15 ms·

People revealing constant incompetence and criminality at the highest levels of government are not as bad as the people committing constant incompetence and cri

People revealing constant incompetence and criminality at the highest levels of government are not as bad as the people committing constant incompetence and criminality at the highest levels of government, no matter how eloquent the presentation of the claim of "bothsides".

ticviking 7y ago
The issue as I see it is that the people claiming to clean house seem to be incapable of following their own rules for cleaning house. Given my biases this leaves me suspecting that this is one corrupt faction trying to oust the other corrupt faction.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Even if it is, the solution isn't to keep the currently-entrenched corrupt faction in power, right?
  - ticviking 7y ago
    I'm not going to support any efforts that involve blatantly ignoring the rules. I fully support the House either initiating impeachment under their existing rules OR changing the rules to align with the procedure they have chosen to use. A significant amount of how we got into this situation is because the institutions of our republic have become far too tolerant of rule-bending in favor of those who hold positions.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Perhaps. But it's worth noting there's a reason the Constitution is flexible on issues such as justification for impeachment. While law is not a formal system, a variant of Gödel's incompleteness theorem likely still applies (i.e. "There's a way to ruin the country without breaking any laws").
      - ticviking 7y ago
        Good point. That is a lot of why I'd be okay if the thing had a vote before the full house. What I'm seeing though is a pattern of flexibility that benefits the institution over individuals. This is horrifying at the local police department level, where we time and again bad actors protected to protect the department, or police union. Same thing with prosecutors offices, etc. Seeing that pattern targeting the executive of our country is worrying. I'm also really sympathetic to the argument that the white house has advanced about due process. This is particularly important precisely because Trump is so obviously corrupt and self-serving. If we can't do it right when it's obvious how can we do it right against someone sneaker?
        crooked-v 7y ago
        > That is a lot of why I'd be okay if the thing had a vote before the full house A vote before the full House is literally part of the process for submitting articles of impeachment to the Senate.
timerol 7y ago
Agreed. It really bothers me that the article has this to say about the POTUS: > He’s guilty, but the issue is how guilty, in comparison to his accusers.
- ticviking 7y ago
  More than that, "I was investigating wrongdoing by a former vice-president. My personal involvement was diplomatically necessary." is to me a fairly convincing defense for the July call if someone chooses to base impeachment on that event. The fact that the White House doesn't seem to have advanced that argument is confusing to me. More confusing is that a situation with such an obvious defense is what has triggered this instead of the mountain of other issues.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > More confusing is that a situation with such an obvious defense is what has triggered this instead of the mountain of other issues. Abuse of state apparatus for partisan political purposes has been a major tripwire in modern US politics. It was a central reason in why Watergate became an an issue of impeachment (though resignation stopped the impeachment from preceding), and also why a number of other post-Nixon reforms, including FISA (the criminal limits on domestic surveillance, not the weakening of them that some people now associate the name with in the post-9/11 FISA Amendments Act), were adopted. The fact that there is an obvious defense which, if true, would justify the conduct does not mean that the defense seems likely to be true and the conduct thereby justified.
dragonwriter 7y ago
This isn't classic bothsides-ism, which presents a false equivalency between the sides; this is explicitly claiming the incompetence and criminality are the lesser problem, and claiming that the alternative is a coup (as opposed to a combination of public accountability by the only means available and the enforcement of the fundamental law by the procedure laid out in that law) and that the refusal to adhere to the law by the executive is not (it is; the specific type of coup is called a “self-coup” or “autocoup”, where a leader comes into powerful by lawful means and then take additional power by transcending—often, but not always, as a prelude to abolishing by fiat—the legal constraints on their office.) It only passingly acknowledges problems on the side of the self-coup it defends in order to minimize them. It is, pure and simple, the up-is-down gaslighting that has characterized the Trump camp and it's defenders from day one, not the mere bothsides-ism.

ticviking 7y ago

The issue as I see it is that the people claiming to clean house seem to be incapable of following their own rules for cleaning house. Given my biases this leaves me suspecting that this is one corrupt faction trying to oust the other corrupt faction.

shadowgovt 7y ago
Even if it is, the solution isn't to keep the currently-entrenched corrupt faction in power, right?
- ticviking 7y ago
  I'm not going to support any efforts that involve blatantly ignoring the rules. I fully support the House either initiating impeachment under their existing rules OR changing the rules to align with the procedure they have chosen to use. A significant amount of how we got into this situation is because the institutions of our republic have become far too tolerant of rule-bending in favor of those who hold positions.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Perhaps. But it's worth noting there's a reason the Constitution is flexible on issues such as justification for impeachment. While law is not a formal system, a variant of Gödel's incompleteness theorem likely still applies (i.e. "There's a way to ruin the country without breaking any laws").
    - ticviking 7y ago
      Good point. That is a lot of why I'd be okay if the thing had a vote before the full house. What I'm seeing though is a pattern of flexibility that benefits the institution over individuals. This is horrifying at the local police department level, where we time and again bad actors protected to protect the department, or police union. Same thing with prosecutors offices, etc. Seeing that pattern targeting the executive of our country is worrying. I'm also really sympathetic to the argument that the white house has advanced about due process. This is particularly important precisely because Trump is so obviously corrupt and self-serving. If we can't do it right when it's obvious how can we do it right against someone sneaker?
      - crooked-v 7y ago
        > That is a lot of why I'd be okay if the thing had a vote before the full house A vote before the full House is literally part of the process for submitting articles of impeachment to the Senate.

timerol 7y ago

Agreed. It really bothers me that the article has this to say about the POTUS: > He’s guilty, but the issue is how guilty, in comparison to his accusers.

ticviking 7y ago
More than that, "I was investigating wrongdoing by a former vice-president. My personal involvement was diplomatically necessary." is to me a fairly convincing defense for the July call if someone chooses to base impeachment on that event. The fact that the White House doesn't seem to have advanced that argument is confusing to me. More confusing is that a situation with such an obvious defense is what has triggered this instead of the mountain of other issues.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > More confusing is that a situation with such an obvious defense is what has triggered this instead of the mountain of other issues. Abuse of state apparatus for partisan political purposes has been a major tripwire in modern US politics. It was a central reason in why Watergate became an an issue of impeachment (though resignation stopped the impeachment from preceding), and also why a number of other post-Nixon reforms, including FISA (the criminal limits on domestic surveillance, not the weakening of them that some people now associate the name with in the post-9/11 FISA Amendments Act), were adopted. The fact that there is an obvious defense which, if true, would justify the conduct does not mean that the defense seems likely to be true and the conduct thereby justified.

dragonwriter 7y ago

This isn't classic bothsides-ism, which presents a false equivalency between the sides; this is explicitly claiming the incompetence and criminality are the lesser problem, and claiming that the alternative is a coup (as opposed to a combination of public accountability by the only means available and the enforcement of the fundamental law by the procedure laid out in that law) and that the refusal to adhere to the law by the executive is not (it is; the specific type of coup is called a “self-coup” or “autocoup”, where a leader comes into powerful by lawful means and then take additional power by transcending—often, but not always, as a prelude to abolishing by fiat—the legal constraints on their office.) It only passingly acknowledges problems on the side of the self-coup it defends in order to minimize them. It is, pure and simple, the up-is-down gaslighting that has characterized the Trump camp and it's defenders from day one, not the mere bothsides-ism.