Impeachment Thread: Round 2

[colker]

Replace Trump with Obama telling BLM activists that the white establishment stole the elctions and they should storm the Capitol to make things right. How would cops, justice and congress treat the whole affair?

[BBB]

That's not the point. Right or wrong, both sides stick by their side. It sucks, but that's how it is.

And had the insurrection worked, sides would have been redundant. I'm glad at least 7 people on the other side worked that out.

[GrantM]

So by your logic, hundreds of elected Democrats were "ok" with Bill having an affair in the Whitehouse and lying about it?

yes, that's exactly what i'm saying. i don't think anyone, including republicans gave two shits about Clinton's affair or the lying,
Clinton's impeachment was a politically motivated game of gotcha. House Speaker Gingrich was having his own affair, cheating
on his wife, while leading the impeachment proceedings against Clinton.

Trump's party certainly didn't give a shit about lying then or now. That's totally obvious by how they conducted themselves over the
last four years, as if facts and truth don't even exist.

-g

[Greg Costello]

No I don't think the point is that both sides protected their own without regard for the Constitution. Is it really a stretch that some would conclude that lying about getting a blowjob in the Whitehouse is not a high crimes or misdemeanor (and that others, for political purposes would)? What Clinton got and what Trump did are about as equivalent as a bicycle and a rutabaga. This month 43 Republicans ignored their vows to follow the Constitution because they are a bunch of self interested political creatures who put, again, party over country.

[jclay]

Replace Trump with Obama telling BLM activists that the white establishment stole the elctions and they should storm the Capitol to make things right. How would cops, justice and congress treat the whole affair?

I keep offering that method of self check and have yet to have anybody respond. It's really easy: If you support Trump and either exoneration simply substitute Bill or Hillary Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, et al,, and tell us you'd be advocating for the same result.

[Corso]

Folks, party sticks with party, just as many of you stick with "republicans bad, Democrats good", and twist any situation to defend your opinion.

Unfortunately for all of us, BOTH sides are the same creatures. That's all I'm saying. To keep reading here, thread after thread, reply after reply, that the Republicans are the ones responsible for all evils in the world is simply not realistic and demonstrates why the divide never diminishes, and most likely never will.

The Clinton example was again, simply an example of HOW parties voted--not to begin a whose "crime" was worse debate, side-stepping my point.

[Corso]

Trump's party certainly didn't give a shit about lying then or now. That's totally obvious by how they conducted themselves over the
last four years, as if facts and truth don't even exist.

-g

Biden has a LONG history of lying. But he's our President now. What does that say about the Democratic Party?

My opinion: they are just like the Republicans.

[zachateseverything]

That's not the point. Right or wrong, both sides stick by their side. It sucks, but that's how it is.

this isn't true. democrats have shown significantly more willingness to stop supporting politicians guilty of egregious behavior. Would a republican senator accused of the same thing as Al Franken be forced to resign?

[Saab2000]

this isn't true. democrats have shown significantly more willingness to stop supporting politicians guilty of egregious behavior. Would a republican senator accused of the same thing as Al Franken be forced to resign?

What would the Democrats do with Bill Clinton in 2021 if he had done what he did today? I'm not referring to the lying and impeachment. That's another argument. I'm referring to the abuse of power WRT a female staffer? Would he be forced to resign in 2021? We'll never know.

[zachateseverything]

What would the Democrats do with Bill Clinton in 2021 if he had done what he did today? I'm not referring to the lying and impeachment. That's another argument. I'm referring to the abuse of power WRT a female staffer? Would he be forced to resign in 2021? We'll never know.

I think he'd be forced to resign. I'd be calling for it anyway. but I'm also not a part of some bizarre cult of personality.

[72gmc]

I agree with the point Corso is making. This impeachment vote was an outlier because it wasn't straight party line. I don't see much reason to believe that this mechanism will ever rise above partisanship.

[jclay]

What would the Democrats do with Bill Clinton in 2021 if he had done what he did today? I'm not referring to the lying and impeachment. That's another argument. I'm referring to the abuse of power WRT a female staffer? Would he be forced to resign in 2021? We'll never know.

Are you talking about Monica L? I'll confess to having never followed the details beyond the fact of sexual activity between the two; was that truly an abuse of power or simple sexual activity between consenting adults?

If the former, if truly an abuse (and I think there is a spectrum there...none of it good, but one end far worse than the other) of power and position I'd support impeachment and conviction; if the latter it's none of our biz, or should be.

I also, without being conversant on the details of Whitewater and other accusations, was (and still am, as far as I can go, absent homework) under the impression that his situation really was a witch hunt; an unending attempt to sabotage his administration by any and all available means, legit or not, in spite of no credible evidence (is that credible evidence a fair summary?), simply because he was a Democrat. Was that not the beginning of the era of discovery of the utility of greatly expanded focus on wedge issues and naked obstruction to derail the DP, rather than actually trying to work across the isle on behalf of the country?

My comparisons are quite one sided as I read the Mueller Report and have been exposed to the details of Trump's actions vastly more than Clinton; although he didn't, metaphorically, pour gasoline on political and social/cultural fires, I have problems with some of his policies and think of him as functionally too much of a Fake Left, Go Right, corporate Democrat ("left" in it's USA usage context); the 2008 financial implosion is on him via Glass Steagal repeal and the '94 crime bill caused, I think, far more harm than good. I say that to evidence the fact that I am, and never was, in thrall; I don't really do "in thrall" so perhaps I'm inoculated from the sort of nonsense that's coming from the remaining Trump supporters.

With Trump, on the other hand, we are confronted with an ocean of evidence of serious wrong doing which in any non-political, non-contentious context it would be universally seen as incontrovertible in spite of the denials from what, 70% of Republicans?

At the risk of Velocipede censure I also question, as reprehensible as sexual coercion is and as much as it demands meaningful redress/punishment, whether it, at least at the lesser end of the spectrum, quite rises to the level of attempting to overturn a legitimate presidential election.

[GrantM]

My opinion: they are just like the Republicans.

ah yes, there it is, the biggest lie of all.

-g

[Saab2000]

Are you talking about Monica L? I'll confess to having never followed the details beyond the fact of sexual activity between the two; was that truly an abuse of power or simple sexual activity between consenting adults?

If the former, if truly an abuse (and I think there is a spectrum there...none of it good, but one end far worse than the other) of power and position I'd support impeachment and conviction; if the latter it's none of our biz, or should be.

I also, without being conversant on the details of Whitewater and other accusations, was (and still am, as far as I can go, absent homework) under the impression that his situation really was a witch hunt; an unending attempt to sabotage his administration by any and all available means, legit or not, in spite of no credible evidence (is that credible evidence a fair summary?), simply because he was a Democrat. Was that not the beginning of the era of discovery of the utility of greatly expanded focus on wedge issues and naked obstruction to derail the DP, rather than actually trying to work across the isle on behalf of the country?

My comparisons are quite one sided as I read the Mueller Report and have been exposed to the details of Trump's actions vastly more than Clinton; although he didn't, metaphorically, pour gasoline on political and social/cultural fires, I have problems with some of his policies and think of him as functionally too much of a Fake Left, Go Right, corporate Democrat ("left" in it's USA usage context); the 2008 financial implosion is on him via Glass Steagal repeal. I say that to evidence the fact that I am, and never was, in thrall; I don't really do "in thrall".

With Trump, on the other hand, we are confronted with an ocean of evidence of serious wrong doing which in any non-political, non-contentious context it would be universally seen as incontrovertible in spite of the denials from what, 70% of Republicans?

At the risk of Velocipede censure I also question, as reprehensible as sexual coercion is might be, whether it quite rises to the level of attempting to overturn a legitimate presidential election.

I'm not really comparing Clinton and Trump. On the macro scale DJT is obviously far worse. It was more a question of how the parties side. We live in a different era regarding gender roles and what is or isn't appropriate behavior.

