The Trump Impeachment Trial

[drad_dog]

@sps49sd

“Horse trading” IS politics.

What about a trial? Would you like to horse trade over what the truth is?

[Sage_Rat]

@drad_dog

What about a trial? Would you like to horse trade over what the truth is?

Truth can legitimately be subjective. And actually far more often than most people believe.

[drad_dog]

@Sage_Rat

Truth can legitimately be subjective. And actually far more often than most people believe.

I was responding to the post which was a non sequiter. “Horse trading IS Politics!” does not describe any impeachment I would like to see.

How subjective do you see the facts laid out so far?

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Max_S

That’s right, I was all for calling of witnesses. I don’t think the House Managers can prove their case to my personal satisfaction without additional testimony and evidence.

~Max

Yeah, because all of the testimony from the witnesses in the House hearings were so unconvincing. /s

[elucidator]

@Hamlet

…What we are concerned with here is simply a removal from a job for misconduct…

To mooch the point and geld the lily…Damn important job. President fucks up, people die. Brown people, more often than not, but still. A reasonable and responsible person must have their own doubts whether they are up to it. It is not a question of whether this person is fit to walk freely among us. Its a question of whether he or she is smart enough and wise enough to make decisions that might get us killed.

I’m not concerned with punishing him for breaking the law. I’m concerned with not giving him the chance to do it again, good and hard.

[Sage_Rat]

@drad_dog

How subjective do you see the facts laid out so far?

Laws are designed to be non-subjective. In the worst case, they define things to be the majority subjective viewpoint of people who we would categorize as “reasonable”.

A trial for removal of the President attempts to skirt the problem that the Roman Senate had with Julius Caesar: He was more popular than they were, and he controlled both the military and the populace.

If the political reality on the ground precludes legalities, then it’s better to preserve the Senate in the hope that it is able to restore itself at a later date. Objective legalities can only exist in times and places where it is practical. Outside of those times, then the question is more about what can be done that will best preserve Congress. That is subjective.

---

Now in this particular case, there’s the short term approach and the long term approach. Which of those is better is subjective.

In the short term approach you might realize that the core of the Republican base is people who grew up before the Internet and who have now been dunked head first into a world of lies and deceit of such greatness that they are simply unequipped to deal with it. They’re too old to adapt. The newer generation may or may not develop the techniques for dealing with it, thanks to exposure during their formative years. - Maybe it’s beyond what humans can reasonable deal with, without government intervention, maybe the techniques will advance so fast that even the exposure that the young get now will still simply be too weak to deal with it. - We won’t know for 40 years.

In any case, this leaves the older generations prey to news media. They can’t accurately distinguish between opinion and fact, nor understand that “opinion” means that you can lie with impunity because libel can’t be applied to opinion.

In essence, whoever controls CNN and Fox controls the vote.

But, at the same time, CNN and Fox, even whether they have good or bad intentions, get paid by the click and the view. The metrics are good enough these days that you know exactly what sells for your audience. If your audience responds to Hitler, aliens, hordes of Honduran zombies come to rape your women, and Magnificent Bastards with stupid hair, and you want to feed your children, then you have to report on those things. If your audience responds to torture, children in cages, cops abusing black people, and Magnificent Bastards with stupid hair, and you want to feed your children, then you will have to report on those things.

Market forces makes these non-negotiable.

As a person in Congress, whose every action will be made public, thanks to a variety of democratic measures and accountability measures passed thanks to Nixon and others, you have to move in a world where you will be destroyed and lose your chance to feed your children if you do not bow to those same market forces, assiduously.

Plausibly, as an older person, your average Congress person may even sincerely believe what you are being told by your favorite media source.

In the short term view, either the Democrats are generating falsehoods - inserting agents into the Executive Branch, to pounce and tell fables against the duly elected great leader, as part of a scheme by the loser, Hillary Clinton. There is no long term view that you even need to consider. That is objectively wrong and should be stopped.

…Or you realize that you are screwed. You cannot change what Fox reports and Fox can’t change what Fox reports. It’s a death spiral that the political works has entered into - with the Right happening to hit the slope first - and the best you can do is to use the last moments before everything death spasms, to try and implement some final Republican policy and stay in good graces with Trump, in the hopes that it gives you the access to prevent his worst urges so that we aren’t looking at Nuclear Winter as the alternative.

There is also a long term view. Like all long term views, “I should eat healthier”, “I should stop smoking”, “I should save for retirement”, etc. it requires a person of better makeup than average to accomplish.

We don’t elect those sorts into office. So while we might say that objectively it’s better to stop smoking, there’s an argument to be made that pie in the sky answers, whether correct or not, are useless.

Subjectively, I think that there was a long term option that would have been workable.

Mitch McConnell would seem to disagree.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

I can agree that, if you don’t look at the evidence, Trump should be acquitted.

Inchoate pathos shall make a fine governing principle.

[JKellyMap]

Well put, Sage Rat. In particular, I hadn’t considered the “older folks ill equipped to process new media” angle so cogently before.

[kaylasdad99]

@Sage_Rat

You’re not my mom!

That’s why I’m just correcting you and not sending you to your room without any supper.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Robb Smith @RobbSmith

Joe Biden should come out & publicly offer President Putin a deal: you publicly release everything you’ve got on President Trump, & I’ll commit to unilaterally withdrawing all sanctions on Russia when I take office.

Let’s see if the GOP still argues bribery doesn’t matter.

IOKIARDI. But not if a Democrat does.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Something I was thinking about, which may be real dumb, or impossible: what if Democrats vote “present”?

This is an impeachment trial without witnesses, where the Republicans are open about working closely with the president to coordinate strategy, where the president’s lawyers are repeatedly making unambiguously false claims without any pushback from the presiding officer, where a key Senator has said that he believes the president used his position to encourage foreign interference in a US election in order to sabotage his enemy but also says this isn’t impeachable conduct.

Would it be possible, and reasonable, and politically savvy, for Democrats to refuse to dignify Wednesday’s vote? For them to say the Senate hasn’t reached the point of holding a real vote, so they can’t cast one? For them to vote “present” instead of “aye”?

[kaylasdad99]

@drad_dog

Do you watch any sports?

I think something just happened: Alexander proved that the repub party has to go. The best a retiring R can do is sacrifice his reputation in history to protect the special white privilege to commit crimes out of sight?

Psssssst. You misspelled Nixon.

[drad_dog]

@Sage_Rat

Laws are designed to be non-subjective. In the worst case, they define things to be the majority subjective viewpoint of people who we would categorize as “reasonable”.

A trial for removal of the President attempts to skirt the problem that the Roman Senate had with Julius Caesar: He was more popular than they were, and he controlled both the military and the populace.

If the political reality on the ground precludes legalities, then it’s better to preserve the Senate in the hope that it is able to restore itself at a later date. Objective legalities can only exist in times and places where it is practical. Outside of those times, then the question is more about what can be done that will best preserve Congress. That is subjective.

---

Now in this particular case, there’s the short term approach and the long term approach. Which of those is better is subjective.

In the short term approach you might realize that the core of the Republican base is people who grew up before the Internet and who have now been dunked head first into a world of lies and deceit of such greatness that they are simply unequipped to deal with it. They’re too old to adapt. The newer generation may or may not develop the techniques for dealing with it, thanks to exposure during their formative years. - Maybe it’s beyond what humans can reasonable deal with, without government intervention, maybe the techniques will advance so fast that even the exposure that the young get now will still simply be too weak to deal with it. - We won’t know for 40 years.

In any case, this leaves the older generations prey to news media. They can’t accurately distinguish between opinion and fact, nor understand that “opinion” means that you can lie with impunity because libel can’t be applied to opinion.

In essence, whoever controls CNN and Fox controls the vote.

But, at the same time, CNN and Fox, even whether they have good or bad intentions, get paid by the click and the view. The metrics are good enough these days that you know exactly what sells for your audience. If your audience responds to Hitler, aliens, hordes of Honduran zombies come to rape your women, and Magnificent Bastards with stupid hair, and you want to feed your children, then you have to report on those things. If your audience responds to torture, children in cages, cops abusing black people, and Magnificent Bastards with stupid hair, and you want to feed your children, then you will have to report on those things.

Market forces makes these non-negotiable.

As a person in Congress, whose every action will be made public, thanks to a variety of democratic measures and accountability measures passed thanks to Nixon and others, you have to move in a world where you will be destroyed and lose your chance to feed your children if you do not bow to those same market forces, assiduously.

Plausibly, as an older person, your average Congress person may even sincerely believe what you are being told by your favorite media source.

In the short term view, either the Democrats are generating falsehoods - inserting agents into the Executive Branch, to pounce and tell fables against the duly elected great leader, as part of a scheme by the loser, Hillary Clinton. There is no long term view that you even need to consider. That is objectively wrong and should be stopped.

…Or you realize that you are screwed. You cannot change what Fox reports and Fox can’t change what Fox reports. It’s a death spiral that the political works has entered into - with the Right happening to hit the slope first - and the best you can do is to use the last moments before everything death spasms, to try and implement some final Republican policy and stay in good graces with Trump, in the hopes that it gives you the access to prevent his worst urges so that we aren’t looking at Nuclear Winter as the alternative.

There is also a long term view. Like all long term views, “I should eat healthier”, “I should stop smoking”, “I should save for retirement”, etc. it requires a person of better makeup than average to accomplish.

We don’t elect those sorts into office. So while we might say that objectively it’s better to stop smoking, there’s an argument to be made that pie in the sky answers, whether correct or not, are useless.

Subjectively, I think that there was a long term option that would have been workable.

Mitch McConnell would seem to disagree.

The struggle is assymetrical. It wouldn’t be a “spiral” if it weren’t. By this I mean that the right has a death wish they are bringing to the country. The left cannot be described that way.

The Republican base is not unique or facing anything anyone else isn’t, is it?

If the R senators decided to they could change the whole scenario in 5 minutes, but they don’t.

[Sage_Rat]

@drad_dog

If the R senators decided to they could change the whole scenario in 5 minutes, but they don’t.

I agree. They’re in charge of the rules. They can’t complain that they’re forced to be stupid because of the way that things are “these days”.

[drad_dog]

@Sage_Rat

I agree. They’re in charge of the rules. They can’t complain that they’re forced to be stupid because of the way that things are “these days”.

They could just show up and pull the chain on that mf. I wonder what the calculation is in their heads about the upshot of that kind of thing. They probably think it would be a nightmare but who knows? It might just be a channel change.

[UltraVires]

@iiandyiiii

Dersh is wrong because none of his arguments come from the Constitution. They don’t apply to the explicitly political process that is impeachment. According to the Constitution, a majority House vote on Articles of Impeachment means the President is impeached. According to the Constitution, 2/3rds Senate vote in the Senate trial means he is removed. The Constitution doesn’t define “high crimes and misdemeanors”, and thus it is up to Congress to determine that with regards to impeachment.

In a practical sense, yes, it is up to Congress. But you would agree that they should be bound by some guiding principle, yes? And just as the Constitution only says “equal protection of the laws” and many other such phrases which are capable of multiple meanings, we then look to the words of the framers or other historical evidence to glean that intent. That is exactly what Dersh did.

@Ravenman

Lawyers talking about law things isn’t an appeal to authority. If I suggested that Code Pink or the NRA has determined that Dersh was wrong, then that would have a point.

@Ravenman

UV, just in the spirit of adding a little more info, here is Jonathan Turley, who was the legal scholar that Republicans called to testify about the nature of impeachment:

When Doug Collins’ hand-picked witness on a more limited definition of the impeachment power says that Dersh has gone overboard, nobody should be throwing this has-been professor a life preserver.

All you are saying is that others disagree with Dersh so he must be wrong. You are not explaining why he is wrong. Turley is going off of a theory of what Dersh said that he explicitly rejects is his theory:

INSKEEP: I am not hearing you, professor Dershowitz, but perhaps other people are. I’m going to pose the question here, and as you begin to answer, hopefully we’ll be able to work out the line. Some people understood you to say the president can do anything to get reelected just by saying his reelection is in the public interest. Did you mean to say the president can do anything?

DERSHOWITZ: I’d not only didn’t mean to say it. I didn’t say it. I never said anything like that. In fact, in the beginning of my statement, I talked about how strongly I supported the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Obviously, Richard Nixon committed many crimes in an effort to get reelected. He thought his reelection was in the public interest. My response was to a question about quid pro quo. The question was, if a person does something completely legal, the president does something legal completely within his power, but he was slightly motivated, motivated in part by a desire to get reelected, would that turn that motive into a corrupt motive? And my answer was, no, it wouldn’t turn into a corrupt motive. It would turn it into a political motive. But if he did something unlawful, if he did something improper, if he did something that violated the law, clearly a good motive would not serve as a justification. I gave as an example, for example, President Lincoln who called the troops back from the battlefield to go to Indiana to vote for the Republicans in Indiana. He was motivated in part by the public interest. He was motivated in part by his partisan interests. That clearly would not be an impeachable offense.

INSKEEP: Well, let me ask about that example, if I can, professor Dershowitz. You mention Lincoln allowing men to go home in order to vote, but don’t we have a radically different set of facts with the current president? President Trump withholds military aid from a U.S. ally, violates the law in doing that according to the Government Accountability Office, demands a televised announcement that will be damaging to specific United States citizens. Are you really going to say he gets a pass for all of that as long as he feels his reelection is in the public interest?

DERSHOWITZ: I didn’t say anything like that. And that’s not what my statement was in response to. My statement was in response to…

INSKEEP: Well, let me ask you now. Does he get a - does he get a pass from all of that?

DERSHOWITZ: I was there as a constitutional lawyer making the constitutional argument. The managers made the argument that any political figure who does anything lawful motivated in part by a desire to be reelected could be charged with a crime and could be impeached. I was responding to that. If I had been asked your question, I would have turned it over to a member of the defense team that deals with the facts. I was there to make constitutional arguments, the constitutional argument that I think Lamar Alexander accepted last night when he said even if all the facts are accepted as true - and he accepted those facts as true - it doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. My argument was that abuse of power is not within the term treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. And I made a compelling argument…

@Chisquirrel

Ah, when you take out Hamilton’s words and substitute your own, of course it makes sense!

You don’t believe that “crime” is a synonym for “offense”? If you read the rest of Federalist 65 it is pretty clear that offense=crime or else there is no need for the rest of the hand wringing about the fear of being criminally tried by the same tribunal that just removed you from office. Or the text of the Constitution which talks about follow up trials after impeachment.

@CoolHandCox

Basically, what I’m seeing being reported for some Senators, generally, is we believe he did it, but don’t think he should be removed for it. Is there anything constitutionally/legally invalid about that?

I think not. If so, then the House could impeach for anything at all, like being a Yankees fan and the Senate would have no choice but to say “that’s true” and then convict. Byrd said the same about Clinton: bad, but not worthy of removal from office.

@Lance_Turbo

How about if the President uses taxpayer money to bribe a foreign government to baselessly smear a political opponent?

Does that “proceed from the misconduct of public men”?

Is that “from the abuse or violation of some public trust”?

Lamar Alexander says, “No.” Do you agree?

I reject your premise. It is not bribery because there was no “thing of value.” It is not a “baseless” investigation unless you can read Trump’s mind. He really does think his opponents are corrupt and if you think he is a fool, then don’t vote for him.

