[W:31]Threshold for removal.

[MrPeanut]

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

My loose definition would be that abuse of power in the name of something like the public good is very arguable and covers a huge range of possibilities, but abuse of power in the name of personal gain is a direct threat to our system of government as it is a blatantly corrupt act.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

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

Yes, you said it's the President's duty to find out if his political opponent is corrupt or not, and you're not even saying Biden is corrupt. Therefore you believe the president can investigate his opponents and urge our allies to investigate his opponents, corrupt or not, to find out if they are. Why are you backing away from things you literally just said?

 

[smallvoice]

Yes, you said it's the President's duty to find out if his political opponent is corrupt or not, and you're not even saying Biden is corrupt. Therefore you believe the president can investigate his opponents, corrupt or not, to find out if they are. Why are you backing away from things you literally just said?

Because you corrupted what I said. I made no statement about a political opponent being investigated. He was investigated as a citizen. I FULLY believe that the President should investigate any citizen if it appears he is becoming involved on international affairs.

Stop trying to put me in your box.

 

[Harshaw]

My loose definition would be that abuse of power in the name of something like the public good is very arguable and covers a huge range of possibilities, but abuse of power in the name of personal gain is a direct threat to our system of government as it is a blatantly corrupt act.

Got it, I think. So it's your position that abuses of power for personal gain are always grounds for removal, and that it is unreasonable to take a different position? I only ask to be clear what you're saying.

 

[Redress]

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

I will take a stab at it.

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.

Here is the problem with the premise of your question: it is not outside the realm of reasonable disagreement. There are no clear cut guides as to what is and is not grounds for removal of the president from office. That means each and every person in the senate has to decide, for themselves, what is grounds for removal. It is a value judgement. And being human, personal considerations will creep into their decision. I do not have to like it, I do not have to agree(and I don't in either case), but to say it is "unreasonable disagreement" is a weak argument.

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.

I think the real reason Clinton was not removed from office had alot more to do with the house managers doing an incredibly ****ty job of presenting their case. When Clinton's lawyer Charles Ruff(who was brilliant and sympathetic arguing from his wheelchair) was able to show that the house managers had people reacting to events before they happened, it was pretty much all over.

With that said, I do think it is important to note the big difference between what Clinton did and what Trump did, and why that, to my mind, should make a difference. Trump misused his office, Clinton did not. The phone call, the withholding aide, all of those are official acts. Clinton's affair and his deposition where he was "less than honest" where done as a private citizen.

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

As I stated above, it is not unreasonable. Just wrong.

(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.)

And that is kinda the key. We each have our own standards, based on our own values. When people make these kinda blanket insults("oh, you are being unreasonable", while mild, is still insulting), it stifles actual, honest discussion. And you end up with what we see every day here at DP. I think the standard for removing the president from office should be high, but not out of reach, which sounds as if it is a very different position from you. That does not make you, or me, unreasonable(I hope anyway).

I also think that our founding fathers did it right. The history as I understand it of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is that it in part recognizes you can't cover everything with laws without stripping all the forests in the world to print law books. You have to have some avenue to cover those situations that are not covered by the law, but are not acceptable. The full phrase is " Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Treason and Bribery suggest to me that the founding fathers still smarted from Benedict Arnold. And then they added, essentially, "other stuff". I like that it is nice and general and open to interpretation. It is a good example to me of the idea of a living document, able to change with the times without having to be changed(and hoo boy, that statement will probably be controversial...).

My standard is that if you use the of your office for your own benefit outside of the normal ways(normal ways referring to pay and normal perks of an office). A judege making a ruling to benefit himself should be impeached. A judge making a stupid ruling, not so much. But that is not hard and fast, and there are exceptions. We have to judge each situation based on the unique facts of that situation.

Good thread Harshaw, made me really think.

 

[Redress]

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.

Moderator's Warning:

If you feel a post is not in the spirit of the Loft, p;ease use the Report Post button. Do not discuss it inthread.

Eit:

Moderator's Warning:

More generally, everyone, please read The Loft Guidelines. Some of you are close to being removed from this thread. Don't make me do it!

 

[RabidAlpaca]

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

Take note of the warning:

[W:31]Threshold for removal.If you feel a post is not in the spirit of the Loft, p;ease use the Report Post button. Do not discuss it inthread.

 

[Harshaw]

I will take a stab at it.



