Impeachment

[occam]

When is 'impeachment' truly impeachment? Or to put the question another way:

Is "impeachment" not impeachment, unless the Senate says so?

The press has been full of headlines of Trumps "impeachment". However,
due to the two-step nature of the procedure involving: 1-The House of
Representatives; 2- Senate, the headlines give a misleading impression,
in my opinion.

What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

[Mark Brader]

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

The usage in the US constitution is quite clear. From Articles I and II:

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

Post by occam
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Well, alt.usage.english hasn't.

[occam]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Well, alt.usage.english hasn't.

AUE is not a Trump-only NG. Thanks God for that.

[Snidely]

Just this Tuesday, occam explained that ...

Post by occam

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, the House impeached him. He was not convicted.

Post by occam

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Well, alt.usage.english hasn't.

AUE is not a Trump-only NG. Thanks God for that.

We make lots of noise, it just goes rounds and rounds.

/dps "no biddings"

[occam]

Post by Snidely
Just this Tuesday, occam explained that ...

Post by occam

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

The usage in the US constitution is quite clear.  From Articles I and
#  The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
#  Impeachment.
 ...
#  The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
 ...
#  The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
#  and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
#  Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, the House impeached him.  He was not convicted.

Yet, he [Clinton] was not "removed from Office on Impeachment" as the US
constitution states. So, was he impeached?

Either the HoU impeachment was an irrelevant formality, or the whole
process is open to (mis)interpretation.

[Lewis]

Post by occam

Post by Snidely
Just this Tuesday, occam explained that ...

Post by occam

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

The usage in the US constitution is quite clear.  From Articles I and
#  The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
#  Impeachment.
 ...
#  The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
 ...
#  The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
#  and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
#  Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, the House impeached him.  He was not convicted.

Yet, he [Clinton] was not "removed from Office on Impeachment" as the US
constitution states. So, was he impeached?

You need to read the rest of the sentence, it does not say that, it says
"On Impeachment for, AND CONVICTION OF...

Post by occam
Either the HoU impeachment was an irrelevant formality, or the whole
process is open to (mis)interpretation.

It is perfectly clear.

OJ Simpsons was charged with murder. His acquital does not mean that he
was not charged.

(fill in any person who was acquitted after being charged and tried).

[Quinn C]

Post by Lewis

Post by occam

Post by Snidely
Just this Tuesday, occam explained that ...

Post by occam

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

The usage in the US constitution is quite clear.  From Articles I and
#  The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
#  Impeachment.
 ...
#  The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
 ...
#  The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
#  and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
#  Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, the House impeached him.  He was not convicted.

Yet, he [Clinton] was not "removed from Office on Impeachment" as the US
constitution states. So, was he impeached?

You need to read the rest of the sentence, it does not say that, it says
"On Impeachment for, AND CONVICTION OF...

Post by occam
Either the HoU impeachment was an irrelevant formality, or the whole
process is open to (mis)interpretation.

It is perfectly clear.
OJ Simpsons was charged with murder. His acquital does not mean that he
was not charged.

Nor that he didn't do it. Same for Trump impeachment I.
But that wasn't the subject right now ...

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by occam

Post by Snidely
Just this Tuesday, occam explained that ...

Post by occam

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

The usage in the US constitution is quite clear. From Articles I and
# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, the House impeached him. He was not convicted.

Yet, he [Clinton] was not "removed from Office on Impeachment" as the US
constitution states. So, was he impeached?

Why do you keep asking that? Do you not understand what an
indictment is?

Post by occam
Either the HoU impeachment was an irrelevant formality, or the whole
process is open to (mis)interpretation.

As for the word "impeachment," you may look in Blackstone's
Commentaries, which presumably was the Founders' source
for the terminology of the English Common Law on which the
Constitution was based. (Also the theories of John Locke.)

[HVS]

Post by Snidely
Just this Tuesday, occam explained that ...

Post by occam

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly
labelled as "the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US.
This implies that *starting* the process of impeachment is
regarded as "impeachment", irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, # and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and # Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its
readers). For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the
Senate did not uphold the HoR petition?

Yes, the House impeached him. He was not convicted.

Is impeachment thus the Congressional equivalent of indictment?

[Snidely]

Post by HVS

Post by Snidely
Just this Tuesday, occam explained that ...

Post by occam

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly
labelled as "the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US.
This implies that *starting* the process of impeachment is
regarded as "impeachment", irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, # and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and # Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its
readers). For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the
Senate did not uphold the HoR petition?

Yes, the House impeached him. He was not convicted.

Is impeachment thus the Congressional equivalent of indictment?

Yes.

] Middle English empechen, from Anglo-French empecher,
] enpechier to ensnare, impede, prosecute,
] from Late Latin impedicare to fetter,
] from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot — more at FOOT

(merriam-webster.com)

/dps

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Snidely

Post by HVS

Post by Snidely
Just this Tuesday, occam explained that ...

Post by occam

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly
labelled as "the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US.
This implies that *starting* the process of impeachment is
regarded as "impeachment", irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, # and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and # Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its
readers). For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the
Senate did not uphold the HoR petition?

Yes, the House impeached him. He was not convicted.

Is impeachment thus the Congressional equivalent of indictment?

Yes.
] Middle English empechen, from Anglo-French empecher,
] enpechier to ensnare, impede, prosecute,
] from Late Latin impedicare to fetter,
] from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot — more at FOOT
(merriam-webster.com)
/dps

These appear to be the relevant senses of "impeach, v." in the OED:

4.
a. gen. To bring a charge or accusation against; to accuse of,
charge with.

5.
a. spec. To accuse of treason or other high crime or misdemeanour
(usually against the state) before a competent tribunal: see
impeachment n. 5.

impeachment n. 5

The accusation and prosecution of a person for treason or other high
crime or misdemeanour before a competent tribunal; in Great Britain,
‘the judicial process by which any man, from the rank of a peer
downwards, may be tried before the House of Lords at the instance of
the House of Commons’ ( Dict. Eng. Hist.); in U.S., a similar
process in which the accusers are the House of Representatives and
the court is the Senate.

[Lewis]

Post by occam

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, he was.

I do not understand your confusion.

there have been 4 impeachments of US Presidents and so far 0
convictions.

[occam]

Post by Lewis

Post by occam

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, he was.
I do not understand your confusion.
there have been 4 impeachments of US Presidents and so far 0
convictions.

If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of saying
'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a meaningless
('toothless') procedure.

[HVS]

Post by occam

Post by Lewis

Post by occam

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly
labelled as "the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US.
This implies that *starting* the process of impeachment is
regarded as "impeachment", irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments. ...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, # and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and # Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its
readers). For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the
Senate did not uphold the HoR petition?

Yes, he was.
I do not understand your confusion.
there have been 4 impeachments of US Presidents and so far 0
convictions.

If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of
saying 'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a
meaningless ('toothless') procedure.

Sort of. AIUI, it's a formal stage of the trial process, like being
indicted to stand trial.

I wouldn't classify indictment as a meaningless/toothless procedure
on the grounds that the subsequent trial can find the indicted person
not guilty.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by HVS

Post by occam
If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of
saying 'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a
meaningless ('toothless') procedure.

Sort of. AIUI, it's a formal stage of the trial process, like being
indicted to stand trial.
I wouldn't classify indictment as a meaningless/toothless procedure
on the grounds that the subsequent trial can find the indicted
person not guilty.

If the public is to have any trust in the process, impeachments should
not be frivolous. Congress has to have an honest belief, based on the
evidence it has seen, that he will be convicted if given a fair trial.

What is not yet known is whether the trial will be fair. The framers of
the rules did not foresee that the Senate would become biased along
party lines, making it an unsuitable body to hold impartial trials.

Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing the
impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel that Trump
was a bad president not just because of his recent behaviour, but
because of the steady accumulation of impeachable offences. When the
issue is just one point, a good lawyer can ensure that the judgement is
based on fine technicalities, and get an acquittal that way.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:19:11 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by HVS

Post by occam
If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of
saying 'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a
meaningless ('toothless') procedure.

Sort of. AIUI, it's a formal stage of the trial process, like being
indicted to stand trial.
I wouldn't classify indictment as a meaningless/toothless procedure
on the grounds that the subsequent trial can find the indicted
person not guilty.

If the public is to have any trust in the process, impeachments should
not be frivolous. Congress has to have an honest belief, based on the
evidence it has seen, that he will be convicted if given a fair trial.
What is not yet known is whether the trial will be fair. The framers of
the rules did not foresee that the Senate would become biased along
party lines, making it an unsuitable body to hold impartial trials.
Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing the
impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel that Trump
was a bad president not just because of his recent behaviour, but
because of the steady accumulation of impeachable offences. When the
issue is just one point, a good lawyer can ensure that the judgement is
based on fine technicalities, and get an acquittal that way.

Follow the money.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of
saying 'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a
meaningless ('toothless') procedure.

Sort of. AIUI, it's a formal stage of the trial process, like being
indicted to stand trial.
I wouldn't classify indictment as a meaningless/toothless procedure
on the grounds that the subsequent trial can find the indicted
person not guilty.

If the public is to have any trust in the process, impeachments should
not be frivolous. Congress has to have an honest belief, based on the
evidence it has seen, that he will be convicted if given a fair trial.
What is not yet known is whether the trial will be fair. The framers of
the rules did not foresee that the Senate would become biased along
party lines, making it an unsuitable body to hold impartial trials.
Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing the
impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel that Trump
was a bad president not just because of his recent behaviour, but
because of the steady accumulation of impeachable offences. When the
issue is just one point, a good lawyer can ensure that the judgement is
based on fine technicalities, and get an acquittal that way.

Barr made it impossible to get a proper impeachment the first
time by lying about the Mueller report for at least a week before
any version of it was released to the public.

It seems likely that the nine prosecutors ("impeachment managers,"
being led by a constitutional scholar) will adduce more than four
years of incitatory statements -- the article doesn't say he did the
inciting in that single morning's speech, for instance.

I wonder why it's being presided over by Pat Leahy (the president
pro tem) and not by Kamala Harris (the President of the Senate --
it was the only duty assigned to her in the original text).