I don't really know where I'm going with this but Corso does have a point in how partisans vote or feel in these situations. Each party will try to find a way to spin or excuse the behavior of their leaders. It's the thing I've long been wary of - people put party ahead of country. Right now I side with the Democrats because they are more in line with my own personal values. But I'm not a party member and never will be.

For the record, I think Bill Clinton would be forced to resign today, not because of something between consenting adults but because of the obvious abuse of power. These situations are at best frowned upon and generally forbidden in work settings though I'm no expert on the subject.

[jclay]

I'm not really comparing Clinton and Trump. On the macro scale DJT is obviously far worse.

I don't really know where I'm going with this but Corso does have a point in how partisans vote or feel in these situations. Each party will try to find a way to spin or excuse the behavior of their leaders. It's the thing I've long been wary of - people put party ahead of country. Right now I side with the Democrats because they are more in line with my own personal values.

You know, having watched the continuous, egregious obstructionism and baseless character assassinations of Obama, John Kerry, Hillary and such as that, since Bill Clinton's time, I don't really see parity in partisan behavior; I see considerable disparity.

Certainly the DP will push back and to some degree protect it's own but I can't think of an example with such clear cut dereliction of duty and subsequent betrayal of their oaths of office. I see the RP's operational envelope, in this context, as vastly larger than the DP's; I don't believe for a second that if Clinton or Obama had done what Trump did in the run-up to and including Jan 6, that the DP would have supported either.

It doesn't make psychological sense to me either; the Rs are social/cultural conservatives and that is generally accompanied by tendencies towards authoritarianism; the DP is socially/culturally liberal (even if they sometimes screw it up from policy perspectives) and that doesn't lean that way, or as far in that direction. The psychology of social conservatives is meaningfully different than that of the more socially liberal folks. That's based on the perspectives I've found in psychological literature over the years as well as my own observations and dealings.

So, no, I can't buy the notion that the DP would, to nearly the same degree, mimic the RP on an issue such as the Jan 6 attack and the run-up to it, or even the subject matter addressed by the Mueller Report which is a bit more squishy in that more inferences must be made (I think) in order to convict.

[Saab2000]

You know, having watched the continuous, egregious obstructionism and baseless character assassinations of Obama, John Kerry, Hillary and such as that, since Bill Clinton's time, I don't really see parity in partisan behavior; I see considerable disparity.

Certainly the DP will push back and to some degree protect it's own but I can't think of an example with such clear cut dereliction of duty and subsequent betrayal of their oaths of office. I see the RP's operational envelope, in this context, as vastly larger than the DP's; I don't believe for a second that if Clinton or Obama had done what Trump did in the run-up to and including Jan 6, that the DP would have supported either.

It doesn't make psychological sense to me either; the Rs are social/cultural conservatives and that is generally accompanied by tendencies towards authoritarianism; the DP is socially/culturally liberal (even if they sometimes screw it up from policy perspectives) and that doesn't lean that way, or as far in that direction. The psychology of social conservatives is meaningfully different than that of the more socially liberal folks. That's based on the perspectives I've found in psychological literature over the years as well as my own observations and dealings.

So, no, I can't buy the notion that the DP would, to nearly the same degree, mimic the RP on an issue such as the Jan 6 attack and the run-up to it, or even the subject matter addressed by the Mueller Report which is a bit more squishy in that more inferences must be made (I think) in order to convict.

FYI, I agree with you on virtually all of this. I don't know when it started but as a nation we need to move away from the idea that others who don't agree with us are "the enemy" and need to be hanged for treason or if not so extreme, totally marginalized as "radicals". I'm glad we put the former president out of office and hopefully he can never make a comeback.

I'm not going to argue for where we need to be. I'll let other far smarter folks make those arguments. But we are definitely in a place right now where we shouldn't be. Hopefully our new president can help guide us to a better place even if many have misgivings about him. Personally, I like him and think he's the right person for right now.

