[W:31]Threshold for removal.

[Harshaw]

Posting this in the Loft to hopefully encourage thoughtful, non-rancorous conversation on the topic.

Going by Lamar Alexander's statement, his position is that yes, Trump did, factually, what he's accused of doing, but it does not rise to the level of removal from office. I suspect you will hear a lot of that when the Senators state their reasons for their votes.

I would like reasoned, thoughtful arguments as to why this position is outside the realm of reasonable disagreement.

There's recent precedent for taking that position, i.e., no one disputes that Bill Clinton factually committed perjury, but argue his acquittal was appropriate because it wasn't something he should have been removed from office over.

So . . . why is that position -- yes, he factually did it, but no, it doesn't warrant removing him from office -- unreasonable?














(Disclosure: my own threshold for removal is much lower, as I've explained in numerous threads. I had reasons for impeaching and removing Clinton, Bush, Obama, and additional reasons for removing Trump that no one else did. But my thresholds are much lower than most people's, so that doesn't really help this particular discussion.)

 

[RabidAlpaca]

It warrants removal because it was a completely selfish act that was done to enhance his chances at winning the election. In 3 years Trump has shown no interest in fighting corruption, especially in Ukraine, but a handful of weeks after Biden starts campaigning, he suddenly becomes extremely interested in finding dirt on Biden, something that he attempted to do with Hillary as well. To date, Trump has provided no evidence of his conspiracy theory about the Bidens, so it was either purely a fishing expedition or an explicit publicity stunt to create fake news.

Holding up congressionally allocated funds to an ally that is desperate and needs it to fight our enemy is morally apprehensible, objectively illegal, and more than impeachable. If Trump had any evidence whatsoever of Biden's guilt, he could've had his attorney general open a legitimate investigation through official channels. He didn't do that because he had nothing, and decided to use the power of his office to extort an ally instead. He clearly has shown a consistent tendency to use the power of his position to attack his political rivals, and if allowed, he'll continue to do so.

There is not one single Republican who would tolerate this behavior from a Democratic president, so your motives are completely transparent and partisan. The American people see this as the epitome of D.C. swampiness and I think you're going to be surprised come November. A minority of voters elected Donald Trump last election, and while his core 35% will never leave him no matter what, he's gone out of his way to alienate the moderates and independents. What he did was corrupt and the Republican defense of his corruption has been disgusting. We need to send a clear message that this anti-Constitutional autocratic behavior will not be tolerated.

To his supporters, I think you justify his behavior by pretending that it's ok because Biden actually is corrupt. If we for arguments sake just say he isn't corrupt, does that change your opinion? Is extorting allies to make up fictitious claims about your opponent Ok for the next Democratic president to do?

 

[Harshaw]

It warrants removal because it was a completely selfish act that was done to enhance his chances at winning the election. In 3 years Trump has shown no interest in fighting corruption, especially in Ukraine, but a handful of weeks after Biden starts campaigning, he suddenly becomes extremely interested in finding dirt on Biden, something that he attempted to do with Hillary as well. To date, Trump has provided no evidence of his conspiracy theory about the Bidens, so it was either purely a fishing expedition or an explicit publicity stunt to create fake news.

Holding up congressionally allocated funds to an ally that is desperate and needs it to fight our enemy is morally apprehensible, objectively illegal, and more than impeachable. If Trump had any evidence whatsoever of Biden's guilt, he could've had his attorney general open a legitimate investigation through official channels. He didn't do that because he had nothing, and decided to use the power of his office to extort an ally instead. He clearly has shown a consistent tendency to use the power of his position to attack his political rivals, and if allowed, he'll continue to do so.

There is not one single Republican who would tolerate this behavior from a Democratic president, so your motives are completely transparent and partisan. The American people see this as the epitome of D.C. swampiness and I think you're going to be surprised come November. A minority of voters elected Donald Trump last election, and while his core 35% will never leave him no matter what, he's gone out of his way to alienate the moderates and independents. What he did was corrupt and the Republican defense of his corruption has been disgusting. We need to send a clear message that this anti-Constitutional autocratic behavior will not be tolerated.

Well, my intent wasn't to ask why he should be removed from office. My question was why it's outside the bounds of reason to see it a different way.

 

[Rexedgar]

Posting this in the Loft to hopefully encourage thoughtful, non-rancorous conversation on the topic.

Going by Lamar Alexander's statement, his position is that yes, Trump did, factually, what he's accused of doing, but it does not rise to the level of removal from office. I suspect you will hear a lot of that when the Senators state their reasons for their votes.

I would like reasoned, thoughtful arguments as to why this position is outside the realm of reasonable disagreement.

There's recent precedent for taking that position, i.e., no one disputes that Bill Clinton factually committed perjury, but argue his acquittal was appropriate because it wasn't something he should have been removed from office over.

So . . . why is that position -- yes, he factually did it, but no, it doesn't warrant removing him from office -- unreasonable?














(Disclosure: my own threshold for removal is much lower, as I've explained in numerous threads. I had reasons for impeaching and removing Clinton, Bush, Obama, and additional reasons for removing Trump that no one else did. But my thresholds are much lower than most people's, so that doesn't really help this particular discussion.)

Where is the legal/Constitutional “bar?”

It appears that the “bar” is wherever 34 Senators say it is.

Waiting for the electorate to decide was Majldr. McConnell’s reasoning for not allowing the hearings on Merrit Garland, iirc.

 

[Harshaw]

Where is the legal/Constitutional “bar?”

It appears that the “bar” is wherever 34 Senators say it is.

Waiting for the electorate to decide was Majldr. McConnell’s reasoning for not allowing the hearings on Merrit Garland, iirc.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, as regards my question.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Well, my intent wasn't to ask why he should be removed from office. My question was why it's outside the bounds of reason to see it a different way.

This is a lazy response to my post. I literally just told you why defending blatant corruption is out of the bounds of normal reason and dignity, you just don't like it because you have an agenda.

 

[Harshaw]

This is a lazy response to my post. I literally just told you why defending blatant corruption is out of the bounds of normal reason and dignity, you just don't like it because you have an agenda.

I honestly don't think you did, and I think you're not exactly keeping up the spirit of the Loft here.

Myself? I already said my own threshold for removal was much lower, so the personal invective is misplaced.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I honestly don't think you did, and I think you're not exactly keeping up the spirit of the Loft here.

Myself? I already said my own threshold for removal was much lower, so the personal invective is misplaced.

The spirit of the loft is honest and respectful debate. So far all of your responses have been lazy one-liners telling us you don't like our answers. Tough. Rebut them or don't.

 

[Rexedgar]

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, as regards my question.

I was attempting to identify the bounds of reason. Is this bar arbitrary or is there a precedent that can be referenced for guidance. Where does the standard of guilty, but not guilty enough, exist?

 

[smallvoice]

It warrants removal because it was a completely selfish act that was done to enhance his chances at winning the election. In 3 years Trump has shown no interest in fighting corruption, especially in Ukraine, but a handful of weeks after Biden starts campaigning, he suddenly becomes extremely interested in finding dirt on Biden, something that he attempted to do with Hillary as well. To date, Trump has provided no evidence of his conspiracy theory about the Bidens, so it was either purely a fishing expedition or an explicit publicity stunt to create fake news.

Holding up congressionally allocated funds to an ally that is desperate and needs it to fight our enemy is morally apprehensible, objectively illegal, and more than impeachable. If Trump had any evidence whatsoever of Biden's guilt, he could've had his attorney general open a legitimate investigation through official channels. He didn't do that because he had nothing, and decided to use the power of his office to extort an ally instead. He clearly has shown a consistent tendency to use the power of his position to attack his political rivals, and if allowed, he'll continue to do so.

There is not one single Republican who would tolerate this behavior from a Democratic president, so your motives are completely transparent and partisan. The American people see this as the epitome of D.C. swampiness and I think you're going to be surprised come November. A minority of voters elected Donald Trump last election, and while his core 35% will never leave him no matter what, he's gone out of his way to alienate the moderates and independents. What he did was corrupt and the Republican defense of his corruption has been disgusting. We need to send a clear message that this anti-Constitutional autocratic behavior will not be tolerated.

To his supporters, I think you justify his behavior by pretending that it's ok because Biden actually is corrupt. If we for arguments sake just say he isn't corrupt, does that change your opinion? Is extorting allies to make up fictitious claims about your opponent Ok for the next Democratic president to do?

It does not warrant removal because that act, which you hang your hat on, was appropriate in light of Biden's previous strong arm tactics on the Ukrainians. It is well within Trump's Presidential obligations to get to the bottom of whatever activities that might undermine American interest, and asking for input from a witness who might know the facts of the matter is appropriate.. It is irrelevant that Biden was a possible competitor for the Oval Office. Biden should not have gotten himself in that mess.

 

[Harshaw]

The spirit of the loft is honest and respectful debate. So far all of your responses have been lazy one-liners telling us you don't like our answers. Tough. Rebut them or don't.

Then I will return to you when you show respect. Accusing of me having an agenda that I explicitly don't -- and said so in the OP -- is not respect. It's simply personal invective.

 

[Harshaw]

I was attempting to identify the bounds of reason. Is this bar arbitrary or is there a precedent that can be referenced for guidance. Where does the standard of guilty, but not guilty enough, exist?

That's my question. If you believe the position stated in the OP is out of the bounds of reason, explain why. Set your own bounds and argue for them. I'm not here to set them for anyone.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

It does not warrant removal because that act, which you hang your hat on, was appropriate in light of Biden's previous strong arm tactics on the Ukrainians. It is well within Trump's Presidential obligations to get to the bottom of whatever activities that might undermine American interest, and asking for input from a witness who might know the facts of the matter is appropriate.. It is irrelevant that Biden was a possible competitor for the Oval Office. Biden should not have gotten himself in that mess.

So you fall into the camp of people that think it's justified because they believe Biden actually is corrupt. If he wasn't, would it still be Ok to do? Can the next Democratic president use foreign aid as leverage to have fake investigations opened into his Republican rivals? Should be ok as long as we truly believe the Republicans are corrupt, right?

Then I will return to you when you show respect. Accusing of me having an agenda that I explicitly don't -- and said so in the OP -- is not respect. It's simply personal invective.

You can return when you're able to either address my points or make your own.

 

[Harshaw]

It does not warrant removal because that act, which you hang your hat on, was appropriate in light of Biden's previous strong arm tactics on the Ukrainians. It is well within Trump's Presidential obligations to get to the bottom of whatever activities that might undermine American interest, and asking for input from a witness who might know the facts of the matter is appropriate.. It is irrelevant that Biden was a possible competitor for the Oval Office. Biden should not have gotten himself in that mess.

Again, the purpose isn't to argue, as has already been done ad nauseam throughout DP, why he should or shouldn't be removed, nor to discuss Biden. It's to discuss the un/reasonableness of a specific position.

 

[MrPeanut]

For me the ability to hold free and fair elections is paramount to the survival of the republic. We need to be able to trust that those we give power to will use that power in a way that isn't based in personal gain. The argument that abuse of power isn't impeachable, even if it is specifically used to benefit someone personally, is a very big step towards authoritarianism. We have to be able to hold people accountable even if they are on our 'team'. Alexander is trying to find a way to not fulfill his responsibility as an elected official, but to do it in such a way that he can excuse his own inaction. He punts the ball and claims that the voters will decide even though the real power was vested in him when he was elected. This system of government does not work if elected officials are willing to excuse everything in order to gain or maintain power for their party.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Posting this in the Loft to hopefully encourage thoughtful, non-rancorous conversation on the topic.

Going by Lamar Alexander's statement, his position is that yes, Trump did, factually, what he's accused of doing, but it does not rise to the level of removal from office. I suspect you will hear a lot of that when the Senators state their reasons for their votes.

I would like reasoned, thoughtful arguments as to why this position is outside the realm of reasonable disagreement.

There's recent precedent for taking that position, i.e., no one disputes that Bill Clinton factually committed perjury, but argue his acquittal was appropriate because it wasn't something he should have been removed from office over.

So . . . why is that position -- yes, he factually did it, but no, it doesn't warrant removing him from office -- unreasonable?


(Disclosure: my own threshold for removal is much lower, as I've explained in numerous threads. I had reasons for impeaching and removing Clinton, Bush, Obama, and additional reasons for removing Trump that no one else did. But my thresholds are much lower than most people's, so that doesn't really help this particular discussion.)

