House Impeachment Inquiry

[JoeMorgue]

People are getting blinded by the Nixon comparison.

This isn't the 1970s. Nixon's approval dropped like a rock when what he did got out into public eye.

Everybody already knows what Trump has done. "Oh yeah well you can't prove it!" is a radically different standard.

 

[plague311]

People are getting blinded by the Nixon comparison.

This isn't the 1970s. Nixon's approval dropped like a rock when what he did got out into public eye.

Everybody already knows what Trump has done. "Oh yeah well you can't prove it!" is a radically different standard.

So, what? **** it? I mean, what is the logical point in saying this?

It's like you're trying to teach the polar opposite of everything that was taught when we were younger. "If you see something, report it." Well, we're all seeing it, and I just have no ******* clue for the life of me what your point is?

So, what? Like, what do you want?

ETA: Or is this like a "I don't want anything, I just want you to know that what you're doing is wrong, and you'll never achieve something worthwhile." I'm asking sincerely. I just don't know what the next direction would be then.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So, what? Like, what do you want?

Make political gains and then take on Trump. This ain't rocket science.

The part everyone keeps glossing over is that the Dems had a 56-42 majority in the Senate when Nixon was impeached (or well pulled his "You can't fire me I quit" for the pedants out there).

If the Republicans had had the majority, even if everything else was the same, Nixon would not have been impeached.

Clinton was impeached and not convicted because the Republicans held the House and the Dems held the Senate.

If Trump isn't President you can just like... arrest him and put him on trial If the Dems control the Senate you can Impeach. You can't do anything until one of those two things happens.

 

[plague311]

Make political gains and then take on Trump. This ain't rocket science.

Great! I mean, if the Dems take the White House in the next election that's a pretty useless suggestion, but ok. How? When?

The part everyone keeps glossing over is that the Dems had a 56-42 majority in the Senate when Nixon was impeached (or well pulled his "You can't fire me I quit" for the pedants out there).

His terrible **** started coming to light after the impeachment proceedings started. That's what brought a lot of America to face the stuff Nixon had done. You're saying here, "Yeah, but you have to make gains BEFORE you can bring that information to light or else it won't matter." I find that to be a bit circular.

If the Republicans had had the majority, even if everything else was the same, Nixon would not have been impeached.

You straight up have no way of knowing that.

Clinton was impeached and not convicted because the Republicans held the House and the Dems held the Senate.

Very well might be, but this situation isn't the same as those either. Sitting on your ******* thumbs while you wait to, hopefully, make some gains in the next election before you do everything in your power to bring every single crime committed by this administration to light is cowardice. That's just my opinion of course.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's not cowardice to wait for an actual victory we have an actual chance of getting instead of throwing everything away on a meaningless bit of feel good symbolism now because we need the ego boost.

Sitting on your hands doing nothing is what you are suggesting. You just want us to take our hands out and wave them around and pretend like we did something.

Impeaching Trump now will go nowhere and high odds will hand him 2020 on a silver platter. That means no touching Trump until 2022, 2024 at the earliest. Think of the damage he could do in that time. Think of how entrenched he could get. Think of how much he could stack the decks.

That's not what either of us want.

 

[Belz...]

It's easy to have hearings. It's easy to proclaim "victory" according to some metric at the conclusion.

So easy, in fact, that both sides do it simultaneously on the same hearing.

 

[plague311]

It's not cowardice to wait for an actual victory we have an actual chance of getting instead of throwing everything away on a meaningless bit of feel good symbolism now because we need the ego boost.

Impeaching Trump now will go nowhere and high odds will hand him 2020 on a silver platter. That means no touching Trump until 2022, 2024 at the earliest. Think of the damage he could do in that time. Think of how entrenched he could get. Think of how much he could stack the decks.

That's not what either of us want.

I don't believe that's true.

It's not an ego boost to impeach a man that has blatantly committed crimes. That's an extremely ****** up to way of portraying it if you ask me. That's what I'm actually under the impression part of the House's job is, would be to oversee the President.

Sitting on your hands doing nothing is what you are suggesting. You just want us to take our hands out and wave them around and pretend like we did something.

