There are two reasons not to call witnesses. One is because you just don't care about the fact of the case. That is pretty damming and an aspect which I see a lot of focus on.
The second though is a little more reasonable. Namely that you already proved he did the act accused of so why keep going?
If you accept the second premise all you need to do is determine if that particular action is worthy of removal from office. Obviously we all expect that not to happen.
Without laboring the point one can have a legitimate difference of opinion on that issue. Similarly, when we last had an impeachment there was no doubt that the President had committed the acts, but enough senators decided it was simply not enough to merit removal.
Crimes have certain degrees of harm associated with them. If someone steals a loaf of bread, we no longer consider that act bad enough to warrant imprisonment without extenuating circumstances. On the other hand stealing a million dollar necklace is likely to be treated with serious consequences.
The acts are very similar but have different consequences.
So the two articles of Impeachment are the issue here. The first is that he misused his office to gain a personal favor. Its a bit complicated by the military aid involved but is it bad enough to warrant removal from office? Whether or not it is actually a crime is part of the issue. While the radical argument that he actually can't commit a crime is nonsense, it might be valid that his actual act was allowable but it was his motivation that made it wrong.
That is subjective enough to allow legitimate differences of opinion.
The second article is tied up with the first and regards obstructing congress. He did but so have previous Presidents and generally there is recourse in the courts. So if the first charge wasn't filed, the second wouldn't have been. If the first is not enough, the second joins it.
The vote on Wednesday will acquit the President even though he is in fact guilty. Its a question of how guilty more or less.
Showing posts with label impeachment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label impeachment. Show all posts
Saturday, February 1, 2020
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Guilty as Charged but ?
So he did it, but is it a crime?
The answer is yes but they are not dramatic sort of crimes.
The first crime is trying to use the power of his office for personal gain. The personal gain was to create a controversy about a political rival that he and his propaganda machine can use to attack. This tactic was quite successful against his last opponent even when all the accusation were false.
In some ways he has succeeded in doing this as the involvement of the Biden's in Ukraine has garnered some headlines and I guarantee that will increase. He failed in one aspect getting the Ukrainians to go along with it.
This is illegal because he held US Assets to pressure Ukraine. Yes he eventually released them but that doesn't mean it wasn't a crime. The GAO has pointed out it violated US law.
However, most Americans don't see this as particularly meaningful. The see it as inappropriate and maybe a violation, but more like a speeding ticket than say a murder. There is a deep suspicion that politicians are always doing things like this and the fact that this got exposed is more bad luck than anything out of the ordinary. We don't trust Government and we keep seeing Media exposes about how Government has been lying to us for many years, maybe forever.
The second crime involves the cover up which is clear but once again seems like the sore to thing politicians do. He put roadblocks in the path of the Congress which went around them instead of fighting them out in court. That decision might be the one that results n the failure of the process. Clearly the witnesses could clarify the crime and the issues. The House could have waited for the courts to weigh in, but instead moved ahead hoping the Senate would get on-board.
It probably won't and thinking it would was more a pipe dream than anything else.
Possibly worse is that the process has been made boring. Most of the Senate seems bored and the viewing public even more so. It confirms the high school belief that History is boring.
The answer is yes but they are not dramatic sort of crimes.
The first crime is trying to use the power of his office for personal gain. The personal gain was to create a controversy about a political rival that he and his propaganda machine can use to attack. This tactic was quite successful against his last opponent even when all the accusation were false.
In some ways he has succeeded in doing this as the involvement of the Biden's in Ukraine has garnered some headlines and I guarantee that will increase. He failed in one aspect getting the Ukrainians to go along with it.
This is illegal because he held US Assets to pressure Ukraine. Yes he eventually released them but that doesn't mean it wasn't a crime. The GAO has pointed out it violated US law.
However, most Americans don't see this as particularly meaningful. The see it as inappropriate and maybe a violation, but more like a speeding ticket than say a murder. There is a deep suspicion that politicians are always doing things like this and the fact that this got exposed is more bad luck than anything out of the ordinary. We don't trust Government and we keep seeing Media exposes about how Government has been lying to us for many years, maybe forever.
The second crime involves the cover up which is clear but once again seems like the sore to thing politicians do. He put roadblocks in the path of the Congress which went around them instead of fighting them out in court. That decision might be the one that results n the failure of the process. Clearly the witnesses could clarify the crime and the issues. The House could have waited for the courts to weigh in, but instead moved ahead hoping the Senate would get on-board.
It probably won't and thinking it would was more a pipe dream than anything else.
Possibly worse is that the process has been made boring. Most of the Senate seems bored and the viewing public even more so. It confirms the high school belief that History is boring.
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Tactics
I've lived through three presidential events, two impeachments and one resignation and while certainly each is unique what we are seeing is something new in this one.
With Nixon you had an unfolding of evidence where both sides were determined to find out the truth. Certainly he had supporters, less over time but they acted like a tribunal in search of the truth.
It seemed likely that as dramatic development unfurled he was going to be both impeached and convicted and seeing the handwriting on the wall he resigned.
With Clinton, the act he was accused of was lying about an encounter with a young intern. Once it was proven the encounter had happened and he apologized the crime he was accused of was effectively perjury under oath. He was clearly guilty but he was not removed from office, partly because while a serious matter it was more of a personal issue where he lied about infidelity. It didn't really have much to do with the National Interest.
Now in the current one we see charges of attempting to use national resources to further personal interests and then obstructing the investigation. What seems different this time is that instead of trying to determine if the events happened, it is likely they did, his supporters are on the attack, politicizing the process while accusing the opposition of being political.
Now we know the phone call happened and we know that witnesses and documents are being withheld. The American public would like to see these documents and hear these witnesses, so the question becomes, was there enough evidence already for the House?
There was and if in fact there is evidence that the motivation was indeed perfect, one would think the Senate supporters would roll out the documents and witnesses to refute the accusations.
They aren't going to do that, they will simply acquit based on political reasons.
They think the American public will agree and some will.
I don't think it is enough for those who aren't already rabid supporters. We will see.
With Nixon you had an unfolding of evidence where both sides were determined to find out the truth. Certainly he had supporters, less over time but they acted like a tribunal in search of the truth.
It seemed likely that as dramatic development unfurled he was going to be both impeached and convicted and seeing the handwriting on the wall he resigned.
With Clinton, the act he was accused of was lying about an encounter with a young intern. Once it was proven the encounter had happened and he apologized the crime he was accused of was effectively perjury under oath. He was clearly guilty but he was not removed from office, partly because while a serious matter it was more of a personal issue where he lied about infidelity. It didn't really have much to do with the National Interest.
Now in the current one we see charges of attempting to use national resources to further personal interests and then obstructing the investigation. What seems different this time is that instead of trying to determine if the events happened, it is likely they did, his supporters are on the attack, politicizing the process while accusing the opposition of being political.
Now we know the phone call happened and we know that witnesses and documents are being withheld. The American public would like to see these documents and hear these witnesses, so the question becomes, was there enough evidence already for the House?
There was and if in fact there is evidence that the motivation was indeed perfect, one would think the Senate supporters would roll out the documents and witnesses to refute the accusations.
They aren't going to do that, they will simply acquit based on political reasons.
They think the American public will agree and some will.
I don't think it is enough for those who aren't already rabid supporters. We will see.
Friday, December 13, 2019
Impeach and Release?
One of the problems with Impeachment is that it is essentially a political process, where it starts to seem like more shenanigans.
Especially when there is almost no real chance at getting a conviction.
The founders allowed a simple majority of the House to pass articles of Impeachment but a two thirds majority to convict. It therefore seems like a political stunt to do the first with no legitimate chance at the second.
The current Impeachment is problematic because the high crime and misdemeanor here is not clear and convincing to many, i.e. a smoking gun.
Yes he tried to get the Ukrainians to investigate a potential rival and held up things they wanted, a meeting and military assistance to get them to comply. He then failed to cooperate in the investigation.
It just doesn't shock that many people. Watching the hearings the arguments revolve around whether these are even impeachable offenses.
They clearly are since the only standard is what the House decides but then again they don't resonate.
Part of the problem is the low regard Americans have for politicians of both parties. Sure they lie and manipulate to get elected. This just seems like more of the same.
Many Democrats were effectively looking for something they could impeach him for. When this came up they had something but its not a smoking gun. Its more like convicting a gangster of tax evasion. Is it enough to persuade the American people? Well once again it is breaking down based on politics.
He's guilty but to many it seems more like a slap on the wrist issue than a lose your job one.
If you like to catch and release when you fish this may be satisfying, just not getting any dinner.
Especially when there is almost no real chance at getting a conviction.
The founders allowed a simple majority of the House to pass articles of Impeachment but a two thirds majority to convict. It therefore seems like a political stunt to do the first with no legitimate chance at the second.
The current Impeachment is problematic because the high crime and misdemeanor here is not clear and convincing to many, i.e. a smoking gun.
Yes he tried to get the Ukrainians to investigate a potential rival and held up things they wanted, a meeting and military assistance to get them to comply. He then failed to cooperate in the investigation.
It just doesn't shock that many people. Watching the hearings the arguments revolve around whether these are even impeachable offenses.
They clearly are since the only standard is what the House decides but then again they don't resonate.
Part of the problem is the low regard Americans have for politicians of both parties. Sure they lie and manipulate to get elected. This just seems like more of the same.
Many Democrats were effectively looking for something they could impeach him for. When this came up they had something but its not a smoking gun. Its more like convicting a gangster of tax evasion. Is it enough to persuade the American people? Well once again it is breaking down based on politics.
He's guilty but to many it seems more like a slap on the wrist issue than a lose your job one.
If you like to catch and release when you fish this may be satisfying, just not getting any dinner.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Well He Served Himself
Pretty much everyone rationalizes their own bad behavior.
It starts early when toddlers often deny obvious bad actions.
I assume there re psychological theories about this, but in my view it is simply because we are all the central characters in our view of the world and we understand why we did what we did.
We wouldn't do bad things if we considered them bad or if we didn't think the good outweighed the bad.
Of course we might know that the action is viewed as a crime by society but it doesn't outweigh our internal calculations.
Now take the current Impeachment inquiry. The actions taken are clear and the charges related to those actions are also clear, but fundamentally the other side says how could it be wrong if it was supposed to benefit the incumbent.
There were potentially many more possible charges and counts including obstruction of justice in the Russian probe but in order to move it along it was reduced to two which clearly happened,
Abuse of power when he used the office of the President to pressure a foreign country to investigate American citizens, who were not charged with any crimes in this country.
Obstruction of Congress, well documented by the President's own memo and instructions as well as numerous public statements.
He thinks these actions were OK, after all they were designed to protect him.
What could be more important?
It starts early when toddlers often deny obvious bad actions.
I assume there re psychological theories about this, but in my view it is simply because we are all the central characters in our view of the world and we understand why we did what we did.
We wouldn't do bad things if we considered them bad or if we didn't think the good outweighed the bad.
Of course we might know that the action is viewed as a crime by society but it doesn't outweigh our internal calculations.
Now take the current Impeachment inquiry. The actions taken are clear and the charges related to those actions are also clear, but fundamentally the other side says how could it be wrong if it was supposed to benefit the incumbent.
There were potentially many more possible charges and counts including obstruction of justice in the Russian probe but in order to move it along it was reduced to two which clearly happened,
Abuse of power when he used the office of the President to pressure a foreign country to investigate American citizens, who were not charged with any crimes in this country.
Obstruction of Congress, well documented by the President's own memo and instructions as well as numerous public statements.
He thinks these actions were OK, after all they were designed to protect him.
What could be more important?
Sunday, December 1, 2019
A Nation of Laws
Next week the Impeachment hearings go into another phase with the judiciary committee taking over.
Unfortunately it is probably a fairly meaningless exercise.
The facts have been clear for a while for anyone interested in the truth.
The President has violated any number of laws and constitutional prohibitions by using his office and public funds to further his private interests. He has also engaged in obstruction of justice and as part of that witness interpretation.
The only thing that you can say he hasn't done is perjure himself since his lies weren't done under oath.
Now some of his defenders will argue that what he has done isn't an impeachable offence, with no real basis for that since the actions clearly violate the constitution.
Still there are arguments that seem to work with some of the American people which are simply strategies. First they want to paint this as a Democratic witch hunt. It turns out that it is almost exclusively a Democratic situation because of the stranglehold exerted on the Republican party by his base. Because of the flaws in our primary system, it is fairly easy for a motivated group to either win or make life difficult in party primaries and since our congressmen and women are primarily interested in winning reelection, it is a powerful weapon.
Still it seems inevitable that impeachment will pass in the house but he won't be convicted in the Senate.
How this plays our in the general election remains to be seen.
We need to stay a nation of laws for our democracy to survive, if it can.
Unfortunately it is probably a fairly meaningless exercise.
The facts have been clear for a while for anyone interested in the truth.