I'll give it a try.

First we must agree to disregard the facts, as pointed out by Mr. Dershowitz and others. They can be found in a review of the Founder's Constitutional debates/discussion about Impeachment; as well as the records of the defenses provided for both the Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase, and of President Andrew Johnson. This would show the attempts during the debates to add various political "crimes," all of which were rejected in favor of the simple "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." See Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution. Also the arguments in each listed Impeachment trial for the need for actual "crimes" to Impeach.

Thus we can base the arguments on the current idea held by some proponents of the current Impeachment effort. That being that as the House has the "Sole power to Impeach" and the Senate the "Sole power to try Impeachment;" this also means the Constitution's Article II, Section 4 can be interpreted to allow the House to Impeach for "any reason they want to." That there is no need for any actual "crime" to have been committed; or conversely that whatever they say/believe is a crime is Impeachable.

Going by this assumption the argument chain would be this:

1. The President has abused the power he holds as Chief Executive to seek an investigation of a likely candidate expected to run against him in the next election.

2. That such use places the entire weight of the Executive Branch behind "opposition research" designed for the sole purpose of eliminating a potential rival and improving his own chance for reelection.

3. That such use perverts the legally established purposes for the existence of such Agencies as would be involved in said investigation, as it is an exercise of Executive Power for other than the good of the Republic.

4. That this use criminally suborns the election processes at the very least by using government funded resources for personal election activities in violation of Election Law.

5. Therefore this is an Abuse of Executive power which constitutes a High Crime against the United States, as it suborns the resources of the State for the sole purpose of self-advancement, and not the advancement of the interests of the United States.

That is the argument regarding Article I of Impeachment.

(BTW: I see that this thread has had several back and forth responses while I was preparing my argument. My understanding is that this is not allowed per the Sub-Forum Rules. I don't intend to argue the position should it be moved to a different Sub-Forum. I submitted this in adherence to my understanding of the Loft rules.)

 

[smallvoice]

So you fall into the camp of people that think it's justified because they believe Biden actually is corrupt. If he wasn't, would it still be Ok to do? Can the next Democratic president use foreign aid as leverage to have fake investigations opened into his Republican rivals? Should be ok as long as we truly believe the Republicans are corrupt, right?



You can return when you're able to either address my points or make your own.

Let me address the camp you want me in: Wrong.

Thanks for trying.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Let me address the camp you want me in: Wrong.
Thanks for trying.

That is exactly, word for word what you said:

It does not warrant removal because that act, which you hang your hat on, was appropriate in light of Biden's previous strong arm tactics on the Ukrainians. It is well within Trump's Presidential obligations to get to the bottom of whatever activities that might undermine American interest, and asking for input from a witness who might know the facts of the matter is appropriate.. It is irrelevant that Biden was a possible competitor for the Oval Office. Biden should not have gotten himself in that mess.

You believe it's justified because you think Biden actually is corrupt, which is what I said. Own your position like a man and stop with this doublespeak. If you're wrong and Biden actually isn't corrupt, does that change your position? Can the next Democratic president use foreign aid to create fake or real investigation into his Republican rivals?

 

[Harshaw]

I'll give it a try.

First we must agree to disregard the facts, as pointed out by Mr. Dershowitz and others. They can be found in a review of the Founder's Constitutional debates/discussion about Impeachment; as well as the records of the defenses provided for both the Impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase, and President Andrew Johnson. This would show the attempts during the debates to add various political "crimes," all of which were rejected in favor of the simple "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." listed in Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution.

Thus we can base the arguments on the current idea held by some proponents of the current Impeachment effort. That being that as the House has the "Sole power to Impeach" and the Senate the "Sole power to try Impeachment;" this also means the Constitution's Article II, Section 4 can be interpreted to allow the House to Impeach for "any reason they want to." That there is no need for any actual "crime" to have been committed; or conversely that whatever they say/believe is a crime is Impeachable.

Going by this assumption the argument chain would be this:

1. The President has abused the power he holds as Chief Executive to seek an investigation of a likely candidate expected to run against him in the next election.

2. That such use places the entire weight of the Executive Branch behind "opposition research" designed for the sole purpose of eliminating a potential rival and improving his own chance for reelection.

3. That such use perverts the legally established purposes for the existence of such Agencies as would be involved in said investigation, as it is an exercise of Executive Power for other than the good of the Republic.

4. That this use criminally suborns the election processes at the very least by using government funded resources for personal election activities in violation of Election Law.

5. Therefore this is an Abuse of Executive power which constitutes a High Crime against the United States, as it suborns the resources of the State for the sole purpose of self-advancement, and not the advancement of the interests of the United States.

That is the argument I believe was being attempted by the House regarding Article I of Impeachment.

(BTW: I see that this thread has had several back and forth responses while I was preparing my argument. My understanding this is not allowed per the Sub-Forum Rules. I don't intend to argue the position should it be moved to a different Sub-Forum. I submitted this in adherence to my understanding of the Loft rules.)

By this argument, it seems to me that the Senate thus must agree that the threshold for removal is set entirely by the House, and must consider guilt and innocence on those terms. Is that your intent?

 

[smallvoice]

That is exactly, word for word what you said:



You believe it's justified because you think Biden actually is corrupt, which is what I said. Own your position like a man and stop with this doublespeak. If you're wrong and Biden actually isn't corrupt, does that change your position? Can the next Democratic president use foreign aid to create fake or real investigation into his Republican rivals?

How can I put this nicely? Nah, Stuff it. I NEVER said Biden was corrupt. I said Trump was doing his duty to find out if he was. THAT is fully within his Presidential authority. Just because you don't want anyone looking into your boy's possible corrupt activities does not make what Trump did impeachable, which you now know. Since Trump did NOT do what you are trying to splash him with, no, a Dim President cannot either.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

How can I put this nicely? Nah, Stuff it. I NEVER said Biden was corrupt. I said Trump was doing his duty to find out if he was. THAT is fully within his Presidential authority. Just because you don't want anyone looking into your boy's possible corrupt activities does not make what Trump did impeachable, which you now know. Since Trump did NOT do what you are trying to splash him with, no, a Dim President cannot either.

So to you it doesn't actually matter if the person is corrupt or not, the next Democratic president can extort our allies to arbitrarily open investigations into his Republican rivals. That's a dangerous and autocratic position you hold. As long as the next Democratic president promises he wants to know if the Republican is corrupt, it's A-Ok! It's his duty to find out right? eace

 

[Harshaw]

For me the ability to hold free and fair elections is paramount to the survival of the republic. We need to be able to trust that those we give power to will use that power in a way that isn't based in personal gain. The argument that abuse of power isn't impeachable, even if it is specifically used to benefit someone personally, is a very big step towards authoritarianism. We have to be able to hold people accountable even if they are on our 'team'. Alexander is trying to find a way to not fulfill his responsibility as an elected official, but to do it in such a way that he can excuse his own inaction. He punts the ball and claims that the voters will decide even though the real power was vested in him when he was elected. This system of government does not work if elected officials are willing to excuse everything in order to gain or maintain power for their party.

Are there abuses of power which don't rise to the level of removal? If so, what is the threshold?

 

[smallvoice]

By this argument, it seems to me that the Senate thus must agree that the threshold for removal is set entirely by the House, and must consider guilt and innocence on those terms. Is that your intent?

I don't believe that is what he said. The threshold for removal is the sole prerogative of the Senate, it is the House's responsibility to make the case if the alleged offenses meet the Constitutional threshold for impeachment (High Crimes and Misdemeanors). I believe that is what the Constitution requires.

 

[Harshaw]

I don't believe that is what he said. The threshold for removal is the sole prerogative of the Senate, it is the House's responsibility to make the case if the alleged offenses meet the Constitutional threshold for impeachment (High Crimes and Misdemeanors). I believe that is what the Constitution requires.

I think it IS what his argument said, but am happy to see his response.

 

[smallvoice]

So to you it doesn't actually matter if the person is corrupt or not, the next Democratic president can extort our allies to arbitrarily open investigations into his Republican rivals. That's a dangerous and autocratic position you hold. As long as the next Democratic president promises he wants to know if the Republican is corrupt, it's A-Ok! It's his duty to find out right? eace

Try not to project your desires into what I said. Did you even read my post?