Impeachment?

[jp1]

They are going to spend 3 long days lasting until midnight for the proceedings. What are they hiding doing it past business hours?

They are also imposing new ‘security’ restrictions on the press to minimize the damage to republican senators.

[bae]

They are also imposing new ‘security’ restrictions on the press to minimize the damage to republican senators.

Well, it *is* a trial, it's not typical for the press to have access to jurors during the proceedings.

[jp1]

Well, it *is* a trial, it's not typical for the press to have access to jurors during the proceedings.

True. Although in a typical trial the jurors don’t normally announce their decision And agreement to work with the defense on tv before the trial has started.

[Teacher Terry]

Jp, talk about keeping people in the dark. I would ask how that can be legal but we all know that they don’t care about breaking the law.

[LDAHL]

I’m not all that concerned about the hours they meet. I’m sure the press and the leakers will keep us informed whether the sun is shining outside or not. Plenty of things go on in Europe while it’s still dark over here, but we still manage to hear about them.

If they’re accommodating the Chief Justice’s day job, I don’t see that as a blow against democracy.

[dmc]

True. Although in a typical trial the jurors don’t normally announce their decision And agreement to work with the defense on tv before the trial has started.

both parties have already announced their decision. The trial is just for the 2020 election tv commercials.

[Rogar]

I think his point was that he was being consistent, it's just that we misconstrue the meaning of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and tend to use it as a catch-all to achieve the result we'd like to see rather than allow the electorate to correct improprieties through the ballot box. I think he further argues that if the low standard of 'abuse of power' and 'contempt of congress' were allowed to become the standard for impeachment, every President including Lincoln and Roosevelt and Kennedy should have been impeached and that every future President almost certainly will.

I listened to the Dershowitz interview with Anderson Cooper, although I'm sure he is saying the same thing to all the talking heads. If he is correct and if Trump is acquitted on that legal basis, does that set precedent for all presidents to openly use foreign powers to influence elections, just as they might use campaign contributions? As long as criminal like behavior like bribery and treason are not involved. How far can that door open before criminal behavior is committed and does it exonerate Trump of any wrong doing in spite of all the witness testimony being accurate.

I suspect bribery is a hard case to prove in these examples, where political deals are done under the table or could easily be disguised as having reasons other than elections for political favors.

[Alan]

If he is correct and if Trump is acquitted on that legal basis, does that set precedent for all presidents to openly use foreign powers to influence elections, just as they might use campaign contributions?

All the presidents in my lifetime have openly used foreign powers to influence elections, sometimes even ours. Our last president used taxpayer money to help finance opposition to Israel's ruling party.

After 3 years of constant "foreign intrusion in our elections" talk from those hoping to discredit our last election we've lost sight of the fact we've been doing the same thing all along.

[Rogar]

All the presidents in my lifetime have openly used foreign powers to influence elections, sometimes even ours. Our last president used taxpayer money to help finance opposition to Israel's ruling party.

After 3 years of constant "foreign intrusion in our elections" talk from those hoping to discredit our last election we've lost sight of the fact we've been doing the same thing all along.

I'm sure there's truth to all of that even thought it doesn't seem right. For example, asking Russia to dig up dirt on Hillary knowing they might use covert channels not legally available here, or that they might provide information that is inaccurate or based on conspiracy theory only to receive favors.

Edit to add, I think in the Israel example the taxpayer money was used to influence their election, not ours, so maybe not the best example. It's no big secret that we've used money and even assassination attempts and backed military coups to determine foreign leaders.

I guess it would follow from your argument that when a president uses coercion over a foreign power to influence our election, there's really legally nothing we can do about it other than vote him/her out in the next election. Although other foreign influence over our elections are not ok.

[Tybee]

After 3 years of constant "foreign intrusion in our elections" talk from those hoping to discredit our last election we've lost sight of the fact we've been doing the same thing all along.

This has certainly crossed my mind more than once.