12 ms·

>> Would you say illegal actions taken by the president are relevant to whether they should continue to have power? Absolutely and immediately, once convicted,

>> Would you say illegal actions taken by the president are relevant to whether they should continue to have power? Absolutely and immediately, once convicted, but that hasn't happened. And to emphasize my point about party lines - how much do you want to bet it won't happen? But let's be clear that my first comment was tongue-in-cheek. I'm not saying the president ACTUALLY has more power depending on the party. I'm saying that things people were fine with under Obama are suddenly a problem under Trump. And I will expect the same thing next time there's a Democrat in office - suddenly Republicans will flip-flop on the way the office is supposed to operate. edit: Maybe a more appropriate question is, among people who label themselves as "Democrat" and "Republican", who thinks that Trump should lose power after his impeachment, who also thinks that Clinton should have lost power after his impeachment?

shadowgovt 7y ago
It's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison since one of them was impeached for lying to a grand jury (about a topic that was outside the scope of the investigation and more than a little irrelevant to any questions of high crimes and misdemeanors) and another was impeached for abuse of the power of his office to solicit aid from a foreign country in collecting damaging information on a political rival. Intent and outcomes matter if the question is "Should this person lose power?"
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  That's my whole point. Increasingly, people's idea of the rule of law is their subjective opinion of this person. Trump could have been impeached for the exact same offense, and 99% of people opinions of what should happen next wouldn't change.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    I believe if Trump were impeached for the same offense, with the same fact pattern, your assertion is not true. The offenses and fact patterns in question are quite different in these two cases.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      So you think the majority-Republican Senate might actually convict?
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Oh, absolutely not, because they don't think the way I do. The GOP has made it clear in this generation they care about power to rule and very little else; not their legacy, not the stability of the US government long-term, not quid pro quo or fair play. They seem to see their situation as one of existential threat, and they're operating as if the moment they lose control of Congress and the Presidency at the same time they will cease to exist as a political party.
        TallGuyShort 7y ago
        Almost as if... it's basically a party-line vote. Which is exactly what I've been saying since my first comment in this thread. Why are we even discussing this? You keep proving my point by bringing it back to party lines. Trump was impeached on a near-perfect party line vote. Clinton was impeached, 2.5% away from being a perfect party line vote. It's virtually always a party line vote when it's a question of which president should have which power and get away with what.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        I don't think "virtually always parties" is a useful observation if it has little predictive power, and I don't think one can make predictions on a three-data-point event. But on the other topic (apples to oranges comparison): it's possible for both votes to be party-line regardless of the fact pattern if one party is corrupt and just always votes to maximize party power independent of fact patterns, and the fact pattern would induce a more objective juror to vote one way in one case and the other way in the other case. (The difference would be one would anticipate were a Democrat to do what Trump did, they'd be roundly impeached and convicted).

shadowgovt 7y ago

It's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison since one of them was impeached for lying to a grand jury (about a topic that was outside the scope of the investigation and more than a little irrelevant to any questions of high crimes and misdemeanors) and another was impeached for abuse of the power of his office to solicit aid from a foreign country in collecting damaging information on a political rival. Intent and outcomes matter if the question is "Should this person lose power?"

TallGuyShort 7y ago
That's my whole point. Increasingly, people's idea of the rule of law is their subjective opinion of this person. Trump could have been impeached for the exact same offense, and 99% of people opinions of what should happen next wouldn't change.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  I believe if Trump were impeached for the same offense, with the same fact pattern, your assertion is not true. The offenses and fact patterns in question are quite different in these two cases.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    So you think the majority-Republican Senate might actually convict?
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Oh, absolutely not, because they don't think the way I do. The GOP has made it clear in this generation they care about power to rule and very little else; not their legacy, not the stability of the US government long-term, not quid pro quo or fair play. They seem to see their situation as one of existential threat, and they're operating as if the moment they lose control of Congress and the Presidency at the same time they will cease to exist as a political party.
      - TallGuyShort 7y ago
        Almost as if... it's basically a party-line vote. Which is exactly what I've been saying since my first comment in this thread. Why are we even discussing this? You keep proving my point by bringing it back to party lines. Trump was impeached on a near-perfect party line vote. Clinton was impeached, 2.5% away from being a perfect party line vote. It's virtually always a party line vote when it's a question of which president should have which power and get away with what.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        I don't think "virtually always parties" is a useful observation if it has little predictive power, and I don't think one can make predictions on a three-data-point event. But on the other topic (apples to oranges comparison): it's possible for both votes to be party-line regardless of the fact pattern if one party is corrupt and just always votes to maximize party power independent of fact patterns, and the fact pattern would induce a more objective juror to vote one way in one case and the other way in the other case. (The difference would be one would anticipate were a Democrat to do what Trump did, they'd be roundly impeached and convicted).