The Fora: A Higher Education Community

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: clean on January 08, 2021, 12:42:17 PM

Title: Impeachment pending?
Post by: clean on January 08, 2021, 12:42:17 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/update-1-us-house-democrats-to-introduce-impeachment-charges-against-trump-on-monday-sources/ar-BB1cAwS0?li=BBnb7Kz

What is the minimum time an impeachment process can take?
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: ergative on January 09, 2021, 01:17:38 AM
It sounds like the real bottleneck is getting the Senate back to DC for a vote: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/impeachment-president-trump-capitol.html

I'm more interested in the historical precedents where former officials were impeached, and where only a simple majority was needed to bar them from holding further public office.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 03:36:49 AM
Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime. The only options to impeach. True? if so, this is a problem, because the Congress then has the option to deem him exempt from enforcement of the law in a given situation. The possibility should have been considered that the Congress fails to do what it needs to, so we would be relying on the the law and the courts to hold each citizen accountable. When did he stop being a citizen?
And if, for example, Charles Manson, appropriately, went to prison because his people murdered on his instructions...

'Department that drafts the attorney general's legal opinions and provides its own opinions for the counsel to the president and other DOJ offices -- as part of his decision not to charge Trump with obstructing justice.
How does the OLC opinion affect Mueller's investigation? Here is what the OLC guidance said about indicting a sitting president.
What does the ruling say?
Legal opinions on two occasions from the OLC concluded that criminally prosecuting a sitting president would undermine his or her ability to perform the duties of the executive branch.
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions," the 1973 guidance, written when President Richard Nixon was facing obstruction of justice charges.'

Well, sure...but then so would his habit of committing crimes. And you know haw many times you have to do something before it becomes a habit. Once.

Charging him with a crime would not be done now because obviously time is running out, but if it might have been an opportunity sometime ago. This should be settled/revisited. In my layperson's opinion.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: ergative on January 09, 2021, 05:40:25 AM
Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime. The only options to impeach. True? if so, this is a problem, because the Congress then has the option to deem him exempt from enforcement of the law in a given situation.

As I understand it, impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. He can still be charged with crimes once he leaves office. The only way impeachment interacts with that is by determining whether he leaves office earlier or later.

My concern is the issue of self-pardons. If he tries it, there will be a bunch of messy court cases, but it is absolutely imperative that we get a firm precedent that the president cannot pardon himself. Otherwise he is immune from prosecution while in office, and can pardon himself on January 20th at 11:59, and so escapes any consequences for anything he does while in office.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:29:17 AM
As I've written elsewhere, Democrats will find a reason not to impeach him or not to convict him.  They want Trump to run again, and, strategically, they're right to want that.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: apl68 on January 09, 2021, 06:32:59 AM

I'm more interested in the historical precedents where former officials were impeached, and where only a simple majority was needed to bar them from holding further public office.

At this point that would seem more relevant.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2021, 06:45:03 AM
As I've written elsewhere, Democrats will find a reason not to impeach him or not to convict him.  They want Trump to run again, and, strategically, they're right to want that.

Haha what?

Democrats in the House will almost certainly impeach Trump next week.  There will probably be foot dragging by Senate Republicans that prevents him from being convicted before January 20th. I don't think anyone in Washington wants Trump to run again.

Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime. The only options to impeach. True? if so, this is a problem, because the Congress then has the option to deem him exempt from enforcement of the law in a given situation.

As I understand it, impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. He can still be charged with crimes once he leaves office. The only way impeachment interacts with that is by determining whether he leaves office earlier or later.

My concern is the issue of self-pardons. If he tries it, there will be a bunch of messy court cases, but it is absolutely imperative that we get a firm precedent that the president cannot pardon himself. Otherwise he is immune from prosecution while in office, and can pardon himself on January 20th at 11:59, and so escapes any consequences for anything he does while in office.

The (only?) way to get a clear precedent on self-pardons is for Trump to self-pardon and then have that struck down by the courts. My guess is that he does self-pardon, but it doesn't get resolved because he never faces criminal prosecution at the federal level.

His more serious dangers are in NY state and (maybe) Georgia, and the self-pardon won't protect him from those.

Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime.

There is a Justice Department memo that recommends against charging a sitting president. That's why Mueller didn't think he could charge Trump with obstruction of justice.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2021, 06:45:39 AM
Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime.

I believe he can be charged with a crime. I think what we heard was that it is DOJ policy not to charge a sitting President. Instead charges would be filed after the term is over.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Vkw10 on January 09, 2021, 08:00:07 AM
Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime.

I believe he can be charged with a crime. I think what we heard was that it is DOJ policy not to charge a sitting President. Instead charges would be filed after the term is over.

DOJ reports to President, which makes charging sitting President with crime difficult. If he was holding a bloody knife with stabbing victim bleeding out on ground, he’d be arrested and charged. For anything less clear, the conflict of interest problems with arresting the boss are enormous.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: nebo113 on January 09, 2021, 08:24:52 AM
Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime.

I believe he can be charged with a crime. I think what we heard was that it is DOJ policy not to charge a sitting President. Instead charges would be filed after the term is over.

DOJ reports to President, which makes charging sitting President with crime difficult. If he was holding a bloody knife with stabbing victim bleeding out on ground, he’d be arrested and charged. For anything less clear, the conflict of interest problems with arresting the boss are enormous.

Except he thinks he could kill someone on 5th Ave and get away with it.  NOT any more!
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 09:28:33 AM
As I recall President Ford's pardon of Nixon was before the fact. Nixon had not been charged with crimes. His wish that Nixon not be prosecuted was respected, but it didn't have to be. A few people grumbled but most saw Ford a trustworthy guy who wanted the best for the USA and was qualified to make that determination. But if a preemptive pardon really holds legally against a challenge,  why couldn't you pardon a person for a crime he has not yet committed? Why couldn't you just declare flat out, he is henceforth unpublishable for breaking any law? And of course there are nations where that happens.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: ciao_yall on January 09, 2021, 09:35:47 AM
As I recall President Ford's pardon of Nixon was before the fact. Nixon had not been charged with crimes. His wish that Nixon not be prosecuted was respected, but it didn't have to be. A few people grumbled but most saw Ford a trustworthy guy who wanted the best for the USA and was qualified to make that determination. But if a preemptive pardon really holds legally against a challenge,  why couldn't you pardon a person for a crime he has not yet committed? Why couldn't you just declare flat out, he is henceforth unpublishable for breaking any law? And of course there are nations where that happens.

You can pardon someone for a crime for which they have not been charged. But you can't pardon someone for a crime they haven't yet committed. It's not like a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card.

Nixon was pardoned for anything he might have done while President, but the day after the pardon he was criminally liable he did from that point forward.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 09:39:58 AM
As I recall President Ford's pardon of Nixon was before the fact. Nixon had not been charged with crimes. His wish that Nixon not be prosecuted was respected, but it didn't have to be. A few people grumbled but most saw Ford a trustworthy guy who wanted the best for the USA and was qualified to make that determination. But if a preemptive pardon really holds legally against a challenge,  why couldn't you pardon a person for a crime he has not yet committed? Why couldn't you just declare flat out, he is henceforth unpublishable for breaking any law? And of course there are nations where that happens.

You can pardon someone for a crime for which they have not been charged. But you can't pardon someone for a crime they haven't yet committed. It's not like a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card.

Nixon was pardoned for anything he might have done while President, but the day after the pardon he was criminally liable he did from that point forward.

thank you...but if it were learned that Nixon had strangled someone to death while in office, the Ford pardon covers it?
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: clean on January 09, 2021, 09:52:31 AM
Murder is a state crime, so the pardon would NOT have covered it.  Presidential pardons cover federal crimes.  Remember, governors can pardon too, but not pardon federal crimes, only state crimes. 

But, yes, murder is a pardonable offense. 

