To the extent truth is taken to mean what really is, devoid of any subjective judgment, it is unknowable. I think Kant clarified that. So, if we have a statement that demands a non-subjective interpretation of an external referent (e.g. "the cat is on the mat"), we cannot know whether that is true. In fact, we can't even fathom what would be required to prove it.

The simple "the cat is on the mat" is true if the cat is on the mat is correct, although it's sort of a useless statement epistemologically, considering we can never know objectively if the cat is on the mat, or even what it would mean to be an objective cat on an objective mat.

It seems only the theologians and the scientists know what truth is. The philosophers don't, mostly because they lack the faith of the theologian and the pragmatism of the scientist.

Ha, yeah wasn't Dershowitz the guy who represented Jeffery Epstein, OJ Simpson, and other nefarious individuals? LOL

FYI- if you do the research, you'll see Dershowitz typically represents people who commit sex crimes. It almost begs the question why? He's done it for years with little success. Maybe he's got some sort of axe to grind... — 3017amen

Are we now arguing that certain criminals are not entitled to representation and those who choose to represent them are of low moral character? And even should your argument be correct, which it is not, how would that ad hom affect the accuracy of Dershowitz' Constitutional analysis that the allegations against Trump, even if true, do not constitute offenses worthy of warranting removal from office?

Lincoln used the Constitutional War Power of the President to free the slaves. — frank

He didn't free the slaves, else the 13th Amendment would have been superfluous. He proclaimed those slaves in the regions still in rebellion and outside his jurisdiction free, which was entirely a political act and of no legal consequence. Every slave within Union territory remained a slave and he had no ability to enforce his proclamation upon the Southern states. The Proclamation's primary purpose was not to free anyone, but to re-cast the war as one to end slavery (as opposed to simply keep the Union intact) so as to eliminate European alliances with the South, as European powers at this point were extremely opposed to slavery.

What Lincoln did, though, was to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to allow the imprisonment of dissenters and strip them of their legal rights, a clear cause for impeachment, as the right to suspend habeas corpus was only a Congressional power to exercise.

.

Lauding the will of the people never stopped an Adolph Hitler from launching a holocaust. I think that's mainly because the mob is a bloodthirsty beast when it's frustrated and hurt. — frank

The American experience has been that the democracy has been the great protector of the people. Take civil rights, for example. It was the democracy that elected Lincoln, that took up arms for the cause, that passed Constitutional Amendments by super-majorities, and that passed civil rights legislation. The Courts reliance upon the Constitution (in particular the 14th Amendment) to protect minorities is a reliance upon law passed by the super-majorities. The idea that the Courts save us is false. We save ourselves, and I'm thankful for a Constitution that keeps this angry group of Democrats from undoing the will of the people.

Why were the slaves freed? The people demanded it.

There's a naive belief embedded in American culture that good should prevail. — frank

This has to do with believing that the highest determinant of truth in a democracy is the direct voice of the people and the refusal to over-rule the outcome of an election on vague references to abuse and obstruction.

I don't believe your telling the truth there. The Mueller report found numerous instances of obstruction, he just punted the ball to Congress on that. If you need to be refreshed, I'll be happy to post a fact-check. — 3017amen

My point was that the articles of impeachment under which Trump stands trial before the Senate relate only to obstruction of the Ukrainian investigation and not of the issues in the Mueller report. The Mueller report was inconclusive as to whether a crime had been committed, but even had it specifically and correctly stated he committed a crime, it would be irrelevant because this impeachment has nothing to do with that.

And as far as 'crime' goes. Impeachment is not a civil law process, it's a constitutional one. And therefore abuse of power is an interpretation from the constitution. — 3017amen

I understand what is is, but the reference was whether the US was showing itself as a nation that honored the rule of law, and I believe it does if it interprets the Constitution in a way that requires an actual law be violated in order for there to be removal from office.

All that, (and other things that have transpired thus far) my question is, do you think he's hiding something? — 3017amen

No. I think we all know very clearly what happened in the phone call.

