ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , impeachment , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 30th October 2019, 01:15 PM   #1
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,236
Did the Trump administration committed a high crime or misdemeanor?

I'm curious. Do you believe that President Trump committed a high crime?

If so, why or why not?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 30th October 2019 at 02:04 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 01:18 PM   #2
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,335
Taking "high crime" to mean nothing more or less than "worthy of impeachment", yes. He withheld funds allocated by Congress for the military needs of a desperate ally in order to pressure the ally to announce investigations which would aid Trump politically and for no reason other than that selfish benefit.

In short, he put his interests ahead of the nation's, subverting a congressional act in the meanwhile. That is an act worthy of impeachment and removal, by gum.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 01:38 PM   #3
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,436
As Will Wilkinson recently pointed out, this kind of electoral corruption takes the more usual means of removal off the table, since he's trying to pervert that process.

Not only does it count as "high crimes and misdemeanors", he must be impeached, because he's left us with no other options.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/o...ment-2020.html
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 01:38 PM   #4
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,674
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm curious. Do you believe that President Trump commit a high crime?
There was a thread in Trials and Errors about the legal questions of crime as such. I'm assuming you're not interested in the legal questions as such. Instead, you're asking a political question.

Quote:
If so, why or why not?
For the political question, there's a couple of answers. One answer is, "as a voting citizen, I believe that Trump [ should | should not ] be removed from office for what he's done."

Another answer is, "it's up to the Senate to vote on whether he's committed a high crime or misdemeanor. Until they vote, we won't know, just like we don't know if a law is constitutional until the Supreme Court votes on a decision."

Neither answer is very awesome.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 01:48 PM   #5
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,840
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There was a thread in Trials and Errors about the legal questions of crime as such.
Link? I'm not finding it.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 01:53 PM   #6
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,785
Shouldn't there be a poll?

Yes, he should be impeached for the reasons stated. Probably for obstructing the Russian investigation even if the underlying crime didn't happen, probably for his current attempts to obstruct the impeachment investigations too.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 01:58 PM   #7
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,674
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Link? I'm not finding it.
It was moved out of T&E because the mods, like most of the participants, didn't believe an examination of the legal questions as such was possible.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 02:01 PM   #8
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,840
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It was moved out of T&E because the mods, like most of the participants, didn't believe an examination of the legal questions as such was possible.
Right. I was looking in T&E.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 02:02 PM   #9
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 21,013
Quote:
a high crime or misdemeanor
I've always been a little puzzled by this term. If the low bar is "a misdemeanor", it should be a simple matter to impeach. Obviously that is never even a consideration. (and I would not want it to be.)

Still, it seems like it's defining a spectrum from murder to swiping a pack of cigarettes.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 02:06 PM   #10
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,162
If Trump is not impeachable than who would be? I really don’t think the Dems wanted to do this. But when he tries to strong-arm a foreign government into digging up (or manufacturing) dirt on an election rival surely some line has been crossed. Add to that the ongoing attempt to thwart inquiries into his actions, plus his public calls for assistance from foreign governments and there’s really no question he is abusing his presidential power.

The question I have is, should the articles of impeachment be a long list Or a short one? Do they throw the book at him or narrow it down to the big ones - abuse of power, obstruction of justice and ...?

Last edited by Minoosh; 30th October 2019 at 02:08 PM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 02:08 PM   #11
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,162
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
Still, it seems like it's defining a spectrum from murder to swiping a pack of cigarettes.
It was left vague on purpose IMO.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 02:10 PM   #12
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,785
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I've always been a little puzzled by this term. If the low bar is "a misdemeanor", it should be a simple matter to impeach. Obviously that is never even a consideration. (and I would not want it to be.)

Still, it seems like it's defining a spectrum from murder to swiping a pack of cigarettes.
My understanding high crimes and misdemeanors should be read as high crimes and high misdemeanors, misdemeanors being bad behavior.

If you are curious:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...always-a-crime
Apparently, the meaning of misdemeanor has become more specific to less serious crimes in the last 200 years.

