As this is being written, Nancy Pelosi is leading the House Democrats down the path to impeaching president Trump. The Republicans have rushed or reluctantly shuffled to defend him. There are two main focuses for their defense: substance and process.
The substance defense is (or was) a rolling defense. The first line was to deny anything had happened, which ceased to be an option when the text of the call was released, and officials started admitting the facts in public. The second line is to deny that there was anything wrong with what was done. This defense has proven problematic, so the focus has been on the process defense.
The process defense, obviously enough, involves attacking the process used by the Democrats in the house. One argument is that the process is unconstitutional and unlawful and hence Trump should not be impeached. The obvious flaw with this argument is that impeachment is constitutional and lawful as per Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The constitution also specifies that the House has the sole power to impeach. Since this defense is directly contradicted by readily accessible facts, any power it has must be psychological—people will feel that it is good because it is a defense made by their side. Naturally, to think that it is defective because it is made by the other side would be an error—though the argument is defective.
Another defense is to attack the specifics of the process followed by the Democrats. Some of these are attempts to apply the standards of a criminal trial (facing the accuser and so on) to the impeachment process. This might be part of a intentional strategy to confuse the public (impeachment is not a criminal trial conducted by the judiciary and does not follow the same rules) or simple ignorance about how the process works. This sort of defense has no merit and draws all its influence from psychology.
In the current episode, the Democrats face the impossible task of crafting rules that the Republicans will accept—for there are no such rules (unless they guarantee that Trump is not impeached). As such, the Republicans can always complain that the process is unfair, because their position seems to be that any process would be unfair. This is not based in good reasons, but a matter of wanting their side to win.
Another defense has been to use ad hominem attacks. The main talking point seems, bizarrely enough, to accuse the Democrats of using a “Soviet-Style impeachment process.” This attack took me back to my younger days, when the Soviet Union existed and Russia was seen as an enemy. The fact that the Soviet Union does not exist does not undermine the “argument”, but the power of this attack is psychological. After all, the Soviets did not remove leaders through an impeachment process. This could also be taken as drawing an analogy between how the Soviet Union was run and the way the Democrats are acting—but this analogy breaks down rapidly. Those using this analogy do not carefully go through the points of similarity and offer arguments as to why these are bad, they merely offer an ad hominem comparison. It is also odd for the Republicans to bring up the Soviet Union so much, given the Russian issues faced by Trump.
It is certainly reasonable for Trump’s defenders to argue that there are unfair, immoral or problematic aspects to the process—but these need to be grounded in facts rather than mere rhetoric or factual errors (or lies). There is a general problem with trying to argue about the process—it is not specified in the constitution. When Bill Clinton was impeached, the Republicans created the process (and the Democrats complained—since their side was under attack). The Republicans were obviously fine with that approach when they were on the side trying to impeach the president. What has changed is, of course, that they are now playing defense. A seemingly sensible solution would be for congress to work out a set of rules when there is not an impeachment in progress and to agree to follow them the next time an impeachment arises. This is unlikely, since each side wants to craft the rules to its advantage the next time it happens. So when the Republicans try to impeach a Democrat, I will most likely be able to reuse most of this essay.
Enough with the secret testimony and selective leaking.
Let’s get everything out in the open. Put people under oath and allow cross examination.
The voters have a right to know what their government is doing.
*****
Mike, can you please state for the record what Trump did that in your view justifies impeachment?
To set the stage, if we use the standard by which Clinton was impeached, then the answer would be “yes.”
Trump’s obstruction of justice is well documented, he has repeatedly violated the emoluments clause and his effort to extort Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election is now exposed. So, yes–he certainly has met the conditions specified in the constitution. Is this some sort of weird trick question?
1. The Democrats in the House can bring up the possible process crimes, but I think they won’t, because nobody will take them seriously/
2. If Trump violated the emoluments clause, then so did Washington, often and publicly, and none of the authors of the constitution seemed to mind. There are competing cases stuck in the second and fourth circuits at the moment, brought by Democrats. They may get to the Supreme Court, of course, which will sensibly smack them down,
3. As I have said before, the president’s prerogative of investigating possible corruption provides and absolute defence to any facts currently public, even if the circumstances are a little squirrelly.
That is, if any of that mattered. This is a political, not a legal, proceeding.
