Many thanks for the fascinating discussion, Andy and Bill.
As I watch with increasing horror at what’s going on in the US under the Trump regime, I’ve never been more thankful for Australia’s parliamentary system.
I think it's important to do things just to remind the public that the law exists. It's good when states win injunctions even if he violates them and the courts refuse to hold him in contempt. Right now he went to "war" without even a fig leaf from Congress. Impeaching him, or even attempting to impeach him, reminds the public that this is illegal. Otherwise, he commits hundreds of crimes and quarter, and nothing happens, and the message is we haven't have a Constitution, we don't have laws, when it comes to the executive.
There are many dangers in this era. One danger is that Democrats aren't really fighting some stuff because they plan to hold the presidency one day and want unlimited power, too. So them doing something is good for me, someone who cares about limited government and the rule of law, because it makes it harder for them to manage that if they do get into power.
All that said, impeachment is and always has been a political matter. Nothing defines "impeachable" except Congress voting so. But you can use political processes to defend the law. We do and should all the time. Laws don't defend themselves; the political branches allow laws to function.
Re: Vance, it's a pipe dream, but I believe if you did "discovery" you'd find that he's involved in a lot of these decisions and could be impeached for his role, as a pair. If you held the speakership. Although then the Speaker being in line would be challenged, rightly, as unconstitutional.
>And for those who don’t have their pocket Constitution memorized: the 25th Amendment is >harder—it takes the vice president, a majority of the Cabinet, and then two-thirds in both >houses to keep the president out.
So change it. Congress has the power to cut the cabinet out and assign it to anyone they choose. Maybe don't choose a congressional subcommittee because the courts will strike that, but outside of that, harder for hacks on the bench to say no.
Another great conversation with two of my favorite talking heads!
I am against impeachment if the outcome would be acquittal in the Senate which is most certainly would be. Acquittal will be interpreted as "exoneration" by Trump and the Republicans. Another Democrat witch-hunt.
Unless Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the Senate they are going to have a really hard time trying to do ANYTHING without Trumps signature on legislation and "buy-in" by his Republican lap dogs. How much time and energy do they want to devote to the impeachment process? The fact is that Trump or JD Vance will be President until January 20, 2029 and Democrats will have no choice but to work with the administration---and running an impeachment is not going to be conducive to negotiation. Budgets will need to be passed and shut downs controlled.
Invoking the XXVth Amendment COULD be spun as concern for the well being of Trump himself and not as a punitive measure. But as Bill and Andy discussed it is a hard thing to pull off.
I agree with "hearings on steroids" and while it may be impossible to remove Trump would it be impossible to actually impeach and remove some of cabinet members and appointments where evidence of corruption is clear?
If Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress they will also have the institutional ability to take Trump to court which they are unable to do as the minority. I think that may be the best way to combat Trump. Even with Trump's appointments in the judiciary professional Congressional lawyers will probably outperform the mediocrities arguing for the administration.
This really is the curse of living in interesting times!
Well, if Democrats have a hard time doing any legislation anyway, why not spend the otherwise-wasted time and effort using other means to hold him accountable?
Because legislation is necessary especially around budgets and avoiding government shut downs. The most important thing is to curb or stop Trump's drive for power not to "hold him accountable" whatever that means. The institutional powers that the Congressional majority has is to negotiate from a relatively stronger position, hold and control investigative hearings, AND to take the executive branch to court. Negotiation with Trump (or Vance) is a necessity. Hearings could be more devastating to the administration than a failed impeachment. The courts are a place where Congressional lawyers can expose the illegal and unconstitutional actions of the administration and maybe stop them. Democrats, if they take both House and Senate, will only have a sure window of 730 days to do what they can. Is really impeaching a lame duck Trump and "holding him accountable" where they should be directing their limited time, energy and money?
Certainly agree on legal action; it's what I've been doing since he took office. I don't know why you'd scare quote accountability. People who commit crimes should be held to account.
The question I ask myself is whether I would take any action I advocate around March 22, 1933.
In a decent world Kristol would be in prison for war crimes. Hell, the biggest problem of Trump’s second mandate is that it is too similar to Kristol’s desired policies.
As you noted, If Trump is removed from office -- by impeachment and conviction or via the 25th Amendment -- Vice President Vance will become president. I think, in that instance, he might be impeached within his first year. The next person in line to the presidency is the Speaker of the House. I cannot imagine Hakeem Jeffries as president, and if he were to become president by default, I do not see him getting elected to remain in that role in 2028. He is far from charismatic, and his positions on a number of issues have displeased much of the electorate. How can we get House Democrats to elect someone else as Speaker once the new Congress has been sworn in?
There was never a vote on conviction in the Senate. McConnell didn’t allow it to come to the floor. There were well over five republican representatives who voted to impeach.
Many thanks for the fascinating discussion, Andy and Bill.
