One way to evaluate an objection is to look at what happened when the tables were turned. David Harsanyi writes in the Federalist concerning the latest objection to the Kavanaugh nomination:
Then again, the idea that mere suspicion of criminality is enough to stop a president from engaging in his constitutional duty is a completely new one, designed, as most things these days, only for Trump.
The Whitewater investigation went on for nearly 3,000 days. Did that mean that any court with Stephen Breyer, nominated after an independent investigation was launched, became "fundamentally illegitimate?" I mean, that investigation ended up convicting 15 friends and allies of the Clintons for over 40 crimes, including felonies like fraud, bribery and embezzlement. Talk about a "cloud of suspicion." Clinton himself was impeached, not on campaign finance charges, but on obstruction of justice and perjury. His wife was under investigation throughout most of her 2016 campaign, and not one serious person claimed that her SCOTUS nominees would be "illegitimate."
In a comment to my previous post on the subject, Ward notes the Republicans' stalling of the Merrick Garland nomination, but here the table-turning indicator points the other way. In that case the Republicans did exactly what the Democratic leaders said they were prepared to do if a vacancy had arisen in the last year of the Bush Administration, when the situation was precisely reversed.
On the supposed "illegitimacy" objection, I do not recall anyone even mentioning such a thing during the Clinton Administration. The objection is entirely novel, fabricated just for this moment.
This President is going to serve out his full four years unless the
Senate votes otherwise by a two-thirds vote, and it is just fantasy to
think that is going to happen. As long as he is in office, he has the
authority to nominate, and the Senate should consider the nominees on
the merits. The Republicans' application of the "Biden Rule" kept the
Supreme Court one justice short for less than a year longer than it
otherwise would have been. The present objection would keep the court
one justice short for nearly three years, and it could be two justices
if one more retires. (I doubt one would voluntarily, but health
sometimes forces it.) A completely fabricated objection never before
asserted in similar circumstances is no reason at all for such a result.
Of course the House can impeach with a simple majority, and the Democrats may have a simple majority next year. But impeaching when there is no chance of removal is an Animal House move -- "a really futile and stupid gesture." It was when the Republicans did it, and it will be again if the Democrats do it.
The Dems started the judicial wars, and it looks like they are ultimately going to be the losers of it.
In light of your claim that an impeachment conviction is a fantasy, Kent, I am curious if this view is based on a conclusion about Trump's (lack of) misbehavior or about the realpolitik of today's GOP. (For the record, I think Bill Clinton should have resigned and/or been convicted at his impeachment trial for lying under oath while in office.)
Have you concluded that Trump very likely has not done anything that could properly be worthy of impeachment, or have you concluded that no matter what investigations into Trump might reveal, it is impossible to imagine 1/3 of GOP Senators willing to vote to impeach?
I ask not only because I am interested in your take, but also to push back on the notion that impeachment is futile/stupid absent a conviction. For starters, I think the GOP succeeded in 1998-99 in revealing the ugliness of the Clintons and the hypocrisy of the Dems, which likely cost Al Gore and later Hillary the White House. Second, given how much it seems we still do not know about Trump and his associates, an impeachment trial might be a more transparent way to explore his history (and perhaps exonerate him) than the Mueller probe.
Last but not least, none of this, as I see it, justifies a delay on considering/voting on Kavanaugh for SCOTUS. As I said in 2016, after the Prez nominates a Justice, I think the Senate should hold hearing ASAP and take a vote. Controversy about the Prez or pending transitions, in my view, can be considered by a Senator when casting a yes/no vote, but a vote should take place.
I don't see anything worthy of impeachment. Paying someone to keep quiet about something that is embarrassing but not illegal is not a crime. (In the other direction, demanding payment for silence is a crime.)
Calling this a campaign finance violation is quite a stretch. USDoJ got a black eye for a similar stretch in the John Edwards case, and appropriately so.
A few points:
Edwards' case was a little different from Trump's in that it does not appear that Edwards reimbursed the costs. And it still was a bad prosecution, in my opinion.
Doug, there's a fair bit of "concern trolling" with your post. We don't do investigations for the sale of investigation, which by the way, has given Dems massive cover for obstructing Trump's non-judicial nominees and other shenanigans. And that points up the difference between Trump and Clinton--the stuff that led to Clinton's impeachment was known to be rotten (Whitewater), and then he lied under oath. With Trump, the reality is that there was (a) a Dem-created dossier that was "unverified" and (b) a clear thumb on the scale at the Obama DoJ. This completely taints the investigation and also puts pat to your "gee, let's just get to the bottom of this." You cannot ignore the genesis of this.
