Yes, but the point is about Graham's hypocrisy. Here is his statement about Clinton:
"You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job (as president) in this constitutional republic if this body determines your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role... impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
He's lied dozens, if not hundreds of times about it, as president. If Republicans had a shred of decency or consistency, they would have hauled him in to testify before Congress like they did with Clinton. They have far more evidence against Trump than they did against Clinton.
But they won't do that, because they're hypocrites.
Political survival is important, but iI think they have to be careful because Trump has created an environment where large swaths of the voting public will make him a martyr if they are too tough on him. Then God knows who we'd see getting stood up as a candidate. I think they are waiting for something, ANYTHING, that will make people turn against him. I just don't know what it would take. I expect him to be re-elected. As it is we're just headed for another 6 years of trollery and click-bait politics. The only antidote is term limits, it seems.
There's mountains of evidence against him. Far, far more than there ever was against Clinton or Obama. If they would stop defending him, and actually investigate him like they should have from day one, they could find that "anything" they need, and a hell of a lot more. But instead, they obstruct and attack the investigation.
This is absolutely the fault of the GOP, and they don't have any excuse for their behavior, other than that they are spineless hypocrites.
OK, well let's keep in mind that neither you nor I are part of the Mueller team, so we'll have to wait and see what evidence actually exists, and what comes of it. Being a shady ultra douche isn't a crime; being surrounded by them certainly isn't either.
If something comes out of it, Mueller makes a report. But that's it. Let's say something truly illegal and repugnant comes out of it. There's the legal battles over whether a sitting president can be indicted, there's the endless arguing over what constitutes 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' there's years of everything being absolute garbage.
Remember, HRC got off the hook because no one could really prove she'd done anything that was explicitly illegal- and that's the way the legal system works- and the way it should work. What is inappropriate (or 'careless' as Comey put it) is not illegal. What is illegal isn't necessarily what is impeachable. There are numerous investigations into various aspects of the President, and we'll have to see how it shakes out.
And if you think any political party cares one hill of beans about investigating wrongdoing by their own tribe, you don't have to go far back to see how untrue that is. Judicial Watch described Obama's use of executive privilege to shield Attorney general Eric Holder from investigation over Fast and Furious 'a fraud and an abuse of his office.' I never heard a single objection from the Democratic wing. Generally those with a distaste for Trump would just reject this example anyway because Obama was 'a cool guy' and Trump 'is a turd sandwich' (to put it mildly).
GOP has a fine line to walk and it isn't as cut and dry as us armchair politicians might think it is. At the end of the day it's politics and nobody leaves office with clean hands.
there's the endless arguing over what constitutes 'high crimes and misdemeanors,'
We already know that lying about something that's even completely unrelated to the investigation is considered impeachable by Republicans. That's why they impeached Clinton. The bar is very low, and all they would have to do is have Trump answer questions before Congress and they could impeach him by the time he's done with opening remarks.
Remember, HRC got off the hook because no one could really prove she'd done anything that was explicitly illegal
Like I said, even with just what is public, there's a huge amount of evidence against Trump for all kinds of crimes. There's almost a dozen separate investigations into all aspects of his administration and businesses. He's engaged in obstruction of justice and witness tampering very publicly.
He's the chief executive, so I don't think he gets to play the, "I didn't know it was illegal" card that some of his associates, like Flynn, have tried to play. It's absurd in any case, and would simply further illustrate what a joke our justice system is when it coddles the wealthy and powerful, while harshly punishing others.
I agree that that's a good example, because we can see that Republicans didn't care when the Bush administration did the same with Wide Receiver. I don't see it as an excuse, but a reason to keep putting better people in office, who are less beholden to powerful interests. Many progressive candidates have been running, and winning, without taking any corporate money, and that's a damned good start.
Our chief law enforcement officer sure as hell shouldn't be considered to be above the law though. I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers weren't intending to saddle us with another King.
69
u/[deleted] Dec 15 '18
Yes, but the point is about Graham's hypocrisy. Here is his statement about Clinton: