General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsImpeach & Convict Trump
Simple logic can point one way while wisdom may be in quite a different direction.
Senator Robert Byrd
Question: Do you have time to read books? If so, which ones would you recommend?
Biden: My goodness, let's see. There's Mr Putin, by Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy. Insightful.
VP Joe Biden in Joe Biden: The Rolling Stone Interview
How, one might ask, do these two apparently very different quotes relate directly to the impeachment of Donald Trump? More specifically, how do they relate to conversations that various Senators were having in the evening, after yesterday's hearings? Or are they only connected in the mind of an old man who posts confused essays on this forum?
The quote from Senator Byrd comes from the impeachment trial of President Clinton. While I disagreed with Byrd's belief that Clinton deserved to be impeached, I came to appreciate his reasoning for voting against impeachment in this case. Let's briefly consider what he meant in the above quote.
From the beginning, various experts have interpreted the Constitution differently. Hence, in such instances, it often has resulted in conflicts of interpretation being decided by the US Supreme Court. The court's decision define constitutional law. The majority of these important case tend to focus on those conflicts over the interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (There is a fascinating book, The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding, with contributions from serious scholars edited by Eugene Hickok, published by the University of Virginia in 1991, that everyone should read.)
There are few decisions concerning the impeachment of a president, because such events are rare. But thoughts on various legal scholars' opinions can be found, and should be studied. There is general agreement that offenses requiring impeachment in the House are outlined in the Federalist Papers # 65 and 66. In fact, any of the nonsense we hear from House republicans today can be rejected because they ignore those instructive opinions.
However, when tried in the Senate, those offenses can be viewed in a larger context. This context is intended to ask what is best for the nation? Sadly, at this point, it may wrongly expand to include what is best for the political party, and equally wrong, what is best for the individual's chance for re-election.
Potential impeachment and conviction can therefore be viewed, in theory, as weighing the damage of the offense to the disruption the impeachment process would cause the nation. Again, opinions will always vary in any individual case being considered. Let's start with the fairly recent example of Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal. Without question, everyone knew this involved impeachable offenses. So why wasn't Reagan impeached?
A large number of republicans in DC believed rightly of wrongly that coming on the heels of Nixon, it would destabilize government institutions. A smaller number of republicans found common ground with the Democratic leadership on three things: Reagan was involved in negotiations on nuclear weapons with the USSR that would be disrupted by impeachment, that Reagan was half-way through his second term, and that he was highly unlikely to engage in such corrupt behavior again.
These are similar in nature to what Senator Byrd said about President Clinton. Byrd was furious with some of Clinton's behaviors. But he knew that convicting him in the Senate would be divisive, that Clinton was about half-way through his second term, and that he was unlikely to repeat his offense. Thus, while his logical choice was to vote to convict Clinton, he recognized that was not a wise choice.
I can say with 100% certainty that Senate republicans have been having these things researched, and have quoted Byrd in recent off-the-record conversations among themselves and with Democrats. They seek to justify voting to not convict Trump, and some are hoping that Democrats will accept the compromise of censure.
And this, my friends, brings us to Fiona Hill, her testimony yesterday, and her book on Putin. Even if we were not where we are today, I would strongly recommend her book (get the updated second edition). The book contains a deeply disturbing psychological profile of Putin, which is necessary to understand not only what Putin does, but more importantly, why he does things in the manner he does. In other words, the why is essential for predicting his future behaviors.
That exact same approach must be taken in evaluating the impeachment and possible conviction of Trump. Anything less than conviction and removal from office is unacceptable. First, he is not near the end of a second term, nor is there any evidence he would not repeat the same corrupt behaviors if he remains in office. Indeed, the timing of his Ukraine phone call, coming the day after Robert Mueller's public testimony, documents just the opposite. More, when asked about the possibility of similar calls with other foreign leaders, Fiona Hill responded by saying presidential privilege prevented her from answering. There are more. Many more.
In closing, I'd like to say that the Constitution provides for citizens to take an active role in determining the outcome. It's not only our elected officials who have the responsibility of studying and acting upon these issues. Over the holiday season, we can lobby Senators to let them know our thoughts on the need to convict and remove Trump. We can bombard the media with letters and phone calls. We can do this either as individuals, or in a coordinated group effort. And personally, there is no group of citizens I'd rather coordinate with than the DU community. Believe it or not, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and combined with others' ideas, I think we could have some fun.
