Post New

There is so much to be horrified about with the Trump mis-Administration, but one of the most dangerous and corrosive things he has done to our democracy is to normalize flagrant corruption. This fish rots from the head.

NPR's Up First had a short segment this morning about Trump's corrupt use of the pardon power and general corruption of this administration.

Starting at about 10:21 into the podcast discusses the corruption, focusing mainly on the very corrupt use of the Presidential power to pardon criminals and about how he has gutted the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ, the group that focused on public corruption and election crimes. The section had 35 to 40 attorneys when Trump returned to office and it now has only two.

The Gemini summary:

Attitudes Toward Public Corruption
The podcast discusses new reporting that suggests a fundamental shift in how the administration views the prosecution of corruption. Key points include:

Weakening Oversight: A move away from traditional independent oversight and a more skeptical view of the agencies responsible for investigating public officials.

Executive Discretion: The reporting indicates a preference for executive power over the standard legal frameworks that have historically governed ethics and accountability in Washington.

Misuse of Pardons and Ethical Breaches
The segment connects the administration's "alarming attitudes" to a broader culture of perceived impunity. Your recent context and broader reporting on this topic suggest:

Institutional Friction: There is a growing concern that the administration sees the legal system not as a neutral arbiter, but as a tool that can be redirected or bypassed.

Systemic Concerns: Critics mentioned in the reporting argue that this posture risks normalizing behaviors like cronyism or the use of public office for personal gain, as the "deterrent" of prosecution is perceived to be fading.

The episode positions these shifts as part of a larger trend where the administration is testing the limits of what is considered "legal" versus "ethical" for those in power.

Kleptocracy + kakistocracy + idiocracy = Trumpism. Thanks to all you Dopes who voted for this.

There is so much to be horrified about with the Trump mis-Administration, but one of the most dangerous and corrosive things he has done to our democracy is to normalize flagrant corruption. This fish rots from the head.

Yup. SCOTUS says he can't be charged criminally, and he beat impeachment twice, so he knows he can't be constrained by anything.

As others have been saying, for months: how can we tell any future POTUS he can't be as corrupt as Trump?

Steve

NPR's Up First had a short segment this morning about Trump's corrupt use of the pardon power and general corruption of this administration.

This is reason enough to impeach Trump if the democrats take the House. My understanding is that Trump's pardons during this term become nullified if he is impeached and convicted. (Yes, I know that conviction in the Senate is a very heavy lift and highly unlikely.)

As others have been saying, for months: how can we tell any future POTUS he can't be as corrupt as Trump?

By convicting Trump for as many of his frauds as possible- and by changing his permanent, life-long address to a prison.

My understanding is that Trump's pardons during this term become nullified if he is impeached and convicted.

Wrong.

(Yes, I know that conviction in the Senate is a very heavy lift and highly unlikely.)

Yup. As Adam Schiff said, during the impeachment for Trump trying to overturn the 2020 election: "if this isn't impeachable, nothing is". A majority of Senators, including several Republicans, voted "guilty", but not enough to reach the super majority required. Since then, four GOP moderates, like Romney, who voted guilty, have left the Senate. Three of them have been replaced by Trumpers. Trump knows he is untouchable.

Steve

Since then, four GOP moderates, like Romney, who voted guilty, have left the Senate. Three of them have been replaced by Trumpers. Trump knows he is untouchable.

Perceptions, and even realities can shift quickly.

Right now, the core of MAGA true believers is being whittled down and Trump is increasingly seen (even by MAGA) as a doddering old fool.

The calculation may increasingly be made by Republicans that there is political advantage in voting for impeachment, and that Donald Trump is toothless.

True believers will always remain, but their numbers are shrinking.

The calculation may increasingly be made by Republicans that there is political advantage in voting for impeachment, and that Donald Trump is toothless.

It will never be in the political best interests of a party for them to support the impeachment and conviction of their own President. They then just lose everyone. Their own partisans will view it as a betrayal, while independents will view it as a confession of guilt.

You're not getting seventeen GOP Senators to vote for conviction.

It will never be in the political best interests of a party for them to support the impeachment and conviction of their own President.

Never?

In 1974, Republican leaders and other members told Nixon that they would vote to impeach him. Instead, he resigned.

Of course, you would need Mr. Peabody’s Wayback machine to go back far enough to when Republicans had honest principles and put country before party.

Admittedly, a long time ago.

Right now, the core of MAGA true believers is being whittled down and Trump is increasingly seen (even by MAGA) as a doddering old fool.

It could be a function of what I see in the media, but much of the split in MAGA seems to center around his standing by Israel, to the detriment of the US. Maybe some more immigration "enforcement theater", and promotion of religion, would whip MAGA back into line?

But, really, his "popularity" only matters if there are "free and fair" elections this fall. This is what the net sifter says about the impact of recent gerrymandering in red states.

Following recent 2026 redistricting battles, Republicans are projected to net 5 to 12 seats in the U.S. House, with some estimates suggesting a higher potential gain of up to 14–18 seats depending on, for example, the final maps in Louisiana. Key gains are driven by aggressive maps in Texas (+5), Florida (+3-4), Ohio (+2), and other states, though analysts suggest the net impact may be closer to 5-7 seats due to competitive environments.

Trump the God said it out loud, 5 years ago. An election is only "rigged" if Trump's opponents win. Votes are only "illegal" if cast for Trump's opponents.

Steve

My understanding is that Trump's pardons during this term become nullified if he is impeached and convicted.

Wrong.

Well, that's a damn shame. The first search results I looked at were saying the opposite.

But impeachment and conviction would at least prevent any new pardons after that.

Never?

