Start the process, the destination is not the journey, grasshopper. Calmly accumulate the evidence and the documents, pile them up, reach for the next bunch. There is a value in educating the people regardless of ultimate outcome.
I think there IS a way to “impeach” with minimal posturing about We Must Do Our Duty, and I think that’s the smart way to go, assuming the activists get their way.
As for ‘less participation by Democrats in November 2020’: yes, on the day the Senate votes to acquit Trump, and for many days and weeks thereafter, Trump and all the Congressional Republicans will be doing victory laps with plenty of media coverage from all the major outlets (not just FoxNews). All day and night. Every day and night, for days and days. And the great victory of Trump will dominate coverage in a way that Trump could never have hoped to do, if not for the impeachment/acquittal.
And that will be a big giant humongous gift to Trump and to the Republicans.
And a lot of people who would otherwise have been inclined to vote for the Democrat, will feel sickened and disgusted with the Democrats for giving Trump and the Republicans that particular gift.
All the claims that ‘Trump and the GOP will declare victory no matter what’s going on, even if there’s no impeachment’ ignore the fact that massive media coverage, by ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS/NPR, and the major newspapers, will be very different in the case of “Senate Acquits Trump” as opposed to the case of “nothing happened in the Senate but Republicans are saying Trump is awesome anyway.”
It’s not smart to ignore this difference in the degree and intensity of coverage.
A consideration that I haven’t seen here - is it worth it to Democrats to potentially lose the House majority in order to impeach but not convict? The current majority is based on winning purple and slightly red districts. The reps in those districts are the ones most vulnerable and they can’t reliably win just by appealing to the party faithful.
Vulnerable House Democrats tread carefully in wake of Mueller report - Reuters
Quotes from two of those potentially threatened Reps:
A senior strategist involved in crafting the 2020 campaign messaging but wanted to remain anonymous
The Democratic leadership is going to have to make a hard decision about how much risk they are willing to accept for impeaching, but likely not convicting, Trump. It’s a real risk. It’s especially risky for those 30 first term reps from districts Trump won in 2016. It ceases being background music the moment they are forced onto the record by an impeachment vote.
Fine. I’m listening.
Mmmm. No. Not buying it. Any victory laps that the Republicans take will lead to that much more outrage, and Democratic voter turn-out. Especially as the major outlets sans Fox News are going to style this as Republican Partisanship Trumps Patriotism, which it is.
Besides, I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that the Senate is going to acquit Trump. McConnell is only one man. And if there’s as much dirt to be uncovered by a House investigation and impeachment proceedings, some of the Repubs might not be as stalwart as Orange Julius Caesar wants to be believe.
And that’s just off the top of my head!
I’m available for consultations by Democratic candidate, good rates.
[sarcasm] I think Democrats govern best when they allow fear to guide them. [end bullshit]
No ‘posturing’ as you call it, would be necessary if the House Dems would just pass a resolution authorizing the House Judiciary Committee to initiate an investigation to determine whether impeachment was warranted.
If nobody ‘postures,’ then people like Steny Hoyer will assume it’s OK with the caucus to not do jack shit.
Seriously: in the face of leadership’s apparent willingness to sit on their hands, what’s the Sherrerd-approved way for Dems in and out of Congress, but in public life, to pressure the leadership on this matter?
Russia is only important to the left wing intellectuals who assume that since President Trump violated the constitution, it necessarily follows that he must be removed from office. In reality, most voters are just not that educated and to them, this entire investigation is nothing more than political payback. That’s obviously not how we here at SDMB see it, but that’s how this is perceived by many voters, including a fair sum who don’t really like or support Trump.
This isn’t Watergate, and this isn’t the year 1974. Sorry.
Really? So you’re saying the bullshit Benghazi hearings had no effect on Clinton’s popularity?
And you don’t think some Americans can discern between proceedings of real significance and manufactured garbage meant only to dirty up a candidate?
Don’t tell me open hearings don’t have an impact. Few people will have time to read a 448 page report. They’ll watch televised hearings, though.
I think you and Sherrerd are reading this all wrong. Trump’s approval rating remains at the mid-30s to mid-40s despite a decent economy. He horrifies people. Even if every single person who voted for Trump votes for him again in 2020 (and they won’t), what turned the trick in the mid-terms are the new voters who turned out. There is not one single thing that changes this strategy for the presidential election in 2020.
We’re not after Trump voters. We’re after the ones who came out to ask Dems to provide a check on Trump. What message does it send if Dems aren’t willing to do what the people came out to ask them to do?
As for Republicans crowing about a failed vote in the Senate… if Dems back off of impeachment, do you think they’ll do anything different? They’re going to do everything possible to de-legitimize the process of either Democrats’ choice of oversight or impeachment. It will make no difference which avenue Dems pick. If Dems back away, Republicans will simply adjust their narrative: “We told you there was nothing there!”
I say, do what’s right and you can’t go far wrong. Impeach. If Senate Republicans fail to remove after all the testimony, I should think it only strengthens the resolve of voters to get rid of the Republicans who feel they are all above the law.
Not really, no.
They’ll watch what their filters tell them to watch.
He horrifies people, but not his base of supporters, and he doesn’t seem to be horrifying independents a lot more now than he was when many of them decided to vote for him despite their horror. That’s what people are missing: he won an election with nearly 50% of the vote, which noticeably outperformed his miserable favorability ratings. Trump has always horrified and disgusted people - and many of them voted for him anyway.
