THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DISTRUCTION DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK

“Think about that impeachment trial in the Senate. Biden has a son on the board of corrupt company in a country with a corrupt government, and he demands –publicly bragging about it — that corrupt government fire the prosecutor investigating the company his son works for or no foreign aid.”

Thanks Tom, another excellent example of a double standard where, without much real evidence, Republicans practice the politics of personal destruction by spreading accusations, innuendoes of impropriety and baseless conspiracies. Your complaint about Hunter Biden must follow this fractured fairy tale logic:

1. Hunter wasn’t qualified for the job or the pay he got in the Ukraine. This alone makes Hunter, like a long line of presidential and VP relatives, at worst guilty of the non-crime of unauthorized influence peddling. But yes, it does if the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

2. From that appearance, however, you have to make the accusation that Hunter was doing something more criminal than trading on the family name. Based upon what?

3. Next, without a stitch of real evidence, you just l leap to the conclusion that, despite it being the express and widely agreed upon foreign policy of our government and our allies to have the guy removed, Joe Biden only got a corrupt prosecutor fired to protect his son from being investigated for, uh, crimes? What crimes? Having a famous Dad? Committing the non crime of nepotism?

Have I got about right your tenuous logic in the Republican practice of politics of personal destruction fabricated on baseless rumor, mere appearance, innuendo and gossip? The exact practice of the politics of personal destruction that Trump is being impeached for because he, in the sick process, sacrificed national security, enlisted a foreign power to interfere in our election, and according to the GAO, broke the law to boot?

Yes, every appearance of impropriety by a Democrat is worthy a jump right allegations of criminality, but meanwhile Trump has surrounded himself with his relatives, and his family members are openly being given jobs IN OUR GOVERNMENT BY HIM for which they have no qualifications and with which they can trade for prestige and profit now and for the rest of their lives. Ya, no double standard here? No appearance of impropriety in the Trump family nepotism? Also, while continuing to participate in promoting their father’s political aspirations, the grown Trump boys continue to make money for their Dad by raking in business payments from crony capitalists and foreign governments alike. But you don’t see any possibility for corrupt influence buying in Trump’s scheme? Of course not. How could anything so obviously true make for a real fun reputation killing conspiracy? There’s no Democrats involved?

You’re all about the God’s truth here, not fomenting false accusations based on nothing more than appearance and rumor? Sure….

And I’m the one falsely playing the innocent? I honestly think that you are more naive than dubious in this absurd double standard, but come on brother? The tribalistic blindness of this isn’t even close anymore. Your emperor isn’t wearing a stitch and he hasn’t been for a while. As I said before, Trump is the King of the Politics of Personal Destruction. It’s been his schtick from the beginning. How can you ignore something so obvious, and even blame the other side for doing it?😎

Liz,

Let’s get real for a minute. Is politics dirty? Sure. I believe it was LBJ who, when an aid said another politician might oppose him, dismissed it by saying something like, “Nope, I’ve got his pecker in my pocket”.

There is a difference, however, between playing rough hard ball and breaking all the rules. There is a difference between shading perfect virtue in order to make yourself look good and openly saying that you promote vice because virtue is for suckers. The (perhaps naive) confidence we have in our best institutions of government depends upon even the most cynical politician maintaining at least the veneer of civility and goodness.

Doug has alluded to this already, but this is what is the remarkable difference between Trump and all the other presidents of the modern era. Even Nixon knew he had to at least APPEAR honest and noble. With Trump, there is not even the pretense, and his fans, hating the opposition more than they love virtue, just lap it up.

“You are not playing by any rules except the Law of the Jungle.”

Is that what you think? Isn’t the law of the jungle the epitome of “natural law”?