As I watch with increasing horror at what’s going on in the US under the Trump regime, I’ve never been more thankful for Australia’s parliamentary system.
I think it's important to do things just to remind the public that the law exists. It's good when states win injunctions even if he violates them and the courts refuse to hold him in contempt. Right now he went to "war" without even a fig leaf from Congress. Impeaching him, or even attempting to impeach him, reminds the public that this is illegal. Otherwise, he commits hundreds of crimes and quarter, and nothing happens, and the message is we haven't have a Constitution, we don't have laws, when it comes to the executive.
There are many dangers in this era. One danger is that Democrats aren't really fighting some stuff because they plan to hold the presidency one day and want unlimited power, too. So them doing something is good for me, someone who cares about limited government and the rule of law, because it makes it harder for them to manage that if they do get into power.
All that said, impeachment is and always has been a political matter. Nothing defines "impeachable" except Congress voting so. But you can use political processes to defend the law. We do and should all the time. Laws don't defend themselves; the political branches allow laws to function.
Re: Vance, it's a pipe dream, but I believe if you did "discovery" you'd find that he's involved in a lot of these decisions and could be impeached for his role, as a pair. If you held the speakership. Although then the Speaker being in line would be challenged, rightly, as unconstitutional.
>And for those who don’t have their pocket Constitution memorized: the 25th Amendment is >harder—it takes the vice president, a majority of the Cabinet, and then two-thirds in both >houses to keep the president out.
So change it. Congress has the power to cut the cabinet out and assign it to anyone they choose. Maybe don't choose a congressional subcommittee because the courts will strike that, but outside of that, harder for hacks on the bench to say no.
Another great conversation with two of my favorite talking heads!
I am against impeachment if the outcome would be acquittal in the Senate which is most certainly would be. Acquittal will be interpreted as "exoneration" by Trump and the Republicans. Another Democrat witch-hunt.
Unless Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the Senate they are going to have a really hard time trying to do ANYTHING without Trumps signature on legislation and "buy-in" by his Republican lap dogs. How much time and energy do they want to devote to the impeachment process? The fact is that Trump or JD Vance will be President until January 20, 2029 and Democrats will have no choice but to work with the administration---and running an impeachment is not going to be conducive to negotiation. Budgets will need to be passed and shut downs controlled.
Invoking the XXVth Amendment COULD be spun as concern for the well being of Trump himself and not as a punitive measure. But as Bill and Andy discussed it is a hard thing to pull off.
I agree with "hearings on steroids" and while it may be impossible to remove Trump would it be impossible to actually impeach and remove some of cabinet members and appointments where evidence of corruption is clear?
If Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress they will also have the institutional ability to take Trump to court which they are unable to do as the minority. I think that may be the best way to combat Trump. Even with Trump's appointments in the judiciary professional Congressional lawyers will probably outperform the mediocrities arguing for the administration.
This really is the curse of living in interesting times!
Well, if Democrats have a hard time doing any legislation anyway, why not spend the otherwise-wasted time and effort using other means to hold him accountable?
Because legislation is necessary especially around budgets and avoiding government shut downs. The most important thing is to curb or stop Trump's drive for power not to "hold him accountable" whatever that means. The institutional powers that the Congressional majority has is to negotiate from a relatively stronger position, hold and control investigative hearings, AND to take the executive branch to court. Negotiation with Trump (or Vance) is a necessity. Hearings could be more devastating to the administration than a failed impeachment. The courts are a place where Congressional lawyers can expose the illegal and unconstitutional actions of the administration and maybe stop them. Democrats, if they take both House and Senate, will only have a sure window of 730 days to do what they can. Is really impeaching a lame duck Trump and "holding him accountable" where they should be directing their limited time, energy and money?
Certainly agree on legal action; it's what I've been doing since he took office. I don't know why you'd scare quote accountability. People who commit crimes should be held to account.
The question I ask myself is whether I would take any action I advocate around March 22, 1933.
Just a production note. Consider stilling the ceiling fan while on camera. The flickering is distracting.
That is why I only listen to the audio most of the podcasters aren't all that telegenic.
In a decent world Kristol would be in prison for war crimes. Hell, the biggest problem of Trump’s second mandate is that it is too similar to Kristol’s desired policies.
As you noted, If Trump is removed from office -- by impeachment and conviction or via the 25th Amendment -- Vice President Vance will become president. I think, in that instance, he might be impeached within his first year. The next person in line to the presidency is the Speaker of the House. I cannot imagine Hakeem Jeffries as president, and if he were to become president by default, I do not see him getting elected to remain in that role in 2028. He is far from charismatic, and his positions on a number of issues have displeased much of the electorate. How can we get House Democrats to elect someone else as Speaker once the new Congress has been sworn in?
There was never a vote on conviction in the Senate. McConnell didn’t allow it to come to the floor. There were well over five republican representatives who voted to impeach.