A big conjecture to say that Dems would impeach again over the same issue if Bolton thing came out later. I won't be shocked if they'll find more reasons to impeach now that Senate has emboldened executive branch even more. @Os Trigonum , who should be in charge of draining the swamp, now that the swamper in chief is going to be acquitted? "Lock her up" chants ring pretty hypocritical these days.
I've listened to a lot of the defense presentation and the questions today and I have to give Trump's defense some props and think they did a good job attacking the articles. I think they make a pretty strong argument regarding that the President is the one who sets policy and that he has the right to disagree with his staff. That does counter the argument that Trump withheld aid even though much of his advisers didn't understand it and were against the hold. Dershowitz's argument is very problematic Constitutionally but his delivery was well and gives a "professorial" sheen to the defense. On article 2 Obstruction of Congress the defense has done a good job of of arguing that there were multiple reasons for denying witnesses (forgetting that Trump himself said he was denying witnesses specifically to stymie Congress). Further that the House sat on the Articles does damage the argument regarding the urgency of impeachment. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Democrats that vote against it. The most important thing that the defense did though was to put enough mud into the mechanism of the House case that GOP Senators will be able to vote to acquit with a straight face, especially if they hold off having Bolton testify. This is where I will have to hand it to Trump's marketing genius. Dershowitz's argument isn't just problematic Constitutionally and unsupported by virtually every Constitutional scholar. It is very dangerous and if a Democratic President made the same argument that they can't actually abuse power as long as they are acting for their own political advancement Republicans would be rightfully howling for his head. This is the power of imagery and the Republicans will continue to bring up "Harvard Law Professor..." to back their votes to acquit. Whether that convinces the wider electorate we'll see. I get the feeling this might be them winning the battle but losing the war.
As I said in my post above the Republicans may win the battle and lose the war. There likely will be many Republicans citing the Dershowitz's argument that Trump can't be convicted because abuse of power isn't an impeachable offense. To do so they will have to tacitly acknowledge that Trump did abuse his power has several already have done. Further once Bolton's book comes out and he goes on a speaking tour to promote it the word will continue to be that Trump did do what he was accused of and the Senators still voted to acquit. While that might not sway a lot of Trump voters it will make sure that his opponents are energized and in what is looking like another very close election the marginal changes matter. The argument that impeachment and acquittal will benefit Trump is going to play out the other way. Impeachment and acquittal when the widespread view even among many of his supporters is he did what he was accused of isn't going to help him. It could possibly do much harm to Trump and especially vulnerable GOP senators than if Trump wasn't impeached in the first place. Also since this has been brought up by Trump's defenders and even those who are against Trump but feel impeachment was a bad idea. Yes the Framers were worried about partisan impeachments but they were also worried about partisanship allowing a demagogue to seize power. So while yes it is dangerous to push for impeachment along partisan lines but it is also dangerous to not hold to account a demagogue and tyrant because of partisanship.
Senators will deny abuse of power and then add "even if it is..." clause and only if asked. And considering the lack of apparent outrage at the moment, it seems that no one, besides media, will ask about impeachment because it is a blemish on the whole nation and who likes to talk about their blemishes. The only reason people would be reminded of the impeachment specifically is if Biden is still in the race at that time. I kinda doubt that Bolton's book tour will make much of a blip in the news cycle - there are too many revelation books about POTUS by now. You are probably right that the impeachment won't really effect the energy level of republicans UP in any significant way, although his support did tick up as the impeachment prodded along into the 2nd week. Also bipartisan acquittal does have a nice ring to it. The diehard base will eat that sh*t up
the policy argument sounds good and all but it’s a bunch of baloney and isn’t that far from the last argument you listed here... here is a good piece on it the last one, I laughed when I saw it. I was wondering when they will make that argument. And there it is. It’s clearly ridiculous but exactly the thing that trump would push for. The power to shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th street and his supporters blink once or twice but eventually stick with him.
