American Politics III: New President, Same Old Country

[The Marlborough]

John Cormyn (R-TX) threatens the impeachment of past Democratic Presidents

You are misrepresenting what he said. Cornyn was not threatening to impeach past presidents. He merely pointed out that convicting a former president who no longer holds office sets a bad precedent of revisiting presidencies and impeaching them post partem for the future, which he seeks to avoid.

Read the damn article, folks.

^This. It would be incredibly easy to impeach many, many past President's. Hypothetically, the next time the GOP controls both Houses, they could impeach Clinton on similar grounds.

[Cannot think of a name]

John Cormyn (R-TX) threatens the impeachment of past Democratic Presidents

You are misrepresenting what he said. Cornyn was not threatening to impeach past presidents. He merely pointed out that convicting a former president who no longer holds office sets a bad precedent of revisiting presidencies and impeaching them post partem for the future, which he seeks to avoid.

Read the damn article, folks.

I...

...busted.


However-

“If it is a good idea to impeach and try former presidents, what about former Democratic presidents when Republicans get the majority in 2022?” Cornyn, a 19-year veteran of the Senate who last year tried to distance himself from Trump when it seemed his seat was at risk, tweeted at majority leader Chuck Schumer.

“Think about it and let’s do what is best for the country.”

Well, look man...if you think you have a good reason...you know, like they incited an insurection, go for it. If you think you have a case that won't make you look like petty assholes and undermine any mandate you might have had after that election...go for it. "What if someone misuses prosocutorial power" is not an excuse to not use prosocutorial power.

[Cannot think of a name]

So you become above the law for offences committed in office, up to and including treason if you resign before they get to you?

I am not defending what Cornyn is saying. I am pointing out that Kowani deliberately misconstrued what he said to fit his narrative. Kindly sod off.

Well, Kowani just repeated the headline. I don't know that there was a lot of masterminding going on there.

[The Marlborough]

You are misrepresenting what he said. Cornyn was not threatening to impeach past presidents. He merely pointed out that convicting a former president who no longer holds office sets a bad precedent of revisiting presidencies and impeaching them post partem for the future, which he seeks to avoid.

Read the damn article, folks.

I...

...busted.


However-

“If it is a good idea to impeach and try former presidents, what about former Democratic presidents when Republicans get the majority in 2022?” Cornyn, a 19-year veteran of the Senate who last year tried to distance himself from Trump when it seemed his seat was at risk, tweeted at majority leader Chuck Schumer.

“Think about it and let’s do what is best for the country.”

Well, look man...if you think you have a good reason...you know, like they incited an insurection, go for it. If you think you have a case that won't make you look like petty assholes and undermine any mandate you might have had after that election...go for it. "What if someone misuses prosocutorial power" is not an excuse to not use prosocutorial power.

Not all of them would be petty. Obama imo should have been impeached for unconstitutionally spying on Congress. Which they could get him for in the future, if the Democrats set this precedent.

Once again, Democrats keep opening doors they shouldn't under the mistaken belief it either a) wont be abused b) wont be used against them.

[-Ra-]

Well, Kowani just repeated the headline. I don't know that there was a lot of masterminding going on there.

The article headline is itself misleading, but what do you expect from The Guardian?

And just because the article's title is misleading does not justify plainly posting without actually considering what Cornyn was saying. Again, Cornyn wasn't threatening anything. He merely said that he believed that convicting presidents whose terms had already run out would set a bad precedent for the future. According to him, it may allow Republicans to impeach a president already out of office (Obama, for instance) for whatever reason they would deem appropriate. He never actually suggested doing this, nor does it seem like he supports doing something like this. Kowani never read the article. He just read the BS headline.

[Cannot think of a name]

I...

...busted.


However-

Well, look man...if you think you have a good reason...you know, like they incited an insurection, go for it. If you think you have a case that won't make you look like petty assholes and undermine any mandate you might have had after that election...go for it. "What if someone misuses prosocutorial power" is not an excuse to not use prosocutorial power.

Not all of them would be petty. Obama imo should have been impeached for unconstitutionally spying on Congress. Which they could get him for in the future, if the Democrats set this precedent.

Once again, Democrats keep opening doors they shouldn't under the mistaken belief it either a) wont be abused b) wont be used against them.

Like I said, if they think they've got a case, go for it. But like the 60 different election lawsuits, talking about a wrong doing and actually prosecuting one are two different things.

You'll never convince me that we shouldn't hold someone accountable because someone might hold someone else accountable later on.

[Kowani]

John Cormyn (R-TX) threatens the impeachment of past Democratic Presidents

You are misrepresenting what he said. Cornyn was not threatening to impeach past presidents. He merely pointed out that convicting a former president who no longer holds office sets a bad precedent of revisiting presidencies and impeaching them post partem for the future, which he seeks to avoid.

Read the damn article, folks.

Not…really?
There’s no real way to construe what he said as anything other than a threat, even if it’s plausibly worded to avoid being read as one.
If he’s just noting that the option exists, but that the GOP won’t take it, then it’s pointless for him to say it at all. The only reason this statement works in any operative function is if there’s a chance that they’ll go through with it.
And since he’s trying to prevent Trump’s impeachment conviction…no, that’s pretty clearly a threat.

[Cannot think of a name]

Well, Kowani just repeated the headline. I don't know that there was a lot of masterminding going on there.

The article headline is itself misleading, but what do you expect from The Guardian?

And just because the article's title is misleading does not justify plainly posting without actually considering what Cornyn was saying. Again, Cornyn wasn't threatening anything. He merely said that he believed that convicting presidents whose terms had already run out would set a bad precedent for the future. According to him, it may allow Republicans to impeach a president already out of office (Obama, for instance) for whatever reason they would deem appropriate. He never actually suggested doing this, nor does it seem like he supports doing something like this. Kowani never read the article. He just read the BS headline.

I'm not arguing against any of that, just the notion that Kowani was somehow the mastermind of the framing and not just combing through stories to bring to the thread and got caught out. Same as I got caught out by not clicking despite being frustrated often by people doing exactly that. Laziness over malice.

[The Reformed American Republic]

You are misrepresenting what he said. Cornyn was not threatening to impeach past presidents. He merely pointed out that convicting a former president who no longer holds office sets a bad precedent of revisiting presidencies and impeaching them post partem for the future, which he seeks to avoid.

Read the damn article, folks.

^This. It would be incredibly easy to impeach many, many past President's. Hypothetically, the next time the GOP controls both Houses, they could impeach Clinton on similar grounds.

Clinton was a very flawed President, but he did not lead a mob to storm the halls of congress.

[The Marlborough]

Not all of them would be petty. Obama imo should have been impeached for unconstitutionally spying on Congress. Which they could get him for in the future, if the Democrats set this precedent.

Once again, Democrats keep opening doors they shouldn't under the mistaken belief it either a) wont be abused b) wont be used against them.

Like I said, if they think they've got a case, go for it. But like the 60 different election lawsuits, talking about a wrong doing and actually prosecuting one are two different things.

You'll never convince me that we shouldn't hold someone accountable because someone might hold someone else accountable later on.

Impeachment is supposed to be for sitting Presidents, not past ones. Think of it almost like a statute of limitations. This hasn't been done for very good reasons as in periods of hyper-partisanship could lead to a revolving door of constantly impeaching the other guys predecessors. Further, imo this wouldn't encourage better behavior it would, imo, accelerate the extent in which President's break the law and act more despotically. This wouldn't be new either, this revolving door of damnatio memoriae has been seen and done before. The US isn't immune to this and such periods led to greater instability. As Cicero kept saying to Cato and his supporters, it's better to let Caesar off the hook than push him further to the breaking point.

It's bad enough that certain Democrats want to actually enact domestic terrorism as a crime in of itself given one of the precedents set by Obama and further strengthened by Trump when it comes to US citizens and terrorism.

[Albrenia]

Like I said, if they think they've got a case, go for it. But like the 60 different election lawsuits, talking about a wrong doing and actually prosecuting one are two different things.

You'll never convince me that we shouldn't hold someone accountable because someone might hold someone else accountable later on.

Impeachment is supposed to be for sitting Presidents, not past ones. Think of it almost like a statute of limitations. This hasn't been done for very good reasons as in periods of hyper-partisanship could lead to a revolving door of constantly impeaching the other guys predecessors. Further, imo this wouldn't encourage better behavior it would, imo, accelerate the extent in which President's break the law and act more despotically. This wouldn't be new either, this revolving door of damnatio memoriae has been seen and done before. The US isn't immune to this and such periods led to greater instability. As Cicero kept saying to Cato and his supporters, it's better to let Caesar off the hook than push him further to the breaking point.

It's bad enough that certain Democrats want to actually enact domestic terrorism as a crime in of itself given one of the precedents set by Obama and further strengthened by Trump when it comes to US citizens and terrorism.

Can they bar Trump from running again without impeaching him?

[Cannot think of a name]

Like I said, if they think they've got a case, go for it. But like the 60 different election lawsuits, talking about a wrong doing and actually prosecuting one are two different things.

You'll never convince me that we shouldn't hold someone accountable because someone might hold someone else accountable later on.

Impeachment is supposed to be for sitting Presidents, not past ones. Think of it almost like a statute of limitations.

This is not settled.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Impeachment is supposed to be for sitting Presidents, not past ones. Think of it almost like a statute of limitations. This hasn't been done for very good reasons as in periods of hyper-partisanship could lead to a revolving door of constantly impeaching the other guys predecessors. Further, imo this wouldn't encourage better behavior it would, imo, accelerate the extent in which President's break the law and act more despotically. This wouldn't be new either, this revolving door of damnatio memoriae has been seen and done before. The US isn't immune to this and such periods led to greater instability. As Cicero kept saying to Cato and his supporters, it's better to let Caesar off the hook than push him further to the breaking point.

It's bad enough that certain Democrats want to actually enact domestic terrorism as a crime in of itself given one of the precedents set by Obama and further strengthened by Trump when it comes to US citizens and terrorism.

Can they bar Trump from running again without impeaching him?

In short, no.

[Shrillland]

Can they bar Trump from running again without impeaching him?

In short, no.

Well, they could invoke the 14th Amendment to do so...but an actual legal case for incitement is nebulous at best at the moment.

[Albrenia]

Can they bar Trump from running again without impeaching him?

In short, no.

In light of the reality of Trump's large cult of personality, this may be a rare circumstance where impeaching a non-sitting President is desirable, considering the damage he did to the nation in the time he had.

[The Marlborough]

Impeachment is supposed to be for sitting Presidents, not past ones. Think of it almost like a statute of limitations. This hasn't been done for very good reasons as in periods of hyper-partisanship could lead to a revolving door of constantly impeaching the other guys predecessors. Further, imo this wouldn't encourage better behavior it would, imo, accelerate the extent in which President's break the law and act more despotically. This wouldn't be new either, this revolving door of damnatio memoriae has been seen and done before. The US isn't immune to this and such periods led to greater instability. As Cicero kept saying to Cato and his supporters, it's better to let Caesar off the hook than push him further to the breaking point.

It's bad enough that certain Democrats want to actually enact domestic terrorism as a crime in of itself given one of the precedents set by Obama and further strengthened by Trump when it comes to US citizens and terrorism.

Can they bar Trump from running again without impeaching him?

No.

[Omniabstracta]

Like I said, if they think they've got a case, go for it. But like the 60 different election lawsuits, talking about a wrong doing and actually prosecuting one are two different things.

You'll never convince me that we shouldn't hold someone accountable because someone might hold someone else accountable later on.

