Impeach Trump. Now.

[Muffin]

@Bricker

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.

Nah, let’s stick with reality, which is not restricted to actual violation of the criminal code, and which is greatly influenced by precedent.

@Bricker

Notwithstanding the fact that the phrase was used by the English to punish losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, the political reality (as opposed to the legal reach) today is: Congress will need to identify a federal crime, and have probable cause to believe the President is guilty of that federal crime.

Although you have poo-pooed precedent, I encourage you to read Bowman, Frank O. and Stephen L. Sepinuck. “High Crimes & Misdemeanors”: Defining the Constitutional Limits on Presidential Impeachment, 72 S. CAL. L. REV. 1517 (1999). K23 .O76 and Black, Charles L. Impeachment: A Handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974. ix, 80 p. Bibliography: p. 71-76. ISBN: 0300018185; 0300018193 (pbk). LCCN: 74082692. KF5075.Z9 B55
9, rather explain away the Republican’s wish to avoid impeaching a Republican president as being based on the necessity of criminal code breach rather than based on the reality that the Republicans’ simply do not wish to impeach their own Republican president because it would be a major feather in the Democrat’s political cap, for quite simply, there is no requirement at all that impeachment be based on criminal code violation.

[Muffin]

@Richard_Parker

No, that’s not the proper use of that fallacy. He’s not saying it’s true because it hasn’t been proven false. He’s saying it’s true based on reasonable inference from other facts he knows, and explaining why we wouldn’t have more concrete evidence.

You are free to argue that his inferences are unreasonable, but you’re wrong to call his logic fallacious.

Bricker, I suggest you read up on abductive reasoning.

[John_Mace]

@Barack_Obama

I can’t cite something that wasn’t investigated or made public. How would I go to look at all the countries trump banned and find out whoever got killed because they had to get away. It would good if nobody died but the fact people’s lifes were put into jeapordy. Unless you can disprove my claim then despite what you say I stand by the fact people died because of his idiotic decisions.

@Bricker

You know, in debate, that’s called argumentum ad ignoratium, the logical fallacy that says your opponent is responsible for disproving your claim.

I say there’s a little teapot in orbit around the sun between Mars and Jupiter’s orbit. Prove me wrong, or you have to accept it’s there.

@Richard_Parker

No, that’s not the proper use of that fallacy. He’s not saying it’s true because it hasn’t been proven false. He’s saying it’s true based on reasonable inference from other facts he knows, and explaining why we wouldn’t have more concrete evidence.

You are free to argue that his inferences are unreasonable, but you’re wrong to call his logic fallacious.

Emphasis aded. He didn’t say that?

[wonky]

@John_Mace

Emphasis aded. He didn’t say that?

No. Reread what Richard Parker wrote.

[Bricker]

@Ravenman

Is it powered by your determination to be proven right? Powerful stuff.

I sense a slight condemnation in your tone, as though being proven right were somehow a bad thing.

[Bricker]

@Richard_Parker

No, that’s not the proper use of that fallacy. He’s not saying it’s true because it hasn’t been proven false. He’s saying it’s true based on reasonable inference from other facts he knows, and explaining why we wouldn’t have more concrete evidence.

You are free to argue that his inferences are unreasonable, but you’re wrong to call his logic fallacious.

No, he isn’t saying that; he hasn’t adduced those facts that he knows.

YOU are saying that on his behalf.

[Bricker]

@Muffin

. . . for quite simply, there is no requirement at all that impeachment be based on criminal code violation.

I agree. There is no legal requirement that impeachment be based on a criminal code violation.

I argue that there is such a requirement as a matter of political reality.

Is there something in your cites that purports to disprove that claim?

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

I agree. There is no legal requirement that impeachment be based on a criminal code violation.

I argue that there is such a requirement as a matter of political reality.

Is there something in your cites that purports to disprove that claim?

There is neither proof nor disproof for your claim, and no reason your claim should be favored in the absence of disproof.

IOW, “Sez you.”

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

There is neither proof nor disproof for your claim, and no reason your claim should be favored in the absence of disproof.

IOW, “Sez you.”

