6 ms·

I’ve seen the impeachment described as illegitimate somehow. It was political sure, no doubt about it. But he tried to use his office to coerce a foreign govern

I’ve seen the impeachment described as illegitimate somehow. It was political sure, no doubt about it. But he tried to use his office to coerce a foreign government to take down his political opponent. That should be a fireable offense. He only escaped it because of purely political defense.

rmk 6y ago
He violated campaign finance laws, but there was not enough evidence to support the charge of misuse of office in a treasonous manner. You may personally be convinced of the President's wrondoing, but to try a sitting President for what is a grave offense, there are much higher standards of evidence and procedure. The whole impeachment was an exercise in power from day one, but Democrats made a huge fuss about a similar exercise in power by Trump: appointing a Justice t the Supreme Court in an election year. Both were actions that where the actors were entirely within their rights (The lower house has the right to impeach, and the upper house has the right to try the President; similarly, a President absolutely has the right to appoint a Justice of the Supreme Court for as long as he is President.), but the President made no bones about what the whole thing was, while the Democrats tried hard to couch their act in moral and ethical terms. Judging by the way the election went (razor thin margins at almost every level with 70+ million popular votes for Trump), the public were having none of it.
- yongjik 6y ago
  > You may personally be convinced of the President's wrondoing, but to try a sitting President for what is a grave offense, there are much higher standards of evidence and procedure. Some of us remember the good old days when a (Democratic) president almost got impeached for lying about getting oral sex from an intern, so I'm not really convinced about your argument here.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    But he admitted to lying. That’s pretty rock solid evidence.
    - sagarm 6y ago
      There are tapes of Trump sounding like a two-bit mobster. The GOP did not dispute the evidence, they just refused to convict because it wasn't "serious" enough. If Trump had backed down that might have made sense, but instead it emboldened his lawlessness. We're now at the point where his undermining of the voting process is entirely expected and hardly even noteworthy.
      - rmk 6y ago
        Disputing the vote and questioning results is very common in elections. Don't pretend like Trump is the first to do this, or the first to insinuate that fraud has influenced the result. It's pretty run-of-the-mill politicking. Here's Hillary doing the same thing, except she's blaming nefarious foreign actors instead of the local machine: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/18/hillary-clinton-trump-challenge-2016-election-legitimacy-242848 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/18/hillary-clinton-tr... The simple fact is that Hillary simply couldn't believe she was defeated, and did as much or more disputing of results. That doesn't make her an enemy of democracy, and neither does Donald Trump's caterwauling. But if you read the recent news reporting or watched the current President-elect's speeches, you would think that the very foundations of Democracy are shaken. Utter hogwash.
      - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        You must be pretty young. Gore did the same thing in 2000.
        sagichmal 6y ago
        Lol.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        What the fuck crime is “sounding like a two bit mobster”. Is that walking around saying “yous guys”?
  - xdavidliu 6y ago
    nit: Nixon did not get impeached, but Clinton _did_ get impeached: he just wasn't convicted in the senate. I agree with your point, still.
- amykyta 6y ago
  It was not campaign finance laws that’s incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump?wp... Charges were abuse of power and obstruction of investigation. That Democrats were itching to impeach him doesn’t change the reality that he abused his office to advance his own political interests.
  - rmk 6y ago
    I'm aware of what the charges were. I'm referring to the original investigation of Muller's that had these findings.
- haberman 6y ago
  We will never know whether any of Trump's wrongdoing rises to the level necessary to convict, because the Senate decided not to call any witnesses or subpoena any documents.
- afjl 6y ago
  I think the Supreme Court Justice issue is way more complicated than that. When going down the nuclear option, both Reid and McConnell knew this was going to happen, it was just a matter of who ended up on top. There was always going to be a scramble for one side to change the rules, get a leg up, and pull the ladder up behind them. I suppose that's endemic to a 2-party system, but that's what happens when hard-earned consensus is destroyed. Not blaming Dems/GOP here, I'm just saying this was the inevitable consequence and it's more complicated than you're letting on.
cm2187 6y ago
The Obama administration used its office to take down a political opponent, on the basis of improbable claims of collusion with Russia, backed by an opposition research report funded by the Clinton campaign. Is any of this good? Of course not. Both sides have been abusing their office in a similar way. I am struggling how people can get comfortable with “when my team does it it’s justified, but how does the other team dare to do it!”.
- ZeteticElench 6y ago
  "on the basis of improbable claims of collusion with Russia" Didn't Trump actually ask Russia to hack the democrats?
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Nope
    - sagichmal 6y ago
      He literally said those exact words on live television.
      - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        For one thing, he literally didn’t. Prove me wrong. Also, he figuratively didn’t.
        foota 6y ago
        I'll bite: https://youtu.be/-e-Vka_HkRU?t=107 https://youtu.be/-e-Vka_HkRU?t=107
        lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        Yeah, as I said. You know this isn’t an actual sincere attempt to collude with Russia, right? People can’t seriously believe that’s what this is. Not to mention, he was talking about Hillary’s lost emails, not hacking the democrats.