Peace,
H2O Man
Hermit-The-Prog
(36,599 posts)H2O Man
(75,595 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(36,599 posts)About the time the revelations of these hearings sink in to the general electorate's consciousness, we will need to hit 'em again. Attention spans seem shorter than they were in the past (or, perhaps, distractions come quicker). People need to see the contrast between different opinions on policy and existential threats to democracy itself.
coeur_de_lion
(3,812 posts)I rarely read the books you suggest. I dont read for pleasure very often due to time constraints but I believe we could probably dedicate an entire forum to her book and it would be a worthwhile undertaking.
I was very impressed with her as indeed I was with many of the Democratic witnesses. Like Yovanovitch she came off as sharply intelligent but gentle at the same time. Not angry just honest.
You have been my saving grace throughout this awful ordeal and I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts to enlighten us. To help us see the tragedy of the trump administration through your eyes.
Thank you!
Cluck cluck.
H2O Man
(75,595 posts)that retired old men have more time to read. You kids are busy working.
Fiona's book on Putin combines three things I love: psychology, politics, and history. In my opinion, she is one of the most interesting minds out there. I wish I could listen to her all day .....but at least she's authored a couple of other books I can read.
coeur_de_lion
(3,812 posts)You're making it sound too interesting to pass up.
H2O Man
(75,595 posts)reading and listening to.
coeur_de_lion
(3,812 posts)Again and again between now and the senate trial.
He cant help but break the law. He has no idea how to play it straight. Mark my words.
H2O Man
(75,595 posts)testimony -- her response to the question regarding similar phone calls -- we can safely say that she knows first-hand about one or more very similar demands for personal help by Trump. Otherwise, her answer would have been a simple "no." Again, that shows that Trump is incapable of being anything other than corrupt.
coeur_de_lion
(3,812 posts)One after the other. That is my prediction.
Kid Berwyn
(18,094 posts)Reagan gave his veep authority over counter-terrorism, meaning spookstuff.
George Bush Takes Charge: The Uses of Counter-Terrorism
By Christopher Simpson
Covert Action Quarterly 58
A paper trail of declassified documents from the Reagan‑Bush era yields valuable information on how counter‑terrorism provided a powerful mechanism for solidifying Bush's power base and launching a broad range of national security initiatives.
During the Reagan years, George Bush used "crisis management" and "counter‑terrorism" as vehicles for running key parts of the clandestine side of the US government.
Bush proved especially adept at plausible denial. Some measure of his skill in avoiding responsibility can be taken from the fact that even after the Iran‑Contra affair blew the Reagan administration apart, Bush went on to become the "foreign policy president," while CIA Director William Casey, by then conveniently dead, took most of the blame for a number of covert foreign policy debacles that Bush had set in motion.
The trail of National Security Decision Directives (NSDDS) left by the Reagan administration begins to tell the story. True, much remains classified, and still more was never committed to paper in the first place. Even so, the main picture is clear: [font size="5"][font color="green"]As vice president, George Bush was at the center of secret wars, political murders, and America's convoluted oil politics in the Middle East.[/font color][/font size]
SNIP...
Reagan and the NSC also used NSDDs to settle conflicts among security agencies over bureaucratic turf and lines of command. It is through that prism that we see the first glimmers of Vice President Bush's role in clandestine operations during the 1980s.
SNIP...
NSDD 159. MANAGEMENT OF U.S. COVERT OPERATIONS, (TOP SECRET/VEIL‑SENSITIVE), JAN. 18,1985
The Reagan administration's commitment to significantly expand covert operations had been clear since before the 1980 election. How such operations were actually to be managed from day to day, however, was considerably less certain. The management problem became particularly knotty owing to legal requirements to notify congressional intelligence oversight committees of covert operations, on the one hand, and the tacitly accepted presidential mandate to deceive those same committees concerning sensitive operations such as the Contra war in Nicaragua, on the other.
The solution attempted in NSDD 159 was to establish a small coordinating committee headed by Vice President George Bush through which all information concerning US covert operations was to be funneled. The order also established a category of top secret information known as Veil, to be used exclusively for managing records pertaining to covert operations.
The system was designed to keep circulation of written records to an absolute minimum while at the same time ensuring that the vice president retained the ability to coordinate US covert operations with the administration's overt diplomacy and propaganda.
Only eight copies of NSDD 159 were created. The existence of the vice president's committee was itself highly classified. The directive became public as a result of the criminal prosecutions of Oliver North, John Poindexter, and others involved in the Iran‑Contra affair, hence the designation "Exhibit A" running up the left side of the document.
CONTINUED...
CovertAction Quarterly no 58 Fall 1996 pp31-40.
