I follow in the footsteps of Jeanne Dixon, make a lot of predictions and when one gets proven right, I’ll be proclaimed a seer.
Czarcasm –
Do you agree that in post 268 I gave you a straight, unambiguous answer to the question you asked in post 255?
That’s refreshingly honest. I agree that this is what you’re doing.
Without very clear and indisputable evidence of criminality, impeaching Trump is probably a bad idea, politically speaking, for the Democrats.
However, talking about it at this point, in the minority, might not be a bad idea, politically speaking. Especially as more questionable (if not indisputable) evidence comes to light – it will force Republicans to either defend or condemn Trump’s actions, eventually.
Speaking as a Democrat, the best political outcome is for enough evidence to come out in the next few months that the Republicans turn against him, and either start impeachment proceedings or he resigns. And because Trump is Trump, he will never go quietly, and I strongly suspect he would rip and attack Republicans who turned on him with even harsher rhetoric than he used against Clinton and Obama. He might even support a third party, just for spite, if Pence doesn’t stand by him (and he probably couldn’t if it got this bad). This would be an incredible boon for the Democrats, and greatly increase their chances in 2018 and 2020.
The best thing for the country would be for Trump to quietly resign tomorrow. But that’s about as likely as me winning the lottery, and I don’t buy tickets.
Now that’s the Bob we all used to love to love!
Ordinarily, I might agree with all that. But things are happening very quickly and Republicans in Congress are getting very nervous indeed.
1- Yes, the followers of Donald are very passionate. He has become a personality cult to maybe 20% of the electorate. There are districts where opposing him is political suicide, but those seats are in the minority.
2- You don’t have to flip that many people in the House to get impeachment. I don’t think it is undoable, and as the scandal continues to unravel at breakneck speed, he will become a political liability that Republicans can’t afford. Senators are, as a whole, honorable people regardless of party. Since they don’t benefit from gerrymandering, they need to have more crossover appeal than House members.
3- The Donald didn’t want to win and he neither wants nor likes the job. This gig means absolutely nothing to him, he’ll just pardon himself, sign his resignation letter, and go crawl back under a rock.
This guy is Nixon, only more crooked and extremely incompetent. Republicans would rather cut him loose and go about their business cutting taxes for the rich before their majority evaporates.
I think the question is, what criminal laws? Your answer to that is extremely ambiguous.
I assume that jaywalking is not enough, but that personally murdering a dozen teenage girls is, assuming both can be proven.
What crime would trump have to be suspected of committing with evidence rising to the level of probably cause to, IYHO, justify impeachment.
ETA: Examples. If it was proven that Comey’s firing was to stop the russian investigation. (Comey has tapes of trump demanding that he end the investigation or be fired)
Is there anything on the annulments side that would make you think that ti’s impeachable? If Vlad personally gives trump a check for millions of dollars, with the memo line filled out “For letting me invade ukraine”.
And when I’m proven right you are never going to hear the end of it.
Impeachment isn’t a question of laws, but of politics. Laws provide the pretext, but not the impetus. The impetus for impeachment will be political, and if/when that tipping point is reached, then and only then will the question of “well, what should we impeach him for?” will rise.
Trump is providing a target-rich environment for that question, so the choice will be relatively easy.
Right. But when you’re proven wrong, we just ignore that until the next prediction?
As you say, that’s the Jeanne Dixon model!
I dunno. . . it feels like if this were really a community about fighting ignorance, more people would impose a social cost on your wrong predictions, calling them out as they fail.
But if this were a community about advancing liberal political ideology, then it would act exactly as it’s acting now.
This seems like an almost insurmountable barrier. Don’t you think using knee-jerk emotional reactions to things that you FEEL are illegal as a litmus test for your calls of impeachment is a better way ahead?
I’ll try and do my part: BobLibDem, making bad predictions willy-nilly makes you look silly. I encourage you to not do so.
I proposed putting a scarlet letter next to their usernames, but the moderators scoffed at that idea. #losers!!
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
With that post, you’ve done everything humanly possible.
This time, I’ll be proven right.
Back to the matter at hand. Bricker seems to think that the allegations do not meet a threshold of illegality to justify impeachment. But unanswered are these: Did the allegations against Nixon meet that threshold and if so, what did he do that Donald did not?
It’s a tough job, but someone has to do it.
Because his Administration was the most scandal-free Presidency of my lifetime? (Even Ike had Sherman Adams.)
Do you want to build a strawman?
Never mind, you just did.
#NeverForget
#Uh,WeDidForget
Impeached for breaking a law designed to keep one guy in office, a law that came into effect just a year prior. Again, impeachment doesn’t need a serious crime, and I don’t think it needs a crime at all, just the political will.
That is a frightening interpretation. The laws are written to give the president so broad of powers that it’s questionable if a president can ever legally commit treason. (not making an argument that is the case here, just hypothetical) And if the standard for removal is committing a crime, it’s makes it impossible to remove a president who is actively and blatantly undermining the country, as long as he doesn’t lie about it under oath.