Impeachment is supposed to be for sitting Presidents, not past ones. Think of it almost like a statute of limitations. This hasn't been done for very good reasons as in periods of hyper-partisanship could lead to a revolving door of constantly impeaching the other guys predecessors. Further, imo this wouldn't encourage better behavior it would, imo, accelerate the extent in which President's break the law and act more despotically. This wouldn't be new either, this revolving door of damnatio memoriae has been seen and done before. The US isn't immune to this and such periods led to greater instability. As Cicero kept saying to Cato and his supporters, it's better to let Caesar off the hook than push him further to the breaking point.

It's bad enough that certain Democrats want to actually enact domestic terrorism as a crime in of itself given one of the precedents set by Obama and further strengthened by Trump when it comes to US citizens and terrorism.

My only problem with this is that the sitting president was impeached. He wasn’t impeached after he left office or after he resigned, impeachment charges were leveled when he was still in office.

The Senate has tried people before, federal judges, who were impeached in office but resigned, because the power of impeachment extends beyond simply removal from office, and it has been agreed in general in these cases that once the impeachment charge is leveled the trial will take place, even if one believes that a conviction itself might be against the spirit of the Constitution. This is not a new precedent or some bold move, this is what has traditionally happened.

[The Marlborough]

In short, no.

In light of the reality of Trump's large cult of personality, this may be a rare circumstance where impeaching a non-sitting President is desirable, considering the damage he did to the nation in the time he had.

Caveat emptor. *shrug*

[The Reformed American Republic]

In short, no.

In light of the reality of Trump's large cult of personality, this may be a rare circumstance where impeaching a non-sitting President is desirable, considering the damage he did to the nation in the time he had.

Indeed. Plus, I don't think the idea that it is limited to sitting presidents has much merit here. Yes, it's stupid to impeach a President who held office a decade or more ago, but he just left office, right after creating an insurrection in Washington DC, which is not typical for U.S. presidents.

[Kowani]

Arizona GOP censures Cindy McCain, Jeff Flake, and Doug Ducey

[Myrensis]

I...

...busted.


However-

Well, look man...if you think you have a good reason...you know, like they incited an insurection, go for it. If you think you have a case that won't make you look like petty assholes and undermine any mandate you might have had after that election...go for it. "What if someone misuses prosocutorial power" is not an excuse to not use prosocutorial power.

Not all of them would be petty. Obama imo should have been impeached for unconstitutionally spying on Congress. Which they could get him for in the future, if the Democrats set this precedent.

Once again, Democrats keep opening doors they shouldn't under the mistaken belief it either a) wont be abused b) wont be used against them.

Once again, people are suggesting that Democrats shouldn't open doors that ought to be opened under the mistaken belief that, contrary to all available evidence, Republicans have some secret well of good faith and responsibility that motivates them.

Like the mistaken belief that, having abused the shit out of the filibuster to hold open an unprecedented number of Judicial vacancies including a SCOTUS seat, and being presented with a Republican President and working majority in the Senate, Mitch McConnell would have meekly nodded his head and called fair play to the Democrats turning around and doing the same thing to stop him from filling all of those seats, if only Reid hadn't "opened the door". The reality is that Reid should have done... exactly what McConnell entirely predictably ended up doing: scrap the filibuster entirely, throw out the blue slip rule, and ram through lifetime appointments just as fast as he could schedule the votes.

And now the mistaken belief that Republicans wouldn't absolutely move to impeach an outgoing Democratic President given such blatant and easily defended cause. Friendly reminder, Mitch McConnell, leader of the Republican Caucus, expressly acknowledged the fact that the outgoing Republican President incited a violent riot at the Capitol aimed at overturning a US election...but sure, suggesting he should face consequences for something so silly would set a bad precedent!

[Omniabstracta]

Not all of them would be petty. Obama imo should have been impeached for unconstitutionally spying on Congress. Which they could get him for in the future, if the Democrats set this precedent.

Once again, Democrats keep opening doors they shouldn't under the mistaken belief it either a) wont be abused b) wont be used against them.

Once again, people are suggesting that Democrats shouldn't open doors that ought to be opened under the mistaken belief that, contrary to all available evidence, Republicans have some secret well of good faith and responsibility that motivates them.

