[RD] Impeach Clinton

[Evie]

Impeachment is not, in fact, a blank "remove the president" (or any other officer) card for the senate and house to use as they will (say, because they feel the president is not acting in ways befitting his office). It's a way to bring criminal charges against people who committed crimes in office when those criminal charges would justify removal from the office.

Note "Criminal charges". We're not talking about "I don't like what he's doing" here. We're talking about specific events in which specific (criminal) laws were broken. And once that'S done, proving those charges to the satisfaction of the Senate, which is in charge of the actual trial. Which, while it may not require criminal level evidence (ie, proof beyond reasonable doubt), does certainly require at least some degree of evidence. Voting to condemn (and thus remove from office) on charges that are not sufficient to justify removal from office ; or on charges that have received far less than a reasonable standard of evidence, just because you think the person is unpresidential or don't like what they're doing is abuse of the impeachment process (technically speaking, impeachment is just one part of the process - the house's vote to bring charges against the official, so technically speaking, Clinton was impeached - but in common parlance it designate the whole process)

Which leaves us with pressuring him (ie, made to - no, you cannot forcibly make him resign, but you can strongly push him toward the door) to resign. Which is the appropriate answer when you believe the president is not worthy of the presidency, but don't have specific charges to bring against him.,

So, and again, I want to insist, I don't know the precise applicable criminal law at the time, the answer is that UNLESS a specific and sufficient (ie, not perjury) crimal charge could be presented and reasonably proven (despite Lewinski's continued insistence it was consensual, which is not decisive, but is a major hurdle for any accusation to clear)...then the case for impeachment wasn't there. Even if such a charge can be found, in the main event, it wasn't used, and the charges that were levied against Clinton did not justify his removal.

(Now if you're asking me, should such a law exist? I'd tend toward yes, although even then Lewinski's testimony would have made it a hard case to make. But we live under the laws that exist, not under the laws that should be)

Ultimately, the thing is, we're not talking about terminating a contract between private parties here (like Netflix firing Kevin Spacey or refusing to distribute his film). We are talking about the legitslative deciding to override the will of the electorate and appoint a different person president. This is an extreme measure, that undermines some very important principles (separation of power ; democracy itself...), and as such should only be used in very rare circumstances. That's why it has stringent requirements, and that's why those requirements need to remain.

 

[inthesomeday]

Why discuss it in terms of the law if we can agree it's an immoral abuse of power? Again, if the law comes to odds with our morality the law is in the wrong. Bill Clinton had an inappropriate relationship with a professional subordinate, and even though it isn't illegal it showed that he was irresponsible in his position of power. Maybe he shouldn't have legally been removed but that's unimportant to a discussion of whether he should've been removed from office because legality is unimportant for that type of moral discussion.

 

[Evie]

Actually, the question is whether Clinton should have been impeached, not removed. Impeachment is a legal process, with requirements rooted in the law (eg, criminal charges and evidence thereof). Much like "Should someone be found guilty" is a question about a specific legal process, and need to respect the rules of that legal process.

In both cases, you are talking about process that violate or undermine important principles of our democracies (individual freedom for putting people in jail ; democracy itself and separation of power for impeachment). These require stringent procedure to make sure the procedures are not misused. One of those requirements is that they be based in the law as written, because that allow people to know ahead of time what actions might result in those processes being triggered. So the answer necessarily involves looking at the law.

At the end of the day, to use a legal process, you have to meet the legal requirements. No matter how badly you scream about morality. So...actually, yes, the laws are crucially important to this discussion.

And even morally, the moral fact is also that in a democracy, the democratically elected leader should not be forcibly removed from power except in the most extreme circumstances (that's why you encourage him to step down himself instead). If we take your description of the situation as "an innapropriate relationship", is an innapropriate relationship sufficiently extreme to justify forcibly removing from power the person the people elected? It's far from evident (and, I suspect, would largely boil down to a partisan issue).

Encouraging the president to resign (to step down of his own will) is one thing, and fair game, because ultimately it's the president concluding he's no longer fit for the presidency, not outside sources forcibly removing him. But forced removal is an extreme measure for extreme situations.

 

[inthesomeday]

"Democratic" leaders are supposed to draw their mandate from the consent of the governed. I'm the governed, and my consent can't go to somebody who abuses their power, in any capacity or for any reason. I think the opposite of what you seem to think; government is fundamentally untrustworthy, and any official who steps a toe out of line should immediately be removed from office for having betrayed the enormous trust required of their position.

If the discussion is whether he should have been impeached, I think it's clear he lied under oath, but impeachment wasn't designed to hold politicians accountable for their crimes, it was designed to make sure the actions of politicians that were against the interests of the wealthy could be punished. Legally, yes, the impeachment was legitimate, and morally removal from office should have been immediate. But practically, as with any system present in this world, because he didn't violate the interests of the wealthy he "shouldn't" have been punished.

 

[Lexicus]

It is simply false that impeachment is a "legal" process rather than a political one. It is purely political and always has been.

 

[Evie]

Impeachment is a legal process in that it is a process created by law (the highest of laws, at that), bounded by law (that is, operating under parameters, restrictions and limitations set by law), and which exist for the explicit purpose of punishing legal violations by elected officials (hence the whole part about criminal charges). In and of itself, this is a legal process.

Now, I suspect you mean that it's not a judicial process, which is entirely correct - the application of the process is entirely political, and not at all judicial (though it borrows elements of the judicial process in terms of the various steps to be followed). Nonetheless, the actions of these politicians are limited by law. Acting outside the parameters of the law (where possible - for example you simply cannot impeach without a criminal charge of some sort - represent abuse of the process, not its legitimate use, and, even if possible (and unchallengeable due the political naivety of the founding fathers), is not something that "should" happen.

Inthesomeday -Okay. you think that. There are approximatively 330 millions governed in the United States, a very large number of which have the right to vote. Have they all withdrawn their consent? Has a majority of them withdrawn their consent? (note: approval rating is not the same as withdrawing their consent). Short of holding a recall referendum, the claim that the governed "no longer consent" to being governed by a specific individual is an empty claim. Absent some evidence in that regard, the fact that you have withdrawn your consent is irrelevant, and is certainly not ground to remove anyone from power.

In general, the notion of removing elected officials at the first misstep is a political fantasy of the worst sort : they are human beings. They will err. Guaranteed. The United States already suffer, badly, from having far too frequent elections ; having constant replacement elections to fill seats left vacant by people being ejected at their first mistake would spin that number completely out of control, and leave the government completely dysfunctional. It may sound really attractive in theory, but betrays an excess of political idealism and a lack of practicality.

 

[inthesomeday]

In general, the notion of removing elected officials at the first misstep is a political fantasy of the worst sort : they are human beings. They will err. Guaranteed.

This wasn't some simple oopsy mistake. It was a flagrant and despicable abuse of power, reflected in a pattern of behaviors like this.

The United States already suffer, badly, from having far too frequent elections ;

This is absurd to me. I believe in democracy. If I must accept government it should be little more than the medium of decision making for the people, with everybody under the government able to input into everything it does. If the government must function via oligarchy, whether representative or otherwise, then constant elections and cycling in and out of new representatives is not only preferable but absolutely vital to democracy.

having constant replacement elections to fill seats left vacant by people being ejected at their first mistake would spin that number completely out of control, and leave the government completely dysfunctional.

Oh no???

It may sound really attractive in theory, but betrays an excess of political idealism and a lack of practicality.

If democracy is some sort of impractical and absurdly utopian ideal then I think government ought to be done away with entirely.

 

[Evie]

Democracy is simply the principle that power flow from the people. It does not follow that a country need to have constant elections (and ridiculously lengthy primary process leading into them) to be democratic.

Once every four years per level of government is a quite reasonable and democratic way of doing things. For added bonus, set the various level of governments to have their elections on different date, so state/provincial elections and municipal elections don't get lost in the chaos of a federal campaign and so downballot voting is less of a thing.

Too frequent elections means that unpopular decisions just can't be taken, no matter how necessary. This can and will utterly ruin a country, and hurt its people badly.

 

[inthesomeday]

Give me an example of an unpopular decision that needs to be made.

