4 ms·

We were doomed when Republicans decided that impeachment was a partisan tool and could not be used against Trump. They broke the system by abandoning their cons

We were doomed when Republicans decided that impeachment was a partisan tool and could not be used against Trump. They broke the system by abandoning their constitutional duties so we are now looking into the abyss.

jameshart 2y ago
A do-over of both impeachment trials in the Senate would seem to be necessary, given that many senators went on record as saying they believed presidents were subject to criminal prosecution and chose not to convict for that reason. This changes that calculus.
- jfengel 2y ago
  It changes the excuse. They will surely find a different one.
A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
That... is a bold misstatement of basic facts. IIRC[1] Democracts introduced a bill to impeach Trump in very partisan fashion, and then cried foul when Republicans made an attempt to impeach Biden. Amusingly, this is partially how we got to see the other part of the Hunter Biden laptop saga. But to your main point, do you remember why Democrats tried to impeach Trump? I am leaving it as a question, because I am curious how you are intending to defend that record. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trum... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_into_Joe_Biden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_into_Joe_B...
- laidoffamazon 2y ago
  They impeached Trump twice, members of both parties voted to impeach both times (more in the latter than the former). The first time Trump used his power as president of a superpower to attempt to force a poor country to make up a fake investigation into his political rival. This is bad, basically unprecedented.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - laidoffamazon 2y ago
      > Unprecedented? Hardly[1]. This is literally because the individual in question was notably corrupt and not for political gain. >> It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe. > Ah, yes, the ever-present siren song of bipartisanship[2]. House had 10 defectors That is indeed bipartisanship
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        << That is indeed bipartisanship Just a point of reference for me though. Would one count the impeachment as bipartisan or are we just playing with words? I mean, we can, but it gets silly fast. << because the individual in question was notably corrupt and not for political gain. I did not you ask why. You used qualifier unprecedented, which was inaccurate ( I am giving you the benefit of the doubt ). And this is before we get to the part that finding a non-corrupt official there is kinda hard ( edit: which makes the distinction irrelevant ).
        laidoffamazon 2y ago
        > Would one count the impeachment as bipartisan Yes, obviously > You used qualifier unprecedented The problem isn't pressuring Ukraine the problem is pressuring Ukraine for dirt on your opponent. That kind of thing is absolutely unprecedented.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        << Would one count the impeachment as bipartisan You are not one bit concerned that it is a little like saying "There is pee in the ocean"? It is certainly true, but it is irrelevant. I guess what I am saying is that you are technically correct[1] when it comes to definition, but wrong where it actually matters -- reality. I might as well start calling ocean pee now. << the problem is pressuring Ukraine for dirt on your opponent. Is this the fragment[2] you are referring to? "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it." Seems like a reasonable request does it not? edit: if not, why not? [1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan [2]https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine...

jameshart 2y ago

A do-over of both impeachment trials in the Senate would seem to be necessary, given that many senators went on record as saying they believed presidents were subject to criminal prosecution and chose not to convict for that reason. This changes that calculus.

jfengel 2y ago
It changes the excuse. They will surely find a different one.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago

That... is a bold misstatement of basic facts. IIRC[1] Democracts introduced a bill to impeach Trump in very partisan fashion, and then cried foul when Republicans made an attempt to impeach Biden. Amusingly, this is partially how we got to see the other part of the Hunter Biden laptop saga. But to your main point, do you remember why Democrats tried to impeach Trump? I am leaving it as a question, because I am curious how you are intending to defend that record. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trum... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_into_Joe_Biden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_into_Joe_B...

laidoffamazon 2y ago
They impeached Trump twice, members of both parties voted to impeach both times (more in the latter than the former). The first time Trump used his power as president of a superpower to attempt to force a poor country to make up a fake investigation into his political rival. This is bad, basically unprecedented.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - laidoffamazon 2y ago
    > Unprecedented? Hardly[1]. This is literally because the individual in question was notably corrupt and not for political gain. >> It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe. > Ah, yes, the ever-present siren song of bipartisanship[2]. House had 10 defectors That is indeed bipartisanship
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      << That is indeed bipartisanship Just a point of reference for me though. Would one count the impeachment as bipartisan or are we just playing with words? I mean, we can, but it gets silly fast. << because the individual in question was notably corrupt and not for political gain. I did not you ask why. You used qualifier unprecedented, which was inaccurate ( I am giving you the benefit of the doubt ). And this is before we get to the part that finding a non-corrupt official there is kinda hard ( edit: which makes the distinction irrelevant ).
      - laidoffamazon 2y ago
        > Would one count the impeachment as bipartisan Yes, obviously > You used qualifier unprecedented The problem isn't pressuring Ukraine the problem is pressuring Ukraine for dirt on your opponent. That kind of thing is absolutely unprecedented.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        << Would one count the impeachment as bipartisan You are not one bit concerned that it is a little like saying "There is pee in the ocean"? It is certainly true, but it is irrelevant. I guess what I am saying is that you are technically correct[1] when it comes to definition, but wrong where it actually matters -- reality. I might as well start calling ocean pee now. << the problem is pressuring Ukraine for dirt on your opponent. Is this the fragment[2] you are referring to? "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it." Seems like a reasonable request does it not? edit: if not, why not? [1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan [2]https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine...