So, in the news this week were a few Democrats, the most prominent being Elizabeth Warren it seems, saying they plan to call for impeachment proceedings to begin. My question to 'dopers is…do you think this will happen? WILL the House call for impeachment proceedings to start? She says she is basing this on her reading of the (redacted?) Mueller report, saying essentially (for some reason I can’t cut and paste, but here is the link) that the evidence is clear, both for obstruction as well as compliance with the original Russian attack by Trump and his team.
So…think anything will come from this? I know there are other threads on this in various forums, but this seems to be more breaking news, so thought I’d start a new one. If the Mods think it’s better to fold this into one of the existing ones, I’m good with that, or even close it with a link to the others.
I lean toward thinking they should and won’t happen. “Should” because the evidence points in the direction of our president, if not actively participating in conspiracy to undermine democracy, at least cheering the conspiracy on; and “won’t” because Pelosi thinks impeachment wouldn’t be politically advantageous.
But why? Why does Pelosi think that? Presumably she actually has as much if not more info on this as Warren does, right? If there really is stuff in there, it seems this is the time to strike…no?
Its a strategy that I, for the longest time, agreed with. The best way to get rid of Trump would be to “vote him out” at the next elections. Put all your resources towards that goal. Impeachment would be a waste of time and resources. It would probably result in impeachment, but Trump would still be there in 2020, so why bother?
Part of the reason I changed my mind on this is because of people like Sarah Kendzior. She lays out the case for impeachment here:
Even though the Senate almost certainly won’t convict, we should still impeach. The fact that they won’t do the right thing is no excuse for us to not do the right thing.
I’m of the opinion that we should do whatever minimizes the chance of Donald being in office at 12:01pm 1/20/21. I think there are sound arguments to be made each way. The impeachment hearings in the House would bring up all the dirt that our unethical AG tried to sweep under the rug. We all know that Donald would declare himself a victim, but that’s his standard M.O. It would galvanize the Republican base but we all know Republicans ALWAYS vote, no matter what. But it might invigorate the Democratic base after the certain acquittal in the Senate. My theory is that Democrats only vote when motivated, and acquittal would motivate them. But every day we talk about impeachment, we aren’t talking about health care or student debt or global warming. My bottom line: damned if I know.
There’s right and wrong and politics. Trump did wrong, it would be right to impeach him, but it would not be good politics. The Dems should hold hearings, get ALL of the testimony out that would accompany an impeachment trial, fully holding that Democles sword above his head, all the way through the campaign and election, let the “radicals” call for his head, allow the “wise” elders to play the fair-minded cautious card, and vote the mother-fucker out in 2020.
Chances are just as good or better that way, and it’d be better for the nation.
No, he won’t be convicted and it will end up being Bill Clinton 1999 all over again.
What I’d like to see is Democrats introduce a resolution to censure Trump. It has no binding authority, but I’d like to know if there’s any Republican with enough stones to say, “Mr. President, you did some bad things.”
There are no refs. There are very few ‘median voters’ anymore to be won over by cautious responsibility. All that happens when the “wise” elders play the caution card, is it causes people to lose faith in the party, lose faith that they’ll ever do anything worthwhile.
Many people have said that the national Democratic Party has a kind of learned helplessness: they always find a reason not to take a stand, to act decisively. I keep waiting for the Scared Rabbit Party to finally have its ‘Bigwig stands his ground’* moment, and you’d think the 2018 midterms would have stiffened their spines, but no.
The point has already been made many times in the past day and a half that no, all the other hearings don’t add up to a set of impeachment hearings. Those other hearings won’t break through the clutter: Congress has hearings all the time. Nobody will watch them instead of whatever else they’re doing. They’ll hear about them through whatever filter their usual media apply to them. That would not be the case with impeachment hearings. For once we’d all be watching the same thing, be living in the same reality.
*Watership Down reference. If you don’t get it, don’t worry.
Someone on MSNBC tonight said, in making the case for impeachment, is that if the Dems do not start proceedings, it says what Bill did was worse than what Trump did. And it really stuck with me and I’m going to have to chew on that for a few days.
I agree they should at least attempt to censure AND to hold all the public hearings they can. There shouldn’t be a quiet week from now until Nov 2020. Pick off the little fish one by one.
But will they do these things? I don’t have faith that they will do those things, much less impeachment proceedings. I don’t know personally if impeachment is the way to go when it’s almost inevitably going to get no success in the Senate, but again, if they don’t do anything, they’re letting him get away with his actions.
I suspect because, given the impossibility of conviction in the Senate, it would give Republicans the opportunity to cast it in the light of nothing more than groundless Dem vindictiveness. This would remain true even if Mueller testifies that he fully and explicitly intended to leave the final decision to Congress. No evidence at this point could change that situation, because, in case you hadn’t noticed, most Republicans and all Trump supporters don’t give a shit about evidence.
Pelosi is not wrong in setting her sights on the 2020 election, and using the available evidence to undermine the Orange Peril to the maximum extent possible in the public mind.
The idea that “hearings…have brought our country together to bear witness. Hearings give the public information …and shift expectations of accountability” sounds very reasonable—not to mention stirring—until you remember what happened just seven short months ago.
A major set of hearings was held; it was watched by millions. Many looked at the subject of the hearings–Brett Kavanaugh–and saw a clearly-unfit candidate for the position he’d been nominated to fill. There was no question that the hearings gave “the public information” about Kavanaugh and his fitness.
But did Kavanaugh, subsequently, face “accountability” for his character and history?
Well, no. He now sits on the Supreme Court. The hearings, as revelatory as they were, did not lead to accountability for Kavanaugh.