In contrast with Trump legal team, Justice Department lawyer says House can impeach over defied subpoenas — Michael

Of course you can. You can impeach over anything. That has been proven.

Your link does contain a section on statutory proceedings, stating that contempt of congress is a crime, referencing Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure which in turn references (among others) 18 U.S.C. §1505 (obstruction of committee proceedings). — Michael

There was never a citation of contempt issued by Congress. He wasn't in contempt of Congress.

I think all this stuff is decreasing confidence in the government, which might be a good thing. — frank

The Republican platform is in having limited confidence in the government. I think there's a case to be made that American ideology is founded in distrust of government. The idea that the government can be relied upon to cure all or even most societal ills is liberalism at its worst.

What happens if it's 50/50? Does Roberts break the tie? — Michael

I think he said he wouldn't do that. There aren't going to be any witnesses. The theater is going to come to a close, but everyone knew how this movie ended anyway, regardless of what plot twists might have happened along the way.

So is Trump's blocking of subpoenas and obstruction of justice with the Mueller investigation. — Benkei

He wasn't charged with obstructing the Mueller investigation. The Articles of Impeachment charged him with obstructing Congress during the impeachment proceeding when he refused to honor subpoenas. There are methods of enforcing subpoenas, which first require that Congress first find him in contempt of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress They never did that, and it's hasn't been done since the 1930s. The point being, he didn't commit any crime and Congress never made an effort to enforce its own subpoena, but instead just decided to try to throw him out of office because they think he's disgusting and they want to damage his ability to get re-elected.

One wonders what the US is the leader of today. It isn't the West because that implies a respect for the rule of law. — Benkei

The rule of law requires (1) there actually be a law that is broken (the prohibition against ex post facto laws) and (2) that an accused not be required to participate in any way in the investigation against him (the right to remain silent).

If the US doesn't lead in anything, then why all the academic interest in the goings on in Washington?

If B follows from A, and C follows from B, and we only address C being a suicide or other ills, then why aren't we addressing the confounding factors starting from A->B->C? — Wallows

I think we do attempt to address the causes of suicide, but I'm sure you're right that it's not sufficiently. But where you use C, I think it's also correct to substitute all sorts of other illnesses as well, like cancer, drug abuse, heart disease, and all sorts of things.

I'd think the causes of suicide are very complex, and not quite as often caused by single events (like divorce, job loss, or incarceration), but by deeper emotional struggles.

Good for you. He deserved the beating, and I feel no guilt. — Noah Te Stroete

This is irrelevant to the question of the OP of whether you were just. You obviously wonder if you were objectively just because you asked the question here. If you acknowledge you might not have been just, then the fact you feel no guilt only means you lack a conscience. That is yet another factor I must consider when I'm weighing his credibility against yours when considering the OP of whether you were just.

When I was married to my ex-wife, she told me that the guy I beat had “fucked her best friend in her sleep.” I already didn’t like the guy because he would spend nights over at my house with my ex and her best friend when I was away. He also made fun of me for being “weak” for taking medications for depression and psychosis — Noah Te Stroete

You suffered from psychosis, you were heavily biased against the guy, and the only evidence of guilt came from an ex-wife. I'm not convinced the guy was guilty of rape. Sounds like your ex might have manipulated something here, especially since it ounds like she might have been sleeping with him at some point.

I could be completely wrong of course and just looking for an interesting twist, but I've decided to be his lawyer, not yours in this 16 year old saga.

What's the worst that can happen if we act on climate change? — jorndoe

The economy collapses today and we all go hungry and die.

What's the worst that can happen if we do nothing? — jorndoe

The economy collapses tomorrow and we all go hungry and die.

What's the responsible thing to do? — jorndoe

Compromise.

Was Jesus born with Original Sin? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Isn't basic Christian doctrine that Jesus was without sin?

