Impeachment redux

[liberty]

If the Democrats had convicted Clinton, their chances of convicting Trump would have been better. They say what goes around comes around.

Never thought I'd type this, but Slick Willie's "impeachable offenses" of getting some in the Oval Office and then trying to cover it up is utterly insignificant to the actions Trump is accused of inciting on 6 January 2021, let along the litany of lies and bullshit about "rigged elections" that he had been spraying like cowshit from a manure spreader even before the ballots had been cast.

Just because he wasn't front and center, urging on the rioters in their onslaught like the flag-bearing female in Delacroix's famous painting of "Liberty Leading the People", doesn't mean he isn't as culpable as the people who smashed windows and broke down doors, entered the Capitol, stole and damaged property, and beat a cop to death.

-"BB"-

That is not the point; the point is the principle of the thing. Clinton committed a crime, an impeachable act, but the democrats and their lackeys chose not to hold a trial for him. The Democrats changed the impeachment trial by precedent from a constitutional duty to a political act. And now they want to complain when the change they made works against them. Here is an idea stick to principles sometimes you will win, and sometimes you will lose, but the rules will stay the same.

[Joe Guy]

That is not the point; the point is the principle of the thing. Clinton committed a crime, an impeachable act, but the democrats and their lackeys chose not to hold a trial for him.....

Can you explain that a little better?

[liberty]

That is not the point; the point is the principle of the thing. Clinton committed a crime, an impeachable act, but the democrats and their lackeys chose not to hold a trial for him.....

Can you explain that a little better?

Exactly, what do you want to me explain? It is not like the events of the time were written in code. Clinton committed perjury; is that not a crime?

[Joe Guy]

Exactly, what do you want to me explain? It is not like the events of the time were written in code. Clinton committed perjury; is that not a crime?

You said the democrats trial chose not to have a trial.

[BoSoxGal]

There was a trial and Clinton was acquitted.

[Bicycle Bill]

That is not the point; the point is the principle of the thing. Clinton committed a crime, an impeachable act, but the democrats and their lackeys chose not to hold a trial for him.....

Can you explain that a little better?

Exactly, what do you want to me explain? It is not like the events of the time were written in code. Clinton committed perjury; is that not a crime?

So what you're saying is because one guy got off, the next guy gets off, and the next, and the next, and the next.... until we finally get to the point where no one is ever held responsible for anything whatsoever because sometime, somewhere, under some sort of circumstances, someone else "got away" with it.  

-"BB"-

[liberty]

Exactly, what do you want to me explain? It is not like the events of the time were written in code. Clinton committed perjury; is that not a crime?

You said the democrats trial chose not to have a trial.

I don't see it.

[Econoline]

Exactly, what do you want to me explain? It is not like the events of the time were written in code. Clinton committed perjury; is that not a crime?

You said the democrats trial chose not to have a trial.

I don't see it.

Clinton committed a crime, an impeachable act, but the democrats and their lackeys chose not to hold a trial for him. The Democrats changed the impeachment trial by precedent from a constitutional duty to a political act. And now they want to complain when the change they made works against them. Here is an idea stick to principles sometimes you will win, and sometimes you will lose, but the rules will stay the same.

I should also point out that the Senate was controlled by the Republicans at the time (Trent Lott (R-MS) was Majority Leader) and that 10 Republican Senators voted (along with all 45 Democrats) to acquit Clinton.

[Big RR]

Not to mention that witnesses were deposed and the testimony was entered into the record. What more of a trial do you want, Liberty?

ETA: And FWIW, the vote to acquit was not necessarily a vote to excuse Clinton; there was debate at the time as to whether they could simply convict and censure him, and the general consensus was that the Constitution did not give the senators that power. As I recall he was impeached because he used his position to get sexual favors (or not sex if you buy his BS) from a subordinate, and that he lied in a deposition, both serious charges, but ones which fair-minded persons could differ on the appropriate penalty, unlike the instant situation where the charge is extremely serious and the penalty could must be the most serious one they can impose.

ETA: just like I said above WRT McConnell and his ilk, I would prefer that those who felt Clinton was guilty but did not deserve removal from offiice had abstained instead of voting not guilty; it wouldn't have made a difference since two thirds of the senators would not have voted "guilty", but a quorum would still be present, but the vote of guilty vs not guilty would be much closer. Indeed, I recall that Sen. Specter tried to avoid voting (I do not recall if he voted "present" of "abstain"), and it was effectively a not guilty vote without him stating it.

[liberty]

There was a trial and Clinton was acquitted.

Your right, Democrats did vote on the charges not to dismiss. But the precedent still stands a president can commit crimes that are not impeachable. Don’t you think that is a good thing?

[Big RR]

Certainly. Why would it be otherwise?

And FWIW, the converse is also true, a president may be impeached and removed from office for something that would not necessarily be prosecuted in a court.

Criminal prosecution and impeachment are two different things.

[Sue U]

Sue, being in the area, did you ever come across this guy? He kind of reminds me of a bottom feeder (and I've come across a lot of them), but there are idiots at all levels of the profession (and usually being the person who had to settle discovery disputes with the other side (the most thankless job there is), I have come across a lot of them. Usually, you'd just let them bluster and then the grownups would get to work and resolve the dispute. But this guy is in a league of his own.