[j44ke]

Clinton’s impeachment wasn’t specifically about sex and definitely was not about abuse. It was about lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. In short, he denied having sex with Lewinsky when asked about it under oath while prosecutors already had Lewinsky’s dress as proof. So while what he lied about was sex, that he lied was the issue.

This is perhaps oversimplified - the whole story is deceptively complicated - but worth going back and studying the events if you (jclay) weren’t paying attention to politics back then.

[72gmc]

^^^ Yes. As cynical as even that was in the moment--Republican congressmen offended by lying?--at the core was a president, lying to the American people and under oath.

Focusing simply on the effectiveness of impeachment as a mechanism for maintaining the standards we want as a nation, I look back on the Clinton impeachment with regret. Hypocrisy aside, our nation's hang-ups about sex and monogamy aside, that impeachment made a blatant presidential lie a politically permissible grey area. I loathed Ken Starr, still do, but I lost sight of the real question amid all of the theatrics.

[jimcav]

ah, if we recategorize this as impeachment round 4, the long issue is the seeming ambiguity of "high crime and misdemeanor", which from coverage I saw with constitutional experts wasn't ambiguous to the founders. Given that the impeachment process is inherently political and involves the congress pontificating to their constituent audience as much, if not more, than actually the facts of the offense in question; it might be nice if they (congress) actually did the work to define that phrase for modern times

I for one can understand the gradual progression over time in standards and morays. Once upon a time men wore hats. Once upon a time the secret service, the press, and nearly everyone looked the other way while presidents engaged in extramarital stuff.

I wish every president since had followed Nixon's example, and resigned when the facts showed he had acted in a way that is not acceptable, contrary to law, or resulted in significant consequences that normally only happen as the result of felonies or natural disasters. I know that (Nixon) was mainly due to the GOP not wanting to have to actually cast that vote to convict, but it was the right outcome. Clinton should have resigned. I found it disgusting what he did with ML, but of course heard some converse high-five type of attitude/opinions in response over the years. But the cover-up and lie under oath was beyond disgusting to me, that to me eliminated the possibility of trusting he would adhere to the rules of good governance as President.

I don't think it is okay that presidents and politicians can just lie as they wish (big or small) to get elected or influence policy, but we seem to tolerate it as a society, whether as 'free speech', "motivating us", "protecting us", etc; but at least we still draw a line in the realm of law and order and lying under oath. Of all the individuals that should be held to a higher standard, the President should top the list. I'd add Senators and Representatives too, but instead they seem to get "well, they are all just BS politicians" as some absurd free pass to be awful.

Respect for law and order has bizarrely turned into large swathes of the populace seeming to care only IF you get caught breaking a LAW, and IF you get convicted, and even then, depending on who called attention to the law-breaking, that "leak" or "accuser" becomes the focus/more interesting than the actual broken law and the one who broke it. The last time I saw stuff like that, I was in grade school, and the "tattle tale" was worse than the jerk who stole the cupcake, or broke the toy, or broke Jennifer's nose (3rd grade).

[jclay]

Clinton’s impeachment wasn’t specifically about sex and definitely was not about abuse. It was about lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. In short, he denied having sex with Lewinsky when asked about it under oath while prosecutors already had Lewinsky’s dress as proof. So while what he lied about was sex, that he lied was the issue.

This is perhaps oversimplified - the whole story is deceptively complicated - but worth going back and studying the events if you (jclay) weren’t paying attention to politics back then.

I think it was about getting rid of a particular president and derailing his administration, regardless of the means. Unfortunately Clinton lied, if about something that may have been none of their biz, and provided the rope with which to be hung. Now, if there was untoward coercion or bona fide abuse of power, which seems maybe not really likely since Monica was (I think) such a groupie, then we might have something to discuss in that vein; but given Trump's sexual transgressions which have been dismissed by his supporters I'm gonna call BS on the sex angle being of any concern, aside from being the mechanism with which to catch him in a lie.