Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Collapse of the President's Defense - By Benjamin Wittes
https://www.lawfareblog.com/collapse-presidents-defenseexcerpt:
"Hamiltons point was that guilt or innocence might be not be dispositive in impeachment trials. It was not that guilt or innocence doesnt matter in the face of political power. Theres a temptation to conflate these two points. If the presidents defense has crumbled but that fact will not trigger his removal, does it even matter? In fact, the crumbling of the presidents defense matters a great dealeven if the wall ultimately holds, even if a large segment of the public refuses to engage that reality and even if a large cadre of elected officials chooses to keep escalating the noise instead of either accepting Trumps guilt or mounting a substantive defense of his actions.
The collapse matterseven if it does not prove dispositive politicallybecause persuasion matters and thus persuasiveness matters. The last line of defense against a lawless, oathless president is the electoral process, and clarifying Trumps conduct before the electorate is thus crucial to voters ability to make informed decisions. The process of evaluation itself also plays an important role here. The definition in the minds of members of Congress of what is unacceptable helps to articulate and reinforce norms of behavior. In a period in which we are fighting to defend norms, that articulation and reinforcement is a critical exercise.
Its a little harder to violate a particular norm of behavior once you have publicly voted to impeach someone for itnot impossible, to be sure, but harder. Conversely, argue that conduct is acceptable or tolerable in a president, and it becomes a little easier to do it yourself. It is a notable fact that Democrats have not, by and large, argued for Trumps impeachment based on his conductvery likely criminalin the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal matters. Having argued during Bill Clintons tenure that crimes undertaken to cover up mere sexual misconduct are not impeachable, Democrats are staying away from that one.
We can hope that something of the opposite effect is happening here: If the only consequence of going through this process is to make it a little harder for some Democratic president in the future to emulate Trumps ongoing abuses of foreign policy and law enforcement in the service of political endsbecause essentially all Democrats will have labeled the conduct as impeachment-worthythat alone will be worth the process the country is going through now."
. . . more
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1150 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (15)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Collapse of the President's Defense - By Benjamin Wittes (Original Post)
swag
Oct 2019
OP
Nitram
(22,825 posts)1. The truth is, Trump never made a legal defense. The Post reported today that the WH is finally
starting to put together a legal defense, a month after the investigation started. As always, Trump relied on threats, bluster, misdirection, lies, and slander to intimidate witnesses and blunt the investigation. It worked after the Mueller report was leaked. But now that an official investigation related to impeachment is underway, the House has far more power to enforce subpoenas. Trump hates to resort to a legal defense. I think he considers it a sign of weakness, and he doesn't trust lawyers because they insist on basing their arguments on the law.
Captain Zero
(6,813 posts)2. Nitram: really good observation here
Thanks.