Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
FlammableFlower
Catbabel
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by FlammableFlower » Thu Jan 28, 2021 7:29 am

jdc wrote:
Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:50 pm
FlammableFlower wrote:
Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:26 pm

In the UK hasn't it withered away amongst all of those royal prerogative powers that never get used?
According to Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_pre ... e_of_mercy
Officially, this is a power of the monarch. Formally, in Commonwealth realms, this has been delegated to the governor-general of the realm, which in practice means to government ministers who advise the monarch or viceroy, usually those responsible for justice. Specifically, it has been delegated to the Lord Chancellor in England and Wales, the Scottish Ministers in Scotland, and the federal and provincial cabinets in Canada, in respect of federal and provincial offences.
Includes an example from 2020 so still being used apparently, just not by the monarch.
Cheers jdc! So it's there but far more rarely used.

User avatar
Martin Y
After Pie
Posts: 1747
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Martin Y » Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:56 pm

It's weird though. I mean really weird. Britain chopped a king's head off as a subtle hint that he was taking the piss with that absolute rule sh.t over a century before the Americans even had their revolution. So how do you get from there to deciding nobody is above the law except the sort-of-temporary-king who gets to distribute get out of jail free cards. Amazing.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by dyqik » Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:06 pm

Martin Y wrote:
Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:56 pm
It's weird though. I mean really weird. Britain chopped a king's head off as a subtle hint that he was taking the piss with that absolute rule sh.t over a century before the Americans even had their revolution. So how do you get from there to deciding nobody is above the law except the sort-of-temporary-king who gets to distribute get out of jail free cards. Amazing.
It's amazing what logical hoops judges will jump through to shore up partisan beliefs.

User avatar
Martin Y
After Pie
Posts: 1747
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Martin Y » Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:15 pm

That's another amazing thing: it's normal for the highest judges in the land to be openly politically partial. What sort of normal is that? Normal is judges pretending to be impartial, surely?

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by dyqik » Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:45 pm

Martin Y wrote:
Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:15 pm
That's another amazing thing: it's normal for the highest judges in the land to be openly politically partial. What sort of normal is that? Normal is judges pretending to be impartial, surely?
It is in healthy democracies. We don't have that. We have Republican judges and Democrat judges. Elected in "non-partisan" elections at the state level in many states, with backing from large partisan political action committees.

This is the logical conclusion of free (libre) speech for anyone that can afford it.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2752
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:12 pm

Martin Y wrote:
Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:15 pm
That's another amazing thing: it's normal for the highest judges in the land to be openly politically partial. What sort of normal is that? Normal is judges pretending to be impartial, surely?
It’s a consequence of the US being very unusual in having elected judges. That could be seen as a radical commitment to democracy. Though in practice perhaps too much of a good thing.


User avatar
lpm
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by lpm » Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:18 pm

I wrote about all that a couple of years ago on the other place.

It's all highly likely to be true but little will never be provable.
What ever happened to that Trump guy, you know, the one who was president for a bit?

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 5241
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Jan 29, 2021 1:57 pm

What did Russia actually gain from Trump's presidency that would justify 40 years of work?

The analyses of Trump's finances suggest that he owes a lot of money to big Wall Street firms managing money for prominent republicans like the Kochs, who have benefited enormously from his presidency (though perhaps no more than they would have from an alternative republican president).

It seems far more plausible to me that Trump was manipulated by the same people who have been manipulating US politics for decades than by crazy cold-war spy plots.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

User avatar
lpm
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by lpm » Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:07 pm

It's not 40 years of work, it's 40 years of reward.

They got a useful idiot early on, then they got a nice money laundering conduit once the oligarchs started robbing Russia, then they got someone who'd disrupt the Obama presidency and then the Clinton presidency. It's not like at any time they actually planned him to be President. They didn't need to spend anything on this - flattery is free, dangling projects over him is free, and having no questions access to New York real estate is a big bonus.
What ever happened to that Trump guy, you know, the one who was president for a bit?

Trinucleus
Fuzzable
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:45 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Trinucleus » Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:17 pm

lpm wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:07 pm
It's not 40 years of work, it's 40 years of reward.

