That might be getting a little cute with it.
I think Nadler should spend a few months on whatever it is he wants to do. Even if the House were to get the unredacted report, I don’t think there’s much they can use, except very obliquely. Classified material, no, HOM no, because probably they won’t have been adjudicated in time, PP probably they can use, grand jury material, I dunno.
The unredacted stuff, for all intents and purposes, is FACTS.
I really find myself agreeing with this. If I think about it myself, I don’t give a shit about Trump. Yeah, he’s done bad blah blah blah blah tunes out. That’s pretty much my reaction whenever I hear anything about what Trump has done. I just don’t care enough to be outraged. I’m already opposed to him, there’s nothing he or the Republicans will do to get me NOT to be opposed to him/them (there are things they could do, but not things they will) so…I’m not interested in all the details.
What I am a lot more interested in is plans and positive thinking/working toward the future. I want to know what the Democratic party is doing to make the future better, I want to hear that they’re actually trying to retake not just the damned presidency, but the senate and state houses and governors. I want to hear massive campaigns in THAT direction, not about how horrible Trump is or whatever. Trump is so far past the line of being horrible that there’s zero point in measuring just how far past that line he is. I want to hear that the Democrats have stopped ignoring races that are iffy, hell, that they’ve stopped ignoring races they can’t win. I want every single office in this country to be contested vigorously, even in the heart of red state red counties and I want to hear that it’s happening. Because you don’t fucking win by not trying, you have to try, even when it’s hopeless, because that’s the only thing that will give hope for the future.
Let’s say the do: then what? The resolution has no binding authority. Alternatively, let’s say they don’t: then what?
Impeaching Trump may or may not be good politickin’, but it would be good governance. Trump and the GOP have rendered your country completely untrustworthy; they’ve shown they’re willing to toss out international agreements on a whim, and you’ve shown you’re willing to elect such capricious ignoramuses. From now on, any treaties, pacts, or agreements any country has with the US best be written in pencil. If you want to keep your status in the world, best ditch Trump.
And dissolve the Republican party while you’re at it. They are both unable and unwilling to govern. But first lose the Cheeto.
But impeaching him won’t remove him.
What comes out in the public hearings might cost him the election though. Besides, it’s Congress’ job. If Trump has done something to merit impeachment, odd as that may sound, he should be impeached.
Ok, so you focused on the part of my post that was cynical and more realpolitik. Does the rest of it have any merit?
Do you believe the Republicans are just going to let this issue die? I don’t. They’re already mounting their counter-narrative. The one where there is some alternate reality basis to investigate the investigators and lock up Hillary Clinton. They rode that bullshit horse to victory once, and they’re hoping – with some foreign assistance – they can do it again.
If Democrats fail to utilize the roadmap given to them by Mueller for impeachment and focus solely on policy, then who controls the narrative around Trump’s corruption? Doesn’t it look like the Dems are ceding the point, that Trump did nothing wrong? And it’s important to mention that Hillary Clinton tried to focus mostly on policy, too.
I think that for Democrats to ignore impeaching the most impeachable president ever to hold the office is constitutionally wrong and would be stupid. Merrick Garland stupid. No, it won’t succeed. But if Dems don’t give the public a counterpoint of factual information to what Republicans will flog relentlessly between now and November 3, 2020, then they will be giving Republicans a gift on a scale that neither the Republicans, Putin or MBS dared dream was possible.
ETA: I missed reading your Post #37 and see we substantially agree. Apologies. My post is directed to those who think dropping the effort is a better path.
Just for the record, yeah I agree with everything else you said.
You think something will come out in the hearings that didn’t come out in 2+ years of investigation?
Since the constitution is vague about impeachment it is not reasonable to assign a bright line to what triggers the proceedings. It’s not reasonable to proceed with impeachment and ignore the other political and practical concerns. Number 1 of which is to win in 2020 since the impeachment will not lead to conviction and expulsion.
Yes I do. Couldn’t say what though, because it hasn’t come out in the investigations. I’m not fond of the idea that Congress shouldn’t do its job as a piece of the government for political reasons, just like I wouldn’t be fond of Congress doing its job (impeaching when there’s clearly no call for it) solely because it would benefit them to do so come election time.
Yes, it’s a political process. And I think the politics are clear: to wimp out is for Dems to lose the way they’ve always lost - by people left wondering whether they stand for anything.
You know how long it was between when the House passed its resolution in 1974, authorizing the Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment investigation, and when the Committee voted on articles of impeachment?
Five months and twenty-four days.