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by HVS

Post by occam
If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of
saying 'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a
meaningless ('toothless') procedure.

Sort of. AIUI, it's a formal stage of the trial process, like being
indicted to stand trial.
I wouldn't classify indictment as a meaningless/toothless procedure
on the grounds that the subsequent trial can find the indicted
person not guilty.

If the public is to have any trust in the process, impeachments should
not be frivolous. Congress has to have an honest belief, based on the
evidence it has seen, that he will be convicted if given a fair trial.
What is not yet known is whether the trial will be fair. The framers of
the rules did not foresee that the Senate would become biased along
party lines, making it an unsuitable body to hold impartial trials.

I think the framers DID see this as a possible problem which is why
Senators were appointed by the states, not elected by the mouth
breathers.

Post by Peter Moylan
Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing the
impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel that Trump
was a bad president not just because of his recent behaviour, but
because of the steady accumulation of impeachable offences. When the
issue is just one point, a good lawyer can ensure that the judgement is
based on fine technicalities, and get an acquittal that way.

They can add more articles as they see fit.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan
Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing
the impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel
that Trump was a bad president not just because of his recent
behaviour, but because of the steady accumulation of impeachable
offences. When the issue is just one point, a good lawyer can
ensure that the judgement is based on fine technicalities, and get
an acquittal that way.

They can add more articles as they see fit.

Change the charges after the trial begins? That sounds like a violation
of natural justice to me.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan
Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing
the impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel
that Trump was a bad president not just because of his recent
behaviour, but because of the steady accumulation of impeachable
offences. When the issue is just one point, a good lawyer can
ensure that the judgement is based on fine technicalities, and get
an acquittal that way.

They can add more articles as they see fit.

Change the charges after the trial begins? That sounds like a violation
of natural justice to me.

Impeachment isn't a normal judicial process --- it's a special case
made in the US Constitution, carried out by the legislature instead of
the judiciary, for "[t]he President, Vice President and all civil
Officers of the United States" with very limited punishment:

shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or
Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall
nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment
and Punishment, according to Law.

The "but" part has to be carried out using the normal judicial
process.

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan
Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing
the impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel
that Trump was a bad president not just because of his recent
behaviour, but because of the steady accumulation of impeachable
offences. When the issue is just one point, a good lawyer can
ensure that the judgement is based on fine technicalities, and get
an acquittal that way.

They can add more articles as they see fit.

Change the charges after the trial begins? That sounds like a violation
of natural justice to me.

This is not a normal or natural trail. It is intended to determine only
if the actions detailed in the impeachment are serious enough to remove
a elected officer from office.

BTW, impeachment is not that rare, and neither is conviction, as this
process happens in one way or another in many levels of government (I am
tempted to say all, but I suspect at say a local school board, the terms
are different and the process is simpler).

The only punishments that a federal impeachment can impose are 1)
removal from office 2) barring running for office in the future 3)
forfeiture of the privileges usually granted to former office holders.

In Tuumps case the first is irrelevant as he is out of office. The second
is (to me) very important, and the third means he would loose his
pension payment and secret service protection and would not be allowed
to refer to himself as "President".

I believe that only the removal from office requires 67 Senators, but I
cannot verify that. It makes sense, since that is the only thing
specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a result of conviction.

The findings of the House and the Senate can be referred to a criminal
court.

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-01-27, Lewis wrote:

...

Post by Lewis
The only punishments that a federal impeachment can impose are 1)
removal from office 2) barring running for office in the future 3)
forfeiture of the privileges usually granted to former office holders.
In Tuumps case the first is irrelevant as he is out of office. The second
is (to me) very important, and the third means he would loose his
pension payment and secret service protection and would not be allowed
to refer to himself as "President".

Is item 3 something that's been interpreted onto the Constitution?
The text says "shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or
Profit under the United States".

I'm not saying it's a bad thing --- IMO corrupt officials should
definitely not be entitled to Secret Service protection or a pension.

Post by Lewis
I believe that only the removal from office requires 67 Senators, but I
cannot verify that. It makes sense, since that is the only thing
specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a result of conviction.
The findings of the House and the Senate can be referred to a criminal
court.

[Lewis]

Post by Adam Funk
...

Post by Lewis
The only punishments that a federal impeachment can impose are 1)
removal from office 2) barring running for office in the future 3)
forfeiture of the privileges usually granted to former office holders.
In Tuumps case the first is irrelevant as he is out of office. The second
is (to me) very important, and the third means he would loose his
pension payment and secret service protection and would not be allowed
to refer to himself as "President".

Is item 3 something that's been interpreted onto the Constitution?
The text says "shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or
Profit under the United States".

That is the consequences of conviction.

What I am talking about is not dependent on a conviction, it it
something that Congress can do because those are things that Congress
extends, they have nothing to do with the Constitution.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Lewis

Post by Adam Funk
...

Post by Lewis
The only punishments that a federal impeachment can impose are 1)
removal from office 2) barring running for office in the future 3)
forfeiture of the privileges usually granted to former office holders.
In Tuumps case the first is irrelevant as he is out of office. The second
is (to me) very important, and the third means he would loose his
pension payment and secret service protection and would not be allowed
to refer to himself as "President".

Is item 3 something that's been interpreted onto the Constitution?
The text says "shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or
Profit under the United States".

That is the consequences of conviction.
What I am talking about is not dependent on a conviction, it it
something that Congress can do because those are things that Congress
extends, they have nothing to do with the Constitution.

Good point --- Congress controls the funding of those things. I'm not
sure about 'not be allowed to refer to himself as "President"',
though --- is that enforceable?

[Lewis]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis

Post by Adam Funk
...

Post by Lewis
The only punishments that a federal impeachment can impose are 1)
removal from office 2) barring running for office in the future 3)
forfeiture of the privileges usually granted to former office holders.
In Tuumps case the first is irrelevant as he is out of office. The second
is (to me) very important, and the third means he would loose his
pension payment and secret service protection and would not be allowed
to refer to himself as "President".

Is item 3 something that's been interpreted onto the Constitution?
The text says "shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or
Profit under the United States".

That is the consequences of conviction.
What I am talking about is not dependent on a conviction, it it
something that Congress can do because those are things that Congress
extends, they have nothing to do with the Constitution.

Good point --- Congress controls the funding of those things. I'm not
sure about 'not be allowed to refer to himself as "President"',
though --- is that enforceable?

Former Presidents are still referred to as "Mr President" and Congress
can withdraw that honorific. As for enforceable, no, I could call myself
Mr President. But it would mean that media would not use it (or only the
Nazi-loving media would) and that he would never officially be referred
to as President.

The important one, though, is barring him from running for office.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Lewis

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis

Post by Adam Funk
...

Post by Lewis
The only punishments that a federal impeachment can impose are 1)
removal from office 2) barring running for office in the future 3)
forfeiture of the privileges usually granted to former office holders.
In Tuumps case the first is irrelevant as he is out of office. The second
is (to me) very important, and the third means he would loose his
pension payment and secret service protection and would not be allowed
to refer to himself as "President".

Is item 3 something that's been interpreted onto the Constitution?
The text says "shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or
Profit under the United States".

That is the consequences of conviction.
What I am talking about is not dependent on a conviction, it it
something that Congress can do because those are things that Congress
extends, they have nothing to do with the Constitution.

Good point --- Congress controls the funding of those things. I'm not
sure about 'not be allowed to refer to himself as "President"',
though --- is that enforceable?

Former Presidents are still referred to as "Mr President" and Congress
can withdraw that honorific. As for enforceable, no, I could call myself
Mr President. But it would mean that media would not use it (or only the
Nazi-loving media would) and that he would never officially be referred
to as President.
The important one, though, is barring him from running for office.

If he ran for office as a third party candidate, that could split the
republican vote, and it might turn out to be good, not bad.

[Lewis]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Lewis
The important one, though, is barring him from running for office.

If he ran for office as a third party candidate, that could split the
republican vote, and it might turn out to be good, not bad.

What makes you think he would run as a third party candidate?

And since he starts with a baseline guarantee of 35% of the vote, i don't
think it is at all sure that he would split any vote at all.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Lewis

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Lewis
The important one, though, is barring him from running for office.

If he ran for office as a third party candidate, that could split the
republican vote, and it might turn out to be good, not bad.

What makes you think he would run as a third party candidate?

I didn't think I thought that he would; I said "if..." I think it's a
*possibility* that the Republican party wouldn't nominate him and he
would choose to run as a third-party candidate.

Post by Lewis
And since he starts with a baseline guarantee of 35% of the vote, i don't
think it is at all sure that he would split any vote at all.

Nothing like this is sure; I said "could," not "would." I think it's a
possibility.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan
Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing
the impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel
that Trump was a bad president not just because of his recent
behaviour, but because of the steady accumulation of impeachable
offences. When the issue is just one point, a good lawyer can
ensure that the judgement is based on fine technicalities, and get
an acquittal that way.

They can add more articles as they see fit.

Change the charges after the trial begins? That sounds like a violation
of natural justice to me.

I expect there's a rule of law in civilised countries that says that if
a plurality of related criminal charges are available against a
miscreant, they should be brought at one and the same time, and none
should be held in reserve for second and third attempts to gain a
conviction. Otherwise, a poor innocent like Trump (if such he be) might
be faced with multiple indictments that are dealt with serially until
the poor fellow succumbs to exhaustion with a long grey beard.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan
Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing
the impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel
that Trump was a bad president not just because of his recent
behaviour, but because of the steady accumulation of impeachable
offences. When the issue is just one point, a good lawyer can
ensure that the judgement is based on fine technicalities, and get
an acquittal that way.

They can add more articles as they see fit.

Change the charges after the trial begins? That sounds like a violation
of natural justice to me.

I expect there's a rule of law in civilised countries that says that if
a plurality of related criminal charges are available against a
miscreant, they should be brought at one and the same time, and none
should be held in reserve for second and third attempts to gain a
conviction. Otherwise, a poor innocent like Trump (if such he be) might
be faced with multiple indictments that are dealt with serially until
the poor fellow succumbs to exhaustion with a long grey beard.

The prohibition of "Double Jeopardy" is right there in the Bill of Rights.

