| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Pigs FLY: NYT Publishes Piece P*ssing on PeachMint's Criminalization of Politics | |
| 2020-01-25 | |
Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor from South Texas College of Law (in Houston), has penned a piece in the Times that isn’t “pro-Trump,” but does manage to lay out the obvious case for why the Democrat push for impeachment is so dangerous. The way things look, President Trump will almost certainly not be removed from office. The precedents set by the articles of impeachment, however, will endure far longer. And regrettably, the House of Representatives has transformed presidential impeachment from a constitutional parachute — an emergency measure to save the Republic in free-fall — into a parliamentary vote of “no confidence.” | |
| Posted by:Lex |
| #11 #9 😎 |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-01-25 13:47 |
| #10 Whitewater was a real scandal. "Russkies hacked our paper ballots and imposed the Orange Puppet!!!" was always and ever BS. |
| Posted by: Lex 2020-01-25 11:44 |
| #9 I meant, of course, in terms of using impeachment purely as a partisan weapon. Clinton committed perjury and suborned same with a number of direct witnesses involved, all elements that are absent in Trump's case. |
| Posted by: Raj 2020-01-25 11:18 |
| #8 ^Clinton? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-01-25 09:09 |
| #7 The problem is, Republicans will never do that to a Democrat president and everyone knows it. This is a one-way street that, as usual, favors the Dems. |
| Posted by: Raj 2020-01-25 07:35 |
| #6 To be crystal clear: there is nothing inherently wrong, criminal, or destructive about a president pursuing his foreign policy as he sees fit-- Democratic POTUS, Republican POTUS, Sanders-POTUS or Bloomberg-POTUS: that's what elections are for. We can disagree about whether it's wiser, nobler, more effective etc to A) "have more flexibility" about providing our most advanced missile defense systems to a major adversary's neighbor, or B) to do the opposite and pursue a policy of confrontation. If POTUS-A pursues policy A, that's his prerogative, and ditto for POTUS-B and policy B. The proper way for us as a democratic polity to determine which of these policies to pursue is through the legislative and electoral spheres: debates in Congress, and presidential elections: If you don't like the foreign policies of Jimmy Carter, vote for Ronald Reagan. If you don't like Bush and the neo-conservative agenda, vote for an unknown "community organizer" who promises to scrap all that. And if you think OrangeMan is Genghis Mussolini for exiting the Climate Change agreement and for suggesting that maybe we need to find a rapprochement with Russia, then have at it: tell the good folk why these policies will bring about the Apocalypse, and persuade those good people to vote for your guy/gal/trans-specimen next November. THAT'S POLITICS. That's fine, normal, healthy. But for god's sake, don't use the criminal law to turn a political dispute into a Queen of Hearts-style absurdist trial. That will only result in our national politics becoming the equivalent of one of Obama's Kampus Kangaroo Courts for college boys accused of rape by disgruntled hookup partners. That's a disgrace, a futile and absurd show aimed at demonstrating virtue by destroying respect for logic, criminal procedure, due process, and rule of law. That's a SHITSHOW. Stop this madness. |
| Posted by: Lex 2020-01-25 02:47 |
| #5 *[Jonathan] Turley of GWU Law |
| Posted by: Lex 2020-01-25 02:28 |
| #4 Everyone with his head on straight - VDH, Dershowitz, Turkey, Andy McCarthy - could see this coming. Every single one of these men predicted this outcome. To Pelousey, Schifferbrains, Schumer, et al: You f---ing idiots. You can't mix politics - fighting out policy disputes in the electoral sphere and in legislative bodies-- with criminal investigations by the FBI. And heaven help you, and us, if you mix politics and "counter-intelligence" investigations. That way lies Beria-style vendettas (check), star chambers (check), domestic spying by the CIA (check), and all sorts of chicanery and mischief involving unscrupulous foreign intelligence agents and their agendas which may or may not have anything to do with what's best for our Republic (check, check and triple-check). We are Through the Looking Glass now. Insanity reigns. |
| Posted by: Lex 2020-01-25 02:27 |
| #3 It's hard to understand slang like Peach-Mint. I wish these were written to be more accessible to a general audience. |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy 2020-01-25 02:25 |
| #2 IOW, get ready for the degradation of our politics and the decline of our governmental system into incoherence. Nice job, Schifferbrains & Pelousey. Victor Davis Hanson's view as well. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2020-01-25 02:18 |
| #1 The president’s lawyers are right. And that behavior does not amount to an abuse of power. It can't be denied anymore. This is a complete Shitshow that will create a disastrous precedent, the criminalization of political differences. Every future president will be impeached if his party is in the minority in the House. Peach-Mint will essentially be no different from a parliamentary system's vote of No Confidence-- except, of course, we don't have a parliamentary system that allows for snap elections. IOW, get ready for the degradation of our politics and the decline of our governmental system into incoherence. Nice job, Schifferbrains & Pelousey. |
| Posted by: Lex 2020-01-25 02:16 |