4690

I understand why people would consider Clinton to have been a good president in terms of policy, but how they can defend or overlook his abuse of power, his despicable taking advantage of a young woman, and his flat-out perjury, I can not understand. I don’t care if you’re the next George Washington–if you are willing to torch the truth to protect yourself, get out of our Oval Office. He deserved to be removed from office as surely as Trump does. Frankly, I think Clinton’s case might be even more cut-and-dry! Perjury!

First, you admit to yourself that you won’t resolve anything. Not single handedly, not quickly, and probably not ever. It’s hard to talk people out of worldviews.

However, if you want to at least have a discussion and share an alternate perspective with someone like this, my suggestion is to start by asking them questions. Not in an accusatory way, but in a sincerely curious way. “So why do you think the Democrats are pursuing impeachment?” “Did you see the hearings? What did you take away from them?” Gently correct mistaken facts, but don’t question their opinions. Find openings to express some of your opinions, but frame them as just that. If they’re open to real dialogue, they’ll hopefully take your cue and continue in a tenor of curiosity. If they just can’t talk about this stuff without getting heated or confrontational, though, then I think you’re probably out of luck.

4691

@Nightgaunt, what Presidential power did Clinton abuse?

4692

Yes. Obstruction of justice is a crime per se even if the obstructor is trying to cover up something that isn’t actually criminal, from what I’ve heard and read. IANAL and all that but I’m sure some legal eagle here can let us know.

4693

Clinton deliberately responded to questions about matters totally unrelated to his actions as president with an attempt to withhold information and deceive. There isn’t any doubt about that. There also isn’t any doubt that the American people largely didn’t care because 1) the underlying matter had nothing to do with his conduct as president, and 2) they liked him.

None of that applies to Trump or the circumstances here, and Trump’s obstruction was and is active. It isn’t that he is lying in response to questions about side matters. It is that he is using the powers of his office to obstruct an inquiry into his actual conduct as president.

It’s pretty damned easy. “Bill Clinton lied about sex with a woman. He shouldn’t have done that, but haven’t we all been told before that we are supposed to be discrete about such matters? And it had nothing to do with his conduct as President. Still, it is a crime, and he was impeached. We took that crime seriously, and this crime — which is far more serious — we must also take seriously.”

4694

Pfui. It’s possible to believe both that Clinton was a serial abuser of power with women and that the particular case of perjury with which he was charged is not that cut-and-dried; and that it had nothing to do with his official conduct. Note that 10 Republican Senators voted to acquit Clinton of lying to the grand jury, and 5 Republican Senators voted to acquit him of obstructing justice in the Paula Jones case.

4695

Tom already covered the other bits.

Point of order: he was impeached for lying and obstructing justice in a private suit, not to Congress, both related to Paula Jones lawsuit.

4696

Zoe Lofgren is on This Week and just did a good job of clearly stating the difference between lying about sex vs abusing the power of the presidency. She added in that Trump lies about sex all the time without being threatened with impeachment over those lies.

4697

Why are you so hung up on “illegal”? That’s not the standard that determines whether the report is “underwhelming” or a “nothingburger” or even “disappointing”. The Mueller report is a damning indictment of a President out of control. Yet you’re basically parroting Republican talking points to characterize the report. That’s odd to me, because you sound like someone who should know better.

-Tom

4698

Again, impeachment is a remedy for wrongdoing involving public office, not just crimes or wrongdoing in general. The term “high crimes and misdemeanors” has a legal meaning going back centuries; it’s a legal “term of art” that was in common use (and had been for centuries) at the time of the founding of the US. This is well established by the historical record as well as contemporaneous sources like the Federalist papers. The fact that this is not well known at the present is a damning indictment of our media, our educational system, and the right wing message machine, which has been very effective in confusing this issue.

Impeachment is how you remove a corrupt public official who uses the office for personal gain (like benefiting their re-election campaign), or a public official who abuses their power (like targeting political opponents or trying to shut down investigations into themselves), or who is unfit for office, fails to carry out the duties of the office, violates the oath of office, etc.

It’s not a method to deal with private wrongdoing or crimes not involving the public office. Sure, sufficiently severe private wrongdoing can render a public official unfit for office, but the issue is fitness for the office, not the private crime.

Impeachment is a political process designed to defend the republic against abusive, corrupt, exploitative, over-reaching, incompetent and unfit public officials.

There is a huge difference between Clinton and Trump: with Trump there is clear and repeated evidence of Trump using his official powers to try to benefit himself and his re-election, target his political and personal opponents, and just generally and routinely violate the rule of law; while with Clinton, what actual serious harm did Clinton bring to the public office of President. Sure, Clinton brought the office into disrepute, but hell if that were the standard we wouldn’t have any Presidents survive a term.

For you folks continuing to go at Clinton rather than Trump, please engage with this. Really. Impeachment is a political remedy for wrongdoing involving public office. That’s a real difference between Trump and Clinton. Don’t ignore it. Don’t pretend there are not strong sources and centuries of legal and political history on this.

It’s a real difference. Clinton committed perjury, yes. But it did not involve the powers of the Presidency of the office of the Presidency, full stop. On the other hand, Trump repeatedly abused and exploited his Presidential power. Stop treating that as equivalent. Just, please, stop.

4699

Yes, I know. And again, personally I think Trump did a lot of illegal things that aren’t in the report, and deserves to be impeached for many reasons other than the one now under question. That’s not my point. I am not trying to decide whether Trump merits impeachment, that’s easy for me to answer.

Instead, I am trying to understand the viewpoint of some House Democrats, mainly those from swing districts, who are far more willing to pursue the bribery charges than the Mueller charges. I don’t think they are behaving unpredictably.

For better or worse, the House has chosen a criminal standard for impeachment even though we all know that they didn’t have to.

And for better or worse, Democrats largely voted to acquit Bill Clinton. I know it’s not the same, but the difference is not so easy to argue. It amounts to “Bill Clinton wanted sex, Donald Trump wanted power. We acquit for the former, convict for the latter.” Or maybe, “Clinton obstructed a civil case, Trump obstructed a criminal case. So, I mean obviously we acquit the former and convict the latter.” Neither one sounds good. Or, finally “Both committed crimes, but Trump used powers of office and Clinton didn’t. So it’s not really about the crime itself, it’s about how they did the crime.” Maybe that’s the strongest one, but honestly it still isn’t very good. “It’s not about the crime, it’s about the means” is simply alien to how people generally think about justice.

If I didn’t already think that Trump was guilty, either argument would make me think this is a purely political ploy. And we are specifically talking about House Reps with lots of constituents who aren’t yet convinced that Trump is guilty.

You end up forced to make a long and nuanced argument, like Sharpe did. That should terrify any politician who remembers Kerry.

4700

Lol, Nunes is now saying, “uh,i might have gotten a call from Parnas’ wife”

4701

Trump abused the power of the presidency to extort a foreign government to interefere in our elections and covered it up, violating his oath of office.

Clinton lied about a consensual blowjob.

I can see why people might feel differently about whether removal from office is appropriate in each of those.

4702

Totally impeachable, according to pretty much all House Democrats.

But I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about Democratic reluctance to add the Mueller charges to the impeachment articles. Which have nothing to do with extortion and to some people (not me) would sound like this:

“Trump fired people he has the right to fire, didn’t answer questions posed by his opponents, and asked his subordinates to do the same”.

4703

It’s also harder to impeach a president for conduct that too place before he was President.

That’s probably the biggest difference between what was in the Mueller report and what is going on now.

All the Ukraine stuff involved Trump not merely don’t a bunch of shady stuff, but he did so while president, and he leveraged the power of the presidency itself, corruptly, for his own personal gains.

It’s this leveraging of presidential power, corruptly, which is at the heart of impeachment.

4704

Sure, although the obstruction charges outlined in the Mueller Report refer to actions taken while Trump was president.

4705

Multiclap.

4706

Effectively your argument is much as I’ve argued for years, is that Republicans will never forgive Democrats for refusing to impeach Clinton, to the point of breaking the country and the world.

Really, tbh, that line of reasoning means what we need is dissolution and a complete political revolution to wipe the slate clean, because we can’t be held back for decades or centuries over these mistakes of the past. Right?

4707

Again, 10 Republicans voted to acquit on the charge of lying to a grand jury, and 5 Republicans voted to acquit on the charge of obstructing justice in the Paula Jones matter. That does not make acquittal seem particularly partisan to me.

If we’re talking about Dem House members, why isn’t the argument simply if Bill Clinton was impeached for lying and obstruction, how can we not impeach Trump for bribery, abuse of office, lying and obstruction?

4708

90% of Republican Senators thought Bill Clinton should be removed from office. 100% of Democratic Senators thought he should not. I think most people would view this as a partisan vote.

That argument works if you supported Bill Clinton’s impeachment. But if you voted against it, or support the majority leader who voted against it, now you have to account for a flip-flop.

“Congressman, were Republicans right then, or are they right now?” The best answer is, “This is totally different!” To strengthen that answer, it helps to focus on the charge that is totally different: bribery/extortion.

4709

I agree that the difference between Clinton and Trump is night and day, but this hand-waving that all Clinton did was perjury on a consensual relationship is bullshit and I wish you would all stop repeating this. WTF are you not paying attention to #MeToo? ?

Fraternization / chain of command issues can and do result in workplace harassment. The number of people being fired for having an affair with someone in organization is a very long list. Having power over someone can and does illicit them to do things they otherwise wouldn’t.