Reply
Sun 1 Dec, 2019 01:50 pm
After decrying President Donald Trump for labelling impeachment a "lynching", his rival Joe Biden has apologised for once having made similar remarks.
Mr Biden, a top Democratic presidential candidate, said it was "abhorrent" and "despicable" that Mr Trump tweeted the racially loaded term on Tuesday.
But it emerged that in 1998, Mr Biden used the same word to pillory President Bill Clinton's impeachment.
Lynching refers to historic killings by white mobs mainly against black people.
Trump calls impeachment inquiry 'a lynching'
Mr Trump's invocation of the racist chapter of US history to describe a constitutionally enshrined political process provoked outrage from both major parties.
But it was later revealed that several Democratic lawmakers who criticised Mr Trump for the "lynching" comment had used the same word in the 1990s to defend Mr Clinton.
How did this all begin?
The furore began on Tuesday morning when Mr Trump tweeted to criticise the congressional inquiry that may seek to remove him from office.
The impeachment investigation is examining whether the Republican president abused his office by improperly pressuring Ukraine to launch an investigation into former US Vice-President Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the Democratic 2020 presidential nomination.
"Impeachment is not 'lynching,' it is part of our Constitution," Mr Biden tweeted in response to Mr Trump.
"Our country has a dark, shameful history with lynching, and to even think about making this comparison is abhorrent. It's despicable."
It then emerged that in a 1998 CNN interview, Mr Biden said: "Even if the president should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense."
Late on Tuesday, Mr Biden apologised for his past use of the word, but continued to condemn Mr Trump.
"This wasn't the right word to use and I'm sorry about that," he tweeted.
"Trump on the other hand chose his words deliberately today in his use of the word lynching and continues to stoke racial divides in this country daily."
Mr Clinton was impeached in December 1998 by the House of Representatives for lying under oath and obstruction of justice during the investigation into his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Mr Biden, then a senator for the state of Delaware, joined the majority of the Senate in voting to acquit Mr Clinton.
Who was Emmett Till?
US Senate finally passes anti-lynching law
Which other Democrats used the term 'lynching'?
New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler also once used the term "lynch mob" to describe the Republican impeachment investigation into Mr Clinton.
Mr Nadler is now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which will consider any articles of impeachment filed against Mr Trump.
According to the Washington Post, several other Democrats in the House of Representatives talked about a "lynching" or "lynch mob" in reference to the Clinton probe.
Is impeachment damaging Biden's 2020 bid?
They include New York Congressman Gregory Meeks.
Mr Meeks, who is black, defended himself in a statement to the Post, saying: "There is a difference when that word is used by someone of my experience and perspective, whose relatives were the targets of lynch mobs, compared to a president who has dog-whistled to white nationalists and peddled racism."
Who will take on Trump in 2020?
Election day is still more than a year away but the race to become the Democratic challenger to Mr Trump is already well under way.
The latest polling suggests Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden are the front-runners, while Bernie Sanders is also a popular contender. Many of the the other candidates are relatively unknown outside the Washington DC bubble.
@honor85,
Yep.
People who used the word lynching to defend Bill Clinton should not be criticizing the use of the word to defend Donald Trump.
What's wrong with using the word, "lynching" as a metaphor when doing so emphasizes the injustice aspect of the crime?
What would be wrong is if people used the term as an attack metaphor, i.e. in the same way people metaphorically say, "I'm going to kill you if do that again!" or "that team is going to slaughter their opponent in the tournament"
We have to come to terms with racism, hate crime, terrorism, etc. as part of history and culture. People shouldn't disrespect victims of such atrocities by making light of them, but using words as metaphors in a way that acknowledges the injustice and cruelty of the historically-referenced thing shouldn't be a problem, should it?
@maxdancona,
True. Biden has a way of getting us in these brambles.
@revelette3,
I am souring on Biden, mainly because he is throwing immigrants under the bus. If he keeps going down this path, I will have a problem voting for him in the general election.
@maxdancona,
Quote:I am souring on Biden, mainly because he is throwing immigrants under the bus. If he keeps going down this path, I will have a problem voting for him in the general election
.
In what way? What has said? Is it worse than Trump? If not, why would you help to give the election to Trump?
@revelette3,
I don't accept the electoral binary.
I would never vote for Trump. I may choose simply to not cast a vote for president. Anyone who says these two things are the same is an idiot.
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
Quote:I may choose simply to not cast a vote for president.
Then you shouldn't complain.
That's an old line to goad people into voting. The fact is that if you do a thorough analysis and realize that either way you vote will support harm in some way, then it makes sense not to vote and to hope that others avoid voting as well so that the number of non-votes becomes an indication of political failure across the board.
In short, you can stop supporting the illusion of functional representative democracy by not giving your vote to a dysfunctional system.
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
Quote:In short, you can stop supporting the illusion of functional representative democracy by not giving your vote to a dysfunctional system.
Electing the right people to improve or eliminate that dysfunction is what it is about.
That won't work because people say whatever they have to to get elected and then they still cooperate with exploitative interests.
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
Quote:That won't work because people say whatever they have to to get elected and then they still cooperate with exploitative interests.
Then you need to blame human nature, and I have no idea what can be done about that. Certainly no law can change it.
What is the point of voting, then? Virtue-signalling? Preventing the swamp from getting drained so it will overflow and trickle down to all the unsustainable industrial-consumerist economic practices that keep the climate-critique industry in business?
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
Quote:What is the point of voting
Keeping someone like Killary from becoming president.
That's the same thing Democrats say about voting out Republicans such as GW Bush or Trump.
Why not just wait until there is a candidate you can really support AND whose party you can trust not to co-opt her/him to being a yes-(wo)man to various interests?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace