6 ms·

In order of seriousness: He seems to have colluded with a foreign state to undermine the integrity of our elections and political process. He likely made finan

In order of seriousness: He seems to have colluded with a foreign state to undermine the integrity of our elections and political process. He likely made financial arrangements as part of that process. He has attacked the independence and authority of the judicial branch, which enforces constitutional restraint on our president. He has attacked the media, which (while not a government agency) forms a basis for democratic society. Together, these are a systemic assault on the American system, which while not ideal, is not better served by a despot. It should be clear something is amiss when renowned senators like John McCain are pointing out Trump is acting the way despots do.

dagw 10y ago
Other than first one, for which there is no evidence, non of those things are against the constitution.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  There seems to be a bit of a double-standard here. It's true that by a strict reading of the constitution, it is not unconstitutional for the president to "attack" the independence and authority of the judicial branch, only to deny them the powers enumerated in the Constitution. And similarly, it's not unconstitutional to "attack" the media, only for Congress to pass a law abridging their freedom to publish. But by the same strict reading of the Constitution, it is also not treason for intelligence officers to leak information to the press. Treason is narrowly defined within the Constitution as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." If seeking to discredit the media or control its access to information is just all in the game, then seeking to deliver that information to media is also just all in the game. I think much of the article's point was that there are established norms & institutions by which the President usually interacts with the rest of the government. If the President ignores them, then it's highly likely that other power centers will also say "Well, if they're going to come after me with all the resources available to them, I'm going to go after them with all the resources available to me." And the end result of that is often multiple competing power centers in open warfare with each other, much like what happened in Syria. That would be bad for everyone in America (and a good many people outside of it), and so we should be wary of all parties that seek to ignore the norms of peaceful democratic society.
  - gadders 10y ago
    Obama also attacked the Supreme Court.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Hell, FDR tried to pack it!
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    I saw one senator use the phrase "Inconsistent with the values enshrined in our Constitution". I think they're intentionally making it easy for others to misuse the word "unconstitutional" after hearing that. "Constitution" is an uncommon word, and someone not carefully listening may conflate it with things that are actually unconstitutional, especially when people use the word "dictator" and "fascist" in a similar context. I'd kind of like to keep the legal meaning of "unconstitutional"(an action that would be ruled against by the Supreme Court), because the alternative is for me to say things like, "It's okay for the President to do an unconstitutional act", which the fuzzier meaning allows.
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      There's a reason I've been saying "defend the Constitution" rather than calling specific actions unconstitutional. That reason is pretty simple: populist dictators need to be stopped early, if we're to minimize the harm. (That is, if we're going to resolve the issue politically, rather than through other means.) Many dictators (and early in history, emporers) who take over from democratic societies do so "legally". They enact measures to remove the various aspects of government they dislike or which check their power after destroying the judiciary and seizing control of the media. Defending the American system against a dictator -- and America becoming a dictatorship could happen -- requires winning the hearts and minds of the public, and getting them to engage with the system to show their support. Without the public -- who make up the military, civil servants, etc -- judges are people in silly robes, the Congress is a bunch of old people in a building, the president is just some guy, and the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Trump's actions are those of a nascent dictator, the people arguing with me are rules lawyering rather than talking about the substantive issues, and neither should be surprised that people stand up to their nonsense. I know which side of history I want to be on -- the side with people like John McCain speaking out how this, what's happening now, isn't okay, and not the side who has to quibble about technicalities rather than the substance of the issue.
nl 10y ago
I'm no Trump fan, but for impeachment you need evidence of laws being broken. Of the things you listed only the first could conceivably lead to that. Demand an independent investigation first.

dagw 10y ago

Other than first one, for which there is no evidence, non of those things are against the constitution.

nostrademons 10y ago
There seems to be a bit of a double-standard here. It's true that by a strict reading of the constitution, it is not unconstitutional for the president to "attack" the independence and authority of the judicial branch, only to deny them the powers enumerated in the Constitution. And similarly, it's not unconstitutional to "attack" the media, only for Congress to pass a law abridging their freedom to publish. But by the same strict reading of the Constitution, it is also not treason for intelligence officers to leak information to the press. Treason is narrowly defined within the Constitution as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." If seeking to discredit the media or control its access to information is just all in the game, then seeking to deliver that information to media is also just all in the game. I think much of the article's point was that there are established norms & institutions by which the President usually interacts with the rest of the government. If the President ignores them, then it's highly likely that other power centers will also say "Well, if they're going to come after me with all the resources available to them, I'm going to go after them with all the resources available to me." And the end result of that is often multiple competing power centers in open warfare with each other, much like what happened in Syria. That would be bad for everyone in America (and a good many people outside of it), and so we should be wary of all parties that seek to ignore the norms of peaceful democratic society.
- gadders 10y ago
  Obama also attacked the Supreme Court.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Hell, FDR tried to pack it!
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  I saw one senator use the phrase "Inconsistent with the values enshrined in our Constitution". I think they're intentionally making it easy for others to misuse the word "unconstitutional" after hearing that. "Constitution" is an uncommon word, and someone not carefully listening may conflate it with things that are actually unconstitutional, especially when people use the word "dictator" and "fascist" in a similar context. I'd kind of like to keep the legal meaning of "unconstitutional"(an action that would be ruled against by the Supreme Court), because the alternative is for me to say things like, "It's okay for the President to do an unconstitutional act", which the fuzzier meaning allows.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    There's a reason I've been saying "defend the Constitution" rather than calling specific actions unconstitutional. That reason is pretty simple: populist dictators need to be stopped early, if we're to minimize the harm. (That is, if we're going to resolve the issue politically, rather than through other means.) Many dictators (and early in history, emporers) who take over from democratic societies do so "legally". They enact measures to remove the various aspects of government they dislike or which check their power after destroying the judiciary and seizing control of the media. Defending the American system against a dictator -- and America becoming a dictatorship could happen -- requires winning the hearts and minds of the public, and getting them to engage with the system to show their support. Without the public -- who make up the military, civil servants, etc -- judges are people in silly robes, the Congress is a bunch of old people in a building, the president is just some guy, and the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Trump's actions are those of a nascent dictator, the people arguing with me are rules lawyering rather than talking about the substantive issues, and neither should be surprised that people stand up to their nonsense. I know which side of history I want to be on -- the side with people like John McCain speaking out how this, what's happening now, isn't okay, and not the side who has to quibble about technicalities rather than the substance of the issue.

nl 10y ago

I'm no Trump fan, but for impeachment you need evidence of laws being broken. Of the things you listed only the first could conceivably lead to that. Demand an independent investigation first.