I tend to agree with Doug on impeachment generally---Clinton should have been impeached, and while it was counterproductive at the time, I think history will judge the impeachment (given the credible allegations of rape against Clinton) far more favorably once the liberal bias of historians goes away with time.
Kent, I largely agree that hush money to mistresses or even wayward children before being voted into office are not sufficient impeachment grounds. But the prospect of a Prez giving aid and comfort to Russia troubles me greatly, and I still wonder what is hiding in the Trump tax files or business arrangements that might explain why he seems a lot friendlier to a former KGB agent than to current DOJ and CIA agents.
federalist, my understanding has always been that the FBI started the Russia investigation because of evidence Russia was actively meddling in our elections. Whatever taint may come from the dossier does not change the evidence of past efforts --- and now it seems more current efforts --- by Russia to harm US democracy. I sincerely hope no US official has, in any way, supported or enabled Russian meddling, and I am "rooting" for Mueller and his investigation team to report as much. But Trump's history and behavior makes me suspicious, and until there is much more information and transparency from the Mueller crew, I cannot reach any firm conclusions about impeachment (and I am curious about the views of those who have).
Wow, Doug, some serious innuendo. First of all, why would Trump be nice to the likes of Comey, Brennan and others who have politicized justice. One example suffices--the Logan Act set-up of Flynn. And as for being nice to Putin--Trump is sticking it to Russia--US forces waxed a few hundred Russians in Syria, he's sold missiles to Ukraine, and he has imposed tough sanctions. I don't know why he played nice with Putin, but his actions with respect to Putin have been tough.
As for the investigation--surely it must trouble you that a partisan document, described as unverified (and leaked to the press) is the basis for official government action. And while you are on your moral high horse, where is your call for an investigation into the hiding of the funding of the dossier as "legal expenses" which is a flagrant campaign finance violation,
There's been a thumb on the scale--no wonder Trump's ticked.
Prez Trump seems to continue to question the intelligence that has been the main reason I am interested in the outcome Russia probe, and I continue to want to know a lot more about any and everyone trying to disrupt free and fair elections in the US.
Because the Clintons and their pals (e.g., Donna Brazile, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) also seem ever interested in disrupting free and fair elections, I would very much like to see them subject to serious investigation. Sadly, because the work of prosecutors are always hidden (and seemingly often subject to many forces the public cannot readily identify), it is hard for me to be sure how many thumbs are on how many scales. But I have often called in this space for much more transparency and regulation of the work of federal prosecutors, and I surmise I am not alone in thinking there are problems with the administration of justice inside the Beltway.
Kent-saw your reference to a comment I made in another post which makes this response rather awkward. I think we make a fundamental mistake in treating these confirmation battles as anything but an exercise of raw political power with no limiting principles.
First, I agree with you that the Democrat reason for delaying the confirmation is spurious. The Breyer analogy occurred to me before I got to that pt of the post. The GOP probably wishes they had thought of it, but the Democrats controlled the Senate then and Breyer’s nomination did not affect the court’s ideological balance in any event. Plus, the only limiting principle that might still exist in these political battles is that you can’t indefinitely prevent the Pres from making an appt.
Second, I assume that the GOP opposed the Biden rule about confirmations during Pres election years when he propounded it. I am sure the GOP did not acquiesce to it. That said, the GOP embraced that rule when it served its purpose-because it could. One could quibble about the Democrats now wanting to extend the Biden Rule to midterms. It’s distinguishable, but it’s hardly unreasonable. Anyway, the Democrats won’t succeed. But I don’t doubt for a minute the GOP will adopt a midterm Biden Rule someday if it can. In any event, any argument that Kavanaugh’s confirmation should not be delayed through the midterms because it leaves the court short handed rings hollow.
So we're going to have a whole probe because what, Trump dares question the conclusions of the likes of Brennan? Trump obviously has a personality tic that keeps him from accepting that the Russians were trying to sow discord, gain intelligence--but that's not a reason to launch a special counsel.
You cool with the Flynn Logan Act set-up?
