DECEMBER 5, 2019 – I confess to my Trump-supporting friends: I’m biased.
With that acknowledgment I hardly expect to change your minds about Trump’s impeachment or re-election. I understand you oppose the former and support the latter. Fine. I get that you’re as immovable from your support of Trump as I am from my opposition.
But my objective here isn’t to change your minds. My goal is to buy a modicum of understanding. By giving you some insight into my bias, maybe you’ll cut me slack.
As everyone does, I view the world through many filters—my personality, information I read and hear, the people I hang out with, formal and informal education, life experience—most particularly in the arena where I’ve spent much of my adult life: practicing law.
In my work over the decades, I’ve developed eyes and ears for B.S. You can’t practice law for long before you encounter it. B.S. certainly arises in litigation, but “Big Sham” also appears in transactional settings. After a time you develop an improved sense for who’s got a workable argument or effective leverage and who’s B.S.-ing their way through because they have neither argument nor leverage.
According to the rules that govern our profession, we lawyers have to adhere to notions of “good faith” and can get our hands slapped for acting in “bad faith.” Unfortunately, the threat of sanctions has only a marginal effect on B.S. What keeps most of us in line is the realization that reputation counts and what goes around, comes around. But irrespective of reputational risk and the possibility of sanctions, desperate or lazy or dishonest people will still engage in desperate, lazy or dishonest behavior to offset serious deficiency—and to delay or deflect the inevitable. The whole system would be at risk, however, if “desperate,” “lazy,” and “dishonest” were prevailing features; if courts always rewarded such attributes over established facts and law.
When evaluating the evidence and arguments for and against impeachment—understanding that it’s a political process, not a legal one (except for the law surrounding Congressional subpoenae)—I’ve approach it as if I’d been assessing a legal case. I’ve reviewed the evidence the best I can. I’ve assessed context, sources, motives, patterns. I’ve take into account the withholding of evidence. I’ve re-examined the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rationale for an impeachment provision. I’ve studied applicable history (the Federalist Papers and scholarly works on impeachment) and past cases of impeachment (Johnson, Nixon, Clinton). I’ve pondered hypothetical applications to illustrate better the purpose and likely immediate and lasting effects of impeachment/acquittal, impeachment/conviction, and no impeachment. To all the arguments, Democratic and Republican, I’ve applied the B.S. meter I’ve developed over my career.
It’s through the filter of my foregoing bias that I’ve reached my conclusion. (We’re at a fork in the road; the route we choose determines whether we’ll keep our Republic.)
Okay, my Trump-supporting friends. Now that you have a better idea of my bias, I’m ready to listen to yours.
(Remember to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.)
© 2019 Eric Nilsson
