11 thoughts on “Ford vs. Schumer”

  1. The difference being, Nixon was willing to shut up and go away (not to mention being ineligible to run again under any circumstances). I think there is a concern with Trump sucking up a lot of political oxygen while also building a comeback for 2024, unless he is rendered ineligible by impeachment.

    In a saner world (in which none of this would be happening anyway) Biden could pardon Trump on condition that he shut up and go away. But I can’t imagine the backlash that would create from the left end of Biden’s constituency, possibly up to and including more rioting across the country.

    I don’t trust Schumer’s motives or particularly like him in any political sense, but his point is not unreasonable here.

    1. That’s a fair distinction, although I don’t think Trump is going to shut up no matter what happens, and convicting him might inflame rather than suppress passions.

      The prospect of him running in 2024 seems unlikely to me. He’d be 76, I think.

      1. He won’t shut up, but at least he will be ineligible, was my point. Which will take a lot of steam out of him if he can’t be the standard bearer as the leader. He doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy who wants to lead a movement that he doesn’t ultimately benefit from.

        1. Yes, but if the logic is “we have to convict him so we can stop him from running and have peace,” that may bring peace to some and extreme irritation to others. It doesn’t seem like the greatest path to peace or “unity” — although it is a difficult situation and there might not be a right answer.

          1. Yes, it will annoy people. But I don’t think it’s necessarily a terrible argument that removing him from the political scene entirely would be worth the price of getting people mad for a bit. It’s seen as excising something — not pretty in the short term but much better in the long run.

            1. Worth it in terms of healing, I mean, not just that it’s worth it to Schumer to go after Trump [any Republican], because that’s what he lives for, which is of course true.

  2. This is one of those times when I realize I don’t know as much about the American system as a good neighbour should.

    I thought impeachment applied to sitting officials, and since Trump is now as official as Crowhill, it wouldn’t apply to him. Or is it like one of those cases where someone sues a named governor in an official capacity? So they’re not impeaching Donald Trump, they’re impeaching Trump-as-President, and Trump-as-President is always going to legally exist? In which case you could also impeach any former presidents? Or is there a statute of limitations, so we could impeach maybe GWB but not Clinton?

    (I’d say that Americans are strange, but at least they’re strange in interesting ways.

    Canadians are strange in boring ways, where we are shocked — shocked, I say! — that Biden shut down a pipeline that we wanted, and that China is imprisoning our citizens as hostages. Why, it’s almost like our vaunted “soft power” doesn’t actually count for anything!)

    1. As I understand it, but this might be my misunderstanding, is that he was a sitting president when he was impeached, because impeachment roughly equals indictment, not the entire process of trying him on the impeachment. So when the articles of impeachment were passed, he was impeached. Now the trial needs to be held (though I imagine in theory, they could just decide to drop it) but the impeachment has already occurred.

  3. Odd comparison. Ford was president, whereas Schumer is only a senator. Next let’s consider what Joe Blow has to say on the matter.

Comments are closed.