Hi Tim. Congress would get to decide that of course, but as you might recall, I never favored Trump's first impeachment... despite my belief that trying to extort a foreign leader by holding up their congressionally-approved (and desperately needed) defense funding, while asking them to dig up dirt on your political rival, was a pretty glaring abuse of power. If Biden did indeed make this request with the Saudis, and it was done for political purposes, I'd call that an abuse of power too. But (unless some contrary information comes out), it strikes me as far less serious than what Trump tried to do with Zelensky, and thus I wouldn't favor impeachment in Biden's case either. I'll add this question to this week's Q&A so Bernie will answer it.
A good rule of thumb would to ask yourself: If a politician I like and support did <bad thing X> , would I still consider it an impeachable offense? It's easy to rationalize "impeachable offense" for the actions of someone you don't like.
Of course, as you point out, and recent history has shown, "impeachable offense" is a very subjective, and is essentially whatever the House decides it is at a given time.
I think if a lot more people ask themselves this question, not simply about impeachment but in lots of areas of politics (and even beyond), the national tone in this country would be much more amicable, and we'd have far more competent leaders.
Actually, it has nothing to do with who we like or don't like, or individuals, or a national tone. It has everything to do with who controls the House and the Senate. And it should be about holding our elected officials accountable, on both sides which it is not.
I'm speaking generally, in how people should deem what conduct crosses the line of acceptability in our politics. Today, people reflexively defend egregious behavior on their side that they would consider traitorous on the other side. It would be fantastic if we revisited some principles, as opposed to nearly everything being tribal.
Tim, when I say "like", I mean someone whose policies you agree with, or more basic than that, someone who is on the same team (R or D) as yourself.
And your comment above sums up the conundrum quite well - we want our "team" to control the House and Senate (so that they will make policies we presumably will approve of, and make our lives better), BUT at what cost?
If the people we elect are bad people, or worse than that, people who will do damages to our institutions and traditions, is it still ok to support them at all costs?
Interesting, maybe we have entered the Twilight Zone. There is no rational explanation for Trump.
John and Bernie,
If Biden asked the Saudi Prince to hold off reducing oil production until after the election, is this an impeachable offense?
Hi Tim. Congress would get to decide that of course, but as you might recall, I never favored Trump's first impeachment... despite my belief that trying to extort a foreign leader by holding up their congressionally-approved (and desperately needed) defense funding, while asking them to dig up dirt on your political rival, was a pretty glaring abuse of power. If Biden did indeed make this request with the Saudis, and it was done for political purposes, I'd call that an abuse of power too. But (unless some contrary information comes out), it strikes me as far less serious than what Trump tried to do with Zelensky, and thus I wouldn't favor impeachment in Biden's case either. I'll add this question to this week's Q&A so Bernie will answer it.
A good rule of thumb would to ask yourself: If a politician I like and support did <bad thing X> , would I still consider it an impeachable offense? It's easy to rationalize "impeachable offense" for the actions of someone you don't like.
Of course, as you point out, and recent history has shown, "impeachable offense" is a very subjective, and is essentially whatever the House decides it is at a given time.
I think if a lot more people ask themselves this question, not simply about impeachment but in lots of areas of politics (and even beyond), the national tone in this country would be much more amicable, and we'd have far more competent leaders.
Actually, it has nothing to do with who we like or don't like, or individuals, or a national tone. It has everything to do with who controls the House and the Senate. And it should be about holding our elected officials accountable, on both sides which it is not.
I'm speaking generally, in how people should deem what conduct crosses the line of acceptability in our politics. Today, people reflexively defend egregious behavior on their side that they would consider traitorous on the other side. It would be fantastic if we revisited some principles, as opposed to nearly everything being tribal.
Tim, when I say "like", I mean someone whose policies you agree with, or more basic than that, someone who is on the same team (R or D) as yourself.
And your comment above sums up the conundrum quite well - we want our "team" to control the House and Senate (so that they will make policies we presumably will approve of, and make our lives better), BUT at what cost?
If the people we elect are bad people, or worse than that, people who will do damages to our institutions and traditions, is it still ok to support them at all costs?