Fake News!
Hillary’s emails!
Deep State!
Send Her Back!
Trump loyalists like simple slogans.
In reverse order:
[ul]
[li]I don’t think the Senate will vote to convict.[/li][li]Clinton’s may have gone up but you can’t compare the two, just because each was an impeachment. The situations are entirely different, and the US is a different place now.[/li][li]By definition, any impeachment is a “standing up” against someone. And while it’s possible that Trump’s popularity may go up, this is by no means a given. If the number of people who decide to vote for the Democrat candidate goes up more due to their outrage that results because of what they learn during the trial exceeds the number of people who decide to vote for Trump because they don’t like the fact he was put through an impeachment and then acquitted, then it’s a win for the Dem side. This is not an impossibility.[/li][/ul]
Thanks for the correction. You won’t be surprised, I don’t think, to hear that I think the point where we have no choice passed weeks ago.
I have no idea what most people who aren’t paying attention very much think about Trump. Anyway, I’d say the vast majority of the public has no idea what’s even in the report. This is exactly why we need the impeachment trial.
Here is what is being ignored in all of this impeachment talk.
The point is the actual charges and evidence presented.
That’s it. That’s the ENTIRE point.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. No one really cared about that as a “crime”, it was clearly a political stunt.
But if Congress holds hearings and presents to America a long list of emoluments violations, sexual assaults, tax fraud, charity fraud, ad nauseum, do you really think that most Americans won’t care? Oh sure, the die hard Trumpies will excuse it and hand wave it away. But do you think middle America will?
And if the Senate refuses to convict him of obvious crimes, do you think that will allow him to claim vindication?
Because the bottom line fact is that even if he isn’t convicted in the Senate and removed from office, he WILL be convicted of those things in a court of law after he is President.
Oh, he will, he is that kind of an asshole. But on the other points you made, I agree 100%.
I will add that seeing the House Republicans support the racist statements of the president was a good way to tell many moderates the type of rascals they have as representatives, I do want the ones in the Senate to vote with what will be the worst angels of their nature so as to let others know what senators are rascals too.
Then throw the rascals out.
Not if the President who succeeds him is a Republican, who will grant him blanket immunity.
Also, the obstruction of justice charges will also be past their 5-year statute of limitations if Trump serves two terms - I’m not sure about the other crimes/potential crimes.
Yes, impeachment now will be ‘235 Democrats voted to do this thing they hoped would shame Trump but it amounts to nothing except that now they can’t hold hearings anymore, because McConnell has scheduled the “trial” to take place at 3am on Sunday night, and then the vote to acquit Trump promptly at 9am Monday morning.’
But the “impeach now” demands are filled with stirring language (such as I emphasized where you quoted it in your post):
[ul]
[li]tool to stand up to Trump with![/li][li]a sword, with which to uphold the Constitution![/li][li]doing What’s Right![/li][li]holding Trump accountable![/li][li]puts a check on Trump![/li][li]stops Trump from running rampant![/li][/ul]
…and so on and so on. And of course that party-line vote, which leads to Glorious Acquittal, does none of those things. All those things are lovely dreams that have nothing to do with reality. Trump would not be held in check by the fact that 235 Democrats declared their distaste for him.
That might change. Impeachment must remain on the table. I have higher hopes for revelations from the Epstein case than for the Mueller testimony as far as moving the needle—though of course Trump is currently working very hard to get us into war with Iran, which would eclipse every other topic.
I also have higher hopes for ElvisL1ves’ ‘state charges’ idea than for any haranguing of the House to DO SOMETHING, because the states actually have a better chance of Doing Something that Barr can’t undo. We shall see.
I won’t predict if they will or will not care, but this is what I’m talking about. There is reason to think that they will, given what they will hear, thus the idea that impeachment will inevitably help Trump’s chances is ridiculous.
on 2nd thought Trump says he has no problem with the chants at the NC rally.
That’s because he’s a racist shitbag. Republicans love him, and fear him. It’s shameful.
…the “impeach now” demands are actually more like this:
Or like this:
There is nothing wrong with opposing the calls for impeachment. For the longest time I too, opposed impeachment. But the case for impeachment cannot be distilled down to a “list with exclamation marks”. Your list does not accurately represent the case for impeachment. The “impeach now demands” are largely unpartisan, unemotional and non-political. The “don’t impeach demands” are almost entirely political: because the demands are almost entirely predicated on what effect impeachment will have on the next election.
If I’d written ‘this is all there is to the case for impeachment’ or ‘this sums up the case for impeachment’ or anything remotely close to those statements, you might have a point. As it is, though: no.
No, the “don’t impeach” demands are about getting rid of Trump and of as many of his enablers as possible.
The idea that getting rid of malefactors through the electoral process is somehow dishonorable, has to be the most bizarre trope being pushed by the enemies of democracy.
I respect Warren, but if pressed—at least out of the hearing of donors and activists—she’d admit that the remarks you quoted have very little to do with the practical task at hand: getting rid of Trump and his enablers. Her words, again:
“Up to Congress to make sure that the president is not above the law”—yes, sure. Of course. And how will that take place, exactly?
What will happen if another member of the House introduces articles of impeachment? …A vote by 235 Democrats in the House. (A vote that, by the way, the majority of Americans still oppose.) Trump gets to talk about the sore-loser, hack, weakling Democrats, who took their little vote, with the only result being his glorious vindication by the Senate. Declared innocent of all charges!
