@TedWrigley:which doesn’t explain what makes the D’s immune to this mode of thought. And when I think of the impeachment of Clinton (where he confessed before the trial), it seems to me they might not be immune after all.

I never said that the Democrats were immune. I said the Democrats were not doing it in this impeachment. Though to be clear, Clinton was impeached for lying about an extramarital affair, which was not even the original focus of the original investigation into him (that was the Whitewater thing). Trump was impeached for using his political office to extort a foreign government for political advantage.

The first (while objectionable) would hardly be a cause for removal from office in any case, because it has no practical national implications. The second clearly has implications for national security and US institutional norms. I can easily see acquitting Clinton on purely rational grounds, and have a hard time seeing why he was impeached in the first place. Trump's impeachment seems valid in the face of it.

While I can see grounds for acquitting rump or letting him off with a censure, dismissing the case outright (as happened) seems both partisan and irrational. Again, moral equivalence is moral ambivalence.

As for national security concerns, they are about even — dirt opens you to blackmail. What rational grounds do you see for acquitting Clinton other than expediency?

Personally I think (and said at the time) that if Clinton had said he discussed his sex life with his doctor and people he was having sex with, and he already had a fine doctor...so suck it up or go onto the next question, I would have been more than fine with it. Lying under oath? Not fine. Anyway, you are praising one side as courageous defenders of right, and the other as smarmy weasels. I think they are both smarmy weasels.

i haven’t seen anything which makes me think that either side is doing what they think is best for the nation. Hell, I haven’t seen anything which indicates they are even capable of weighing what is best for the party, let alone for the nation.

@jmoreno — Please do not be disingenuous. Clinton's 'perjury' was lying about an extramarital affair. That is by no stretch of the imagination a violation of his oath of office or an offense against the nation as a whole. I'm not saying it was acceptable behavior, but the only institution it threatened was the institution of marriage. Do not pretend that this is on the same footing with Trump's actions, even if we grant Trump a favorable interpretation.

And you'll excuse me (I hope) for suggesting that the only reason you want both sides to be 'smarmy weasels' is that you recognize the crass Machiavellianism that the GOP has indulged in since the 1990s, and have to assert that both sides are equally immoral, or feel shame about your preferred party's behavior. I'll suggest to you that you ought to feel shame about your preferred party's behavior whether or not Democrats have behaved in the same light.

When liberals behave badly, I feel shame for them, and I speak out against them to the extent that I can. I do not try to absolve them of evil by screaming about how evil conservatives are.

So, how do you determine whether an oath is OK to break for personal convenience or ambition? Gah, you almost got me defending Trump. Trump sucks, that doesn’t mean the D’s were all noble to impeach him and the R’s all crazy to defend him.

You need to stop thinking about which side is doing what, and start looking at the facts in evidence.

The R’s aren’t my preferred party, that has generally been the D’s, except on a couple of issues.

I'm glad we agree that Trump sucks, but that is not the point here. What matters is whether Trump's behavior is held to account, so that it can be brought under control. Clinton's impeachment held him to account for his behavior. It may even have been overkill for the act in question (which I will repeat, in no way threatened the security or institutions of the US)

Trump's clearly worse behavior has not been held to account, and we can only expect him to continue in the same vein.

So, Trump has been held to account, he was impeached and was found not guilty by a narrower margin than Clinton.

No, unfortunately. As I understand Trump's mindset, He will interpret this as a sign of his control over the Senate, and count this as a 'win' which entitles him to pursue the same behavior to greater extremes. I'm not certain Trump should have been removed from office for this (though I would have liked that very much); it is a narrow, borderline case that the House presented for removal.

As for institutions, Clinton established that it is OK for a President to lie while under oath, not say fuck off, not say I’m the President and you have no authority to compel me to answer any question, but to straight up lie.

But clearly the Senate should have held a full, detailed trial, so that (even if Trump were acquitted) it would be clear to Trump and the American people exactly what Trump did wrong.

Nothing is going to make Trump feel bad about himself or his actions.

If that's the case, then Trump is a sociopath, and ought to be removed from office immediately.

Congress is above the President, as they just got through showing...they could have removed him from office. But everyone knew they wouldn’t, which makes bring the charges at all a betray of the public trust. It makes him look more powerful than he actually is

Nothing in the Constitution says you can’t be a sociopath and President

Nothing at all prevents one from being both a “good” President and a sociopath. Sociopaths aren’t required to go out and eat babies

Which is not to say that I think Trump is a good President, I am defending sociopaths in general, not T4ump in particular