I thought I read somewhere that saying someone’s potential testimony may or does fall under executive privilege is not the same as asserting executive privilege. That you need to actually show up and assert the privilege in response to questions.
I thought about starting a separate thread, but figured I’d put it here.
What do you WANT to result from the current impeachment efforts, and what do you THINK will result? How effective do you feel the various players have been? Has your opinion changed from - say - a year ago, before the “perfect” phone call?
Me, I want there to be enough fall out that Trump loses re-election, and - hopefully - Dems make more gains in Congress and state govts. Realistically, I expect both to happen, but suspect any Dem gains will be modest, and the Repubs will likely keep the Senate. Not a chance in hell Trump will get convicted, so my focus is on the process revealing as much incompetence and dishonesty as possible.
Before, I probably tended towards not supporting impeachment. Now, I’m glad there is a specific subject the efforts can focus on.
I’m talking about the standard for conviction, not impeachment. There’s enough to impeach the president as it stands now, but if I were the House of Representatives I would push for a more complete case before bringing it to the Senate.
You and I have a difference of opinion here but I’m not sure if we should clutter up this thread over such a specific debate as the standard burden of proof to be used during the Senate trial. I think it should be beyond a reasonable doubt, you don’t. We can leave it at that, or I invite you to join me in the Great Debates thread, “[THREAD=885046]What should be the standard of proof in a Senate impeachment trial?[/THREAD]”
I think I can understand your definition of evidence, which is somewhat compatible with mine (any material admitted by the court). I think you would also include facts as evidence but I distinguish the two.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means there is no reasonable theory that is consistent with all of the evidence and established facts without implicating the defendant. Preponderance of the evidence means a theory that explains all of the evidence and established facts and implicates the defendant is more likely than not the true explanation. I do hope we agree on that much, even if we disagree on what “reasonable” means or what standard of proof applies.
~Max
Want: Trump dragged out of the White House by his ears.
Expect: Senate acquittal, after much ugly truth disclosed. History to reflect that Democrats stood up for our country.
And if impeachment is not pursued at all, Trump can escalate his corrupt behavior because there are no consequences.
This is one of those times where its better not to overthink strategy, and just proceed with doing the right thing.
Shit, Max is back?
Guys, his arguments are the weak sauce of weak sauces. Don’t bother.
Right, and so far Pelosi has shown that her strategy is sound and deliberate.
Perhaps we should spin this off into a separate thread. I have recently started a debate thread, “[THREAD=885046]What should be the standard of proof in a Senate impeachment trial?[/THREAD]”. You can also start a separate thread and I’ll join in there (please PM me or post a link in this thread).
Needless to say, if you convince me that beyond a reasonable doubt is substantially less stringent than what I believe it to be now, that could change my opinion on whether Mr. Trump should be convicted based on what we know now.
~Max
Aw, straight to the heart, dude. 
~Max
No… I don’t think Bolton would be as helpful as some Dems believe he could. “Drug deal” comments aside, he is very much a believer in the Unitary Executive doctrine and probably would find a way to defend Trump’s actions in some way.
Bolton is too much of a hand grenade himself for Dems to take the chance of him blowing up their impeachment efforts by putting him on live television without first knowing what he would say.
I think Schiff is handling it the right way.
Who said anything about not pursuing impeachment at all? I’m 100% in favor of impeachment, mostly because it’s the right thing to do … but also because the very word “impeachment” gets people’s attention far more than mere “investigation.” And the longer we hold people’s attention, the worse Trump looks.
Exactly - “stay home, we’ll just add one more count of obstruction to the ticket”
That’ll earn you a warning, John. Do not insult other posters in Elections.
Bingarooni.
I’m thinking that the following six outcomes are roughly equally likely:
-
The public hearings swing public opinion massively against Trump. He is either convicted or forced to resign, and the Democrats win a huge landslide in 2020.
-
Not quite as good: Trump avoids conviction, but with a dozen or so GOP Senators voting to remove. Democrats win a huge landslide in 2020, with an anti-Trump conservative independent getting 10-15%.
-
Trump avoids conviction on a near party line vote, with few or no GOP Senators defecting. Democrats win a solid victory in 2020 and take the Senate.
-
Not quite as good: Democrats win the 2020 election but fail to retake the Senate.
-
Not good at all: Democrats don’t win the Senate, and the Presidential race is close.
-
Doomsday: Public opinion turns decisively in Trump;s favor. He wins re-election and the Democrats lose the House.
So I guess I’d say the likeliest outcome is that the hearings shift public opinion enough to give the Dems a decisive win in 2020 and a good shot at winning the Senate, but not enough to persuade more than a couple GOP Senators to break ranks.
I’m curious what you think might happen that would trigger #6. He’s never had anything close to a positive approval rating. Even if the impeachment falls utterly flat (which I agree would be a strategic disaster for Dems) I can’t imagine it would convince vast numbers of voters to suddenly approve of Trump’s performance.
My guess would be:
7a) Trump is acquitted in the Senate on a party-line vote, and rides his “Vindicated; completely and totally exonerated” hobbyhorse for months.
7b) But public opinion continues to slide toward the Dem candidate. Polls repeatedly show Trump getting trounced.
7c) As November nears, Trump decides he can’t take the chance; he suspends elections. Possibly there will be some genuine event that will be used as the pretext (‘riot in border holding-facility’ or such). Possibly Trump’s acolytes will obligingly manufacture an event. But the result will be that “for the good of the nation,” no elections will be held. Trump will make appointments to all vacant offices, including Governorships and Senate and House seats.
7d) The great American experiment in government by the people has come to an ugly, stinking, festering end.
I do think this is more likely than not. I see not one factor or person or institution or event that would deter Trump from calling off elections and making himself P-for-Life.
ETA: To be clear, I’m *not *attributing this scenario to ‘pursuing impeachment’ and not urging that impeachment be abandoned. Since the Ukraine memo-transcript came out, I’ve favored pursuing impeachment, even at the probable cost of giving Trump an acquittal to crow about.
Only if Democrats subsequently win the 2020 election. Else, it will be a historic footnote in which the Republicans ate the Democrats’ lunch.
I disagree. How history reflects this Democratic stand is not dependant on the next election. When, 4 generations from now, if the question “Why didn’t anyone do something?” is asked, there will be a clear answer.
For whatever that’s worth.
I can see him winning, but not because of a (non-existent) positive approval rating but because of Republicans’ intensified efforts to block legitimate voting, Russian interference, electoral college win in spite of popular vote loss (deja vu all over again). IOW, dirty tricks will keep him in the White House.