And rightly so. The consequences of what she said were foreseeable, just as in Trump's case. It is rough justice to have different outcomes when only 1 of the 2 ends in violence, but sometimes, when violence has been done, rough justice must follow.https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1359238637683146758 …
-
-
The protections against overreaching that standard are political & structural, not legal. And the reason Trump's case is a unique course of conduct is his behavior, not the law. He committed a unique, sustained assault on American democracy, resulting in unique consequences.
-
Finally, if we're relitigating the long, ghastly record of misconduct by Democrats, let's reflect that we had the clear moral high ground on that, and rather than nail them to the wall, Trump chose to throw it away.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
What is the limiting principle, then? Whatever subjective standard one has which might qualify as a "betrayal of duties"? Sounds awfully close to "maladministration", which was rejected by the Founders.
-
The limit is not one of rule, but of political plausibility. This impeachment would be ridiculous on its face if there had been no Capitol riot, or if it had not come at the end of a sustained assault on the democratic process for transferring power.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.