undefined | Better HN

0 pointstomp4y ago0 comments

No, he was accused long ago, 6 months or longer. Many other men were cancelled on much flimsier accusations. But he’s a Democratic politician in NY, so he’s a favoured demographic by most media…

0 comments

6 comments · 3 top-level

JumpCrisscross4y ago· 2 in thread

> he was accused long ago, 6 months or longer. Many other men were cancelled on much flimsier accusations.

Fortunately, it takes due process to “cancel” a holder of public office. Part of that involves verifying claims.

ashtonkem4y ago

That’s not actually true though. Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one. An executive can be impeached for whatever the legislature feels like according to rules that the legislature itself sets.

Historically officials have been impeached for such things as drunkenness and “intemperate speeches” (racist rants). If the legislature wanted to, he’d be gone in 30s flat.

xyzzyz4y ago

What’s so “fortunate” about that? If the rulers were liable to be cancelled as easily as plebs, maybe the plebs too would then be allowed due process.

geofft4y ago· 1 in thread

"Cancelled" isn't a sufficiently precise term to be meaningful in this context. I doubt many people would have voluntarily booked him for a comedy tour or whatever, six months ago, and my corner of the world (liberals and leftists in NYC) had already been unhappy with him as a politician well before these accusations. But impeaching a governor, or having him voluntarily resign, is a much more involved process.

ashtonkem4y ago

It’s kind of amazing how valueless the word “cancel” is, given that it now covers everything from becoming unemployable to being criticized.

I find it particularly dumb in this context. This isn’t about “cancelling” or legally prosecuting Cuomo, it’s about deciding whether or not he is fit to continue to wield executive authority on behalf of the people of New York. You can decide that someone isn’t worth “cancelling”, whatever the fuck that means, and still decide that they shouldn’t be the governor of your state.

lordnacho4y ago

Often what happens with a scandal is after it breaks the defendant will say they deserve a chance to be heard, and if an investigation is launched that's at least a reason to back off for a bit, and the bad press can go away for a while.

Now that the AG has finished the report, it looks like a matter of time.

It might just be a question of him positioning an ally to take his seat, or maybe tying up a few loose ends.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 3 top-level

JumpCrisscross4y ago· 2 in thread

> he was accused long ago, 6 months or longer. Many other men were cancelled on much flimsier accusations.

Fortunately, it takes due process to “cancel” a holder of public office. Part of that involves verifying claims.

ashtonkem4y ago

Historically officials have been impeached for such things as drunkenness and “intemperate speeches” (racist rants). If the legislature wanted to, he’d be gone in 30s flat.

xyzzyz4y ago

What’s so “fortunate” about that? If the rulers were liable to be cancelled as easily as plebs, maybe the plebs too would then be allowed due process.

geofft4y ago· 1 in thread

ashtonkem4y ago

It’s kind of amazing how valueless the word “cancel” is, given that it now covers everything from becoming unemployable to being criticized.

lordnacho4y ago

Now that the AG has finished the report, it looks like a matter of time.

It might just be a question of him positioning an ally to take his seat, or maybe tying up a few loose ends.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse