DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[Moiraine]

Maybe not impeaching him before the election is a good idea, but that doesn’t mean effing SAYING that was a good idea. 

[Ulty]

I might also worry about precedent, and legacy. With all we have seen, and surely more to come, if this President is immune from impeachment, then the next megalomaniac might try to push the boundaries even farther. We need to show a certain set of standards, and if there is evidence of a crime, it must be pursued - strategically yes, but pursued nonetheless.

 

Even if conviction never happens, if impeachment is not pursued, it will give the current bastards in the Senate cover for the future. Once this whole mess is over with and Trump is out of office, and the true stain of his corruption is out in the open, most of his former supporters will start to distance themselves from his memory and say they were never truly on board with him to begin with. If we never put the bastard on trial for his crimes, Republican senators for years will be able to say "Sure, I would have voted to convict him, but the Democrats in the House failed to impeach him in the first place, God bless America!" 

 

The evidence of Trump's crimes should be exposed to the world, and the Senators who get a say in conviction or acquittal need to go on record with their decision after seeing said evidence. If the evidence is overwhelming, but Republicans acquit him anyway, the injustice they allowed is inescapably on their record. The alternative to this is the Democrats not even trying, which is a pathetic look.

[RedDenver]

5 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

I think an argument could be made that putting on a show, just for the sake of it, and delivering another 4 years of Trump would be pretty irresponsible.

 

I agree with the second part. All questions about impeachment should be met with "The investigation is still ongoing, we will address that at a later time." 

The bolded part shows that we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about Pelosi making decisions on impeachment based on the evidence and her duty to uphold the Constitution - not on how the "show" looks or "just for the sake of it". Pelosi just revealed that she's basing her decision on politics, which is about the "show" and how things appear rather than the substance of the issue.

[Fru]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

The bolded part shows that we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about Pelosi making decisions on impeachment based on the evidence and her duty to uphold the Constitution - not on how the "show" looks or "just for the sake of it". Pelosi just revealed that she's basing her decision on politics, which is about the "show" and how things appear rather than the substance of the issue.

 

If only you held Senate Republicans to this standard.

[RedDenver]

Just now, Fru said:

 

If only you held Senate Republicans to this standard.

Why wouldn't I?

[Ulty]

5 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

I think an argument could be made that putting on a show, just for the sake of it, and delivering another 4 years of Trump would be pretty irresponsible.

 

 

This is really the biggest question: what are the odds of impeachment backfiring? Where do independent voters stand on this? Will an impeachment circus so disgust the independents that they decide to vote R or just stay home? I have a hard time seeing that, but I am firmly biased toward the left, so I don't quite understand anyone right now who is on the fence.

 

In my heart, I want to say there is no way the American electorate will re-elect this man after what we have seen the last two years. Unfortunately my same heart thought the same thing in 2016 and does not want to believe that 30% of America can somehow support this cartoon villain. But if he skates through until the end of his term and never has to face the music for what he has done, that it just inconceivable to my sense of justice.

[Fru]

Just now, RedDenver said:

Why wouldn't I?

 

Because that is who your gripe should ultimately be with. 

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

Because that is who your gripe should ultimately be with. 

That makes no sense in a discussion about what Nancy Pelosi said. Plus, no member of the Senate has anything to do with impeachment - that's entirely a responsibility of the House. Only after impeachment does the Senate hold a trial.

[Fru]

Just now, RedDenver said:

That makes no sense in a discussion about what Nancy Pelosi said. Plus, no member of the Senate has anything to do with impeachment - that's entirely a responsibility of the House. Only after impeachment does the Senate hold a trial.

 

The Senate GOP's loyalty to Trump could very likely be the reason for her comments. Impeachment doesn't mean much if the Senate won't convict. The GOP Senate will base their decision on, using your words, party politics and how things appear instead of the substance of the issue. 

[RedDenver]

5 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

The Senate GOP's loyalty to Trump could very likely be the reason for her comments. Impeachment doesn't mean much if the Senate won't convict. The GOP Senate will base their decision on, using your words, party politics and how things appear instead of the substance of the issue. 

Then that will be the fault of the Senate Republicans, and we can blame them and hold them accountable when they've done that. But your argument leads back to what I've been saying - Pelosi is playing politics instead of upholding her duties as a member of Congress.

 

If she doesn't think the evidence is sufficient to impeach, then make that argument. If she thinks the evidence is sufficient, then make that argument. Don't avoid duty and take the easiest path because it's politically expedient.

[Fru]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Then that will be the fault of the Senate Republicans, and we can blame them and hold them accountable when they've done that. But your argument leads back to what I've been saying - Pelosi is playing politics instead of upholding her duties as a member of Congress.

 

If she doesn't think the evidence is sufficient to impeach, then make that argument. If she thinks the evidence is sufficient, then make that argument. Don't avoid duty and take the easiest path because it's politically expedient.

 

Do you honestly believe Senate Republicans would be held accountable in that scenario? She wouldn't be doing that if the Senate GOP was playing by the same rules.
 

Impeaching a President is arguably the most extreme process in politics. I won't bemoan someone for taking a strategic and calculated approach when the deck is stacked against you from the jump. 

[RedDenver]

Just now, Fru said:

 

Do you honestly believe Senate Republicans would be held accountable in that scenario? She wouldn't be doing that if the Senate GOP was playing by the same rules.
 

Impeaching a President is arguably the most extreme process in politics. I won't bemoan someone for taking a strategic and calculated approach when the deck is stacked against you from the jump. 

You can bemoan or not anything you want, but I and a lot of other people hate it when politicians do what's politically convenient for them instead of doing what they've been elected to do. She's shirking her duties and blaming it on the other party because she wants herself and her party to get re-elected.

 

Plus she's not even good at playing politics. I mean, good for her for her honesty, but she both is doing what people don't like about politicians and is telling people that's what she's doing. It's a fail no matter how you look at it.

[Fru]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You can bemoan or not anything you want, but I and a lot of other people hate it when politicians do what's politically convenient for them instead of doing what they've been elected to do. She's shirking her duties and blaming it on the other party because she wants herself and her party to get re-elected.

 

Plus she's not even good at playing politics. I mean, good for her for her honesty, but she both is doing what people don't like about politicians and is telling people that's what she's doing. It's a fail no matter how you look at it.

 

And you can bemoan all you want as well. Your assessment of her shirking her duties to avoid responsibility seems rather myopic. It seems you'd rather focus on a singular statement by her than the party politics and shirking of responsibility by the entire GOP in ever being capable of holding Trump accountable for anything. 

 

Agree to disagree I suppose. 

[RedDenver]

7 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

And you can bemoan all you want as well. Your assessment of her shirking her duties to avoid responsibility seems rather myopic. It seems you'd rather focus on a singular statement by her than the party politics and shirking of responsibility by the entire GOP in ever being capable of holding Trump accountable for anything. 

 

Agree to disagree I suppose. 

We can critique Pelosi and the Dems AND critique Trump and the GOP. Those aren't mutually exclusive. But it seems illogical to hold the GOP responsible for what Pelosi says and does, especially given that she's the Majority Leader in the House. Even more illogical to hold Senate Republicans responsible. And even more illogical to hold Senate Republicans responsible for her decisions on impeachment given only the House can impeach.

 

Yes, agree to disagree.

[Moiraine]

Well, I’m agreeing with @RedDenver  

 

If he’s committed offenses he should be impeached for, force the Republicans to vote on it in the Senate so it’s on the record.