American politics is now all about one thing: impeachment

[Old Warrior in Exile]

American politics is now all about one thing: impeachment

By Rich Lowry
Published June 13, 2017

American politics is now, in large part, a fight about whether or not President Trump will be impeached.

No one is saying it explicitly, but these are the stakes in the Russia controversy and its spinoffs and in the 2018 mid-terms. If Democrats take the House with anything like a comfortable majority, they will be hard-pressed to resist their base's drive to give Trump a mark of dishonor shared only by Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

Presidents have been hated by the other side before, but rarely with this sort of intensity and immediacy. With the exception of Abraham Lincoln (seven Southern states seceded before he took office), it usually takes time for critics to work up a good, unbridled loathing. Hoover had to preside over the beginning of the Great Depression. Nixon had to bomb Cambodia and get embroiled in Watergate.

The left's anti-Trump rhetoric has been catastrophist from the beginning. The initial travel ban represented a constitutional crisis. So did the firing of acting attorney general Sally Yates. And so, of course, did the cashiering of FBI Director James Comey.

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, once frequently mentioned as a potential Democratic Supreme Court pick, wrote a piece a couple of weeks ago entitled, "Trump Must Be Impeached." Must doesn't allow for wiggle room. Tribe maintains that "impeachable offenses could theoretically have been charged from the outset of this presidency."

Left-wing New York Times columnist Charles Blow writes about "the critical and increasingly urgent question for many: Will Trump be impeached - or indicted - and when? The anticipation has produced a throbbing anxiety. There is so much emotional investment in Trump's removal that I fear that it blinds people to the fact that it is a long shot and, in any case, a long way off."

Yes, impeachment might have to wait till early 2019. Who has the patience?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0617/lowry061317.php3

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

People don't understand what a constitutional crisis is. Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis. A CC is when their is no remedy for a problem provided by a constitution. Impeachment and even conviction is not a CC. A CC would occur if the impeached executive refused to leave for example. The Constitution doesn't say anything about that.

[skeeter]

People don't understand what a constitutional crisis is. Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis. A CC is when their is no remedy for a problem provided by a constitution. Impeachment and even conviction is not a CC. A CC would occur if the impeached executive refused to leave for example. The Constitution doesn't say anything about that.

What about an impeachment with no evidence of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What about an impeachment with no evidence of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Who defines what a high crime or misdemeanor is?

[Jazzhead]

Impeachment is a political crisis, not necessarily a legal or Constitutional crisis.   The Dems do not respect the results of the election and are seeking any excuse to overturn it.   

[Old Warrior in Exile]

Impeachment is a political crisis, not necessarily a legal or Constitutional crisis.   The Dems do not respect the results of the election and are seeking any excuse to overturn it.

That is it in a nutshell.

[skeeter]

Who defines what a high crime or misdemeanor is?

Congress.

[Just_Victor]

Congress.

And misdemeanor in the Constitutional context simply means "misbehavior."  Congress can remove the POTUS for any behavior they deem unbecoming of the Chief Executive.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Congress.

Exactly. Then it's not a CC.

[Victoria33]

@txradioguy
@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe

I said before he won, he would cause a war to start, and/or he would be impeached, and/or he would quit.  I didn't think it would happen in his first year, but now I think the end of his first year is a long way off and the chaos he starts every day, may cause one of those to happen before the end of his first year.

[Wingnut]

@txradioguy
@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe

I said before he won, he would cause a war to start, and/or he would be impeached, and/or he would quit.  I didn't think it would happen in his first year, but now I think the end of his first year is a long way off and the chaos he starts every day, may cause one of those to happen before the end of his first year.

Channeling  your inner Jeane Dixon are we?

[skeeter]

And misdemeanor in the Constitutional context simply means "misbehavior."  Congress can remove the POTUS for any behavior they deem unbecoming of the Chief Executive.

While I understand the term 'high crimes' is considered by some a 'term of art' most other interpretations consider it a standard something close to those found in the UCMJ. In other words, there are some recognizable standards that have to be applied when evoking it.

I don't think it would be a stretch to call any attempt by congress to remove an executive simply because they were unhappy with the election results a 'constitutional crisis'.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I don't think it would be a stretch to call any attempt by congress to remove an executive simply because they were unhappy with the election results a 'constitutional crisis'.

While I agree that it's stupid, it's not a CC at all.

[skeeter]

While I agree that it's stupid, it's not a CC at all.

Google offers this:

A constitutional crisis is a situation that a legal system's constitution or other basic principles of operation appear unable to resolve; it often results in a breakdown in the orderly operation of government. Often, generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty.

Seems about as subjective as the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. Lots of room for individual interpretation.

[the_doc]

Impeachment is a political crisis, not necessarily a legal or Constitutional crisis.   The Dems do not respect the results of the election and are seeking any excuse to overturn it.

@Jazzhead

Ditto that.  However, impeachment could become a Constitutional crisis.  A Dem majority could impeach Trump for daring to disagree with them or for embarrassing the USA.  They could make a patently false allegation of something like obstruction of justice, and the media would back them on this. 

