The House Judiciary Impeachment Case discussion thread.

"Well, we did do something Johnny, we held a meaningless indictment in the House and gave Glorious leader trump a second term. That is why there are no more brown people in this school. In his second term he was able to put two more ultra conservative justices on the Supreme Court, which then rubber stamped his suspension of habeas corpus. He then blocked black people from voting unless they could prove they were a citizen. That is why now theCongress has over 66% republicans, and they are doing a Constitutional Convention. Roe vs Wade has been overturned. "

Yeah.

All of which can be avoided if we lube up and bend over? Do we have to actually suck it, or is there some lesser level of abject submission that is precisely correct? Dare we throw caution to the winds with a “tsk! tsk!”? Mind, I am not actually suggesting anything really radical like wagging a finger, unless that is braced with a rueful admission that both sides do it.

So, we investigate, and they say we are wasting time? Like they weren’t going to say it anyway? Maybe trim it back a little, only investigate the top ten most slimy, disgusting and wretched crimes? Well, OK, which ones? Whats the plan? Perhaps a polite discussion, sipping tea with pinkies akimbo and murmuring gentle admonitions so as not to hurt their feelings? Like, maybe grinding immigrant children into cat food is a bit much, we should just let them go away and die where we can’t see them.

Jesus Marimba, Doc! Lead, follow or get out of the way!

The plan is to win the presidency, and win the Senate, then criminal charges to follow, once trump and crew have no immunity, no helpful senate majority and no chance at a pardon.

Why a useless, pointless gesture now, and give up the White House along with any chance of criminal convictions?

A indictment by the House will do *nothing *but help trump win re-election. I’d rather see him in a orange jumpsuit.

OK, why do you think such an astonishing thing? Will an impeachment proceeding be stymied for lack of evidence? Which lay thick upon the ground when the Republican House was bending over backwards to avoid any such thing. His financial dealings only look like they are shady, but if we check them out, they will prove to be full of crunchy goodness? He is an innocent lamb, surrounded by treasonous crooks, the pure virgin who fell into the center of a Mongolian clusterfuck? Investigation will prove him blameless, thus sympathy will soar?

You keep saying that investigating him will cause him to be re-elected. By what astonishing mechanism will this occur? With all due awe, what are you talking about, here?

Geez, how many republican senators are there? Go ahead, check, I’ll wait… Right it would take TWENTY of them to vote to convict trump. By what astonishing mechanism will this occur? * Now, once the hearing is held in the House, the senate will vote “Not Guilty” and then Fox news and trump will loudly proclaim he has been proven to be* Not Guilty.** Every political expert knows this.

1st- the hearings and investigations have up until now gone largely unnoticed and didnt seem to hurt trump:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-if-house-held-impeachment-proceedings-and-nobody-noticed

*Responding to CNN’s Erin Burnett, he declared forcefully that his committee’s current program “is formal impeachment proceedings.” Later the same night, with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, he said, “We’ve made it clear that the committee is holding an investigation.… [W]e are considering what to do about it, including the possible voting of articles of impeachment.”

The nation barely noticed. Between a string of mass shootings, the ongoing Democratic presidential primary and a shuffle of senior intelligence leaders, even political junkies seemed to take little notice of the news that the House of Representatives has begun officially and publicly moving forward with investigations to invoke its solemn, constitutionally ordained “sole power” to impeach the president for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In the age of Trump, it seems, not even the beginning of impeachment proceedings offers a national moral inflection point…

On the political side, the main reason offered by Pelosi and political pundits alike for not pursuing impeachment efforts has been the belief that initiating such formal proceedings without a clear path to conviction and removal by the Senate would damage Democrats at the polls in 2020. …Nevertheless, through the spring and even after the Mueller report’s release, polls showed no majority in favor of impeachment, suggesting to Pelosi and others that moving forward on formal investigations of the president with a mind to that constitutional remedy would bring a backlash from the public. *

*But he added “I think we should not kid ourselves. Under no circumstances will [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell ever allow impeachment to go forward. Democrats have to realize that if we ever want to beat Donald Trump, we have to do it at the ballot box.”

Hickenlooper held out hope that “when we do the inquiry and have the subpoenas and get the real facts, somehow there might be a way that those facts take us towards impeachment.”

But he added that “it would have to be extraordinary and almost unimaginable for Mitch McConnell to let it get through.”

