All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (5 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[bdb13]

Rising to the level of impeachment and/or treason?

A sufficient reason to vote him out, at least?

Stuff like this is where I think our approach to impeachment is way too conservative.. yes imo this would be a high crime and worthy of impeachment.

 

[JimEverett]

Rising to the level of impeachment and/or treason?

A sufficient reason to vote him out, at least?

I don't think it is impeachable.
The fact is that we have basically known this to be true for some time, right? We knew Trump was getting briefed on the virus and that the data had to be telling him that the potential for a severe virus was likely. Obviously it is news hearing it straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

 

[JimEverett]

Remember at the beginning of this I was like "how did a bunch of people on an internet forum see a problem coming but not the administration?"

It was obvious the leadership was bad, but this stuff just takes it to another level.

I think it was efil who sort of set me straight about it in mid-Frebruary.

 

[brandon]

Do you really need to make the snarky quip about talking points?

I will repeat what I have said in this thread: the President's response to this was and has been confusing. It still is to a large extent.
More on the topic at hand - I will repeat my thought that even if Trump believed that the virus was not going to have much impact he still should have been preparing for the worse even while downplaying it publically. The fact that he knew it had the potential to be as deadly as it has been makes it even more of a failure of leadership.

Apologies for the snark. But seriously, I think it's important for the conservatives here (less so you, by the way) to start trying to form their own opinions on these topics before it's filtered through the Fox lens.

"Confusing" is quite the euphemism, too. But I appreciate your acknowledgement that this was a failure of leadership.

This particular failure of leadership presumably cost tens of thousands of American lives.

Now what are you going to do about it? What should be done about it?

 

[brandon]

I don't think it is impeachable.
The fact is that we have basically known this to be true for some time, right? We knew Trump was getting briefed on the virus and that the data had to be telling him that the potential for a severe virus was likely. Obviously it is news hearing it straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

This kinda just seems like a shrug.

Is this news really just shrug-worthy?

 

[bdb13]

I don't think it is impeachable.
The fact is that we have basically known this to be true for some time, right? We knew Trump was getting briefed on the virus and that the data had to be telling him that the potential for a severe virus was likely. Obviously it is news hearing it straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

This is a serious question but I can't think of a better analogy.. would that mean that if was proven that a President had specific knowledge of a planned terrorist attack on US soil that could quite possibly be stopped if he acted and instead he chooses to do nothing at all.. that he could not be impeached for that?

 

[Optimus Prime]

I'm curious what the spin on this story will be

It appears that the spin is how dare Woodward sit on this crucial info to write a book to enrich himself??

Why didn't he release the tapes months ago when Trump wasn't publicly taking this seriously in the beginning, those tapes would have forced Trump into taking serious action

So this is all Woodward's fault really

 

[JimEverett]

This is a serious question but I can't think of a better analogy.. would that mean that if was proven that a President had specific knowledge of a planned terrorist attack on US soil that could quite possibly be stopped if he acted and instead he chooses to do nothing at all.. that he could not be impeached for that?

In one sense, an impeachable offense is anything the House decides is an impeachable offense.
On the textual basis, though, I don't think what Trump did, or is accused of doing, qualifies as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
In your example, I am not sure - I guess if the purpose of inaction was to aid a foreign enemy then that would qualify as treason. If the inaction was due to some strategic goal, then I am not so sure.

[EDIT] I guess you could ake some sort of dereliction of duty claim, that would fall under a "high crime or misdemeanor": and that claim would be stronger the more you could tie it to a lack of furtherance of an actual policy. But to the extent Trump truly was trying to keep the country calm and perhaps even denying the virus' danger in order to keep the economy rolling - that would put it more on the side of a political question.
But I guess there could be some prima facie basis to say he violated his oath of office.

 

[First Time Poster]

FTR, it's shirtty of Bob Woodward to sit on this for six months.

If this is what we are getting in early September, dear lord, what will the October surprise be?! That he took an actual shirt on McCains grave?

 

[bdb13]

In one sense, an impeachable offense is anything the House decides is an impeachable offense.
On the textual basis, though, I don't think what Trump did, or is accused of doing, qualifies as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
In your example, I am not sure - I guess if the purpose of inaction was to aid a foreign enemy then that would qualify as treason. If the inaction was due to some strategic goal, then I am not so sure.

[EDIT] I guess you could ake some sort of dereliction of duty claim, that would fall under a "high crime or misdemeanor": and that claim would be stronger the more you could tie it to a lack of furtherance of an actual policy. But to the extent Trump truly was trying to keep the country calm and perhaps even denying the virus' danger in order to keep the economy rolling - that would put it more on the side of a political question.
But I guess there could be some prima facie basis to say he violated his oath of office.

