The Catholic Case Against Impeachment - Crisis

[HarryStotle]

99% are granted for one thing.
And there is no process for challenging them as with standard warrants where suppression motions are granted somewhere every day.

Probably because the agencies that submit most requests, the FBI and NSA, are supposedly unimpeachable law and order outfits.

You aren’t claiming the FBI is guilty of “overzealous law enforcement” all the time and commonly “mishandles” warrants, are you?

They are not to be trusted then?

So how do you square their penchant for common mishandling of FISA warrants with having an “adequate basis” for investigating Trump?

Perhaps they were “overzealous” and mishandled the evidence then and didn’t have anything like an “adequate” basis?

Keystone cops regarding FISA but unimpeachably thorough and judicious regarding Trump?

Uh huh.

 

[Maximus1]

Horowitz did a significant investigation and determined good grounds to open the investigation. This is a low threshold test. For everyone not just Trump.
You can do a Westlaw search to determine the suppression hearings granted by Federal Courts. There is a reason the founders included the 4th Amendment. The founders make it clear that we don’t just TRUST THEM.
And the FISA process is a unique process. Completely different than the threshold to open an investigation

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is a definitively Catholic position,…

C.S.Lewis wrote a book called “Mere Christianity”. In it he argued for keeping one’s Christian beliefs free from specific secular causes, so as not to make Christianity just another special interest, like saving the whales, or lowering taxes. The impeachment debate is just such a issue. You won’t find priests taking a position on this in their homilies, and for good reason. There is no Catholic position on this issue. Some may use their private understanding of their faith to arrive at their personal position. But it would be wrong form them to declare that their position is the one and only position allowed by the Church.

 

[niceatheist]

Guess we’ll find out after the next election on whether his reputation or those of the Dems will be hardest hit.

From where I’m sitting, many people who can’t stand Trump are planning to vote for him. They see the impeachment as nothing more than the Dems scrambling to get Trump out because they know he’s going to easily win re-election. (I don’t have their same faith that he’ll win, but having seen what the Dems are offering, I wouldn’t be surprised.)

Anyone who believes that, whether you’re pro or anti-impeachment, is being pretty naive. The Dems know very well there’s no hope of a conviction in the Senate. It’s likely one or two Dems will break ranks, and with the high bar of 67 Senators having to vote for removal, even if a few Republicans break ranks, it isn’t going to happen.

This is about going into an election year being able to say “Donald Trump is so bad we even had to impeach him, and the Republicans are so bad, they didn’t remove him from office.” None of this is actually about removing Trump, because the math is entirely against that.

 

[Horton]

This is about going into an election year being able to say “Donald Trump is so bad we even had to impeach him, and the Republicans are so bad, they didn’t remove him from office.” None of this is actually about removing Trump, because the math is entirely against that.

Then what does that say about the Democrats? What does this say about their confidence to actually win an election by simply running a better campaign? What does this say about their ability to run on a realistic platform with real life solutions to the real issues in this country such as immigration, prescription drug prices, crime, big excessive government and so on? How bad do they have to be to feel the only way to win an election is to destroy the opposition?

And please do not deflect with whataboutism, with negatives about Trump.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What does this say about their confidence to actually win an election by simply running a better campaign?

Even the best campaign can be detailed by a concerted disinformation campaign by foreign actors. We know the Russians have not let up from two years ago.

 

[Rau]

Then what does that say about the Democrats?

What would it say about the Democrats if impeachable behaviour (as the Dems see it) is not called out?

 

[Horton]

That is the deflection.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

This is about going into an election year being able to say “Donald Trump is so bad we even had to impeach him, and the Republicans are so bad, they didn’t remove him from office.” None of this is actually about removing Trump, because the math is entirely against that.

Then what does that say about the Democrats? What does this say about their confidence to actually win an election by simply running a better campaign? What does this say about their ability to run on a realistic platform with real life solutions to the real issues in this country such as immigration, prescription drug prices, crime, big excessive government and so on? How bad do they have to be to feel the only way to win an election is to destroy the opposition?

And please do not deflect with whataboutism, with negatives about Trump.

So you don’t want me to talk about why Gingrich pushed through an impeachment that was doomed to die in the Senate?

 

[Rau]

That is the deflection.

I don’t see how. You say the dems should not impeach and you list a set of failings you suspect a decision to impeach reveals. I question - what was the contrary course?

Your premise is that the Dems don’t have a basis to impeach; the Dems clearly don’t have that starting position.

 

[Theo520]

What would it say about the Democrats if impeachable behaviour (as the Dems see it) is not called out?

That qualification is not acceptable, Dems would claim Trump passing gas is an impeachable offense. Let’s stick to the high crimes mentioned in the constitution, not a dislike of strategy and style from the Dem point of view.

 

[niceatheist]

Rau:

What would it say about the Democrats if impeachable behaviour (as the Dems see it) is not called out?

That qualification is not acceptable, Dems would claim Trump passing gas is an impeachable offense. Let’s stick to the high crimes mentioned in the constitution, not a dislike of strategy and style from the Dem point of view.

And I’ve gone over this ad nauseum. The Framers based the notion of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” on the English Common Law notion, stemming out of the old English Parliament’s power to impeach officers and representatives of the Crown for crimes like abuse of power and self-enrichment, crimes that might not have any statutory reference at all. Hamilton directly refers to the British Parliament’s power of impeachment (with the House of Commons drawing up charges of impeachment, and the House of Lords holding the trial). In essence, the House of Representatives, like the House of Commons in Britain, was empowered to define what constituted high crimes and misdemeanors, and was not beholden to any Common Law or statutorily prohibited actions.

Again and again, I urge everyone to read Federalist #65. Hamilton went into detail as to why they empowered the House to impeach a President, and why the Senate was chosen for the trial, and directly referenced the British model. He (and likely all the Framers) foresaw that impeachment and removal would cause extraordinary debate between the President’s defenders and his opponents.

Unless you’re not an Originalist, in which case I guess you can try to make a claim that some specific set of crimes must be applied. I’d be interested in what informs your view that the House of Representatives is constrained in what it deems High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

There is a definitively Catholic position,…

C.S.Lewis wrote a book called “Mere Christianity”. In it he argued for keeping one’s Christian beliefs free from specific secular causes, so as not to make Christianity just another special interest, like saving the whales, or lowering taxes. The impeachment debate is just such a issue. You won’t find priests taking a position on this in their homilies, and for good reason. There is no Catholic position on this issue. Some may use their private understanding of their faith to arrive at their personal position. But it would be wrong form them to declare that their position is the one and only position allowed by the Church.

If Christianity – AKA God’s Truth – has nothing to say about justice in the human realm (saving whales and lowering taxes) then the human realm has nothing whatsoever to do with God’s justice.

Is that your position? That the human political state is a completely separate, i.e., non-overlapping, magisterium that is merely concerned with “secular causes” that Christians need not trouble themselves over?

I think this is a complete misreading of Lewis. Do you seriously think Lewis would have advised against voicing opposition to abortion on the pretext that killing human beings in the womb is merely a “secular cause” that Christians ought to avoid because it would appear to be only of “special interest?” What of slavery? Another “special interest” Christians should not have become involved in?

As to priests not taking “a position” on secular issues in their homilies, that would be contradicted by Pope Francis continually taking positions on “such issues.” In fact, you also seem to take positions on many issues.

Are you seriously claiming that your positions on those issues have nothing to do with your Christian beliefs?

I won’t believe you.

The impeachment of a political leader comes under the rubric of justice. If a proper understanding of justice (in the Christian sense) cannot resolve the question of whether or not Trump’s impeachment is just then Christ is not the fullness of Truth, and not fully the Way, nor a complete illumination of the Life.

Is Trump’s impeachment a matter of justice or merely a “secular cause” having nothing to do with justice?

Why not bracket off all human existence by asserting that human life means exactly nothing as far as Christianity is concerned?

Seems very odd that the entire third part of the Catechism is devoted to human Life in Christ, and specifically addresses human morality, the role of each person in human society and the role of the moral law in salvation.

 

[niceatheist]

Further to that, I’ll give you a good example of the notion of High Crimes and Misdemeanors that the authors of the Constitution would have been familiar with. In Massachusetts, just prior to the Revolutionary War, the Massachusetts assembly impeached Chief Justice Peter Oliver for taking an increased salary paid for by the Crown. Since he was an officer of the Crown, and certainly the Crown was entitled to offer him a raise, and he was entitled to accept it (none of the other justices did, mind you), no crime was committed. But considering the growing tensions among colonists to what they viewed as unjust taxation by the British Parliament, the move was extraordinarily unpopular with the good people of Massachusetts…

So, as you can see, the Framers, like the English Parliament and the American colonies before them, left the definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors open ended, not creating specific statutes and not tying an impeachable offense to any existing statute or judicial ruling.

