They probably will go through with impeachment if she does not recuse herself. They know that they need to rig the voting process in order to win elections because at their core the Republican party is evil.
That’s a clever line of attack, but having an opinion does not constitute a conflict of interest. Otherwise there would be a whole shit-ton of recusal happening every day.
A conflict of interest usually involves some form of monetary compensation or other fiscal benefit.
I’m discussing the specific choice of what rhetoric they decide to use, not why they are using it. Why they are using it is fairly obvious at this point.
There are many different lines, arguments, whatever that could be employed, though. By paying attention to which ones are specifically chosen, you can learn more about their target audience, which is larger than simply fans of a white, ultra-nationalist ethno-state. Hence their need to continue to use rationalizations like this, instead of being forthright about their intentions.
This one in particular surprised me, as I didn’t foresee it. They’re usually more predictable than that.
Right? This is just a wacky line of thought. 99% of cases are “prejudged” that’s why we have a trial process with arguments and counter-arguments. To show evidence and convince the judges of your opinions.
Sad that impeachment is continuing to be wielded as a weapon more and more. It should be reserved for extreme situations. Not just because you want an excuse to get rid of your opponent
It was kind of inevitable, unfortunately. After we impeach one of them for even legitimate wrongdoing, if they do not counter-impeach us, they lose perceived legitimacy, which weakens them.
They had no other strategically sound moves, when you consider their goal of hanging onto power regardless of the wishes of the voting public.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
They probably will go through with impeachment if she does not recuse herself. They know that they need to rig the voting process in order to win elections because at their core the Republican party is evil.
That’s a clever line of attack, but having an opinion does not constitute a conflict of interest. Otherwise there would be a whole shit-ton of recusal happening every day.
A conflict of interest usually involves some form of monetary compensation or other fiscal benefit.
You think the #fascist #GOP cares about that? All that matters to those #fascists is they have the numbers to remove her from the bench.
I’m discussing the specific choice of what rhetoric they decide to use, not why they are using it. Why they are using it is fairly obvious at this point.
There are many different lines, arguments, whatever that could be employed, though. By paying attention to which ones are specifically chosen, you can learn more about their target audience, which is larger than simply fans of a white, ultra-nationalist ethno-state. Hence their need to continue to use rationalizations like this, instead of being forthright about their intentions.
This one in particular surprised me, as I didn’t foresee it. They’re usually more predictable than that.
Right? This is just a wacky line of thought. 99% of cases are “prejudged” that’s why we have a trial process with arguments and counter-arguments. To show evidence and convince the judges of your opinions.
Sad that impeachment is continuing to be wielded as a weapon more and more. It should be reserved for extreme situations. Not just because you want an excuse to get rid of your opponent
It was kind of inevitable, unfortunately. After we impeach one of them for even legitimate wrongdoing, if they do not counter-impeach us, they lose perceived legitimacy, which weakens them.
They had no other strategically sound moves, when you consider their goal of hanging onto power regardless of the wishes of the voting public.
Yep. Because obstruction is their only policy.