Michael, what happened to your syllogisms and logical proofs? Once again, you have allowed your hatred of Trump and your partisan tribalism to cause you to throw out everything you know about critical thinking, reasoning, and logic.
“Trump’s obstruction of justice is well documented”
There is a big difference between a “truth” and an “allegation”. You are very quick to believe this because you want it to be true, but it has not been proven. The documentation is of allegations that may turn into charges, and any and all support material that may apply. That’s why we have lawyers, courts, and judges.
Please note, I am not saying that he did not obstruct justice, I’m only saying that it’s not necessarily true that he did, either. As a philosopher, it is incumbent upon you to look beyond your emotions and look at both sides of this argument.
he has repeatedly violated the emoluments clause
Again, this is an allegation based on an interpretation. The DOJ is siding with Trump’s attorneys, claiming that fair market transactions are permitted. There is very little precedent in this kind of legal case; like most Constitutional issues the clause itself will be analyzed and interpreted along with Trump’s activities related to it.
As above, I am not saying that he was not in violation of this clause, I am saying that there are some well-thought-out arguments on both sides of this issue. I would think that a man with your education and background would busy yourself analyzing both sides and considering both the letter and the spirit of the law, along with the context of the unbridled zeal of those who would bring Trump down with whatever it takes. Here’s the logic:
1. We really, really, really, really hate Trump with a passion and have wanted to impeach him since election night.
2. Hey, someone figured out a way that we can make the case that he’s in violation of the emoluments clause. Others have made the case that he’s not, but what do they know? They’re just racist white supremacist Trump supporters
3. (Conclusion). He did it. Hang him!
“his effort to extort Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election is now exposed.”
No, no, no, no! You have completely abandoned your profession. Have you read any publication besides the Washington Post? Have you been hypnotized by Rachel Maddow, or MSNBC?
This is what is called a debate. Again – it is a multi-faceted issue, but you have skipped all analysis altogether and leapt to the conclusion that simply fits your narrative, and you are clinging to it like a Pennsylvanian clings to his Bible and his gun.
And please do not resort to that tired old Ad Hominem “Trump Supporter” finger-pointing line. That, too, is an erroneous leap to the conclusion that is invalid and erroneous, despite the little tingle you get in your spine.
Here’s a challenge for you – present these conclusions to your students and ask them to test the validity of the arguments you use to arrive at them. It will be enlightening or embarrassing to you, or maybe both.
See my comment to TJ, but further…”You have completely abandoned your profession”, precisely the point I have been trying to make for ten years now. OK, I’ll confess that the first year or two, maaaaybe three, I could be charitable, forgiving, what have you. But that ship sailed at least a half dozen years ago.
“You have completely abandoned your profession.” No he hasn’t. He’s been quite staunchly loyal to his profession. You’re just under the mistaken impression as to what his profession is. There is no philosophy here. At one time the masthead here said something to the effect of this place being thoughts about the “universe…assuming it exists”. It was quite the tell. What goes on here, at the very best, is a solipsism supported by sophistry in service of leftist polemics. Which leads me to…
“…present these conclusions to your students and ask them to test the validity of the arguments you use”…Why do you suggest this? Do you really believe that his students (well, the few that actually show up for class), who are being “trained” by him in (supposed) thinking skills are a) going to have the tools of critical thinking and such necessary to challenge him? And b) why would any student (again, assuming that they’re even showing up for class) have an incentive to “prove” his professor, the guy who is giving out the grades, to be wrong about anything? Much older people with greater self-confidence, a good bit of money in the bank, and possessing widely marketable skills lack the cajones to do such a thing with their boss even when their job isn’t on the line. Do you really think 20 year old who just needs to get a passing grade and move on with life is going to bother?
As I say with TJ and CT, after being subjected to at times arrogant dishonest arguments and dismissals of your quite valid counter-arguments, when not simply ignoring you, why do y’all come back here expecting to find any philosophy? Just because it’s call “A Philosopher’s Blog”? I have a box here labeled “Contains pure gold”. What am I offered?
As I said to TJ, there is ONE philosophical issue that runs through every one of these posts. I would be GREATLY interested in discussing it because I really have a hard time understanding why no one wants to address the elephant in the room.
