@hightor,
-
hightor wrote:
But they're arguing different points. The Democrats think the president seriously violated his oath of office; no wonder they're sounding an alarm. The Republicans need to stay seated — "Nothing to see here, folks" — and try, for a change, to appear rational.
They say he's violated his oath of office, but it is far from clear to which element of it they are referring. The president swears, among other things to enforce the law. This obligation exists whether there is or is not any political benefit attendant to that enforcement. I believe former VP Biden's corrupt misuse of his office for the benefit of his son and other family members is fairly clear. It is, as a minimum, the appearance of a serious conflict of interest involving two countries with which we have important and sometimes conflicting interests - China and Ukraine. The appearance alone of it adds risk and complexity to our relations with both. In the Case of Ukraine it may already have facilitated continued corruption in areas directly conflicting with our national interests in the region. In addition to his responsibilities to enforce the law, the president is responsible for the conduct of our Foreign relations - in this area Trump hat two compelling responsibilities. His self-interest in some of this is also evident , but that is not a sufficient reason for him to ignore his basic responsibilities. Hysterical Democrats appear to believe that the presence of such self-interests precludes addressing important areas of a President's clear direct responsibilities. That is simply wrong.
I find the willingness of Democrats to ignore this and, at the same time, fault Trump so vigorously for relatively minor and mostly stylistic issues to be quite amazing.
hightor wrote:
Admittedly, I've only heard an hour or two, total, of the live hearings, and some news coverage. Yes, I heard "hyperbole" but to me it sounded pretty much like classic boiler-plate "defend democracy" rhetoric. I haven't heard anything "hysterical", only emotionally-freighted statements which fall well short of hysteria, just politicians aping the standard tone of shock and outrage used by members of both major political parties when addressing what are perceived as gross violations of Constitutional law. The Democrats are trying to rile people up and the Republicans are trying to tone everything down, all according to form.
Boiler plate rhetoric in a matter of very serious national import, accompanied by very little in the way of real evidence - and that produced in obviously highly partisan hearings the conduct of which so violated our fundamental legal processes - is hardly excusable or a substitute for substance. The hyperbole you recognized is, largely unaccompanied by fact and, in my view, is of an intensity that does indeed suggest hysteria.
Indeed the now three year long continuous effort to find evidence of imagined Trump crimes, of which the accusers were so unreasonably certain, and the investigations of which yielded so little (particularly in view of the even worse crimes committed by investigators, who should be judiciously free of such things) itself suggests either deliberate malice or some form of persistent, self-righteous hysteria on the part of Democrats.
In stark contrast the conduct of the Republican defense counsels in the Senate hearings was remarkably focused, deliberate and free of the "the standard tone of shock and outrage used by members of both major political parties when addressing what are perceived as gross violations of Constitutional law". Nothing like hysteria at all, and remarkably little outrage, considering the gravity of the implied threat.
Three years of highly partisan and so far unproductive -and sometimes criminal -investigations, all conducted at the expense of the normal processes of governing by the House of Representatives, and all likely to continue indefinitely, is hardly the norm for partisan political processes I this country. Do you have a better theory to explain the Democrat motives in these areas?