The second hit I got, by the way, for a search of “Kavanaugh hearings” (I’d wanted to confirm the timeframe), is this:
The article details some positive results for Democrats, too (after all, Dems famously won many seats in the November midterms).
But the idea that impeachment hearings are highly likely to win hearts and minds over to the idea that Trump should be removed from office, seems wildly optimistic. Such hearings are just as likely to build sympathy for Trump (as happened both with Kavanaugh and with Bill Clinton before him).
It would be foolish to assume that indulging our understandable wish to see Trump called to account in this way, will have the result of removing Trump from power.
It is far more likely to end with Trump triumphant—vindicated by the Senate vote and propelled into re-election by a genuine popular-vote win.
There are few, that is true. But they make the difference.
You are right: No one will pay much attention to congressional hearings. An impeachment trial is a congressional hearing, so no one will pay much attention to it either. The Tribes have already spoken. What matters, what makes an impression on the namby pamby middle grounders that decide our presidential elections, is tone. And a better tone is set with due consideration for but ultimate foregoance of impeachment.
Point taken that you want to keep the fickle element of the party faithful on board. That’s why you let those calling for the nuclear option to have full throat. Along with that, I think the sit-outer purists have learned a lesson painful enough that (wishful thinking?) they won’t sit out again.
This. Hearings shouldn’t take but a week (I know it will take much longer, but fuck him. Have a vote in the morning, impeach the stupid fuck and get back to business)
The thing is, with Kavanaugh, there was a counternarrative of “Where’s the evidence?” With Clinton, there was a counternarrative of, “We’re not impeaching someone over lying about a blowjob.”
This case is qualitatively different from either of those. We can’t look to them for guidance.
If impeachment is not called for in this case, we may as well amend the constitution to remove it as a remedy, because it’ll never be called for.
Barring absolute evidence of an indisputable crime, impeachment is a political process. The Senate will not convict, rendering it useless. Worse than useless. As a political process it’s deadly poison. Ralph Waldo Emerson — “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”
The Democratic Party is moving into a year-long internal battle for a 2020 candidate. That candidate has to defeat Trump. Impeachment will not remove Trump, so the election has to.
You’re saying you want to take all the attention away from the primaries and move it to a show trial that guaranteed to fail? Obama already warned Dems of a circular firing squad. Listen to him.
And Pelosi. She knows what I’m talking about. She was never my choice to lead the party, but she seems to be the only adult in the room these days. She understands how fatal a failed impeachment would be and she’s desperately sitting on the idiots who want to destroy the 2020 candidate.
Dems should have one and only one thought in their heads for the next 18 months: the defeat of Trump in the 2020 election. Stop playing games.
…of course not. Because the process is fundamentally broken. Because America is entirely fucked up. The Supreme Court process is absolute madness. A partisan job for life? Who the fuck came up with that idea?
You’ve missed the point. It isn’t about “hearts and minds.” That is phrasing that Kendzior specifically does not use. Its about:
It isn’t about “indulging wishes.” I was perfectly fine with not impeaching Trump, because many people had made the argument that “impeaching wouldn’t help.” Since the release of the report I’ve been convinced otherwise. It isn’t about a desire to see “Trump held to account in this way.” Its that impeachment is entirely the appropriate response to the damning evidence provided by Mueller. If ever there was a case for impeachment then this would be it.
Kendzior predicted the rise of Trump. She’s an expert on authoritarian leaders, how they get their power and how they stay in power. So if I have to make a judgement call on the “likely-hood of impeachment causing Trump to be triumphant” I’ll side with the expert on authoritarian leaders and not the random person on the internet.
Then perhaps you should start listening to the experts.
If you believe in Kendzior because you believe that “hearings are the best way of informing the people on what the White House has done” then why bother with an impeachment process? The House will be holding hearings on Trump every week from now until next November. All the information that even the most avid partisan (or swayable undecided) could ever want will come out.
Impeachment gets Republicans to take a stand regarding the president in a way that hearings don’t. I strongly suspect that some Republicans–Romney, I’m looking at you–will vote in favor of impeachment, and good for them.
Those that defend the president’s behavior? Let them run on that record.
Bear in mind that the revelations aren’t over. There are over a dozen cases referred to other jurisdictions. If the ball gets rolling now, it’s gonna pick up more shit along the way.
…I believe in Kendzior because, like her, I believe that the “GOP has been hijacked by a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government”. I also believe that there are very few “good options” available. I think that if in her opinion impeachment is the best option available out of all the bad options then it would be silly to simply dismiss her opinion out of hand. I was on the side of “not impeach” until very recently. But I kept an open mind.
Why have an impeachment process if you are not going to bother with an impeachment process?
Can you forward me the schedule for these hearings?
Can you guarantee that these hearings won’t get lost in the news cycle? We’ve just had two high profile hearings, does anybody remember what they were? The GOP and the Trump administration know how to dominate news cycles. They know how to disrupt the cycle, how to feed the “outrage machine” while pushing the “bad” news off the front page. Its why Jussie Smollett is still in the news right now but Trumps real estate deals in NY barely lasted a day. Its why Barr preempted the release of the Mueller report with his 4-page memo: to set the narrative and to limit the damage.
This is a full-scale propaganda war. I cannot begin to contemplate the best way to fight this war. That’s why I will listen to the experts. That’s why I’m willing to change my mind. You have to disrupt their patterns. Stop accepting the abdication of normal process. Everything in the Mueller Report suggests that impeachment is the appropriate remedy. Choosing not to do that on the gamble that “impeaching might make things worse” is a huge mistake in my, most humblest of opinions.
And this thing that “won’t be called impeachment” won’t make nearly the impact on the public consciousness that impeachment will do.