Could these facts be why the Jews have no Original Sin concept in their religion? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Jews believe people are intrinsically good but can be misled to evil. At least that's what I was taught. I think Jews don't subscribe to Christian doctrine for the same reasons Christians reject Hindu doctrine.

Is that also why Jews rejected Jesus as their messiah, or did they just recognize the immorality of anyone using a scapegoat and the abdication of one’s responsibility for their actions, which is against all moral legal systems? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Jews generally believe the resurrection story is horseshit, so for that reason they reject that Jesus was the Messiah. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of Jewish horseshit too, from the ark to the splitting of the sea, but the Jesus thing I suppose was just a bit much.

Some cities used to have SROs -- single occupancy hotel rooms. You got a bed, a window, a radiator, and a lockable door--quite possibly a sink. The bathroom was down the hall. These were also a step up from living on the street or in warehouse-boxes. — Bitter Crank

You're describing today's extended stay hotel. In the US all hotels have bathrooms in the room, but in filthy Europe, they don't care. Hostels over there are pretty cheap, but I don't think they rent to homeless people, although the back packers I met in Europe stunk to high hell.

I do think you understate the mental issues of the homeless, at least those I've seen in balmy Atlanta. It's not like they're a clean bed and good meal away from ending the endless rambling conversations they have with themselves.

The question is what do you do for those who can't do for themselves? The answer is that you hope there's someone to do for them, which is in best case a family member, but usually an underpaid, overworked, and maybe not fully qualified government worker who is herself one paycheck away from eviction.

Once again, Israel gets to decide who can become a citizen and how. It should not discriminate between its own citizens based on their ethnicity or religion. — Benkei

So yeah, it's hunky dory to treat non-citizens like shit but an atrocity to treat some citizens as better than others, so if a nation decides to call their least favorite folks non-citizens, they escape your criticism. Kinda stupid? So if blacks weren't full citizens, all was good?

Racial discrimination exists in legal form in the US, primarily to protect historically disadvantaged and oppressed minorities, often to the objection of those not provided what is considered special advantage. Israel is that to the Jews. If you find what the US does as I've described atrocious, you're at least consistent.

Again. If you think I'm talking about who gets to be an Israeli citizens or not, you're still missing the point. — Benkei

There isn't any confusion on my end. You have an objection to disparate treatment of citizens within Israel based upon ethnicity and have no inclination to decipher my response, so we keep going back and forth with you repeating that we're not debating rights to citizenship or immigration issues, which is obvious. I'm left with thinking you're either stubbornly refusing to respond to me or that you truly lack the capacity to understand. I think either is equally likely at this point.

Totally missing the point. Discriminating between different types of Scottish citizens was the issue I raised. That has nothing to do with immigration. — Benkei

I didn't miss your point. I was pointing out that you've made a distinction that makes no moral difference. You are hanging on an arbitrary legal definition of "citizen" that you think matters, but it doesn't, especially because the nation itself gets to define that term.

To clarify, if Scotland permits those with Scottish blood to return to Scotland to become citizens, then when my Scottish counterpart and I arrive on those rolling green hills, he gets to vote, own land, and freely work, while I get to only visit and sightsee. I will be treated as a second class person because I am not designated a "citizen," (as I'm 100% Jew and 0% Celt) which is simply a word used to distinguish the haves from the have nots in this apartheid system.

If you are satisfied that citizenship status is a morally legitimate basis to deprive someone of rights, then you have no right to object to Israel denying citizenship to non-Jews, pre Civil War America denying full citizenship status to African Americans, and really any sort of discrimination that might occur as long as some legislative body has decreed who is and who is not a citizen.

I'm just trying to keep this logically clear because you've taken a very harsh view of Israeli discrimination, claiming that any sort of allowance of Jewish priority is per se racist and morally unjustified. If the standard is that ethnic heritage can never be used to justify providing an advantage, then we need to revisit the Irish rule of return, American affirmative action, all gender based set asides, and we likely need to run the Native Americans off their reservations.