Last edited by ahhell; 30th October 2019 at 02:13 PM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 02:14 PM   #13
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,674
I figured it should be read as "anything Congress damn well pleases, as long as there's broad consensus among the legislators, and it's a decision they're willing to explain to their constituents at election time". And that, it seems to me, is as it should be.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 02:16 PM   #14
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,273
Obstruction - from the start and ongoing.
__________________
“Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 02:54 PM   #15
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,236
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There was a thread in Trials and Errors about the legal questions of crime as such. I'm assuming you're not interested in the legal questions as such. Instead, you're asking a political question.
A high crime is not necessarily "criminal". Certainly actual crimes may or may not qualify. I don't know if you have read the memo created by the staff lawyers during Nixon's impeachment. You should.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
For the political question, there's a couple of answers. One answer is, "as a voting citizen, I believe that Trump [ should | should not ] be removed from office for what he's done."
That doesn't answer the question. Do you have an opinion about whether Trump committed a "high crime". In other words, at a minimum, does extorting a foreign country by witholding needed military aid authorized by Congress for help on his own personal reelection campaign? Or perhaps obstructing Congess by refusing to comply with subpoenas?
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Another answer is, "it's up to the Senate to vote on whether he's committed a high crime or misdemeanor. Until they vote, we won't know, just like we don't know if a law is constitutional until the Supreme Court votes on a decision."

Neither answer is very awesome.
I don't care at this moment what they think, but what members of this forum believe is an impeachable offense and whether Trump and this administration has committed any.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 02:59 PM   #16
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,236
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I figured it should be read as "anything Congress damn well pleases, as long as there's broad consensus among the legislators, and it's a decision they're willing to explain to their constituents at election time". And that, it seems to me, is as it should be.
It absolutely isn't. Although it definitely has been used that way. It wasn't intended to be used for simply political policy reasoning. Which the Johnson impeachment really was. Or for political posturing which I'm convinced the Clinton impeachment was.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 03:19 PM   #17
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,001
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I've always been a little puzzled by this term. If the low bar is "a misdemeanor", it should be a simple matter to impeach. Obviously that is never even a consideration. (and I would not want it to be.)

Still, it seems like it's defining a spectrum from murder to swiping a pack of cigarettes.
The term was intended to be ambiguous. The founders' intentions were pretty much, "If the Congress decides the President has to be removed, they can do so."

Trying to determine how high a crime needs to be to qualify is a fool's errand. The standard should be interpreted as the Supreme Court might interpret obscenity: We know it when we see it.

This presidency is an obscenity.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 03:21 PM   #18
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,566
I can't get past the horrible grammar of the o/p title. It's a crime in itself
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 03:22 PM   #19
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,089
The first thing to do is determine the meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", so what it meant to the writers of the US Constitution.

Form most sources I have located, these are not actual crimes and violations of specific statues as such, but rather term refers back to an English concept which was the mishandling, misuse, or abuse of the powers of a high office.

Under this, then the question becomes, did the President abuse the powers of his office?

So the next question is, what are the powers of his office?

So under the US Constitution the President is given the power of execution of the Laws created by the Legislature. These laws are to be executed for the public good, i.e. for the good of the country.

So is it a misuse or abuse of power to use those powers for self promotion and gain?

The writers of the Constitution answered this one quite emphatically, yes it is.

Thus the next questions are;

1) Is getting a foreign Government to investigate your political opponents an action that is for personal gain?
2) Did Trump use or attempt to use the powers of the Executive and the State Department to force the Ukraine to investigate Biden?
3) Is such use of Executive Power and the mechanisms of the State Department for self gain a misuse of power?

I think that most people would say that 1 and 3 are certainly true, so that leaves question 2.

From the evidence currently on hand, then it does appear that he did, so on the current evidence then yes he should be Impeach, and where the decision to be non-partisan, he should probably be removed as well. However, since there is a powerful partisan split right now, I suspect that while he will be impeached, currently he is unlikely to be removed. This may change is the GOP grows some balls.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 03:27 PM   #20
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,176
People keep forgetting a impeachable offense might not be a criminal offense;ie a President could be impeached and removed from office, quite rightly, for something that he could not be sent to jail for; a lot of things that would be an "abuse of power" are things you could not be indicted for in a court of law.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 03:30 PM   #21
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,089
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
The term was intended to be ambiguous. The founders' intentions were pretty much, "If the Congress decides the President has to be removed, they can do so."

Trying to determine how high a crime needs to be to qualify is a fool's errand. The standard should be interpreted as the Supreme Court might interpret obscenity: We know it when we see it.

This presidency is an obscenity.
yeah, no. This is so wrong it just about doesn't qualify as wrong.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors had a specific meaning to the Founding Fathers, one that had come about via English Law, it didn't mean "Whatever Congress decides."

Also it doesn't mean that a crime is "high" but rather, that it is a crime of a high office, in other words, the person that committed the act was in high office and used that office to do the disputed action.

The Founders also spoke and wrote a lot about what they considered to be High Crimes, these can be found in the contemporary documents of the time including the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates.

here a good article on it
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 03:46 PM   #22
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,236
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I can't get past the horrible grammar of the o/p title. It's a crime in itself
You're absolutely right. It is. I blew that big time. Iin fact I never even knew I had posted it. I wanted to include a poll and was stumbling around on that.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 03:50 PM   #23
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,351
calling the press the enemy of the people.
calling the press "fake news"
ordering his cabinet to carry out a number of undisclosed illegal orders.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 04:24 PM   #24
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,089
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
calling the press the enemy of the people.
calling the press "fake news"
ordering his cabinet to carry out a number of undisclosed illegal orders.
Only the last of those would count to being a misuse of high office.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 04:48 PM   #25
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,001
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
yeah, no. This is so wrong it just about doesn't qualify as wrong.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors had a specific meaning to the Founding Fathers, one that had come about via English Law, it didn't mean "Whatever Congress decides."

Also it doesn't mean that a crime is "high" but rather, that it is a crime of a high office, in other words, the person that committed the act was in high office and used that office to do the disputed action.

The Founders also spoke and wrote a lot about what they considered to be High Crimes, these can be found in the contemporary documents of the time including the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates.

here a good article on it
Great article. Especially insofar as it confirms what I said. Determining what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is entirely in the hands of the Congress, both in the House where it will be decided whether specific acts qualify as such when deciding to impeach and in the Senate where they will decide whether or not the President is guilty and what punishment should be meted out if he is found to be so.
Quote:
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made the larger point that impeachment is directed at “political” offenses that “proceed from … the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He was echoed by the foremost of the first generation of commentators on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story, who observed in his 1833 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution that impeachable conduct is often “purely political,” and that “no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.”
Thanks, guys, yeah. In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" - for the purpose of impeachment under the Constitution - means whatever the Congress decide it means.


You can look at the examples provided in the article which demonstrates that the phrase is intended to be plastic, to be molded by those empowered to impeach.


I get what you're saying, PW, in that the phrase has a historical meaning and that meaning can be elicited from historical examples. But, at the end of the day, in this context, its real world meaning is entirely in the hands of the current Congress making the decisions only they are empowered to make. It's why impeachment should only be used in dire situations (which I would argue has been the case since the day Trump took office): History doesn't define what constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress does.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 05:00 PM   #26
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,236
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Great article. Especially insofar as it confirms what I said. Determining what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is entirely in the hands of the Congress, both in the House where it will be decided whether specific acts qualify as such when deciding to impeach and in the Senate where they will decide whether or not the President is guilty and what punishment should be meted out if he is found to be so.

Thanks, guys, yeah. In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" - for the purpose of impeachment under the Constitution - means whatever the Congress decide it means.


You can look at the examples provided in the article which demonstrates that the phrase is intended to be plastic, to be molded by those empowered to impeach.


I get what you're saying, PW, in that the phrase has a historical meaning and that meaning can be elicited from historical examples. But, at the end of the day, in this context, its real world meaning is entirely in the hands of the current Congress making the decisions only they are empowered to make. It's why impeachment should only be used in dire situations (which I would argue has been the case since the day Trump took office): History doesn't define what constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress does.
I highly recommend reading the 58 page 1974 Congressional report titled "Constitutional grounds for Impeachment". It includes a lot of historical perspective as well as a 2 page conclusion on what is an impeachable offense. It was written by Democrats and Republican staff lawyers. You can Google the title and find it easily.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 05:08 PM   #27
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,928
Trump or the administration? Title says Trump Admin...

As I said in the other thread, if he/they did he did. My belief changes nothing. All we read about here is what people "believe" these days.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 05:21 PM   #28
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,089
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Great article. Especially insofar as it confirms what I said. Determining what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is entirely in the hands of the Congress, both in the House where it will be decided whether specific acts qualify as such when deciding to impeach and in the Senate where they will decide whether or not the President is guilty and what punishment should be meted out if he is found to be so.

Thanks, guys, yeah. In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" - for the purpose of impeachment under the Constitution - means whatever the Congress decide it means.


You can look at the examples provided in the article which demonstrates that the phrase is intended to be plastic, to be molded by those empowered to impeach.


I get what you're saying, PW, in that the phrase has a historical meaning and that meaning can be elicited from historical examples. But, at the end of the day, in this context, its real world meaning is entirely in the hands of the current Congress making the decisions only they are empowered to make. It's why impeachment should only be used in dire situations (which I would argue has been the case since the day Trump took office): History doesn't define what constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress does.
Okay I get what you're saying, though I think that the better term is that Congress gets to decide if something is an Abuse of Power and thus Impeachable, rather than saying that they can decide what the phase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means. The term means an abuse of the powers of the high office, but Congress gets to say if some action does or does not fall into that.

For instance wearing a tan suit is generally not considered an abuse of power, and trying to impeach over it would most likely be a violation of the separation of powers clause, so Congress couldn't try and impeach the President for doing so. However where there seems to have been an action where the President appears to have abused the powers of his office, then it is up to Congress to determine if this is the case or not, and thus whether the action is impeachable or not.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 05:27 PM   #29
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,089
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Trump or the administration? Title says Trump Admin...

As I said in the other thread, if he/they did he did. My belief changes nothing. All we read about here is what people "believe" these days.
Well that's not entirely true, if people look at the evidence and come to a conclusion that Trump did misuse or abuse the powers of his office, then there will be more support for his impeachment. The greater that support, the greater the likelihood of the Senate to vote based on the evidence rather than based on partisanship.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 05:30 PM   #30
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,236
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Trump or the administration? Title says Trump Admin...

As I said in the other thread, if he/they did he did. My belief changes nothing. All we read about here is what people "believe" these days.
I think what people believe is more important. At the moment. I don't hear almost anyone saying that Trump did not attempt to use the authorized military aid as leverage to get Ukraine to publicly investigate Joe Biden.

This may not be a criminal. Although I do believe it violates election law. But the founders were clear that abuse of power, security of our government and corruption falls under what constitutes a high crime. But they deliberately did not spell it out. The Senate will make the final decision but as we all know, political calculation might corrupt their decision.

I would like to know regardless of whether you like Trump or not if you believe he has committed acts that qualify as a high crime.

It really is a simple question.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 05:46 PM   #31
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,089
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
But the founders were clear that abuse of power, security of our government and corruption falls under what constitutes a high crime.
Well, no, they did spell it out because that is what the term meant to them. It's just that it's an Archaic term and so we're "forgotten" what it means.

This is the way with a lot of language, for instance "being hoist upon one's own Petard"* or "there will be the devil to pay."** Some of this archaic language we have an idea of meaning overall, but the true means have been lost to the majority of us and we have to do study to find them out.


*A Petard was a small explosive used to breach walls, and "Hoist" at the time meant to be thrown or lifted, so this was to literally be blown up by one's own bomb.

** The devil was the longest seam on a wooden sailing ship, and paying the seam was to make it watertight by filling it with a combination of straw and pitch. To do this at sea, a sailor would be hang over the edge and lowered to the seam, which was where the hull started to curve back under the ship to the keel. Hanging there precariously, they would then have to be moved along the entire length of the ship repairing or "paying" the seam, one of the worst jobs on a ship. It also brought to rise the saying "Between the devil and the deep (blue sea)" which was the often dangerous position any sailor who was paying the devil would have to be in to do the job.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 06:07 PM   #32
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,236
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Well, no, they did spell it out because that is what the term meant to them. It's just that it's an Archaic term and so we're "forgotten" what it means.

