Straight Dope Message Board

[Lord Feldon]

double post 151

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by RioRico

IANAL but my take is: Tramp's UN Secretary and Putin's Defense Minister, both cabinet officers respectively, both declared that Russia is waging war on the US. The treason clause: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Team Tramp giving aid and comfort to Russia sure looks to me like treason, QED.

QED? You haven't made an argument about the standard of proof here, you assumed that the elements of treason were met (that Russia is an enemy for the purposes of the treason clause; that "Team Tramp" gave aid and comfort to Russia) and then concluded that the President committed treason.

~Max 152

[RioRico]

Originally Posted by Max S.

QED? You haven't made an argument about the standard of proof here, you assumed that the elements of treason were met (that Russia is an enemy for the purposes of the treason clause; that "Team Tramp" gave aid and comfort to Russia) and then concluded that the President committed treason.

As I've said, the Senate trial is political, not criminal; thus no "standard of proof" exists.

Each senator will calculate what will serve their own interests best. Do they bend to the fury of the inflamed GOP base rather than risk political suicide? Do they fear a future Dem president will pull the same shit if they set Tramp free? Do they think acquitting Tramp will lead to a straight dictatorship with themselves safely empowered?

"Proof" is irrelevant. Power matters. 153

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by RioRico

As I've said, the Senate trial is political, not criminal; thus no "standard of proof" exists.

Each senator will calculate what will serve their own interests best. Do they bend to the fury of the inflamed GOP base rather than risk political suicide? Do they fear a future Dem president will pull the same shit if they set Tramp free? Do they think acquitting Tramp will lead to a straight dictatorship with themselves safely empowered?

"Proof" is irrelevant. Power matters.

Do you see what I'm trying to ask here? You haven't actually taken a position on the question, you haven't even arrived at the question yet.

I can accept your views, just as I did with JohnT at the beginning of the thread. I understand that. The Senate will do what they want to do isn't what I'm looking for, and neither is pushing the decision back to the people they represent or the political system they live in. I can craft a hypothetical to try and tease out a substantive answer but, as you know, that involves imagining a neutral Senator which is detached from reality.

If you want to continue this discussion, pretend you are an individual Senator. The official rule is that each Senator decides his or her own standard of proof. Your constituents don't really care one way or the other how you vote, or they are split even, and split even within each party, too. The rest of Congress either doesn't care how you vote, or is split even both across party lines and within each party. You don't really have any overriding interest that puts you one way or another.

Let's say the charge is bribery. What is the threshold for evidence, beyond which you are persuaded that the President took a bribe?

Let's say the charge is treason. What is the threshold for evidence, beyond which you are persuaded that the President committed treason?

Let's say the charge is abuse of power (assuming the charge is a high crime or misdemeanor). What is the threshold for evidence, beyond which you are persuaded that the President abused his powers?

~Max 154

[RioRico]

You're asking which of Santa's reindeer I think should be first to land on my roof. I'll take Blitzen.

I mentioned my fantasy standards 'way upthread but I forget the details so I'll go with the nausea standard. Honorable, conscientious senators are presented with documents, recordings, and testimony that sicken them, disgust them so much at how Tramp has befouled the office and betrayed our nation that he MUST be removed. He'll be acquitted if nobody vomits. 155

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by RioRico

You're asking which of Santa's reindeer I think should be first to land on my roof. I'll take Blitzen.

I mentioned my fantasy standards 'way upthread but I forget the details so I'll go with the nausea standard. Honorable, conscientious senators are presented with documents, recordings, and testimony that sicken them, disgust them so much at how Tramp has befouled the office and betrayed our nation that he MUST be removed. He'll be acquitted if nobody vomits.

I think you skipped a step. If I showed you a paper showing some sick and disgusting JFK conspiracy, and described such details as would literally make you vomit, I think that meets your nausea standard. But I don't think you would be persuaded that my conspiracy theory is true, or is a valid basis for making a vote on anything except to remove me and my theory from your presence.

~Max 156

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Max S.

Let's say the charge is bribery. What is the threshold for evidence, beyond which you are persuaded that the President took a bribe?

Let's say the charge is treason. What is the threshold for evidence, beyond which you are persuaded that the President committed treason?

Let's say the charge is abuse of power (assuming the charge is a high crime or misdemeanor). What is the threshold for evidence, beyond which you are persuaded that the President abused his powers?

The same standard I use to decide whether I support a bill, a nomination, or whatever. The idea of a standard of proof doesn’t really come into it, because the vote is based on my best judgment, period. 157