They got a useful idiot early on, then they got a nice money laundering conduit once the oligarchs started robbing Russia, then they got someone who'd disrupt the Obama presidency and then the Clinton presidency. It's not like at any time they actually planned him to be President. They didn't need to spend anything on this - flattery is free, dangling projects over him is free, and having no questions access to New York real estate is a big bonus.
They've also seen growing civil unrest, growing distrust of the state and fracturing international understandings. One downside could be consolidated Democratic power and a split Republican vote if Trump stands again, so maybe he'll get a visit from the Salisbury tourists

Herainestold
Catbabel
Posts: 723
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Herainestold » Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:33 pm

The big payoff for Russia with Trump was his anti-NATO, anti EU stance.
Plus his destruction of democratic norms in the US. Probably this stuff was going to happen anyway, but Trump accelerated it.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by dyqik » Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:32 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:12 pm
Martin Y wrote:
Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:15 pm
That's another amazing thing: it's normal for the highest judges in the land to be openly politically partial. What sort of normal is that? Normal is judges pretending to be impartial, surely?
It’s a consequence of the US being very unusual in having elected judges. That could be seen as a radical commitment to democracy. Though in practice perhaps too much of a good thing.
Federal judges are appointed rather than elected, and only some states have elected judges. That affects the dialogue at the national level, but it's not at all universal.

User avatar
Sciolus
Snowbonk
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Sciolus » Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:12 pm

Given that separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary is supposed to be a fundamental part of the constitution, it seems that the two-party system is unconstitutional.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by dyqik » Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:32 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:12 pm
Given that separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary is supposed to be a fundamental part of the constitution, it seems that the two-party system is unconstitutional.
Technically, that's correct. The Constitution was written before parties really existed, and did not take future partisan politics into account. A few amendments have been made that recognize party politics, particularly the one that changes the VP from being the second placed candidate in the Presidential election (EC placing) to being elected on a ticket with the president.

monkey
Snowbonk
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by monkey » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:49 pm

Not that it really matters for the outcome, but Trump's legal team seems to have found better things to do.

clicky

User avatar
Vertigowooyay
Fuzzable
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:25 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Vertigowooyay » Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:12 pm

I would have put money on it being because they’re demanding upfront payment and he’s refusing, but turns out it’s because he still wants to use the “but the election was stolen from me” defence, which any lawyer of any stripe knows means eventual disbarment.
Calm yourself Doctor NotTheNineO’ClockNews. We’re men of science. We fear no worldly terrors.

User avatar
JQH
Dorkwood
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by JQH » Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:51 pm

monkey wrote:
Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:49 pm
Not that it really matters for the outcome, but Trump's legal team seems to have found better things to do.

clicky

If he can't find anyone to represent him, will he be assigned a Public Defender?
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by dyqik » Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:36 pm

JQH wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:51 pm
monkey wrote:
Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:49 pm
Not that it really matters for the outcome, but Trump's legal team seems to have found better things to do.

clicky

If he can't find anyone to represent him, will he be assigned a Public Defender?
No.

User avatar
Vertigowooyay
Fuzzable
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:25 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Vertigowooyay » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:09 pm

He’s got new representation anyway.

Let me just check my notes...

One represented Roger Stone, and met with Jeffrey Epstein pre trial in 2019 and believes he was murdered. The other declined to prosecute Bill Cosby in 2005, and sued one of Cosby’s victims for defamation in 2017. Cosby was convicted in 2018.

Yup, checks out.
Calm yourself Doctor NotTheNineO’ClockNews. We’re men of science. We fear no worldly terrors.

User avatar
Little waster
Dorkwood
Posts: 1323
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Little waster » Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:42 pm

Vertigowooyay wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:09 pm
He’s got new representation anyway.

Let me just check my notes...

One represented Roger Stone, and met with Jeffrey Epstein pre trial in 2019 and believes he was murdered. The other declined to prosecute Bill Cosby in 2005, and sued one of Cosby’s victims for defamation in 2017. Cosby was convicted in 2018.

Yup, checks out.
"I'm going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people”
It's meta, so it is allowed.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Clardic Fug
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Cardinal Fang » Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:56 pm

Vertigowooyay wrote:
Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:12 pm
I would have put money on it being because they’re demanding upfront payment and he’s refusing, but turns out it’s because he still wants to use the “but the election was stolen from me” defence, which any lawyer of any stripe knows means eventual disbarment.
Isn't using that defence going to prevent a lot of more moderate Republicans from voting to acquit? If he argued that his speech that was interpreted to tell supporters to go and storm Congress was covered under the 1st Amendment, or that he didn't intend anyone to storm the building, or even that it's unconstitutional to impeach him now he's left office (although he was impeached before the inauguration, when he was still president, so that wouldn't fly), then they'd have just enough cover to acquit. But putting them in a position where they're basically going to have to agree that a fair election was fraudulent. Something tells me there will be a lot of abstainers

CF
Image

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2752
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:57 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:56 pm
Vertigowooyay wrote:
Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:12 pm
I would have put money on it being because they’re demanding upfront payment and he’s refusing, but turns out it’s because he still wants to use the “but the election was stolen from me” defence, which any lawyer of any stripe knows means eventual disbarment.
Isn't using that defence going to prevent a lot of more moderate Republicans from voting to acquit? If he argued that his speech that was interpreted to tell supporters to go and storm Congress was covered under the 1st Amendment, or that he didn't intend anyone to storm the building, or even that it's unconstitutional to impeach him now he's left office (although he was impeached before the inauguration, when he was still president, so that wouldn't fly), then they'd have just enough cover to acquit. But putting them in a position where they're basically going to have to agree that a fair election was fraudulent. Something tells me there will be a lot of abstainers

CF
I disagree. A maximum of five senators will vote to impeach Trump: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey.

The rest will vote against. It doesn’t matter what Trump’s defence is or isn’t. The other 45 will probably lose a primary if they vote to impeach. Supporting Trump is what most Republicans are going to have to do if they want to get elected.

Of the five, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey are so liberal they are probably to the left of some democrats. Presumably they need to court lots of voters who might vote Democrat. Romney hates Trump more than he likes being a senator, and the Utah electorate is different so he may get away with it. I can’t figure out Sasse, maybe he has principles.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by dyqik » Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:01 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:57 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:56 pm
Vertigowooyay wrote:
Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:12 pm
I would have put money on it being because they’re demanding upfront payment and he’s refusing, but turns out it’s because he still wants to use the “but the election was stolen from me” defence, which any lawyer of any stripe knows means eventual disbarment.
Isn't using that defence going to prevent a lot of more moderate Republicans from voting to acquit? If he argued that his speech that was interpreted to tell supporters to go and storm Congress was covered under the 1st Amendment, or that he didn't intend anyone to storm the building, or even that it's unconstitutional to impeach him now he's left office (although he was impeached before the inauguration, when he was still president, so that wouldn't fly), then they'd have just enough cover to acquit. But putting them in a position where they're basically going to have to agree that a fair election was fraudulent. Something tells me there will be a lot of abstainers

CF
I disagree. A maximum of five senators will vote to impeach Trump: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey.

The rest will vote against. It doesn’t matter what Trump’s defence is or isn’t. The other 45 will probably lose a primary if they vote to impeach. Supporting Trump is what most Republicans are going to have to do if they want to get elected.

Of the five, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey are so liberal they are probably to the left of some democrats. Presumably they need to court lots of voters who might vote Democrat. Romney hates Trump more than he likes being a senator, and the Utah electorate is different so he may get away with it. I can’t figure out Sasse, maybe he has principles.
Portman has already announced his retirement, and so doesn't have a primary to worry about.

Sasse likes being invited on things like NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me as a reasonable Republican who's capable of self-depreciation.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2752
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:07 pm

dyqik wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:01 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:57 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:56 pm


Isn't using that defence going to prevent a lot of more moderate Republicans from voting to acquit? If he argued that his speech that was interpreted to tell supporters to go and storm Congress was covered under the 1st Amendment, or that he didn't intend anyone to storm the building, or even that it's unconstitutional to impeach him now he's left office (although he was impeached before the inauguration, when he was still president, so that wouldn't fly), then they'd have just enough cover to acquit. But putting them in a position where they're basically going to have to agree that a fair election was fraudulent. Something tells me there will be a lot of abstainers

CF
I disagree. A maximum of five senators will vote to impeach Trump: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey.

The rest will vote against. It doesn’t matter what Trump’s defence is or isn’t. The other 45 will probably lose a primary if they vote to impeach. Supporting Trump is what most Republicans are going to have to do if they want to get elected.

Of the five, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey are so liberal they are probably to the left of some democrats. Presumably they need to court lots of voters who might vote Democrat. Romney hates Trump more than he likes being a senator, and the Utah electorate is different so he may get away with it. I can’t figure out Sasse, maybe he has principles.
Portman has already announced his retirement, and so doesn't have a primary to worry about.

Sasse likes being invited on things like NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me as a reasonable Republican who's capable of self-depreciation.
Fair enough, maybe Portman. But he’s stated that the impeachment is unconstitutional so maybe he’s looking for a quiet retirement.

Post Reply