A failed impeachment attempt could energize Trump’s base, so I don’t think that we ought to impeach until we have a smoking gun. Not enough Republicans are going to turn on him without that happening. The good news is that there are still certain ongoing investigations of him. But I do think that it will be unlikely that anything substantive will be done before he leaves office (via, I hope, him losing the upcoming election). I have no doubt that he’s committed crimes. But if nothing else, he’s probably earned the guinness book of world records entry for most corrupt staff ever hired by a president. And he’s certainly INTENDED to obstruct justice. Fortunately for him, brighter minds prevailed.
I mean, what are the motivational scenarios people really seem to be expecting?
Assume a lot of the Mueller report gets recited in hearings, either pre-Judiciary or during Judiciary and floor debate.
Is this what the anti-impeachment people are expecting v.v. impeachment effect on 2020:
impeach:
Rs - energized
Ds - placated, not energized?
don’t impeach:
Rs - go into hibernation?
Ds - what exactly? Better able to keep their spreadsheets of the differences in postions between 20 candidates up to date/ Motivated to turn out because the House did nothing?
What is your motivational matrix?
This says it all. Unless there’s some bloody daggers yet to be brought out of the MR (highly doubt) or that come out of those other spinoff investigations (possible), there is not enough there that hasn’t already been and would continue to be partisianized by partisans or ignored by ignorers.
The best thing for the Ds to do is get it all out, say “This is clearly impeachment-worthy but the Republicans have shown absolutely no willingness to be a check on Trump, and since there’s no reason to think that’ll change we’re not going to drag us all through a formal impeachment and instead we’re going to let the nation decide at the next election.”
Ultimately that is the best way to exorcise this demon anyway. Impeachment, even if successful, would just be another nail in the coffin of ever trying to reset our politics to some kind cooperative mode. Voters rejection of Trump is the only legitimate rebuke.
Of course they/we may not reject. Then, so be it.
Will it happen? Who the hell knows. I do think its a good path for Trump to win in 2020 and for the Democrats to lose congressional seats.
That’s unfalsifiable though. If the democrats lose in 2020, they’ll blame it on either impeaching or not impeaching him.
…yep. They’ve just launched a lawsuitto stop the Dems getting his financial records. Jim Jordan wants to investigate Clinton. While the Dems dither over impeachment Trump and his regime are going on the rampage. And nobody is doing fuck-all to stop them.
You guys think you are playing “3 dimensional chess” but in reality you are playing snooker and these guys are snookering you. You are getting out-flanked. They are laughing their fucking heads off.
You’ve managed to convince yourselves that impeachment is a “partisan process” and that invoking it will cause Dems to get angry and not vote in 2020. That it will “energise the base” and that “energising the base” will do something: but you guys aren’t exactly clear exactly what that is. You claim that impeaching will “hurt the Dems chances” but you can’t quantify exactly how it will hurt their chances
But choosing not to impeach because it “will hurt the Dems chances” is about as partisan as you can get. It makes you guilty of exactly what you are afraid of getting accused of.
I’ll feel like Democrats are putting party over country if they don’t impeach. It’s their duty. It’s not always easy to do the right thing, but it has to be done in order avoid setting precedent that a sitting president can clearly and repeatedly obstruct justice without any consequence. Really, do we really want to allow future presidents to do that?
It’s been frustrating to watch talking heads and Democrat politicians talk about how voters are not interested in oversight of Trump. Bullshit. You know what will turn off a lot of voters? You sitting on your ass doing nothing because you fear backlash from a group that treats you as Satan-incarnate regardless of your actions. You want people to think “both parties are the same”? Then don’t impeach because of “political reasons”. You fucking cowards.
The country doesn’t seem to want impeachment. The last Politico/Morning Consult poll has it at 34% for/48% against. This despite Trump being at his lowest approval ratings ever. I can see people objecting to that with “who cares? This is too important!” but I can’t see defending impeachment as an election winner.