rmk 6y ago

He violated campaign finance laws, but there was not enough evidence to support the charge of misuse of office in a treasonous manner. You may personally be convinced of the President's wrondoing, but to try a sitting President for what is a grave offense, there are much higher standards of evidence and procedure. The whole impeachment was an exercise in power from day one, but Democrats made a huge fuss about a similar exercise in power by Trump: appointing a Justice t the Supreme Court in an election year. Both were actions that where the actors were entirely within their rights (The lower house has the right to impeach, and the upper house has the right to try the President; similarly, a President absolutely has the right to appoint a Justice of the Supreme Court for as long as he is President.), but the President made no bones about what the whole thing was, while the Democrats tried hard to couch their act in moral and ethical terms. Judging by the way the election went (razor thin margins at almost every level with 70+ million popular votes for Trump), the public were having none of it.

yongjik 6y ago
> You may personally be convinced of the President's wrondoing, but to try a sitting President for what is a grave offense, there are much higher standards of evidence and procedure. Some of us remember the good old days when a (Democratic) president almost got impeached for lying about getting oral sex from an intern, so I'm not really convinced about your argument here.
- kortilla 6y ago
  But he admitted to lying. That’s pretty rock solid evidence.
  - sagarm 6y ago
    There are tapes of Trump sounding like a two-bit mobster. The GOP did not dispute the evidence, they just refused to convict because it wasn't "serious" enough. If Trump had backed down that might have made sense, but instead it emboldened his lawlessness. We're now at the point where his undermining of the voting process is entirely expected and hardly even noteworthy.
    - rmk 6y ago
      Disputing the vote and questioning results is very common in elections. Don't pretend like Trump is the first to do this, or the first to insinuate that fraud has influenced the result. It's pretty run-of-the-mill politicking. Here's Hillary doing the same thing, except she's blaming nefarious foreign actors instead of the local machine: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/18/hillary-clinton-trump-challenge-2016-election-legitimacy-242848 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/18/hillary-clinton-tr... The simple fact is that Hillary simply couldn't believe she was defeated, and did as much or more disputing of results. That doesn't make her an enemy of democracy, and neither does Donald Trump's caterwauling. But if you read the recent news reporting or watched the current President-elect's speeches, you would think that the very foundations of Democracy are shaken. Utter hogwash.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      You must be pretty young. Gore did the same thing in 2000.
      - sagichmal 6y ago
        Lol.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      What the fuck crime is “sounding like a two bit mobster”. Is that walking around saying “yous guys”?
- xdavidliu 6y ago
  nit: Nixon did not get impeached, but Clinton _did_ get impeached: he just wasn't convicted in the senate. I agree with your point, still.
amykyta 6y ago
It was not campaign finance laws that’s incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump?wp... Charges were abuse of power and obstruction of investigation. That Democrats were itching to impeach him doesn’t change the reality that he abused his office to advance his own political interests.
- rmk 6y ago
  I'm aware of what the charges were. I'm referring to the original investigation of Muller's that had these findings.
haberman 6y ago
We will never know whether any of Trump's wrongdoing rises to the level necessary to convict, because the Senate decided not to call any witnesses or subpoena any documents.
afjl 6y ago
I think the Supreme Court Justice issue is way more complicated than that. When going down the nuclear option, both Reid and McConnell knew this was going to happen, it was just a matter of who ended up on top. There was always going to be a scramble for one side to change the rules, get a leg up, and pull the ladder up behind them. I suppose that's endemic to a 2-party system, but that's what happens when hard-earned consensus is destroyed. Not blaming Dems/GOP here, I'm just saying this was the inevitable consequence and it's more complicated than you're letting on.

cm2187 6y ago

The Obama administration used its office to take down a political opponent, on the basis of improbable claims of collusion with Russia, backed by an opposition research report funded by the Clinton campaign. Is any of this good? Of course not. Both sides have been abusing their office in a similar way. I am struggling how people can get comfortable with “when my team does it it’s justified, but how does the other team dare to do it!”.

ZeteticElench 6y ago
"on the basis of improbable claims of collusion with Russia" Didn't Trump actually ask Russia to hack the democrats?
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Nope
  - sagichmal 6y ago
    He literally said those exact words on live television.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      For one thing, he literally didn’t. Prove me wrong. Also, he figuratively didn’t.
      - foota 6y ago
        I'll bite: https://youtu.be/-e-Vka_HkRU?t=107 https://youtu.be/-e-Vka_HkRU?t=107
        lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        Yeah, as I said. You know this isn’t an actual sincere attempt to collude with Russia, right? People can’t seriously believe that’s what this is. Not to mention, he was talking about Hillary’s lost emails, not hacking the democrats.