No, I don't. Impeachment proceedings aren't "pretending like we did something". It's actually doing something. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the options available when they move forward. It might help.

I'm not going to tell the government to back off taking on a criminal, and an ******* for no other reason than it's might, maybe, give him a slight advantage. Especially considering the myriad of ways Dem's could go into it. They could openly say it's not going to go anywhere but they want the public educated. As I stated before, the Mueller testimony got the "NO OBSTRUCTION" **** to quiet down from Trump and even made a few fox hosts confront Trump staff.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's not an ego boost to impeach a man that has blatantly committed crimes.

It is when the impeachment has zero chance of leading to conviction.

Please, sell me on a scenario where our current Senate is going to vote to convict Trump. It would pretty much have to involve the Infinity Gauntlet at this point.

I don't need you to asterisk-scream a list of all the reasons Trump is bad at me. Trust me, I'm aware and I agree. I need you to understand that at this point in time all the people currently in a position to take him out of power do not agree with your or me and nothing being said on any level right now has a fly's fart in a hurricane of changing their mind. Trump and Putin could double team the average Republican's wife on top of the Constitution and they wouldn't vote against the leader of their tribe.

Outside of breaking out the guillotine the 2020 election is the only route we have. I can't make that not true.

 

[plague311]

It is when the impeachment has zero chance of leading to conviction.

Please, sell me on a scenario where our current Senate is going to vote to convict Trump. It would pretty much have to involve the Infinity Gauntlet at this point.

I never said they would. Had you included my whole statement, I even gave a scenario where they could openly say they, also, know it won't succeed; however, in the name of being transparent with the public they are moving forward anyway.

They could, in the House, bring up absolutely every possible thing that Trump has done since getting in office. There is plenty we don't know that impeachment proceedings could make public. That could cause even a few Republicans, or Fox news cycles to be skeptical of Trump.

I don't need you to asterisk-scream a list of all the reasons Trump is bad at me. Trust me, I'm aware and I agree. I need to understand that the people currently in a position now to take him out of power do not agree with your or me.

Outside of breaking out the guillotine the 2020 election is the only route we have. I can't make that not true.

You also can't make it true. It's completely and entirely your conjecture. That doesn't make it factual, you're just pissing in the dark. Same as all of us. Nothing you've said here is based on any fact, it's not even based on history. It's just your random collection of conjecture that could easily be as much ******** as reality.

Also, for like the millionth time. Asterisks don't mean I'm mad, screaming, or yelling. I swear. I swear all of the time.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

They could, in the House, bring up absolutely every possible thing that Trump has done since getting in office. There is plenty we don't know that impeachment proceedings could make public. That could cause even a few Republicans, or Fox news cycles to be skeptical of Trump.

I think there is value in this, even though we know Republicans won't vote to convict.

It's an open secret that Trump and Co. are engaged in a variety of petty and major corruption. It's an administration of grifters, top to bottom, stealing everything that isn't nailed down. So far, they have been largely successful in stonewalling Congressional oversight by refusing to answer questions.

I could see a very public impeachment hearing being an effective piece of politics. Making these people answer questions under oath could be very powerful. Showing that the Republican party has no interest in dealing with open corruption could also be useful.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Moving things from an "Open Secret" to just "Open" doesn't have the value to me it seems it does to other people. I just don't get the percentage in it. "Hey the thing everybody already knew they now... still know."

This whole "Well it we get all his dirty laundry out in the open" isn't going to work against who is proudly wearing his dirty laundry out to eat everyday. We've got to drop this "Okay the next horrible thing about Trump that gets put on the table is finally going to be the thing that erodes his base" that has been the party line since like 7 seconds after he got the election.

Most of the public doesn't want to go through an Impeachment right now. No Republican outside of one or two weird fringe cases in anything short of outright hostile to the idea. Hell barely half the Democrats are even onboard with it.

So from a legal/government perspective impeaching Trump would barely rise to the level of a Dog and Pony show and politically it's unpopular.

What are we winning or gaining in this scenario?

 

[theprestige]

So easy, in fact, that both sides do it simultaneously on the same hearing.

