[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

You would rather a likely criminal keep public office than a likely criminal be removed from office. That’s literally what you’re arguing.

Yes, if it cannot be proved to my satisfaction, such that I would bet my life on it, beyond a reasonable doubt that the likely criminal is, in fact, a criminal.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

The system includes a mechanism removal from office.

conceded.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I think that’s putting politicians above the integrity of government.

We have another mechanism for preserving the integrity of government, and besides the voters have some discretion in who they elect to office.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Oh boy, I can’t wait to hear from the Trump voter how special rules apply only to the President at this particular moment.

I don't think this comment applies to me.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I read your arguments as being transparently in defense of the President, dressed up with some garnishes of tut-tutting and maybe a light finger-wag and maybe a furrowed brow, but devoid of any sense of holding public officials accountable for misdeeds in any kind of practical sense.

Are you implying that beyond a reasonable doubt is an impractical standard? Or that my definition of it is?

Originally Posted by Ravenman

You might as well argue that removal from office should be a unanimous decision, because criminal juries.

I don't think that would be desirable, because surely some politicians are actually corrupt or inept, and besides the Senate is not impartial. I want the system to work when the great majority of people, myself included, recognize that the President ought to go. I want the system to work when a great majority of people recognize the President ought to go, even if I do not.

~Max 32