I dont remember the specific crime, but Trump pardoned some Blackwater folks for crimes committed in Iraq.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: ciao_yall on January 09, 2021, 09:59:03 AM
As I recall President Ford's pardon of Nixon was before the fact. Nixon had not been charged with crimes. His wish that Nixon not be prosecuted was respected, but it didn't have to be. A few people grumbled but most saw Ford a trustworthy guy who wanted the best for the USA and was qualified to make that determination. But if a preemptive pardon really holds legally against a challenge,  why couldn't you pardon a person for a crime he has not yet committed? Why couldn't you just declare flat out, he is henceforth unpublishable for breaking any law? And of course there are nations where that happens.

You can pardon someone for a crime for which they have not been charged. But you can't pardon someone for a crime they haven't yet committed. It's not like a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card.

Nixon was pardoned for anything he might have done while President, but the day after the pardon he was criminally liable he did from that point forward.

thank you...but if it were learned that Nixon had strangled someone to death while in office, the Ford pardon covers it?

One supposes that were theoretically possible. But if it were even suspected I'm sure Ford would have drawn up narrower pardon language.

And can pardons be reversed? TLTG.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: clean on January 09, 2021, 10:18:45 AM
Can pardons be reversed. 
No.  A pardon is a check (or balance) on the judicial branch.

(However, IF the pardon were granted and found to be granted based on bribery, it probably could be.  Normally, though, there is no mechanism to reverse one).
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: ergative on January 09, 2021, 10:25:39 AM
Murder is a state crime, so the pardon would NOT have covered it.  Presidential pardons cover federal crimes.  Remember, governors can pardon too, but not pardon federal crimes, only state crimes. 

But, yes, murder is a pardonable offense. 

I dont remember the specific crime, but Trump pardoned some Blackwater folks for crimes committed in Iraq.

What if the murder took place in DC, which is not under the jurisdiction of any state? If Prez shoots someone on 5th Avenue, the state of NY could prosecute him (perhaps only after he leaves office). But if he murders someone in the Oval Office, which state would have jurisdiction?
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: ciao_yall on January 09, 2021, 10:26:59 AM
Can pardons be reversed. 
No.  A pardon is a check (or balance) on the judicial branch.

(However, IF the pardon were granted and found to be granted based on bribery, it probably could be.  Normally, though, there is no mechanism to reverse one).

Well, let's say a pardon was for tax evasion. "I pardon X for tax evasion."

But if it turned out they bribed to get the pardon, then the bribing itself is a crime that could be punished since the pardon was only for tax evasion.

Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: ciao_yall on January 09, 2021, 10:29:07 AM
Murder is a state crime, so the pardon would NOT have covered it.  Presidential pardons cover federal crimes.  Remember, governors can pardon too, but not pardon federal crimes, only state crimes. 

But, yes, murder is a pardonable offense. 

I dont remember the specific crime, but Trump pardoned some Blackwater folks for crimes committed in Iraq.

What if the murder took place in DC, which is not under the jurisdiction of any state? If Prez shoots someone on 5th Avenue, the state of NY could prosecute him (perhaps only after he leaves office). But if he murders someone in the Oval Office, which state would have jurisdiction?

If the murder takes place on federal land, then it's a federal crime. I mean, it's not like murder is legal in Washington DC out on the streets.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: ergative on January 09, 2021, 10:33:13 AM
Murder is a state crime, so the pardon would NOT have covered it.  Presidential pardons cover federal crimes.  Remember, governors can pardon too, but not pardon federal crimes, only state crimes. 

But, yes, murder is a pardonable offense. 

I dont remember the specific crime, but Trump pardoned some Blackwater folks for crimes committed in Iraq.

What if the murder took place in DC, which is not under the jurisdiction of any state? If Prez shoots someone on 5th Avenue, the state of NY could prosecute him (perhaps only after he leaves office). But if he murders someone in the Oval Office, which state would have jurisdiction?

If the murder takes place on federal land, then it's a federal crime. I mean, it's not like murder is legal in Washington DC out on the streets.

Yes, of course. I was unclear; sorry. I mean, would it be the case that a pardon for federal crimes would not rule out subsequent state murder charges in NY, but would rule out any further charge if he murdered someone in the Oval Office?
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: spork on January 09, 2021, 10:58:24 AM
Articles of impeachment will be issued Monday morning if Trump doesn't resign first, which he almost certainly won't, given his sociopathic nature.

The Senate will probably refuse to reconvene for an impeachment trial before inauguration. But there is the possibility of a trial after Biden becomes president. The ability of the Senate to hold an impeachment trial of a former president is not a matter of settled constitutional law.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: ciao_yall on January 09, 2021, 01:00:11 PM
Articles of impeachment will be issued Monday morning if Trump doesn't resign first, which he almost certainly won't, given his sociopathic nature.

The Senate will probably refuse to reconvene for an impeachment trial before inauguration. But there is the possibility of a trial after Biden becomes president. The ability of the Senate to hold an impeachment trial of a former president is not a matter of settled constitutional law.

It would also need bipartisan support, otherwise it would backfire into a partisan s***show.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 01:35:59 PM
Articles of impeachment will be issued Monday morning if Trump doesn't resign first, which he almost certainly won't, given his sociopathic nature.

The Senate will probably refuse to reconvene for an impeachment trial before inauguration. But there is the possibility of a trial after Biden becomes president. The ability of the Senate to hold an impeachment trial of a former president is not a matter of settled constitutional law.

Biden wasting his "hundred days" on a post-presidency impeachment of his predecessor sounds about right. Otherwise, he might have to waste it on covid nonsense. Carry on.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: dismalist on January 09, 2021, 02:01:57 PM
Suppose Trump is impeached, now, or ex post. Further suppose that the Senate convicts after January 20th. The only punishment is removal from office, but Trump will no longer be in office. Thus, the Senate, just by considering conviction, would be violating the rules of logic.

This is just a show, like the first impeachment. But it does show that the Democrats need Trump.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 09, 2021, 04:10:12 PM
I'm glad they're proceeding, and hope they have the stomach to follow through.

The only punishment is removal from office, but Trump will no longer be in office.


You're forgetting that conviction results in being barred from federal office.

Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: clean on January 09, 2021, 04:14:40 PM
Quote
The only punishment is removal from office, b

Recent news articles note that he would also lose his presidential pension AND Secret Service Protection (as well as being banned from running for office), though these would require a separate vote that would carry with a simple majority.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: dismalist on January 09, 2021, 04:18:59 PM
I'm glad they're proceeding, and hope they have the stomach to follow through.

The only punishment is removal from office, but Trump will no longer be in office.


You're forgetting that conviction results in being barred from federal office.

That's up to the Senate. And it doesn't seem binding to me: Trump is not going to be elected to anything in future.

Thus, a charade to keep Trump in the limelight.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 04:26:28 PM
I would like to see him barred from running in 2024. The republicans have good talent around and will have more by then. Having a good candidate would mean a better debate. Hopefully a black man or woman. If Trumps runs you'll get democrats saying 'oh they're running the racist again' and the democrat will get elected no matter how lame they are.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 04:29:21 PM
I would like to see him barred from running in 2024. The republicans have good talent around and will have more by then. Having a good candidate would mean a better debate. Hopefully a black man or woman. If Trumps runs you'll get democrats saying 'oh they're running the racist again' and the democrat will get elected no matter how lame they are.

Hilariously, Trump being a "racist" is like the twentieth worst thing about him now.  Get in line, Trump's "racism."
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 04:39:54 PM
I would like to see him barred from running in 2024. The republicans have good talent around and will have more by then. Having a good candidate would mean a better debate. Hopefully a black man or woman. If Trumps runs you'll get democrats saying 'oh they're running the racist again' and the democrat will get elected no matter how lame they are.

Hilariously, Trump being a "racist" is like the twentieth worst thing about him now.  Get in line, Trump's "racism."

Not only that, if they run a black candidate the democrats will just say he's an Uncle Tom.

the last republican candidate that maybe, just maybe,
didn't get called a racist was Gerald Ford.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: writingprof on January 10, 2021, 01:03:10 PM
Biden wasting his "hundred days" on a post-presidency impeachment of his predecessor sounds about right. Otherwise, he might have to waste it on covid nonsense. Carry on.

Alas, it appears that I was insufficiently cynical: Biden will not waste his "hundred days" on impeachment.