Ward, the Democrats started the judicial wars. Nothing that the GOP does is out of bounds.
federalist, only the FBI was investigating Russian meddling until Trump fired the head of the FBI and said it was because of his handling of the Russia investigation. Your partisan effort to dissemble here is especially weak.
On Flynn, I have said repeatedly in this arena to Bill Otis and others that I often fear that federal investigators and prosecutors readily "play dirty," and that is one of many reasons I wish federal defendants had much more ability and legal authority to investigate and challenge the investigative activities and the exercise of discretion by federal prosecutors. (Of course, characters ranging from Barry Bonds to Bill Clinton to Scooter Libby to Martha Stewart would be among those eager for you to speak out against prosecutions for lying to cover up what is not itself obviously illegal.)
I would welcome, federalist, a much more robust "entrapment" doctrine/defense to help folks like Flynn and many others (including, e.g., the many folks in Chicago subject to "stash-house stings"). Is that what you are advocating? Are you working on an op-ed about the need for many more checks on the work of federal prosecutors?
Federalist-I sgree with you that nothing is out of bounds in regards to confirmation hrngs. We can be honest that it all depends on who has the votes. Democrats are in no position to preach otherwise-their treatment of Bork was reprehensible. . I am not so naive as to believe the GOP would be any more principled if the tables were turned and Larry Tribe was the nominee for a poyential swing seat on the court.
I find it interesting that those who argue for broken windows policing when it comes to black and brown people committing minor offenses readily dismiss minor campaign finance violations. Yet if the theory is that disregard for the law in small things leads to a general breakdown of respect of the law then would not the President of the United States showing disrespect for the law, even in a small thing, be even worse. And of course that ignores the other aspects of corruption in the Trump orbit, such as the profits his business are making from government and foreign spending and the evidence of influence pedling by his family. If the Obama, or any democratic campaign or administration had been staffed by a collection of now felons and accused felons we see in Trumpland conservative heads would be exploding.
Please identify the post or comment where anyone who has participated in this thread said that "broken windows policing" should be applied in a racially discriminatory manner, i.e., only to or differently to "black and brown people."
BTW, if you think that "broken windows policing" is synonymous with "zero tolerance," then you are quite mistaken. I suggest you go back and read the original Wilson and Kelling article.
I do not think that buying Stormy Daniels' silence is a "minor campaign finance violation"; I don't think it's a violation at all. Sleazy, but not criminal, just like the post I linked to on Edwards.
Whether you advocate it or not, broken windows policing disproportionately effects black and brown people.
Whatever you think about this particularly allegation, don't you think the overwhelming corruption of this administration erodes respect for the law. This is just today's example. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inspector-general-report-trump-involved-in-fbi-headquarters-decision/
You stated: "federalist, only the FBI was investigating Russian meddling until Trump fired the head of the FBI and said it was because of his handling of the Russia investigation. Your partisan effort to dissemble here is especially weak."
The President has the power and right to fire anyone in the executive branch for any reason.
You stated: "Whether you advocate it or not, broken windows policing disproportionately effects black and brown people."
It also disproportionately effects males. It effects Asians less than their proportion to their population. Is the system rigged against males and for Asians or could it be that populations who commit a disproportionate amount of crime are naturally effected more?
As I have noted many times on this blog, "disproportionate" when the denominator is the general population is irrelevant.
Whether one agrees with that or not, it is most certainly not a basis for an insinuation that someone's support for a policy is racially motivated. Making such insinuations without any basis whatever for them is despicable and unacceptable. Unlike broken windows policing, there will be zero tolerance for that here.
As for the Trump Hotel and the FBI Building, I do not find it credible that the owner of that hotel would find it in his financial interest to have a government office dedicated to criminal matters nearby as opposed to an agency with a more lucrative turf, such as commerce or finance.
As lawyers who work in criminal law know very, very well, there is more money on the commercial side of the profession.
If I owned the hotel and were looking out for my own financial interest, I would want law enforcement moved out as quickly as possible. Using my influence to keep it there would be out of the question.
Do you think that Trump's employing many criminals is a problem:
Campaign Chair Paul Manafort
Personal Attorney Michael Cohen
National Security Advisor Michael Flynn
Campaign Staffer Rick Gates
Foreign Policy Advisor George Papadopoulos
Imagine if Obama had such a list.
And what is your feeling on the President's stated view that cooperation agreements with prosecutors should be illegal because they encourage witnesses to lie?
This thread has wandered far off the topic. It's not a general discussion of the Administration.