If what you mean to say is only that in certain circumstances affording racial priorities are justified, but Jewish priority in Israel is not one of those instances, then that can be debated, although my understanding of your argument is that this issue is very much black and white, with Israel having no possible justification for their prioritizing Jews because of some moral absolute that says so.

America's my home because I live there, and always have. It's the place of my birth. My native land. — Ciceronianus the White

The question isn't why you reside in the US. It's why you're justified to live in the US. Surely there are those justified in living in the US who weren't born in the US (the tens of millions of naturalized citizens) and arguably there are those born in the US who are not justified to live in the US. Your standard of citizenship by birth is not universally accepted and is as arbitrary as any standard.

Regardless, you've now offered Israelis their justification to live on the land they do, which is that they are there already.

Nonetheless, unless I'm mistaken, the fact that Israel exists where it exists, and the claim of some that it should expand, are sometimes justified at least in part on the belief that it's the homeland of the Jews. I wonder whether that belief has any substantial basis. — Ciceronianus the White

Sure, and I wonder if any justification for a nation to occupy land has a substantial basis, seeing no reason why your claim to your homeland is more justified than theirs, simply because you find the Biblical basis not substantial. Why is your being born in the US a substantial justification for you to occupy it?

The Israeli claim for expansion of their borders is based upon acquisition of land by war, which is the same basis that the US claims its right to its land, and is a matter of fact the way much land has been acquired over time. I don't know why the Israeli land acquisition is particularly interesting to the world from a moral perspective, although I do see why it's interesting as a political matter, considering it disrupts an economically important part of the world.

I understand. But I think to call a place where the ancestors of a group of people lived and were sovereign for a relatively short period of time in the Iron Age (Near East) their "homeland" is a misuse of the word, or at least an substantial exaggeration. One would hope there would be a stronger historical basis on which to make that statement, even if it is a religious one, at least where nation building is concerned. — Ciceronianus the White

And what basis did the founders have in calling America the land of the free, considetimg they had just recently stumbled upon it? And why is the US rightly your homeland today? And even should you be the descendent of an original settler, how is the land now yours simply because your Neanderthal great grandfather touched it first?

You can ridicule others' justifications for possessing land, but it's doubtful they're more ridiculous than the justifications you have for possessing your land.

Or do you expect they'll treat all Scottish citizens equally? — Benkei

It's not far fetched to assume they'd reclaim whatever English land ownership there might be and to limit non-Scottish immigration. Whether they'd allow a right of return for those with Scotch ancestory, likely, if they follow the Irish lead. If a historical claim is made that Scotch emigration was the result of English oppression, it would follow that they may allow a right of return to repair that past injustice.

And isn't that the whole issue anyway? Remedying past wrongs and protecting historically oppressed peoples? All of your arguments hold as much validity whether you're arguing against special treatment for blacks in America or Jews in the world. Isn't affirmative action just another form of apartheid under your argument, assuming you wish to disregard historical context and just declare absolute equality for all is required regardless of the prior suffering of the people?

Imagine that tomorrow scientists discover a very easy way in which chromosomal structure can be changed. All it takes is the consumption of a pill and, overnight, your chromosomal structure will be changed. — Bartricks

I think most of those who claim sex can't be changed will change their mind if a pill is created that in every way changes one's sex. You exaggerate your opponent's position to suggest most of them are arguing that sex is metaphysically immutable. A clownfish changes gender over its life as do other reef fish after all. What is clear, to me at least, is that a fully transitioned man to woman is different from a naturally born one. In fact, there are terms (cis and trans) to describe the difference.

There is validity to the argument that a man cannot be made the same as a biologically born woman as a matter of current scientific fact. The immutability of gender argument you've attacked appears to attack a strawman, or at least a very very minority held position.

Is a trans woman and a cis woman the same to me? No, not really. One has female genes and female genitalia and the other male genes and no genitalia. That is just the truth. I'd change my mind if the pill you described were created though.

