That is a valid opinion to have. My disagreement is with those who say that those who want to open an impeachment inquiry “dont understand the process” (DrDeth) and “know full well impeachment is a bad idea” (DrDeth).
No-one knows how impeachment would affect public opinion, or the next election. Some argue that the Senate acquitting Trump would give him the opportunity to claim he was exonerated, like how he used the Barr letter to deflect the Mueller report. Others think that Republican senators aquitting a man clearly guilty of criminal, unethical and immoral behavior, and in doing so themselves perverting the course of justice, might look bad.
Then there’s the whole honoring and protecting the Constitution/rule of law thing.
While one can agree or disagree about impeachment, I think that to say one side or the other “don’t understand” it is not an accurate or helpful assessment.
I said “However, several of them know full well impeachment is a bad idea, they just want the publicity for screaming for it.”
They can do polls, they can send people out and do studies, etc, so yeah, as well as anyone can “know” what’s in the future, Pelosi *knows *it’s a bad idea.
What rule of law thing? There’s nothing in the Constitution that sez the house must vote to Impeach, and even mueller agrees that trump couldn’t be convicted of any crime, the evidence isnt that solid.
This has nothing to do with “honoring and protecting the Constitution/rule of law” and everything to do with retaking the White House. But if you’d rather have cheap revenge and pay for it by 4 more years of trump, that’s on you.
A majority result is getting closer. But it’s understandable that Pelosi would like to see a solid number in favor before going through the ‘vote to impeach then Senate votes to acquit’ process.
We who post here are so aware of all the political ins and outs that it’s difficult to realize how unaware most Americans are. “Trump is acquitted” headlines would mean, for millions, that he’s innocent of all charges. That’s a gift we should avoid handing him.
No, she doesn’t. She thinks it’s not a good idea, but cannot know this. I doubt even she would go as far as to say that she knows, since it is not something that can be knowable.
Obstructing justice is breaking the law, as are campaign finance violations.
This White House is refusing to co-operate, in an unprecedented way, with any information requests from House committees regarding oversight, which it is their constitutional responsibility to carry out. Trump has also shown his desire for an imperial presidency, elevating the executive branch above the judicial and legislative branches, when according to the Constitution they are co-equal.
This is completely wrong. The Mueller Report says the opposite. Where did you hear this?
"…four Republicans voted to condemn his remarks: moderate Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Fred Upton of Michigan, Will Hurd of Texas and Susan Brooks of Indiana, who is retiring. "
Only four Republican House members had the integrity to say that racism is bad, mmkay.
I think Pelosi’s game plan all along has been to wait for Trump’s support to weaken to the point where even some of the right-leaning independents no longer see the value of a Trump presidency. I’ve never felt that she or moderate Dems were anti-impeachment ever, just anti-impeachment over the Mueller report when the entire thing had been litigated legally (and politically) for more than 2 years.
The real message, as I’ve read it, is not to waste the impeachment bullet on something that people clearly aren’t that concerned about. But that doesn’t mean we can’t impeach him or censure him for other policies and behaviors. I suspect one of the reasons Trump ultimately backed away from defying the Courts on the census question was precisely because he would have alarmed more moderate voters.
I obviously can’t pretend to speak for all moderates, but I’ve been among those who have been hesitant to call for impeachment over the Mueller report, and yet I argued that the House Democrats should have immediately begun impeachment proceedings had he actually defied the court and printed the census with the citizenship question. I argued so because had the president defied the Court, it would have provided more political cover for moderates, but more than that, it would have given impeachment multiple dimensions. The progressive wing of the party could have impeached him for obstruction of justice, witness tampering, lacking fitness to serve, and whatever else, whereas the moderates could have impeached him on violating separation of powers.
My guess is that even more than just having impeachment support rise, Pelosi wants to offer impeachment proponents multiple political paths for defending the decision to remove a sitting president. There’s definitely risk in waiting around too long, but I don’t think there’s anything good that comes from trying to use power that House Democrats simply don’t have. It’s ultimately the people who need to support reversing an election, and until you have evidence that people are willing to listen to the case, I don’t think impeachment articles are a very good idea - at least not in July of 2019. Maybe a few months from now, but not now.
I am aware that you think impeachment will pretty much guarantee that Trump will be reelected. Is that right? In any case, there is no need to go over that discussion again. The Democrats have failed to stand up to Trump because they aren’t using their greatest tool with which to do that. Yep, impeachment. Until they do that, they have failed in that task. And standing up to someone sometimes, and I would say usually, means you aren’t guaranteed of the outcome, but you do it anyway, especially when you have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Admittedly, I’m not sure what he was going for as far as appeasement, but that isn’t the important part of the quote. This is:
I’ll repeat myself: the obvious sword is impeachment. I do not buy into any arguments that suggest this is guaranteed to result in Trump’s reelection. It could easily do more harm to him than good, given that a lot of the public aren’t fully aware of his misdeeds, and that Trump’s die-hard supporters are by definition already in his corner. But as I just said, there is no need to hijack this thread to go over that again.
I am well aware that it is likely that the Senate will not “do shit”. I have no myopia in that regard. But there is more to accomplishing something as a legislator than actually having your legislation signed into law, even though of course that is the main idea.
Not quite correct, though I realize it’s hard to keep up with posts across threads.
My position is that impeaching before the case has been made to impeach, and impeaching about things that aren’t likely to get a lot of traction, may well lead to his re-election. I was not really in favor of impeachment immediately following the release of the Mueller report, but I was absolutely ready to have impeached over the citizenship question, had Trump defied the Court. FWIW, I am definitely less hesitant, and more open to, impeachment than I was even a month ago. We’re getting to a point where we may have no choice, whether people are ready for it or not.
How would a Indictment that doesnt bring a conviction- or perhaps not even a trial- be a 'tool to stand up to trump with"? It would only ensure he gets re-elected. “Oh, please dont throw me in that briar patch!”
Impeachment- without a conviction- does nothing but make the Impeachers look foolish. Look at Bill Clinton. His popularity went up.
Now, if we could possibly get a conviction, then great. Do you think the Senate will vote to convict?
I don’t disagree that even if Trump doesn’t get removed by a GOP senate, under the right circumstances, he could be politically wounded so badly that he injures the entire GOP, which would be a good thing.
My disagreement with impeachment was impeaching over Mueller – that was just not going to be a thing, and it never will be. I think people have accepted that Trump is a shady dealer, and people are probably too cynical to see the report objectively - they’ll see it however they want.
But it’s entirely possible that Trump could be impeached for something that finally pushes voters over the edge. I’m just not sure we’ve quite gotten there just yet, but I think Trump is absolutely testing to see how far he can go. Maybe testing isn’t the right word - more like daring anyone to stop him.
ISTM it’s more likely he gets a state-level indictment from New York than a House impeachment for (fill in your own long list). It is going to be *very *hard for his loyalists to explain away a criminal indictment beyond his own pardon power or his personal-lawyer AG’s whitewash power.
I think this more likely as well and in some ways more satisfying. See what financial crimes exist at the state level and lock him up for that. Preferably his kids as well. If this family is as corrupt as I suspect they are all likely to be behind bars for a long time. Any hint of double jeopardy or political motive needs to be avoided as much as possible.
