4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoMore 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.