Physically they are almost identical at the end of their transitions but during the transitions they will still retain some male characteristics. — sarah young

One way we can distinguish how much of their maleness a transitioned female has retained is by having her compete against biologically born women. When we see, as we have, that the transitioned females are crushing the long held records of their biological female counterparts, we can rest assured that they've retained something substantial and therefore should probably not be competing against those who do not stand a fighting chance.

gender dysphoria is a very serious issue, the rates of suicide and attempted suicide by transgender people are upwards of 75% and I feel like you are just trying to say that it is a casual want instead of what it really is, the ability to be who we really are. because we don't just want to be the opposite gender we are the opposite gender it just so happens to be that we are born into the wrong bodies, because it has been proven that transgender people literally have the mind of a cisgender person of the opposite birthsex. — sarah young

If the suggestion is that transition surgery is medically appropriate in order to save the lives of those suffering from gender dysphoria, then it would be necessary to cite statistics indicating that those who have transitioned suffer less from emotional issues and suicide than do those prior to transitioning. From what I've seen, that is unfortunately not the case.

If your argument is simply a libertarian one (that it's your body and you can do with it what you wish) then I'm more sympathetic to that, simply because it is none of my business what you do, especially in light of the fact I have no idea who you are or what you've experienced.

I just have a problem with the scientific claims, where people try to justify their decisions as if they're demanded by some objective criteria. If I could show you definitively that gender reassignment surgery were objectively a bad thing (based upon social, scientific, or moral arguments), I think you'd be as unmoved by my arguments as I am by your suggestion (if it indeed was your suggestion) that somehow transitioning is what one in your situation objectively ought to do.

It just strikes me that you can do as you wish, with me not caring what you do and you not caring if I care. You get to live your life how you see fit. I can buy into that, but that's as far as I'd take it.

Their women are men there. Prolly why you're going.

The Shoutbox is not technically a thread, but is a general area to recreate the old real time shoutbox on the old PF, which itself was not a thread. The Feature Requests is also not technically a thread, as it is a virtual suggestion box. The Trouble Threads/Post/Posters is an elitist area set aside for mods, which makes it not fully a thread either.

Based upon the above, The Last Word is the world's oldest thread. It's also a continuation of the old Last Word thread from the old PF, making it older than this Board itself.

The final word is that the Last Word was the first word, which is where I was going with this until you inserted your bullshit.

You used to be called something different, like Yahadraes, which means I've been me longer than you've been you, and therefore more awesome, which sucks for you because that's what you've always wanted to be, and now you're not.

Today really sucks for you.

This thread has been going on for three years, making it the longest thread on this Forum. I expect 2020 to continue with this thread and then onward to perpetuity.

The death of God? I agree it's not a government failing. However, I've observed more than a few people who think God is as alive as ever engage in the same nonsensical spending that the godless riffraff engage in. — Bitter Crank

God to me is more a representation of a proper goal, anchored in Truth. Without God, we have no way of knowing why buying a bunch of toys is a lesser goal than building relationships, expanding our knowledge, and experiencing more of the world. When we stopped believing in God, we were left incapable of distinguishing one idol from the next, as everything became an idol.

Upon what basis does one call the materialist shallow if we don't know depth?

Developmentally, senses come before conceptions by definition as concepts are linguistic. — Baden

I'll concede your empirical claims: senses come before concepts and socialization in humans is necessary for survival. Concepts being linguistic is not an empirical claim, but a philosophical one, and likely one that demands strained definitions. I don't buy into the claim that concepts are linguistic as an empirical claim because I don't know why it's biologically required that I be able to linguistically articulate my concepts in order for them to exist. I often grasp issues and then spend some amount of time trying to precisely articulate them. I've always felt this equation of langauge with knowledge to be a Wittgensteinian demand regardless of whether it is true. Anyway, that language must precede concepts defies my experience so I reject it.

