In an ideal world, voters would recognize that their representatives are being dishonest and partisan for personal gain and vote them out. There's no check against blatant corruption when the voters support the corruption.
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
73 points (92.9% liked)
politics
19089 readers
4217 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think people get that impeachment can be abused. The real question is whether a crime was committed. That gets decided in court. Or it all goes away politically like Nixon.
Because its a political process, it is about convincing voters that it is valid. We'll see how these impeachments affect voters in the next election, and the ones to come. My understanding is that with Bill Clinton's impeachment, which R's believed was valid, but other wouldn't, led to Democrats winning seats in the house. Republicans were rather certain it did a lot of damage and would lead to them gain more seats in congress. Similar thing has happened with Trump, he even essentially lost his reelection due to some help of his impeachments. If republicans make a shitty show of their impeachment, people may see through it and still vote for biden.
It gets decided in the senate? Impeachment is an inherently political process, but it is technically a conviction. (With a jury composed of the senate).
They can then impose further punishments in accordance with their sentence. Removal and future ineligibility are just the two most common.
This is written in such an infuriating both-sides-ism way. Trump was impeached twice on real grounds vs the Republicans impeaching everyone they can find for no good reason is so far from the same thing.
Interesting. I disagree. Their argument is that impeachment was taken seriously up to the Trump administration and is being trivialized by Republicans since. This sentence makes it clear that they think Trump's impeachments were serious:
Mr. Trump’s two acquittals made clear that a president could feel assured of keeping his office no matter how serious his transgressions, as long as his party stuck with him, and the impeachment-in-search-of-a-high-crime efforts of the Biden era have been written off as just more politics.
He's saying that impeachment should have worked but didn't because of Republicans. As opposed to Republican attempts to impeach Democrats:
Indeed, to the contrary, several Republicans have derided their party’s zeal for impeachment. Whatever his son Hunter did, they note, there is no evidence that Mr. Biden did anything wrong, and the Mayorkas impeachment centers on a policy dispute, not a criminal accusation.
And:
Michael J. Gerhardt, an impeachment scholar at the University of North Carolina, said Republicans were using impeachment not for accountability but for political damage. The pushes to impeach President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas are plainly attempts to make impeachment just another weapon in the partisan warfare of Washington,” he said.
And:
Indeed, it is that sting that may be driving Mr. Trump, who has made no secret of his desire to impeach Mr. Biden and his team as revenge for his own impeachments. “They did it to me,” he said in a radio interview last fall. “Had they not done it to me,” he added, “perhaps you wouldn’t have it being done to them.”
'Serious transgressions' vs 'no evidence of wrongdoing', 'partisan warfare', and 'revenge'.
It seems clear to me that, like we do, the author sees a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican accusations are actually so frivolous that even the Biden administration themselves aren't concerned about them.
If anything, I think he's being too generous to the Republicans that impeached Clinton. I'd argue this is an acceleration of bad faith political theatre that began with Gingrich. It's something that's much worse now but not entirely new since Trump.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But impeachment, once seen as perhaps the most serious check on corruption and abuse of power developed by the founders, now looks in danger of becoming a constitutional dead letter, just another weapon in today’s bitter, tit-for-tat partisan wars.
Mr. Trump’s two acquittals made clear that a president could feel assured of keeping his office no matter how serious his transgressions, as long as his party stuck with him, and the impeachment-in-search-of-a-high-crime efforts of the Biden era have been written off as just more politics.
“Impeachment has become more of a political and public relations tool than a serious mechanism of executive branch accountability,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and a former top Justice Department official under President George W. Bush.
But where impeachment consumed the White House under Richard M. Nixon, Bill Clinton and Mr. Trump, it is barely an afterthought in the Biden West Wing.
The proliferation of impeachment resolutions covers a gamut of supposed offenses, but as in the case of Mr. Mayorkas they mainly stem from Republican criticism of the way officials do their jobs.
In Mr. Mayorkas’s case, Republicans fault him for releasing illegal immigrants pending court dates rather than detaining them, but Congress has not provided enough detention facilities to actually hold all of the migrants coming across the border.
The original article contains 1,444 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!