in cases of impeachment. (page 211) More, we know from the precise wording of the section of the Constitution that impeachment could involve criminal matters, as well as behaviors that do not reach that level. Laurence Tribe's recent book on impeachment documents that the number one concern of the Founding Fathers was that someone be elected president – likely an old, rich white man – who was compromised by financial entanglements with a foreign power that would influence his foreign policy.

The House of Representatives would serve as something similar to a grand jury and determine if the president should be impeached – akin to indicted – for things that include “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Hence, a person claiming that impeachment is indeed a political process could point out that those elected to the House by the “impassioned,unenlightened masses” were prone to act upon purely political motives. And, indeed, we can see today that republicans in both the House and Senate are trying their best to convince the “impassioned, unenlightened masses” that impeachment is exclusively a political issue.

In fact, this coordinated effort by the republican supporters of Trump can be best understood in the context of a “perception management campaign” – the issue I addressed in my last essay here. And this is how politics can infect the processes that define the rule of law in our modern society. Please do not fall for republican misinformation and disinformation talking points.

For the Founding Fathers determined that the cases of impeachment would be heard and ultimately decided by the US Senate – you remember those “most worthy, enlightened” rich white men who work for the “common good” – where mere “politics” would not be at play. These men were not elected by the “impassioned, unenlightened masses” that were at risk of confusing impeachment as a political process.

Amendment 17 was intended to make elections for the US Senate a democratic process. It was not intended to infect the rule of law with the corruption that would make impeachment a political, rather than legal, process. It was assumed that the Senate would behave in a manner that would secure and promote the “common good.”

Today, of course, we are witnessing a coordinated republican attempt to re-define impeachment, and reduce it to mere politics. We saw the insidious nature of putting politics into that process in the 1990s. We should not support or promote the republicans' effort by parroting their current line that the potential impeachment of Trump is only political. We need to hold this issue to a higher standard. A much higher standard, known as the rule of law.

Peace,
H2O Management

P.S. : Isn't it curious that the Tea Party (now known as the alt-right) is strongly opposed to Amendment 17? That, too, is rooted in gross ignorance, but of a slightly different nature.)