And Hickenlooper highlighted that with McConnell – an ally of the president – controlling the Senate, impeachment “would become a vehicle to help” Trump. The impeachment bid on the House floor Wednesday is expected to fail.*

The other side’s position: “Impeachment will fail to remove Trump, so it’s pointless, and it also could hurt Democrats politically.”

and also- the voters dont want it:

A late June Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 37 percent of US adults supported beginning impeachment proceedings while 59 percent opposed it. (Political independents opposed impeachment proceedings by nearly a two-to-one margin.)

*3) A Senate trial: If impeachment articles do manage to pass through the House, the next stop is a trial before the Republican-controlled Senate. The details of how that would play out aren’t yet clear. Would Mitch McConnell even hold the trial, or just ignore it like he did Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination? Would he hold the trial but turn it into a farce?

  1. The Senate acquits: Should a trial happen, though, the ultimate outcome seems clear. It takes a two-thirds Senate majority to convict an impeached president and remove him from office. Since there are only 47 Senate Democrats, that means 20 Republican senators would have to vote to oust the president who remains overwhelmingly popular among their party’s voters.

Unless some opinion-shaking bombshell unlike anything we’ve yet seen in Trump’s presidency is found, this will not happen. So at the end of the road is defeat and disappointment for Democrats, and Trump still in office.

Whether Trump and his 2020 reelection effort would be helped or hurt by the whole months-long spectacle isn’t clear. (The conventional wisdom is that Bill Clinton’s impeachment and acquittal was bad for Republicans. …
Still, looking at this whole likely sequence of events, it’s evident why Democratic leaders don’t want to go down this road — it doesn’t end anywhere good, and the politicians put in the toughest spots are House Democrats in districts Trump won.*

Sometimes disorganization can be a positive boon. Not for the Forces of Darkness, they match in lockstep under the banner of Dear Leader. No, it is the Democrats who have the advantage of disarray. The Democrats who think their incumbency is threatened by an overly aggressive stance…can simply say so, can’t they? “Well, its too early to really talk impeachment, got to be fair, let’s just gather the facts and see where they lead us!” If they lead nowhere, then the Dem in question can burnish his centrist moderation, he’s on record as having “opposed” impeachment. But of course he/she must keep an open mind, examine the evidence!

Now, consider what we already know. Flynn, Comey, Manafort, Gates, Douchey Bank…and of course, more. As you and I both know. And this is what we got for evidence when the House Republicans did their level best to keep the lid on. So, you think further investigation with actual teeth won’t find much? You think Trump is fighting this hard because the evidence he is trying to hide will prove him innocent?

(What a dastardly plot! Fight tooth and nail to hide evidence, then reluctantly give way, and then the evidence shows nothing happened! Wow! Be like if the Nixon tapes were totally released and they showed Nixon knew nothing whatever about Watergate! Surprise, melon-farmers, say the Republicans, gloating in triumph…But I digress…Tip pf the hat to Tom Clancy)

…Unless some opinion-shaking bombshell unlike anything we’ve yet seen in Trump’s presidency is found, this will not happen…

You don’t think that will happen. Based on what, perzackly? Trump’s brilliance, his keen mind for subtle conspiracy. You kidding? This is the guy who was directly warned by Obama and Yates…“Hey, this Flynn guy? Not a good choice, actually, really really bad!” And what did Trump do? Well, we know, don’t we? I am somewhat simple minded, a boor of little brain, but seems to me that he is trying to hide something.

You disagree? You think we got it all, nothing more to see, you looky-loos, time to move along? So, really, this quote is presuming that we already have everything of any importance, despite the fact that we were largely prevented from looking. Despite the fact that he is doing his level best to stop us. But the Dems took the House, they were elected, and looking is their job. Wait, let me check. Yes. It is.

Now, we may fairly have a difference of opinion on that. Maybe you’re right, maybe there isn’t anything to find. Right now, I’d bet you a dollar against a kick in the nuts that ain’t so.

Which bring us to the tactics of the move. An impeachment inquiry is a slightly different animal that just any old investigation into dark skulduggery. The very fact brings additional tools to be used. And a moderately cringing Democrat can fairly point to such things and say “Well, I don’t see a case for impeachment yet, BUT lets see all the facts.” Shirley, you don’t object to seeing all the facts? I certainly don’t, I view the prospect “with the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces”.

'Course, if there proves to be a smoking gub… well, you got an out, nobody could have seen that coming! Except for some crazy ass radicals on the internet. Who were right. Again.

Sure, there’s more stuff to find, but will it, can it change the votes of 20 GOP Senators? And the answer is no.

