Laurence Tribe is the big swinging dick con law professor at Harvard Law School. He is often considered one of the best constitutional lawyers in the country and he is liberal as hell. Here is the Wiki for the American Constitution Society you mention him starting.
Not saying that this undermines his opinion but he is not presenting a neutral opinion because he is not a neutral person. He is certainly not presenting a LEGAL opinion to a political question. There is a reason impeachments are tried in the senate and not in courts. They are a political question, not a legal one.
Let’s cut to the chase: The fact is that Republicans in the House are snively cowards who will never, even have enough “evidence” to push for even as much as an independent investigation into much of what Trump has been accused of doing (thereby making those goalposts of yours unimaginably far away), let alone have the courage to actually vote on impeachment.
Honestly, those who make claims of wanting “evidence” come off a nothing but high-tech concern trolling as far as I’m concerned when the whole point is that the same people who needed eight separate investigations into Benghazi are scared shitless of actually investigating even one time anything Trump is alleged to have done.
Trump fired the guy who was investigating him. And said that’s actually what he did. These are actual facts in play here, direct quotes, not innuendo.
And your response is to move goalposts. Gee, aren’t you clever.
Fortunately for you the craven cowards that make up the Republican-led congress will do their best to make sure that the evidence that would please you is never found unless some new Woodward & Bernstein come along… Even then he’ll just say they’re “fake news” and that will be the end of it.
Your side puts party before country thanks to intellectually dishonest shills who support them and make excuses for them and vote for them.
And you are perfectly free to correct any mistakes in fact made in that article…if you can. Merely saying “It’s an article!” doesn’t mean jack if that’s all you’ve got.
The man is liberal, of that I have no doubt. Being biased is fine if one makes an argument on the facts that support his position. He does that, pointing out specifically where Trump went from someone who could be impeached to someone who should and said what he went afoul of that caused this shift.
And I think its an argument that plays well to the choir.
As long as Trump is nominating conservative justices, the Republicans won’t impeach him without that stuff that Tribe imagines MIGHT be revealed by the investigations.
Remember what the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is?
Anything Congress wants it to be, period. You can’t say “This doesn’t count” or “That isn’t enough evident for that” under that definition.
BTW, I am asking you the same question that Shodan refuses to answer: What specifically would count as “high crimes and misdemeanors” in your opinion?
“The ACLU is looking for a case” and “a number of Democrats have introduced legislation” may very well be factual statements, in and of themselves, but those statements prove nothing.
Impeachment will never happen as long as the Trumpanzees remain in denial and blame everything bad on a corrupt media. Even Paul Ryan, who presumably has a functioning brain, is afraid to march out of step. You need to hope for something like a meltdown on the world stage or perhaps a medical emergency requiring the only doctor available, a lesbian-black-Muslim-female-immigrant doctor, to treat him.
So any wrong-doing at all qualifies? Thank you for answering my question as to what would constitute sufficient “high crimes and misdemeanors” in your book.
So I propose the following standard: even though legally, Congress may impeach for any thing they please, why don’t we assume for the purposes of discussion that Congress will only be motivated by a “high crime and misdemeanor” that is actually a violation of the criminal code.
Further let’s assume that Congress will impeach just like a grand jury indicts: only on a showing of probable cause.
Neither of those are literal limits on Congress, but I argue that they are practical, real-life limits that Congress in real life will observe. Congress son’t impeach unless there is probable cause of an actual crime.
Got it.