What would there be to know? The self only makes sense in the context of the other. For a start, no other, no language, no self concept. So, you're left with some kind of awareness maybe but no construction of the self. — Baden

What is the empirical evidence for this assertion? I'd think a dog understands what is his and what is not, which means he knows himself from the other and he has no langauge to say "get away from my food" other than his bark and bite, which is langauge in a broad sense I guess.

We didn't really get to why the self would dissolve without any social contact. Usually, it's simply put that people go nuts. But that sort of amounts to the same thing. — Baden

Going nuts isn't the same as losing one's sense of self. Loss of self isn't a reported symptom of isolation.
https://www.sciencealert.com/isolation-has-profound-effects-on-the-human-body-and-brain-here-s-what-happens

I started working in 1968 and stopped in 2008; over that time I witnessed the decline in living standards that one could have at a given income. — Bitter Crank

I started breathing in 1966, so you're a tad older. Going completely by recollection, I've seen a major change in expected standard of living. We buy bigger houses with all sorts of upgrades. Our cars are fancier. We eat out all the time. We have the latest gadgets. We go on bigger and better vacations.

I was born the son of a physician, so not exactly a peasant. Our house and its furnishings were modest by today's standards, but no different from my neighbors. We didn't play all sorts of travel sports, go on cruises, or upgrade to the newest model car every year. This is just to say if we all lived like it was 1968, we'd probably be doing a whole lot better. The problem is the buy in too many have of the consumerism/materialistic culture. It's the result of the death of God as I see it, as opposed to some government failing. Marxism is not the religion one needs to subscribe to to find happiness. I don't dismiss the struggles of those who can't earn even enough to sustain, but I do think much could be accomplished by reducing frivolity and rebelling against those who try to convince us to buy their foolishness. We can choose not to be fools without any government upheaval.

There is no "ourselves" without others. That's where we get ourselves from. The self is a social phenomenon. Remove the social and you remove the self. — Baden

Are you presenting a thought experiment of someone born alone and never having his self developed due to a lifetime of isolation or you suggesting the dissolution of the self when someone is removed from society? Also, don't you think a newborn has a sense of self prior to his having any conception of society?

And what is meant precisely of "social"? If I'm raised by a pack of wolves, can they give me a sense of self? What if I raise a dog? Can her sense of self come from a non-dog? Can the "other" be a tree, where my society of trees offers me an sense of self?

I'm not saying that a person born alone won't be terribly confused and likely incapable of survival, but I wonder if he wouldn't know of his own independent self.

Once I was in New Orleans and I paid $2 to see a wild scantily clad Cajun woman, supposedly captured in the bayou, maybe raised by gators. She seemed unstable from her mannerisms, but, at the same time looked no different than an average college girl with a really terrible solution to paying her rent. I think she had a sense of self, but maybe a diminished sense of self worth, likely from the way the gators treated her.

Why do you think Iran would bet on American strength and bow down? — Baden

Because Trump looks unpredictable, destructive, not concerned with proportionality, and egotistical.. I'd be scared shitless if I lived in Iran. Americans are tired of the financial burden of war sure, which is an annoyance, but nothing like the chaos, disruption, and death its enemies have endured. Trump didn't screw up America. He screwed up Iran. They now have to weigh saving face by doing something ultimately suicidal against accepting this kick in the nuts from their arch nemesis.

What are these, specifically, and why do they require you to get into an armed conflict with each other as opposed to finding some kind of mutually less destructive accommodation? — Baden

I think the strategy has been one of increasing sanctions, open mutual hostility, and a lack of diplomacy. Iranian hostilities go back from my memory to the Carter administration. I guess the real question is why the attack now? I don't really know what changed, but I don't know what less destructive accommodation there is other than letting it be what it is and tolerating it ianother 4 decades.

Trump is dead? — Baden

No, and nor is Obama, who trespassed into Pakistan to assassinate OBL in what the Dems have now clarified as a violation of international law. Fortunately there are no international courts to bring justice to either, although had there been, Suleimani. (and OBL) would have been convicted long ago of terrorism, thus eliminating the need for his elimination.