62 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Regarding Impeachment (Original Post) H2O Man May 2019 OP
Nice. Chin music May 2019 #1
Thank you! H2O Man May 2019 #11
K&R, Red Don has already shot someone on 5th avenue. We should go through the process but that .... uponit7771 May 2019 #2
Right. H2O Man May 2019 #12
+1, I've spent 30 years in IT. The level of penetration into our electoral systems is gob smacking uponit7771 May 2019 #13
Good post Poiuyt May 2019 #3
True StarfishSaver May 2019 #6
Rather than being responsive to the wishes of their constituency, I think that the House Poiuyt May 2019 #7
I don't think it's "being avoided for political reasons" StarfishSaver May 2019 #8
In civil law, H2O Man May 2019 #15
Some one in the House Leadership Wellstone ruled May 2019 #4
I agree 100%. H2O Man May 2019 #17
Thank you! StarfishSaver May 2019 #26
Understandable folks are Wellstone ruled May 2019 #28
Precisely! StarfishSaver May 2019 #29
This is intriguing coeur_de_lion May 2019 #53
DC Federal Judge is demanding Wellstone ruled May 2019 #62
I hope this is their strategy srobertss May 2019 #25
Most of my money is on McConnell eleny May 2019 #60
K&R... spanone May 2019 #5
Thank you! H2O Man May 2019 #31
I agree it is a legal process... kentuck May 2019 #9
+1, I do agree that we should go through the process and that process should be outlined to us uponit7771 May 2019 #16
Exactly. H2O Man May 2019 #32
We must use the power of impeachment now, before it is too late. JoeOtterbein May 2019 #10
Agreed. The waiting itself is getting more and more dangerous for the Rule Of Law. Lock him up. May 2019 #19
I agree. H2O Man May 2019 #33
Kick lunatica May 2019 #14
Right. H2O Man May 2019 #34
Great post. Use the impeachment process to bleed republican traitors into submission. Pepsidog May 2019 #18
Right. H2O Man May 2019 #35
In law school I learned very early on that almost anything can be interpreted or viewed from many Pepsidog May 2019 #44
You are so right StarfishSaver May 2019 #46
Right. H2O Man May 2019 #47
"The Constitution states that in these circumstances, Congress "shall" impeach the president." former9thward May 2019 #61
Check ypur Constitution again. bornskeptic May 2019 #52
We're not discussing the Constitution's impeachment language StarfishSaver May 2019 #54
The post I responded to made a claim about the Constitution's langusge. bornskeptic May 2019 #58
You're right StarfishSaver May 2019 #59
Thanks Bro malaise May 2019 #20
Thank you! H2O Man May 2019 #36
Thank you for another informative and enlightening essay Hekate May 2019 #21
Thanks, Hekate! H2O Man May 2019 #37
Here's the flaw in your argument... brooklynite May 2019 #22
In a way, it's similar to a grand jury. kentuck May 2019 #24
Respectfully disagree. H2O Man May 2019 #30
Impeachment is a legal process AND a political act Martin Eden May 2019 #23
I agree H2O Man May 2019 #40
Yes -- demand a higher level than politics Martin Eden May 2019 #45
Thank you, H2O Man gademocrat7 May 2019 #27
Thanks! H2O Man May 2019 #41
Auto rec for H2O Man JonLP24 May 2019 #38
Thank you! H2O Man May 2019 #42
Kick dalton99a May 2019 #39
Thanks! H2O Man May 2019 #43
What you wrote deserves permanent visibility. dalton99a May 2019 #49
Excellent... Ani Yun Wiya May 2019 #48
For many years, the Repub party has pushed the 'republic, not democracy' line Maeve May 2019 #50
Thank you. Firestorm49 May 2019 #51
GOP doing all it can to deflect most important thing: Trump-Russia TREASON Kid Berwyn May 2019 #55
Not prosecuting grievous offenses undermines the rule of law as much as the offenses do themselves Tom Rinaldo May 2019 #56
Do you remember during the 2016 campaign when the Con said malaise May 2019 #57

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
2. K&R, Red Don has already shot someone on 5th avenue. We should go through the process but that ....
Fri May 17, 2019, 11:44 AM
May 2019

... shouldn't be an excuse for not impeaching Benedict Donald.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
12. Right.
Fri May 17, 2019, 12:57 PM
May 2019

I ran into a good friend two days ago. He's been one of my closest friends for over 50 years, and we share similar values. He said that our generation is at risk of totally losing the Constitution if hearings on impeachment do not begin this summer.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
13. +1, I've spent 30 years in IT. The level of penetration into our electoral systems is gob smacking
Fri May 17, 2019, 01:02 PM
May 2019

... and saying "lets decided in 2020" is asking Americans to trust Ebola virus wont make as really sick.

It's ridiculous on its face ...

There's no reason to trust 2020 will be more free and fair than 2016 by thinking we can trust the guy who LITERALLY asked Russia for help the last time.

Poiuyt

(18,087 posts)
3. Good post
Fri May 17, 2019, 11:54 AM
May 2019

I think of impeachment in political terms in the sense that one does not necessarily need to break the law; there does not need to be an official criminal act before impeachment can proceed. The "high crimes and misdemeanors" tend to fall under the category of abuse of power rather than shooting someone on 5th Avenue.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
6. True
Fri May 17, 2019, 12:04 PM
May 2019

Impeachment is a political process because it is not a legal proceeding but is intended for the people, through their representatives, to have the power to remove a president during his term rather than wait for him to be voted or termed out in the next election.

It doesn't mean that the House should hold its collective finger up to the winds, but it does require (or aspires to require) that House Members be responsive to the wishes of their constituency.