Quote
“Let’s give President-elect Biden the 100 days he needs to get his agenda off and running,” said Mr. Clyburn, an influential ally to the incoming president. “And maybe we will send the articles sometime after that.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/10/us/joe-trump-biden#the-house-could-vote-as-soon-as-tuesday-on-an-impeachment-article-the-chambers-no-3-democrat-said

I bet a million-kajillion dollars that they do not "maybe . . . send the articles sometime after that."  It's now or never, jackasses.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: dismalist on January 10, 2021, 01:12:11 PM
I can't afford to bet that much, but I think the articles of impeachment won't be sent to the Senate for a while. This keeps Trump in the news as a target for the Democratic Party. Trump is a uniter, not a divider -- of Democrats. :-)

Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Ruralguy on January 10, 2021, 01:33:31 PM
If it goes through to the Senate essentially now, there's an outside chance of conviction (I only really count about 6 or so Republicans likely to vote for conviction, a stretch can maybe take to just below 10, but 16 or 17 or whatever that is..yikes, no).  But if it goes through in two weeks, after he  leaves, then no way will there be a vote to convict. I know kicking him out for the  the future only needs 50%, but can that happen without a conviction vote (2/3)?
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: ergative on January 10, 2021, 01:48:22 PM
As I understand it, conviction with 2/3 for removal is not a prerequisite for conviction with majority for barring from future office. It's two independent votes. If Dems wait until after Biden's in office, they can skip a vote on removal (which they'd probably lose), and only vote for barring from future office (which, with Romney, Toomey, Murkowski, and Sasse on board, they'd probably win).
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: dismalist on January 10, 2021, 02:01:32 PM
The Guardian phrases it so that an official must first be convicted before the simple majority vote to ban future officeholding takes place.

Quote
These precedents show the Senate is permitted to disqualify President Trump from future officeholding on a majority vote if he is impeached and convicted.

The full article is here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/07/we-must-impeach-trump-and-bar-him-from-holding-office-again-now (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/07/we-must-impeach-trump-and-bar-him-from-holding-office-again-now)
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Puget on January 10, 2021, 03:11:00 PM
As I understand it, conviction with 2/3 for removal is not a prerequisite for conviction with majority for barring from future office. It's two independent votes. If Dems wait until after Biden's in office, they can skip a vote on removal (which they'd probably lose), and only vote for barring from future office (which, with Romney, Toomey, Murkowski, and Sasse on board, they'd probably win).

No, conviction has to come first-- it's like a trial where first there has to be a guilty verdict and then you move to the penalty phase-- although the penalties are majority vote, the conviction itself has to be by 2/3, and you can't skip that part. It is intentionally hard to do.

It is now being reported that the House will vote but then wait to send the articles to the Senate (which would trigger an immediate trial), since they can't realistically remove him in the next 10 days, and the Senate will need to focus on cabinet appointments etc. for some time after that. I wonder if that may also give some R senators time to observe Trump's diminished influence out of power and  consider their own political futures (and whether they really want him even pretending he'll run in 2024 which would paralyze the rest of the potential field). I still doubt you'll get 17 of them, but I bet it would be a different matter if it was a secret vote.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: clean on January 11, 2021, 11:02:16 AM
Quote
but then wait to send the articles to the Senate (which would trigger an immediate trial),

After the first impeachment of Trump, I seem to recall that Pelosi waited a while to send it to the Senate, and that McConnel didnt Immediately begin the trial portion.  (though I could be wrong about the later part).  I believe that the decision was made, eventually, to let it go through quickly (with no witnesses called!) with the minimum of presentation time granted. 
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: mamselle on January 11, 2021, 02:26:57 PM
Yes, she did wait to send it.

Too bad they can't just take that one as a re-do.

M.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Puget on January 11, 2021, 02:45:59 PM
Quote
but then wait to send the articles to the Senate (which would trigger an immediate trial),

After the first impeachment of Trump, I seem to recall that Pelosi waited a while to send it to the Senate, and that McConnel didnt Immediately begin the trial portion.  (though I could be wrong about the later part).  I believe that the decision was made, eventually, to let it go through quickly (with no witnesses called!) with the minimum of presentation time granted.
The House can wait to send it but from what I've read the Senate cannot then wait to start the trial. Otherwise they could just let it die by never starting the trial. It's the one thing the House can force the Senate to do.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: writingprof on January 12, 2021, 02:57:50 PM
After the first impeachment of Trump, I seem to recall that Pelosi waited a while to send it to the Senate, and that McConnel didnt Immediately begin the trial portion. 