And in what way does that “make sure that the president is not above the law”?
Warren knows this. Warren is smart. I wouldn’t like to say that she’s politically calculating, but all successful politicians have to be, well, politically calculating. They have to know how to get the headlines and how to win over those who are paying attention sixteen months before an election: the activists. And this is what she’s done.
My evidence: **If Warren truly believes that impeaching now is the “right thing to do,” **where are her public statements urging House members to vote for Rep. Green’s articles of impeachment? Where, on Warren’s site, does she voice support for Green’s initiative? Where is she on the record, from the moment Green filed on Tuesday night, saying that Now Is the Time?
If she believed that impeaching now was smart, why wouldn’t she be on the record calling for support for Green?
Elizabeth Warren knows that impeaching now would help Trump—if she didn’t know that, she’d have been all over the media, urging support for Green, calling for votes on his articles. If she believed that impeaching now was smart, she’d have done all she could to make sure that happened on Wednesday.
Impeaching now is the wrong thing to do. It may become the right thing to do later. But “the right thing to do” is defined by its probable consequences.
Responsible people don’t act without considering the consequences of their action.
Well…IANAL, but I do know that a lot of statute of limitations laws have a provision that stops the clock when a person is outside of the relevant jurisdiction and therefore beyond the reach of the court. I’m not sure that federal SOL law even has that provision but if it does a smart lawyer might be able to argue that, given the OLC opinion that a sitting president can’t be indicted, trump potentially could trigger that particular provision and still be indictable even after leaving office following a (please God, hypothetical) second term.
And what other reason is there? You’d rather have a nice little show to maybe embarrass trump- who is about embarrassment, and then have him gloating about it for four more year in the White House?
The only reason for or against Impeachment is to get Trump out.
Right now, Impeachment wont do that, in fact quite likely the opposite.
But sure, you can have your months of drama on live TV at the hearings, then watch trump walk to re-election in 2020.
I’d prefer to get him out of office, then have him arrested and put in prison.
…your list wasn’t even an accurate summation of the arguments for impeachment from the people in this very thread.
As I said: political. Why can’t you admit that?
Impeachment doesn’t stop “getting rid of malefactors through the electoral process.” What on earth is this bizarre trope you are talking about? What is bizarre are all these strawman arguments you keep throwing out there. Nobody is aruging that “getting rid of malefactors through the electoral process is somehow dishonorable”.
So your opposition to impeachment is political. Gotcha.
Trump is already smack-talking the Democrats. They haven’t stopped. They won’t stop. In the hearings the other day they were blaming the Democrats for the lack of beds on the border. Because they didn’t specifically fund an increase in beds. You can’t let them dictate what you do.
Or the simpler explanation: what she said is what she mean. I’ve quoted her words. I have no reason to doubt that she actually did sit down to read the entirety of the Mueller Report and when she finished reading it she concluded that we should proceed with impeachment.
My evidence: the words she actually said.
So you’ve deduced Warren is secretly on your side now? Is that where we are at? Really? She’s on the record. She doesn’t have to issue a statement “worded exactly the way you want it worded” to prove otherwise.
I disagree, as do many others.
And there are possible consequences of not impeaching. Every decision has consequences.
Responsible people don’t shirk from the duties of their office.
…I’m not after a “show”, and I don’t want to “embarass Trump.”
Just a couple of days ago the President of the United States presided over the equivalent of a white supremacist rally where the crowd yelled “send her back” to thunderous applause.
I’m not really worried about the President “gloating.”
Incorrect. I’ve cited both Warren and Amash: they’ve argued for impeachment on many different grounds, none of them predicated on “getting Trump out.”
Except most of those making an argument for impeachment aren’t making it on the grounds of “getting Trump out.”
But sure, we can not impeach and watch this clown-show continue on live TV then watch Trump walk to re-election in 2020.
Everyone of us here would prefer him out of office. How we get to that point is debatable.
Like we didn’t see this coming.
He changed his mind the moment that he saw images of Omar being greeted by hundreds of supporters and the moment she defied him and said that she would be his “nightmare.”
All of this aside, the thought that crossed my mind today was what would happen if there were a terrorist attack in this country? What would happen if there were a another Paris-style attack, but here? By demonizing people like Omar and Tlaib, we could have our very own Dreyfus affair.
And yet you conveniently overlook to mention the fact that Amash voted against Al Green’s articles of impeachment on Wednesday. Why do you suppose that is?
You keep making these arguments about what’s “political.” I submit to you that what’s “political” is simply what’s reality. When you can explain how to overcome the math (Daily Kos), you may actually have something useful to say.
The needle is moving. That’s the idea, and it’s working.
…there was nothing convenient about it. You didn’t have to ascribe a motive to me not including something I didn’t even know about. His vote (on this particular measure) doesn’t change his arguement. DrDeth said “The only reason for or against Impeachment is to get Trump out.” Amash’s twitter post was proof that DrDeth’s argument was incorrect.
Nope. **Political **is the correct word for what I’m describing. Wanting not to impeach because someone thinks it might result in Trump winning again is as political as someone thinking impeaching might result in Trump losing. Neither is a “reality-based opinion.”
I’m not clicking on your link to the Daily Kos because I often find they have nothing actually useful to say. However on this particular messageboard I have plenty of useful things to say, and I’m not going to stop saying them.
Pelosi doesn’t want to impeach. She doesn’t want the needle to move.