Irish oddsmaker gives 33% chance Trump will be impeached

[Labster]

https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/...C456A0D448

Senator Lamar Alexander (R) says he will not vote for more witnesses, because it has already been conclusively proven that Trump intervened inappropriately in Ukraine.  However, he says the Senate has no role in impeaching inappropriate behavior, so he'll just vote no and wait for the next election.

[Matrix Dragon]

"Yes, he did a bad, but it's not my responsibility!" Fuckstain.

[NifT]

However, he says the Senate has no role in impeaching inappropriate behavior, so he'll just vote no and wait for the next election.

*emphasis mine

Uh what? I just cannot grok this statement.

[robkelk]

However, he says the Senate has no role in impeaching inappropriate behavior, so he'll just vote no and wait for the next election.

*emphasis mine

Uh what? I just cannot grok this statement.

I parse that as he'd rather toe the party line than do his job.

[classicdrogn]

It's technically correct... the House are the ones who impeach, the Senate then convicts or ... dismisses? Acquits? Whatever. But easing off on the ol' sphincter and looking at what he appears to mean rather than being strictly pedantic, I have to agree with Rob, it's nothing but weaseling out of moral responsibility in favour of the party line.

[robkelk]

"He, of course, did say that famous line ... but he didn't create a whole philosophy around it or defend himself after Watergate in that way. I don't think Trump has an understanding ... of the law as a constraint on his behaviour in the way that Nixon did."
-- Prof. Corey Brettschneider, Brown University

More here, in an analysis of Alan Dershowitz's claim that it's okay for the president to act in his own electoral interest. (Even the sole expert witness the Republicans called in the House impeachment hearings thinks Dershowitz is out of line.)

[Labster]

I guess I should have quoted specifically:

I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.
...
But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

He goes on with elaboration of the first point, and then points out that there's an election in a few months where the people get to decide such things.

But I can't shake the feeling that the country now has such political structural problems that we need a third republic.  A majority of the U.S. Senate represents 18% of the population; many states are rotten boroughs.  If this case is not impeachable, then nothing is, and presidents no longer face consequences.  It's fairly easy to start a dictatorship under such conditions, when generations of legislators have been so eager to yield power to the executive.  In Presidential elections, we have one man, one vote, but a man's vote in Wyoming is worth nearly fifty times what mine is worth.

I know the solution to protecting democracy is often stated as "just buy guns", but it doesn't feel like that will actually solve the problem.

[robkelk]

I know the solution to protecting democracy is often stated as "just buy guns", but it doesn't feel like that will actually solve the problem.

There are plenty of guns in the Middle East. There aren't very many guns in Canada. So, yeah, I suspect you're right and that wouldn't solve the problem.

[Labster]

Well, it's all over but the shouting. On a party line vote, all Republicans voted not to hear witnesses; then two Republicans voted to hear only one witness, John R. Bolton. This was not enough votes. The record is officially closed, and no motion to reopen the record shall be in order, which means that no further evidence can ever be presented. The final vote will be Wednesday, but it's a foregone conclusion that Trump will face no consequences.

Happy Lemming Day, everyone!

[hazard]

The solution to protecting democracy has never been 'buy weapons'. The solution to protecting democracy has always been 'enforce the standards of proper behaviour relevant to the office upon the holders of the office'. Strictly speaking it's not even restricted to democracy, it's just as valid for any office not elected or even entire government systems where regular referendums (or elections if you want to put it that way) are not a thing.

Of course, the punishment for failing to uphold the standards of proper behaviour would depend upon the offense and the office in question, but for elected officials any attempt to interfere with the election in any manner that weakens the people's ability to vote according to the people's own desires should be looked at with great scrutiny at minimum and likewise at minimum should result in dismissal of the official in question. Doing so in a particularly egregious manner (like permitting or even inviting a foreign entity to interfere) would be grounds for dismissal and permanent disbarment from public office and possibly restriction or permanent loss of the right to vote at all as well.

[Rajvik]

the long and short of what Alexander is saying is this: Inappropriate is not necessarily ILLEGAL, and what Trump did could be inappropriate, it was not illegal.

Hazard, if that was the case then Obama would have been impeached, there is however a bar, a requirement that there be a DEFINABLE CRIME, something the democrats lack. Hell, even when the Republicans impeached Clinton, there were Eleven individual felonies that he was charged with. Ultimately he was acquitted, but in the effort lost his Arkansas law license and turned over his federal law license rather than be stripped of that by the Supreme Court.

[Dartz]

So you admit that it was wrong and innapropriate for a President to do?

[hazard]

Rajvik, do tell in what manner Obama acted in an improper manner for an elected official, and especially in what manner Obama weakened the people's ability to vote and/or allowed or invited foreign interference in any election.

[robkelk]

The final vote will be Wednesday, but it's a foregone conclusion that Trump will face no consequences.

The day after the State of the Union Address. The conclusion might be foregone, but there's always a (slim-to-nonexistent) chance that he might say something that changes people's minds.

I don't believe that'll happen, but I didn't believe he had a chance to be elected, either.

[robkelk]

And now I'm going to be depressing...


"[A] combination of a dynamic evangelist, enough money, and modern techniques of advertising and propaganda might make Billy Sunday’s effort look like a corner store compared to Sears Roebuck. Throw in a depression for good measure, promise a material heaven here on earth and a dash of anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Negroism and large dose of anti-‘furriners’ in general and anti-intellectuals here at home and the result could be something quite frightening—particularly when one recalls that our voting system is such that a minority distributed as pluralities in enough states can constitute a working majority in Washington."
- Robert A. Heinlein, discussing his character Nehemiah Scudder (who in-universe turned the USA into a dictatorship)


"The United States is discovering, very quickly, that a charismatic single-issue candidate whose single issue is bigotry and intolerance can attract significant support, and possibly even seize control of a major party ... no mainstream candidate in recent history has used discrimination and racial fear not as a means to power but as an end in itself, as a chief policy goal."
- Doug Saunders, in The Globe and Mail, December 11, 2015


Both quotes pulled out of this pre-2016-election article. Note how much of that article has already come to pass.