What happened is that Pelosi, ever the master strategist, threatened to withhold the impeachment articles until McConnell agreed to her procedural terms. Because he didn't want the impeachment articles ever to be sent, she had no leverage, and she soon folded.

In other news, the New York Times is reporting that McConnell is pleased about this second impeachment because it represents a chance to purge Trump from the party.  Alas, this is why the Democratic Senate will find a way not to hold a second impeachment trial.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2021, 05:32:31 PM
Several high ranking Republicans planning to vote for impeachment of considering it, including Liz Cheney and Moscow Mitch.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: writingprof on January 13, 2021, 05:11:22 AM
Several high ranking Republicans planning to vote for impeachment of considering it, including Liz Cheney and Moscow Mitch.

I believe he prefers Cocaine Mitch.  Get it right.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 13, 2021, 10:01:06 AM
Louis Gohmert just cited Wikipedia his source to argue the Democrats were doing it incorrectly.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: ciao_yall on January 13, 2021, 10:51:33 AM
Louis Gohmert just cited Wikipedia his source to argue the Democrats were doing it incorrectly.

Someone needs to edit his page for him...
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: mahagonny on January 13, 2021, 10:57:02 AM
Several high ranking Republicans planning to vote for impeachment of considering it, including Liz Cheney and Moscow Mitch.

I believe he prefers Cocaine Mitch.  Get it right.

Do these count as immature ridiculing of someone's name/nicknaming?

Some people do  derisive nicknames with real flair. Others just sound like thirteen year old boys.
The right way: Cheetos Jesus
The wrong way: Pocahontas
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Langue_doc on January 13, 2021, 11:59:37 AM
Louis Gohmert just cited Wikipedia his source to argue the Democrats were doing it incorrectly.

His English Comp professor should have insisted on his attending the "Introduction to the Library" class so that he could learn how to check for reliability (the CRAAP test). Epic fail.

Back to the regular program.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Hegemony on January 13, 2021, 12:03:39 PM
I'm opposed to any pejorative nicknames, but in this country I seem to be a minority of one.

(The ensuing discussion will then assert that pejorative nicknames are all right if you really have contempt for the person, which is justified because the person is contemptible for reasons X and Y. But the people on our side are not contemptible, therefore the opposition's pejorative nicknames are offensive, while ours are wholly justified. I still disagree, but as I say, I am a minority of one.)
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: marshwiggle on January 13, 2021, 12:09:37 PM
I'm opposed to any pejorative nicknames, but in this country I seem to be a minority of one.

(The ensuing discussion will then assert that pejorative nicknames are all right if you really have contempt for the person, which is justified because the person is contemptible for reasons X and Y. But the people on our side are not contemptible, therefore the opposition's pejorative nicknames are offensive, while ours are wholly justified. I still disagree, but as I say, I am a minority of one.)

Not quite. I'm totally in favour of applying that rule. Among other things, it focusses on peoples' statements and actions rather than inferences about their character, intelligence, etc.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Cheerful on January 13, 2021, 12:41:49 PM
I'm opposed to any pejorative nicknames, but in this country I seem to be a minority of one.

(The ensuing discussion will then assert that pejorative nicknames are all right if you really have contempt for the person, which is justified because the person is contemptible for reasons X and Y. But the people on our side are not contemptible, therefore the opposition's pejorative nicknames are offensive, while ours are wholly justified. I still disagree, but as I say, I am a minority of one.)

+1
On this issue, hoping you and I are among the quiet majority.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 13, 2021, 12:43:07 PM
Louis Gohmert just cited Wikipedia his source to argue the Democrats were doing it incorrectly.

His English Comp professor should have insisted on his attending the "Introduction to the Library" class so that he could learn how to check for reliability (the CRAAP test). Epic fail.

Back to the regular program.

Mine would tell me to proofread better. Left out an "as".

