Impeachment Thread: Round 2

[j44ke]

I think it was about getting rid of a particular president and derailing his administration, regardless of the means. Unfortunately Clinton lied, if about something that may have been none of their biz, and provided the rope with which to be hung. Now, if there was untoward coercion or bona fide abuse of power, which seems maybe not really likely since Monica was (I think) such a groupie, then we might have something to discuss in that vein; but given Trump's sexual transgressions which have been dismissed by his supporters I'm gonna call BS on the sex angle being of any concern, aside from being the mechanism with which to catch him in a lie.

I was referring to the actual impeachment charges. They were about lying to a grand jury. But by your own admission you don’t know the details of the case. You should go study it, especially since you are now impugning Lewinsky’s character using sexist language without specific knowledge.

[zachateseverything]

Are you talking about Monica L? I'll confess to having never followed the details beyond the fact of sexual activity between the two; was that truly an abuse of power or simple sexual activity between consenting adults?

If the former, if truly an abuse (and I think there is a spectrum there...none of it good, but one end far worse than the other) of power and position I'd support impeachment and conviction; if the latter it's none of our biz, or should be.

I also, without being conversant on the details of Whitewater and other accusations, was (and still am, as far as I can go, absent homework) under the impression that his situation really was a witch hunt; an unending attempt to sabotage his administration by any and all available means, legit or not, in spite of no credible evidence (is that credible evidence a fair summary?), simply because he was a Democrat. Was that not the beginning of the era of discovery of the utility of greatly expanded focus on wedge issues and naked obstruction to derail the DP, rather than actually trying to work across the isle on behalf of the country?

My comparisons are quite one sided as I read the Mueller Report and have been exposed to the details of Trump's actions vastly more than Clinton; although he didn't, metaphorically, pour gasoline on political and social/cultural fires, I have problems with some of his policies and think of him as functionally too much of a Fake Left, Go Right, corporate Democrat ("left" in it's USA usage context); the 2008 financial implosion is on him via Glass Steagal repeal and the '94 crime bill caused, I think, far more harm than good. I say that to evidence the fact that I am, and never was, in thrall; I don't really do "in thrall" so perhaps I'm inoculated from the sort of nonsense that's coming from the remaining Trump supporters.

With Trump, on the other hand, we are confronted with an ocean of evidence of serious wrong doing which in any non-political, non-contentious context it would be universally seen as incontrovertible in spite of the denials from what, 70% of Republicans?

At the risk of Velocipede censure I also question, as reprehensible as sexual coercion is and as much as it demands meaningful redress/punishment, whether it, at least at the lesser end of the spectrum, quite rises to the level of attempting to overturn a legitimate presidential election.

even though they're consenting adults there's a power dynamic at play that's unacceptable for someone in a position of authority and responsibility to take advantage of.

[theflashunc]

Folks, party sticks with party, just as many of you stick with "republicans bad, Democrats good", and twist any situation to defend your opinion.

Unfortunately for all of us, BOTH sides are the same creatures. That's all I'm saying. To keep reading here, thread after thread, reply after reply, that the Republicans are the ones responsible for all evils in the world is simply not realistic and demonstrates why the divide never diminishes, and most likely never will.

The Clinton example was again, simply an example of HOW parties voted--not to begin a whose "crime" was worse debate, side-stepping my point.

There's only one side currently backing away from two centuries of democratic norms in this country, pushing itself further and further into the reliance upon conspiracy theorists, would-be authoritarians, and policies that generally seek to preserve outcomes that maintain their own power at all costs. This is all after telling it's core constituents after 40-plus years that policies advocated by the other party will lead to the very end of their supporters' very way of life, painting political opponents as an existential threat to the republic where we all live.

As David Frum rather presciently said in 2018: "If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy."

And that is what Trump is feeding right now above all else, and others in party are too cowardly to stop what is nothing less than a descent into authoritarianism and fascism.

[gregl]

A few thoughts after reading through this thread:

- Nixon resigned only after senior members of his own Republican party (senators and congress persons) advised him that he would be impeached. There was insufficient Republican support in the House of Representatives to vote down the articles of impeachment. Nixon chose to resign to stop the impeachment proceedings from moving forward from the judiciary committee to the full House. In contrast, both Clinton and Trump were impeached by the House, but had sufficient support in the Senate to be acquitted.

- Clinton artfully dodged the charge of lying under oath. He used the semantics of his accusation in his defense. I wish that Clinton had resigned. As it was, the drop in his popularity so late in his presidency was sufficient to hurt Gore's candidacy in 2000 and was a contributing factor to George Bush's victory in the election. In effect, the Democratic party was punished for Clinton's poor decisions.

- IMO Clinton's actions were indefensible and he should have been censured for them. His affair with ML was a textbook case of power over a subordinate. While they were both consenting adults, one was the President of the US and the other was a 22-24 year-old intern. This isn't about politics, it's about principle.

- Likewise, Trump's actions were indefensible. IMO, his actions were the most dangerous to our country. Nixon's actions were driven by his paranoia and desire to win the election. Only Clinton can explain his motivations. Trump simply wouldn't accept the will of the American people and attempted insurrection to overturn an election that was more closely monitored than any in US history. The failure of Republican senators to vote for impeachment is an indictment of them as individuals and the Republican party as an organization. They placed party (and their future re-elections) above their duty to the Constitution. I'll say it again: this isn't about politics, it's about principle.

Greg

[classtimesailer]

I can't find a whole lot wrong with this analysis; oh, a little hyperbolic here and there, maybe (and history will have the final word on it), but the author pretty much nails the essence of our situation: https://eand.co/america-is-now-a-cou...m-e758e9b5a598

When the analysis includes:
"...nearly been massacred by fascists a few weeks ago.", I throw the whole thing out. The blockbuster movie in a few years will have difficulty exceeding the drama contained in this and other analysis provided by the prosecution.

[jimcav]

I still think any current assessment or analysis needs to have that disclaimer of “based upon current knowledge”. It could be argued that “near massacre” is quite hyperbolic, but so far it appears a combination of luck and some incompetence on the part of the attackers made this far less worse than it could have been. If you look at videos of the anger and invective present when they first stormed into the bldg and were breaking down doors, I think it is accurate to say they would have killed members of Congress if they had gotten to them then. Thank god we won’t know, and I pray there is never another opportunity to find out.

[gregl]

I still think any current assessment or analysis needs to have that disclaimer of “based upon current knowledge”. It could be argued that “near massacre” is quite hyperbolic, but so far it appears a combination of luck and some incompetence on the part of the attackers made this far less worse than it could have been. If you look at videos of the anger and invective present when they first stormed into the bldg and were breaking down doors, I think it is accurate to say they would have killed members of Congress if they had gotten to them then. Thank god we won’t know, and I pray there is never another opportunity to find out.

^^^This^^^ January 6 was a warning sign similar to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. If we don't heed this warning, the next time we won't be so lucky. I was taught by my LEO uncle that if someone points a gun at you, the only valid assumption is that they will pull the trigger and kill you. The mob attacking the Capitol last month wasn't there for a friendly social call. Only good luck kept the death toll to five.

Greg

[thollandpe]

For the record, I think Bill Clinton would be forced to resign today, not because of something between consenting adults but because of the obvious abuse of power.

I agree. But he was not impeached for sexual harassment, he was impeached for lying about the affair.

Clinton’s impeachment wasn’t specifically about sex and definitely was not about abuse. It was about lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. In short, he denied having sex with Lewinsky when asked about it under oath while prosecutors already had Lewinsky’s dress as proof. So while what he lied about was sex, that he lied was the issue.

And that's the irony. The abuse of position by Clinton was inexcusable, but Starr's was egregious. He threatened to throw Lewinsky's mother in jail. To get her to talk about the blow job. Not because he wanted justice for the victim, but to get something, anything, on Clinton.

Kudos to Monica for having come through that whole affair OK. Ken Starr is a weirdo.

And enough of chasing Corso's tennis ball into the road. There was plenty of approbation from Democrats about the blow job. Even if Lieberman was no longer a Democrat by then.

The latest President to be impeached, was impeached the second time for encouraging armed goons to storm the Capitol and overturn the election, hang the Vice President, and hunt down the Speaker of the House. Seems to me that his defense team didn't really dispute that he did it, just that the First Amendment gave him the right to do that, or that it wasn't an impeachable defense because he had already left office.

[Corso]

ah yes, there it is, the biggest lie of all.

-g

I find it very sad that you feel that way. But I'm not surprised, some Dems feel they own the moral high ground. Another false belief. But if it makes you sleep better at night, so be it.

[Will Neide]

I find it very sad that you feel that way. But I'm not surprised, some Dems feel they own the moral high ground. Another false belief. But if it makes you sleep better at night, so be it.

As a registered Republican, it's very hard to agree with your sentiment that both sides are equal in their lies. Current state, the Republican base, aka Trump supporters, are fully committed to conspiracy theories and ideas that are just patently false. We are so far beyond the traditional tit for tat, that we can only hope to get back to a point where we are debating stretched truths and playing politics.

[GrantM]

I find it very sad that you feel that way. But I'm not surprised, some Dems feel they own the moral high ground.

I'm not a dem, and not even an American. Just calling them as i see 'em. It seems from the outside, certainly widespread belief (80%?) of your neighbours
to the north are bewildered how an American President lies about the election results for two months, and isn't escorted to the funny farm or prison.
I think many Republicans have lost touch with how rational people behave, and what lines are simply unacceptable to cross.

-g

[jclay]

When the analysis includes:
"...nearly been massacred by fascists a few weeks ago.", I throw the whole thing out.

So, you watched the mob's behavior and destruction, then hit the "equals" button (I prefer HP's RPN, but whatever) on your Human Behavioural Calculator and come up with "no, they won't kill indiscriminately"? That strikes me as ridiculously optimistic; well, pretty stupid actually.

I guess I didn't see the tea cart loaded with those yummy little British tea sandwiches and copies of position papers for discussion with Pelosi, Pence, Schumer and other notable Members-O Congress. Or is it that because they had certain people in mind the word "indiscriminate" (as in "indiscriminate killing" being one meaning of massacre) is incorrect and therefore the notion of mob murder of a fair number of peeps is null and void? That's a little picky.