Poiuyt

(18,087 posts)
7. Rather than being responsive to the wishes of their constituency, I think that the House
Fri May 17, 2019, 12:18 PM
May 2019

should only be concerned with abuses of the Constitution. In other words, impeachment should not be initiated for political reasons, nor should it be avoided for political reasons. And that's what's happening now.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
8. I don't think it's "being avoided for political reasons"
Fri May 17, 2019, 12:30 PM
May 2019

That's a common trope being thrown around by the media and certain Pelosi detractors online. But no one can point to any instance in which Pelosi has said she's avoiding impeachment for political reasons.

That said, while impeachment shouldn't be (and isn't being) initiated or avoided for political reasons, political considerations MUST be part of the larger equation since they have an effect on the process and outcome. For example, in this instance, the state of politics makes it virtually impossible for Trump to be removed through impeachment, so if his removal is the goal, impeachment in this political climate is a non-starter. It is unlikely to happen. However, it is MORE likely to happen if the right groundwork is laid in advance so that such a volume of evidence is developed that it could possibly (and only possibly) convince a critical mass of Republican senators to convict. At this point, the calculation is that it will be much more effective to start building this case outside of the impeachment process since, once an impeachment inquiry opens, the political ground will shift and it will be very difficult for the Judiciary Committee to gather all of the evidence that the separate committees can do and are doing now. It will also give Trump one enemy to target all of his fire toward and one adversary to respond to, which will be easier for him than having to deal with several separate and independent committees working together.

This also is true if the goal is something else - not to remove but to either ensure he is defeated next year or, it make a statement and uphold the rule of law.

The House isn't avoiding impeachment for political reasons. It's not avoiding impeachment at all. It is simply lining everything up to make sure impeachment can effectively achieve our goals, regardless how the political winds may shift.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
15. In civil law,
Fri May 17, 2019, 01:02 PM
May 2019

one does not have to break a criminal law. There are other behaviors that can be tried. Some of these can include behaviors that approach the line of being criminal, including abuse of power when it comes to a president. Some abuses include a corrupt intent when exercising powers that are otherwise lawful. Also, one of the articles drawn up for Nixon was lying to the public, which isn't illegal.

Beware of those who try to say "but it's still political," even when one can see here that it definitely is not. They are everywhere.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
4. Some one in the House Leadership
Fri May 17, 2019, 11:58 AM
May 2019

knew of a massive explosive story was about to blow Trump out of the water and has been slow walking Impeachment Hearings until this story is out. Watch May 31,2019 and Judge Sullivan in the DC Circuit.


Flynn is just the tip of the berg.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
17. I agree 100%.
Fri May 17, 2019, 01:09 PM
May 2019

It's not just former federal prosecutors who know the deal. Thank you, Judge Emmet Sullivan.

"Process" is so important. I find it fascinating, but recognize that not everyone does. There is understandable frustration that the process isn't moving faster. But it wasn't intended to do so.

It is essential that the Democrats in the House have things on record. What is on record allows them to move forward. A wonderful example of this was when AOC questioned Michael Cohen about Trump's financial records, and possible corruption there. This sets up what is needed to further investigate thatavenue.

There is a lot -- a hell of a lot -- that is known in DC, including among the House leadership, that is still beneath the surface that the public can see. But not for long.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
28. Understandable folks are
Fri May 17, 2019, 03:06 PM
May 2019

anxious,get the treatment dozens of times a day. Ms.Speaker has kept her promise despite what the Chattering Class is yelling. We Legislate,getting the Republicans on record with their votes first,and this will be our Campaign Talking points. And btw,we are gathering the evidence we need to Impeach if that is the will of Congress.

Nadler,Schiff,and Waters will drop the Money per Day on these Contempt items at the right time.



coeur_de_lion

(3,666 posts)
53. This is intriguing
Sat May 18, 2019, 11:10 AM
May 2019

Last edited Sat May 18, 2019, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Why do you think 5/31 will be so important? Something huge released by Flood? Like what?

