Unfairness is very often constitutional....even when we don't like it.
This is especially so regarding impeachment.
Have I mentioned that it's a political rather than criminal process?
You have and I accept that. But I thought you mentioned that impeachment was premature (or maybe that was a different thread?) Now it sounds like you're saying, if Trump wants to obstruct that's fine - because he can. And, therefore (I presume?), if the House wants to impeach that's fine too - because they can.
Sorry in advance for the long post. Let me conclude by telling you why I pursued this line of questioning with you, and then I will relinquish the last word to you.
This conversation we have had, where you have decided not to weigh in on what Trump should or should not have done, is further evidence to me of the mind-numbing effect Trump's presidency has had on our country's discourse. Much of the country seems to have given up on trying to distinguish between what an authority figure
can do, versus what they
ought to do.
I have seen this play out many times now, our conversation being just one example. In a separate conversation with shmogie, for example, I asked him if it was right, in his own opinion, for Trump to withhold any and all evidence related to why aid allocated by Congress was held up, then suddenly released. I had to ask several times. His response, finally:
how do you distinguish between right and wrong? I know your response has been different, but shmogie's response is representative of the level of willful blindness I have been encountering. I could not make up that reply if I tried.
Ironically, making America "great again" and "draining the swamp", is not very consistent with turning off the part of our brains that remembers how to judge right from wrong. One who accepts power as immense as the Presidency, is not supposed to wield it in just any way they can get away with. They have to take the same oath of office that Presidents took back when America was "great again", an oath which requires them to
faithfully execute that office, and preserve the Constitution. Granted, politics is a contact sport. And of course Trump, the Republicans and the Democrats are going to have battles with each other; but sometimes, a flagrant foul is committed and someone needs to blow the whistle. At those times, we need a whistleblower, if you will (yes - pun intended). This is one of those times. But half the country has forgotten what the whistle sounds like.
What gives me hope, is that in spite of the cynicism of the Trump Party at this moment, it doesn't have to be this way. It is possible to put country before party and we have seen this many times. Nixon had the power to fire all those lawyers in the Saturday night massacre; but it wasn't
right and it lead to bipartisan impeachment. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions had the power to involve himself in the Russia investigation; but it wasn't the
right thing to do, in his judgment, so he recused himself, in spite of public tantrums by Trump against Sessions and calls to "un recuse". White House attorney Don McGahn was asked by Trump to fire Robert Mueller; but he recognized this would not have been
right, so he offered his resignation. When Trump seemed to be publicly flirting with the idea of firing Mueller, Senator Lindsay Graham said if Trump did that it would be the "beginning of the end" of his presidency - not because Trump didn't have the power, but because it wouldn't have been
right.
In all these cases, there is something that elevates things above the usual fray of a political dispute, where it is simply one side's opinion vs. another. And that is when the powers of an office are blatantly used in the interests of the
officeholder, to the injury of the interests of the
United States. Nixon's Saturday night massacre is a classic example - he did that to protect
himself from prosecution, not because they were incompetent lawyers, or otherwise somehow to improve the impartial execution of the laws of the
United States.
There was a clear
conflict of interest at play - as there is when Trump re-purposes funds allocated by Congress to get dirt on a political opponent, as there is when Trump across-the-board non-complies with lawful subpoenas of Congress in an impeachment investigation.
The opposite of an abuse of power or corruption is when you have government officials risking their personal interests in service of what is
right; this includes, for example, the whistleblower, and those who were brave enough to testify voluntarily (Vindman, Sondland, Hill, Taylor, etc.) They could have just kept their heads down. Instead, they put their careers at risk, they risked the wrath of a "very stable genius" President and his Trump Party, to dutifully notify White House lawyers and finally Congress (when asked) of their
legitimate, genuine concerns. There were conflicts of interest here, too - and these officials put the interests of the country ahead of their own personal interests.
They say you get the government you deserve - I am not sure we deserve such fine individuals in our government. We will find out.
So that is what distinguishes the legitimate
use of power, from the
abuse of power. That is what distinguishes corruption, from duty to country. Sadly, I have been forced to conclude that the Trump Party, mesmerized as they are by the orange con-man, is no longer able to tell the difference.
/rant and I give you the last word.