Apologies to Midsommer Murders, S1E1: "The diamonds are potted meat, the hearts are salmon spread and the clubs are....no, no, no, not the club with the cop's blood on it and that I'm going to beat you to death with, the pumpernickel sammies next to it."

Right; I'm sure they just wanted a little civilized sit-down discussion of legislative fine points. Maybe the zip ties were to be used as coasters or to hold the pages of the discussion docs down. Nothing like multi purpose items for convenience.

Rubbing my bleary eyes and......do I smell coffee...hear a percolator? Anyone?

[Corso]

I'm not a dem, and not even an American. Just calling them as i see 'em. It seems from the outside, certainly widespread belief (80%?) of your neighbours
to the north are bewildered how an American President lies about the election results for two months, and isn't escorted to the funny farm or prison.
I think many Republicans have lost touch with how rational people behave, and what lines are simply unacceptable to cross.

-g

Oh, that's right, I forgot G. Leet me correct myself:

I find it very sad that you feel that way. But I'm not surprised, some outsiders who can't vote or pay taxes in my country, feel they own the moral high ground to criticize from the outside.

Do you participate in forums that talk about Canadian issues? If so, please direct me to them, so I can offer my outside view. Just in the name of equality. Fair enough?

[bigbill]

Can we nuke this thread from orbit, just to be sure?

[jclay]

Oh, that's right, I forgot G. Leet me correct myself:

I find it very sad that you feel that way. But I'm not surprised, some outsiders who can't vote or pay taxes in my country, feel they own the moral high ground to criticize from the outside.

Do you participate in forums that talk about Canadian issues? If so, please direct me to them, so I can offer my outside view. Just in the name of equality. Fair enough?

You think his doing so is illegitimate? I suggest being a lot more concerned with whether or not someone's analysis is correct than the commentator's country of origin, or postal code.

Doesn't the USA render those sorts of judgements on the actions, politics, and policies of other countries, but with a hell of a lot bigger stick, on a daily basis?? You know, like in about 120 countries on any given day?

If you could offer constructive commentary on some of Canada's flaws I'd imagine a bunch of her citizens would be thankful.

[mjbabcock]

Ain’t no reason Canadians can’t evaluate ‘Mericans. We (myself included) judge other nations all the time (Trudeau has some major screw ups).

Here’s my take. Clinton lied and should have been gone. Blowjob or not, he lied...kinda like Flynn. Now, Republicans claimed a moral high road, and rode that for decades. You can’t call Clinton’s acquittal wrong, because it was purely partisan, then claim a Trump impeachment that devolves into partisanship was fair because it was somehow countering a previous wrong.

Both presidents screwed up, and both should have been kicked out. Lying under oath as a president is indefensible, and being an incendiary asshole while president is also indefensible. The fact that neither faced serious consequences for their actions is a stain on the office of the president.

[jimcav]

+1 on that, if they had true character, well, then they'd not have likely committed the offense, so let's say if they had at least the character one would hope for in a president, they would have resigned before being impeached.

[Corso]

Grant, I apologize for my sarcasm. We've been down this road before, and I should have thought a bit more before posting. Of course you are entitled to have an opinion. I do think growing up in a particular country and voting in elections does give one a more solid platform for an opinion concerning politics--than one who lives and votes elsewhere.

So, please accept my apology.

Clinton/Trump: wow, this place took this far from my point, even when I clearly stated my point. All I said was each was a direct partisan vote. Period. If others took it all over the place-that may be good for a new conversation, but it's one I don't own.

[GrantM]

Grant, I apologize for my sarcasm. We've been down this road before, and I should have thought a bit more before posting. Of course you are entitled to have an opinion. I do think growing up in a particular country and voting in elections does give one a more solid platform for an opinion concerning politics--than one who lives and votes elsewhere.

So, please accept my apology.

Sure apology accepted, appreciate the fact you reflected on your comments.

Not that i need to qualify my statements, but I've followed US politics for many years, (I have a BA in American History, and another in US Political Science)
My family has lived at least half the year in either California or Florida since the 90's. I'm not taking cheap shots just to score points.

My comments aren't even critical of "America", but of bad faith, bad actors, and those in leadership who are not working in the public interest.
Mostly I think many Canadians are just plain bewildered at recent events. To us it appears our brothers to the south are tearing themselves apart.
If that opinion disturbs you, I can assure you it disturbs us too.

-g

[Corso]

Sure apology accepted, appreciate the fact you reflected on your comments.

I've followed US politics for many years, (I have a BA in American History, and another in US Political Science)
My family has lived at least half the year in either California or Florida since the 90's.

My comments aren't critical of America, but of bad faith, bad actors, and those in leadership who are not working in the public interest.
Mostly I think many Canadians are just plain bewildered at recent events. To us it appears our brothers to the south are tearing themselves apart.
If that opinion disturbs you, I can assure you it disturbs us too.

-g

Well said, thank you.

I'll even stop referring to Canada as "America's hat"!