I think the difference is witness is a key point being played over and over. Once it is blocked even though there is a super majority of people (most importantly among folks that could swing either way on voting within the swing states) wanted to hear from witnesses, any bad news or additional bombshell will get the media attention and in turn will be felt by these folks - yea, that’s why I wanted to hear from witnesses. That righteous feeling can be tapped by the right ads portraying a president and a GOP party covering up corruption. In a close race, it likely is a big factor. Now, that bad news or bombshell might never materialize, but chances are something will...
I reckon its fitting that the most corrupt president of all time, leading the corrupt republican party, has found a way to corrupt the U.S. Constitution ("a president cannot be impeached, even if he/she does illegitimate things, if done to get re-elected"). In the future, the hypocrisy of what republicans will say will make people shake their heads. And in the future, people will look back and wonder what went wrong with America.
The way history will look back at republican senators... Two that were too long for the quotes boxes: Charles Wiggins Dies, U.S. Appellate Judge, N.Y. Times, Mar. 5, 2000, at C5. ‘Judge Charles E. Wiggins, a Republican congressman from California who was influential in the Watergate hearings and switched from defending President Richard M. Nixon to supporting impeachment, died on Thursday in Las Vegas. He was 72 and had lived in Las Vegas.’ ‘As a congressman, Mr. Wiggins was considered one of Nixon's staunchest defenders. Along with two other members of the House Judiciary Committee, he led the president's defense when the Watergate hearings began in the summer of 1974. The strategy was to construe the evidence as narrowly as possible, require ironclad proof and propose benign explanations of information damaging to the president.’ ‘In weeks of closed Judiciary Committee hearings and in six days of televised debate in July, Mr. Wiggins argued that none of the evidence linked Nixon directly to a crime. But his view changed abruptly on Aug. 5, 1974 when Nixon conceded that he had helped conceal the Watergate break-in. The next morning, a front-page headline on The New York Times noted Mr. Wiggins's change of heart: ‘Wiggins for Impeachment; Others in G.O.P. Join Him.’ The Times reported that ‘Representative Charles E. Wiggins, President Nixon's strongest defender during the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment proceedings, and many other influential House Republicans’ had announced that ‘they would vote for impeachment,’ and that Mr. Wiggins and members of the House Republican leadership had expressed what The Times called ‘a deep sense of disillusionment.’ In a statement outlining his new position, Mr. Wiggins said there was no longer any doubt that the president had agreed to a ‘plan of action’ to obstruct the Watergate investigation. ‘These facts standing alone are legally sufficient in my opinion to sustain at least one count against the president of conspiracy to obstruct justice,’ he said. Because of that, Mr. Wiggins said, he had reached the "painful conclusion" that it was in the national interest for Nixon to resign. Nixon did so on Aug. 9, 1974. Afterward, Mr. Wiggins wrote that it had been the right decision. ‘Such a conclusion was a sad and personally wrenching one for me to reach, because I regarded — and still do regard — myself as a friend of the president and his family and one still willing, proudly, to claim his achievements,’ Mr. Wiggins wrote. Ex-Rep. Charles Sandman, Nixon Supporter, Dies, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 27, 1985, at A20. First sentence of the obituary: “Charles W. Sandman, a New Jersey Superior Court judge and former United States Representative who was one of President Richard M. Nixon's strongest supporters during Congressional impeachment hearings in 1974, died Monday at Burdette Tomlin Memorial Hospital in Cape May Court House, N.J., after suffering a stroke Aug. 18.” “The four-term Congressman from Cape May drew national attention as a staunch supporter of Mr. Nixon on the House Judiciary Committee during the last days of Watergate. As one after another of his Republican colleagues drew away from the President’s cause, Mr. Sandman continued defending Mr. Nixon as a victim of partisan attack.” “It was during the impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee that Mr. Sandman briefly came into the nation’s view: a heavyset man with glasses on the end of his nose, a pencil grasped between his hands, heaping sarcasm and scorn upon the arguments of those who would impeach the President. ‘Isn't it amazing? Isn't it surprising? Isn't it astonishing,’ he said repeatedly, trying to point out inconsistencies in arguments of opponents.” “When public hearings to consider articles of impeachment against Mr. Nixon were begun by the Judiciary Committees’ 38 members in the summer of 1974, Mr. Sandman, with Representatives David W. Dennis of Indiana and Charles E. Wiggins of California, led the defense of the President. Their strategy was to construe the evidence as narrowly as possible, require ironclad proof and propose benign explanations of information damaging to the President. Throughout, Mr. Sandman mustered particularly caustic remarks. But his position, he said, was based on legal principle, not emotions. ‘My role is not one of defending the President – that’s for sure," he said at one point. ‘I believe in a strict construction of the Constitution. If somebody, for the first time in seven months, gives me something that is direct, I will vote to impeach.’”