In 1974, Republican leaders and other members told Nixon that they would vote to impeach him. Instead, he resigned.

Yes, never. They might choose to do it, but it won’t be to their political advantage. The GOP got destroyed in the 1974 election, and that’s without the destruction that an actual Senate trial would wreak. The party.

You're not getting seventeen GOP Senators to vote for conviction.

And yet 7 GOP Senators voted to convict in Trump's 2nd impeachment trial.

Trump is so much worse now than in his first term. Surely an impeachable offense will be found before his term is up, if there really aren't several that qualify already.

Trump is so much worse now than in his first term. Surely an impeachable offense will be found before his term is up, if there really aren't several that qualify already.

There are several, perhaps many. But the Republicans are far more aligned with him this time than last; he has managed to capture the party in a way not seen in a generation, perhaps two or three.

You would need 17 Republican Senators to vote to convict, and that’s assuming the Senate comes out even in the upcoming midterms. I doubt you could find three, which is, I believe, fewer than 17.

This is reason enough to impeach Trump if the democrats take the House.

Democrats taking the House seems less likely given the GOP’s advantage in gerrymandering.

Impeachment? Forget it.

They then just lose everyone. Their own partisans will view it as a betrayal, while independents will view it as a confession of guilt.

They wouldn't lose me, necessarily. I would view it as taking out the trash. I would respect people who did the right thing over circling the wagons.

I guess I'm alone in this?

The GOP got destroyed in the 1974 election...

Correlation isn't necessarily causation.

There was a lot going on in 1974. Republicans had much of the power, and the people were not happy with the path we were on.

There was a lot going on in 1974. Republicans had much of the power, and the people were not happy with the path we were on.

Don’t forget: when folks went to the polls in Nov. ‘74, the final collapse of Vietnam was in progress.

As others have been saying, for months: how can we tell any future POTUS he can't be as corrupt as Trump?

To answer Steve's question earlier in the thread, the simple answer is the Supremes.

You don't need impeachment if the Supreme Court overturns its own rule it made for trump exonerating any and all activities performed as president, which it will do in a heartbeat for democratic president.

Pete

Correlation isn't necessarily causation.

There was a lot going on in 1974. Republicans had much of the power, and the people were not happy with the path we were on.

Yeah but really now - Watergate was the biggest political event going on then, one of the biggest political events in history. It was intensely damaging to the GOP brand. Dragging it out into an actual GOP civil war - with the President's defenders attacking his prosecutors and vice-versa in a months-long spectacle of internal conflict - would have just made it even worse.

Again, it can be the right thing to do - but impeaching and convicting your own President will never be to your political advantage.

...Watergate was the biggest political event going on then, one of the biggest political events in history.

Sure. But was it bigger than the war protests? I had a teenage brother of draft age, and I can tell you that I was far more aware of the war protests than I was Watergate (granted, I'm thinking of '72-'73, since my brother died before the impeachment, though not before the incident itself). The country was convulsing with anti-war demonstrations. And, as wzambon pointed out, in '74 we were in the early stages of the fall of Saigon.

I'm not diminishing the Watergate scandal (and such famous quotes as "if the President does it, then it's legal"). But it was nestled in one of the most convulsive, divisive environments in our history. The only reason Nixon won was the racist Southern Strategy (yet another divisive issue, roiling our nation).

Like I said...there was a lot going on, and some of it was NOT trivial. IMO, Watergate was just one of several significant issues/events going on at the time.

As I said in another post, I would admire (and expect) officials to do what we elected them to do. If the Felon was a Dem (which, as I recall, he has been at different points in his life), I would fully support impeachment of him. Doesn't matter if he's "on my team". He has no regard for democracy and rule of law, so he must go. Whether impeachment, or the 25th Amendment...he must go.

Sure. But was it bigger than the war protests? I had a teenage brother of draft age, and I can tell you that I was far more aware of the war protests than I was Watergate (granted, I'm thinking of '72-'73, since my brother died before the impeachment, though not before the incident itself). The country was convulsing with anti-war demonstrations.

Yes, it was probably bigger than the anti-war protests. Certainly at the time - the anti-war protests had ended by early 1973. Remember, the U.S. had pretty much ended our active involvement in the war by March of 1973. It had been nearly two years since the had been "convulsing" with anti-war demonstrations - and even those demonstrations had been winding down alongside Nixon's winding down the troop levels in the early 1970's.

And while the anti-war protests loom large in our cultural depictions of the Vietnam Era - especially cultural depictions aimed at baby boomers - contemporary polling shows that they only had a moderate impact on public opinion. To be sure, domestic popular opinion had turned against the war, but student protests had only a modest role in that. And, again, by March 1973 that was all pretty much done.

As I said in another post, I would admire (and expect) officials to do what we elected them to do.

As would most people. But people disagree on what it is "we elected them to do." Some folks want them to form an independent and principled evaluation of what the right course of action is and pursue that, even if it runs against the interests of the people who elected them. Others want them to fight like heck for the side of the folks who put them in office, and not betray the trust of their voters by letting the other side win without a fight. We all want to believe that those two things are never in conflict - but as we see in the Redistricting Wars, sometimes that's not true.

There is sometimes a difference between what is right and what is politically advantageous. That's all I'm saying when I point out that it would not be politically advantageous to the GOP to impeach and convict Trump. It might be the right thing to do, but it would spark a civil war in the party that would hinder its political prospects.

It might be the right thing to do, but it would spark a civil war in the party that would hinder its political prospects.

Those on the “impeach” side of that civil war would likely argue that political prospects of the party SHOULD be hindered for a period of time, as the penalty for taking so many anti-democratic stands in the last decade. At least until trust can be restored with the American people.

—Peter

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.