Here is the problem with the premise of your question: it is not outside the realm of reasonable disagreement. There are no clear cut guides as to what is and is not grounds for removal of the president from office. That means each and every person in the senate has to decide, for themselves, what is grounds for removal. It is a value judgement. And being human, personal considerations will creep into their decision. I do not have to like it, I do not have to agree(and I don't in either case), but to say it is "unreasonable disagreement" is a weak argument.



I think the real reason Clinton was not removed from office had alot more to do with the house managers doing an incredibly ****ty job of presenting their case. When Clinton's lawyer Charles Ruff(who was brilliant and sympathetic arguing from his wheelchair) was able to show that the house managers had people reacting to events before they happened, it was pretty much all over.

With that said, I do think it is important to note the big difference between what Clinton did and what Trump did, and why that, to my mind, should make a difference. Trump misused his office, Clinton did not. The phone call, the withholding aide, all of those are official acts. Clinton's affair and his deposition where he was "less than honest" where done as a private citizen.



As I stated above, it is not unreasonable. Just wrong.



And that is kinda the key. We each have our own standards, based on our own values. When people make these kinda blanket insults("oh, you are being unreasonable", while mild, is still insulting), it stifles actual, honest discussion. And you end up with what we see every day here at DP. I think the standard for removing the president from office should be high, but not out of reach, which sounds as if it is a very different position from you. That does not make you, or me, unreasonable(I hope anyway).

I also think that our founding fathers did it right. The history as I understand it of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is that it in part recognizes you can't cover everything with laws without stripping all the forests in the world to print law books. You have to have some avenue to cover those situations that are not covered by the law, but are not acceptable. The full phrase is " Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Treason and Bribery suggest to me that the founding fathers still smarted from Benedict Arnold. And then they added, essentially, "other stuff". I like that it is nice and general and open to interpretation. It is a good example to me of the idea of a living document, able to change with the times without having to be changed(and hoo boy, that statement will probably be controversial...).

My standard is that if you use the of your office for your own benefit outside of the normal ways(normal ways referring to pay and normal perks of an office). A judege making a ruling to benefit himself should be impeached. A judge making a stupid ruling, not so much. But that is not hard and fast, and there are exceptions. We have to judge each situation based on the unique facts of that situation.

Good thread Harshaw, made me really think.

Thanks for this -- it's the kind of response I was hoping for.

I also do not think it is unreasonable, but I'm sympathetic to the "abuse of power for personal gain" argument.

 

[Harshaw]

I don't find persuasive, though, the idea that it's the House which sets the threshold for removal and the Senate must follow it, as articulated (though in a Devil's advocate way) by Captain Adverse above.

 

[MrPeanut]

Got it, I think. So it's your position that abuses of power for personal gain are always grounds for removal, and that it is unreasonable to take a different position? I only ask to be clear what you're saying.

I'll try to put it another way. I believe that Alexander's reasoning is extremely flawed. The constitution clearly includes the power of impeachment as a check on any president, and I feel like his statement is just an attempt to thread a political needle more than anything else. Abuse of power in order to influence an election is not simply inappropriate as Alexander claims. I think his justification for preventing relevant witnesses and evidence is also weak.

The threshold for removal would involve sorting out the potential damage of the act itself. How many lives were lost due to the freeze? How many careers and reputations were ruined in the pursuit of his personal interest? How do these actions affect our ability to form strong alliances with countries in the future? The scale of this beyond inappropriate. The context in which we are talking about this includes an upcoming election with a president that even some Republicans will agree has abused his power specifically to help in that upcoming election. It directly goes after our ability to trust this president to fairly compete against whoever gets the nomination.

 

[Harshaw]

I'll try to put it another way. I believe that Alexander's reasoning is extremely flawed. The constitution clearly includes the power of impeachment as a check on any president, and I feel like his statement is just an attempt to thread a political needle more than anything else. Abuse of power in order to influence an election is not simply inappropriate as Alexander claims. I think his justification for preventing relevant witnesses and evidence is also weak.

The threshold for removal would involve sorting out the potential damage of the act itself. How many lives were lost due to the freeze? How many careers and reputations were ruined in the pursuit of his personal interest? How do these actions affect our ability to form strong alliances with countries in the future? The scale of this beyond inappropriate. The context in which we are talking about this includes an upcoming election with a president that even some Republicans will agree has abused his power specifically to help in that upcoming election. It directly goes after our ability to trust this president to fairly compete against whoever gets the nomination.

Well, my question is less about the specifics of his argument than the general idea that yes, X happened, but it doesn't rise to the level of removal.

If you're saying you don't buy his specifics in this case -- and clearly you don't -- it's not the same as saying that the argument itself, removed from the specifics, is unreasonable.

Perhaps for certain things it's not possible to separate the two, such as for unambiguously heinous crimes. I can buy that. Would have to think about it to figure out the line, though, because obviously it IS possible to separate the two for some things.

 

[MrPeanut]

Well, my question is less about the specifics of his argument than the general idea that yes, X happened, but it doesn't rise to the level of removal.

If you're saying you don't buy his specifics in this case -- and clearly you don't -- it's not the same as saying that the argument itself, removed from the specifics, is unreasonable.

Perhaps for certain things it's not possible to separate the two, such as for unambiguously heinous crimes. I can buy that. Would have to think about it to figure out the line, though, because obviously it IS possible to separate the two for some things.

I guess for me it isn't as simple as saying A doesn't rise to the level of removal when in this case it also happened to negatively impact B,C, and D. There could potentially be a situation where abusing power for personal gain doesn't get people killed, ruin people's lives, or negatively impact our ability as a country to form alliances, but this isn't that case. I think it's a mistake to view his actions in a vacuum and ignore the scale of its effects.

 

[Harshaw]

I guess for me it isn't as simple as saying A doesn't rise to the level of removal when in this case it also happened to negatively impact B,C, and D. There could potentially be a situation where abusing power for personal gain doesn't get people killed, ruin people's lives, or negatively impact our ability as a country to form alliances, but this isn't that case. I think it's a mistake to view his actions in a vacuum and ignore the scale of its effects.

But do you think someone else can reasonably come to a different calculation?

 

[Divine_Wind]

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.

IMO, both Clinton and Trump should have been convicted and removed from office as unfit to serve: both violated their oath of office for personal gain; illicit sex for Clinton and political advantage for Trump. As a result of the actions of Clinton, he was rendered politically impotent to react to the rising threat of al-Qaeda. Had he been removed and Gore sworn in, Gore wouldn't have been hobbled by having his pants around his ankles.

The jury is still out on the long term ramifications of Trump.

The bottom line here is that the Senate should acquit or convict based on the Constitution and the purpose of impeachment, not party political advantage. This isn't a criminal proceeding as many Trump supporters tried to make it appear. The penalty for impeachment is removal from office and a restriction from holding future federal offices. As Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 65:

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 65
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Is there any doubt that both Clinton and Trump were guilty of misconduct and abused or violated public trust? Clinton lied in court. Clinton looked into the eyes of the American public and lied again. Is that not a violation of public trust? Clinton's actions are directly tied to his lack of resolve to stop al-Qaeda. A few cruise missiles is a token action, not what our military and intelligence agencies knew was required. Trump harmed US security and US alliance relations by violating the public trust in giving Ukraine the military support Congress had authorized.

In short; the threshold of removal should be exactly what Hamilton said it was and what both Clinton and Trump clearly violated.

 

[Divine_Wind]

But do you think someone else can reasonably come to a different calculation?

Yes, but it depends upon their reasoning. What reason did the Senate give? All BS aside, was it really reasonable?

 

[MrPeanut]

But do you think someone else can reasonably come to a different calculation?

Reasonable means different things to different people. I would have to see an argument that I felt both genuinely addressed the scale of his abuse of power and argued that removal was unnecessary. So far in this thread I haven't seen that, and I already stated that I felt Alexander's statement was an attempt to soften Trump's actions in order to justify a political action on his own part. What other means do we really have to punish a president for this kind of abuse? Removal seems to be the only option. Is there another type of punishment I'm missing here?

 

[Harshaw]

Reasonable means different things to different people. I would have to see an argument that I felt both genuinely addressed the scale of his abuse of power and argued that removal was unnecessary. So far in this thread I haven't seen that, and I already stated that I felt Alexander's statement was an attempt to soften Trump's actions in order to justify a political action on his own part.

The point of the thread isn't to justify Alexander's position; it's to discuss why the position of "yes, he did X but it doesn't rise to the level of removal" is per se unreasonable.

For the things you said about the specifics, I can think of a number of rebuttals, not least that Ukrainians being killed by Russians is Russia's responsibility, not ours. To get into granular specifics, for Ukrainians who died in September, 1) hundreds of millions in aid WERE delivered in September, and 2) the aid which was withheld wasn't due until September 30, after they had been killed. (I don't need to take those positions to note that they are possible rebuttals.)

What other means do we really have to punish a president for this kind of abuse? Removal seems to be the only option. Is there another type of punishment I'm missing here?

