Page 7 of 9
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 7:29 am
by FlammableFlower
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:56 pm
by Martin Y
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:06 pm
by dyqik
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:15 pm
by Martin Y
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?
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:45 pm
by dyqik
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:12 pm
by Woodchopper
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:37 am
by FlammableFlower
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:18 pm
by lpm
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 1:57 pm
by Bird on a Fire
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:07 pm
by lpm
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:17 pm
by Trinucleus
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
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:33 pm
by Herainestold
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:32 pm
by dyqik
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:12 pm
by Sciolus
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:32 pm
by dyqik
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:49 pm
by monkey
Not that it really matters for the outcome, but Trump's legal team seems to have found better things to do.
clicky
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:12 pm
by Vertigowooyay
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:51 pm
by JQH
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?
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:36 pm
by dyqik
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:09 pm
by Vertigowooyay
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:42 pm
by Little waster
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”
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:56 pm
by Cardinal Fang
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
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:57 pm
by Woodchopper
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:01 pm
by dyqik
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:07 pm
by Woodchopper
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.