Add another month for the entire House to debate, and we could still have this thing done by November, however it turns out. Three months before Iowa. It would not have to overshadow a single primary or caucus.
FWIW, you’ve gotta know that the last thing Mitch McConnell wants is an impeachment trial in the Senate, so there won’t be one.
I don’t get it. Why would a ‘failed’ impeachment hurt the Dems? It didn’t hurt George W. Bush, did it?
You get a chance to put together the case of how Trump has violated the law and betrayed his country, on national TV. That’s gonna help his re-elect chances? I don’t think so.
Where are the graves of Mitt Romney and John Kerry?
What were they ever kings of?
Romney is resting in peace in theSenate and Kerry is…dunno. That said I don’t think “strike at the king” means running in an election.
What you posit is sounding so more and more disastrous that I’m starting to think you’re a Repub troll. Why don’t you think McC wouldn’t want an impeachment trial? He would love to tout that as Demo overreach. He’d play it up big time. He’d probably—knowing the Rs hold the Trump card— time it so the final vote is right before the election. It’s foregone Trump will be acquitted. How’d that be for an October surprise?
Mind you, I’m 100% Trump “should” be impeached, but given the political landscape, that dog won’t hunt.
They weren’t. They came at their respective kings, and missed.
Can’t see that it means “try to impeach him,” either.
I find this notion quite amusing. 
First of all, we’d more likely be talking this October than next.
Second, the fact that the Republicans would ultimately vote to acquit really doesn’t count for much. Everybody knows the game is rigged. But it’s an even bigger stage for Democrats - who would have the role of prosecutors in this trial - to put together the most devastating case possible for Trump’s criminality.
The Republicans would have to come up with some sort of counterargument, only it wouldn’t be in the friendly confines of Fox News, but on the floor of the Senate, with each side getting equal time. People would see, unfiltered by anyone, just how weak that counterargument is.
No, Mitch doesn’t want his Senate to be the stage for this play.
Besides, this has been Mitch’s consistent M.O. - if there’s a debate he doesn’t want to have, he doesn’t let it start, at least not on his home court.
Counter argument 1: No collusion.
Counter argument 2: Mueller took a ball on obstruction; Barr got a base hit.
It plays well in the sticks.
How’s “no collusion” going to play as a rebuttal to a detailed case showing the dozens of connections between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, and a thorough account of what each side did for the other?
ETA: This is the problem: stuff like “no collusion” plays just fine as a sound bite. But as a rebuttal to a list of contacts with Russian operatives involving everyone from Manafort down to Carter Page, it’s gonna look unbelievably dumb.
(I’m not even sure what you mean by your second counterargument, but it would sure sound stupid in the middle of an impeachment trial.)
A bigger stage for Democrats, having tried and failed to bring down Trump, to be labeled Losers and Partisan Hacks Obsessed With Losing 2016 and Wasters of Taxpayer Money for a Baseless Attack on a President They Hate.
Why invite that when there is virtually no way to avoid it?
Whether or not this is true is an absolutely crucial question. I don’t believe it makes sense to simply assume it’s true.
If the actual number of voters who fit your description is relatively small–perhaps only 2 or 3% of likely voters–then a choice by Democrats to devote the lion’s share of their media-attention time (which is reasonably fixed) to Impeachment Proceedings instead of to something less Trump-centered, may be fatally flawed.
I’m not saying I know that’s the case. I’m saying that more data is needed.
It’s not the case that the one and only way to express Democratic opposition to corruption, is to impeach.
It’s possible to talk realpolitik to voters. For example, ‘There is no parallel in our history for the corruption of this President. He is protected from being removed from office by an equally-corrupt Republican majority in the Senate. I am going to change this situation by means of these policies: [list and explain common-sense policies that will fight against corruption].’
There’s right and wrong—and then there’s a determination to do all possible to be sure that justice is done.
In April 2013 the Boston Marathon bombings occurred. One of the perpetrators died and the other was captured a few days later.
Imagine if the authorities had decided that the right thing to do was to acknowledge the outrage felt by millions about the heinous nature of the perp’s act, and put him on trial right away. That would have been standing up for Right versus Wrong, correct? It would have demonstrated to the world that We Do Not Accept This kind of conduct, yes? That would have been a clear statement of moral purpose. What’s the point of having statutes against conduct such as the perp’s if we don’t use them!?!
So many people would have been grateful if the authorities had Stood Up For Right Versus Wrong, and put the perpetrator on trial immediately. The overwhelming sense of moral outrage many felt after the bombing, would have found a great deal of relief if that trial had started right away.
But in fact, the trial did not start until nearly two years after the perp was captured.