 

[pnewton]

Then ask oneself (not you specifically, but anyone reading this): “Are those achievements significant?”

Some are, some aren’t and not all are his. I am quite unimpressed with half of this list, like 6,9, and 10. And calling the end of the Mueller investigation “exoneration” either shows an amazing bias, or lack of legal comprehension. I heard this list earlier this week in a home with a Trump shrine and had to bite my tongue out of courtesy.

It still hurts.

And no, the Ukraine issue never entered into my mind when I heard the list. The two issues are entirely unrelated in my thinking. I can believe the impeachment is partisan and unwarranted, and still believe the president had an unimpressive three years. The only thing I will give the impeachment is that it seems almost like karma that he has to deal with this, with all his rhetoric of locking up his political rival. It reminds me of the idea that we will be judged in the manner we judge others. It should be no surprise that revenge minded folk sought some misguided “lock him up” movement.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

There is a definitively Catholic position,…

C.S.Lewis wrote a book called “Mere Christianity”. In it he argued for keeping one’s Christian beliefs free from specific secular causes, so as not to make Christianity just another special interest, like saving the whales, or lowering taxes.

Chapter and verse?

Is this what you have in mind?

Book 3 Chapter 3 Social Morality

The second thing to get clear is that Christianity has not, and does not profess to have, a detailed political programme for applying “Do as you would be done by” to a particular society at a particular moment. It could not have. It is meant for all men at all times and the particular programme which suited one place or time would not suit another. And, anyhow, that is not how Christianity works. When it tells you to feed the hungry it does not give you lessons in cookery. When it tells you to read the Scriptures it does not give you lessons in Hebrew and Greek, or even in English grammar. It was never intended to replace or supersede the ordinary human arts and sciences: it is rather a director which will set them all to the right jobs, and a source of energy which will give them all new life, if only they will put themselves at its disposal.

And…

…the New Testament, without going into details, gives us a pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian society would be like. Perhaps it gives us more than we can take. It tells us that there are to be no passengers or parasites: if man does not work, he ought not to eat. Every one is to work with his own hands, and what is more, every one’s work is to produce something good: there will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them.

Perhaps, Lewis would have classed politicians as "passengers or parasites?"

In particular, those who "manufacture …silly luxuries and then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them."

Sounds a lot like Schiff and Pelosi’s manufacture of the “silly” impeachment scheme and the attendant “sillier” attempt to persuade the entire nation to buy it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think this is a complete misreading of Lewis.

Have you actually read his “Mere Christianity”? If you have, you know this is exactly what he was talking about.

If Christianity – AKA God’s Truth – has nothing to say about justice in the human realm (saving whales and lowering taxes) then the human realm has nothing whatsoever to do with God’s justice.

A mis-statement of my position. God’s truth does have something to say about saving the whales, but the Catholic Church does not have an official whale-saving policy that all believers must follow.

In fact, you also seem to take positions on many issues.

Yes, I can take positions on lots of issues. They are my own and not binding on anyone else.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I think this is a complete misreading of Lewis.

Have you actually read his “Mere Christianity”? If you have, you know this is exactly what he was talking about.

Multiple times.

See my last post.

If you have a different chapter and verse, please specify. We can discuss the actual words he wrote.

 

[HarryStotle]

A mis-statement of my position. God’s truth does have something to say about saving the whales, but the Catholic Church does not have an official whale-saving policy that all believers must follow.

The Church provides all the applicable principles, it is up to “all believers” to properly research and arrive at what constitutes proper “whale saving policy.”

That is nothing like your claim.

In it he argued for keeping one’s Christian beliefs free from specific secular causes, so as not to make Christianity just another special interest, like saving the whales, or lowering taxes.

Beliefs are NOT “free from specific secular causes.” Proper and true Christian beliefs are supposed to provide a set of enlightened Christian principles that guide us to the most appropriate solution to all causes, none of which are specifically “secular” in nature. God is intimately interested in all causes and all policies, saving whales and lowering the tax burden when necessary, being just two.

That hardly implies Christian beliefs are entirely “free from” specific secular causes, a point that Lewis didn’t argue for.

 

[tafan2]

I have never voted for a democratic presidential candidate in.my life. I happen to think a couple of those achievements are good, others are mmisstated or overstated or not true and a couple I don’t care about.

I do care about elected officials not abusing their power. I do care about the imperial presidency being rolled back.

I am not an extreme partisan. Indeed, largely thanks to Trump , I now dislike both political parties.