“Remember the high crimes and misdemeanors debate?” Litman wrote. “This is clearly an impeachable offense, albeit not a crime. The POTUS lied to the American people for political purposes & easily tens of thousands deaths ensued. How more stark and harmful a dereliction of public duty can you get?”
It takes literally two seconds to learn that "high crimes" does not mean "crimes, but worse", but instead "abuse of station/dereliction of duty". There's no debate, this is just what words mean. Yet these galaxybrains always give the out "but it's not a crime (in the sense that you couldn't bring them to criminal court over it)". How can you be both a wonkbrained policy dork and a Trump-obsessed lib while failing to recognize that this is a meaningless distinction to draw?
Yea, nothings going to come from this.
It takes literally two seconds to learn that "high crimes" does not mean "crimes, but worse", but instead "abuse of station/dereliction of duty". There's no debate, this is just what words mean. Yet these galaxybrains always give the out "but it's not a crime (in the sense that you couldn't bring them to criminal court over it)". How can you be both a wonkbrained policy dork and a Trump-obsessed lib while failing to recognize that this is a meaningless distinction to draw?
I think the people who would use the “not a crime” defense are not the people who want Trump impeached.
It’s just what the Republicans and probably DOJ will cling to in order to excuse keeping Trump in office.