US PoliERA 2019 |OT4| Folded like a DOG
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
I'm going to speak for others, so indulge me for a moment:
I think the argument for immediate impeachment is that there is no use in defending institutions or norms that would let a crook like Trump off the hook, even for a short time. If we are stuck with an electorate that will encourage crooks to break laws and then gain immunity by GOP, then perhaps the whole house should be burned down so that the apathetic and earnest alike need to find new shelter. Nothing clarifies quite like a 2x4 to the face.
I think that's the position I see being taken from Pelosi critics
See:
If a caucus leader ignores the concerns of her marginal members, she's not a good caucus leader.
People are just frustrated and being hyperbolic in reaction. I really can't see a clear reason why Congress shouldn't react more swiftly and deliberately at this point, though. It's beyond the line for most rational people.
I'm not going to link it to give them clicks, but there's a FOX video on YouTube titled: Napolitano: Mueller's statement is not good news...
And it has a truly terrible photo of Trump in the thumbnail. Like, full on fake tan goggles, squinty eyes, and blow up sex doll mouth. Is our state TV having an existential crisis of faith?
And it has a truly terrible photo of Trump in the thumbnail. Like, full on fake tan goggles, squinty eyes, and blow up sex doll mouth. Is our state TV having an existential crisis of faith?
No, it means I haven't given thought to how the process works. Save the condescension.
Here's another thought exercise:
House Democrats play it safe, accomplish literally nothing of consequence, and lose the majority anyway in 2020 with Trump maintaining his position and the GOP holding the Senate. Do you think the Republicans will just rest on their laurels for 4 years, satisfied with their victory, or continue to stack the deck in their favor while a rampant criminal enterprise posing as the President's administration continues unimpeded?
I haven't seen anything yet, all we have is inference from crosstabs. You'd probably need to pay for a poll specifically targeting that question to get that kind of follow up.
Democrats again proving they're fucking worthless and don't know how to control a narrative nor how to educate the public.
I don't want to hear a goddamn worthless word from you all here or from Democrat leaders about how "impeachment is haaaaard" and "we don't have the votes" without at least detailing every single crime committed or thought to be committed by Trump and then listing every sitting congressperson who refuses to impeach. You link the crimes together with those who are standing in the way of holding the president accountable.
I don't want to hear a goddamn worthless word from you all or Democrat leaders about "ongoing investigations" without detailing explicitly what those investigations are, where they're at right now, what you expect to find, how you expect the criminal GOP elements to react to it. Again, you embed that shit in the heads of the average american.
Maybe I'd be more accepting to the Pelosi strategy of waiting for other people to do her job for her if she was making a concise and clear appeal to the american public in the meanwhile by absolutely shitting on the recalcitrant GOP and conservative members of her own party who are furthering the destruction of this country by refusing to impeach and convict Trump.
Sound the 5 alarm fire instead of...whatever bullshit this is.
If there's a reason the public isn't full on impeachment, a large part is due to Pelosi and the way she's been handling this from the jump.
I don't want to hear a goddamn worthless word from you all here or from Democrat leaders about how "impeachment is haaaaard" and "we don't have the votes" without at least detailing every single crime committed or thought to be committed by Trump and then listing every sitting congressperson who refuses to impeach. You link the crimes together with those who are standing in the way of holding the president accountable.
I don't want to hear a goddamn worthless word from you all or Democrat leaders about "ongoing investigations" without detailing explicitly what those investigations are, where they're at right now, what you expect to find, how you expect the criminal GOP elements to react to it. Again, you embed that shit in the heads of the average american.
Maybe I'd be more accepting to the Pelosi strategy of waiting for other people to do her job for her if she was making a concise and clear appeal to the american public in the meanwhile by absolutely shitting on the recalcitrant GOP and conservative members of her own party who are furthering the destruction of this country by refusing to impeach and convict Trump.
Sound the 5 alarm fire instead of...whatever bullshit this is.
If there's a reason the public isn't full on impeachment, a large part is due to Pelosi and the way she's been handling this from the jump.
Bingo. Therein lies the problem.
Pelosi is probably not giving her truly, deeply personal position - the one she'd have as the Congresswoman from San Francisco. She's speaking for her caucus, the vast majority of which does not, as far as we know, support impeachment. Again, the AOCs and Rashida Tlaibs and Ted Lieus and Jackie Speiers of the word represent safe-blue districts that want impeachment and will never vote for a Republican. The members sitting in the D+5 to R+5 (or worse) districts don't have that luxury, and we need them for a majority. Pelosi has to be mindful of helping them not lose their seats so we don't get booted in 2020.
Again, you might disagree with her that impeachment would harm us, but her position is completely logical and doesn't deserve the level of vitriol it's received. Disagreement, yes; I partly disagree with it. But this frothing anger is a little much.