FYI on the anniversary of Americas Coup.
H2O Man
(75,595 posts)that Bush the Elder was in charge of Iran-Contra. Yet there was definitely good grounds for impeachment. Let's look at a few.
First, though it wasn't Reagan's idea, he did learn about the proposed actions and approved them. Since the actions were illegal, this alone is impeachable. Second, he lied to the public about it. I note that within the impeachment charges being drafted against Nixon, lying to the public to attempt to cover up wrong-doing is an impeachable offense. Third, Reagan admitted he had "forgotten," and told the public he hadn't intended to lie. Republicans in DC spoke off the record with Democrats, saying that Reagan should be forgiven, since old age was rapidly reducing his mental state. We remember Time printing photos of Reagan's drawings of cowboys and horses on his notepad from his meeting with the Pope. Some Democrats, and one republican, noted that Reagan's mental state was reason enough to remove him from office.
Kid Berwyn
(18,094 posts)Poppy, shielded behind layers of plausible deniability, was positioned to become President in 1986 or 87. So, if things had gone according to plan, hed have gotten away with his treasons.
Fortunately, Ross Perot ran in 1992. After his defeat to Bill Clinton, Bush pardoned Weinberger and the rest of the treasonous cabal to escape legal jeopardy and limit public scorn.
Otherwise, there likely wouldnt have been a Shrub 43 and the resulting disastrous Iraq Wars without End. By the Executive escaping justice in this treasonous usurpation of power, however, the role of Congress was further diminished. Personally, I blame some in my own Party:
Lee Hamilton, the Un-Wise Man
By Robert Parry
September 17, 2010
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has become the latest voice of influence to sing the praises of former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who is almost universally hailed in U.S. power circles as a modern-day Wise Man, a Democratic centrist who shuns partisanship and puts love of country over politics.
But the sad truth is that Lee Hamilton has done great damage to the U.S. political process by elevating bipartisanship above a commitment to the truth. One reason why many Americans buy into baseless conspiracy theories today is that Hamilton failed to expose real conspiracies when he was in Congress.
For instance, it was surely "bipartisan" in August 1986 when Hamilton joined other members of the House Intelligence Committee, including Rep. Dick Cheney, in concluding that stories about White House aide Oliver North running money and guns to the Nicaraguan contras were false.
Hamilton, then the committees chairman, accepted denials from North and his boss, National Security Adviser John Poindexter, and agreed to kill a proposed congressional investigation into what was then known as the North network.
Since I and my Associated Press colleague Brian Barger had been writing the stories about Norths secret operation (based then on about two dozen sources), I got a call from one of Hamiltons aides and was told that Hamilton and the panel had the choice of believing you and your 24 sources or these honorable men. And it wasnt a close call.
It was, however, an erroneous call. And it was not without consequences, both in the larger scheme of things and on the personal side.
At the AP that summer, Barger had been assigned to the overnight desk as a way to transition him onto the AP regular staff (he originally had been hired into a temporary position to work with me on the North project). However, in August, Barger was informed that his time on the overnight would be extended indefinitely, a development that prompted Barger to quit.
If Hamilton had done his duty by insisting on a real investigation to get at the truth about North's network instead of caving in to Cheney and the other Republicans our situation at AP would have been quite different. With a congressional investigation validating our reporting, I probably could have sprung Barger from his overnight assignment and kept our team together.
CONTINUES...
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/091710.html
Lee previously helped bury the October Surprise investigation. Our country still suffers from all the Trickle Down. And those of us from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party seem fewer in number in the halls of congreff.
H2O Man
(75,595 posts)Iran-Contra, Robert Parry is without question the most important source of information. His work from that era ranks high amongst the most important of any journalists. He certainly should be grouped with, for example, Woodward and Bernstein. I can't think of a single instance over the decades where I disagreed with his interpretation of the facts he uncovered.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Step Two trial and vote. If not convicted go to step three
Step Three convict Trump and every Republican at the polls.
Gain 10 House seats. Win 7 Senate seats
Get rid of the filibuster
Get rid of gerrymandering
Make universal voter registration and early voting nationwide
Kiss the Republican party goodbye
H2O Man
(75,595 posts)Very well said. Much better for our purposes now than if we took up the chant from "Lord of the Flies": "Kill the pig! Slit its throat! Spill its blood!" From now on, when that chant plays in my mind as I consider today's republican party, I'll re-read your post.
I'll add that even if Trump is convicted by the Senate, and removed from office, we need to focus our energies on winning those House and Senate seats, along with the White House, in 2020. It is essential.