They could even frame Trump.

If any of these things happen, we will have moved from a political crisis to a Constitutional crisis.  The Dems would obviously be trampling on the Constitution in a way never seen before.  The provisions for impeachment were not intended as a political recall measure.

[Emjay]

@txradioguy
@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe

I said before he won, he would cause a war to start, and/or he would be impeached, and/or he would quit.  I didn't think it would happen in his first year, but now I think the end of his first year is a long way off and the chaos he starts every day, may cause one of those to happen before the end of his first year.

So far, you're zero for three.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

If any of these things happen, we will have moved from a political crisis to a Constitutional crisis.  The Dems would obviously be trampling on the Constitution in a way never seen before.  The provisions for impeachment were not intended as a political recall measure.

They were not, which is why it takes 2/3rds of Senators to convict. Last two impeachment attempts ended in disaster for the impeaching party. To convict you need the President's own party to turn on him. Hard to do in any case.

[Wingnut]

I found this interesting.  Seams "High" and "mistermeaners" had a different meaning in the early days of the country.

The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388. Treason is defined in the Constitution. Bribery is not, but it had a clear common-law meaning and is now well covered by statute. “High crimes and misdemeanors,” however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses. Use of the word “other” to link “high crimes and misdemeanors” with “treason” and “bribery” is arguably indicative of the types and seriousness of conduct encompassed by “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, the word “high” apparently carried with it a restrictive meaning.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress’ “removal” debate, Madison maintained that the wanton dismissal of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment. Other comments, especially in the ratifying conventions, tend toward a limitation of the term to criminal, perhaps gross criminal, behavior. The scope of the power has been the subject of continuing debate.

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/52-impeachable-offenses.html

[Free Vulcan]

The problem is the Left is too reflexsive and hyperbolic. They think that their little astroturf axis of Dem politicians, deep state bureacrats, SJW fascists, the Hollywood crowd, lefty CEO's, and university academia can by leveraged by constant and relentless media attack into some sort of political wave that will wash away Trump and all the right wing. They have become so demonic in their thirst for political blood and bodies that they have lost all sense of strategy.

Problem is to Main Street America they just look like a nutter echo chamber whipped into a teacup frenzy. The brass ring of impeachment is an overreach and a cross that they are going to be impaled on if they keep it up. The only way Trump and the GOP will have problems is by their own hand. As of right now they have total control over their destiny. They just need to ignore the clap trap and get things done.

[the_doc]

They were not, which is why it takes 2/3rds of Senators to convict. Last two impeachment attempts ended in disaster for the impeaching party. To convict you need the President's own party to turn on him. Hard to do in any case.

I agree.  I know that Trump would not be convicted based on what we know thus far.  But even impeaching him without real evidence would be so flagrantly contemptuous of the Constitution as to make the impeachment an extraordinarily dangerous precedent.  Every conservative Republican would face the threat of impeachment in the future--which would be ruinous of our Constitutional Republic.

The  backlash against slimy Dems might be enough to stop the nonsense, but I wouldn't be too sure about that. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I agree.  I know that Trump would not be convicted based on what we know thus far.  But even impeaching him without real evidence would be so flagrantly contemptuous of the Constitution as to make the impeachment an extraordinarily dangerous precedent.  Every conservative Republican would face the threat of impeachment in the future--which would be ruinous of our Constitutional Republic.

The  backlash against slimy Dems might be enough to stop the nonsense, but I wouldn't be too sure about that.

IMO every President *should* face the threat of impeachment, especially the power-hungry ones. The President is far too powerful in this day and age.

[the_doc]

IMO every President *should* face the threat of impeachment, especially the power-hungry ones. The President is far too powerful in this day and age.

I would say Yes and no.  A POTUS should never face the threat of being railroaded.  It would tend to swing the pendulum so far back as to paralyze the office.

[Emjay]

The problem is the Left is too reflexsive and hyperbolic. They think that their little astroturf axis of Dem politicians, deep state bureacrats, SJW fascists, the Hollywood crowd, lefty CEO's, and university academia can by leveraged by constant and relentless media attack into some sort of political wave that will wash away Trump and all the right wing. They have become so demonic in their thirst for political blood and bodies that they have lost all sense of strategy.

Problem is to Main Street America they just look like a nutter echo chamber whipped into a teacup frenzy. The brass ring of impeachment is an overreach and a cross that they are going to be impaled on if they keep it up. The only way Trump and the GOP will have problems is by their own hand. As of right now they have total control over their destiny. They just need to ignore the clap trap and get things done.

Excellent points.  I honestly think the MSM has lost a lot of its grip on American thought. 

Although it annoyed some of us, Trump's constant reference to 'Fake News' has caused a lot of people to question so-called news sources.

[beandog]

So far, you're zero for three.

Some people are good at always being wrong.  It's a special talent.

[beandog]

IMO every President *should* face the threat of impeachment, especially the power-hungry ones. The President is far too powerful in this day and age.

I believe it is the courts that have far too much power in this day and age, not the President.  The President has too much power when the courts are on his side, as was the case with the Bamster.