And, all the juicy stuff found so far? Still, the American public doesnt want trump impeached. Mainly becuase they wont here it on Fox.

Your certainty is a refreshing change from the vacillating weakness of other people. So, do we take it that you already know what they will find, even though they do not?

Yet. Shit happens and things change. You may have noticed.

Probably a whole 'nother thread but … after everything we’ve heard, seen and learned since 2015, what could possibly constitute this level of bombshell?

Nope, but I know that given the perfidy of the GOP senate there is nothing whatsoever that would change their minds. Tell me what would make Mitch vote to dump trump?

Nineteen Republican Senators who are more afraid of us than they are of him. Of course, started this little sub-thread asking if you can prove your thesis, that an impeachment inquiry would necessarily guarantee a Trump re-election. Outside of firmly stating this It Is So, I don’t see that you have.

Good luck with that, and when you get that, please let us know.

I gave you cites, either read them or not.

Dems have an ass in the hole. Il Douche, Darth Shit-for-Brains. Plus, they don’t have to go through with it. If such a horrendous backlash seems imminent, they just slow down. Just plod away on getting solid evidence, and wait. Trump is a fountain of options, the Old Faithful of Fuckup.

An official beginning of the investigation is not one move, its five. As I understand it, that designation opens up lines of investigation. Nervous Dems can still oppose impeachment, solidly supported Dems can demand. Any Dems say that they oppose impeachment and also! oppose investigation? Its a comfortable spot, doesn’t shut out Dem voters and doesn’t enrage anyone else! Well, of course you have to keep an open mind! Plain old common sense, right there!

Get that nervous feeling, criticize something about Lizzie or Bernie. Got my own set of gripes about Granny Nancy and the Brokedick Blue Dog Democrat “leadership”, but this move is actually kinda smart. Who da thunk?

I mean, backlash? The people who already oppose Trump, like you and I, are suddenly going to decide to vote for him? Because AOL is such a feisty-pants? People who are already on his side going to get more on his side, and they double in numbers? Or what, perzackly?

Some Maghats will not be moved by any evidence short of a signed affidavit by God Almighty. So they are still going to vote for Trump. But if they are the same number of people, what kind of “lash” is that?

To boil down and oversimplify: an impeachment inquiry is a good political move, even if an actual impeachment is unlikely. Slender risk, likely good payoff, possible big payout. Politics or poker, that’s a good bet.

18 U.S.C. § 2074 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 2074. False weather reports

“Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.”

The “Knowingly” would be hard to prove, but would “publishes” apply?

Brian

Be kinda like indicting Jeffrey Dahmer for food handling violations of Health Dept. regulations.

Hey, they got Al Capone for tax evasion.

Can’t believe this Schrodinger’s Impeachment stuff that the Dems have been doing. Is it an impeachment investigation? Some Dem leaders say yes, some say no, some say who knows?

We’ve got two major political parties. One’s evil, and the other could give graduate courses on How To Look Weak and Vacillating.

Dudes, pick two or three big things that don’t require major research, and impeach over them.

  1. Obstruction of Justice - multiple instances documented in the Mueller Report
  2. Babies in cages - need I say more?
  3. Extorting Ukraine into digging up dirt on Biden by threatening to withhold $250M in military aid

There’s three big-ass things to impeach over. Yeah, it would be good to dig into his finances, the Stormy hush money, the emoluments stuff, etc., but that would take time and is more penny-ante.

(And yes, I’ve already shared this opinion with my Congressperson. I think the people who answer his phone have come to recognize my voice.)

Plus none of those are really crimes. It’s not illegal to NOT divulge your tax return. The hush money would need to be proven and is paying hush money really illegal? Any emolument is legal if approved by Congress and I highly doubt Congress really wants to investigate foreign money. Remember that Hillary Clinton was running a pay for play scheme while Sec’y of State that was technically not an emolument from foreign powers since the money went to her foundation and not her. Do you really think her and Trump are the only ones that benefit indirectly from foreign money?

The Dems can not remove trump from Office. A indictment in the House does nothing but allow trump to say he was proven innocent of all crime by the senate. This will boost trumps chances for re-election.

Nothing “Weak and Vacillating”, just "smart and political. "

Get a good number of GOP senators to announce they might vote for conviction and we will talk . Until then, any talk of “impeachment” is pointless, since what you mean is a indictment in the House which will lead to a decision of Not Guilty by the Senate.

So , you want to give “oh please dont throw me in that impeachment patch” trump exactly what he wants, then?

^^^
This.

How many times does someone have to say this?