What I'm actually talking about is how we talk about collaborating and how we talk as if we're entirely altruistic. Now, you may be entirely altruistic, for you, I'm willing to concede that's actually just how you are. However, in real-world social environments where there's status, prestige, egos, competition, general dislike for some people and our emotions/psychology to worry about, are people as selfless then? Isn't philosophy just a special topic where selflessness and selfishness look the same? — Judaka

I don't equate collaboration with altruism, but think of it as working together for a common goal. Collaboration does not imply egalitarianism either, but simply requires some degree of consideration of other's inputs. It is the underlying political component of most human interaction, which requires that everyone's input at least be heard and discussed prior to rendering a decision that will impact them. It is the opposite of dictatorial, which is usually a very ineffective personal or business style. To be a true dictator requires power that few have, leaving most Napoleons all by their lonesome.

There is a charity organization in the US called Project Prevention which pays drug addicts $300 to use long term contraception which often includes sterilization. The organization is usually supported by relatively conservative individuals who feel that voluntary eugenics is an effective and ethically acceptable means to improve our society. Sterilizing drug addicts can reduce absolute poverty and tax burdens in our society — TheHedoMinimalist

Their seems more focused on delaying pregnancy until the addiction issues have been addressed:

From their website:
"Our mission is to continue to reach out to addicts offering referrals to drug treatment for those interested and to get them on birth control until they can care for the children they conceive. We are lowering the number of children added to foster care, preventing the addicts from the guilt and pain they feel each time they give birth only to have their child taken away, and preventing suffering of innocent children because even those fortunate enough to be born with no medical or emotional problems after placed in foster care face often a lifetime of longing to feel loved and wanted."

So Nixon was also prosecuted under criminal law — Benkei

No. Nixon wasn't prosecuted. There's a long standing DOJ policy not to prosecute sitting presidents, but there's no Constitutional prohibition. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

Seven of Nixon's aides were indicted ("The Watergate Seven"). In the 1974 Nixon case (not to be confused with District Court Judge Nixon's impeachment in the 90s cited in another post), Nixon was forced to produce tapes pursuant to subpoenas arising out of the criminal case involving his aides.

I cited to in another post a link regarding Congressional subpoenas and their limited enforcement mechanisms compared to those issued by a court.

Also, and not related to you I think, but the idea the Democrats are doing this to overturn the 2016 election results is silly because the vice president, also a republican, gets to replace him. Nevertheless, I see that argument continuously repeated but it's nonsensical. — Benkei

"Overturn" may be an exaggerated term (as if it will cause Hillary to become President), but the argument is that the Dems are refusing to accept that Trump really is the President and that the battle for the 2016 presidency is over.

His actions during the trial, and what can be proven about his actions pertaining to the trial, and what the consequences could theoretically be for such behavior in an impeachment trial, are matters yet to unfold and to be decided by a Supreme Court review (likely). Problematically, he likely will not be telecasting his collusion with Trump's defense team, so we won't be able to prove a lick of it (and again, there are not formalized laws dealing with such behavior in a senate-run trial to begin with, so it all refers back to what the Supreme Court might say about it). — VagabondSpectre

"The majority opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." Because of the word sole it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. Furthermore, because the word try was originally understood to include factfinding committees, there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States
Referencing Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

That looks circular to me. Where's the "clear law" setting forth the criteria of theft? To say that theft occurs when someone unlawfully takes something does not provide a clear law of when theft occurs. your "law" is self referential. The law is broken when someone acts unlawfully. What determines "unlawfulness" in this instance? That is what is required here. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your suggestion that there is no difference between the vagueness of the impeachment process and the clarity of a criminal prosecution isn't interesting. It's wrong on far too many levels to divert into. It's not a position anyone takes, and to the extent you think I'm arguing that impeachment is invalid because of its distinct standard, you're wrong.