I was going to say history won't look kindly upon the current GOP but that depends what happens. If we truly accept Dershowitz's argument that a President can essentially do anything as long as he believes he is acting in the interest of the country and his reelection is in the interest of the country then we are truly putting the President above the law. What happens to our country then when the President can argue he can subvert the rest of the Constitution and there is nothing Constitutional that can be done about it because he is acting in the interest of the country?
David Frum, a former speechwriter for GWB and current trump critic, wrote a very long article in the Atlantic back in March 2017. Its very very long, so I suspect most people will stop reading it. But its interesting (and a bit frightening) how many things he wrote about actually happened, but also ends with a somewhat hopeful final paragraph: My apologies, I forgot to link the article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/
I don't believe that there is any reason to Truly believe Dershowitz. I don't think his argument is especially solid. https://www.lawfareblog.com/alan-dershowitz-wrong-about-impeachments
One may agree or disagree with Dershowitz's arguments, as Jonathan Turley observes--but it is another thing entirely to dismiss those arguments as either "ridiculous" or "absurd." They are neither. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/29/tribe-the-choice-is-now-between-witnesses-and-dictatorship/ I think the analogy to Lincoln's furloughing Union soldiers to go home to vote in 1864 was particularly effective. https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/how-lincoln-won-the-soldier-vote/
No it is absolutely absurd. So a president allowing citizens to vote during wartime is the same as using your power as president to coerce a foreign country to investigate your political rival, simply because both people thought it would be good for them and then in turn good for the country? That is ridiculous and would allow a politician to essentially do whatever he or she thought would help them get re-elected. That is dangerous thinking and should be called out for being outlandish. And Jonathan Turley thinking that Dershowitz is actually engaging in a good faith argument doesn’t carry much weight.
Breaking News the Dems announce a sleeper witness that will testify. Spoiler Reportedly Trump, Giuliani and Pomeo gang raped Ukraine
Listen to the heart of the argument man, it is ridiculous. I'm not going to pretend that it is a mere disagreement between policies. It is a radical viewpoint that goes directly against what the founders meant for this country meant to be. It is essentially saying that Trump is allowed to do whatever he wants as long as he thinks it is what is best for the nation. Using this logic, there is nothing stopping Bernie Sanders from going to China and saying "Hey, you dig up dirt on Trump and we'll sign this trade deal completely favorable to you." and as long as Bernie Sanders thinks him being in office is what is good for the nation then that's fine. This is the actual thought of Dictators that fix elections in their favor because they are always what is 'best' for the nation. This argument gives the president unlimited power to do whatever he wants as long as he thinks it is in the public's best interest...but that's BS, that's why we have elections in the first place, to determine what exactly IS the public interest.
Nope. It's absurd and a dangerous promotion of authoritarianism. Under any circumstance you can look back over the past 200 or so years and find a scenario where we screwed up in the American experiment. That doesn't mean that screw ups should be excuses for clearly doing the wrong thing for our Democracy now. The issue is this argument is at its surface an argument for authoritarianism. If Trump supporters really believe this is where the country needs to go, then make that case. But the fact that nobody other than Dershowitz is so blatantly out there in the open about this argument tells you everything you need to know.... Trump supporters & Republicans in Congress KNOW THIS IS ABSURD. They just quietly want this power, but don't want to be obvious about it as to not cause mass backlash. And why does anyone at this point give a crap about what "Professor Turley" has to say? The guy has been all over the place, and seems to only be concerned with getting himself on FoxNews as a commentator.
They already have most of the trump supporters. It’s a matter to not alienating everyone outside of that 30-35%. Big gamble but when have trump ever care to play it safe. Unfortunately, it’s the future of our democracy that is being bet on.
