A comment on late impeachment
holzman and rmjwell conversed on the need to vote out those who stalled on impeachment after running on it as a platform, and then of course about impeaching the administration personnel after they leave office; viz holzman's comment in his journal:
Just because a President has left office doesn't mean he -- and his whole damn gang -- can't be impeached. Nor is it an ( Read more... )
Just because a President has left office doesn't mean he -- and his whole damn gang -- can't be impeached. Nor is it an ( Read more... )
Here. Let me show you: I say, "is it an even-emptier gesture" and you reply "I fail to understand how it could be any less empty." See? Opposite of my question.
Indeed, I ask several questions in response to a post in another journal. See that post, please. I'll wait. Back? Ok, so then I go on to discuss the points raised in the other journal, then some hypothetical objections I expect others to raise, then the legal background with links to two pretty readable law review pieces, and finally I reach a conclusion.
The funny thing is that if you actually read what I wrote, you'd find you're arguing (poorly) my point. If you read the whole thing instead of grabbing phrases in a long discourse out of context, you would reach:
Maybe most importantly, why should we act like a person who has committed serious criminal acts while in office is entitled to a special trial with no real penalty by dint of being an EX-official? Just so one party can publicly state its disapproval? Win the publicity war but never really punish the bad actor? When the person's already out of office, that's what impeachment trials are, compared with criminal prosecution. The heck with that.
So, Huey, I have to ask you, which part of "The heck with that" do you not understand?
Reply
Leave a comment