Prosecutors usually, but not always, give the jury the option of convicting on
a "lesser included charge" -- Manslaughter rather than Murder, or the like.

But it does happen that when, say, a Klansman is acquitted of the
murder of a "n.," the Justice Department can bring a Federal charge
of "Violation of Civil Rights."

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by HVS

Post by occam
If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of
saying 'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a
meaningless ('toothless') procedure.

Sort of. AIUI, it's a formal stage of the trial process, like being
indicted to stand trial.
I wouldn't classify indictment as a meaningless/toothless procedure
on the grounds that the subsequent trial can find the indicted
person not guilty.

If the public is to have any trust in the process, impeachments should
not be frivolous. Congress has to have an honest belief, based on the
evidence it has seen, that he will be convicted if given a fair trial.
What is not yet known is whether the trial will be fair. The framers of
the rules did not foresee that the Senate would become biased along
party lines, making it an unsuitable body to hold impartial trials.
Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing the
impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel that Trump
was a bad president not just because of his recent behaviour, but
because of the steady accumulation of impeachable offences. When the
issue is just one point, a good lawyer can ensure that the judgement is
based on fine technicalities, and get an acquittal that way.

You feel that it was a bad idea to jail Al Capone for tax evasion?

Jan

[occam]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by HVS

Post by occam
If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of
saying 'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a
meaningless ('toothless') procedure.

Sort of. AIUI, it's a formal stage of the trial process, like being
indicted to stand trial.
I wouldn't classify indictment as a meaningless/toothless procedure
on the grounds that the subsequent trial can find the indicted
person not guilty.

If the public is to have any trust in the process, impeachments should
not be frivolous. Congress has to have an honest belief, based on the
evidence it has seen, that he will be convicted if given a fair trial.
What is not yet known is whether the trial will be fair. The framers of
the rules did not foresee that the Senate would become biased along
party lines, making it an unsuitable body to hold impartial trials.
Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing the
impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel that Trump
was a bad president not just because of his recent behaviour, but
because of the steady accumulation of impeachable offences. When the
issue is just one point, a good lawyer can ensure that the judgement is
based on fine technicalities, and get an acquittal that way.

You feel that it was a bad idea to jail Al Capone for tax evasion?

First, that was not 'impeachment'. Al Capone was not a public servant.
There were many charges brought against Al Capone. Tax evasion was the
one that worked. Frankly, if Trump is impeached on something as silly as
'tax evasion' I'd go for that. But right now, that is not on the list of
the impeachment items. Start with the most serious, and work your way down?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of
saying 'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a
meaningless ('toothless') procedure.

Sort of. AIUI, it's a formal stage of the trial process, like being
indicted to stand trial.
I wouldn't classify indictment as a meaningless/toothless procedure
on the grounds that the subsequent trial can find the indicted
person not guilty.

If the public is to have any trust in the process, impeachments should
not be frivolous. Congress has to have an honest belief, based on the
evidence it has seen, that he will be convicted if given a fair trial.

Would you accept an honest belief that their constituents and donors
want an impeachment and their party leaders think it would be
politically advantageous?

Post by Peter Moylan
What is not yet known is whether the trial will be fair.

I'd say that's known. The "judge" and most of the "jury" are among the
intended victims of the very attack Trump is accused of inciting.
They've been his political allies or opponents for more than four years,
and Trump arouses strong feelings even in people who have no contact
with him.

Post by Peter Moylan
The framers of
the rules did not foresee that the Senate would become biased along
party lines, making it an unsuitable body to hold impartial trials.

And there's that, though I think they at least foresaw that there would be
bias.

I believe the senators will be mainly concerned with their constituents,
their donors, and their fellow senators. Some of them may also be
concerned with the evidence and arguments.

Post by Peter Moylan
Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing the
impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel that Trump
was a bad president not just because of his recent behaviour, but
because of the steady accumulation of impeachable offences. When the
issue is just one point, a good lawyer can ensure that the judgement is
based on fine technicalities, and get an acquittal that way.

(Congress is both the House of Representatives and the Senate.)

The Democrats in the House have other things in mind than getting a
conviction. They want the trial to happen soon, they want as much
public support for the charge(s) as possible, and they want to put Senate
Republicans in an uncomfortable position. I assume that they're hoping
they can get things done with a president of their party and don't want
the trial to take too long. I imagine considerations such as those went
into their decision of what charge to make.

[Quinn C]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of
saying 'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a
meaningless ('toothless') procedure.

Sort of. AIUI, it's a formal stage of the trial process, like being
indicted to stand trial.
I wouldn't classify indictment as a meaningless/toothless procedure
on the grounds that the subsequent trial can find the indicted
person not guilty.

If the public is to have any trust in the process, impeachments should
not be frivolous. Congress has to have an honest belief, based on the
evidence it has seen, that he will be convicted if given a fair trial.

Would you accept an honest belief that their constituents and donors
want an impeachment and their party leaders think it would be
politically advantageous?

I say it's a problem if "politically advantageous" is seen as the
primary motivation. The way impeachment is defined, it's about
preventing harm to the country as a whole.

In the everyday political processes, the democratic institutions are
expected to deliver a reasonably good outcome for all if every party
argues for the interests of their constituents, and not always for the
whole country. But I don't trust the mechanisms to counteract the
outsized influence of a small number of big donors, or the personal
interests of politicians in the same way. Unfortunately, everything
regarding the latest ex-president has become strongly entangled with the
career ambitions of Republican politicians.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of
saying 'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a
meaningless ('toothless') procedure.

Sort of. AIUI, it's a formal stage of the trial process, like being
indicted to stand trial.
I wouldn't classify indictment as a meaningless/toothless procedure
on the grounds that the subsequent trial can find the indicted
person not guilty.

If the public is to have any trust in the process, impeachments should
not be frivolous. Congress has to have an honest belief, based on the
evidence it has seen, that he will be convicted if given a fair trial.

Would you accept an honest belief that their constituents and donors
want an impeachment and their party leaders think it would be
politically advantageous?

I say it's a problem if "politically advantageous" is seen as the
primary motivation. The way impeachment is defined, it's about
preventing harm to the country as a whole.

I agree that it's a problem.

Post by Quinn C
In the everyday political processes, the democratic institutions are
expected to deliver a reasonably good outcome for all if every party
argues for the interests of their constituents, and not always for the
whole country. But I don't trust the mechanisms to counteract the
outsized influence of a small number of big donors, or the personal
interests of politicians in the same way. Unfortunately, everything
regarding the latest ex-president has become strongly entangled with the
career ambitions of Republican politicians.

And Democratic.

As I understand it, in all representative democracies the prospect of
being elected and re-elected is the main incentive for politicians to
do what they do, which means they may choose their career ambitions
over the interest of the whole country.

[Quinn C]

Post by Jerry Friedman
As I understand it, in all representative democracies the prospect of
being elected and re-elected is the main incentive for politicians to
do what they do, which means they may choose their career ambitions
over the interest of the whole country.

And now we're back to the qualified voter discussion: The real problem
is that voters don't know what they need. If getting elected was
strictly aligned with serving the needs of one's constituents, the
systems I named should take care of that. But that fails when a
significant number of voters vote against their own interests.

This could be a definition of populist: Someone who has the talent to
make voters vote against their own interest. Probably not very workable,
but neither are any of the many other definition attempts I've seen.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Jerry Friedman
As I understand it, in all representative democracies the prospect of
being elected and re-elected is the main incentive for politicians to
do what they do, which means they may choose their career ambitions
over the interest of the whole country.

And now we're back to the qualified voter discussion: The real problem
is that voters don't know what they need. If getting elected was
strictly aligned with serving the needs of one's constituents, the
systems I named should take care of that. But that fails when a
significant number of voters vote against their own interests.

Is this a way of saying that there can be legitimate differences of
opinion about what people's interests are?

Post by Quinn C
This could be a definition of populist: Someone who has the talent to
make voters vote against their own interest. Probably not very workable,
but neither are any of the many other definition attempts I've seen.

Something about distrust of experts might be in there.

[Quinn C]

Post by Quinn C
This could be a definition of populist: Someone who has the talent to
make voters vote against their own interest. Probably not very workable,
but neither are any of the many other definition attempts I've seen.

Not exactly the same, but I found this so nicely condensed by John
Fugelsang:

Evangelicals - the Republicans get them to vote against anything Jesus
said by referring to abortion, which Jesus said nothing about.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Quinn C
Jesus was a radical nonviolent revolutionary who hung around with lepers
hookers and crooks; wasn’t American and never spoke English; was
anti-wealth, anti-death penalty, anti-public prayer (M 6:5); was never
anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the
poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the
wealthiest Nazarenes, never asked a leper for a co-pay; and was a
long-haired, brown-skinned, homeless, community-organizing,
anti-slut-shaming, Middle Eastern Jew.

If you don't mind, I'd like to re-use that in another place.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 08:10:29 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Quinn C

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of
saying 'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a
meaningless ('toothless') procedure.

Sort of. AIUI, it's a formal stage of the trial process, like being
indicted to stand trial.
I wouldn't classify indictment as a meaningless/toothless procedure
on the grounds that the subsequent trial can find the indicted
person not guilty.

If the public is to have any trust in the process, impeachments should
not be frivolous. Congress has to have an honest belief, based on the
evidence it has seen, that he will be convicted if given a fair trial.

Would you accept an honest belief that their constituents and donors
want an impeachment and their party leaders think it would be
politically advantageous?

I say it's a problem if "politically advantageous" is seen as the
primary motivation. The way impeachment is defined, it's about
preventing harm to the country as a whole.

I agree that it's a problem.

Post by Quinn C
In the everyday political processes, the democratic institutions are
expected to deliver a reasonably good outcome for all if every party
argues for the interests of their constituents, and not always for the
whole country. But I don't trust the mechanisms to counteract the
outsized influence of a small number of big donors, or the personal
interests of politicians in the same way. Unfortunately, everything
regarding the latest ex-president has become strongly entangled with the
career ambitions of Republican politicians.

And Democratic.
As I understand it, in all representative democracies the prospect of
being elected and re-elected is the main incentive for politicians to
do what they do, which means they may choose their career ambitions
over the interest of the whole country.

Scapegraces, all of them.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:19:11 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by HVS

Post by occam
If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of
saying 'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a
meaningless ('toothless') procedure.

Sort of. AIUI, it's a formal stage of the trial process, like being
indicted to stand trial.
I wouldn't classify indictment as a meaningless/toothless procedure
on the grounds that the subsequent trial can find the indicted
person not guilty.

If the public is to have any trust in the process, impeachments should
not be frivolous. Congress has to have an honest belief, based on the
evidence it has seen, that he will be convicted if given a fair trial.

If expecting to win is your definition of "not-frivolous", I disagree.
The impeachment of Clinton was frivolous because the crimes were
insignificant. He was guilty, but, meh. (Trump has been guilty of
worse lying and obstruction a dozen - two dozen? - times over.)

When the case is "impeachment of a President", that is such a rare
event that each occasion will impact the future. If Nixon had been
tried and convicted by a large and bipartisan majority, that would
have made a difference for 1999 and for last year.

Now we have a terrible precedent in Trump's first trial, where he
was guilty of something, "the only thing worse would be sedition
or treason." Mitch McConnelll saw that they let him off for that
one, so Trump followed up with sedition. McConnell (I still believe)
will determine if they let him off again.

Post by Peter Moylan
What is not yet known is whether the trial will be fair. The framers of
the rules did not foresee that the Senate would become biased along
party lines, making it an unsuitable body to hold impartial trials.
Personally, I think the Congress made a strategic error in basing the
impeachment accusation on only one offence. Many people feel that Trump
was a bad president not just because of his recent behaviour, but
because of the steady accumulation of impeachable offences. When the
issue is just one point, a good lawyer can ensure that the judgement is
based on fine technicalities, and get an acquittal that way.

"Good lawyer" be damned. It was hardly a "fine technicality" to be
able to go home and pretend that "since it didn't work, it was not
a crime."

[Lewis]

Post by Rich Ulrich
Now we have a terrible precedent in Trump's first trial, where he
was guilty of something, "the only thing worse would be sedition
or treason." Mitch McConnelll saw that they let him off for that
one, so Trump followed up with sedition. McConnell (I still believe)
will determine if they let him off again.

I don't think so, he is the minority party leader, so is no longer in
charge of the Senate.

[Snidely]

Post by Lewis

Post by Rich Ulrich
Now we have a terrible precedent in Trump's first trial, where he
was guilty of something, "the only thing worse would be sedition
or treason." Mitch McConnelll saw that they let him off for that
one, so Trump followed up with sedition. McConnell (I still believe)
will determine if they let him off again.

I don't think so, he is the minority party leader, so is no longer in
charge of the Senate.

But he still wrangles the party he represents, and Republican votes are
still needed.

/dps

[Ken Blake]

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis

Post by Rich Ulrich
Now we have a terrible precedent in Trump's first trial, where he
was guilty of something, "the only thing worse would be sedition
or treason." Mitch McConnelll saw that they let him off for that
one, so Trump followed up with sedition. McConnell (I still believe)
will determine if they let him off again.

I don't think so, he is the minority party leader, so is no longer in
charge of the Senate.

But he still wrangles the party he represents, and Republican votes are
still needed.

Assuming that all Democrats vote to convict, 17 Republican votes are
needed. So far, it looks like there will be five, and it's highly
unlikely that 12 more Republican senators will change their minds.

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis

Post by Rich Ulrich
Now we have a terrible precedent in Trump's first trial, where he
was guilty of something, "the only thing worse would be sedition
or treason." Mitch McConnelll saw that they let him off for that
one, so Trump followed up with sedition. McConnell (I still believe)
will determine if they let him off again.

I don't think so, he is the minority party leader, so is no longer in
charge of the Senate.

But he still wrangles the party he represents, and Republican votes are
still needed.

Assuming that all Democrats vote to convict, 17 Republican votes are
needed. So far, it looks like there will be five, and it's highly
unlikely that 12 more Republican senators will change their minds.

I am imagining that McConnell may convince 10 to withhold any vote
(in protest!), and then it takes only 5 more to make 60 out of 90.
Remember, a lot of these Republicans really don't like Trump.

I have little respect for McConnell, but that turnabout would
assure him of a note in history.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis

Post by Rich Ulrich
Now we have a terrible precedent in Trump's first trial, where he
was guilty of something, "the only thing worse would be sedition
or treason." Mitch McConnelll saw that they let him off for that
one, so Trump followed up with sedition. McConnell (I still believe)
will determine if they let him off again.

I don't think so, he is the minority party leader, so is no longer in
charge of the Senate.

But he still wrangles the party he represents, and Republican votes are
still needed.

Assuming that all Democrats vote to convict, 17 Republican votes are
needed. So far, it looks like there will be five, and it's highly
unlikely that 12 more Republican senators will change their minds.

I am imagining that McConnell may convince 10 to withhold any vote
(in protest!), and then it takes only 5 more to make 60 out of 90.

I'm not sure how it works. Does conviction require two-thirds of the
votes cast, or two-thirds of the total number of senators?

Post by Rich Ulrich
Remember, a lot of these Republicans really don't like Trump.
I have little respect for McConnell, but that turnabout would
assure him of a note in history.

Then you apparently have a little more respect for him that I have.

[Lewis]

Post by Ken Blake
I'm not sure how it works. Does conviction require two-thirds of the
votes cast, or two-thirds of the total number of senators?

Pretty sure it is the latter.

Post by Ken Blake
Then you apparently have a little more respect for him that I have.

I have zero respect for the Traitor Turtle.He is no better than Trump,
Cruz, or various Nazis.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Lewis

Post by Ken Blake
I'm not sure how it works. Does conviction require two-thirds of the
votes cast, or two-thirds of the total number of senators?

Pretty sure it is the latter.

That's what I thought, too, but I'm not as sure of it as you are.

Post by Lewis

Post by Ken Blake
Then you apparently have a little more respect for him that I have.

I have zero respect for the Traitor Turtle.

Me too. That's what I said.

Post by Lewis
He is no better than Trump,
Cruz, or various Nazis.

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Lewis

Post by Ken Blake
I'm not sure how it works. Does conviction require two-thirds of the
votes cast, or two-thirds of the total number of senators?

Pretty sure it is the latter.

That's what I thought, too, but I'm not as sure of it as you are.

" ... no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of
two-thirds of the Members present" ( Article I, section 3 )

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Lewis

Post by Ken Blake
Then you apparently have a little more respect for him that I have.

I have zero respect for the Traitor Turtle.

Me too. That's what I said.

The villian without the virtue of persistence is hardly a bother.

Or, there was Ferlingetti, on Nixon -
"My President. What can I say?
Even when he does the right thing
it is for the wrong reasons."

Google does not confirm for me that anybody ever said that.

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Lewis
He is no better than Trump,
Cruz, or various Nazis.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:28:42 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Rich Ulrich
Now we have a terrible precedent in Trump's first trial, where he
was guilty of something, "the only thing worse would be sedition
or treason." Mitch McConnelll saw that they let him off for that
one, so Trump followed up with sedition. McConnell (I still believe)
will determine if they let him off again.

I don't think so, he is the minority party leader, so is no longer in
charge of the Senate.

FSVO "in charge". McConnell's influence is only slightly diminished.
Any chance of real success of issues for the Democrats is in some
Republicans joining them.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:28:42 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Rich Ulrich
Now we have a terrible precedent in Trump's first trial, where he
was guilty of something, "the only thing worse would be sedition
or treason." Mitch McConnelll saw that they let him off for that
one, so Trump followed up with sedition. McConnell (I still believe)
will determine if they let him off again.

I don't think so, he is the minority party leader, so is no longer in
charge of the Senate.

FSVO "in charge". McConnell's influence is only slightly diminished.
Any chance of real success of issues for the Democrats is in some
Republicans joining them.

I think Trump 'needs' to be convicted in order to show that inciting an
armed mod to attack Congress _might_ have one or two negative
consequences.
That said, I somehow doubt if there will be enough Senators who can see
beyond the end of their own self interest.

This leaves Trump and/or other people to think
"Hey. It nearly worked, so if we try again whilst making sure that..."

Setting Godwin's Law on one side for a moment, the Beer Hall Putsch
taught a few lessons on how to do things the right way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch

[Lewis]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:28:42 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Rich Ulrich
Now we have a terrible precedent in Trump's first trial, where he
was guilty of something, "the only thing worse would be sedition
or treason." Mitch McConnelll saw that they let him off for that
one, so Trump followed up with sedition. McConnell (I still believe)
will determine if they let him off again.

I don't think so, he is the minority party leader, so is no longer in
charge of the Senate.

FSVO "in charge". McConnell's influence is only slightly diminished.
Any chance of real success of issues for the Democrats is in some
Republicans joining them.

I think Trump 'needs' to be convicted in order to show that inciting an
armed mod to attack Congress _might_ have one or two negative
consequences.
That said, I somehow doubt if there will be enough Senators who can see
beyond the end of their own self interest.

Certainly not members of the party that embodies self-interest above all
things.

Post by Sam Plusnet
This leaves Trump and/or other people to think
"Hey. It nearly worked, so if we try again whilst making sure that..."

Yep.

Post by Sam Plusnet
Setting Godwin's Law on one side for a moment, the Beer Hall Putsch
taught a few lessons on how to do things the right way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch

Yep.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by occam

Post by Lewis

Post by occam

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, he was.
I do not understand your confusion.
there have been 4 impeachments of US Presidents and so far 0
convictions.

If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of saying
'accusation'.
Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a meaningless
('toothless') procedure.

Ever been accused of anything? It's not meaningless, even if the result is
"not guilty".

However, the people gloating "only president who has been impeached twice"
might be attaching more meaning to it than it has.

[occam]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam

Post by Lewis

Post by occam

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, he was.
I do not understand your confusion.
there have been 4 impeachments of US Presidents and so far 0
convictions.

If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of saying
'accusation'.
Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a meaningless
('toothless') procedure.

Ever been accused of anything? It's not meaningless, even if the result is
"not guilty".