And guess what? I'm probably more in line with your position! But as I said just above, she has a lot to weigh, and her position actually makes sense even if you disagree.
Literally nothing could get Trump to resign. He is constitutionally incapable of anything that would be seen as admitting defeat. Like, it is incomprehensible to me that at this point would anyone would think a scenario where either Trump resigns or a Republican-controlled Senate votes to remove him from office is even remotely feasible. Neither of those things will ever, ever happen.
I agree. I actually don't understand at all why they aren't impeaching Barr yet.
Democrats are going to continue to let Trump and Republicans set the narrative on this because they're afraid to stand up for the rule of law in this country
Exactly.
This is all predisposed on the idea that there will be no negative consequences to sitting on your hands.
Taken to its conclusion imo Republicans are free to break the law as much as they want because we cant lose swing districts. We are never going to have enough of majority again where there isnt enough swing districts to lose the majority
that's also a huge consideration. If the House moves to impeach and not even a majority of Dems (plus, uh, Amash) vote to pass it, that would be an utter disaster. A major reason for all these investigations and committee hearings, and for getting Mueller to testify as well, is to bring more members of the caucus onboard with impeachment. Because right now, a pro-impeachment House majority is far from guaranteed.
You think it's worth losing the House over what an impeachment process that would obviously end in failure?
republicans being empowered by geographic polarization to radically reshape the country and break laws without consequence is definitely a major problem!
I feel like if every dem was simply doing what Amash is doing, it'd make a difference in these constituents and polling numbers.
Nixon ultimately got away with it. Reagan got away with it. Bush got away with it. Trump might "get away with it" if that phrase means never serving jail time.
It's not because of swing districts; go broader. It's because Republicans will never hold their own accountable. Why? Because they're the party of straight white men, the demographic is accustomed to facing no consequences and will always protect their own.
This thread reads like "Republicans lie, cheat, steal, and refuse to hold Trump accountable: what Democrats are doing wrong." Even if they impeach, it's doomed to fail because Republicans will never do anything - have never done anything. It was always going to be about the election.
And it wont go away anytime soon. The frustration and vitriol from people is partly due to the realization that if impeachment is so bad we have lost either way.
You know it's bad when you go out of state to raise money from big oil donors for your re-election campaign
We need to stop presuming that NOT impeaching is the safer option for keeping the House, there's no guarantee of that
I feel like "don't impeach even tho he did crimes" polling mostly reflects the conventional Clinton impeachment narrative (and signaling from Pelosi etc) that is probably not determinative -- as in, most of these people are not going to change their vote to support Trump if he's impeached which would in effect debunk the very Clinton impeachment narrative that drives their current beliefs. It'd basically be like "oh, nevermind. impeachment is fine, actually." Like, really, how many people voted for a dem in 2018, would vote for a dem in 2020... unless Trump is impeached? That seems like a very small cohort.
Exacerbated by swing voters not holding them accountable when a Democrat is president.
Like we need to win Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in 2022. But I doubt we will if the Democrat wins next year, because enough swing voters will go "durrrrrrrrr checks and balances" which only ever means "stop Democrats from doing anything, and leave the Republicans in place to enable a Republican president down the road."
This is what gives me pause. You want a more dismal scenario than impeaching Trump and then having the Senate acquit him? That would be not even having enough Democrats vote to impeach in the first place. I would trust Pelosi not to get to that point unless she knew she had the numbers, but imagine if it happened and it failed due to not having enough Democratic votes. It would be a complete fucking disaster.
Exactly. 40 Democrats support it at most, and this is not the kind of thing you can whip in the traditional sense. You can't hand out pork for this.
Nobody does. We're saying that in Pelosi's position, we'd have to weigh that option while also considering it's doomed to be unsuccessful.
I've acquired a whole lot of respect for Pelosi since I've been following all this stuff for the last few years, and I think much of the vitriol aimed at her is misguided. Taking Pelosi out of the equation now would be about as bad news as taking Bercow out of his Speakership at this crucial time during the Brexit clusterfuck.
The big question is not whether to impeach, but who to impeach and for precisely what. (And, of course when, but "right now" is probably not the correct answer.)
Impeaching Trump on obstruction of justice only, patent though it is, allows for too many get-outs and too much weaselling (look at the way that Barr and Guiliani have weaselled it already). And even then immediate is not the way to go, because the potential prize is bigger than winning a wrestling bout with Trump. Look at the contempt of congress stuff that is working its way through the courts for example. If that gets to SCOTUS and if there is any other result than either a denial of cert or a 9-0 majority in favour of Congress, then you have Supreme Court Justices liable for impeachment on obstruction of justice. That's the prize. That's one helluva prize.