Exactly. Which is why I don't hold out much hope for the "let's have more hearings and get more facts before the American people" strategy.

Also, of course, "facts".

 

[The Shrike]

I think there is value in this, even though we know Republicans won't vote to convict.

My take as well. Quarterbacking is as effective on a Friday morning as on a Monday.

Possible outcomes if the House impeaches Trump (list not exhaustive, and this is assuming Senate acquittal in each case):

1. We learn nothing else, partisanship deepens, more people buy into Trump's martyr narrative, and he skates to re-election with ~50% of popular vote.
2. We learn nothing else, partisanship does not substantively change, Trump's 42% come out to vote, but so do the 2016 disaffected Obama voters+new voters+never Trumpsters and he's defeated by ~49% of the vote with narrow electoral victory for Democrats.
3. We do learn new and damaging things about Trump & Co. (doesn't even have to be the alleged pee-pee tape), it becomes more obvious how cautious and restricted Mueller had been, Wall St. looks like it's going a bit pear-shaped, Trump's foaming-at-the-mouth support slips to ~39%, and the Democrats win in a landslide of ~57%. President Warren's first act upon her inauguration is to instruct Attorney General Kamala Harris to issue arrest warrants for Trump, Trump, Jr., Mrs. Trump (Ivanka), Kuschner, Miller, etc.

Fantasy editorial bits notwithstanding, I see #1 as the least likely outcome of impeachment hearings.

 

[theprestige]

We don't even know what's going on with some of the other investigations. I think Mueller's being downplayed by the GOP and blown up by the Dem's.

It was good. Some decent soundbytes, Mueller confirmed that Trump wasn't innocent, and it actually got Trump to shut the **** up about it a little bit, I think.

That being said, I think the taxes will be just as damning, and hopefully more so. Mueller basically said that he didn't know if Trump and his idiots were smart enough to know they were breaking the law intentionally. Which, sadly, I kind of agree with. I think Trump was completely ignorant of how the law works up until he made his statement about taking help again and got his ass firmly handed to him from multiple people. Then he learned, 'Oh, I actually can't take information'. That caused him to backpedal.

When it comes to taxes I really and truly don't feel that defense will work. Sure, the Trump Tower meeting was sketchy, but you can feign ignorance. A few decades of tax fraud\evasion is not as easy to skate on. Those investigations also aren't being handled by the DOJ, they're being handled by the House.

Do you think anyone from the IRS will have to go to prison, when it turns out that they could have prevented a Trump presidency by actually doing their job and auditing an example of money laundering so obvious that any rando off the street could pick up on it if they just saw his tax returns?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Fantasy editorial bits notwithstanding, I see #1 as the least likely outcome of impeachment hearings.

I see it as practically inevitable given the fact that a majority of... nobody wants impeachment. Not Republicans, not Democrats (especially their leadership), not the general public. Right now the only group in power talking about Impeachment are lame duck Democrats.

Like I keep having to say so I don't get branded the enemy and just have "BUT THE ORANGE MAN IS BAD! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND BAD!" shouted at me, I hope I'm wrong. I'd like nothing else then to see Trump impeached and thrown in prison and for the entire Republican party to be damaged to the point it can't survive long term. I'll plop my "This is how much I hate Trump!" member down on the table and compare it to anyone's if that's what it takes.

But hope isn't a strategy.

 

[plague311]

Moving things from an "Open Secret" to just "Open" doesn't have the value to me it seems it does to other people. I just don't get the percentage in it. "Hey the thing everybody already knew they now... still know."

There is a reason things are "read into the record". As stated before, impeachment can force people to speak under oath. That can be interpreted differently by the public.

This whole "Well it we get all his dirty laundry out in the open" isn't going to work against who is proudly wearing his dirty laundry out to eat everyday. We've got to drop this "Okay the next horrible thing about Trump that gets put on the table is finally going to be the thing that erodes his base" that has been the party line since like 7 seconds after he got the election.

I don't remember anyone here saying that anything Trump does would "erode his base". In fact, all I see here are people saying the exact opposite. That being said, Trump's base didn't win him the election. Fence sitters, and people that wanted to "give him a shot" (that and Russian interference) won him the election. The ability to show those people every single corrupt thing he's done, and force his people to speak about it under oath, can encourage those people to vote.

Most of the public doesn't want to go through an Impeachment right now. No Republican outside of one or two weird fringe cases in anything short of outright hostile to the idea. Hell barely half the Democrats are even onboard with it.

Did they want to go through it when Nixon was impeached? Forcing the Republican party to own the stuff Trump does, as they'd either have to defend him or start separating themselves from him, and the way he acts could cause more of a rift in the party. Again, testifying under oath and seeing that information would be potent.

So from a legal/government perspective impeaching Trump would barely rise to the level of a Dog and Pony show and politically it's unpopular.

What are we winning or gaining in this scenario?

I get it, to you, we're winning\gaining nothing. I don't know what we're winning\gaining by NOT doing it either. But hey, it is what it is.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Did they want to go through it when Nixon was impeached? Forcing the Republican party to own the stuff Trump does, as they'd either have to defend him or start separating themselves from him, and the way he acts could cause more of a rift in the party. Again, testifying under oath and seeing that information would be potent.

The Republicans now are a looooooooong way from the Republicans of '74.

Again... I hope you're right. If you believe absolutely nothing else I say believe that. I'll eat all the crow in the world if it gets rid of Trump.

ETA: And let's not forget a Trump impeachment would be the second or even third impeachment a lot of the voting public would be going through in their lifetime and neither of those was pleasant or fun. When Nixon was impeached we hadn't done it... I ain't going to do the math a long ass time.

 

[plague311]

Do you think anyone from the IRS will have to go to prison, when it turns out that they could have prevented a Trump presidency by actually doing their job and auditing an example of money laundering so obvious that any rando off the street could pick up on it if they just saw his tax returns?

Jesus, theprestige. Could you have fit more nonsensical ******** into one statement? Do you think "randos" would be looking at his taxes or do you think they'd hire people with relevant knowledge?

If people from the IRS looked at it and willfully overlooked it? Yes. I think they should go to jail. Do I think that happened? I don't know how granular they get but we can find out. I know that there is no way they're going to catch all of the fraud that happens on taxes in a year.

ETA: I also know Trump is working pretty damn hard to keep eyes off of the taxes and people have testified to him being shady. There is easily enough cause, as AOC established in her questioning of Cohen, to dig into them as much as possible.

 

[The Shrike]

Right now the only group in power talking about Impeachment are lame duck Democrats.

Correct, but the reason for their hesitancy is the same mistake Democrats always make: they're worried about polling, optics, etc. The Democrats tight-lipped at the moment on impeachment are only holding out because they're worried about re-election by this mythical centrist voter. They don't get that mobilizing their base (which actually does represent mainstream views on a lot of issues) is the key.

This is not what Republicans do to get stuff done. They stake out some space and then proclaim to the voters "this is where you should be if you love America!" All the voters shout "YEAH!" and stampede to that position. It's the reason they get their constituents to vote for stuff they don't actually want.

Imagine if Democrats came out with a full-throated "We're Democrats and we're the real patriots because x, y, and z. If you want to defeat the enemies of America, then join us in this fight, etc."

It was the mealy-mouthed, hand-wringing safety of seeking the middle that led to the Hillary Clinton campaign and, ultimately of course, to President Trump. Pussy-footing around on impeachment is straight out of the losing Democratic playbook.

 

[dudalb]

I think it's imperative that the Dems either take the White House or make major gains in the Senate in 2020 or they are gonna impeach Trump all the way into a Dictatorship gift wrapped for him.

Impeachment is nothing (worse then nothing since there will be a backlash) without conviction and a conviction would require getting 2/3s of a 53-45 Republican majority Senate to vote against the President. Not going to happen and it will hand jump a major victory narrative to role into 2020 with.

I get that I'm like the lone voice in this but an impeachment that goes nowhere is more dangerous then no impeachment at all.

Sadly, the Dems seem determined to hand Trump reelection on a silver platter.