So you disagree with the SCOTUS on a few decisions? Don’t you think that the other side disagrees with these men and women in black robes on a few decisions to? So you have a dispute? You are certain that you are morally and historically right. They are certain that they are also morally and historically right. Throw some pride of inerrant religious certainty in there and soon each side starts to demonize the intentions of the opposition as well (even though the savior in our common religion often frowned on the pride that is shown when we stupid mortal sinners make such judgments of others).

Even if you somehow were able to wrestle the tyranny of the law to your peculiar religious ideological belief system on every issue of what others should legally be allowed to do and not to do, how long do you think it would be before someone in your own religious denomination would cry heresy at you and demand their own tyranny of the law? (How many denominations of Christianity are there? How many angry schisms?)

Ok, with such moral, religious and ideological impasses constantly brewing and schisming (because that is what we stupid humans do) what process would you recommend for resolving such disputes? Would that process be perfect or would it have to be full of balances and compromises?

You know that the original law of the jungle was trial by combat. Men thought disagreement was resolved by battle and the idea was that a perfect God would not let the wrong person win. You know that the fragile institutions of law that we have now are only a substitute for hacking each other up, but we could go back to that process again in no time at all, don’t you think? We just have to stop having confidence in the slowly built thousands of years old system we call The Rule of Law, and it will collapse overnight. The only real question here is how much are you willing to let who you think is the wrong side win sometimes before you are willing to throw the rules and the process out and return to the law of the jungle? Baseball ain’t baseball without rules, a regulation playing field and umpires you know. Take all that away and its just a bunch of guys with bats and hard round projectiles – what do you think they will do with those if there are no rules?

I remember a saying someone said once about arguments with his spouse: He said he learned that in most things, he could either be right all the time or he could be happy. Obviously, there is a point where one can be victimized by this, but for my 40 year marriage I’ve found it to be true.

I’m sure there are black and white moral moments where someone”s ideals should not be compromised. In studying and practicing the law, in looking at history, it has been amazing to me just how rare those moments actually appear (and even then, how often we fail to live up to the test). The best legal settlements that I witnessed usually meant that both sides were at least a little unhappy.

Some people like to say that they are willing to compromise on everything but principle. My experience is that principle is the main thing that people have to be able to compromise on if they ever want to get along together, and that includes married couples, families, communities, nations and between countries. A spouse that is unwilling to compromise on what he thinks are his or her rock hard principles is usually either a tyrant or soon to be single. If neither spouse can ever compromise, their marriage is doomed. (This inability is perhaps the main reason why so many marriages fail). If this is true of marriages, why do people think that the law should be any different?

It seems to me that part of the problem is that, as Jesus says, there really is no moral principle that is not founded in love. And the essence of love, as Jesus also showed and taught, is manifested in forgiveness, open compassion, mercy and mutual understanding. Anybody who has been married very long also knows that love means a great deal of the same kind of love. Why would we think that justice in the law doesn’t mean the same manifestations of love?

Tom, if the worst moral crisis that we have to compromise on is whether to legally let Steve marry Bruce or to let Susan marry Jane, then our world is going pretty well I think and we should be full of the joy of gratitude. This gay marriage debate really a first world problem. Figuring out whether to feed yourself some crumbs so you have the strength to carry her to help or to feed your child so that she does not stave, now there is a nightmare compromise of principle. End our justice system over such nonsense, and people may have to deal with that nightmare.

I agree that life is all about choices though, and yet we all die in this life. Therefore our choices must be the ones that give our life and death meaning. Jesus showed us that only meaningful eternal choices come out of love, even sacrificial love. What did we learn from the Pharisees’ emphasis on the sanctity of rules at the expense of love?

“The reason Pelosi wants the Senate to call witnesses is that Congress did not make a case for impeachment.”

Where in the Constitution does it say that the House has to try the whole case for impeachment? This is like saying that the prosecutor has to make his whole case during the indictment stage. Trials have witnesses and other evidence. Even if a prosecutor made the case in the indictment phase with witnesses and evidence, he would have to make the whole case again with the same and perhaps even more witnesses and evidence in the trial phase. It’s a different standard of proof. The House only requires a simply majority to impeach whereas the Senate requires two thirds.

The trial in the Senate against Johnson had more than 20 witnesses. The only reason they didn’t call as many witnesses during the Clinton trial isn’t because they did not call enough in the House – it was because Ken Starr had already had filmed depositions of them all. There literally was nothing that either side needed or even could add.

By comparison, Trump illegally blocked key witnesses from appearing during the Impeachment Hearings. Your argument there was that it was all second hand information at the indictment phase. Now at the trial phase, you suddenly don’t want the first hand witnesses (Trump’s own people) to appear either? What parts of the truth are you afraid will come out? Your big argument during the impeachment phase was that it was too rushed and one-sided to be fair. So why the hurry when Republicans are running the show? Why not slow it down and go for full exoneration?

Finally, if Trump did not actually do the things that he is accused of, then the main witnesses to the events (mostly his own people) should exonerate him. Total exoneration should set him up well to be reelected. On the other hand, particularly with independent voters, won’t the quick effort to sweep this under the rug always leave doubt as to Trump’s guilt? Again what are you afraid of if not the truth?

Here’s the rub Tom, and I think you know it. The charge is that Trump had an illegal scheme to trade arms for foreign dirt on his political opposition. Every day more evidence of the truth of this comes out The only possible reason for all the process arguments at this point is that you know the charges are true. So then this begs these questions: do you think what Trump is charged with is ok, or do you think that it is not ok but you don’t think Trump should be impeached for it. If you believe the former, then of course you want to quit highlighting the immorality of it all, and that’s pretty disturbing. If you think that latter, then I think that that is a valid, even moral response, but only if it is admitted by all the acquitting Senators so that they don’t endorse such future behavior, perhaps even by a Democrat next time.

Tom,

There’s a certain irony that you want to discuss the up coming impeachment trial here. After all, Trump is impeached because he violated the Constitution when he illegally used his office to practice the politics of person destruction and then he unconstitutionally used his office to cover it up.

“What the Senate does at that point is up to the Senate, not Nancy Pelosi.”

Any unbiased observer would say this this is not exactly true. The Constitution makes Impeachment a political check on power by politicians, not judges. (The Framers considered an actual trial in the SCOTUS but decided against it for practical political reasons). Politically, the majority of Americans, even the majority of Republicans, want witnesses in the Senate Trial.

By holding up the articles, Pelosi kept the issue alive long enough to force Republican Senators and Trump supporters to flub the same questions about truth that you cant answer: What about the truth coming out are you afraid of? Should the truth exonerate an innocent president? Can you seriously continue to accuse the House of conducting a sham witch hunt if the Senate wants a quick cover up? Politically, it obviously seems two faced to scream sham process complaints at the House and then whine that you don’t want a full process in the Senate, don’t you think?

Meanwhile, Trump’s criminal conspiracy, like all conspiracies with too many bit players, just keeps leaking out – drip, drip, drip, which in turn pressures vulnerable Republicans on why they are afraid of the truth and eases pressure on vulnerable Democrats who say that they just want the whole truth from the crucible of a full and fair trial in the Senate.

Could the tides turn on Trump and force his removal? Not likely, but the daily drip, drip, drip of truth makes this an increasing possibility to Trump and Moscow Mitch that must be terrifying. Trump’s power comes more from fear than from comradeship. How many Senate Republicans secretly hate Trump and what he is doing to the country and their party? 20? 30? Unlike jurors to a court trial the jurors to this political trial are talking to each other constantly and constantly testing the political winds, don’t you think?

Is this impeachment ultimately going to be an election winner for Trump and other Republicans? That remains to be seen,. However, every political level that we can measure, it appears to me that Pelosi is winning. The best evidence that shows that Nancy is actually winning the political game is how much you supposedly confident winners rage and whine at her about process instead of about actual proof.