I suspect that articles of impeachment for Trump will need, for maximum effect, to cover not only obstruction but also emoluments, nepotism, foreign affairs and various other brands of chicanery he has been up to. Some of that will possibly emerge through the current House investigations, some from other court cases that are in progress up to the back end of this year, some maybe from new House investigations that can only gain traction once the subpoena stuff has has its day or two in court. It'll take some time to get it all worked out. Move too soon on the impeachment front before the ducks are in a row, and you'll have Republicans pressing for immediate impeachment, while they still think the evidence is on the light side and while they can still get away with ignoring the evidence.
What the House needs is more evidence. Mueller isn't evidence, he's an investigator and has done his investigating, he's not a witness. He's done his bit. What the House needs is those other guys, and what that needs is the courts, and the courts don't move all that fast - though they seem to be zipping this along a bit.
Despite all the anti-Pelosi stuff I see, this all seems to be headed in about the right direction to me.
The big question is not whether to impeach, but who to impeach and for precisely what. (And, of course when, but "right now" is probably not the correct answer.)
Impeaching Trump on obstruction of justice only, patent though it is, allows for too many get-outs and too much weaselling (look at the way that Barr and Guiliani have weaselled it already). And even then immediate is not the way to go, because the potential prize is bigger than winning a wrestling bout with Trump. Look at the contempt of congress stuff that is working its way through the courts for example. If that gets to SCOTUS and if there is any other result than either a denial of cert or a 9-0 majority in favour of Congress, then you have Supreme Court Justices liable for impeachment on obstruction of justice. That's the prize. That's one helluva prize.
I suspect that articles of impeachment for Trump will need, for maximum effect, to cover not only obstruction but also emoluments, nepotism, foreign affairs and various other brands of chicanery he has been up to. Some of that will possibly emerge through the current House investigations, some from other court cases that are in progress up to the back end of this year, some maybe from new House investigations that can only gain traction once the subpoena stuff has has its day or two in court. It'll take some time to get it all worked out. Move too soon on the impeachment front before the ducks are in a row, and you'll have Republicans pressing for immediate impeachment, while they still think the evidence is on the light side and while they can still get away with ignoring the evidence.
What the House needs is more evidence. Mueller isn't evidence, he's an investigator and has done his investigating, he's not a witness. He's done his bit. What the House needs is those other guys, and what that needs is the courts, and the courts don't move all that fast - though they seem to be zipping this along a bit.
Despite all the anti-Pelosi stuff I see, this all seems to be headed in about the right direction to me.
Mueller has given all the info he can/will. Bringing him in and just having him repeat the same things, then say "I can't answer that, or I can't speculate on that" over and over helps nobody.
If you're going to go after anyone, it should be folks like McGahn and the like.
this is a good point and one that has definitely calmed my frustation over the avoidance of impeachment
can we trust individual Democratic representatives in tough races to put the country before themselves? we REALLY have to make sure all our votes are secured in the House before we jump the gun
it would be a NIGHTMARE if impeachment didn't even make it through the House
You know, for all of you demanding evidence, I'd also like to see some polling that not impeaching would depress Democratic turnout. I think Trump being on the ballot and being... himself will keep the negative enthusiasm strong.
How do we challenege this position then? What is going to chnage over time that brings the caucus around? I think this is a big miscalculation by the democrats If we are counting only on 2020. Impeachment must be a part of the equation.
Commission polls that hopefully show impeachment wouldn't cost us.
Is there a train of thought that this issue alone would cost dems in 2020? I really feel that it has to be over inflated. There has to be a higher probability of dems losing support through lack of impeachment than losing support because of impeachment.
Democrats have not been rewarded for careful, moderate advances preceded and followed by long intervals of pearl-clutching over moving too quickly or too boldly. I've seen that strategy play out time and time again and it always plays out the same way: the Democrats make some progress, the GOP retakes the government, and we end up five steps behind where we originally were. Roe v Wade may not even be here in a year: we're in uncharted territory.
If bold moves are all we have left, I'd prefer they be made rather than relying on the American voters to flip a coin.
If bold moves are all we have left, I'd prefer they be made rather than relying on the American voters to flip a coin.
Last edited:
That's a doomed approach that ensures you'd never impeach. IIRC Nixon's impeachment didn't become "popular" until well into proceedings, and Clinton's I don't think ever did. You have to make the case for it to drive poll numbers. If you don't make the case then the public assumes there's not a case to be made. The difference with prior impeachment scenarios is that Nixon and Clinton were both far more popular than Trump has ever been or can ever hope to be, and Trump's crimes are far, far worse.
I think Baier actually said Mueller torpedoed Barr's depiction of events and that this was bad for Trump, which is really all it takes for the redhats to turn on you
- Status