The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[NM11046]

Figured this thread should be active again...

 

For some reason, today it clicked for me why Nancy keeps holding off on moving on impeachment and says "he wants it to happen/he's baiting us into it".  Perhaps you all are brighter than I, but in case it's been lost on others ...

 

Her thought is (and I actually agree with her) he wants the House to start impeachment proceedings now so that he can play his whiny victim card during the election, but also because if the House moves ahead, it goes to the Senate, where it's either parked by McConnell, or voted down by the GOP.  At that point, in his mind he's "vindicated".  By not allowing it to go to the senate and instead doing the investigative work, making testimonies and evidence public, having more indictments come from state level it becomes more obvious for the voting public to make the call in 2020 without him saying he was framed.  

 

I have always thought Nancy plays the politics game well, but this is another example.  As satisfying as it would be to say he was impeached, by now we all know that the GOP simply won't make moves against him, and will protect him, so why give them the chance to do so?

[Landlord]

You're right. There's 0% chance that impeachment would be accomplished so there's no reason to actually try it. 

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, Landlord said:

You're right. There's 0% chance that impeachment would be accomplished so there's no reason to actually try it. 

That's not true. Impeachment forces a debate on the merits in the House, and if Trump is impeached, then a trial on the evidence in the Senate. It forces politicians to put a vote on record, which can be a big thing.

 

But regardless, it's the Constitutional duty of the Congress to hold the President accountable. If the Dems play politics and don't even consider impeachment, then the precedence has been set that the President is above the law and can freely obstruct justice.

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Figured this thread should be active again...

 

For some reason, today it clicked for me why Nancy keeps holding off on moving on impeachment and says "he wants it to happen/he's baiting us into it".  Perhaps you all are brighter than I, but in case it's been lost on others ...

 

Her thought is (and I actually agree with her) he wants the House to start impeachment proceedings now so that he can play his whiny victim card during the election, but also because if the House moves ahead, it goes to the Senate, where it's either parked by McConnell, or voted down by the GOP.  At that point, in his mind he's "vindicated".  By not allowing it to go to the senate and instead doing the investigative work, making testimonies and evidence public, having more indictments come from state level it becomes more obvious for the voting public to make the call in 2020 without him saying he was framed.  

 

I have always thought Nancy plays the politics game well, but this is another example.  As satisfying as it would be to say he was impeached, by now we all know that the GOP simply won't make moves against him, and will protect him, so why give them the chance to do so?

I don't understand how this is even good politics. What do the Dems gain by not even considering impeachment? It's not like Trump or the Senate is going to allow them to pass any laws. But there's a lot to lose when the Dems won't even defend the Constitution.

[Landlord]

13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

then the precedence has been set that the President is above the law and can freely obstruct justice.

 

 

No that precedent has already been well set, and not by Democrats.

[NM11046]

37 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

That's not true. Impeachment forces a debate on the merits in the House, and if Trump is impeached, then a trial on the evidence in the Senate. It forces politicians to put a vote on record, which can be a big thing.

 

But regardless, it's the Constitutional duty of the Congress to hold the President accountable. If the Dems play politics and don't even consider impeachment, then the precedence has been set that the President is above the law and can freely obstruct justice.

Indeed it is their duty.  But you have faith that the GOP Senate members will actually look at evidence and debate honorably and vote for the best of the country?  I do not.  We have seen nothing in the last 10 years that leads me to believe that there are more than one or two that will actually listen to debate and vote accordingly.  

 

I don't think consideration is off the table, but they aren't moving quickly.  They are getting all the info, and I think there has to be a full docket of evidence gathered - and shared with the public.  The public should be witness to testimony of all these a$$hats.  

 

And I disagree with your precedent comment - McTurtle has turned everything on it's head with his behavior the last 10 years.  His calculated moves and what he has parked - he will not act in good faith.  He will not take votes on things that he doesn't like or that will not benefit them - he will see to it that whatever impeachment detail comes their way goes no further.  

The dems have to act defensively - 

[NM11046]

41 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I don't understand how this is even good politics. What do the Dems gain by not even considering impeachment? It's not like Trump or the Senate is going to allow them to pass any laws. But there's a lot to lose when the Dems won't even defend the Constitution.

They are considering - the timing has to be appropriate, and moving too quickly will backfire with even more to lose.  Trump being let off the hook on all charges, and potentially winning another 4 years to do even more damage.

 

 

[RedDenver]

5 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Indeed it is their duty.  But you have faith that the GOP Senate members will actually look at evidence and debate honorably and vote for the best of the country?  I do not.  We have seen nothing in the last 10 years that leads me to believe that there are more than one or two that will actually listen to debate and vote accordingly.  

 

I don't think consideration is off the table, but they aren't moving quickly.  They are getting all the info, and I think there has to be a full docket of evidence gathered - and shared with the public.  The public should be witness to testimony of all these a$$hats.  

 

And I disagree with your precedent comment - McTurtle has turned everything on it's head with his behavior the last 10 years.  His calculated moves and what he has parked - he will not act in good faith.  He will not take votes on things that he doesn't like or that will not benefit them - he will see to it that whatever impeachment detail comes their way goes no further.  

The dems have to act defensively - 

I doubt the Senate will convict Trump, but that wasn't a part of my argument. The Senate will have to hold a trial if the House votes to impeach though. Then every member of the Senate will be on record with their vote - that could come back to haunt the Repubs in a big way.

 

My precedent comment has nothing to do with the Republicans. It's about the Dems setting the precedent that a President can obstruct justice without consequence. Future Presidents are then greatly encouraged to obstruct justice as it both helps them conceal what they've done and know they aren't going to be held accountable for that concealment.

 

5 hours ago, NM11046 said:

They are considering - the timing has to be appropriate, and moving too quickly will backfire with even more to lose.  Trump being let off the hook on all charges, and potentially winning another 4 years to do even more damage.

But what if Trump wins in 2020? Or another wacko is elected in 2024 or 2028? There's almost nothing that can be done because Trump will have done it and gotten away with it.

[Landlord]

53 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I doubt the Senate will convict Trump, but that wasn't a part of my argument. The Senate will have to hold a trial if the House votes to impeach though. Then every member of the Senate will be on record with their vote - that could come back to haunt the Repubs in a big way.

 

 

How would that possibly haunt them? Every single one of them have already explicitly, time and time again, revealed their true stances and lack of care for the American public. Them voting on impeachment would do nothing. The people who would see it as an indictment have already known the truth of them, and the rest would continue to bury their heads in the sand the way they already have despite overwhelming massive undeniable evidence of bad behavior.

 

53 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

My precedent comment has nothing to do with the Republicans. It's about the Dems setting the precedent that a President can obstruct justice without consequence. Future Presidents are then greatly encouraged to obstruct justice as it both helps them conceal what they've done and know they aren't going to be held accountable for that concealment.

 

 

Again. The Dems have not, will not, and are not setting that precedent. The precedent has already been clearly set, but not by the Dems.

[Danny Bateman]

3 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

How would that possibly haunt them? Every single one of them have already explicitly, time and time again, revealed their true stances and lack of care for the American public. Them voting on impeachment would do nothing. The people who would see it as an indictment have already known the truth of them, and the rest would continue to bury their heads in the sand the way they already have despite overwhelming massive undeniable evidence of bad behavior.

 

 

  

Again. The Dems have not, will not, and are not setting that precedent. The precedent has already been clearly set, but not by the Dems. 

 

I'm with you on this, Landlord.

 

I don't want them to jump right into what will ultimately be a symbolic move that will ultimately fail. Take your time, do your due diligence investigating, use whatever means available to enforce your subpoenas including going to court. By the time these court battles drag out Trump & the GOP are going to have a whole lot of egg on their face and they're ultimately going to have to fork over subpoenaed information anyway, which will likely be damaging. At that point, they're going to have a lot more information, and if impeachment is warranted, go for it. If not, vote Trump out the old fashioned way.

 

I've watched them p#ss on norms and standards too long. I'm not about to punish Democrats for their intransigence in the face of overwhelming corruption. I'm ready to take the gloves off and punch back hard. But let's be smart about it.

[TGHusker]

19 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Figured this thread should be active again...

 

For some reason, today it clicked for me why Nancy keeps holding off on moving on impeachment and says "he wants it to happen/he's baiting us into it".  Perhaps you all are brighter than I, but in case it's been lost on others ...

 

Her thought is (and I actually agree with her) he wants the House to start impeachment proceedings now so that he can play his whiny victim card during the election, but also because if the House moves ahead, it goes to the Senate, where it's either parked by McConnell, or voted down by the GOP.  At that point, in his mind he's "vindicated".  By not allowing it to go to the senate and instead doing the investigative work, making testimonies and evidence public, having more indictments come from state level it becomes more obvious for the voting public to make the call in 2020 without him saying he was framed.  

 

I have always thought Nancy plays the politics game well, but this is another example.  As satisfying as it would be to say he was impeached, by now we all know that the GOP simply won't make moves against him, and will protect him, so why give them the chance to do so?

NM I agree with you on this..   Trump is baiting her, she isn't taking it.  They need to let the investigations play out and the SDNY to do its thing.  In time things will be made clear.  However, due to the Russian connection, I think there are other GOPers who don't want to be exposed either so The Turtle will do all he can to squash it.  Thus the need to build the case to the point of it being uncrushable.

 

[RedDenver]

10 hours ago, Landlord said:

How would that possibly haunt them? Every single one of them have already explicitly, time and time again, revealed their true stances and lack of care for the American public. Them voting on impeachment would do nothing. The people who would see it as an indictment have already known the truth of them, and the rest would continue to bury their heads in the sand the way they already have despite overwhelming massive undeniable evidence of bad behavior.

