I don’t support going for impeachment right now. But if he outright defies subpoenas and court orders? Then sure. And I think at that point you might actually have a chance in the Senate to remove him. Republicans aren’t going to want a Democratic president to be able to thumb his or her nose at them with impunity.
“Waiting for the elections” is only consistent with a belief that the elections will be safe from interference, both foreign and GOP.
How many here feel that way?
Asahi, you spent the greater part of four years telling us that elections can be rigged… and now your solution is “whoa, wait, let’s not do this thing, let’s have the voters (and pollsters) decide”?
Fuck, guys, this isn’t that difficult: call your reps and Senators and say the situation, and yourself, calls for impeachment proceedings to begin. Don’t wait. Lead.
This is the crunch time: Do you carve out a path back to law and order, or take the path of least resistance?
Oh, my god. I’m so stupid!! I can’t believe it took me this long to figure out Pelosi’s strategy, and why. I owe Banquet Bear a debt of gratitude for jarring my memory with his Post #217, even if it does mean having to admit publicly what a dolt I am.
I have viewed the impeachment process primarily through long-ago hazy memories of Watergate. I admit I didn’t pay much attention during Clinton’s impeachment process because I thought it was so dumb.
I remembered impeachment hearings during Watergate. But I hadn’t remembered or appreciated the fact that those hearings were held in the Senate. And I didn’t work out up to this point that the House can merely vote to bring charges/to impeach – not to hold impeachment hearings. (!!!) That is the sole purview of the Senate. All Pelosi can do is conduct “oversight” hearings.
So Pelosi proposes to conduct those “oversight” hearings so the House won’t lose control over the investigative process into Trump’s illegal activities to the Senate and McConnell. She knows what will happen to the hearings in the impeachment/removal process if it is moved to the Senate.
I am suddenly a big supporter of “oversight” hearings. For a long, long time. Don’t vote to impeach until the evidence is out before the American people, and FFS, don’t let McConnell get control over it.
No wonder Trump is trying so hard to get the House to vote to impeach ASAP.
Apologies if I am the last person in this thread to work this out. Yeesh, what a dumb ass!
Also, ceding the terms of the Mueller topic to Trump by not holding hearings and not controlling the news cycle is a weak strategy, designed by losers.
It will be an issue in 2020 (which is just 7 months away). The question is, who do the Democrats want to do the framing: them or Trump?
I don’t disagree with your passion, my good man. But I am going to assume for the moment that the United States will continue to operate democratically, and constitutionally. And if it does, then we have to reckon with the truth, which is that it’s the people collectively who consent to the social contract. And according to the rules of our contract, we have an impeachment process that, like it or not, depends a lot on the popular mood. We’re not saying never prosecute, but like a good prosecutor, you don’t go to trial unless you’re ready to win. Period.
But JohnT, since you mentioned, I will tell you that if elections are in fact ultimately rigged, my solution is this: hit the fucking streets in mass protest. Peaceful protest, but hit the fucking streets. We refuse to be governed. I’m not saying nothing can be done to stop Trump and his oligarchs, but if the democratic option is taken away and we are left with an illegitimate government, then that is our option - our only realistic option to restoring a credible government that works for the people. That is what the colour revolutions in Europe taught us. That is what some of the Arab Spring taught us, what Algeria has taught us, what Tunisia taught us. I think the problem with America is that there are people across the world living in completely authoritarian regimes who have a better and more realistic appraisal of what freedom means than those of us who live in one of the world’s oldest democracies.
People have assumed that I’ve called for violence - absolutely not. That would be the worst fucking mistake a democracy-loving people could make, because it would send the message that “democrats” defend “liberty” with violence. That is not what democrats do (the people, not the political party), nor is that what libertarians of any stripe do. People who truly love being free are willing to risk everything to be so, while not giving into the occasional temptation to debase themselves, because they know it effectively makes them terrorists.
After posting in response to JohnT and reflecting on my posts the last few years, I realized something: I think a lot of my critics have thought I’m nutso because they’ve viewed my “predictions” within the context of the conventions of our political system. I don’t like to use the term “predictions” because it makes me out to be some sort of Nostradamus, which I am not and never purported to be. But I think people have assumed that the rule of law, the US Code, the Constitution, and that even ordinary politics would stop Trump’s assault on the rule of law. And while Trump may or may not succeed, one thing is already clear: Trump is going to assault not just conventional norms, but the entire political system, and our Constitution.