Gohmert has a JD from Baylor!!
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Langue_doc on January 13, 2021, 01:03:01 PM
I'm opposed to any pejorative nicknames, but in this country I seem to be a minority of one.

(The ensuing discussion will then assert that pejorative nicknames are all right if you really have contempt for the person, which is justified because the person is contemptible for reasons X and Y. But the people on our side are not contemptible, therefore the opposition's pejorative nicknames are offensive, while ours are wholly justified. I still disagree, but as I say, I am a minority of one.)

+1
On this issue, hoping you and I are among the quiet majority.

+1.
I cringe whenever I see the name "Karen" used in the media as an adjective. The latest instance is "Soho Karen". While the behavior of this individual is reprehensible, the behavior can be described without invoking a proper noun shared by many.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: apl68 on January 13, 2021, 01:33:28 PM
I'm opposed to any pejorative nicknames, but in this country I seem to be a minority of one.

(The ensuing discussion will then assert that pejorative nicknames are all right if you really have contempt for the person, which is justified because the person is contemptible for reasons X and Y. But the people on our side are not contemptible, therefore the opposition's pejorative nicknames are offensive, while ours are wholly justified. I still disagree, but as I say, I am a minority of one.)

+1
On this issue, hoping you and I are among the quiet majority.

+1.
I cringe whenever I see the name "Karen" used in the media as an adjective. The latest instance is "Soho Karen". While the behavior of this individual is reprehensible, the behavior can be described without invoking a proper noun shared by many.

Especially when you personally knew a Karen who was a victim of a hate crime, not a perpetrator of one.  It still makes me seethe whenever I see that use of "Karen."
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: writingprof on January 13, 2021, 01:46:17 PM
Several high ranking Republicans planning to vote for impeachment of considering it, including Liz Cheney and Moscow Mitch.

I believe he prefers Cocaine Mitch.  Get it right.

Do these count as immature ridiculing of someone's name/nicknaming?

Some people do  derisive nicknames with real flair. Others just sound like thirteen year old boys.
The right way: Cheetos Jesus
The wrong way: Pocahontas

You're incorrect.  Trump rightly understood that puns (e.g., "Faux-cahontas") are beyond the intellectual reach of most Americans.  He went with Pocahontas, plain and simple, and Elizabeth Warren is not going to be president.  And don't you dare tell me that I'm committing the post-hoc fallacy.  The Pocahontas thing killed her career.

Especially when you personally knew a Karen who was a victim of a hate crime, not a perpetrator of one.  It still makes me seethe whenever I see that use of "Karen."

Oh, for frack's sake.  Your Karen is being a total Karen if she thinks being a victim awards her special privileges. 
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: mahagonny on January 13, 2021, 02:03:27 PM
Several high ranking Republicans planning to vote for impeachment of considering it, including Liz Cheney and Moscow Mitch.

I believe he prefers Cocaine Mitch.  Get it right.

Do these count as immature ridiculing of someone's name/nicknaming?

Some people do  derisive nicknames with real flair. Others just sound like thirteen year old boys.
The right way: Cheetos Jesus
The wrong way: Pocahontas

You're incorrect.  Trump rightly understood that puns (e.g., "Faux-cahontas") are beyond the intellectual reach of most Americans.  He went with Pocahontas, plain and simple, and Elizabeth Warren is not going to be president.  And don't you dare tell me that I'm committing the post-hoc fallacy.  The Pocahontas thing killed her career.
I was never sure whether he got puns, either. But it could be he is actually very smart in certain ways, while not having a sense of humor as we know it. So maybe your crediting him for 'flair' is spot on. 'There is absolutely no art in the man' - John McWhorter
'He's crazy like a fox.' - Glenn Loury
'He's not very smart and he's massively ignorant.' - P. J. O'Rourke
Don't ask me!
Good example of a guy who fatally overestimated people's intelligence was Jimmy Carter.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 13, 2021, 02:10:07 PM
He's been impeached.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: spork on January 13, 2021, 02:39:55 PM
Louis Gohmert just cited Wikipedia his source to argue the Democrats were doing it incorrectly.