I argued for the proposition. I did not declare it to be true.

But I welcome your counter-examples.

Which prior impeachments have not alleged criminal acts?

[CarnalK]

There is a mid way point between the arguments. Politically, it can be described as the criminal act of obstruction of justice but still not require the level of evidence for a criminal charge or conviction.

[JRDelirious]

Quoting myself from another thread:

@JRDelirious

As of now, zero out of two impeachments of a President have resulted in conviction and removal (Nixon quit before he could be impeached). Even though we like to say it’s a political process and you don’t really need the kind of evidence that will hold up in a “real” court, the scant record so far with Presidents is the House may reach for whatever they can hang it on, but Senators are loath to sack a President unless you got yourself something really worth the potential fallout.

But at the same time, the fact that it IS political means I don’t expect the congressional GOP will lend the votes unless you have a rock solid slam dunk of a case, perhaps involving dead girls AND live boys, shootings in broad daylight on 5th Avenue and inviting Putin to reannex the Aleutians, with multiple eyewitnesses and a sworn confession.

More seriously, the congressional GOP would want to be able to go home and say “look we had this clear convincing evidence of real crimes, this could not stand, come on the new POTUS is Pence, it’s going to be OK”.

[Bricker]

@CarnalK

There is a mid way point between the arguments. Politically, it can be described as the criminal act of obstruction of justice but still not require the level of evidence for a criminal charge or conviction.

I suppose that could happen.

I predict that it won’t.

My model of the universe predicts future events more accurately than yours will, I assert.

[CarnalK]

I didn’t predict the future.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

I argued for the proposition. I did not declare it to be true.

You described it as a ‘claim,’ which was why I assumed you were claiming that it was so.

Poor choice of words, then. No prob.

[ganthet]

@Bricker

I argued for the proposition. I did not declare it to be true.

But I welcome your counter-examples.

Which prior impeachments have not alleged criminal acts?

The articles of impeachment for Nixon that were adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, but were pre-empted from a full House vote by Nixon’s resignation, contained non-criminal acts such as endeavoring to misuse the CIA, “acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial” (which might be a form of obstruction of justice, but not one based on a federal statute), “in disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch,” and “He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.”

The articles of impeachment for Andrew Johnson that were approved by the House and submitted to the Senate also included several non-criminal acts, such as removing the Secretary of War without Senate approval, appointing an interim Secretary of War after the Senate voted a resolution declaring the firing to be unlawful, giving the interim Secretary of War the fiscal authority that a confirmed Secretary of War would have, giving an Army General orders with “unlawful intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act,” and giving three speeches with the intent to show disrespect to Congress.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

But I welcome your counter-examples.

If you aren’t saying that it’s true, and I’m not trying to disprove it, I don’t need to come up with counterexamples.

[Ravenman]

@Bricker

I sense a slight condemnation in your tone, as though being proven right were somehow a bad thing.

Oh, if I’m proven right, I’ll never let you live it down!

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

I suppose that could happen.

I predict that it won’t.

My model of the universe predicts future events more accurately than yours will, I assert.

That would be good fodder for a bet, or as the subject of a debate.

But you keep using it seemingly in support of your position in this debate.

We’re glad you can model the future so well. I recommend applying your model to the stock market, horse racing, the outcome of major-league games, or some other field where you could cash in on a good model of the future.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@JRDelirious

Quoting myself from another thread:

More seriously, the congressional GOP would want to be able to go home and say “look we had this clear convincing evidence of real crimes, this could not stand, come on the new POTUS is Pence, it’s going to be OK”.

They’d be better off impeaching them both and going with Ryan. The ones that don’t like him are never going to vote Democrat anyway and the ones that do, think he’s a rock star.

[Ravenman]

This is hilarious. Putin says he’s happy to provide Congress with a record of the Trump-Lavrov meeting (if Trump is okay with it). What kind of world are we in where Murderin’ Vladimir has a more open relationship with Congress than the President does?

Putin willing to give Congress records of Trump's meeting with Lavrov

And I must add that Marco Rubio’s final comment is also hilarious, in terms of actually being quite funny.