Probably because Democrats in Congress are telling their supporters it’s a bad idea.
Don’t really have to. Squabbling among the Dems is common, if not actually traditional. Some Dems can argue forcefully for impeachment, others may quibble and waver, so what? They can all say the same thing, investigate, see what’s there. The Dems from purplish regions can say that they oppose impeachment as the situation stands now, a solid and valid position. Others in more leftish regions can argue the opposite, but support further investigation to support their position. What’s the problem? Investigate as a preliminary to impeachment, investigate simply to expose the truth.
Republicans have surrendered to Trump, nothing further can be expected from them, they are unified in treasonous cowardice. The Dems huge split is simply about which flag to sail under, impeachment or oversight. Big hairy ass deal.
The Republicans have unity, they already did. When it comes to political suicide pacts, lockstep is not an improvement over lockjaw.
But if Democrats impeach Trump, and the Senate votes against conviction (which it most likely would), then it would quite possibly send a message that, yes, a sitting president ***can ***clearly and repeatedly obstruct justice without any consequence.
…Nate wasn’t talking about “the message”: but about precedent. If the “messaging” is “a sitting president can clearly and repeatedly obstruct justice without any consequence” if they ***do ***impeach, then the “messaging” will be identical if they ***don’t ***impeach. So why use “the messaging” as part of the calculus of whether or not to impeach?
I think you should prepare yourself for a real bitter taste in your mouth. Your party is preparing to thoroughly disappoint you. If you equate “not impeaching Trump” with putting “party before country”, then the Democratics are about to put “party before country”. Nancy knows on which side her speakership bread is buttered, and it’s not in the beating heart of liberaldom. It’s in moderate Republican-leaning districts where voting for impeachment will go over like a lead balloon. It appears that she learned something from 2010 after all. Quote of the week:
That’s her putting party (and her speakership) before country, but like a girlfriend that found a cuter boyfriend, she’s trying to let you down gently. I suggest you look for other fish in the sea besides the one labeled ‘impeachment’.
The more I think about it, the more I think it needs to happen. If Democrats fail to impeach, then they are not fulfilling their constitutional duties. The Mueller report clearly lays out the case for multiple obstruction of justice charges. The only thing that stopped Mueller from indicting Donald was the Justice Department policy that disallowed it. He even pointed out that the ban on indicting him only lasts as long as his time in office. Clearly, Mueller thought DJT was a felon. If Democrats say “he’s a crook, but we won’t impeach because we know we’ll lose” that’s a copout. I now say have the hearings, get McGahn to testify in exhaustive detail how he was told to get rid of Mueller and see what kind of inane questions the Republicans might ask of him. Show them to be the sniveling cowards that they are. Then when it gets to the Senate, use their time to hammer these charges over and over again as long as the Chief Justice will allow it. Yes, Republicans will vote (except maybe Romney) to acquit. We know Susan Collins will express grave concerns before toeing the party line. Make them all go on record as aiding and abetting the criminal enterprise in the White House.
When all is said and done, we will see that a Republican president is above the law as long as there are say 35 Republicans in the Senate.
You probably have it backwards. Pelosi is an astute politician and her position is no doubt informed by her read of the electorate.
Yeah, Og Forbid they defend the idea as The Right Thing to Do as opposed to winning another election where they sit and basically strategize how to win elections. :rolleyes:
So you don’t care who wins the next election?
I care very much who wins the next election. But if the debate is between one side says impeachment will hurt the Dem’s chances in 2020, and the other side that says it’ll help them, but neither of them really knows jack shit: then fuck it, let’s do the right thing.
So the Dems have a choice between two courses - avoiding impeachment, or proceeding with it, both of which “would quite possibly send a message that, yes, a sitting president ***can ***clearly and repeatedly obstruct justice without any consequence,” again, I say: fuck it, let’s do the right thing.
Does a poll showing only 34% of people support impeachment proceedings and 48% oppose qualify as “jack shit”?
Depends when it was taken, and how the question was worded.