(saganized :) )
1. Watching professors of law testifying that President Trump has committed (at the minimum) obstruction of justice is quite interesting to me, as it should be to the rest of the American people. But is(n't) there a greater context to all this than just that? One of the contexts is past behaviors of Presidents in an impeachment and/or removal context. And so President Clinton's perjury - outright perjury on such questions as whether he had ever been alone in the Oval Office with Lewinsky - becomes rather relevant to this. A Democrat-run senate at the time let Clinton off the hook for such behavior, impeachment-wise, so doesn't that provide some kind of guidance, intellectual-honor-wise, as to how to Democrats should treat Trump? Likewise, doesn't a similar obligation of intellectual honor apply equally as strongly to Republicans? Given the logic they used in Clinton's case in 1998, should they impeach and/or remove Trump? Clinton's misdeeds were enough to get him stripped of his law license. One legal analysis I've already linked a few days ago argues that the most significant offense from an impeachment standpoint was Clinton's attempts to influence assistant Bettie Currie's testimony about his Lewinsky-related activities. How does that compare to / contrast with Trump apparently trying to get White House counsel Don McGhan to issue a false denial? One legal expert today testified this clearly constitutes obstruction of justice.
The American people rightly expect intellectual honor from their political representatives. Will they get it here? On that point, their expectations aren't so high, now are they. (They would get better political representation through philosophy, btw; a shit-ton of promising leads on that point are throughout this here blog.)
2. betting odds are prima facie evidence that there has to be a greater context to this, than having legal experts testifying that, e.g., Trump obstructed justice.
3. Demorat politicians have some nerve appealing to expertise - legal expertise in this case - given their support for things like rent controls and minimum wages and other market distortions that a supermajority of professional economists - experts in their field - say will counteract the supposedly good intentions of the rodent-like politicians inflicting these policies on a supposedly free people. The phrase "fuck 'em" comes to mind, but let me also add substantively that selective appeal to expertise doesn't turn one-sided/partisan, bad-faith propagandists into truth-seekers. They clearly refuse to be consistent in their thought/actions about which actions to punish how, and about which experts to consult on which subjects. We've already established in this blog with exhaustive/overwhelming evidence and state of the art analysis the principle of what the Demorat politicians/their allies and enablers are (culminating more or less in their patently dishonest attempts to destroy Brett Kavanaugh); the only question is the precise measurement of their depravity. Also, once again: fuck 'em, they've already shit away their credibility. Perhaps the Republicans can prove that they're significantly less-worse?
