‘What did he do wrong?`

While in Orlando I chatted with an elderly Trump voter who seemed rattled by his impeachment. “What did he do wrong?” she earnestly asked. We discussed bribery of a foreign leader, illegally withholding military aid etc. but what bothered her the most is this: “I wonder if he’s telling the truth.” Could be a lesson there, his lies might be piling up enough to unravel his base.

Share
Avatar photo

Author: craigcrawford

Trail Mix Host. Lapsed journalist, author & retired pundit happily promoting nothing but the truth for Social Security checks.

45 thoughts on “‘What did he do wrong?`”

  2. Lawrence Tribe has his say:

     

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/19/trumps-lawyers-shouldnt-be-allowed-use-bogus-legal-arguments-impeachment/

    The argument that only criminal offenses are impeachable has died a thousand deaths in the writings of all the experts on the subject, but it staggers on like a vengeful zombie. In fact, there is no evidence that the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was understood in the 1780s to mean indictable crimes.

  3. Jamie…. Heinlein has a book which is not a novel or story, but is a collection of pieces he wrote over the years….. many non-fiction…..don’t remember what it was exactly, but H had a lot of opinions which I considered questionable.  I’ll try to dig up or remember the name of the book.

  4. His base won’t care if his words lie, because his actions tell the truth as they relate to their concerns.  Mexico is trying to stop the entry of Hondurans into their country, because they won’t simply pass through on their way to the US.  He’s cut a trade deal with Chiner, although he caused a problem and then backed off, so it’s really a matter of feeling better by no longer hitting your head against a wall.  NAFTA is, supposedly, better for the US now; I’ve not read any info on the changes yet.  His true base won’t change.   What might change are the minds of the manufacturing sector that was promised it was all coming back.   It’s probably not, and if it does, much of it will be automated.    What does the world do with all of these people?  It’s the one thing no candidate mentions, but it impacts everything from the climate to the economy.     Yang has said that the value of a human being has to be seen as more than their economic/human capital value. I’d like to live in that world, but I don’t know if it’s possible.   We may be too far gone.    

  5. Sturgeone

    I had always noted his rather extreme libertarian, survival of the fittest, and fondness for group marriage and orgiastic behavior.  My favorite “Time Enough For Love” is loaded with that but I’ve always set it aside as poetic license in favor of a good story.  This just hit me from an odd angle, but more that I was surprised that I just hadn’t noticed it when first read. 

     

  7. Sturge, are you thinking of Off the Main Sequence or Requiem: Collected Works and Tributes to the Grand Master?  They are both collections of short stories and other various works published after Heinlein’s death, although Off the Main Sequence wasn’t published until 2005, so I’m guessing it isn’t that one. I wasn’t a huge Heinlein fan, although I did like some of his works, but my harpsichord builder buddy was a Heinlein junkie.  If there had been such things as HeinCon he would’ve been there dressed up as one of Bob’s main characters.

  8. Pat, I hope the House managers have the good sense to have Tribe heavily involved in the brief and argument drafting to cut down Dershowitz’s arguments about what is and is not impeachable.  As our buddy George Conway pointed out, re: Starr:

    Clinton’s core offense was to obstruct a private civil action about pre-presidential conduct and cover up sexual misconduct — none of which had involved abuse of presidential power. From a constitutional standpoint, that’s a trifle compared with extorting a foreign nation by cutting off federal military funds in an effort to interfere with an upcoming U.S. presidential election.
     
    As if that were not enough, in the Clinton case, Starr argued that Clinton had committed an impeachable offense by blocking witness testimony and documents. Oops.

    While it might make for even more tense dinners with Kellyanne, I’d love to see George and Larry on the House legal team.

  10. Jamie
    I dug my copy of Stranger in a Strange Land out looking for a quote. I reread parts of it and noticed the same problem you did.  Also I noticed how it was set in the “Playboy ” ethos.  I think Bink pointed out  that all the women threw themselves at Mike. At the time it was written it was regarded as enlightened sexually, now a days it seems as dated as an “I love Lucy” show.  Remember it was copywrited in 1961 that makes it a 1950’s book. A lot of change in the last 60 years.  
    Jack

  12. Pogo
    It would be interesting to see a conservative case for impeachment as well as a liberal one. I think both can be made and it would push the idea that Trump is truly radical and dangerous.
    Jack

  13. Jack

    It does all seem sort of hippy dippy.  Of course he was living up in the Santa Cruz mountains at the time I was living the Campbell.  The stories of the area were rampant during that time period.  L. Ron Howard was a guest until they had a falling out.  A lot of story lines came out of that relationship. 

     

  14. I still think the House should have tossed in a treason or two.  They guy did it in front of us.
     
    Something reminded me of the day when I saw a Russian tractor in a Mississippi farm field.  This was during the depths of the Cold War in the seventies.  I was shocked that anyone in the Deep South would be “cozy” with the Soviets in any manner.  But to have a Russian tractor instead of a good American one was shocking.  It could be the Russians were working their way into the heads of republicans for decades longer than I thought.

  15. Jack,  I hear what you’re saying about a conservative legal argument for impeachment. That would be something like abuse of power is within the founders’ understanding of what constituted high crimes and misdemeanors and that refusing to cooperate with the House investigations constitutes obstruction of justice, which is an enumerated crime – a high crime I’d argue – and is therefore solidly impeachable conduct.  I’m not sure what the liberal argument would be other than even if what is alleged is not an enumerated crime and is not what the founders had in mind when they included the impeachment clause in the Constitution, in our world it is impeachable conduct. 
    BTW, one thing to keep in mind – in the Clinton impeachment all the testimony presented was gathered in depositions, three of which were taken during the Senate phase  of the process, in which Squeaky was a manager of the prosecution.  Under the Federal Rules of Civil (and criminal) Procedure, deposition testimony is admissible in trial directly and as rebuttal, and there is no legal milieu in which the trial phase of a prosecution is limited to the information gathered in the charging phase, so I don’t get the argument Squeaky and the repugnicans are making now that the Senate  is limited to the evidence gathered by the House in the impeachment investigation.

  16. A nugget from Jennifer Rubin – 

    Law professor John Mikhail points out that “abuse of power was one of the articles of impeachment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee against Richard Nixon in 1974 and against Bill Clinton in 1998.” Likewise, “In the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, House Manager Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts defined ‘high crime or misdemeanor’ to include ‘the abuse of discretionary power from improper motives or for any improper purpose.’”

    Will that lead to SFB’s premature ouster from the People’s House?  No.  But it should help in November with purple State Senators who do the wrong thing in January/February.

  17. One last Dershowitzism then I’m off to do some work.

    A legal scholar on President Donald Trump’s legal team said an impeachable offense doesn’t have to be a crime in an interview with CNN about Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998.
     
    Harvard Law School emeritus professor Alan Dershowitz told Larry King Live in August 1998 that an impeachable offense “doesn’t have to be a crime” if the president is “somebody who completely corrupts the office.”
     
    He also said the act of impeachment was “like a non-violent revolution” and argued that the process amounted to the “most dramatic act of undoing democracy.”
     
    Footage of his interview with CNN 22 years ago has resurfaced after President Trump’s legal counsel revealed he would be arguing that the articles of impeachment filed by the House are “two non-criminal actions.”
     
    He told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that he would be making “what could be the most important argument on the floor,” paraphrasing an argument made by Justice Benjamin Curtis in the 1868 impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson that the framers of the Constitution intended impeachable conduct “only to be criminal-like conduct.”
     
    Speaking to CNN in 1998, then-Harvard Law Professor Dershowitz said: “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime, if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president, and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.”
    (Continues)

    Oh, Alan, you are becoming like almost every Republican (and in your case, Republican defender) who can’t quote themselves.

  18. senators need to be polled/politely asked if they intend to officially scrap or amend the current prohibitions in law about candidates taking foreign money/things of value for campaigns.  

    they should be questioned on whether they personally will sponsor or sign on or vote for such a change if they are arguing it’s okay and not a crime (violation of federal law) for  presidential candidate to do it.

  19. craig, on the issue of pay sites getting cranky about their stuff showing up for free around the internet:

    1. is it okay to copy and paste something from a tweet – say a reposted article or photo from one of those cranky pay-for-play sites? 

    2. even if we give clear attribution of source when lifting an article or photo or portion thereof, are they demanding we still need to get pay site’s formal consent?  

    3. what if it’s verbatim from s politician that’s quoted in the pay site’s article – his/her language certainly doesn’t fall under the pay site’s copyright purview, does it?

  20. Yeah, Poobah, what patd said.  I don’t really know the guidelines for fair use doctrine, and probably 90% of what I quote is from a site I pay for access to (Wapo being the primary source for my info).

  23. I saw on twitter where a NYT video of an African American security guard  working at NYT and  Biden met in an elevator.  If you get a chance to view it do so, I can’t link to it.  It shows why Biden is ahead in spite of being outspent by his opponents.  Oh and the security guard’s endorsement had over 3 times the views of the opinion page endorsement.  
    Jack

  25.  
    Idiocy from Nobel Prize Level Idiot
    joe hoeft of Russia’s gatewaypundit
    Headline : “MUST SEE LIST of President Trump’s Historical and Miraculous Accomplishments Three Years Into His Presidency” [The italics are mine]
     
    1st sentence : “President Donald J. Trump is celebrating arguably the best first three years for any President in US history since Washington.” [Obviously, hoeft never heard of Thomas Jefferson, who doubled the size of the USA]
    2d sentence :”And this is despite the fact that no President since Lincoln has faced the massive attacks from his adversaries that this President has faced.” [Also, obviously, hoeft never heard of James Garfield or John F. Kennedy]
    The Italics are mine

  26. pogo, if I calculated it right, that’s just less than 15 lies a day for every day of the 1095 since being sworn in.  heck, that’s not even one lie for every waking hour (he reportedly sleeps only 4 hours a night).   sure seemed more than that.

  28. headline, paragraph, link, paywall warning

    that way you’re driving traffic to content providers and promoting them, rather than “stealing” from them.

    i actually prefer when you steal because it’s more convenient for me.

  29. you could also rewrite content in your own words and say “[name of source] is reporting”, but that would be an unpaid full-time job.

  30. Craig, I’ve taken to asking the conservative deplorables, what has Trump done for you?  Try it.

  31. Also, you can ask them if they would put innocent children in cages, the rest of that conversation takes care of itself. 

  32. Bink – I try to use the built in link provider if there is one.
    Marching around with guns on your chest? That’s all about fear. By
    Petula Dvorak
    Y’all, it smelled like fear out here in Virginia.

    Scores of men — plus a handful of women — dressed up in battle rattle and draped themselves with assault weapons, long guns and handguns on Monday. They strapped hunting knives to their thighs and wore body armor and body cameras on their chests, shoulders and helmets.

    from The Washington Post

  33. i actually as a rule won’t click blind links, ever.  i need to see the full web address to feel comfortable, as clumsy as they can look on-screen.

  35. patd, if he was a constant commenter (apologies to Bigelow) that would be right, but he has increased his pace by a factor of 2 each year.  This past year his pace was pretty impressive (x>22/day), even by his standards, beating 2018 which was 3.8 times as many as 2017.

    In 2017, Trump made 1,999 false or misleading claims. In 2018, he added 5,689 more, for a total of 7,688. And in 2019, he made 8,155 suspect claims.
     

    In other words, in a single year, the president said more than total number of false or misleading claims he had made in the previous two years. Put another way: He averaged six such claims a day in 2017, nearly 16 a day in 2018 and more than 22 a day in 2019.

    BB, I read that Dvorak article and chuckled, and commented afterward about the danger of scratching itchy balls at a big dick convention when the dick being shown off is measured by its caliber.

  36. Broadcast of Heinlein’s 1950 Destination Moon:
    [audio src="https://ia802508.us.archive.org/31/items/OTRR_Dimension_X_Singles/Dimension_X_1950-06-24__12_DestinationMoon.mp3" /]

  37. …pretty cool that society delivered most of the fantastic technologies that your generation was promised in its youth by the 50s/60s-era Sci-Fi greats.

  39.  Having the condom represent the SFB admin on MLK jr day should about do it for anyone still on the fence about fat ass the golfing president.

  41. Or . . . you could just throw Ms Pat under the bus. snicker. 
     
    Seriously, a practice of credit, a couple of paragraphs quoted, & link ought to keep the offended hordes off of our backs. They must not have big audiences if the can pick us out of the ‘crowd’ reading their stuff.

  43. Is it true that trump and melanoma have purchased, and intend to be buried in, a crypt in the kremlin wall ?

    The rumor has the ring of truth to it, seeing as how his majesty loves walls so much.

  44. “i actually prefer when you steal because it’s more convenient for me”

    bink,  become the robin hood of blog forest?  yeah, that (stealing info from the richly literate & spreading the word to the unsubscribed), laziness or rewrite incapacity is my defense to the thievery charge.   “steal” was a dagger to my heart and I am sincerely sorry and penitent.  how can I atone –  saying a hundred “hail wapos” or posting fifty  NYT editorial recaps maybe? 

Comments are closed.