@Hamlet

It’s not a loaded question at all. It was a question that attempted to get to the heart of your objection to the impeachment proceedings. I was trying to figure out if your stance is “even if everything alleged is true, he should still not be impeached”.

Well, I now know how much credence to give your abilities to judge evidence. The idea that what the House has presented isn’t evidence shows me just how far you’ve gone down the partisan road. So now I know. You’re willing to ignore the sworn testimony and write it off as “assertions”.

They are assertions. All the witnesses say is that “Gee, I thought this looked like quid pro quo.” It is opinion evidence that is worthless. As a Senator, I could form my own opinion. I do not need their help.

@Hamlet

I did. I cited the comments of founders, argued the text, and gave examples of what actual constitutional scholars concluded (hint: it’s not what Dershowitz said). You just apparently didn’t read it.

I did read it and refuted it. You didn’t respond.

@Fiddle_Peghead

I do not personally hate Donald Trump. I do have utter contempt for him as a president, and a general dislike of him as a human being. However, these and hatred are not the same thing.

They are close enough for my argument’s purposes. When you have this idea about someone, it is easy to impute the most improper motives possible to them.

[UltraVires]

@Sage_Rat

Laws are designed to be non-subjective. In the worst case, they define things to be the majority subjective viewpoint of people who we would categorize as “reasonable”.

A trial for removal of the President attempts to skirt the problem that the Roman Senate had with Julius Caesar: He was more popular than they were, and he controlled both the military and the populace.

If the political reality on the ground precludes legalities, then it’s better to preserve the Senate in the hope that it is able to restore itself at a later date. Objective legalities can only exist in times and places where it is practical. Outside of those times, then the question is more about what can be done that will best preserve Congress. That is subjective.

---

Now in this particular case, there’s the short term approach and the long term approach. Which of those is better is subjective.

In the short term approach you might realize that the core of the Republican base is people who grew up before the Internet and who have now been dunked head first into a world of lies and deceit of such greatness that they are simply unequipped to deal with it. They’re too old to adapt. The newer generation may or may not develop the techniques for dealing with it, thanks to exposure during their formative years. - Maybe it’s beyond what humans can reasonable deal with, without government intervention, maybe the techniques will advance so fast that even the exposure that the young get now will still simply be too weak to deal with it. - We won’t know for 40 years.

In any case, this leaves the older generations prey to news media. They can’t accurately distinguish between opinion and fact, nor understand that “opinion” means that you can lie with impunity because libel can’t be applied to opinion.

In essence, whoever controls CNN and Fox controls the vote.

But, at the same time, CNN and Fox, even whether they have good or bad intentions, get paid by the click and the view. The metrics are good enough these days that you know exactly what sells for your audience. If your audience responds to Hitler, aliens, hordes of Honduran zombies come to rape your women, and Magnificent Bastards with stupid hair, and you want to feed your children, then you have to report on those things. If your audience responds to torture, children in cages, cops abusing black people, and Magnificent Bastards with stupid hair, and you want to feed your children, then you will have to report on those things.

Market forces makes these non-negotiable.

As a person in Congress, whose every action will be made public, thanks to a variety of democratic measures and accountability measures passed thanks to Nixon and others, you have to move in a world where you will be destroyed and lose your chance to feed your children if you do not bow to those same market forces, assiduously.

Plausibly, as an older person, your average Congress person may even sincerely believe what you are being told by your favorite media source.

In the short term view, either the Democrats are generating falsehoods - inserting agents into the Executive Branch, to pounce and tell fables against the duly elected great leader, as part of a scheme by the loser, Hillary Clinton. There is no long term view that you even need to consider. That is objectively wrong and should be stopped.

…Or you realize that you are screwed. You cannot change what Fox reports and Fox can’t change what Fox reports. It’s a death spiral that the political works has entered into - with the Right happening to hit the slope first - and the best you can do is to use the last moments before everything death spasms, to try and implement some final Republican policy and stay in good graces with Trump, in the hopes that it gives you the access to prevent his worst urges so that we aren’t looking at Nuclear Winter as the alternative.