The President has violated any number of laws and constitutional prohibitions by using his office and public funds to further his private interests. He has also engaged in obstruction of justice and as part of that witness interpretation.
The only thing that you can say he hasn't done is perjure himself since his lies weren't done under oath.
Now some of his defenders will argue that what he has done isn't an impeachable offence, with no real basis for that since the actions clearly violate the constitution.
Still there are arguments that seem to work with some of the American people which are simply strategies. First they want to paint this as a Democratic witch hunt. It turns out that it is almost exclusively a Democratic situation because of the stranglehold exerted on the Republican party by his base. Because of the flaws in our primary system, it is fairly easy for a motivated group to either win or make life difficult in party primaries and since our congressmen and women are primarily interested in winning reelection, it is a powerful weapon.
Still it seems inevitable that impeachment will pass in the house but he won't be convicted in the Senate.
How this plays our in the general election remains to be seen.
We need to stay a nation of laws for our democracy to survive, if it can.
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Whistleblower
Thee is a lot of commotion being made by certain Republicans concerning the identity of the Whistleblower who first reported the phone conversation with the Ukraine.
They argue that his identity should be disclosed since defendants have the right to face their accuser.
While this is not particularly relevant in an Impeachment inquiry, it is also irrelevant because the Whistleblower is not an accuser.
He reported a event that he felt might be a concern to the appropriate channels.
This is not an accuser under any definition of the word and to pretend otherwise is simply spin.
It would be like someone reporting a car accident to the police who would then investigate.
It is then the police who determine the circumstances and specifics of the situation and if someone did in fact break the law the actual witnesses and accusers would be identified.
The original person who notified the authorities is not an accuser or necessarily a witness.
The same hold true for the Whistleblower.
They argue that his identity should be disclosed since defendants have the right to face their accuser.
While this is not particularly relevant in an Impeachment inquiry, it is also irrelevant because the Whistleblower is not an accuser.
He reported a event that he felt might be a concern to the appropriate channels.
This is not an accuser under any definition of the word and to pretend otherwise is simply spin.
It would be like someone reporting a car accident to the police who would then investigate.
It is then the police who determine the circumstances and specifics of the situation and if someone did in fact break the law the actual witnesses and accusers would be identified.
The original person who notified the authorities is not an accuser or necessarily a witness.
The same hold true for the Whistleblower.
Friday, October 25, 2019
Diversions
You can feel the desperation grow as the momentum for Impeachment gains speed.
The attempt to divert the public's attention and point out supposed "violations" by the Democrats is unlikely to work.
It is of course the main strategy of the desperate and it has worked to some extent in the past.
However, when you have dug a hole as deep as this, it takes more than meaningless exhibitions to fix it.
Some will go along with it, and maybe it will provide enough cover to give the required number of Senators cover to vote to acquit.
Maybe not.
When the hearings do go public the criminal and selfish behavior will be on display for all.
Some will ignore it but most won't.
Its not fake news, its fake diversions.
The attempt to divert the public's attention and point out supposed "violations" by the Democrats is unlikely to work.
It is of course the main strategy of the desperate and it has worked to some extent in the past.
However, when you have dug a hole as deep as this, it takes more than meaningless exhibitions to fix it.
Some will go along with it, and maybe it will provide enough cover to give the required number of Senators cover to vote to acquit.
Maybe not.
When the hearings do go public the criminal and selfish behavior will be on display for all.
Some will ignore it but most won't.
Its not fake news, its fake diversions.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Now What?
The question of guilt or innocence is almost irrelevant to the impeachment proceedings. He clearly is guilty of what he is being charged with, but can he be convicted?
We already know that it is more likely to be determined based on politics rather than guilt or innocence.
The real jury is the American public since most politicians are concerned with getting reelected.
In the House, with a Democratic majority there is some possibility that articles of Impeachment might actually pass.
The Democrats constitute the majority required and assuming the facts are as obvious as they seem it should be a fairly simple matter.
The problem will be when it goes to the Senate.
This is the actual trial and at the end of it two thirds of the Senators have to vote to impeach.
This seems extremely unlikely, unless of course the proceedings lead to a public outcry demanding action.
So the goal has to be to get the public convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that he President has committed crimes that deserve removal.
Some of the crimes are not likely to be convincing, especially to his base. Making the case will be a difficult thing indeed.
We already know that it is more likely to be determined based on politics rather than guilt or innocence.
The real jury is the American public since most politicians are concerned with getting reelected.
In the House, with a Democratic majority there is some possibility that articles of Impeachment might actually pass.
The Democrats constitute the majority required and assuming the facts are as obvious as they seem it should be a fairly simple matter.
The problem will be when it goes to the Senate.
This is the actual trial and at the end of it two thirds of the Senators have to vote to impeach.
This seems extremely unlikely, unless of course the proceedings lead to a public outcry demanding action.
So the goal has to be to get the public convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that he President has committed crimes that deserve removal.
Some of the crimes are not likely to be convincing, especially to his base. Making the case will be a difficult thing indeed.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Deal with the Devil
So we now have some pretty clear allegations that the dontard directed payments that probably violated campaign finance laws.
He actually doesn't deny it, just argues they were private, not campaign related, which is why they are a violation.
He also admits he continued to deal with his business attempts to do work in China, because, if he had lost the election he still had a business to run.
These are pretty incriminating in a number of ways and at this point there is no doubt about them.
He accuses others of violating the campaign finance laws and they only got a fine, so why would he be treated differently?
Think its more about the attempt to deceive involved here.
He was never a very open candidate, we never saw his tax returns or got detailed policy proposals, yet he still managed to squeak out an electoral college victory due to what is well described as a series of unfortunate events.
Unfortunate for the country.
Still, not sure any of this is enough to impeach him and I think the focus for the next two years should be on all the harm he is doing to progressive issues in this country.
He is always going to appeal to a certain percentage of the population who are focused on certain issues that he espouses, including nationalism, guns, abortion, and immigration.
They are in other words willing to make a deal with the devil.
A majority of us, hopefully, aren't.
He actually doesn't deny it, just argues they were private, not campaign related, which is why they are a violation.
He also admits he continued to deal with his business attempts to do work in China, because, if he had lost the election he still had a business to run.
These are pretty incriminating in a number of ways and at this point there is no doubt about them.
He accuses others of violating the campaign finance laws and they only got a fine, so why would he be treated differently?
Think its more about the attempt to deceive involved here.
He was never a very open candidate, we never saw his tax returns or got detailed policy proposals, yet he still managed to squeak out an electoral college victory due to what is well described as a series of unfortunate events.
Unfortunate for the country.
Still, not sure any of this is enough to impeach him and I think the focus for the next two years should be on all the harm he is doing to progressive issues in this country.
He is always going to appeal to a certain percentage of the population who are focused on certain issues that he espouses, including nationalism, guns, abortion, and immigration.
They are in other words willing to make a deal with the devil.
A majority of us, hopefully, aren't.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
The Disruptive Presidency
So its pretty obvious that at the very least the dontard condoned "dirty" tricks in his campaign.
He also was aware of what was going on and to some extent directed it.
Are these criminal activities, it seems like they violate a number of laws and certainly ethics rules, but I'll wait and see if any charges are filed.
Neither of these things are surprising and we are still waiting to see the report related to obstruction and collusion concerning Russian interference.
I don't see the dontard having any integrity so I doubt he will resign and I'm not sure that helps anything since the vice president is a radical evangelical.
However he was the Governor of a mid-sized State so he must have some awareness of how politics works.
I'm not sure any of this will matter to dontard supporters, they support him partly because he is a loose cannon and they want to see things disrupted.
Certainly he has given them that and his administration is still in the first half.
It may very well sway the mid-terms and it may guarantee a Democratic majority, possibly in both houses.
That could lead to a bill of impeachment and a Senate trial where conviction might not be obtainable.
Would be disruptive though.
He also was aware of what was going on and to some extent directed it.
Are these criminal activities, it seems like they violate a number of laws and certainly ethics rules, but I'll wait and see if any charges are filed.
Neither of these things are surprising and we are still waiting to see the report related to obstruction and collusion concerning Russian interference.
I don't see the dontard having any integrity so I doubt he will resign and I'm not sure that helps anything since the vice president is a radical evangelical.
However he was the Governor of a mid-sized State so he must have some awareness of how politics works.
I'm not sure any of this will matter to dontard supporters, they support him partly because he is a loose cannon and they want to see things disrupted.
Certainly he has given them that and his administration is still in the first half.
It may very well sway the mid-terms and it may guarantee a Democratic majority, possibly in both houses.
That could lead to a bill of impeachment and a Senate trial where conviction might not be obtainable.
Would be disruptive though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)