Abortion

I'll probably be excoriated by some, but it seems we need to look at the fact that the country is divided roughly 50/50 between those feeling abortion should be legal and those opposing it. So long as half the country does not feel the fetus is a person it's hard to legislate that it is.

Some things I've seen translate abortion arguments to murder. This is actually a good analogy. If half of the population felt murder should not be a crime I guarantee homicide laws would be full of controversy, etc. We see a little of this (not a good analogy) with inner city demands that the police go away. The Jim Crow South (at least the stereotype) was similar, killings of blacks weren't pursued because it wasn't considered a major crime (as opposed to killing a white person).

Unfortunately, a Supreme Court dictate was the wrong way to handle abortion. The result over the last 40+ years has been for both sides to harden their positions. Anti-abortion activists will not budge from "life begins at conception" while pro-abortion activists object to any restriction on abortion before birth. Because of Roe v Wade states on one side craft laws to effectively ban abortion by making it nearly impossible for a doctor to perform legally. Other states have gone the other way, resulting in a few dangerous clinics (e.g. Gosnell) and kids able to get abortions without parental or other permission at an age when they can't legally get pierced ears without a parent.

I've concluded that imperfect as it is, the original Roe v Wade is a reasonable compromise. Allow early term abortion and make it progressively harder for late term abortion. The trimester distinction, while arbitrary, provides this compromise.

Did the FBI spy on the Trump campaign?

This is a little past the news cycle, but a week or so ago there was a dispute between Attorney General Barr, who talked about the FBI spying on the Trump campaign, and officials who said it didn't.

I've found the answer to this in the Lisa Page congressional testimony which is now publically available.

When asked if the FBI spied on the Trump campaign she said that the FBI does not spy. Spying is a foreign government trying to get information in the US. The FBI does not spy on people, it investigates.

But this is simply a matter of definition. By her definition the FBI cannot "spy" because "spying" is between governments or nations. So we're down to the definition of a word, but the truth is the FBI was actively (spying / investigating) the Trump campaign. Does it really matter which term is used?

Impeachment then and now

The first US President to be impeached was Andrew Johnson in 1868. I recently read a book about his impeachment, Impeached by David O. Stewart. As I read it I was struck by the similarities between Andrew Johnson's impeachment and the demands for the impeachment of Donald Trump.

Andrew Johnson became President when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. As is frequently the case, Andrew Johnson's selection as Vice President had more to do with regional politics (Johnson was from a former slave state) and little to do with what Mr. Johnson would do if he became President.

Immediately after the Civil War the nation was split into highly partisan political camps. On one side was the South, which had just been forced to give up slavery. Many in the South wanted to return to a system as close to slavery as possible. On the other side in the North were the Radical Republicans who wanted (or said they wanted) equality for Blacks. The Radical Republican viewpoint must be tempered by the fact that most of the non-slave holding North didn't allow Blacks the vote or full civil rights at the time. There was also a push for revenge against the South for seceding. Andrew Johnson became President in this environment and largely sided with the South. He allowed Southern States to return to the union on fairly easy terms and was willing to allow former Confederate politicians and officials to return to positions of power.

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson came about under this backdrop. Many in Congress wanted Johnson impeached for his handling of Reconstruction. The "high crimes and misdemeanors" which Johnson was guilty of mattered little, they wanted him out of office. The Johnson presidency was dominated by political battles between Johnson and Congress. In the end, the impeachment articles against Johnson were largely political, with the crimes consisting largely of not doing what Congress wanted.

Compare the Johnson impeachment with the situation today.

Since before inauguration day Democrats have demanded that Donald Trump be impeached. Many reasons have been given for impeachment, but to a large extent they boil down to "we don't like how Donald Trump behaves" combined with President Trump's stated goal of reversing much of the Obama era expansion of government rules and regulations.

So today's constant demands for impeachment (mirroring constant demands for Andrew Johnson's impeachment).

Today Congress is split on impeachment with no consensus of the crime committed (introduced impeachment resolutions range from "we don't like what he says" to violations of the emoluments clause or collusion with Russia). This mirrors the Johnson impeachment, where there was no consensus the charges.

And in both cases, the impeachment demands are largely political. Today Democrats largely demand impeachment, sometimes moderated by considerations of the effect on the 2020 election. The basis for impeachment has changed, with today's demands based on the fact the Mr. Trump hasn't (in violation of the law) given Congress the full unredacted Mueller Report. The other factor inhibiting impeachment is knowledge that the impeachment process is still political. Since the Democrats don't hold a two thirds majority in the Senate any impeachment would fail (as happened with Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson).

So if Donald Trump is impeached there are two possibilities. One is that the Democrats will impeach Trump on largely political grounds and the Senate will acquit him of the charges. This will probably happen if the firebrand left of the party is able to gain enough momentum. It might also happen if Mr. Trump is re-elected in 2020 and Democrats are looking at four more years out of power.

The second possibility is that the Democrats will finally find the smoking gun, an actual crime which all sides believe is a crime. That is what happened to Richard Nixon. He lost the support of his own party in Congress and wisely decided to resign rather than risk impeachment and conviction. It's not clear what Donald Trump would do in such a situation. First Democrats must find a charge more serious than dislike for some policies or vague catch all crimes like "obstruction".