Heh…stuff you notice after posting something you edited to death. So of course my first two paragraphs seem to have it both ways regarding “You have completely abandoned your profession.” In the latter (which should be obvious but..sigh…) I should have said something to the effect of…
Over time it’s become apparent that he really hasn’t abandoned his profession because he’s not really a philosopher. No matter what some Ohio state university of decades ago might have you believe.
Impeachment is a political process, with no rules. Whicver party holds a majority in the House can impeach a ham sandwich on the basis of its Zodiac sign, if they choose to. Neither due process nor anybody’s sense of fairness is in any way relevant to the impeachment power.
I was disgusted and surprised at the Clinton impeachment. I’m disgusted but not surprised at this one. I wonder how much the Clinton impeachment contributed to the division we see, Even I haven’t forgiven the Republcan House for that one, and I am in no way involved; how much more must Democrats feel the memory?
Of course, since the movement is political, the perception generated is very important. The question around process is aimed purely at public sympathy.
In the current episode, the Democrats face the impossible task of crafting rules that the Republicans will accept—for there are no such rules
If the Democrats adopted the rules used for Clinton, they could nullify this argument immediately. I expect they will feel that it is worth enduring that criticism so that they can draw out the selective leaking.
At least with Clinton there was a clear crime, although I agree it did not rise to the level of a “high crime or misdemeanor.”
Also, too, most people understood that they would have been fired if they were caught having sex with an intern at work.
With Trump it has been “sentence first, verdict later.”
At least with Clinton there was a clear crime, although I agree it did not rise to the level of a “high crime or misdemeanor.”
Also, too, most people understood that they would have been fired if they were caught having sex with an intern at work.
Also too, and it’s (not) amazing how fast this went down the memory hole, the repercussions of the Tailhook Scandal was still quite warm. From Wiki:
Also note Ronan Farrow’s recent comments:
And when we consider what had come out regarding Paula Jones, a state employee who was brought to a hotel room where the Governor dropped his pants and asked her to service him. And the media went to bat for him even going so far as to speculate that dropping one’s pants and asking for a BJ or whatever did not technically constitute sexual harassment. Oh, and BJ’s aren’t sex. And if they are, it’s the one performing the BJ that is having the sex and definitely NOT the one having the orgasm.
But yeah, same thing.
I had indeed forgotten that 300 officers were purged because of Tailhook. I guess they paid the price for Clinton’s sins.
At work, when someone starts talking bollocks and I’m just about to unload on them, this guy Steve speaks up so that I don’t have to. I call him my “Evil Jesus”. See, with Real Jesus you commit the sins and Real Jesus pays/paid the price for you on the cross. With an Evil Jesus, he commits the sin thus no price for that sin on your behalf that even needs to be paid. The beautiful thing about Evil Jesus is you don’t even need to be a Christian for it to work for you. Kinda cool, eh? So Tailhook guys were fulfilling the role of being Clinton’s Evil Jesus. Wonder how they feel about that.
Speaking of two sides…Interestingly prescient is this comment from an article on the prejudice against conservatives in the social “sciences” from SEVEN years ago…
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-social-psychologists-admit-anti-conservative-bias
Though many other comments there are even more interesting to read, and not that I agree 100% with all of it, I thought this one (at least as far as I had read) was most interesting.
I hadn’t seen the “Soviet-Style impeachment process” comment before, so I looked it up.It merely refers to the closed-door secret hearings. Like everything else about this absurdity, it is just for public consumption, but it is appropriate enough in that context.
They meant more than just “closed doors”; they were trying to invoke the specter of the USSR-it was a flashback for me as an 80s kid. I was hoping they’d call the Democrats Ruskies; but I guess that might confuse Trump.
“The specter of the USSR”, gimme a break. If closed door secret hearings don’t concern you, you just may be a little too partisan to judge the objectivity of others. And this coming from someone willing to stretch the meaning of words to say that Trump has repeatedly violated the emoluments clause. If there was anything unique about your reasoning, if it weren’t for the millions of other sophist BS polemicists in academia and the media singing from the same hymnal, you’d be a f’n joke. But the same joke told over and over and over loses its humor. Except perhaps that you’re an academic who teaches ethics. On the public dime, no less. Putting young people deeper and deeper into debt. You people are a disgrace. And you’re lame joke about “I guess that might confuse Trump”, after all that has transpired, yes even with you’re being “an 80’s kid”. You have zero credibility when you make claims of simply being objective. You can’t even show a shred of self-respect and admit that much.