this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
72 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10187 readers
186 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Vos said Protasiewicz would likely be violating the oath of office if she doesn't recuse herself from cases involving maps she called 'rigged.'

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 73 points 1 year ago (5 children)

That's a clever line of attack, but having an opinion does not constitute a conflict of interest. Otherwise there would be a whole shit-ton of recusal happening every day.

A conflict of interest usually involves some form of monetary compensation or other fiscal benefit.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Right? This is just a wacky line of thought. 99% of cases are "prejudged" that's why we have a trial process with arguments and counter-arguments. To show evidence and convince the judges of your opinions.

Sad that impeachment is continuing to be wielded as a weapon more and more. It should be reserved for extreme situations. Not just because you want an excuse to get rid of your opponent

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was kind of inevitable, unfortunately. After we impeach one of them for even legitimate wrongdoing, if they do not counter-impeach us, they lose perceived legitimacy, which weakens them.

They had no other strategically sound moves, when you consider their goal of hanging onto power regardless of the wishes of the voting public.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Yep. Because obstruction is their only policy.

load more comments (2 replies)