[lapcat]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Where is "both sides" coming from when Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Trump are all Republicans? And where in the world do you get "legitimization" from my comments, other than how Presidential pardons have practically legitimized crimes in office?

[Arainach]

The response to every new overreach by Trump is "this is just more of what's been going on" when it absolutely is not, it's dramatically different. Today's Republicans are a very different beast from Gerald Ford's. It's absolutely "both sides"ing the issue.

[lapcat]

> The response to every new overreach by Trump is "this is just more of what's been going on"

This is a strange take on my comments. To be absolutely clear: I object in the strongest possible terms to the crimes of the Nixon and Reagan administrations and to the subsequent pardons of Nixon and Reagan administration officials. I have no desire to legitimize those pardons, and indeed I think the pardon power should have been eliminated or at least strictly limited a long time ago. Moreover, I objected to your attempt to minimize those past scandals, which you described as "nothing".

Thus, my comments are in no way a defense or legimitimization of Trump. They become a defense of Trump only in your own mind when you insist on discounting the past, which I do not. And when I suggested that previous pardons set the stage for Trump, I meant that shielding the executive branch from the legal consequences of their crimes only emboldens someone like Trump to act without any fear of legal consequences for his own crimes in office. The terrible precedents set in the past have come back to haunt us in the present. Again, that's not "legitimization" in any sense.