The problem between Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi/NRF is that Mitch McConnell has no concern or moral code about the future of the country and democratic norms and Nancy Pelosi and every Democrat who voted to impeach the President sees that there is a criminal (who *admitted to his crimes*) in office.
don't care enough about impeachment; we already know what's going to happen anyway. I guess it's enough of a moral victory for the left, but it's just going to be used as ammo for the right when reelection comes around ("the dems tried to impeach me BUT the couldnt. SAD!")
Feldman is ultimately correct -- these are the types of offenses which the framers intended to be impeachable, and the impeachment of the President is wholly justified by the fact pattern. As for McConnell, he is simply a politician doing his job, so I don't think it tells us very much to read into his statements. The merit of the current impeachment is irrespective of the merit of the previous attempts in the House. However, ultimately, the Senate is empowered to convict, and whatever the Senate decides fulfills the constitutional process, even if it's an outcome we consider to be unjust (which it will be). Still, it is good that Americans have been able to see the impeachment process play out and see the facts for themselves.
McConnell just totally talks past the real objections here, talking about past impeachment attempts and comparing this investigation to earlier ones (which didn't involve the president openly admitting to the accused conduct). And also making some insinuation that law professors are liberal plants. Ridiculous
Feldman is right on constitutional history, of course, but it boggles the mind why he's called as a "witness", when he's actually functioning an a quasi-attorney for the investigation. I also believe he's mistaken regarding the "high" adjective: it's not simply related to the office, but to the most grievous crimes and misdemeanors.
i agree that feldman is correct constitutionally, but i also agree with @saturn that it's unfortunately only going to embolden trump's base and make them convinced that democrats are purely political actors who are just pissed off about trump. speaking from experience bc almost my entire family supports trump
Two things about McConnell and Feldman's speech yesterday struck me and reminded me of some of the conversations about jury deliberations and nullifications from yesterday. First, McConnell seemed to be implying that the amount of time required to investigate corresponded with the legitimacy of an impeachment. As Trump's trial took only 12 weeks, it was less legitimate than Nixon's yearlong process. Would we say the same thing about the length of a jury deliberation? If a jury deliberates for one hour instead of 10, is the decision less sound?
Congress is under no obligation to investigate slowly or to employ the DOJ. Remember the term "sole power" Mitch? Also convenient to forget that the AG refused to initiate an investigation despite a whistleblower complaint an criminal referal.
Noah Feldman's account is cogent, impressive, and entirely persuasive to me. McConnell's, by contrast, evades the central issue of what Trump actually did, focusing instead on the irrelevant point of the length of time it took for the House to draw up articles. But if we are to analyze both speeches as instances of rhetoric, intended to persuade or to accomplish some effect, we have to go beyond "Feldman's is on point and McConnell's is not." We need to ask WHO IS THE AUDIENCE FOR EACH? Does the speaker accomplish what he seeks? Given the speaker's audience and interests, how might we go about persuading the speaking to change his mind?
McConnell is full of shit! This is a person who is so steeped in partisan politics and who is the embodiment of power politics and running roughshod over the opposition and then he has the gall to complain about a process being partisan. Please! Feldman is ultimately right, but his argument is irrelevant. Impeachment is a political process and the house can impeach for whatsoever reason it deems to be high crimes and and misdemeanors!
McConnell andFeldman are speaking past each other when you compare both clips. McConnell purely talks about process, couching it in terms like "this is the greatest hoax" and the "fastest impeachment" in history. By saying the Democrats had previously called for impeachment, he seeks to delegitimize the whole inquiry, regardless of how damaging the information may be. It's a strategy that falls apart when you analyze it closely
Clearly defining what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means is very helpful to the entire impeachment discussion. With past precedents (Watergate), it would seem that bribery in Trump's case would constitute one such high crime/misdemeanor, particularly since there are such striking similarities to cases in the past, not to mention the other charges.
I found McConnell's speech passionate and convincing. It is sad that we arrive (myself included) with our preconceived notions, the very same ones that both parties in the impeachment themselves possess, and then use our biases to overconfidently declare righteous indignation at the cogent arguments that oppose us. Yes, Professor Feldman did indeed present clear LEGAL arguments for impeachment, but is it at all deniable the extreme bias and misconduct rampant throughout the process? Is this not a similar abuse of high crimes and misdemeanor for electoral gain by the very party seeking to uphold the Constitution?
Feldman’s take is legalistic and technically correct, but I find it wholly inaccessible to the average voter. Even if it was composed in a more user-friendly matter, I don’t know if it would sway the public
Also if we assigned ourselves names on here, isn't there a risk that people would pretend to be other people to get them in trouble? Like "I'm Frank, that Eugene is a loser and a moron." So they would get docked participation points? You laugh, but this is HLS Paper Chase...hard core gunners are going to try to succeed at all costs.
responding to jordan's point, i think the difference is the subject of the supposed jury nullification. i think jury nullification comes into play, and is important, for the people to 1) show that they think a law is unjust 2) save someone from losing their life/liberty in light of that injustice. that jury may not be as informed about the law, but they are more informed on the specifics of the case than anyone else, and they are able to see all evidence and discuss amongst themselves. furthermore, a jury is responding to a specific question. as far as the election goes, the public is not able to hear all evidence and discuss with everyone the specifics of the case. an election is not about a specific issue. impeachment also is not about civil liberties but about power and whether an individual deserves to have that power. thus, i think jury nullification is important for the voice of the people in a trial, but i think that it is completely different than asking that the public to use their vote to decide on the complex issues of impeachment