I don't know van der Veen, but there are a lot of personal injury attorneys in Philadelphia. He appears to be a good PI attorney and has (or has had) leadership positions in the Phillly Bar Association and Trial Lawyers Association. And yes, what I saw of his presentations and arguments was just awful. But you have to remember he was tasked with defending the indefensible, and the facts were not on his side: the House managers had done a really outstanding job laying out the facts and building the case. So really all he had -- and what his client so obviously wanted -- was attacking the prosecution generally and Democrats as a whole in an effort to "both-sides" the issue. (This is why I was surprised to learn in is closing that the Trumpist insurrection was actually George Floyd's fault. See? This is my surprised face.) The First Amendment argument was totally incoherent, inapposite and complete horseshit, and I'm guessing was forced on him by Trump's lackeys. Ultimately, his lawyering skills were going to be irrelevant, since the fix was in from the start; he was there to make noises Trump and his fan base would like, not to present a genuine defense to the actual charge.

There was a trial and Clinton was acquitted.

Your right, Democrats did vote on the charges not to dismiss. But the precedent still stands a president can commit crimes that are not impeachable. Don’t you think that is a good thing?

Any President can commit crimes that are not impeachable: if a President were caught shoplifting or driving while intoxicated he might be prosecuted, and although both are reprehensible I don't think either would justify removal from office. Bill Clinton having sex with an intern and lying about it may have been reprehensible, but I don't think it justified his removal from office. Donald Trump sending a mob to attack the Capitol specifically to stop Congress from verifying the results of an election and to reverse that electoral result to his favor certainly qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the Constitution regardless of whether any of those acts are defined in the criminal code.

[BoSoxGal]

A bunch of the lawyer pundits last week were talking about the ‘but for’ test as applied to the insurrection and Trump’s responsibility for it.

This isn’t my area of expertise so I’m asking the civil litigators here - is there any sound basis for a wrongful death lawsuit against Trump re: Officer Sicknick, or for pain/suffering on behalf of any of the Capitol police officers who were mutilated in the attack?

[Sue U]

A bunch of the lawyer pundits last week were talking about the ‘but for’ test as applied to the insurrection and Trump’s responsibility for it.

This isn’t my area of expertise so I’m asking the civil litigators here - is there any sound basis for a wrongful death lawsuit against Trump re: Officer Sicknick, or for pain/suffering on behalf of any of the Capitol police officers who were mutilated in the attack?

If Mrs. Palsgraf could recover from the Long Island Railroad, then technically yes, there is a civil liability case to pursue. But you'd have to get past defense motions for dismissal/summary judgment on judicial "gatekeeping" issues like foreseeability and intervening superseding cause. You get assigned the right judge and pick the right jury, you could get to verdict. The only guarantee is that it will be a circus the entire trip.

[Big RR]

Thanks Sue; I agree van der veen drew a bad case, but then no one made him take it; and he went forth as a blundering putz. I've been up against guys like him in depositions, and all you can do is calmly push back and insist we should call the judge for a ruling on his (and they have always been men in my limited experience, but I'm pretty sure there are women who could fill that bill) asinine tactics. He just blustered and yelled rather than making cogent arguments about the issues he wanted to discuss--due process, first amendment, even the legality of the action. I don't think that would play well with juries, but you have more experience in PI trials, so maybe you could opine. FWIW, at the beginning of his closing arguments I thought he calmed down, but then he just channeled Trump and started it all over again.

But Sue, didn't Palsgraf factor in the scales of justice?

[Sue U]

But Sue, didn't Palsgraf factor in the scales of justice?

Well the scales were certainly a factor, but was justice really done?

(I just went back and looked at the case since I hadn't for 30 years. The holding was the opposite of what I had remembered and I think the dissenters -- who agreed with the trial court and the App. Div. -- actually had the better argument.)

[Big RR]

Sure, but it the majority was with Cardozo who had his off days. And it did involve swarthy Italians.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I suppose I was puzzled by Leahy's role. His job was to preside, whatever that means. But isn't a judge's function in 'presiding' to set counsel right in matters of law as they come up? (I've only ever seen judges on TV so my experience might be warped.) So when the 'impeachment after he is no longer president is unconstitutional' argument was raised, could not Leahy have said 'nah, not having that, it was decided last week by a vote of 55-45 that it was OK'? I'm pretty sure Judge Judy would have told them to try another line of argument.

[Sue U]

Presiding over an impeachment trial in the senate and sitting as a judge in a civil or criminal trial in a court are two wholly different things. Presiding over an impeachment trial is largely a ceremonial position for managing administrative matters during the trial, subject to whatever rules the Senate adopts for the trial and its presiding officer. Because it is a political trial rather than a legal one, there are really no "matters of law" for the presiding officer to rule on; the Senate proceeding is a law unto itself, and the Senators themselves decide what is and is not "constitutional," what may and may not be presented as evidence at trial, and what may or may not be argued. The argument in closing that the trial was somehow "unconstitutional" was just stupid because, as you point out, that had already been ruled on by the Senate in its vote to proceed. But I'm sure it's what Trump and his claque demanded to hear so it could be repeated to the cultists in tee-vee highlights.

[BoSoxGal]

Chuck Rosenberg and Lawrence O’Donnell had a little convo tonight about the potential for civil lawsuits against Trump related to the insurrection he incited. Rosenberg was bullish on the prospect.