Like the mistaken belief that, having abused the shit out of the filibuster to hold open an unprecedented number of Judicial vacancies including a SCOTUS seat, and being presented with a Republican President and working majority in the Senate, Mitch McConnell would have meekly nodded his head and called fair play to the Democrats turning around and doing the same thing to stop him from filling all of those seats, if only Reid hadn't "opened the door". The reality is that Reid should have done... exactly what McConnell entirely predictably ended up doing: scrap the filibuster entirely, throw out the blue slip rule, and ram through lifetime appointments just as fast as he could schedule the votes.

And now the mistaken belief that Republicans wouldn't absolutely move to impeach an outgoing Democratic President given such blatant and easily defended cause. Friendly reminder, Mitch McConnell, leader of the Republican Caucus, expressly acknowledged the fact that the outgoing Republican President incited a violent riot at the Capitol aimed at overturning a US election...but sure, suggesting he should face consequences for something so silly would set a bad precedent!

Glances at Reagan and Budget Reconciliation.

Yeah, the idea that the Democrats are somehow the ones who keep opening these doors, when Republicans have proven just as happy in firing first shots attacking say, various components of the filibuster when it suits them, is what really gets me.

[Myrensis]

Arizona GOP censures Cindy McCain, Jeff Flake, and Doug Ducey

Well, hopefully a good sign for future Democratic prospects in Arizona that the GOP there has decided to quadruple down on the crazy.

[The Marlborough]

Once again, people are suggesting that Democrats shouldn't open doors that ought to be opened under the mistaken belief that, contrary to all available evidence, Republicans have some secret well of good faith and responsibility that motivates them.

Like the mistaken belief that, having abused the shit out of the filibuster to hold open an unprecedented number of Judicial vacancies including a SCOTUS seat, and being presented with a Republican President and working majority in the Senate, Mitch McConnell would have meekly nodded his head and called fair play to the Democrats turning around and doing the same thing to stop him from filling all of those seats, if only Reid hadn't "opened the door". The reality is that Reid should have done... exactly what McConnell entirely predictably ended up doing: scrap the filibuster entirely, throw out the blue slip rule, and ram through lifetime appointments just as fast as he could schedule the votes.

And now the mistaken belief that Republicans wouldn't absolutely move to impeach an outgoing Democratic President given such blatant and easily defended cause. Friendly reminder, Mitch McConnell, leader of the Republican Caucus, expressly acknowledged the fact that the outgoing Republican President incited a violent riot at the Capitol aimed at overturning a US election...but sure, suggesting he should face consequences for something so silly would set a bad precedent!

Glances at Reagan and Budget Reconciliation.

Yeah, the idea that the Democrats are somehow the ones who keep opening these doors, when Republicans have proven just as happy in firing first shots attacking say, various components of the filibuster when it suits them, is what really gets me.

I never said that Republicans haven't, but the more egregious cases in recent history have been done by the Democrats or at least they paved the way. And yeah the GOP is morally bankrupt, hence why it's stupid to open these doors to them. Better for them to abuse the filibuster than allow them a space to push through all of their horrendous shit.

[Myrensis]

Glances at Reagan and Budget Reconciliation.

Yeah, the idea that the Democrats are somehow the ones who keep opening these doors, when Republicans have proven just as happy in firing first shots attacking say, various components of the filibuster when it suits them, is what really gets me.

I never said that Republicans haven't, but the more egregious cases in recent history have been done by the Democrats or at least they paved the way. And yeah the GOP is morally bankrupt, hence why it's stupid to open these doors to them. Better for them to abuse the filibuster than allow them a space to push through all of their horrendous shit.

Again, suggesting that these doors are somehow 'closed' to the GOP rather than that they just haven't had the need or inclination to blow them open yet. The only thing that would have changed if Reid had never used the nuclear option is that McConnell would have had more seats to fill when he threw that shit out the window the minute he had the opportunity to stack the Federal bench to a historic degree.