His English Comp professor should have insisted on his attending the "Introduction to the Library" class so that he could learn how to check for reliability (the CRAAP test). Epic fail.

Back to the regular program.

Mine would tell me to proofread better. Left out an "as".

Gohmert has a JD from Baylor!!

Hawley's JD is from Yale and he clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. You can find craven ambition, duplicity, and idiocy pretty much anywhere.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: apl68 on January 13, 2021, 02:46:11 PM


Especially when you personally knew a Karen who was a victim of a hate crime, not a perpetrator of one.  It still makes me seethe whenever I see that use of "Karen."

Oh, for frack's sake.  Your Karen is being a total Karen if she thinks being a victim awards her special privileges.

Wrintingprof, I know you like to do your "outrageous" shtick and all, but you're talking about a friend and staff member of mine who was murdered in her own home by two youths who were targeting the only white household in their black neighborhood.  Her granddaughter saw her killed before her eyes, was herself shot, played dead to save her life, and made her way to a nearby police station to get help.  It's little short of a miracle she survived.  She still carries that bullet.

I don't appreciate your being flippant about this tragedy, any more than I appreciate the demeaning misuse of the name Karen.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: clean on January 13, 2021, 02:47:43 PM
Quote
He's been impeached.
  AGAIN

With 10 Republicans agreeing with the proposal.

However, I doubt that it will accomplish anything except to further embarrass the president and inflame his supporters.

I dont believe that there will be a conviction, and hence a prohibition against holding office again.

A censure would have likely gained much more support, not been as inflammatory, and lead, ultimately to the same (non) result.

In the end, I think that the rush to take this action (with only a 2 hour floor 'debate') is a mistake.  I understand that there was little time to DO the committee work, but I think that the rush to take this action sets a bad precedent and may be problematic in the future.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: mahagonny on January 13, 2021, 03:29:29 PM
I'm opposed to any pejorative nicknames, but in this country I seem to be a minority of one.

(The ensuing discussion will then assert that pejorative nicknames are all right if you really have contempt for the person, which is justified because the person is contemptible for reasons X and Y. But the people on our side are not contemptible, therefore the opposition's pejorative nicknames are offensive, while ours are wholly justified. I still disagree, but as I say, I am a minority of one.)

+1
On this issue, hoping you and I are among the quiet majority.

+1.
I cringe whenever I see the name "Karen" used in the media as an adjective. The latest instance is "Soho Karen". While the behavior of this individual is reprehensible, the behavior can be described without invoking a proper noun shared by many.

Especially when you personally knew a Karen who was a victim of a hate crime, not a perpetrator of one.  It still makes me seethe whenever I see that use of "Karen."

The thought process that is being cultivated, apparently, is, while whiteness is a bad thing morally, some people are garden variety white, while a few are especially white.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: mamselle on January 13, 2021, 03:44:07 PM
Quote
He's been impeached.
  AGAIN

With 10 Republicans agreeing with the proposal.

However, I doubt that it will accomplish anything except to further embarrass the president and inflame his supporters.

I dont believe that there will be a conviction, and hence a prohibition against holding office again.

A censure would have likely gained much more support, not been as inflammatory, and lead, ultimately to the same (non) result.

In the end, I think that the rush to take this action (with only a 2 hour floor 'debate') is a mistake.  I understand that there was little time to DO the committee work, but I think that the rush to take this action sets a bad precedent and may be problematic in the future.

Maybe. But it would have been morally indefensible to do nothing, which is what seems to be happening with all the other options that could at least be started in the time given.

I do think sometimes it may be more important to do the thing itself, rather than be as concerned about the optics/nicey-dicey details/aesthetics of the options.

Not to say you might not be right overall, but as you note, the timing is a strongly limiting factor, and something had to be done to set a limit.

Pity Pence wouldn't just 25th him.

M.
Title: Re: Impeachment pending?
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 13, 2021, 04:00:05 PM


Maybe. But it would have been morally indefensible to do nothing, which is what seems to be happening with all the other options that could at least be started in the time given.

I do think sometimes it may be more important to do the thing itself, rather than be as concerned about the optics/nicey-dicey details/aesthetics of the options.


I totally agree!