I recognized early on that Trump didn’t give a shit about the rules. More importantly, neither did the political party that helped get him elected, and that’s the difference maker. Trump by himself is nobody, but his party, and his political backers are authoritarians, and if it means that they have to destroy democracy to protect their wealth, if it means they have to destroy the rule of law and all of the institutions in place to protect their wealth, they absolutely will. This is their moment. There is no going back. They will either succeed in transforming us from a democracy to an dysfunctional democratic oligarchy, or they will probably die trying. They just can’t help themselves. I can’t make specific predictions about who will go to jail, who will win or lose which election - I can’t predict the weather. But I can tell you that the general political climate is changing in ways that will uproot us, and we will have to find some way to deal with it. There is no going back to normal. We will probably have to find new ways to define who we are us a country, as a people.
As far as I can tell you are the FIRST person in this thread to spell this out. And, yes, it’s an absolutely crucial component of the decision to refrain from Immediate Impeachment. (So, THANK YOU!!!)
I don’t know that the House would be prohibited from continuing to perform oversight hearings if impeachment occurred and therefore Impeachment Hearings began in the Senate------but certainly there would be massive pressure on the House to refrain from anything relating to the Mueller report and oversight of Trump’s conduct and record.
And as you point out, the Senate hearings-----controlled by Mitch ‘Dictator’s Best Friend’ McConnell, would be basically love-letters to Trump, with a few Democratic Senators grumbling around the edges.
So, yes: this particular reason for holding off an impeachment vote is massively, vitally, imperatively important. It should immediately be broadcast far and wide.
There is no counter-argument. There really isn’t.
Not trying to be a smart-ass but no, not really.
I said it in post #186:
But I think most of us have already known this, honestly. It’s not news.
Well, I don’t think you spelled it out as explicitly as Aspenglow did; many would take
…to refer to the vote in the Senate, rather than to hearings that might be conducted in the Senate.
But, meh. A blue ribbon for you, too!
Point is: while many of us HAVE discussed the fact that acquittal in the Senate will be a lovely gift that Impeach-Now Democrats would be giving Trump, there hasn’t been much about the fact that McConnell would sabotage hearings into Trump’s wrongdoing, while the House Dems stood by, realizing they’d given up their chance to present the Mueller findings to the American people.
But I guess some lefty activists would be all happy that the Dems were ‘courageous’ and ‘had done their duty.’ Nice for them.
The reason Clinton’s impeachment backfired on the Republicans is that he was a popular president. His transgression was laughably trivial, and was unrelated to the original subject of investigation (Real estate fraud investigation became lying about a blowjob).
Trump is not a popular president. His disapproval ratings are below Nixon’s were when Nixon was impeached. And the matters Trump is accused of are serious, not the least of which are his obvious efforts to obstruct the investigation of the same.
True, the circled-wagon Senate we have at the moment will not convict. But after a summer of brutal hearings, a LOT of dirt will get aired. This will put pressure on a lot of Senators to decide whether they want to go into 2020 with a weakened Trump or a relatively untarnished Pence. When a few of them start defecting, they could start peeling off in a hurry.
No doubt it’s a risk for the Democrats. It could blow up in their faces. But letting Trump slide without impeachment is guaranteed to blow up in their faces. And really, as a country, we need this process. We need all Trump’s laundry hung out in a forum where he can’t run crying to SCOTUS, where all his lawyering-up does not matter, where stonewalling has consequences, where the American people can see all the nasty shenanigans he’s been hiding, where his terrified lackeys now have some cover to start spilling their guts.
Impeachment needs to happen. Might be a risk, but it needs to happen.
Again, this is the same Mitch McConnell who didn’t even hold hearings for Merrick Garland. **What makes you think he would even consider taking up impeachment **to begin with? Because the Constitution says he must? BWAHAHAHAHA!
“The American people clearly don’t want impeachment?”
Oh yeah? Why do you say that?!
“Because we have a Senate majority, and barring an economic collapse, we’ll hold a senate majority in 2021 - and quite possibly a bigger one. So suck on that!”
And even if he’s somehow pressured into doing a trial, it would probably be over and done with fast. He can basically write the rules of the senate so that it’s over in a flash.
This is what I’ve been saying all along.
Your mistake is in comparing 1972 to 2019, which isn’t valid.
Compare 2019 to, say, I don’t know, 1930 Germany. We’re fractious. We’re polarized. We’re splintered. This is nothing like the 1970s when there were 2 big tent parties that controlled political factions.
I just want to remind you: Trump had historically low favorability ratings for a major presidential candidate – and he won. His favorability rating was lower than Hillary Clinton’s, and he beat her. He won. He won with favorability ratings not much lower than his job approval ratings. We live in polarized times. It doesn’t matter until his approval ratings go down to like 20% – then it might matter. But that won’t happen unless there’s an economic collapse. This is what I’ve been saying all along and you all apparently not been listening.
That’s true. You *have *been saying McConnell might simply decline to respond to a House resolution of impeachment. He might ignore it, or he might put on fake ‘hearings’ then call for that vote of acquittal. Either way: Trump wins.
But I still say Aspenglow put into perspective the fact that Pelosi is wisely making sure that hearings DO occur and that they are thorough and devastating for Trump. And the only way she can do that is to hold off on impeaching until those hearings have happened (and saturated the consciousness of as many Americans as possible.)
Uh, no. If impeachment happens, hearings will happen in the Senate (not the House)—if they happen at all. They will be under the control of Mitch McConnell, who will make sure that they are, er, NOT brutal.
They will be hymns of praise to Trump.
That’s the result if Dems impeach now: no fair hearings. No informative hearings. No ‘brutal’ hearings.
My heavens, Trump and Mnuchin’s response to the tax records already tells us their response to the oversight function of Congress: We do not think this is a legitimate function of the House as long as these requests are made without a true legislative purpose.
Who are you going to interview? What documents will you be able to produce if these bastards were shredding and deleting on Mueller?
So, if the Trump admin… as it is already doing… impedes this function of Congress including telling witnesses to ignore subpoenas, how then could these requests be seen as having this “legislative purpose”?
Bueller? Bueller?
That’s right: Impeachment, as outlined in the United States Constitution.
OK, let’s try this: I am absolutely convinced that any reasonable investigation into whether Trump has committed impeachable offenses will come up with an answer in the affirmative. And once having come up with that answer, the next step will obviously be to impeach him.
So yeah, I usually compact it to “impeach the motherfucker” as did Rep. Tliab a few months back.
But in terms of what the House should do right now, the answer is: authorize the investigation into whether Trump’s committed impeachable offenses. Impeachment comes after that, and removal from office comes after that, three steps ahead of where we are now. Should we jump straight to the last step? Absofuckinglutely NOT.
McConnell might hold a sham hearing, but according to Senate rules, he has to proceed to consider them:
This is simply false. What makes people say stuff like this? The Senate consideration may be a sham, but the House has extremely broad latitude regarding what they can subpoena, who they can question under oath, and who they can hold in contempt. Impeachment hearings would be devastating for Trump even if the Senate doesn’t remove him. He knows this, which is why he’s been on an unhinged tweetstorm on Twitter since Easter morning.
…I’m not entirely sure what you are ranting about now. Hearings are going to happen if they impeach or not. Where in the process would the House loose “investigative process into Trump’s illegal activities?” They can still investigate even after they impeach. If you think otherwise, can you provide a cite?
Dunno how they’ll do it now, but except for the last month, the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings in 1974 were pretty boring. If the same is true now, the country will pay a little bit of attention to what’s going on in the hearings, but will hardly be riveted to them until the going gets good.
I’ll admit I don’t know the procedural rules of when an impeachment is handed off to the Senate and how many hearings would happen in the House before that, but good god no. I very specifically said that Pelosi is doing what the impatient impeachers want. She is dragging out public investigations and public subpoenas. She can drag it out longer than Benghazi. People like Banquet Bear don’t care, it’s a justice and righteousness thing. They don’t care about it being politically wiser to do what Pelosi is doing.
McConnell might follow Senate rules, or he might not. Either way, it doesn’t matter. He won’t allow the gruppenfuhrer to be impeached.