Thanks, it's all interesting.

 

[superchuck500]

In one sense, an impeachable offense is anything the House decides is an impeachable offense.
On the textual basis, though, I don't think what Trump did, or is accused of doing, qualifies as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
In your example, I am not sure - I guess if the purpose of inaction was to aid a foreign enemy then that would qualify as treason. If the inaction was due to some strategic goal, then I am not so sure.

[EDIT] I guess you could ake some sort of dereliction of duty claim, that would fall under a "high crime or misdemeanor": and that claim would be stronger the more you could tie it to a lack of furtherance of an actual policy. But to the extent Trump truly was trying to keep the country calm and perhaps even denying the virus' danger in order to keep the economy rolling - that would put it more on the side of a political question.
But I guess there could be some prima facie basis to say he violated his oath of office.

I think the academic analysis has leaned more toward your first point - the House lays out the impeachment charges and there really isn't an objective standard.

 

[Ayo]

They're being cautious. It may not be related at all.

I posted in haste and should have explained what o meant by “link” - I wasmr intending to imply a link beyond I found it interesting it was being tested in Lake Charles.

 

[Taurus]

In one sense, an impeachable offense is anything the House decides is an impeachable offense.
On the textual basis, though, I don't think what Trump did, or is accused of doing, qualifies as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
In your example, I am not sure - I guess if the purpose of inaction was to aid a foreign enemy then that would qualify as treason. If the inaction was due to some strategic goal, then I am not so sure.

[EDIT] I guess you could ake some sort of dereliction of duty claim, that would fall under a "high crime or misdemeanor": and that claim would be stronger the more you could tie it to a lack of furtherance of an actual policy. But to the extent Trump truly was trying to keep the country calm and perhaps even denying the virus' danger in order to keep the economy rolling - that would put it more on the side of a political question.
But I guess there could be some prima facie basis to say he violated his oath of office.

That jives with my thoughts, though I still think it's impeachable.

The only difference between straight up treason and what we have is that it's a virus and not a human enemy.

 

[bdb13]

I think the academic analysis has leaned more toward your first point - the House lays out the impeachment charges and there really isn't an objective standard.

"High crimes" is just such a vague term that I don't really see how you could have an objective standard. That could be just about anything you wanted it to be.

 

[superchuck500]

"High crimes" is just such a vague term that I don't really see how you could have an objective standard. That could be just about anything you wanted it to be.

And there's no arbiter, but for the Senate - the Court will defer judgment on whether the House's defined impeachment charges are constitutional because it is a political question. If the Senate convicts on the constitutional basis, the president is impeached - if it doesn't, he isn't.

I think the Court might rule on certain ancillary issues but it's just not going to get involved in the substance of that process. So it's for Congress to decide.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

And there's no arbiter, but for the Senate - the Court will defer judgment on whether the House's defined impeachment charges are constitutional because it is a political question. If the Senate convicts on the constitutional basis, the president is impeached - if it doesn't, he isn't.

I think the Court might rule on certain ancillary issues but it's just not going to get involved in the substance of that process. So it's for Congress to decide.

If the Senate convicts, he's out of office. He's already been impeached.

 

[MT15]

Never forget, when Democrats tried to raise the alarm, he called it a democratic hoax. And while he was speaking those words, he knew it wasn’t true, in fact he knew that it was a highly contagious, airborne, deadly virus, and that the elderly wouldn't be the only victims. Yet he still politicized a coming deadly pandemic. He’s a loathsome piece of crap.

 

[SaintForLife]

I've said previously that Trump deserved criticism for his how he initially downplayed COVID and his inconsistent messaging. The Woodard audio goes into more detail, but talk of impeachment seems extreme.

We have video of Trump talking about wanting to keep the public calm not wanting to create a panic from March 30th.


Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, defended President Donald Trump on Wednesday after audio recordings revealed that the president wanted to downplay the severity of the coronavirus early in the pandemic.

Speaking with Fox News’ John Roberts, Fauci denied that he ever heard the president “distort” the threat of the coronavirus and maintained that Trump’s presentations to the public were largely in line with discussions he’d had with medical experts. When asked whether he ever felt Trump was downplaying the severity of the coronavirus, Fauci said no.

“I didn’t get any sense that he was distorting anything,” Fauci said. “In my discussions with him, they were always straightforward about the concerns that we had. We related that to him. When he would go out, I’d hear him discussing the same sort of things.”

Fauci denies hearing Trump distort facts on coronavirus

The nation’s top infectious disease expert defended the president after recordings revealed that Trump wanted to downplay the severity of the pandemic.

www.politico.com