[lex24]

Impeachment is a purely political instrument.

Do you think that's a fair understanding of what it's supposed to be? I think it becomes political when enough legislators choose party over country to make it political. I think it was used politically against Clinton, for example; and I understand that some people think it was political against Trump. I don't agree with that, myself, but I can see how you can think that.

The real effectiveness of impeachment against criminal actions was bipartisan in 1973/74 when a majority Republican congress used the real threat of impeachment to force Nixon to resign. He resigned because he knew he would be impeached if he didn't. And it was a group of Republican senators who delivered that ultimatum to him. It was about the crime, not the party. That's how it's supposed to work, IMO.

And unfortunately for all of us during the Covid pandemic, the debasement of impeachment this time around led to this president's disregard for the law and sense of empowerment that left him unchecked on his actions related to national response to crisis.

Yes, I do.  It is a political tool and was meant to be. But it also should be very rare.  It has become weaponized.  And that, I do not believe, was the Framers intent. Were is so, they would have left “maladministration” in as an impeachable offense.

Nixon involved an actual crime, the break-in. And then the cover-up of that crime.  A clear and unambiguous obstruction of justice.  Much stronger case for impeachment and removal.  And the GOP understood the implications if they did not force him to resign. 

Conversely, I think a strong argument may be made that neither Clinton nor Trump should have been impeached. (Both were marked for impeachment from their first days in office. And it certainly was used politically against both.  I told anyone that would listen, before Trump even took office, that he’d be impeached.  To me, it was when not if.. Also, I think it was appropriate in both instances for a Senator to conclude that they were guilty of the articles charged, but that it didnt rise to being removable.  Undoing an election is a major act. 

And I say this while agreeing 100% with you on the “character” iBut unfortunately that, like so many other things has become partisan. “Character matters” was a clarion call of the GOP during Clinton’s impeachment.  The Dems scoffed at the notion. Come 2016- just flip it.

[lex24]

Impeachment is a purely political instrument.

Do you think that's a fair understanding of what it's supposed to be? I think it becomes political when enough legislators choose party over country to make it political. I think it was used politically against Clinton, for example; and I understand that some people think it was political against Trump. I don't agree with that, myself, but I can see how you can think that.

The real effectiveness of impeachment against criminal actions was bipartisan in 1973/74 when a majority Republican congress used the real threat of impeachment to force Nixon to resign. He resigned because he knew he would be impeached if he didn't. And it was a group of Republican senators who delivered that ultimatum to him. It was about the crime, not the party. That's how it's supposed to work, IMO.

And unfortunately for all of us during the Covid pandemic, the debasement of impeachment this time around led to this president's disregard for the law and sense of empowerment that left him unchecked on his actions related to national response to crisis.

Yes, I do.  It is a political tool and was meant to be. But it also should be very rare.  It has become weaponized.  And that, I do not believe, was the Framers intent. Were is so, they would have left “maladministration” in as an impeachable offense.

Nixon involved an actual crime, the break-in. And then the cover-up of that crime.  A clear and unambiguous obstruction of justice.  Much stronger case for impeachment and removal.  And the GOP understood the implications if they did not force him to resign. 

Conversely, I think a strong argument may be made that neither Clinton nor Trump should have been impeached. (Both were marked for impeachment from their first days in office. And it certainly was used politically against both.  I told anyone that would listen, before Trump even took office, that he’d be impeached.  To me, it was when not if.. Also, I think it was appropriate in both instances for a Senator to conclude that they were guilty of the articles charged, but that it didnt rise to being removable.  Undoing an election is a major act. 

And I say this while agreeing 100% with you on the “character” iBut unfortunately that, like so many other things has become partisan. “Character matters” was a clarion call of the GOP during Clinton’s impeachment.  The Dems scoffed at the notion. Come 2016- just flip it.