My mistake for thinking that impeachment was something more substantial
than an accusation. After all, who counts the number of accusations
against someone? Yet the stigma of an impeachment seems to ...count.

The fact that everyone seems to realise that the second impeachment will
not lead to a conviction (never has) is the reason I see that act as
just a charade. A necessary step towards a trial, yes. But a charade
nevertheless.

Post by Jerry Friedman
However, the people gloating "only president who has been impeached twice"
might be attaching more meaning to it than it has.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by occam

Post by occam

Post by Lewis

Post by occam

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, he was.
I do not understand your confusion.
there have been 4 impeachments of US Presidents and so far 0
convictions.

If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of saying
'accusation'.
Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a meaningless
('toothless') procedure.

Ever been accused of anything? It's not meaningless, even if the result is
"not guilty".

My mistake for thinking that impeachment was something more substantial
than an accusation. After all, who counts the number of accusations
against someone? Yet the stigma of an impeachment seems to ...count.

You've never seen the headline "Mobster so-and-so Indicted on 83 Charges
of Racketeering"? "Notorious 'Swamp Killer' Charged with 26 Murders"?

Post by occam
The fact that everyone seems to realise that the second impeachment will
not lead to a conviction (never has) is the reason I see that act as
just a charade. A necessary step towards a trial, yes. But a charade
nevertheless.

They need only 17 of the 50 republicans. McConnell himself listed
the offenses that t**** should be impeached for.

Post by occam

However, the people gloating "only president who has been impeached twice"
might be attaching more meaning to it than it has.

It's not a distinction to be proud of.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:03:02 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by occam

Ever been accused of anything? It's not meaningless, even if the result is
"not guilty".

My mistake for thinking that impeachment was something more substantial
than an accusation. After all, who counts the number of accusations
against someone? Yet the stigma of an impeachment seems to ...count.

You've never seen the headline "Mobster so-and-so Indicted on 83 Charges
of Racketeering"? "Notorious 'Swamp Killer' Charged with 26 Murders"?

Post by occam
The fact that everyone seems to realise that the second impeachment will
not lead to a conviction (never has) is the reason I see that act as
just a charade. A necessary step towards a trial, yes. But a charade
nevertheless.

They need only 17 of the 50 republicans. McConnell himself listed
the offenses that t**** should be impeached for.

Rand Paul moved that the constitutionality of impeachment should
be discussed, since the President is gone. There are at least two
precedents for impeaching after resignation, the disqualification
phrase makes it meaningful, and there's little or no debate among
scholars.

There were 45 Republicans who did NOT vote to "table" (dismiss)
the movement. It was NOT a vote to confirm that impeaching
after he is gone is definitely constitituional, so that may yet be
discussed at the trial. The 50 Dems were joined by 5 Republicans
voting to table.

The first reaction of press and politicians is that those 45 doom
for the impeachment. Senator Ron Portman, however, tweeted
that he wanted to hear the arguments about constitutionality, and
his mind was still open --he was previously considered a possible
vote for impeachment, so he must still be a possible.

What I heard a couple of days ago still seems true, to me.
Mitch McConnell can probably swing enough votes a convict,
if he wants to; else it won't happen. By the way, the vote
required is 2/3 of those voting. A face-saving or voter-saving
ploy that is available is to omit voting. "I refuse to take part in
the vote because ...< whatever >". With 25 such refusals, 50
Democrats would make up the required 2/3. With 10 refusals,
10 votes to convict would give 60 out of 90.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by occam

However, the people gloating "only president who has been impeached twice"
might be attaching more meaning to it than it has.

It's not a distinction to be proud of.

They say that Trump really did not like the mark on his record.
I've become convinced that his narcissism-with-delusions is
a state of mind far outside of my experience.

To the extent that I understand him, it seems that he was
counting on the success of the coup to make true (retroactively,
and even though others would say it was by cheating) his words
that "I won the election." I can't imagine what his ego demands
next.

[Lewis]

Post by occam

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam

Post by Lewis

Post by occam

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, he was.
I do not understand your confusion.
there have been 4 impeachments of US Presidents and so far 0
convictions.

If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of saying
'accusation'.
Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a meaningless
('toothless') procedure.

Ever been accused of anything? It's not meaningless, even if the result is
"not guilty".

My mistake for thinking that impeachment was something more substantial
than an accusation.

It is. Trump has been ACCUSED of thousands of criminal acts. He has been
Impeached for two of them.

Post by occam
After all, who counts the number of accusations against someone?

"He's been charged with murder three times."

[Snidely]

Post by occam

Post by Lewis

Post by occam

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, he was.
I do not understand your confusion.
there have been 4 impeachments of US Presidents and so far 0
convictions.

If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of saying
'accusation'. Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a meaningless
('toothless') procedure.

Like the trial of OJ Simpson was a meaningless procedure?

/dps

[Lewis]

Post by occam
If I understand you correctly, 'impeachment' is a fancy way of saying
'accusation'.

No. It is a way of saying that someone in office has been CHARGED with
criminal acts.

Post by occam
Without a conviction (by the Senate), it is a meaningless
('toothless') procedure.

Have you ever been charged with a crime and appeared in court? If not,
ask someone who has how meaningless it is.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Lewis

Post by occam

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, he was.
I do not understand your confusion.
there have been 4 impeachments of US Presidents and so far 0
convictions.

And one (effectively forced) resignation.
The number of convictions will probably remain at zero forever,
because presidents will prefer to resign before being convicted.

So 3-1, not 4-0,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Lewis

Post by occam

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, he was.
I do not understand your confusion.
there have been 4 impeachments of US Presidents and so far 0
convictions.

And one (effectively forced) resignation.
The number of convictions will probably remain at zero forever,
because presidents will prefer to resign before being convicted.
So 3-1, not 4-0,

No. RMN knew, because Senate leaders came to him privately,
that (unlike t****), he had lost the confidence of his party and
the Senate _would_ vote to convict. He resigned _before_ the
House could vote for the impeachment counts that were voted
out of the Judiciary Committee.

Barbara Jordan's eloquence far surpassed his.

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Post by J. J. Lodder
[...]

Post by Lewis
there have been 4 impeachments of US Presidents and so far 0
convictions.

And one (effectively forced) resignation.

Of a president who was not impeached.

Post by J. J. Lodder
The number of convictions will probably remain at zero forever,
because presidents will prefer to resign before being convicted.

AIUI, there is no requirement for the impeached president to still be
in office during the Senate hearings, witness the current procedure.
Nor is it a concern whether the reason for not being in office was
end of term, resignation or even application of the 25th.
Death would probably be taken as sufficient reason to stop, though.

Post by J. J. Lodder
So 3-1, not 4-0,

No, 3-0, one yet undecided (and one "no contest").

/Anders, Denmark

[Lewis]

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by J. J. Lodder
[...]

Post by Lewis
there have been 4 impeachments of US Presidents and so far 0
convictions.

And one (effectively forced) resignation.

Of a president who was not impeached.

Only because he agreed to resign.

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
AIUI, there is no requirement for the impeached president to still be
in office during the Senate hearings, witness the current procedure.

That is correct.

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Nor is it a concern whether the reason for not being in office was
end of term, resignation or even application of the 25th.

That is also true.

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Death would probably be taken as sufficient reason to stop, though.

Post by J. J. Lodder
So 3-1, not 4-0,

No, 3-0, one yet undecided (and one "no contest").

There is not much change that seventeen members of the Treason Party
will vote to convict Trump, but I believe it only takes a majority to
bar him from ever running for public office again.

But at the very least we will have a real trial, with an actual
presentation of the evidence, and that will never be erased, so history
will always know that Trump tried to stage a coup.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Lewis
There is not much change that seventeen members of the Treason Party
will vote to convict Trump, but I believe it only takes a majority to
bar him from ever running for public office again.

Only after conviction. But I don't see how they can read the Constitution
as making removal and debarring two separate actions.

[Ken Blake]

Post by occam

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, Clinton was impeached, but he was not convicted.

Trump has been impeached twice, and only the first time was tried. He
was not convicted.

Many people don't understand that impeachment is an accusation, not a
conviction. And of the people who understand it, they often forget or
ignore the difference, and use "impeach" to mean convict.

[Lewis]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by occam

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

That may be clear to you, but not to the Press corp (or its readers).
For example, was Bill Clinton impeached, since the Senate did not uphold
the HoR petition?

Yes, Clinton was impeached, but he was not convicted.
Trump has been impeached twice, and only the first time was tried. He
was not convicted.
Many people don't understand that impeachment is an accusation,

Not the right word. It is a formal charge or indictment, not merely an
accusation.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

# The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of
# Impeachment.
...
# The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
# The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
# and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
# Misdemeanors.

Post by occam
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Well, alt.usage.english hasn't.

Please, please don't tell Trump how to post here.

[J.R. Hartley]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Well, alt.usage.english hasn't.

Please, please don't tell Trump how to post here.

He doesn't have to. Trump is represented here by his brain-free
supporter, Banerjee.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Post by J.R. Hartley

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Well, alt.usage.english hasn't.

Please, please don't tell Trump how to post here.

He doesn't have to. Trump is represented here by his brain-free
supporter, Banerjee.

Amazing how evil creatures sit in judgment over the good.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Post by J.R. Hartley

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Mark Brader

Post by occam
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Well, alt.usage.english hasn't.

Please, please don't tell Trump how to post here.

He doesn't have to. Trump is represented here by his brain-free
supporter, Banerjee.

Tweeting for Trump: "I have proved most bigly that the US establishments are corrupt to their cores".
"The leftist counter-revolutionaries have cheated the dictatorship of the proletariat".
"May all those who try to impeach me yet again be afflicted by a severe strain of herpes".
"I'll be back"

[Lewis]

Post by occam
Is "impeachment" not impeachment, unless the Senate says so?

Have you looked up what impeachment means?

Trump has been impeached. Twice. The senate has nothing to do with that.

Post by occam
The press has been full of headlines of Trumps "impeachment". However,
due to the two-step nature of the procedure involving: 1-The House of
Representatives; 2- Senate, the headlines give a misleading impression,
in my opinion.

Not at all.

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

Ah, so you have NOT looked the word up in your dictionary.

1 (especially in the US) a charge of misconduct made against the holder
of a public office

Trump has been impeached twice, as he has been charged with misconduct
on two separate occasions.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by occam
Is "impeachment" not impeachment, unless the Senate says so?

The impeachment is the indictment. The trial is carried out by the Senate.

In three tries, no impeached president has been convicted (though Johnson
stayed in office by one vote, and "did not choose to run" for reelection.)

Post by occam
The press has been full of headlines of Trumps "impeachment". However,
due to the two-step nature of the procedure involving: 1-The House of
Representatives; 2- Senate, the headlines give a misleading impression,
in my opinion.

Do newspaper readers not understand that charging someone with a
crime does not automatically bring conviction of that crime?

Post by occam
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?

Of course not. The second impeachment was accomplished in a
single day, because the evidence was _prima facie_ (and maybe
still on the floors and walls of the Capitol). Cowering in fear for
one's life tends to make people react.

Post by occam
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

I don't know about the whole world, but Over Here has.

[Mack A. Damia]

Post by occam
Is "impeachment" not impeachment, unless the Senate says so?
The press has been full of headlines of Trumps "impeachment". However,
due to the two-step nature of the procedure involving: 1-The House of
Representatives; 2- Senate, the headlines give a misleading impression,
in my opinion.
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Think of impeachment as an "accusation". Also an "indictment".

The House accuses/indicts; the Senate tries him.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:20:28 -0800, Mack A. Damia

Post by Mack A. Damia

Post by occam
Is "impeachment" not impeachment, unless the Senate says so?
The press has been full of headlines of Trumps "impeachment". However,
due to the two-step nature of the procedure involving: 1-The House of
Representatives; 2- Senate, the headlines give a misleading impression,
in my opinion.
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Think of impeachment as an "accusation". Also an "indictment".
The House accuses/indicts; the Senate tries him.

It does take a vote.
A grand jury votes to indict. The House votes to impeach.

I thought about saying, "It takes a specific charge and then
a vote" -- but I think I heard that Andrew Johnson was
impeached before the details were specified.

If that is so, then the parallel is not exact.

The Clinton impeachment followed a fishing expedition of
two years. They never found more than a lame excuse.

The first Trump impeachment was a contrast to that.

There were arguments about whether to stick with the simple,
most recent offense (Ukraine, plus Obstruction), or to add
in as many as a half dozen earlier offenses to the Constitution
and rule of law. The Mueller report's section on obstruction had
been laid out (they say) ready for referral for impeachment. Plus,
Trump refused to allow any investigations; spent money without
a budget; risked war without (even) conferring; locked immigrant
children in cages (both initially, and ongoing). Those are offenses
that immediately come to my mind, without research.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mack A. Damia

Post by occam
Is "impeachment" not impeachment, unless the Senate says so?
The press has been full of headlines of Trumps "impeachment". However,
due to the two-step nature of the procedure involving: 1-The House of
Representatives; 2- Senate, the headlines give a misleading impression,
in my opinion.
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Think of impeachment as an "accusation". Also an "indictment".
The House accuses/indicts; the Senate tries him.

I have to admit that the US Constution offers a great improvement
over the regular method of dealing with errant (ersatz) kings,
which was to take their heads off,

Jan

[Arindam Banerjee]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by occam
Is "impeachment" not impeachment, unless the Senate says so?
The press has been full of headlines of Trumps "impeachment". However,
due to the two-step nature of the procedure involving: 1-The House of
Representatives; 2- Senate, the headlines give a misleading impression,
in my opinion.
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Think of impeachment as an "accusation". Also an "indictment".
The House accuses/indicts; the Senate tries him.

I have to admit that the US Constution offers a great improvement
over the regular method of dealing with errant (ersatz) kings,
which was to take their heads off,

Was that method followed by the Dutch?

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Arindam Banerjee

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by occam
Is "impeachment" not impeachment, unless the Senate says so?
The press has been full of headlines of Trumps "impeachment". However,
due to the two-step nature of the procedure involving: 1-The House of
Representatives; 2- Senate, the headlines give a misleading impression,
in my opinion.
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Think of impeachment as an "accusation". Also an "indictment".
The House accuses/indicts; the Senate tries him.

I have to admit that the US Constution offers a great improvement
over the regular method of dealing with errant (ersatz) kings,
which was to take their heads off,

Was that method followed by the Dutch?

Might have been, but the miscreant had left for Madrid,
and he never returned. [1]

There would have been good reason,
for he had William of Orange (aka the Taciturn) murdered.
That certainly counts as 'high crime'.

Jan

[1] So the Dutch parliament made an Act of Leaving
that declared all of his titles to be void, never to be reestablished.
It is the first place in history
where the principle that kings, apart from questionable divine rights,
have duties to the people and that The People
have the right to depose an unjust king.
Jefferson's declaration of independence reads in parts
like an almost verbatim copy.

[occam]

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jefferson's declaration of independence reads in parts
like an almost verbatim copy.

Q-ObAUE: Is the adjective/adverb 'verbatim' reserved for spoken words
or can it be used for words in any form e.g. written text?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jefferson's declaration of independence reads in parts
like an almost verbatim copy.

Q-ObAUE: Is the adjective/adverb 'verbatim' reserved for spoken words
or can it be used for words in any form e.g. written text?

He used the word correctly. Why wouldn't written words count
the same as spoken words -- especially since it's a lot easier
to reproduce written words verbatim than spoken ones?

[Mark Brader]

Post by occam

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jefferson's declaration of independence reads in parts
like an almost verbatim copy.

Q-ObAUE: Is the adjective/adverb 'verbatim' reserved for spoken words
or can it be used for words in any form e.g. written text?

It's *more often* used for written text, as it can be verified in that
situation.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] So the Dutch parliament made an Act of Leaving
that declared all of his titles to be void, never to be reestablished.
It is the first place in history
where the principle that kings, apart from questionable divine rights,
have duties to the people and that The People
have the right to depose an unjust king.
Jefferson's declaration of independence reads in parts
like an almost verbatim copy.

Of course. Which parts? How would Jefferson have accessed
a copy?

Is it just barely possible that your chauvinistic yawp reflects
that your parliament was _also_ familiar with the theorizing
of the (gasp!) British political philosopher John Locke?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] So the Dutch parliament made an Act of Leaving
that declared all of his titles to be void, never to be reestablished.
It is the first place in history
where the principle that kings, apart from questionable divine rights,
have duties to the people and that The People
have the right to depose an unjust king.
Jefferson's declaration of independence reads in parts
like an almost verbatim copy.

Of course. Which parts? How would Jefferson have accessed
a copy?

I'm afraid that is unknown. But in the 18th century
the Dutch Republic was one of the major powers in Europe.
(and much hated by all crowned heads for being a republic,
and therefore an example for their possibly unruly subjects)
You might want to have a look at
<https://news.wisc.edu/was-declaration-of-independence-inspired-by-dutch/>
or other similar sources.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is it just barely possible that your chauvinistic yawp reflects
that your parliament was _also_ familiar with the theorizing
of the (gasp!) British political philosopher John Locke?

They were a great parliament of course,
but clairvoyance was not within their scope.
Hint: The Dutch act was passed in 1581.
Do look up John Locke.

Jan

FYI, The Dutch did not care much about it.
(unlike Americans who feel that their Declaration
is the most important document in the history of the world)

They had to dig it up from the archives
when a visiting American professor of constitutional law
said that he would like to see the original.
<https://www.ad.nl/nieuws/wim-overkomt-niets-per-ongeluk~ab61221b/42632383/>
LtoR: Director of the 'Rijksmuseum', Burgomaster of Amsterdam,
American visitor, Prime minister.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] So the Dutch parliament made an Act of Leaving
that declared all of his titles to be void, never to be reestablished.
It is the first place in history
where the principle that kings, apart from questionable divine rights,
have duties to the people and that The People
have the right to depose an unjust king.
Jefferson's declaration of independence reads in parts
like an almost verbatim copy.

Of course. Which parts? How would Jefferson have accessed
a copy?

I'm afraid that is unknown. But in the 18th century
the Dutch Republic was one of the major powers in Europe.
(and much hated by all crowned heads for being a republic,
and therefore an example for their possibly unruly subjects)
You might want to have a look at
<https://news.wisc.edu/was-declaration-of-independence-inspired-by-dutch/>

A conjecture from more than 20 years ago. Has it found acceptance
among historians? The "almost verbatim copy" apparently consists
of three similarities:

"Both present a lengthy catalog of grievances as evidence of their
king’s tyranny;
"Both document repeated attempts by the authors to seek redress
of their complaints through existing legal and civic channels;
"Both conclude that, having repeatedly been rebuffed by despotic
authority, the plaintiffs have no alternative but to invoke the right of
revolution."

All of which seem like pretty obvious points to make in declaring
independence.

Have you shown that your document was available to Jefferson?

Post by J. J. Lodder
or other similar sources.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is it just barely possible that your chauvinistic yawp reflects
that your parliament was _also_ familiar with the theorizing
of the (gasp!) British political philosopher John Locke?

They were a great parliament of course,
but clairvoyance was not within their scope.
Hint: The Dutch act was passed in 1581.

Since no name or date of this "act" was given, how would I known that,
especially since the only time-frame mentioned is "18th century"?

Post by J. J. Lodder
Do look up John Locke.

Do you have reason to believe that Locke was familiar with it?

Post by J. J. Lodder
FYI, The Dutch did not care much about it.
(unlike Americans who feel that their Declaration
is the most important document in the history of the world)

Your bigotry-spawned ignorance really knows no limits,
does it.

The Declaration has basically no place in the political life
of the country. No one knows "When in the course of
human events." Everyone knows "We the people."

Post by J. J. Lodder
They had to dig it up from the archives
when a visiting American professor of constitutional law
said that he would like to see the original.
<https://www.ad.nl/nieuws/wim-overkomt-niets-per-ongeluk~ab61221b/42632383/>
LtoR: Director of the 'Rijksmuseum', Burgomaster of Amsterdam,
American visitor, Prime minister.

No picture. Just a full-screen demand that I allow cookies.

Do you know the name of "American visitor"?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] So the Dutch parliament made an Act of Leaving
that declared all of his titles to be void, never to be reestablished.
It is the first place in history
where the principle that kings, apart from questionable divine rights,
have duties to the people and that The People
have the right to depose an unjust king.
Jefferson's declaration of independence reads in parts
like an almost verbatim copy.

Of course. Which parts? How would Jefferson have accessed
a copy?

I'm afraid that is unknown. But in the 18th century
the Dutch Republic was one of the major powers in Europe.
(and much hated by all crowned heads for being a republic,
and therefore an example for their possibly unruly subjects)
You might want to have a look at
<https://news.wisc.edu/was-declaration-of-independence-inspired-by-dutch/>

A conjecture from more than 20 years ago. Has it found acceptance
among historians? The "almost verbatim copy" apparently consists
"Both present a lengthy catalog of grievances as evidence of their
king's tyranny;
"Both document repeated attempts by the authors to seek redress
of their complaints through existing legal and civic channels;
"Both conclude that, having repeatedly been rebuffed by despotic
authority, the plaintiffs have no alternative but to invoke the right of
revolution."
All of which seem like pretty obvious points to make in declaring
independence.
Have you shown that your document was available to Jefferson?

Post by J. J. Lodder
or other similar sources.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is it just barely possible that your chauvinistic yawp reflects
that your parliament was _also_ familiar with the theorizing
of the (gasp!) British political philosopher John Locke?

They were a great parliament of course,
but clairvoyance was not within their scope.
Hint: The Dutch act was passed in 1581.

Since no name or date of this "act" was given, how would I known that,
especially since the only time-frame mentioned is "18th century"?

You might have known that the Dutch Republic had been independent
long before Locke.
When discussing history you should have a general time frame
of what happened when.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
Do look up John Locke.

Do you have reason to believe that Locke was familiar with it?

He must have been. Remember that he saw the english civil war,
the retauration, and the Dutch imposing enlightenment on the Brits
by military invasion.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
FYI, The Dutch did not care much about it.
(unlike Americans who feel that their Declaration
is the most important document in the history of the world)

Your bigotry-spawned ignorance really knows no limits,
does it.
The Declaration has basically no place in the political life
of the country. No one knows "When in the course of
human events." Everyone knows "We the people."

Of course, there is no American who knows
why they have celebrations on the Fourth of July.
Really?

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
They had to dig it up from the archives
when a visiting American professor of constitutional law
said that he would like to see the original.
<https://www.ad.nl/nieuws/wim-overkomt-niets-per-ongeluk~ab61221b/42632383/>
LtoR: Director of the 'Rijksmuseum', Burgomaster of Amsterdam,
American visitor, Prime minister.

No picture. Just a full-screen demand that I allow cookies.

Strange. Works for me.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Do you know the name of "American visitor"?

I thought you might have guessed. Here he is on Wikip, in full smile.
<Loading Image...>

The Dutch had almost forgotten about their declaration of independence,
but their visitor caused a revival of interest,

Jan

[Quinn C]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
They had to dig it up from the archives
when a visiting American professor of constitutional law
said that he would like to see the original.
<https://www.ad.nl/nieuws/wim-overkomt-niets-per-ongeluk~ab61221b/42632383/>
LtoR: Director of the 'Rijksmuseum', Burgomaster of Amsterdam,
American visitor, Prime minister.

No picture. Just a full-screen demand that I allow cookies.

Strange. Works for me.

Of course there's a request to allow cookies, with an option to disallow
them. That's the law. EU law, but even many US sites now follow it,
regardless of where the visitor is from (geolocation works pretty badly,
it seems - I regularly get told I'm in Sweden, the US or in another
province than I actually am.)

A problem with the request on this page is that the cookie options
dialog is in Dutch only. Even as a speaker of German, I wouldn't know
without context what "Voorkeuren opslaan" means (in context, I can just
go by the standard design.)

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] So the Dutch parliament made an Act of Leaving
that declared all of his titles to be void, never to be reestablished.
It is the first place in history
where the principle that kings, apart from questionable divine rights,
have duties to the people and that The People
have the right to depose an unjust king.

The first? This book names sources for that Act.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ATlBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PR80

I haven't read the Greek or Roman historians. Didn't they every state
such a principle, for instance in describing the founding of the Roman
Republic?

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jefferson's declaration of independence reads in parts
like an almost verbatim copy.

Of course. Which parts? How would Jefferson have accessed
a copy?

I'm afraid that is unknown. But in the 18th century
the Dutch Republic was one of the major powers in Europe.
(and much hated by all crowned heads for being a republic,
and therefore an example for their possibly unruly subjects)
You might want to have a look at
<https://news.wisc.edu/was-declaration-of-independence-inspired-by-dutch/>
or other similar sources.

...

You missed the "which parts" question.

The Wikipedia article on our Declaration of Independence says most
historians don't think the Act of Abjuration (as it seems to be called in
English) had any influence on it, citing Armitage, /The Declaration of
Independence: A Global History/, and Maier, /American Scripture:
Making the Declaration of Independence/.

Post by J. J. Lodder
FYI, The Dutch did not care much about it.

Judging from the translation I found, it doesn't seem to contain much
inspiring rhetoric.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/before-1600/plakkaat-van-verlatinghe-1581-july-26.php

That page says the Act of Abjuration was well known to the drafter of
the Declaration of Independence, but it doesn't give a source for that claim.

Post by J. J. Lodder
(unlike Americans who feel that their Declaration
is the most important document in the history of the world)

Well, along with our Constitution and the Bible.

Post by J. J. Lodder
They had to dig it up from the archives
when a visiting American

former

Post by J. J. Lodder
professor of constitutional law
said that he would like to see the original.
<https://www.ad.nl/nieuws/wim-overkomt-niets-per-ongeluk~ab61221b/42632383/>
LtoR: Director of the 'Rijksmuseum', Burgomaster of Amsterdam,
American visitor, Prime minister.

[Quinn C]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
(unlike Americans who feel that their Declaration
is the most important document in the history of the world)

Well, along with our Constitution and the Bible.

They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its
stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the
Constitution ...

Ok, I'll shut up. These are not the Americanoids you're looking for.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
(unlike Americans who feel that their Declaration
is the most important document in the history of the world)

Well, along with our Constitution and the Bible.

They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its
stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the
Constitution ...
Ok, I'll shut up. These are not the Americanoids you're looking for.

And worse, it ends at The Fountainhead,

Jan

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
(unlike Americans who feel that their Declaration
is the most important document in the history of the world)

Well, along with our Constitution and the Bible.

They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its
stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the
Constitution ...

Now there's something I've never read.

Post by Quinn C
Ok, I'll shut up. These are not the Americanoids you're looking for.

:-)

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] So the Dutch parliament made an Act of Leaving
that declared all of his titles to be void, never to be reestablished.
It is the first place in history
where the principle that kings, apart from questionable divine rights,
have duties to the people and that The People
have the right to depose an unjust king.

The first? This book names sources for that Act.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ATlBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PR80
I haven't read the Greek or Roman historians. Didn't they every state
such a principle, for instance in describing the founding of the Roman
Republic?

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jefferson's declaration of independence reads in parts
like an almost verbatim copy.

Of course. Which parts? How would Jefferson have accessed
a copy?

I'm afraid that is unknown. But in the 18th century
the Dutch Republic was one of the major powers in Europe.
(and much hated by all crowned heads for being a republic,
and therefore an example for their possibly unruly subjects)
You might want to have a look at
<https://news.wisc.edu/was-declaration-of-independence-inspired-by-dutch/>
or other similar sources.

...
You missed the "which parts" question.

In particular the list of grievances, I think.
Jefferson and the Dutch faced the same problem:
how to convince a nation of god-fearing protestants
that their king, placed by god himself above them,
could be disposed.
In both cases, despite the lofty words,
it was above all the matter of taxation that did it.

Post by Jerry Friedman
The Wikipedia article on our Declaration of Independence says most
historians don't think the Act of Abjuration (as it seems to be called in
English) had any influence on it, citing Armitage, /The Declaration of
Making the Declaration of Independence/.

Post by J. J. Lodder
FYI, The Dutch did not care much about it.

Judging from the translation I found, it doesn't seem to contain much
inspiring rhetoric.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/before-1600/plakkaat-van-verlatinghe-1581-

july-26.php

It was not considered to be a matter of great importance when made,
just a routine matter that had to be taken care of.
At the time the Dutch were in great trouble,
and they were trying to get some other king to taske over,
in exchange for sending an army to fight the Spanish.
Elizabeth could have become queen of the Netherlands,
but she declined.
The Dutch discovered soon afterwards
that they didn't need help after all.

Post by Jerry Friedman
That page says the Act of Abjuration was well known to the drafter of
the Declaration of Independence, but it doesn't give a source for that claim.

Post by J. J. Lodder
(unlike Americans who feel that their Declaration
is the most important document in the history of the world)

Well, along with our Constitution and the Bible.

Americans are generally not known for modesty about their history.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
They had to dig it up from the archives
when a visiting American

former

Yes, of course, just establishing that PTD wouldn't guess,

Jan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
professor of constitutional law
said that he would like to see the original.
<https://www.ad.nl/nieuws/wim-overkomt-niets-per-ongeluk~ab61221b/42632383/>
LtoR: Director of the 'Rijksmuseum', Burgomaster of Amsterdam,
American visitor, Prime minister.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] So the Dutch parliament made an Act of Leaving
that declared all of his titles to be void, never to be reestablished.
It is the first place in history
where the principle that kings, apart from questionable divine rights,
have duties to the people and that The People
have the right to depose an unjust king.

...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jefferson's declaration of independence reads in parts
like an almost verbatim copy.

Of course. Which parts? How would Jefferson have accessed
a copy?

I'm afraid that is unknown. But in the 18th century
the Dutch Republic was one of the major powers in Europe.
(and much hated by all crowned heads for being a republic,
and therefore an example for their possibly unruly subjects)
You might want to have a look at
<https://news.wisc.edu/was-declaration-of-independence-inspired-by-dutch/>
or other similar sources.

...
You missed the "which parts" question.

In particular the list of grievances, I think.