This is the way with a lot of language, for instance "being hoist upon one's own Petard"* or "there will be the devil to pay."** Some of this archaic language we have an idea of meaning overall, but the true means have been lost to the majority of us and we have to do study to find them out.


*A Petard was a small explosive used to breach walls, and "Hoist" at the time meant to be thrown or lifted, so this was to literally be blown up by one's own bomb.

** The devil was the longest seam on a wooden sailing ship, and paying the seam was to make it watertight by filling it with a combination of straw and pitch. To do this at sea, a sailor would be hang over the edge and lowered to the seam, which was where the hull started to curve back under the ship to the keel. Hanging there precariously, they would then have to be moved along the entire length of the ship repairing or "paying" the seam, one of the worst jobs on a ship. It also brought to rise the saying "Between the devil and the deep (blue sea)" which was the often dangerous position any sailor who was paying the devil would have to be in to do the job.
If you read the debate and discussion of the founders, you will see what I'm talking about. They deliberately used the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" for a specific reason. The term was stolen from the Brits where a high official was being impeached for a high crime.
So the term had a meaning.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2019, 06:27 PM   #33
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,269
Obviously he did. He obstructed justice. He conspired with Russians and Wikileaks to unlawfully use stolen e-mails to interfere in our 2016 election. He has taken money from foreign powers in violation of the Emoluments Clause. The stupid bitch admitted to attempting to get Ukraine to influence our election again and admitted to it. Sadly there are too many Magascum, Trumptrash in the Senate and not enough real Americans to remove him. Then of course there's one senator on whom Trump has Kompromat.

In a way I'm okay if he isn't convicted. The world needs to see the American Electorate redeem the sin of making Trump president.

A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 06:32 AM   #34
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,785
Nit picking that may be ignored but its the internet so I can't help myself.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Well, no, they did spell it out because that is what the term meant to them. It's just that it's an Archaic term and so we're "forgotten" what it means.

This is the way with a lot of language, for instance "being hoist upon one's own Petard"* or "there will be the devil to pay."** Some of this archaic language we have an idea of meaning overall, but the true means have been lost to the majority of us and we have to do study to find them out.


*A Petard was a small explosive used to breach walls, and "Hoist" at the time meant to be thrown or lifted, so this was to literally be blown up by one's own bomb.

** The devil was the longest seam on a wooden sailing ship, and paying the seam was to make it watertight by filling it with a combination of straw and pitch. To do this at sea, a sailor would be hang over the edge and lowered to the seam, which was where the hull started to curve back under the ship to the keel. Hanging there precariously, they would then have to be moved along the entire length of the ship repairing or "paying" the seam, one of the worst jobs on a ship. It also brought to rise the saying "Between the devil and the deep (blue sea)" which was the often dangerous position any sailor who was paying the devil would have to be in to do the job.
Your point is largely correct but it has a nit to pick, paying the devil has a much more mundane etymology. It just comes from the notion that if you do bad things, you'll owe the devil your soul.
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/devil-to-pay.html


Side note, Craig4's post is why Trump probably won't get convicted in the senate. Trump obstructed justice, basically undeniable. Trump didn't actually conspire with the Russians, but to borrow a phrase, he was collusion curious. The insistence of the anti-trumpists of including everything Trump has been accused of as something he clearly did in every conversation will give Trump and the GOP senators to call it a a witch hunt.

Its much like the Kavanaugh hearings. The original accusation probably happened, but Avenetti's BS and basically insane accusation and likely didn't actually happen public exposure at a frat party, made it look like a smear campaign that galvanized Kavanaugh supporters.

Last edited by ahhell; 31st October 2019 at 06:42 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 06:58 AM   #35
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,335
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Nit picking that may be ignored but its the internet so I can't help myself.


Your point is largely correct but it has a nit to pick, paying the devil has a much more mundane etymology. It just comes from the notion that if you do bad things, you'll owe the devil your soul.
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/devil-to-pay.html
Unlike the rest of your post, the spoiler-tagged bit above is obviously off-topic. It's also the most interesting bit. Thanks! I'm poring over phrases.org.uk now.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 08:13 AM   #36
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,840
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Trump didn't actually conspire with the Russians, but to borrow a phrase, he was collusion curious.
To pick my own nit, we don't know that he didn't conspire with the Russians, we merely lack the evidence necessary to support the charge in a court of law. It's, arguably, still an open question.

