lucius septimius 1/23/2020 5:45:10 AM

1

WSJ this morning had a lot to say about just how dangerous the Democrats impeachment theory is. One aspect is the "corrupt practices" theory which is the main foundation of their case:

Especially pernicious is the new House “corrupt purposes” standard for removing a President from office. The House managers don’t assert that any specific action by President Trump was an abuse of power or a violation of law. They don’t deny he can delay aid to a foreign country or ask a foreign leader to investigate corruption. Presidents do that all the time. Instead they assert in their first impeachment article that Mr. Trump is guilty of “abuse of power” because he committed those acts for “corrupt purposes.”

[ ... ]

As 21 Republican state attorneys general explained in an important letter to the Senate on Wednesday, “It cannot be a legitimate basis to impeach a President for acting in a legal manner that may also be politically advantageous. Such a standard would be cause for the impeachment of virtually every President, past, present, and future.”

The AGs add that the “House’s corrupt motives theory is dangerous to democracy because it encourages impeachment whenever the President exercises his constitutional authority in a way that offends the opposing political party, which is predisposed to view his motives with skepticism and motivated by its own motives to regain that very office.”

Daniel Henninger, meanwhile, points out that the Democrats are acting in a manner more typical of South American governments.  The constant hammering of the phrase "our democracy" raises the question what they mean by that phrase.  As Henninger points out, they mean the "will of the people," and of course they have divined that will.  The "will of the people" is not the same as votes.  Trump won the election, so what do Democrats want to do?  Change the method of electing presidents.  He appoints two Supreme Court justices; they want to pack the court.  Ignore Schiff and company's crocodile tears over the Constitution.  They want to dismantle the constitution because the constitution stands in the way of the "will of the people." as they see it.

Occasional Reader 1/23/2020 6:07:10 AM

2

Reply to lucius septimius in 1:

If there is a shred of decency left in our republic, the Democrats will be massacred in the November elections. That, along of course with a swift acquittal in this ridiculous impeachment trial, will be the only outcome here that gets us back on course.

Occasional Reader 1/23/2020 6:14:16 AM

3

vxbush 1/23/2020 6:18:19 AM

4

In #1 lucius septimius said: WSJ this morning had a lot to say about just how dangerous the Democrats impeachment theory is.

Morning, lucius, and everyone. 

I've read lots of articles over the last two months related to impeachment, and on the conservative side of the media I have seen many, many articles talking about why Trump should not have been impeached. However, each article seems to take a slightly different slant--some focus on the supposed obstruction, some focus on the withholding of funds, some focus on the desired actions to get grand jury testimony by the Democrats, some focus on just how shady Schiff and company are, etc. etc. 

I don't disagree with any of the analyses, but I am concerned that we are missing an opportunity here--if we could all point out one clear point that makes it clear that Trump does not deserve to be removed from office, it might do us more good. I do not want to get us to the point where we're all using the same words (we really don't need a conservative version of "the walls are closing in"), but we need more articles that focus on one idea. 

I'm also not a legal scholar or a lawyer, so I am befuddled by the tactic Trump's lawyers are taking regarding the charges. I like Sekulow and have heard him on the radio a number of times; but I would have thought the arguments would focus on what Trump is allowed to do and what laws and rules are in place regarding his office and how aid to another country are handled. Sekulow's summary didn't seem to address any of that. 

Lawyers, can you help me understand this? I am sick of watching talking heads on TV; they aren't saying much. (I was, however, interested in Levin's suggested opening remarks to the senate that he shared on his show Sunday night. I haven't gone back to finish listening to it, however.)

lucius septimius 1/23/2020 6:23:54 AM

5

Reply to vxbush in 4:

His lawyers tack, as I see it, is to show that he committed no crime.  In fact, there doesn't need to be a "crime" for there to be impeachment, even though the last three were all charged with one.

The real issue, as the WSJ pointed out, is that the Democrats object to Trump's motivations, which they see as corrupt.  That's saying, effectively, that someone should be charged with a crime even if they did nothing simply on what they might have been thinking.  That is very, very, very dangerous thinking. 

vxbush 1/23/2020 6:36:15 AM

6

In #5 lucius septimius said: His lawyers tack, as I see it, is to show that he committed no crime.  In fact, there doesn't need to be a "crime" for there to be impeachment, even though the last three were all charged with one. The real issue, as the WSJ pointed out, is that the Democrats object to Trump's motivations, which they see as corrupt.  That's saying, effectively, that someone should be charged with a crime even if they did nothing simply on what they might have been thinking.  That is very, very, very dangerous thinking. 

While I do not disagree with the WSJ's analysis--it is spot on--I have to wonder how well you can argue a case against impeachment if all you do is say, "Those guys don't want to play fair"--which would be identical to the argument the Democrats are making about the Senate process. If there are articles of impeachment, then the arguments need to focus the articles. And arguing executive privilege addresses the second article, but it doesn't completely address the first. Hence my interest in getting at the law and rules regarding money given to foreign governments. 

doppelganglander 1/23/2020 9:12:15 AM

7

buzzsawmonkey 1/23/2020 9:37:11 AM

8

In #7 doppelganglander said: It's officially official. I start work next Tuesday.

Excellent; best of luck in the new position!

buzzsawmonkey 1/23/2020 9:38:20 AM

9

In #2 Occasional Reader said: If there is a shred of decency left in our republic, the Democrats will be massacred in the November elections.

I'm trying not to have images of St. Bartholomew's Day dance through my head...

doppelganglander 1/23/2020 10:02:30 AM

10

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 8:

Thank you!

JCM 1/23/2020 10:18:21 AM

11

During afternoon commute in the downtown core two convicted felon gang bangers with more than 60 arrests between then and active felony warrants get in a shoot out. 8 bystanders hit one killed several serious injuries one victim is 9 years old.

Its a gun violence problem according to our ruling apparatchiks.

Occasional Reader 1/23/2020 10:44:52 AM

12

In #11 JCM said: Its a gun violence problem according to our ruling apparatchiks.

These people essentially believe in voodoo. They believe that inanimate objects are actively evil.

vxbush 1/23/2020 12:07:43 PM

13

In #7 doppelganglander said: It's officially official. I start work next Tuesday.

Huzzah and congratulations! Welcome back to gainful employment with benefits!

Occasional Reader 1/23/2020 12:36:21 PM

14

Reply to doppelganglander in 7:

congratulations!

Occasional Reader 1/23/2020 12:37:07 PM

15

Washington post print edition headline today: “as Democrats unfold their case, GOP unloads“.

boy, it’s a good thing we have a neutral, objective press, isn’t it?

Occasional Reader 1/23/2020 12:41:16 PM

16

Joe Biden (that’s the moderate, seasoned democrat candidate, just a reminder): we should be focused on helping Communist China. Also, we don’t need a standing army.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/joe-biden-we-dont-need-standing-armies-we-should-be-helping-communist-china/

JCM 1/23/2020 12:51:10 PM

17

Reply to Occasional Reader in 16:

How much was Hunter paid by the ChiComs again?

buzzsawmonkey 1/23/2020 2:55:08 PM

18

Reply to Occasional Reader in 16:

Joe Biden, he allee same say Chinee no eat our lunch!  

Is true!  We all same eat Chinee lunch---soup, egg roll, entree and rice, allee same fo' only $4.95!  

buzzsawmonkey 1/23/2020 3:20:07 PM

19

When I was seventeen, it was a very good year

I crossed the ocean and addressed the UN to say

"How dare they!"

When I was seventeen...

---Greta Thunberg

doppelganglander 1/23/2020 4:50:38 PM

20

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 19:

+++++