5412

I asked if it would be ok to impeach Warren over a minor scandal.

You don’t even a crime to impeach someone. And you would still have a Democrat in charge. So why not?

The will of the voters isn’t irrelevant. It sets a high bar, but Trump has vaulted over it regardless.

5413

Agreed.

Though the voters can make people pay for it afterwards. Just ask Newt Gingrich.

5414

No, it would be an abuse of the impeachment power to impeach over a minor scandal. The question is what is a minor scandal, not how does it impact the “will of the people”. Even something like Clinton’s Oval Office affair (arguably a minor scandal with respect to his powers as president) seems like it has to be fair game. The primary reason to impeach over something like that is because there’s not really any other way to hold him accountable - in a normal job, he could easily face legal consequences and also be fired for it, and people who will abuse their power in that way shouldn’t have power. On the other hand, if it was, say, a blackface scandal, you could easily see how it makes him a terrible person, but isn’t impeachable.

So, the point is you basically have to make these arguments stand on their own, and invoking the “will of the people” to justify hand-waving away abuses of power is a terrible argument. If you (that is, whoever is making this argument) really cared so much about the will of the people, you would hold a referendum on impeachment and let the people decide directly. 230 duly elected representatives chose to impeach. They were elected more recently and represent as many districts as Trump carried. So how is the will of the people less reflected in their vote than in his post-election shenanigans?

5415

Yeah, there’s this implied assumption that a presidential election somehow carries more weight as an expression of popular will than the makeup of the legislature. Which is a somewhat alarming reflexive bias toward the executive branch.

5416

To be fair, Trump is redefining “minor scandal”. Plenty of minor Trump scandals seem impeachable.

5417

Why? The Constitution does not specify a minimum standard. If Congress wants to impeach over a blackface scandal, why shouldn’t they?

Suppose the assistant secretary of agriculture were fired over a blackface scandal. I wouldn’t be surprised at all. It is certainly not an abuse of power.

But the president and the assistant secretary of agriculture are both government employees, both in the executive. Why should it be harder to get rid of the president than the assistant secretary of agriculture. What makes the president so special?

5418

Why is this “will of the voters” thing even an argument at this point in time?

The President* is being impeached for his attempt to extort a foreign power into interfering with the next election, an act explicitly aimed at overturning the will of the voters and preventing being held accountable by them.

5419

We are obviously on another tangent! Is the will of the voters always BS, or only BS when it comes to people like Trump? It’s a very important question!

5420

The will of the voter is expressed at the time of voting. It is irrelevant after that.

5421

Fine. So do you think that Congress is justified in impeaching the president for that the same things that would get any other government employee fired?

5422

It’s Republicans controlling the conversation, they keep trying to frame impeachment as the Democrats trying to void the 2016 election and the “will of the voters”. They rather argue about this than the crimes Trump has committed.

5423

Since its obviously a distraction, that makes sense.

5424

While it’s true that impeachable offenses are not spelled out in the way that a legal code is, the clause “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” is not devoid of meaning, either. As has been exhaustively discussed by fancy pants Con-Law professors lately, “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a term of art whose meaning was understood by the framers. You can’t literally shoehorn anything in there and still claim to be making some kind of good-faith attempt to abide by the Constitution. If you want to throw up your hands and say that everything is bad-faith nowadays, you can certainly do that, but I think that’s a different point.

5425

Not anything, but historically “high crimes and misdemeanors” has been used for things that would be considered relatively minor, for example drunkenness, giving bad advice, or mismanagement. In other words, the sorts of offenses that tend to get other upper level executives fired.

5426

If the president wasn’t elected by the will of the voters… Then he couldn’t be impeached, since he wouldn’t be president.

5427

What if he was elected by a minority of voters?

5428

This is better formulated than I put it.

5429

Look at this idiot advocating something that isn’t going to happen, full stop.

5430

Yes, look at the GOP operative and former Fox News contributor giving advice to Democrats. Why, I believe that he may be George W Bush’s cousin. Yes, indeed he is. Now gather around and listen up!

5431

Gotta remember some of the 48% against impeachment is because they either believe it will cost the Dems voters, or they’re afraid it will work and Pence is more electable than Trump