It's quite long and detailed in the Plakkaat, and I don't think the English
translation is very literal, so I'd have to be shown the "almost verbatim"
similarities.

Post by J. J. Lodder
how to convince a nation of god-fearing protestants
that their king, placed by god himself above them,
could be disposed.
In both cases, despite the lofty words,
it was above all the matter of taxation that did it.

Hence "no taxation without representation".

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman
The Wikipedia article on our Declaration of Independence says most
historians don't think the Act of Abjuration (as it seems to be called in
English) had any influence on it, citing Armitage, /The Declaration of
Making the Declaration of Independence/.

Post by J. J. Lodder
FYI, The Dutch did not care much about it.

Judging from the translation I found, it doesn't seem to contain much
inspiring rhetoric.

...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman
That page says the Act of Abjuration was well known to the drafter of
the Declaration of Independence, but it doesn't give a source for that claim.

...

I mean drafters.

[Quinn C]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
They had to dig it up from the archives
when a visiting American

former

Yes, of course, just establishing that PTD wouldn't guess,

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
professor of constitutional law
said that he would like to see the original.

There's a cultural difference between the US and Germany in full
display: in Germany, you're "professor" for life*, but not "president".

* if you have the equivalent of tenure.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Quinn C

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
They had to dig it up from the archives
when a visiting American

former

Yes, of course, just establishing that PTD wouldn't guess,

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
professor of constitutional law
said that he would like to see the original.

There's a cultural difference between the US and Germany in full
display: in Germany, you're "professor" for life*, but not "president".
* if you have the equivalent of tenure.

I understood that for Obama the opposite was the case.
Usually professor wannabees fight fiercely to get tenure.
The UoC Law School did what they could to get Obama to accept tenure,
but he declined,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Quinn C

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
They had to dig it up from the archives
when a visiting American

former

Yes, of course, just establishing that PTD wouldn't guess,

Once again, no hint of a date was offered.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Quinn C

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
professor of constitutional law
said that he would like to see the original.

Still no indication that anyone but your initial source has accepted
his unlikely suggestion.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Quinn C
There's a cultural difference between the US and Germany in full
display: in Germany, you're "professor" for life*, but not "president".
* if you have the equivalent of tenure.

That's what "for life" means.

Post by J. J. Lodder
I understood that for Obama the opposite was the case.
Usually professor wannabees fight fiercely to get tenure.
The UoC Law School did what they could to get Obama to accept tenure,
but he declined,

What makes you "understand" that?

Professors usually resist department chair or dean appointments,
because the duties take enormous amounts of time and keep them
from their research and teaching, but why do you imagine he would
have turned down a salary increase?

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Quinn C
There's a cultural difference between the US and Germany in full
display: in Germany, you're "professor" for life*, but not "president".
* if you have the equivalent of tenure.

I understood that for Obama the opposite was the case.
Usually professor wannabees fight fiercely to get tenure.
The UoC Law School did what they could to get Obama to accept tenure,
but he declined,

Because he didn't want to teach full-time.

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Quinn C
There's a cultural difference between the US and Germany in full
display: in Germany, you're "professor" for life*, but not "president".
* if you have the equivalent of tenure.

I understood that for Obama the opposite was the case.
Usually professor wannabees fight fiercely to get tenure.
The UoC Law School did what they could to get Obama to accept tenure,
but he declined,

Because he didn't want to teach full-time.

I know. The UoC was pestered by republicans to make them say
that Obama had not 'really' been a professor.
They made it clear that he really was.

Post by Jerry Friedman
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

'Lector' was a rank in some European universities.
They gave lectures, but didn't have the ius promovendi.
In the Netherlands all this has changed:
the Lector is now a Professor-A,
with the same rights as the Professor-B,
(who gets paid more)
Both are called professor,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Quinn C
There's a cultural difference between the US and Germany in full
display: in Germany, you're "professor" for life*, but not "president".
* if you have the equivalent of tenure.

I understood that for Obama the opposite was the case.
Usually professor wannabees fight fiercely to get tenure.
The UoC Law School did what they could to get Obama to accept tenure,
but he declined,

Because he didn't want to teach full-time.

I know. The UoC was pestered by republicans to make them say
that Obama had not 'really' been a professor.
They made it clear that he really was.

Post by Jerry Friedman
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

That is specific to the Law School. The rank of "Senior
Lecturer" does not exist in the rest of the U of C.

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Lector' was a rank in some European universities.
They gave lectures, but didn't have the ius promovendi.
the Lector is now a Professor-A,
with the same rights as the Professor-B,
(who gets paid more)
Both are called professor,

Irrelevant.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Arindam Banerjee

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by occam
Is "impeachment" not impeachment, unless the Senate says so?
The press has been full of headlines of Trumps "impeachment". However,
due to the two-step nature of the procedure involving: 1-The House of
Representatives; 2- Senate, the headlines give a misleading impression,
in my opinion.
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly labelled as
"the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US. This implies that
*starting* the process of impeachment is regarded as "impeachment",
irrespective of the outcome?
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since Twitter/Facebook
deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Think of impeachment as an "accusation". Also an "indictment".
The House accuses/indicts; the Senate tries him.

I have to admit that the US Constution offers a great improvement
over the regular method of dealing with errant (ersatz) kings,
which was to take their heads off,

Was that method followed by the Dutch?

Might have been, but the miscreant had left for Madrid,
and he never returned. [1]
There would have been good reason,
for he had William of Orange (aka the Taciturn) murdered.
That certainly counts as 'high crime'.

Whatever little I know of Dutch history comes from reading Dumas' "The Black Tulip".

My wife and I visited the museums in Amsterdam, took guided tours, had a great time for about 4 days. I did not know that the hotel Bilderburg where we stayed was so famous as a nest for billionaires. We had got a "once in a lifetime" discount, which may have been real for once.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jan
[1] So the Dutch parliament made an Act of Leaving
that declared all of his titles to be void, never to be reestablished.
It is the first place in history
where the principle that kings, apart from questionable divine rights,
have duties to the people and that The People
have the right to depose an unjust king.
Jefferson's declaration of independence reads in parts
like an almost verbatim copy.

I vaguely remember that Kalinga was an oligarchic republic before it was conquered by Ashoka, about 250 BC or so. Athens was a sort of republic with direct democracy. Then one Tarquin was booted out by the Romans, for raping Lucrece.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Arindam Banerjee

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Arindam Banerjee

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by occam
When is 'impeachment' truly impeachment? Or to put the question
Is "impeachment" not impeachment, unless the Senate says so?
The press has been full of headlines of Trumps "impeachment".
1-The House of Representatives; 2- Senate, the headlines give a
misleading impression, in my opinion.
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly
labelled as "the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US.
This implies that *starting* the process of impeachment is
regarded as "impeachment", irrespective of the outcome?
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since
Twitter/Facebook deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Think of impeachment as an "accusation". Also an "indictment".
The House accuses/indicts; the Senate tries him.

I have to admit that the US Constution offers a great improvement
over the regular method of dealing with errant (ersatz) kings,
which was to take their heads off,

Was that method followed by the Dutch?

Might have been, but the miscreant had left for Madrid,
and he never returned. [1]
There would have been good reason,
for he had William of Orange (aka the Taciturn) murdered.
That certainly counts as 'high crime'.

Whatever little I know of Dutch history comes from reading Dumas' "The Black Tulip".

Yes, quite romantic.
The murder of the De Witt brothers [1] by Orangist rabble
really happened like in the novel,
but the tulip mania was 40 years earlier.
And there still are not really black tulips.
What is caled 'black' is a deep dark purple, really.

Post by Arindam Banerjee
My wife and I visited the museums in Amsterdam, took guided tours, had a
great time for about 4 days. I did not know that the hotel Bilderburg
where we stayed was so famous as a nest for billionaires. We had got a
"once in a lifetime" discount, which may have been real for once.

It was just that they hosted the first Bilderberg conference. (1954)
At the time it was a quiet family-run hotel, (now a chain)
and billionaires weren't around yet.

Jan

1] one of the only five political murders in the Netherlands,
over more than 700 years of history, so not too bad a score.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Arindam Banerjee

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Arindam Banerjee

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by occam
When is 'impeachment' truly impeachment? Or to put the question
Is "impeachment" not impeachment, unless the Senate says so?
The press has been full of headlines of Trumps "impeachment".
1-The House of Representatives; 2- Senate, the headlines give a
misleading impression, in my opinion.
What seems clear is that the Trump has now been irreversibly
labelled as "the (only) twice-impeached president" of the US.
This implies that *starting* the process of impeachment is
regarded as "impeachment", irrespective of the outcome?
[Aside: Hasn't the world become a quieter place since
Twitter/Facebook deprived Trump of his noisy toys?]

Think of impeachment as an "accusation". Also an "indictment".
The House accuses/indicts; the Senate tries him.

I have to admit that the US Constution offers a great improvement
over the regular method of dealing with errant (ersatz) kings,
which was to take their heads off,

Was that method followed by the Dutch?

Might have been, but the miscreant had left for Madrid,
and he never returned. [1]
There would have been good reason,
for he had William of Orange (aka the Taciturn) murdered.
That certainly counts as 'high crime'.

Whatever little I know of Dutch history comes from reading Dumas' "The Black Tulip".

Yes, quite romantic.
The murder of the De Witt brothers [1] by Orangist rabble
really happened like in the novel,
but the tulip mania was 40 years earlier.
And there still are not really black tulips.
What is caled 'black' is a deep dark purple, really.

Post by Arindam Banerjee
My wife and I visited the museums in Amsterdam, took guided tours, had a
great time for about 4 days. I did not know that the hotel Bilderburg
where we stayed was so famous as a nest for billionaires. We had got a
"once in a lifetime" discount, which may have been real for once.

It was just that they hosted the first Bilderberg conference. (1954)
At the time it was a quiet family-run hotel, (now a chain)
and billionaires weren't around yet.
Jan
1] one of the only five political murders in the Netherlands,
over more than 700 years of history, so not too bad a score.

I thought they were peaceful to a fault, but then...
https://groups.google.com/g/aus.politics/c/NINSn4N2hBE/m/jERLIDPJDgAJ
came along and provided a somewhat different story.