Further, we do have evidence of Trump conspiring with the Ukrainians and multiple, bafflingly public, attempts to conspire with other nations, some hostile to the US. At this point, he's collusion experienced.

Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
The insistence of the anti-trumpists of including everything Trump has been accused of as something he clearly did in every conversation will give Trump and the GOP senators to call it a a witch hunt.

Its much like the Kavanaugh hearings. The original accusation probably happened, but Avenetti's BS and basically insane accusation and likely didn't actually happen public exposure at a frat party, made it look like a smear campaign that galvanized Kavanaugh supporters.

I keep coming back to this Simpsons moment where Homer keeps insisting his whole pig roast is still good despite the fact that it keeps getting into worse situations. The only difference between Homer and Trump supporters is that Homer, in the end, admits that his pig is too far gone and that he has to let it go.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 08:29 AM   #37
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,785
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Unlike the rest of your post, the spoiler-tagged bit above is obviously off-topic. It's also the most interesting bit. Thanks! I'm poring over phrases.org.uk now.
I'm only ever accidentally interesting.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
To pick my own nit, we don't know that he didn't conspire with the Russians, we merely lack the evidence necessary to support the charge in a court of law. It's, arguably, still an open question.
That is a fair point, still I'd argue, we can and should move on to the stuff that is impeachable that there is evidence for rather the stuff we really think is true despite Mueller not finding any evidence for it.
Quote:
Further, we do have evidence of Trump conspiring with the Ukrainians and multiple, bafflingly public, attempts to conspire with other nations, some hostile to the US. At this point, he's collusion experienced.
I suppose it is experience even if he keeps screwing it up. I on the other hand, I wouldn't call baffling and stupid public comments by a guy mostly known for his baffling and stupid public persona as "attempts to conspire." I do not think saying dumb things is an impeachable offense but I could see how others might if the comments are stupid enough.

Anyrate, my point is, keep the charges to the most clear and most evidenced crimes. Ignore the stuff that lacks evidence, even after a lengthy investigation. Bang on about collusion all you want, you'll be preaching to the choir, which seem to be all anyone wants to do anymore.

Last edited by ahhell; 31st October 2019 at 08:37 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 08:45 AM   #38
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,306
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
People keep forgetting a impeachable offense might not be a criminal offense;ie a President could be impeached and removed from office, quite rightly, for something that he could not be sent to jail for; a lot of things that would be an "abuse of power" are things you could not be indicted for in a court of law.
Absolutely, just think of all the things as Commander in Chief someone could do that there are not statutes against, but would be nearly universally considered against america's interest. How about mass surrender of our troops in Afghanistan to the Taliban as a start?

Limiting it to things there is some criminal statute against is foolish, though of course with Trump we have plenty of felonies to choose from.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 08:46 AM   #39
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,306
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
yeah, no. This is so wrong it just about doesn't qualify as wrong.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors had a specific meaning to the Founding Fathers, one that had come about via English Law, it didn't mean "Whatever Congress decides."

Also it doesn't mean that a crime is "high" but rather, that it is a crime of a high office, in other words, the person that committed the act was in high office and used that office to do the disputed action.

The Founders also spoke and wrote a lot about what they considered to be High Crimes, these can be found in the contemporary documents of the time including the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates.

here a good article on it
So simple crimes like murder are ones the president is protected from like his lawyers are claiming?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 08:53 AM   #40
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,674
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
For instance wearing a tan suit is generally not considered an abuse of power, and trying to impeach over it would most likely be a violation of the separation of powers clause, so Congress couldn't try and impeach the President for doing so.
How would this be enforced, though? If the House votes to bring articles of impeachment for wearing a tan suit, who could stop them? The President? If the Senate votes to remove, after hearing the House's arguments, who could stop them? The President? By what authority? Through what mechanism?

Does the President just get to say, "nope, sorry, that's not a valid use of Congress's impeachment authority"? If the House tries to subpoena his tailor's records, can the president tell Congress to stuff it, and tell his tailor to ignore the subpoena?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.