There is also a long term view. Like all long term views, “I should eat healthier”, “I should stop smoking”, “I should save for retirement”, etc. it requires a person of better makeup than average to accomplish.

We don’t elect those sorts into office. So while we might say that objectively it’s better to stop smoking, there’s an argument to be made that pie in the sky answers, whether correct or not, are useless.

Subjectively, I think that there was a long term option that would have been workable.

Mitch McConnell would seem to disagree.

Tell me if this is a fair paraphrase: The people are too stupid to elect their own leaders. They need the overarching power and guidance of their betters on the left. However, at this point in time, we should preserve democracy even though it gives us short term bad things in the hopes that the betters on the left can convince the rubes on the right of the superiority of the left. The rubes get a little time to come around but this is possibly the only free-bee. But next time, maybe not.

[drad_dog]

The defense of dt is about “You don’t know what he was thinking”?

Implying “We must atribute innocence to an act if we can’t read the perpetrators mind”

What legal principle is that?

[Ravenman]

@UltraVires

All you are saying is that others disagree with Dersh so he must be wrong. You are not explaining why he is wrong. Turley is going off of a theory of what Dersh said that he explicitly rejects is his theory:

Uh, letting experts speak for themselves is called a “cite.” To the extent that a point is provided in a cite, I feel no need to add my words to express the same thoughts that the cite is providing. The fact that I do not repeat the points in the cite, does not diminish the authority of the cite.

What an odd argument to make.

As far as Dershowtiz trying to clean up his ridiculous mess, he’s doing the time honored maneuver of trying to pretend he didn’t say what he said, and that everyone else is wrong in how they heard what he said, because he will never admit error. I’m starting to think Dershowtiz would be a great addition to the SDMB.

You don’t believe that “crime” is a synonym for “offense”?

Let me say that I really do enjoy debating with you. And I hope that while our back and forth sometimes becomes spirited, I do hope that nothing I say crosses the line and causes you to take personal crime.

[UltraVires]

@Ravenman

Uh, letting experts speak for themselves is called a “cite.” To the extent that a point is provided in a cite, I feel no need to add my words to express the same thoughts that the cite is providing. The fact that I do not repeat the points in the cite, does not diminish the authority of the cite.

What an odd argument to make.

As far as Dershowtiz trying to clean up his ridiculous mess, he’s doing the time honored maneuver of trying to pretend he didn’t say what he said, and that everyone else is wrong in how they heard what he said, because he will never admit error. I’m starting to think Dershowtiz would be a great addition to the SDMB.

Let me say that I really do enjoy debating with you. And I hope that while our back and forth sometimes becomes spirited, I do hope that nothing I say crosses the line and causes you to take personal crime.

1. That’s fair enough, but Dersh addressed all of those other arguments and pointed out their flaws. If you don’t want to engage that’s fine, but just pointing to them when Dersh addressed them, and rather convincingly, IMHO, showed the error of them leaves the argument short.

2. LOL. Yes, that is one definition of offense. Do you believe that Hamilton was talking about personal sleights? It is clear from the entirety of Federalist 65 and the text of the Constitution that offense, in this context, equals a crime.

In addition to the “why not the Supreme Court” argument, there is the text of the Constitution: treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

There is a principle of law (which I’m too lazy to look up the Latin) that states “words are known by the company they keep.” So if I say something like “Raveman, drad dog, and other distinguished posters” then you can learn what I mean by “distinguished posters” by the two examples in the list. You know from that qualification, for example, that I mean SDMB posters and not reddit posters.

Likewise the definition of “other high crimes and misdemeanors” are influenced by the examples of treason and bribery. We are informed by the examples that these other high crimes and misdemeanors are those similar or akin to treason and bribery.

So for Hamilton to use the word “offense” when he talks in a long essay about criminal prosecution and when the Constitution says “crime” that is very good evidence that he is talking about crimes and not a personal sleight.