It has nothing to do with the First 100 Days, Dumb Political Correctness, or the NFL, so I decided to start a long overdue new thread. So the calls for impeachment have begun. Bret Stephens has done it. So has Chuck Todd. Link. Of course, both are also framing the GOP leadership in Congress as gutless for not having already launched impeachment proceedings less than 48 hours after the Cohen plea deal. It's pretty clear how the narrative is going to be developed. The media is reversing its previous characterization of Cohen as a dirty "fixer" and portraying him as a man of integrity - much like John Dean. It's saying that Trump is guilty (based solely on Cohen's statement) of the worst presidential act since Watergate, that impeachment should be underway immediately and should be slam-dunk, and that the GOP Congress is a bunch of cowards for not having done so. In other words, they're predictably framing the matter to be as beneficial to Democrats going into the 2018 election as is humanly possible.
But are we rushing this? First, should Cohen be believed? Just a few months ago, he was a dirty pig. Now we should be impeaching a President based solely on his uncorroborated word? He has reason to lie, and he's represented by a Clinton family fixer. That doesn't mean his statement should be summarily dismissed, but shouldn't we look for some corroboration before jumping into impeachment? And should we be concerned with context? Cohen was Trump's lawyer. Did he tell Trump that what he was allegedly telling Cohen to do was illegal? (Do keep in mind that as a lawyer, that is is friggin' job.) If not, then how do you prove that Trump committed any act knowingly? If he did tell Trump this, then what was Cohen's response? If Trump said, "do it anyway," then why didn't Cohen withdraw from the matter? That was his professional duty. Everything I've read about Cohen's legal work suggests that he is astoundingly dumb and incompetent. I'm willing to hear his side of the story, but if I had to guess, I'd guess that he didn't know any of this was illegal and didn't tell Trump.
Second, are we really dealing with an impeachable offense? Alan Dershowitz broke down the issue absent the partisan hysteria that is dominating most of the media coverage of this. It's going to take a lot of twisting and bending to make this a serious offense or even much of a crime by Trump.
Third, the media is crapping in its pants about this like it's some colossal, unprecedented outrage (like they talk about everything related to Trump), but we've down this road before and some precedents have been set. Despite the self-serving Watergate comparisons, this much more resembles the Lewinsky matter from 1998. Democrats made plenty of arguments back then that are applicable to this, and those arguments prevailed in 1998 and set the standard. First, the sexual conduct of a president is inherently private, even when it takes place in the Oval Office (which is federal property, not personal property) with federal personnel and while the president his job. If that's private, then certainly sexual conduct from several years ago would be similarly private. Second, sexual conduct is so private that it is acceptable and even reasonable for the President to commit a crime (even a felony) to conceal that conduct. Bill Clinton committed perjury to cover up his affair. Trump may have committed a campaign finance violation to cover up his affair. If you set aside the sanctimony and shrill, the cases have a lot more in common than not.
To be clear, I think this was always a ********* argument. It was in 1998, and it is in 2018. Sexual conduct is private, but once you commit a crime, privacy is out the window. If you could get out of a crime just by figuring out a way to incorporate your junk into it, then we couldn't prosecute people for rape. It's just a moronic concept all the way around. However, precedents matter, and following them is essential to basic fairness and predictability. Sorry, but if we're playing by the 1998 rules, Trump walks almost no matter what Cohen says or establishes.
But are we rushing this? First, should Cohen be believed? Just a few months ago, he was a dirty pig. Now we should be impeaching a President based solely on his uncorroborated word? He has reason to lie, and he's represented by a Clinton family fixer. That doesn't mean his statement should be summarily dismissed, but shouldn't we look for some corroboration before jumping into impeachment? And should we be concerned with context? Cohen was Trump's lawyer. Did he tell Trump that what he was allegedly telling Cohen to do was illegal? (Do keep in mind that as a lawyer, that is is friggin' job.) If not, then how do you prove that Trump committed any act knowingly? If he did tell Trump this, then what was Cohen's response? If Trump said, "do it anyway," then why didn't Cohen withdraw from the matter? That was his professional duty. Everything I've read about Cohen's legal work suggests that he is astoundingly dumb and incompetent. I'm willing to hear his side of the story, but if I had to guess, I'd guess that he didn't know any of this was illegal and didn't tell Trump.
Second, are we really dealing with an impeachable offense? Alan Dershowitz broke down the issue absent the partisan hysteria that is dominating most of the media coverage of this. It's going to take a lot of twisting and bending to make this a serious offense or even much of a crime by Trump.
Third, the media is crapping in its pants about this like it's some colossal, unprecedented outrage (like they talk about everything related to Trump), but we've down this road before and some precedents have been set. Despite the self-serving Watergate comparisons, this much more resembles the Lewinsky matter from 1998. Democrats made plenty of arguments back then that are applicable to this, and those arguments prevailed in 1998 and set the standard. First, the sexual conduct of a president is inherently private, even when it takes place in the Oval Office (which is federal property, not personal property) with federal personnel and while the president his job. If that's private, then certainly sexual conduct from several years ago would be similarly private. Second, sexual conduct is so private that it is acceptable and even reasonable for the President to commit a crime (even a felony) to conceal that conduct. Bill Clinton committed perjury to cover up his affair. Trump may have committed a campaign finance violation to cover up his affair. If you set aside the sanctimony and shrill, the cases have a lot more in common than not.
To be clear, I think this was always a ********* argument. It was in 1998, and it is in 2018. Sexual conduct is private, but once you commit a crime, privacy is out the window. If you could get out of a crime just by figuring out a way to incorporate your junk into it, then we couldn't prosecute people for rape. It's just a moronic concept all the way around. However, precedents matter, and following them is essential to basic fairness and predictability. Sorry, but if we're playing by the 1998 rules, Trump walks almost no matter what Cohen says or establishes.