And the reason the authorities did NOT put the perpetrator on trial right after capturing him is that they did not want him to escape justice.
Putting him on trial right away would have pleased SO many people; it would have felt like Right and Justice were winning over lawlessness and evil. It would have felt like the authorities were “doing their jobs.”
But would they have been? If they’d tried him right away, he might well have walked, because of some technicality.
Doing their job actually required that they put him on trial when they knew they had the optimal chance of taking him down. When they knew they had the optimal chance of seeing that he would face justice.
This makes some sense to me. We MUST hear from Mueller. The appropriate members of Congress MUST see the entire un-redacted Report and the underlying materials. These things must happen in short order.
After Congress has the full Report, I would like to see them proceed with an investigation into the question of whether William Barr violated his oath of office, with the lies before Congress and the American people that he is on record as having perpetrated.
Then proceed, step by step, as part of the business of a Democratic House that is generating bills that will make lives better (and trying to get those bills and programs the maximum of publicity).
I agree with all this.
…this. There is nothing stopping the Dems talking about the issues as well as impeaching the President. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
And this. The United States of America has articles of impeachment for a reason. If the dems choose not to use it for entirely partisan reasons then they are abdicating their responsibility to the people of America. This is their job. The GOP have already shown that they will ignore the law, ignore precedent, ignore due process for the sake of votes. And the Dems doing exactly the same thing just takes America further down the road towards irrelevance.
You will note that Kendzior in the tweet-storm doesn’t talk about votes. Because Kendzior has made it clear in the past that she thinks that no matter what happens with impeachment there is a very good chance that Trump will win the next election. Defeating Trump won’t pivot on impeachment. Trump will only be defeated if the people of America decide to reject Trumpism. And that battle will happen at the grassroots. It will involve hundreds of individual battles against voter suppression. It will involve people fighting this administration in the courts, it will involve people marching on the streets.
Impeachment is only part of the battle. It isn’t the entire war. It sends a clear signal: the President is not above the law. By choosing not to impeach the House will send a different signal: the behaviour of the President is normal, and acceptable. Collectively we all said “we cannot normalize the Trump presidency” a couple of years ago. Only TWO YEARS ago. Yet here we are, after being handed a blueprint from Mueller on how to impeach the motherfucker and you are all here arguing that “well, maybe we shouldn’t, because REASONS.”
Impeaching any other President under exactly these circumstances would be considered entirely the normal thing to do. But people are asking us to reject normalcy for the sake of partisanship.
Oh, good grief. Trump and Fox and the GOP will try to label the Dems in nasty ways!! Oh noes!!!
Trump and Fox and the GOP are going to do that sort of shit, no matter what. And if the Dems live their lives in fear of how they’ll be labeled if they do this or that, then they’re going to be worse than useless on pretty much every level.
I’ve been in the “don’t file articles of impeachment” camp for a while, mostly due to a lot of what’s been already discussed; it will be spun out as purely partisan, the Senate will never convict, etc. I’ve come around lately to the notion that Trump should be impeached, mainly for two reasons:
[ol]
[li]Every bit of bad governance, incompetence, mendacity, lying, etc. needs to be laid out in one place for all to see. Mueller got a piece of it, the House Intelligence, Ways and Means, and Oversight Committees are likely to uncover more pieces, and journalists will continue to do their part. But I think, for the good of everyone, it needs to all be laid out in one cohesive narrative, in the full light of day, for every citizen to see. And the President needs to be questioned, under oath, about all of it. Show him for the unethical moron he is.[/li][li]Not impeaching sets a terrible precedent. Donald Trump is as impeachment-worthy an office-holder as the Presidency has ever seen. To, “leave it to the voters,” effectively takes impeachment out of consideration for future misdeeds, short of actual murder. We have to have some standards of ethics and good governance, and the President needs to be held accountable, even if the eventual outcome is not what he deserves.[/li][/ol]
People are asking that other people put aside their own emotional needs and instead consider what is best for the country.
I feel that emotional tug toward seeing “Trump Impeached” emblazoned in the headlines. I feel righteous indignation about Trump.
But I disagree that the righteous indignation felt by activists (and others of us who are paying attention) should be the paramount consideration. I disagree that being able to say ‘I am standing up for Right’ is the paramount consideration.
For me, getting Trump out of the Oval Office is the paramount consideration.
I actually follow Kendzior, and am aware that she anticipates years of Trump.
There are people whose livelihoods depend on there being a reason for a Resistance. Perhaps these are not the most reliable advisers for those who want to actually oust the autocrat.