Vote him out. Censure. Power of the purse. There are many options.

 

[Harshaw]

IMO, both Clinton and Trump should have been convicted and removed from office as unfit to serve: both violated their oath of office for personal gain; illicit sex for Clinton and political advantage for Trump. As a result of the actions of Clinton, he was rendered politically impotent to react to the rising threat of al-Qaeda. Had he been removed and Gore sworn in, Gore wouldn't have been hobbled by having his pants around his ankles.

The jury is still out on the long term ramifications of Trump.

The bottom line here is that the Senate should acquit or convict based on the Constitution and the purpose of impeachment, not party political advantage. This isn't a criminal proceeding as many Trump supporters tried to make it appear. The penalty for impeachment is removal from office and a restriction from holding future federal offices. As Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 65:

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 65
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Is there any doubt that both Clinton and Trump were guilty of misconduct and abused or violated public trust? Clinton lied in court. Clinton looked into the eyes of the American public and lied again. Is that not a violation of public trust? Clinton's actions are directly tied to his lack of resolve to stop al-Qaeda. A few cruise missiles is a token action, not what our military and intelligence agencies knew was required. Trump harmed US security and US alliance relations by violating the public trust in giving Ukraine the military support Congress had authorized.

In short; the threshold of removal should be exactly what Hamilton said it was and what both Clinton and Trump clearly violated.

Well, as I said, my own threshold for removal is considerably lower than most others, and I have numerous reasons why Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump all should have been removed which others don't care about in the slightest.

 

[Harshaw]

Yes, but it depends upon their reasoning. What reason did the Senate give? All BS aside, was it really reasonable?

There will be many different reasons given.

 

[Divine_Wind]

There will be many different reasons given.

No doubt....especially when each Senator has to justify their reasoning before their respectives elections.

 

[MrPeanut]

The point of the thread isn't to justify Alexander's position; it's to discuss why the position of "yes, he did X but it doesn't rise to the level of removal" is per se unreasonable.

For the things you said about the specifics, I can think of a number of rebuttals, not least that Ukrainians being killed by Russians is Russia's responsibility, not ours. To get into granular specifics, for Ukrainians who died in September, 1) hundreds of millions in aid WERE delivered in September, and 2) the aid which was withheld wasn't due until September 30, after they had been killed. (I don't need to take those positions to note that they are possible rebuttals.)



Vote him out. Censure. Power of the purse. There are many options.

Voting is not an act of Congress. I'm not sure how withholding funding is the right response to this abuse of power. I guess you could argue that we should just stop passing all aid so he doesn't have anything to use against our allies, but that hardly seems like the appropriate response to this event. What do you believe censure would accomplish? How do you appropriately restrain someone like Trump?

 

[Harshaw]

Voting is not an act of Congress. I'm not sure how withholding funding is the right response to this abuse of power. I guess you could argue that we should just stop passing all aid so he doesn't have anything to use against our allies, but that hardly seems like the appropriate response to this event. What do you believe censure would accomplish? How do you appropriately restrain someone like Trump?

Voting out is the democratic way of ridding ourselves of a problem President.

He can be restrained in the things he wants to do by cutting funding for it.

The point is, there are options other than removal through impeachment.

 

[MrPeanut]

Voting out is the democratic way of ridding ourselves of a problem President.

He can be restrained in the things he wants to do by cutting funding for it.

The point is, there are options other than removal through impeachment.

I think we disagree on the scale of the offense. If a president abuses his power to benefit himself in an upcoming election I do not think acquittal and then an election is the appropriate response. After all the problem isn't the election, it is that barring punishment he will obviously use his power to attempt to influence the election. I do not think that the current administration cares about operating inside the normal bounds and any punishment inside of those bounds will not be an effective restraint. In other words, sometimes the easiest way to make sure a kid doesn't cause trouble is to take away the toy instead of giving them a hundred warnings.

 

[Harshaw]

I think we disagree on the scale of the offense.

Well, the whole point of the thread is disagreement on the scale of the offense. I myself have said numerous times that my own threshold is much lower than most people's, so it's not me I'm arguing for here.

 

[Acadia]

Mr. Alexander's opinion is just that. It proves nothing and that's the problem. Bill Clinton's crime was proven. Incontrovertibly proven.
Democrats had an opportunity to call fact witnesses and they declined. Instead, they put on a show.
I understand the urge to let Democrats off the hook for not doing their job. After all, they are extremely good at messaging. But no amount of rhetoric can substitute for duty, which they reneged upon.