 

[Evie]

Raising taxes and/or cutting programs when the state budget just can’t pay for what it needs to pay for anymore. There comes a point when “borrow more money!” just doesn’t work anymore (see Greece, a country that failed to take the unpopular decisions for too long and is now basically owned by and at the mercy of foreign entities), and you have to either raise revnues or cut expenses. Neither will ever be popular.

Recognizing the rights of less popular minority groups, eg gays, transgender, muslims, etc. Necessary in that it’s enforcement of the principles that are in the Constitution anyway and the government has a duty to protect and recognize those rights and principles, not just to wait for the court to tell them to (you kno, basic decency). Unpopular for obvious reasons. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. If it isn’t, it’s just another form of tyranny, and it isn’t worth having.

These are just two examples, where simply doing what’s popular would wreck the country with awful long term consequences, or punish in an unfair and gross way a large number of people within the state because a majority of people are bigots.

 

[Lexicus]

The United States already suffer,

Since the Civil war it's been customary to refer to the United states in the singular.

Acting outside the parameters of the law (where possible - for example you simply cannot impeach without a criminal charge of some sort - represent abuse of the process, not its legitimate use, and, even if possible (and unchallengeable due the political naivety of the founding fathers), is not something that "should" happen.

If the people want the president removed badly enough, the president should be removed - period.

Raising taxes and/or cutting programs when the state budget just can’t pay for what it needs to pay for anymore. There comes a point when “borrow more money!” just doesn’t work anymore (see Greece, a country that failed to take the unpopular decisions for too long and is now basically owned by and at the mercy of foreign entities), and you have to either raise revnues or cut expenses. Neither will ever be popular.

This relies on factually false premises about how government finance works (currency-issuing governments do not face operational/financial constraints on their spending, only political constraints, and governments that do not have their own currencies have generally chosen to use other arrangements instead), and is a totally wrong drscription of what happened to greece. Leaving all that aside, raising taxes on the rich is generally an extremely popular proposition in the US and, i would assume, elsewhere in the developed world. The reason it doesn't happen is that the rich (always a minority) exercise too much control over political systems.

 

[Evie]

Since the Civil war it's been customary to refer to the United states in the singular.

I'm aware, much as it result in ridiculous ear-grating grammar (but hey, gotta score political points! Who cares about the English language?). Are you aware of the concepts called "a typo" and "nitpicking"?

If the people want the president removed badly enough, the president should be removed - period.

See above about how you'd have to prove the people want the president removed badly enough for that to be a valid argument. Short of a recall referendum/election (a valid process that, perhaps unfortunately does not exist at the American federal level), there are no effective means of determining whether the people want a president removed.

What is for sure is that it does not fall to one branch of the elected government to simply assume the people want the elected leader of another branch removed from power (not even with polls). That's not what impeachment is for, and using it that way is blatant abuse of power, and a violation of both separation of power and basic democracy.

This relies on factually false premises about how government finance works (currency-issuing governments do not face operational/financial constraints on their spending, only political constraints, and governments that do not have their own currencies have generally chosen to use other arrangements instead), and is a totally wrong drscription of what happened to greece. Leaving all that aside, raising taxes on the rich is generally an extremely popular proposition in the US and, i would assume, elsewhere in the developed world. The reason it doesn't happen is that the rich (always a minority) exercise too much control over political systems.

Currency printing is not the miracle solution you make it out to be, and has its own issues. It can help in some situations, but it is limited in how much it can do before the excess of currency become a whole other problem.

Beyond your point about the rich's political power, the fact that they're also the ones with the most ability to move their wealth out of the country (and move themselves out of the country) as necessary is another significant hurdle to "tax the rich". As is the fact that while nearly everyone agree on taxing the rich, nobody agrees on who "the rich" are, because the vast majority of people who are actually upper class think of themselves as middle class anyway. When they say "tax the rich", they mean tax people richer than me, but that leaves a fairly low number of people to be taxed. Especially if they start removing themselves and their wealth.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm aware, much as it result in ridiculous ear-grating grammar (but hey, gotta score political points! Who cares about the English language?). Are you aware of the concepts called "a typo" and "nitpicking"?

