House Impeachment Inquiry

[plague311]

I can't remember if someone posted this, but it's official:

A majority of House Democrats are now on record publicly supporting an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, according to a CNN count -- a sign of momentum for pro-impeachment lawmakers that is likely to ramp up pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leaders.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

1. Do you know the name of the poster I was debating with?
2. Do you know which one of us first bought up Bill Clinton
3. Other than that they are politically motivated, does it look like I agree that the Clinton impeachment is equivalent to this?

A simple, "you misunderstood me" with a correction would be fine.

Your post did indeed look like you were agreeing with the false equivalence.

 

[psionl0]

Dems need to push the fact that Trump is a seriously compromised individual heading up a seriously compromised administration, and that they are an ongoing threat to our national security, e.g. refusing to act to prevent foreign intrusion on our elections, and the shady stuff like the Saudi nuclear deal and lifting sanctions on Russian oligarchs, to name a few. That works for both a reason to impeach and a reason to burn the Party of Trump to the ground in 2020.

This stuff has been know about or believed since long before the 2016 election. It doesn't change my earlier assertion that an impeachment trial in the Senate could get turned around and end up costing the Democrats votes.

The best way to get rid of Trump is a decent Democrat candidate for POTUS.

 

[psionl0]

A simple, "you misunderstood me" with a correction would be fine.

Your post did indeed look like you were agreeing with the false equivalence.

I would have thought that the scare quote and the snark at the end of my post would have suggested otherwise.

But saying "It turns out that YOU BELIEVE the "precedent" was Bill Clinton" would have made my meaning clearer and I admit that all of the intervening posts would have made our discussion more difficult to follow.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would have thought that the scare quote and the snark at the end of my post would have suggested otherwise.

But saying "It turns out that YOU BELIEVE the "precedent" was Bill Clinton" would have made my meaning clearer and I admit that all of the intervening posts would have made our discussion more difficult to follow.

If you need help understanding why someone might have misunderstood you:

Then you have changed your argument. You originally stated that impeachment was mandated by the constitution and that there is precedent for this.

Now you are only saying that congress is morally obliged to impeach. It turns out that the "precedent" was Bill Clinton. If you think that was anything other than base politics by a Republican dominated congress then you should have your stock broker examine the shares in the Brooklyn bridge that you bought.

Keep in mind, not everyone is going to go back through a half dozen posts before the one they are replying to. That's why a simple 'you misunderstood' would saved a slew of wasted posts.

Then you have changed your argument.

OK, not relevant to me.

You originally stated that impeachment was mandated by the constitution and that there is precedent for this

OK, looks like what you are about to contradict. I'm with you so far.

Now you are only saying that congress is morally obliged to impeach.

I agree with that person's position there. I think we have a duty not to let blatant crimes go unaddressed.

It turns out that the "precedent" was Bill Clinton. If you think that was anything other than base politics by a Republican dominated congress then you should have your stock broker examine the shares in the Brooklyn bridge that you bought.

It's very easy to mis-read this. You don't need to get miffed if someone has. It sounds like you are saying both Clinton's impeachment AND Trump's are partisan politics.

Now that you tell me you meant something else, fine, I see where I misunderstood you. A simple, "you misunderstood" would have been sufficient.

Is that offensive that someone misread that?

 

[psionl0]

That's why a simple 'you misunderstood' would saved a slew of wasted posts.

And the slew continues.

It sounds like you are saying both Clinton's impeachment AND Trump's are partisan politics.

Now that you tell me you meant something else, fine, I see where I misunderstood you.

No, I didn't mean something else. Both are partisan politics and the primary concern in both cases is votes. That doesn't mean that because Clinton was tried for impeachment that it sets a precedent for Trump. As you say, it is a false equivalence.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And an impeachment inquiry gives them more legal power to gather evidence. I don't know where you're expecting a "strong enough hand" to come from if they don't have a proper inquiry.

As of this writing there 29 active government investigations against one Donald J. Trump; 10 Federal, 8 State, and 11 Congressional. The "let's investigate Trump to find out what he's doing" bases are covered.

One more investigation, even one on the level of impeachment, isn't going to uncover this magical "actually going to make a difference this time" piece of dirt.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

As of this writing there 29 active government investigations against one Donald J. Trump; 10 Federal, 8 State, and 11 Congressional. The "let's investigate Trump to find out what he's doing" bases are covered.

One more investigation, even one on the level of impeachment, isn't going to uncover this magical "actually going to make a difference this time" piece of dirt.

No, but it keeps Trump busy and drains his re-election funds. And maybe his wallet, too.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As of this writing there 29 active government investigations against one Donald J. Trump; 10 Federal, 8 State, and 11 Congressional. The "let's investigate Trump to find out what he's doing" bases are covered.

One more investigation, even one on the level of impeachment, isn't going to uncover this magical "actually going to make a difference this time" piece of dirt.

This doesn't in any way address anything I said.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This doesn't in any way address anything I said.