[Matrix Dragon]

Rajvik, do tell in what manner Obama acted in an improper manner for an elected official, and especially in what manner Obama weakened the people's ability to vote and/or allowed or invited foreign interference in any election.

Well, going by Fox News, he was black. And wore the wrong style of suit. And wanted to replace an empty slot on the Supreme Court. And so on and so on... As someone that watched Obama do some very horrible things (Expansion of the drone program, Guitanamo still being open, etc), I still laugh at attempted comparisons between him and Trump.

[Rajvik]

Well, let us see, what did Obama do that was arguably illegal,

DACA- He himself said, when asked by a teen who had been brought to the US illegally, why he couldn't just make it so that they couldn't be deported said that it wasn't within his power, and yet, within at most two years he had made an executive order doing JUST THAT.

Fast and Furious- The Obama Justice department, supposedly in an attempt to track down mexican cartels and gun smugglers, released at least thousands of US made weapons into the black market along the US/Mexico border causing the death of at least one border patrol agent
Note: it was over this that the Congress subpoenaed documents and the then Attorney General Eric Holder's testimony, Obama "obstructed Congress" (as Adam Schiff would call it if he had been a Republican) by inacting Executive Privilege which the Republicans didn't see any use in fighting at the time

FISA abuse- This one is a bit more questionable and i will admit might not go as high as Obama himself, but if it doesn't i will damn well be surprised, but his administration, the Justice Department, the CIA, the FBI and the NSA were all guilty of knowingly using a falsified opposition research "dossier" to perform surveillance on a Trump advisor, and through that on Trump himself echoing Watergate at it's worst

Does these few items that i can remember off the top of my head answer your question Hazard, or should i really piss MatrixDrogn off and go diving for more?

[Matrix Dragon]

Please, go fishing for attempts to make your walking sex offender look better by throwing shit around.

[hazard]

DACA: He may well have just been mistaken about whether or not he had that authority. Also, if the crime in particular was 'illegal entry/continued habitation without a permit/citizenship' yes he could have interceded, as it's a federal offense he may pardon. Given the vague language of the pardon power he may well have been able to give a rolling pardon too, or just restate it every day. Law enforcement would've been forced in that case to restart on enforcing the law in that case, including the legally required immigration court procedures, there's a number of restrictions on deportation after all. He may also note to the Justice Department he considers the DACA beneficiary matter of sufficiently low priority that he'd rather they focused on something more productive, although the JD could just ignore him on that.

FaFu: Yet apparently, Congress was not obstructed sufficiently to seek judicial intercession as to whether or not that was proper invocation of executive privilege, which Congress has done with Trump. Congress did not pursue the matter further, nor for that matter did they pursue the matter after a Republican president was placed in the White House and would have been perfectly positioned to release the necessary documents to Congress after the fact if the matter was indeed of interest to Congress and something that actually required review of the executive branch's actions even so late after the fact to see if that branch erred.

Had they done so and made their findings public we could discuss whether or not it was grounds for one degree of chastisement or another. Since they have not, it was clearly not, especially since after the dismissal of Holden he was not prosecuted, nor was Obama after his presidency prosecuted for obstruction of Congress. While, I'll note, they held both chambers of the legislative branch and the top office of executive branch under their control, so it'd have been trivial to arrange.

FISA abuse: I presume you are referring to the Steele dossier? IIRC the entire Trump administration intelligence community, even this late into his first term, are in agreement that the dossier was not falsified, and I do not recall the judiciary declaring that dossier insufficient grounds for any of the warrants that were granted due to it.


So feel free to dig further.

[robkelk]

Folks, as the originator of this thread, I remind everyone that it is about Trump, not Obama. Please drop the logical fallacy that they have any connection.

[Matrix Dragon]

Yeah. One actually defied a lot of the realities and bad habits of US presidents dating back to at least Nixon, or at least managed to hide them a lot better. The other is the bad habits and realities, dialed up to 20 and without any attempt to hide it.

In the long term, the real question is how this stunt hits the Republicans in November. Many have made it clear they know he's guilty, but they actively don't care.

[Labster]

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last loose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." -- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "UN Declaration of Rights", Datalinks
Brian Reynolds, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

But hey, I guess we don't need any witnesses and documents after all.

[Black Aeronaut]

I'm less concerned about what this means for Trump himself, and more concerned about what this means for future administrations.

This is not a good precedent to have set.

Rest assured, with the divide between parties being so stark these days, the pendulum *will* swing backwards. And with these new precedents set? It will swing back harder than any of us really want it to.

[robkelk]

3 unanswered questions and 1 inevitable outcome

One of the unanswered questions is an important one, in my opinion: When was funding to Ukraine withheld?

The timing of the withholding of funds, compared to when Trump started asking for that favour, could have been used to show whether the two were linked - that it, whether there was a quid quo pro situation.

The fact that this question wasn't allowed to be answered is, in my opinion, significant.

[robkelk]

Just to put a capstone on the thread:

Precedent is followed with the impeachment resulting in no sanction to the sitting President.

Just like Clinton.

Nobody seriously expected that the President would be found guilty of anything.

Just like Clinton.

Now it's up to the voters.

Just like Clinton.