It's likely one or more of them will run for President in the future and having voted to protect Trump could be a deciding factor for a lot of people. A public vote on the record is much harder to weasel your way out of then simply remaining silent or saying you support the President.

 

10 hours ago, Landlord said:

Again. The Dems have not, will not, and are not setting that precedent. The precedent has already been clearly set, but not by the Dems.

When did the precedent of not impeaching the President for obstruction get set? The Dems have control of the House, so the Dems are driving whether to consider impeachment or not.

[Danny Bateman]

On 5/24/2019 at 11:03 AM, RedDenver said:

It's likely one or more of them will run for President in the future and having voted to protect Trump could be a deciding factor for a lot of people. A public vote on the record is much harder to weasel your way out of then simply remaining silent or saying you support the President. 

  

When did the precedent of not impeaching the President for obstruction get set? The Dems have control of the House, so the Dems are driving whether to consider impeachment or not. 

 

I think you're overrating what that vote would mean by then. It would go something like this, say in a debate:

 

Quote

Dem: But my opponent voted not to convict Donald Trump for his numerous crimes and allow a culture of criminality and corruption in their party and Washington.

Republican senator: Ahhh, but none of these alleged crimes or corruption were ever proven and he was never prosecuted for anything [by our gutless partisan hack of an AG who may as well be Trump's personal bodyguard at this point]. In fact, the entire thing was a farcical, phony witch hunt by Democrats who hated Donald Trump.

 

The more time that passes from the Trump era the less people will care about this stuff. None of these senators will be running for President until at the least 2024.

 

I istened to a Pod Save America podcast yesterday while driving where they discussed impeachment. I ultimately most aligned with Tommy's argument, which was basically this:

 

Impeachment has zero probability of removing Trump from office. It does ultimately give him another talking point to say he's been exonerated, not just by Barr but also by the Senate, which increases the likelihood of him winning another term. There's very likely nothing we will find out from impeachment hearings that we can't find out from the oversight they're doing now - testimony, subpoenas, contempt proceedings, etc. Public polls indicate people mostly really dislike Trump but also hate the idea of impeachment by about a 2:1 margin. Politically, not impeaching is the smart move right now, even if it's ethically correct and exactly what was constitutionally intended to address this situation. Hyperpartisanship and Mitch McConnell have broken the mechanism that would allow the process to work as intended.

 

At this point, drag them and bloody them as much as possible using investigations to uncover the rampant criminality and corruption of this administration. Doing the "right thing" and impeaching gains us nothing and potentially blows up in our faces. The GOP took the gloves off a long ago and decided no rules applied to them. I say we take ours off, play hardball and expose them as much as possible without playing into their hands. Then we go vote them out with overwhelming numbers next year to send a message about their behavior.

 

Basically no political remedy exists for this level of don't give a f#ck corruption other than destroying them electorally.

 

 

[RedDenver]

20 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I think you're overrating what that vote would mean by then. It would go something like this, say in a debate:

 

 

The more time that passes from the Trump era the less people will care about this stuff. None of these senators will be running for President until at the least 2024.

 

I istened to a Pod Save America podcast yesterday while driving where they discussed impeachment. I ultimately most aligned with Tommy's argument, which was basically this:

 

Impeachment has zero probability of removing Trump from office. It does ultimately give him another talking point to say he's been exonerated, not just by Barr but also by the Senate, which increases the likelihood of him winning another term. There's very likely nothing we will find out from impeachment hearings that we can't find out from the oversight they're doing now - testimony, subpoenas, contempt proceedings, etc. Public polls indicate people mostly really dislike Trump but also hate the idea of impeachment by about a 2:1 margin. Politically, not impeaching is the smart move right now, even if it's ethically correct and exactly what was constitutionally intended to address this situation. Hyperpartisanship and Mitch McConnell have broken the mechanism that would allow the process to work as intended.

 

At this point, drag them and bloody them as much as possible using investigations to uncover the rampant criminality and corruption of this administration. Doing the "right thing" and impeaching gains us nothing and potentially blows up in our faces. The GOP took the gloves off a long ago and decided no rules applied to them. I say we take ours off, play hardball and expose them as much as possible without playing into their hands. Then we go vote them out with overwhelming numbers next year to send a message about their behavior.

 

Basically no political remedy exists for this level of don't give a f#ck corruption other than destroying them electorally.

 

[Danny Bateman]

14 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

 

I mean or we can just look at multiple public polls telling us impeachment is very unpopular and go with that.

 

Generally as a rule of thumb I think we should stay away from doing unpopular things going into election years. I try to be a data guy and the data is very clear about this.

 

It seems like tensions are bubbling up a bit in the Dem caucus on this issue, so maybe we're inevitably hurtling towards it anyway and it doesn't matter. But I still think Democrats could make a much better case what the tangible benefits of doing something polling says is decidedly unpopular before just hopping in and doing it anyway when they're already bringing pressure on the administration through lots of other avenues.