If the charges are legitimate and they do actually accomplish something, then the Democrats don’t “own it”? Or they don’t “embolden our adversaries”? How is it different if the charges are legitimate?
The charges aren’t legitimate. But we were talking about impeaching without the votes to remove from office, because that will prevent Trump and the GOP and Congress from achieving anything for a year or more. So yes, the Democrats will own that with all its possible consequences.
Regards,
Shodan
Exactly. We should never impeach a president, for any reason, until the entire world is at peace. Just like the Founding Fathers intended.
What charges aren’t legitimate? Is this a blanket statement about any possible evidence and any possible future charges?
What if the evidence is rock-solid, and the charges are legitimate, but there may not be enough votes? Should the Democrats not start to impeach just because they might fail?
Cite?
Last I heard the investigation is still ongoing. In fact Trump is supposed to be speaking to Mueller soon.
If I had a nickel for every time a conservative declared this investigation over or illegitimate, I’d be a rich man now, and it still wouldn’t make it true. Repetition does not equal truth.
That sounds nice. Very nice. Thank you.
Yes I agree, totally on board with whatever prevents Trump and the GOP from achieving anything, and as far as consequences? What consequences did the GOP suffer after doing everything they could to prevent Obama and the Democrats from achieving things? They were given both houses of congress and the White House. I’ll take those consequences any day.
When the FBI comes calling, anyone with two neurons to rub together lawyers up. It’s not an indication of guilt.
I personally think that it’s pretty likely that Pence has something to worry about. But not because he hired lawyers.
Have your views on that point evolved over the last few administrations?
Does that sound like a legitimate use of the impeachment process? Or are we in “anything goes” mode because Republicans are so horrible?
I think we’re in whatever it takes to save the country mode.
I don’t recall saying this, and the Founding Fathers didn’t say it either.
I think a better historical precedent is what happened to the GOP after they impeached Clinton. Would you say that the GOP was more popular and successful after that, and Clinton was less?
Actually Democratic thinking (so to speak) is what has evolved (so to speak). Clinton tried that “Wag the Dog” thing by bombing Iraq to try to forestall impeachment, in order to pretend that he was too busy [del]golfing[/del] being Commander-in-Chief to be impeached. It didn’t work, and I doubt if Democrats will be able to pretend that Iraq was more of a threat then than NK is now.
Regards,
Shodan
Just like the Republicans thought they were doing with their obstructionism? With the Whitewater investigation? Oh right, #bothsiderism is a completely illegitimate point to make. I’ll just say that in my eyes, the Dems will lose a lot of moral high ground if they abuse the process in this way. If Mueller doesn’t turn up something really damning, this tactic is bullshit.
Of course you think that is a better precedent because it serves your purposes better. I’m not advocating impeachment unless warranted, I’m just saying blocking the GOP from achieving things itself will not lead to the dire consequences you are predicting. We have immediate history as a guide for that. We don’t need to look back to over 20 years ago.
First of all I’m not advocating impeachment without good cause. I’m simply saying that blocking the GOP from achieving anything is a good result for the country in and of itself. Not that I think impeachment is the way to do that. Again unless there is solid reason to.
If Mueller finds that Trump made a deal to get his Russian debts forgiven in exchange for lifting sanctions and election hacking help, I really doubt even Shodan would object to an impeachment. The problem is that it’s very unlikely to be that clear and bad.
Only his rationalizations have evolved.
When you’ve got nothing else, distract from the point.
Whatever you say, Miss Sanders.
I think we are debating whether or not to go ahead and impeach Trump, or try to, before the evidence is clear and bad. Some are in favor of it, just to tie up Trump and the GOP to prevent them from accomplishing anything, and thereby gain control of the Congress and White House, as they believe was the case during Obama. I think what happened during the last impeachment is a better indicator of what is likely to happen.
So far, the various accusations against Trump are a big fat nothing burger. The question is, should the Dems go ahead anyway? I would say No. YMMV.
It’s up to them, I suppose. I will point out that the last time the evidence was rock-solid and the charges legitimate, and there weren’t enough votes. With the observed result.
Regards,
Shodan
The discussion seems a lot broader than “should the Democrats try to impeach now with no further evidence of wrongdoing?”.
Do you think this had anything to do with the nature of the charges? If Clinton had been charged with lying about treasonous behavior, do you think that would have resulted in a different conclusion than lying about an affair?