And, *who* is slow walking the impeachment process?

srobertss

(261 posts)
25. I hope this is their strategy
Fri May 17, 2019, 02:11 PM
May 2019

I’m hoping that they are deliberately letting out leaks that they really don’t want to impeach. They just don’t think it would be productive, that they don’t think it’s what the public wants, that it’s too decisive. But then, lo and behold, there is so much stuff out there that they are “forced” to do it. That would be a great strategy if so.

But I get nervous every time I read that they aren’t on board with impeachment, just policy. Policy that is DOA in the Senate.

Bottom line, it’s extremely nerve wracking. I have to keep reassuring myself.

eleny

(46,166 posts)
60. Most of my money is on McConnell
Sat May 18, 2019, 07:16 PM
May 2019

Nunes is surely in the picture but he's not a mastermind. For that I believe we have to go higher and McC could be the guy. He's knee deep in accepting Russian money for the R Party.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
9. I agree it is a legal process...
Fri May 17, 2019, 12:42 PM
May 2019

...to punish for high crimes and misdemeanors.

However, it is possible, as the Republicans did with Bill Clinton, to impeach for mostly political reasons. But that was not the intent of the Framers, in my opinion.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
16. +1, I do agree that we should go through the process and that process should be outlined to us
Fri May 17, 2019, 01:04 PM
May 2019

... so we know what the heck it looks like.

Right now we have online posters and punditry on what to expect and what the process looks like.

I would like to hear something from dem leadership on what this process looks like, a road map ... flow chart ... something.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
32. Exactly.
Fri May 17, 2019, 04:03 PM
May 2019

I know a lot of people who work in the family court system. Lawyers and judges. Not a single one expects that people will be 100% honest and accurate in those cases, because those involved tend to be highly emotional and subjective in their testimony. There are, of course, exceptions. Vincent Bugliosi noted in one of his books, when discussing the Clinton episode, that no one is ever charged criminally if they lie in a legal procedure about a blow job. It just doesn't happen.

The republicans that attacked President Clinton did it for entirely political purposes, in an attempt to gain in power by damaging Clinton. That is the best modern example of politics infecting the legal system. It had nothing to do with what the Founding Fathers intended with impeachment. More, we hear republican pundits attempting to trick the public into believing there is no difference between impeaching for a blow job, and impeaching the orange dick-dripping who is as corrupt as any politician in our history.

JoeOtterbein

(7,697 posts)
10. We must use the power of impeachment now, before it is too late.
Fri May 17, 2019, 12:52 PM
May 2019

The time is ripe to strike because the POTUS is calling us treasonous already. Time to damn the torpedoes and go full force impeachment before they rig 2020.

Lock him up.

(6,874 posts)
19. Agreed. The waiting itself is getting more and more dangerous for the Rule Of Law.
Fri May 17, 2019, 01:15 PM
May 2019

What else is still currently hidden in the Mueller report?

What is hidden in his tax returns?

Where's the missing $40M?

It's obvious he is a mob boss!

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
33. I agree.
Fri May 17, 2019, 05:41 PM
May 2019

I expect that the beginning of hearings to consider if "official" impeachment hearings will happen is going to be part of the legal cases filed very soon.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
14. Kick
Fri May 17, 2019, 01:02 PM
May 2019

Last edited Fri May 17, 2019, 02:07 PM - Edit history (2)

The Republicans impeached Clinton for lying. It wasn’t because he had an affair, or because he broke any law which, by the way, never existed. That was supposedly his ‘crime’. I remember it so well. The saccharine mewling of Republicans, especially Senator Henry Hyde, who later excused his own extramarital sex when he was in his forties as “youthful indiscretion”. He endlessly repeated the daily talking point that they were protecting the children from the knowledge of salacious sex. Daily we heard, “What do we tell the children!?” in the Republican’s determination to keep the subject alive and in the public eye and discourse. When that wore thin and didn’t get the traction they aimed for they switched their justification to needing to impeach him for lying. Any attempt for us to make the mountain back into a molehill failed miserably. They managed their message so well that even today they are using it to diminish Trump’s crimes.

They’re doing their best to reduce his crimes into appearing to be a political attempt to take power away from the Republicans. Trump is no more than a pawn in their arsenal who they want to stay in power because he’s the best thing that ever happened to them in terms of their personal wealth and the fast-tracking of their agenda to rule rather than represent.

I strongly suspect that the recent passage of the monstrous anti abortion laws are an effective distraction so we get side tracked by forcing us to deal with some real and serious issues instead of consolidating our power to impeach Trump. Before anything dismisses this idea it helps to understand that Republicans act as one when it comes to their agenda. It doesn’t matter if Republicans are elected to the State or Federal level. They all get their daily talking points which they spread throughout the land using the exact same words and punctuation. During the Clinton years, before email they probably got their talking points via fax machines. Everyone who pays attention can easily see the self evident truth in the effectiveness of the ad nauseam repetition of Republican messaging. They know the new anti abortion law is un-Constitutional and will probably get struck down, but it is meant to force us to fight it, just like we fight the child separation at the border, because both are crimes against humanity which we cannot allow.

The Republican tactics are quite deliberate. There should be a word or a phrase that captures the concept of their power tactics, because the effect is like a tsunami which we cannot sidestep, battle against or ignore no matter how clearly we perceive their tactics.


H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
34. Right.
Fri May 17, 2019, 05:53 PM
May 2019

In post #32, I had expanded on the republican attack on President Clinton, and explained that the legal system generally does not go after those who lie about affairs in the manner Clinton did. As Vincent Bugliosi noted in one of his books, it's not really considered "material." But I should have been more specific in the OP.

Your second point is also right on target. As long as they are being enriched by the Trump administration and republicans in Congress, the majority of the "economic elite" doesn't care about the Constitution.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
35. Right.
Fri May 17, 2019, 09:49 PM
May 2019

We know that because the law says the IRS "shall" turn over tax records to the House committee chair requesting the, it doesn't mean "might" or "should consider." It expressies an inevitable.

The Constitution states that in these circumstances, Congress "shall" impeach the president. The word carries the exact same meaning here.

Pepsidog

(6,252 posts)
44. In law school I learned very early on that almost anything can be interpreted or viewed from many
Fri May 17, 2019, 10:05 PM
May 2019

Last edited Sat May 18, 2019, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)

different perspectives. That’s what lawyers do and when necessary try and bend the law to fit their clients factual situation or, on occasion, try and set new precedents. However, the one of the very few indisputable, written in stone things we learn is that “shall”means “must”, not “maybe” but “must”. Practicing for over 30 years as a trial attorney, I am not intimidated by many things in court. However, a sitting Federal judge issuing a court order is not someone or something to be trifled with especially when the law says “shall”. Barr and the DOJ defy the federal judiciary at their own peril. I have gone toe to toe with federal judges but only when I had a legally reasonable argument. Trump’s lawyers should be ashamed of themselves making the absurd arguments they did and should be hauled in front of the ethics committee for lying about not having knowledge of the law as it applied to Clinton and Nixon and congressional oversight of the executive branch.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
47. Right.
Sat May 18, 2019, 07:06 AM
May 2019

For anyone who hasn't heard or read about Trump's lawyer making a fool of himself when Judge Mehta questioned him, here is a link:

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/05/14/judge-grills-trump-lawyer-in-house-subpoena-fight-for-financial-docs/?slreturn=20190418065618

Curious that the Trump lawyer is saying, word for word, what the White House Counsel is saying about Congress's role. One might think it's a coordinated effort.

I had, when Barr first started his nonsense, told an associate that I wondered if he was purposely taking positions that he knew would not stand up in court.

former9thward

(31,802 posts)
61. "The Constitution states that in these circumstances, Congress "shall" impeach the president."
Sat May 18, 2019, 07:37 PM
May 2019

Please cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that says this. That is what the poster said that you were agreeing with. Where is it?

bornskeptic

(1,330 posts)
52. Check ypur Constitution again.
Sat May 18, 2019, 10:15 AM
May 2019

Nowhere does it state that Congress "shall" impeach the president or any other official. It says that the House "shall" have the sole power of impeachment. A power is not a duty. It says that the Senate "shall" have the power to try impeachments and that an official who is impeached and convicted "shall" be removed from office. There is nothing about an obligation to impeach.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
54. We're not discussing the Constitution's impeachment language
Sat May 18, 2019, 11:30 AM
May 2019

We're discussing the language of US Code Section 26 USC 6103(f)(1)) that states the Treasury Secretary "SHALL" furnish tax returns upon written request from the Chairman of tHouse Ways and Means (and certain other committees).

bornskeptic

(1,330 posts)
58. The post I responded to made a claim about the Constitution's langusge.
Sat May 18, 2019, 03:53 PM
May 2019

You are free to discuss whatever you wish. I have no disagreement with regard to the request for tax returns.

Hekate

(90,189 posts)
21. Thank you for another informative and enlightening essay
Fri May 17, 2019, 01:28 PM
May 2019

Just when I am once again about to give up on this contentious place, another essay by H2O Man pops up. Thanks.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
37. Thanks, Hekate!
Fri May 17, 2019, 09:53 PM
May 2019

You better not "give up on this contentious place"!!! You provide much-needed calm and rational thinking here.

brooklynite

(93,853 posts)
22. Here's the flaw in your argument...
Fri May 17, 2019, 01:32 PM
May 2019
Impeachment is a legal process. It is a civil rather than criminal trial


I'll accept that; however, the difference between civil and criminal trials is that civil trials don't HAVE to be brought, and there's very little value (and in fact great risk) in bringing them forward without a likelihood of a successful outcome (yes criminal cases are brought at the discretion of the prosecutor, but there's an understanding that charges WILL be brought if there's sufficient evidence).

Ultimately, Impeachment is an optional step and if the political situation is not likely to result in a conviction, the smart move is not to start the process.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
24. In a way, it's similar to a grand jury.
Fri May 17, 2019, 02:00 PM
May 2019

The Senate is the real jury.

But if there are "high crimes and misdemeanors", an impeachment would be like an indictment.

However, unless there is a crime, an impeachment might be considered "political".

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
30. Respectfully disagree.
Fri May 17, 2019, 03:53 PM
May 2019

I hear what you are saying, and appreciate that you are a great example of someone on this forum who can disagree while engaging in a meaningful discussion, rather than reacting harshly to any difference of opinion.

However, if we take just the first part of your position -- that part about unlikely-to-win civil cases .... I'd suggest that frivolous suits are attempted for a variety of reasons, all too frequently. In fact, that is a tactic that Trump has used for decades, as a result of his relationship with old Roy. I think we agree that Trump will use any tactic to try to cover his tracks. Lately, he's filed nonsense to try to avoid having his financial records released. You know why, if my memory serves me correctly.

Martin Eden

(12,803 posts)
23. Impeachment is a legal process AND a political act
Fri May 17, 2019, 01:54 PM
May 2019

Given that the process of impeachment is defined in our nation's primary legal document (the US Constitution) and that conviction in the Senate results in removal from office by the proper authority, it is without a doubt a legal process.

However, I must note that unlike laws in the criminal code (such as arresting and indicting a robber or murderer) the decision to impeach requires the political will to do so. Acknowledging that politics can impact justice in the criminal code (examples: whites could get away with murdering blacks in the Jim Crow south, and corporate fat cats can rip off the public with impunity today) fundamental differences remain between trial and punishment in a court of law and a trial in the Senate for "high crimes and misdemeanors" (which are not as specifically defined as criminal statutes and rules of evidence which have undergone centuries of appeals, precedents, and decisions by the judiciary). The evidence can be overwhelming that a president has committed "high crimes" but nothing compels the House to indict or the Senate to convict beyond their own personal conscience and political calculations. There is no appeal to another authority regarding indictment or to a higher court when the verdict or process is in violation of established law and precedent.

Having said all that, I think the most compelling reason for impeachment is the duty of our elected representatives to remove from office a president (or other official) whose actions and behavior clearly meet the impeachable offenses intended by the authors of our Constitution.

My primary argument against fellow Democrats who advise against impeaching this POtuS is that their arguments are based purely on political calculation.

Needless to say, current Republican efforts are entirely political.

And, as always, I very much appreciate the quality of discussion you bring to this online community, H2O Man.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
40. I agree
Fri May 17, 2019, 10:01 PM
May 2019

with every word that you said here....at least in the first five paragraphs. And I appreciate the last one! Thank you for that.

It's important that citizens demand that both the House and Senate approach this at a higher level than politics. It's much more important than an "us versus them" in domestic politics. It's about the United States, the Constitution and rule of law, and the US's position in the world community.

Martin Eden

(12,803 posts)
45. Yes -- demand a higher level than politics
Fri May 17, 2019, 11:00 PM
May 2019

It is a given that the Democratic Party will be criticized politically on the impeachment issue whatever course it takes.

Failure to pursue impeachment will be derided on the left as spineless surrender, and Republicans will decry pure partisanship if the House moves to impeach.

When you're dammed if you do and damned if you don't, the choice should be clear:

Do the right thing.

Gather evidence, establish the truth, and do your Constitutional duty as our nation's Founders intended.

Good citizens will see that for what it is.

And in the long run, it is the best kind of politics.

Ani Yun Wiya

(797 posts)
48. Excellent...
Sat May 18, 2019, 09:03 AM
May 2019

One of the best posts that I have seen on this matter, thank you sir.
It was just a few hours ago that I considered that the Republican party was attempting to nullify this process by any means.

Maeve

(42,224 posts)
50. For many years, the Repub party has pushed the 'republic, not democracy' line
Sat May 18, 2019, 09:56 AM
May 2019

To denigrate "the masses" (and the Democratic Party)---at least, as long as they saw "the masses" as being against them. And so they have tried to restrict voting rights and limit the power of the people to affect policy. And yet, they still want to use the power of under-informed voters....sigh.

BTW--loved this bit:

Now, one common error is that many people believe that before the amendment, all US Senators were old, rich, white men from the exclusive ruling class. Yet not all were “old” – there were middle-aged rich white men in the Senate, as well.


Bookmarked to read again.

Kid Berwyn

(14,651 posts)
55. GOP doing all it can to deflect most important thing: Trump-Russia TREASON
Sat May 18, 2019, 11:32 AM
May 2019

Bankrupt Unstable Moron takes his orders from Putin.

Laurence Tribe put it well on MSNBC: “Trump is willing to talk to Putin about Mueller, but not to Mueller about Putin. What kind of president has that kind of disloyalty to the United States?”

For some reason that only Mueller and only Barr seem to know, that part of the story gets less attention than it should.

Once the facts are made generally known, as should be the case in a House trial, “your favorite president*” would soon see his favorability rating reach single digits.

————

*Not yours and not mine - Drumpf’s words.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
56. Not prosecuting grievous offenses undermines the rule of law as much as the offenses do themselves
Sat May 18, 2019, 11:34 AM
May 2019

It injects "selective enforcement" into the equation. Impeachment is the legal remedy for a presidency like Trump's. We do damage to the constitution to view this option as a political one, and to weigh it accordingly.

malaise

(267,813 posts)
57. Do you remember during the 2016 campaign when the Con said
Sat May 18, 2019, 11:39 AM
May 2019

that not one Muslim was a great athlete?

i still laugh at his ignorance.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Regarding Impeachment