Almost like language itself is a terrain of political struggle, eh?

See above about how you'd have to prove the people want the president removed badly enough for that to be a valid argument.

There are feedback mechanisms, including midterm elections. For example if democrats retake the house next year Trump will almost certainly be impeached though conviction seems doubtful without any more interesting stuff coming out of Mueller's investigation.

Currency printing is not the miracle solution you make it out to be, and has its own issues. It can help in some situations, but it is limited in how much it can do before the excess of currency become a whole other problem.

I am not proposing currency printing as a solution. All governments finance all their spending, right this second, by "printing" money (actually by keystroke in today's computer era). This is an observation, not a proposal. The level of deficit, debt, and so on are political questions. Cutting social spending or raising taxes to reduce the deficit/debt is a political position; it isn't "necessary" in any sense at all.

 

[innonimatu]

Beyond your point about the rich's political power, the fact that they're also the ones with the most ability to move their wealth out of the country (and move themselves out of the country) as necessary is another significant hurdle to "tax the rich".

Funny how the world did not had that problem before the 1980s. Talk about lost ancient technologies... we don't know how they did it?

 

[caketastydelish]

The Lewinsky scandal happened between 1995-1996. I would have been 4-5 years old. I wish she could have been my babysitter, instead of Clinton's.

 

[JollyRoger]

You could always be her intern.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Doesn't Monika Lewinsky, to this day, insist that it was an affair, not abuse and reject any characterization of her as a victim? Obviously that does not address the other women's grievances, but we have been discussing at length in these threads the extent to which the parties themselves get to decide whether the acts were consensual, abuse etc.

As for Bill Clinton... he can carry his own water. I do remember that the whole affair was quite a lengthy circus... so I'm a little cynical about the idea that he needs to now additionally be shamed "equally" or whatever with the abusers du jour... seems more like misdirection/whataboutism over the current Moore fiasco... but whatevs, I'm not shedding any tears for him, he has lawyers. If Republicans agree to impeach and removeTrump, then I'm fine with calling on Bill to resign from whatever he is doing currently in return, as long as Trump goes first. Any takers?

 

[caketastydelish]

You could always be her intern.

I'm pretty sure she has at least one opening, so it's worth a shot.

 

[BvBPL]

Why discuss it in terms of the law if we can agree it's an immoral abuse of power? Again, if the law comes to odds with our morality the law is in the wrong. Bill Clinton had an inappropriate relationship with a professional subordinate, and even though it isn't illegal it showed that he was irresponsible in his position of power. Maybe he shouldn't have legally been removed but that's unimportant to a discussion of whether he should've been removed from office because legality is unimportant for that type of moral discussion.

Because it is the rule of law that enables moral society. And a stable one. If we go around condemning people for perceived moral offenses absent a legal process then we will have little protection when another levies a similar condemnation against us.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Because it is the rule of law that enables moral society. And a stable one. If we go around condemning people for perceived moral offenses absent a legal process then we will have little protection when another levies a similar condemnation against us.

The vaunted slippery slope swoops in once again to defend the odious..."If we allow child abusers to be criticized, the next thing you know we'll all be in concentration camps."..."If we don't let the Klan do whatever they want, the next thing you know we'll all be in concentration camps." Puh-lease... you said:

As we condemn Roy Moore, Louis CK, Harvey Weinstein, George Takei, and Kevin Spacey for their past sexual misdeeds, we should not fail to reexamine the pass that was given to Clinton. As the GOP is learning, a party cannot mortgage its morals in favor temporary authority.

You're contradicting yourself... As I said... go ahead and stone Clinton, but was Bill Clinton found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a Court of law? No he wasn't, so why are you advocating that we "reexamine the pass that was given" on the one hand (in the OP of this very thread) but then on the other hand saying "If we go around condemning people for perceived moral offenses absent a legal process then we will have little protection when another levies a similar condemnation against us"?

You can't have it both ways. Either we are entitled to the Court of public opinion or we aren't ... get off the fence... Or just admit this is partisanship, not principle... and carry on.