Many thanks for that run-down, which is impressive. “Holding Donald Trump to account” is progressing on many fronts, some of which do include the ‘I’ word as part of their rationale and underpinnings.
Of course that won’t play well with the ‘PELOSI AND THE DEMS ARE TOTAL COWARDS WHO ARE DOING NOTHING!!!1!!!’ advocates. So the list will probably be ignored by those folks.
I read the run-down.
I am one of those advocating impeachment.
I question your utter certainty that an impeachment inquiry will energize Trump’s base more than the Democrat’s base, and more effectively. I believe it would have the opposite effect.
Thus far, the Trump administration has ignored every one of the House’s attempt to perform oversight. Subpoenas have been ignored, and the DOJ will not act on them. I don’t see anything in the list above that isn’t more of the same. An impeachment inquiry, at least, would increase the psychological pressure on Trump and his supporters, and hearten the democrats and other progressives who thus far have seen little but failure during this administration, save through the actions of the courts.
I think impeachment’s on the table once you can consistently get the polling north of 50% (preferably closer to 60%). No it won’t result in his removal from office, but if we’re gonna impeach at least get more than half the country on board with it and let the Repubs deal with their voters.
No, I’m not going to watch a YouTube video that references an occasion when he spoke publicly and not under oath. That has nothing to do with perjury, duh.
ETA: And besides, I’m talking about how most of the public viewed it. Contemporaneous polling backs me up on that, not to mention the 1998 midterms which the GOP turned into a referendum on impeachment, and lost.
I’m curious to see how recent events might shape public opinion on impeachment. I suspect that Trump is quietly sustaining at least some political damage over his response to the shootings this weekend.
Yes. It isn’t likely to actually result in President Pence for even a brief period, not that that’s a desirable goal anyway, but it does force the Regressives to either try to politically defend the guy from criminal charges during his re-election campaign, or somehow convince him not to run. And who has the standing with him, combined with the will, to do that? Ivanka?
I’m coming around to the slow-roll impeachment approach. Pelosi knows what she’s doing.
Think about how the FBI investigation hurt Hillary in 2016 by convincing undecided voters her corruption made her just as bad as Trump. Now think about that FBI investigation times ten, with new revelations of Trump’s iffy dealings popping up every week. Whether the oversight ever comes to an impeachment vote is almost beside the point.
Remember, the point isn’t to convince the GOP base – they’ll always believe it’s a witch hunt. The point is to motivate the undecideds to vote against the corrupt, self-enriching criminal. That’s all it will take to win.
It isn’t just about Trump, but his enablers and excusers and before- and after-the-fact accomplices, IOW his entire party. *All *offices are involved in the party brand image. The slow-roll process forces them to either continue trying to do the impossible by defending him, or show some spine and lose their base. But keeping it going weakens GOP Senate and House and state candidates as well.
Yep, that too.
I think you may be defining “the Democrat’s base” in a way that doesn’t reflect reality. If you are assuming that the base is far-left and activist (and consequently focused on Impeach Now), that’s not an accurate view. See, for example, this research published a couple of weeks ago. It found that only 31% of registered Democrats identify as “very liberal;” additionally:
Analysis: How liberal are Democratic voters? - CBS News
Your claim ignores the successes the House is racking up. From last May:
Well, that impeachment inquiry is already underway. (See below.)
I agree with all this.
It seems as though some are ignoring that an impeachment inquiry is already underway (with Nadler’s July 26 filing seeking grand jury materials having used the word “impeachment” 76 times)*. Some people are dissatisfied with this; they appear to feel that a big showy announcement, with lots of chest-thumping from Democrats about ‘now we’ll get him’ and the like, would bring a feeling of satisfaction.
I think they’re wrong about that. Trump won’t display shame or feel shame; he won’t be embarrassed in the least. Other Republicans will be scornful, not penitent. A big production number “We’re Impeaching Now!!!” will not provide the catharsis that some imagine it will.
It will only endanger the House seats newly won in 2018, and make it more likely that Democrats will lose the House in 2020. There’s nothing “right” or “moral” about that.
*https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/politics/nadler-democrats-grand-jury/index.html and many others. My emphasis in the polling quote.
Sounds like a lot of fishing expeditions the way it is phrased.
To distill my thoughts on impeachment a bit, I’ve always felt it comes down not to a specific outrage, but it’s more about the timing. The timing has to be right. I’ve said in the past that Trump wants to be impeached, and I believe that he does, but only if he believes he can rush the process. If the Dems are patient, however, then they might get people on board with it and then we’d see a completely different reaction from Trump and his supporters.
The country has to be on board with impeachment. I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but we may be slowly moving in that direction. I do believe the country will be on board with impeachment once Trump’s incompetence starts impacting people’s bank accounts. American politics is almost always about what’s happening with people’s bank accounts, and it’s almost always a referendum on how they view their future. I won’t say other issues don’t matter -they do and Trump’s racism, general asshattery, and corruption are gradually wearing people out. But even with all of that, Trump could still survive an impeachment effort and even win the next election. It’s the economy that will determine his political fate, and ours.
If there’s one good thing about opening the inquiry, it may be that it can make impeaching him go a lot faster once Americans send signals that they want him out.
We have to do whatever gives us the best chance of him not being in office 1/21/21. If he is impeached without lengthy public testimony that moves the needle of public opinion sufficiently, then Donald is going to claim that Moscow Massacre Mitch’s inevitable failure to convict will be total exoneration and also claim the mantle of victimhood and that could depress Democratic turnout. Better to have the hearings, lay out the case and say “In an election year, the people need to try this case, not the partisan hacks in the Senate.”
Clarify for me: if the House passes a bill of impeachment (or whatever the terminology is), can’t Mitch simply refuse to bring it to the Senate for a vote like he has other Democratic bills?
Now THIS is the best idea I’ve heard so far! Are you reading, Nancy? (She prolly already thought of it.)
Time the impeachment proceedings so that the election is positioned to be a referendum directly on it. Don’t need no stinkin’ Senate. Take that, Mitch!
Maybe. But he certainly can just call for a vote without a real trial, have the whole thing out the door with “Not Guilty” in under a hour. Then Fox will say President acquitted and not guilty, and trump will tweet the same , and trump will win reelection.
I think this is unclear. We’ve only had two impeachments and both times the Senate acted on them, of course voting to acquit both times. I’m guessing that if McConnell knows he has 34 votes, he’ll let things proceed if not, he’ll simply ignore the impeachment. Whether he can or not is open to debate.
No, Moscow Mitch wont let the truth out. He will gavel the truth out of existence.
None of this addresses my point that he was not “cornered” but that he chose to lie - both to the court and to Americans.
Ummmm … there have been 19 impeachments and the Senate failed to act on one of them (Sen. Bount) because congressmen cannot be impeached. Also, it is in the Senate Rules that they must act on all impeachments regardless of how the majority leader feels about it.
That’s good to know. But these days, don’t the Republicans just ignore rules they don’t like (subpoenas, for example)? And anyway, who’s going to enforce that rule? (Not a rhetorical question.)