You said that even if it was doomed to failure on a legislative level impeaching Trump is worth it because we need to investigate to find out what he's done as if we haven't been doing that since pretty much ever.

I'm wondering what impeachment is going to uncover that

A) all the other investigations haven't
B) is going to matter to his base and/or the fence sitters/margins

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You said that even if it was doomed to failure on a legislative level impeaching Trump is worth it because we need to investigate to find out what he's done as if we haven't been doing that since pretty much ever.

Can you quote me saying that?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can you quote me saying that?

Not playing this game.

Your exact words SINCE THOSE ARE SO GODDAMN BLOODY IMPORTANT FOR NO REASON when we were discussing impeachment, which I ALREADY QUOTED IN MY FIRST RESPONSE TO YOU is

"And an impeachment inquiry gives them more legal power to gather evidence. I don't know where you're expecting a 'strong enough hand' to come from if they don't have a proper inquiry."

There's already two dozen "proper inquiry" going after Trump to "gather evidence."

The inquiry is already happening 28 times over. The evidence has already been gathered. The hand is as strong as it's going to get.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Not playing this game.

Yes, if you can't quote me saying something that you're claiming I said, then that should give you pause for thought about whether or not I actually said it.

Now that you've chosen to address what I've actually said, rather than an Aunt Sally of your own creation, if it's your opinion that an impeachment inquiry would necessarily be redundant because it would be impossible for them to have access to any information that other inquiries don't already have access to, then can you tell me which inquiry, for example, already has Trump's tax returns?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1159629510360424449

Rep. Jerry Nadler: "This is formal impeachment proceedings."

Video embedded in tweet.

 

[slyjoe]

You said that even if it was doomed to failure on a legislative level impeaching Trump is worth it because we need to investigate to find out what he's done as if we haven't been doing that since pretty much ever.

I'm wondering what impeachment is going to uncover that

A) all the other investigations haven't
B) is going to matter to his base and/or the fence sitters/margins

Remember Alexander Butterfield?

 

[Upchurch]

The inquiry is already happening 28 times over. The evidence has already been gathered. The hand is as strong as it's going to get.

If you’re referring to the Mueller investigation, I disagree. His investigation was very limited. There are a number of obvious questions that still need answering, from his banking issues to the question of whether he’s been compromised by Russia.

 

[plague311]

House Dems dealt a bit of a blow in court today:

A federal judge on Wednesday rejected the House Judiciary Committee’s bid to formally link two lawsuits it contends will expedite its decision to recommend articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.

Thought they don't seem terribly heartbroken by it:

“The judge had this discretion under the rule and we appreciate the rapid reassignment. We look forward to getting to the merits of our complaint,” a Judiciary Committee spokeswoman said.

No bitching, pissing and moaning like we've come to expect from some people in our political atmosphere. Looks like they're going to be moving ahead fairly quickly, which I hope actually is true.

 

[plague311]

The number 4 Democrat, Rep. Ben Ray Luján, is now in support of moving forward with impeachment:

“I support moving forward with an impeachment inquiry, which will continue to uncover the facts for the American people and hold this president accountable,” Luján said in a statement, citing the findings from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report released this spring.

It looks like his reasoning is more based on Trump's inaction to protect the elections:

“President Trump’s lack of action is jeopardizing our elections, national security, and Democracy,” Luján said. “Not only has he ignored the warnings that our Democracy is being targeted, but he has also actively encouraged Russian interference.”

Seems like a roundabout way to get there, but all the more power to him.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you’re referring to the Mueller investigation, I disagree. His investigation was very limited. There are a number of obvious questions that still need answering, from his banking issues to the question of whether he’s been compromised by Russia.

I'm referring to the 28 SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS currently underway against Trump. This mythical 29th one, even if it's an impeachment, isn't going to uncover anything new.

But fine, if the Dems are bound and determined to go forward with impeachment without a majority in the Senate, then wait a few months. Time it so the impeachment is going on on election day. Make people go to the polls while Trump is in the impeachment process. That's still risky (it runs the very real chance of turning the election into the referendum on the impeachment) but it mitigates the "Handing him a victor narrative" problem.

Also, and this is gonna be hard but it's important, no snide "Oh but you're okay impeaching Clinton for a blowjob!?" quips. Not one. Not from the Democratic Leadership, not from the network talking heads, not from the peanut gallery, not from the Democratic base, none. The Republicans are going to play the victim cards. They are going to say we aren't respecting the office. Ignore them. Shake it off.

Don't mention Clinton. If they mention him don't acknowledge it. Do not let this get turned into a narrative where this is just the Dems getting back for Clinton.

And as always if I'm wrong and they can get rid of Trump I'll eat all the crow anyone wants to serve me.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm referring to the 28 SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS currently underway against Trump. This mythical 29th one, even if it's an impeachment, isn't going to uncover anything new.

If it's your opinion that an impeachment inquiry would necessarily be redundant because it would be impossible for them to have access to any information that other inquiries don't already have access to, then can you tell me which inquiry, for example, already has Trump's tax returns?