The only difference is, is that those people are paid to have opinions, and the more interesting or controversial their opinion, the more eyes it gets, and the more fame and fortune they get. Telling people what they want to hear is a great way to get people to listen.
That I am aware of, no one is paying Bricker, so while that doesn’t necessarily make him right, it does remove one possible motivation for misleading his readers.
Oh, but conservatives used “commie” all the time from the 50s through the 70s to describe liberals. Now their torch leader Trump is openly consorting with the Russians, so as a Trump supporter, you must bear the burdens of his business dealings, just like the way Crooked Hillary gave them our uranium plants. Hillary’s Russian ties are indirect and debatable, but there’s your leader, kicking red-blooded Americans out of the Oval Office so he can consort with his Rusky commie pals. He’s not even attempting to cover his actions like you’ve been accusing Hillary of doing. All he can do is squawl about leaks. It’s right there in your face, Comrade.
What’s that biting your ass? Why, it’s the same accusations you made to the liberals. Karma is a bee-yotch!
I don’t think so. Perhaps you read it wrong?
But what he’s saying is that if we assume a crime must have been committed, then blah blah blah. Once you say “anything goes…”, then there isn’t much to discuss, is there? You can discuss whether or not there is the political will, but I think given the current make-up of Congress it’s reasonable to assume that the political will won’t be there absent an actual crime.
I had no idea the US was so far ahead when it comes to renewable energy.
Confused In Baja Canada writes:
What is the Supreme’s power regarding the process of impeachment? Are you suggesting that an otherwise effective impeachment might be overruled by a five to four decision by them?
But does Mr. Tribe have SDSAB under his name?
I rest my case.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s absolutely legally possible. As I’ve noted many times, Congress’ decision to impeach is unreviewable. The President cannot go to the Supreme Court and complain that Congress’ “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not sufficient.
I have argued here and in other threads that as a matter of political reality, Congress needs to supply a crime in order to impeach.
So when we discuss political reality, we discuss situations in which the farther afield the hypothetical situations get, the less connected to political reality we become. This is in sharp contrast to legal hypotheticals, which delight in ideas like snipers who shoot a man who’s jumped off the Empire State Building as he’s falling, and octogenarians whose lady parts must be presumed fertile when calculating when a future interest in property will vest.
So (in my opinion only, as a matter of political reality) Trump would have to either commit an unambiguous crime, or an act so outrageous that even those who support him in the public would be repulsed. I’m not sure the attack on North Korea would qualify, but that’s mostly because it’s not politically realistic to imagine Trump literally saying, “I ordered the strike because he insulted my hair.”
Don’t get me wrong: it’s very easy for me to imagine Trump doing exactly that, but not for me to imagine him admitting it.
So as long as Trump had a cover story that the public who supports him buys, and as long as the act isn’t a crime, I don’t see the political will to impeach him.
[Moderating]
Don’t call other posters motherfuckers.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Correct.
The courts have been clear that this is a political question, not justiciable. Congress can legally impeach the President for wearing white after Labor Day.
There would never be the political willto do that, in my view, but LEGALLY, there are no constraints except what a majority of the House thinks.
John Mace:
The constitution is clear that the occasions on which the impeachment power can be used are treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Assuming articles of impeachment that do not mention either of the well-defined first two, there could very well be room for Judicial interpretation to clarify the definition of one or both of the latter two. Certainly the Congress would feel they’re on more solid ground if the article contains an actual, on-the-books crime.
Bricker:
Why not? What says that Congress gets to define “High crime” or “misdemeanor”?
Well, the decision point isn’t whether a crime was committed, it’s whether impeachment proceedings will succeed. If Hillary’s email problems taught us anything it’s that appearance of criminality is more important than technical legality. That happened pretty recently, surprised Bricker forgot about it already.
The Constitution itself:
A unanimous Supreme Court explained that the courts are simply without authority to review questions about impeachment standards or proceedings. In US v Nixon (not Nixon the President, but Nixon the impeached judge):
Bricker, I am well aware that the word “sole” is used in regard to the impeachment powers of the Houses of Congress. However, it would seem to me that the power of impeachment can only apply within the Constitutionally-defined grounds for impeachment. If Congress has unlimited power to decide what is an impeachable offense, what purpose does the “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” clause serve?
I just went ahead and read the actual decision, and I don’t see that it says that the “sole” clause applies to determining whether an impeachment is valid in the first place. It seems to say that, given a valid impeachment (which could very well be subject to a basis of TB or HC&M clause in Article II Section 4), no other branch of the government has a right to interfere with the proceedings.
It certainly doesn’t address the issue directly. I think the apparent conflict between “sole power” and “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” would at least make a challenge to the basis of an impeachment the domain of the Supreme Court to resolve.
Two important differences. Hillary wasn’t being impeached. And Comey didn’t say she hadn’t broken any laws. He said it would be hard to prosecute, and so not worth the effort as is usually the case in such instances.
Right, it was an analogy, which means by definition there are differences from the thing I’m analogizing.
The point is, if popular opinion moves against a politician because of their behavior, arguing that what they did technically might not have been a crime has been shown to be a losing argument. So it’s pointless to argue legal technicalities–what matters is appearances and opinions.
But not “important” differences. 
It’s still not a good analogy, unless you are implying that Comey would have gone after Hillary if she had been unpopular. That seems unlikely.
Comey doesn’t get to impeach anyone; the public does, acting through their elected representatives. If enough of the public want someone impeached, that person will be impeached, crime or no crime. Now maybe, if that person commits a crime, that’s a hook to get enough of the public to want them impeached. But a crime certainly isn’t a necessary element. Anyone who saw masses of people chanting “lock her up” knows that all that really matters is public opinion.
In my strong opinion, it would not. In Nixon, a unanimous Court observed that: "We think that the word “sole” is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word “sole” appears only one other time in the Constitution—with respect to the House of Representatives’ “sole Power of Impeachment.” And then they went on to say that “sole” meant “functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.”
It’s true that they were resolving a Senate question, but the method of analysis they used compels the same result with the House.