I don’t disagree that Trump is vulnerable, but he’s always been so. He’s always had to scrape and claw for votes. I guess I’m not really opposed to investigations, provided that they don’t assume that the congressional investigative process is going to fundamentally change the dynamics by itself. They need to win on issues.
As for providing a check on Trump, I think that’s what happened in 2018. In 2020, the way I see it, it’s a referendum on his presidency. Incumbents generally don’t lose when the economy is doing this well. I can’t remember anytime in recent memory when a president lost under those circumstances.
How wonderfully facile and empty. Saves actually having to think,doesn’t it?
I can’t remember a time in recent memory that a president has gone on Twitter To snipe at his political adversaries, either. Maybe historical precedent is not the see-all tell-all you think it is.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Reported for personal insults.
The Democratic leadership’s message should be “Although Trump is clearly unfit for office and should be removed, we’re not going to waste the people’s time by going through the motions of an impeachment process which is doomed to fail because the GOP leadership will always put party over country. Once a few Republican Senators indicate that they are open to impeachment, we’ll put that on the fast track. In the meantime, we will spend our time and energy putting forth serious policy proposals. (And investigating the fuck out of Trump, following up on every loose end in the Mueller report with public hearings, and passing motions of censure which Republicans will have to cast votes on.)”
Let the Democratic leadership be wise elder statespeople, putting the public interest ahead of partisan spectacle. Meanwhile, the likes of AOC and Tlaib can be the bad cops, keeping the principled case for impeachment in the public eye and pressing their Republican colleagues hard on why they continue to defend this scumbag.
Nope.
The Democratic leadership’s message should be " Since Trump is clearly unfit for office and should be removed, we’re initiating the impeachment process, to highlight the fact that GOP leadership will always put party over country. We’ll be investigating the fuck out of Trump and his administration as part of this, and we will contine to put forth serious policy proposals, because we actually can do more than one thing at a time*. This is not a matter of partisan spectacle, but a matter of the public interest."
*I mean, seriously, is there some reason that the impeachment process puts a halt to all other things in your minds?
Puts me in mind of this:
Well, it SHOULD. Impeachment means that a serious Constitutional crisis is in progress, a once-every-few-generations event. From the moment that the House Judiciary Committee seriously takes up impeachment articiles, nobody will be thinking or talking about anything else political, nor should they, really.
Somebody upthread snarked about “walking and chewing gum at the same time”. Those are both routine activities. A better analogy to the notion of carrying on with politics as usual on the one hand, and an impeachment process on the other, would be something like “participating in a conference call while eating lunch at the same time, and also fending off a knife-wielding assailant”. One is simply not going to divide one’s attention equally between those activities.
*By seriously pursuing impeachment, we guarantee that the 2020 election will be nothing other than a referendum on said impeachment. *The polls right now are telling us very clearly that we have better issues to fight that election on. Of course that might change, and we should do everything in our power to expose all of Trump’s dirty laundry. But there’s no reason to start actually voting on it unless and until there’s some hope of winning.
I never said the House can’t investigate and subpoena the hell out of him – they should do that. I just don’t think we want to do something as dramatic as impeachment unless we’re reasonably certain that he could be removed from office. If the economy tumbles, then impeachment is a lot more likely. I say investigate him and subpoena him and give the American public more information. But I wouldn’t start impeachment until his approval ratings go deep into the tank. If the democrats start impeachment before the public is ready, it could actually backfire.
I think this is exactly right. If House Democrats impeach, it becomes the lead story as long as the effort is still ongoing. Moreover, the Democrats are a broad coalition, with many members of their majority coming from districts that didn’t elect their representatives to be partisans but rather, because they were viewed as more moderate alternatives to the GOP. A democratic-led impeachment would be viewed as partisan by voters in these more moderate districts, which is okay if his support among independents and his base craters, but not before then.
I’m not saying that Trump can’t be impeached ever. I fully support investigating the administration, particularly now that we have Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy out of the way. The House absolutely should document this presidency and get the facts in plain view. Over time, this could make a case for impeachment. But a partisan-led impeachment before the public is ready to send Trump packing could easily backfire against the Democrats.
They need to get the “Trump should be impeached” number much closer to the Trump disapproval number than it appears to be right now.
Investigations?
White House tells official not to comply with Democratic subpoena over security clearances.
Emphasis mine.
Trump will continue to obstruct justice until he’s stopped. He will continue to attack, set the narrative, while the Democrats (and America) remain on the defensive. And those on the defensive never win, and cannot win, until they turn to offense.
Those who are saying that the Senate won’t vote to convict are almost certainly correct*.
I remain unconvinced, however, that the failure to convict will certainly dishearten the Democrats - if anything, it will strengthen the message that the Senate must change hands, that Trump must be voted out, that there is now no alternative.
I remain unconvinced that it will strengthen Trump’s position, if impeachment succeeds, but the trial doesn’t. Just as the truth of the Clinton impeachment is well known, that it was a political hack job with no basis in justice, so too will the acquittal in the Senate is no less political, with no basis in justice. True, his base will remain loyal - but his base is perhaps 40%, at most, and probably less. The rank and file conservatives would be made more likely to remain home in such circumstances. After all, wasn’t that the point of all the “controversy” surrounding Ms. Clinton in 2016?
I remain unconvinced that it will move the undecided voters toward Trump. They move whichever way the wind blows, to be honest, following the flavor of the moment. I doubt that it’s Trump, anymore; his novelty is gone.
*I’ll note that I am not inclined to absolutes when predicting future events - including whether the sun will rise in the East. 