Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (115896)	3/27/2019 11:17:36 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 362800

>> Depends on how awful, seems to me, and how broadly regarded as such. I will agree that there might be something so outrageous and disgusting that even though it is not a crime, the people might be willing to support impeachment under the "misdemeanors" provision. I cannot imagine what that might be. I do not, as you suggested, believe it could an alleged crime that couldn't be proved after exhaustive investigation (e.g., obstruction or collusion). In this case, we have a reasonably popular president at 40-45% approval rate by poll, and it would be outrageous to impeach without evidence of criminal wrong doing. There's really no point in arguing the edge and corner cases because they're really not on the table. The Foundation has so few transactions they can almost be inferred from the 990s. The purported campaign contributions will not stand up to even basic legal scrutiny and are certainly not of a nature that could stand the test of "lawful but awful"; it is inconceivable that a made-up crime would become the subject of impeachment. For me, the specter of an impeachment which is not supported substantially by the public. "Supported" means greater than 50/50 in my mind, and a substantial mix between parties (unlike the Clinton impeachment). This does, of course, suggest you could never impeach a Democrat, because Dems would never join in. Republicans, OTOH, would impeach a Republican if it were warranted. Regardless, no impeachment should be partisan even if it means the process is never used again. IMO, the greatest failure of the Clinton impeachment was the partisan nature of it. The "usual" suspects on the Republican side voted against impeachment, which essentially made it a partisan effort. I would not want to see that again. But I'm not sure I agree that the impeachment process is superfluous. With the president in charge of DOJ you have to have some club that can wielded, no? Same as for judges with lifetime appointments. You cannot assume that a guy who is straight won't become corrupt (or vice-versa).

To: Lane3 who wrote (115896)	3/27/2019 1:33:01 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 362800

Since, however, an impeachment process was set up, it logically must have been intended for something broader than just criminal acts beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes. Impeachment is usually used for non-criminal behavior. Judges get impeached for doing stupid things that usually aren't criminal. Often involving strangely lenient decisions. In fact, if you look at the "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution and realize that at the time the Constitution was written, "misdemeanor" meant bad behavior. Of which, "high misdemeanor" was criminal. So yeah, impeachment can and is used for non-criminal behavior and criminal acts that fall short of reasonable doubt.

To: Lane3 who wrote (115896)	3/27/2019 1:52:59 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 362800

BTW, I see I didn't respond to your point about the criminal justice system trying presidents. AFAIK, the Founders didn't want a trial in the courts and I don't think it was seriously entertained in either the discussions or in the Federalists. In particular, they didn't want trials for the modern day equivalent of spitting the sidewalk. It was intended only for serious matters because they didn't want Congress to be able to use it as a cudgel against the president. Which is, of course, what Congress is trying to do now (the Founders never envisioned the Democrat party of today). They wanted elected offices to be held in check by the voters. That is clear. As to judges, that could be a different matter. The process was primarily discussed about the president I think.