Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Roger Ramjets]

1. Removal of Trump from office. [ETA: (conviction in the Senate)]

2. Defeating Trump in November.

3. Inhibiting future presidents from abusing the office.

These are all possible outcomes down the road, but the primary goal is to determine whether or not Trump has committed impeachable offenses. The secondary - but (IMO) more important - goal is to make the true nature of those offenses public knowledge. Whether Trump is actually impeached, or defeated at the next election, or future presidents are actually inhibited from abusing the office, is less important than knowing what should have been done.

Personally I don't mind either way. If Trump is not thrown out of office one way or another, and if other presidents use it as a mandate to commit similar offenses, that simply justifies the more direct actions we will be forced to take. Sometimes I even wish for it, because then I would be free to treat conservatives like the scum they would have proven themselves to be.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

"Doing the right thing" is a concept that is entirely alien to those on the right...

Everything in "conservative world" is done for gain; personal gain, or business gain or political gain.

To be fair, in "conservative world" that is "doing the right thing".

 

[abaddon]

Just like a Rightist, to contemplate an action only if of tangible, selfish benefit.

Can't you conceive that something could be undertaken just because it's the *right* thing to do? Even if it poses a risk of backfiring in the near term?

The Dems know that there's a possibility of the impeachment process, in this highly divided political climate, could have bad consequences for them. But it's deemed of such importance for history to at least try to rein in an out-of-control Executive.

And therein lies your problem. Were my children in some precarious position, I would have no hesitation laying down my life to protect them. You seem to want to develop a cost benefit spreadsheet before making any decision at all. By the time you did that your children would be already dead.

 

[Cabbage]

Unless the idea is to consider the possibility of Democrat hypocrisy here. Graham said a lot of noble-sounding stuff thirty years ago. Who's to say, thirty years from now, when the shoe's on the other foot, some House Democrat won't be making the same face-heel turn, for the same reasons?

"We can give a pass on Republican hypocrisy because Democrats might employ the exact same hypocrisy 30 years from now"


LOL!



That's some nuclear grade whataboutism there, bro.

 

[Paul2]

These are all possible outcomes down the road, but the primary goal is to determine whether or not Trump has committed impeachable offenses. The secondary - but (IMO) more important - goal is to make the true nature of those offenses public knowledge. Whether Trump is actually impeached, or defeated at the next election, or future presidents are actually inhibited from abusing the office, is less important than knowing what should have been done.

Personally I don't mind either way. If Trump is not thrown out of office one way or another, and if other presidents use it as a mandate to commit similar offenses, that simply justifies the more direct actions we will be forced to take. Sometimes I even wish for it, because then I would be free to treat conservatives like the scum they would have proven themselves to be.

I take your point, but the House Intelligence committee investigation is one of those in which it's clear that Trump committed several offenses, so the investigation is more about filling in the details in order to make a strong case (to the Senate, and to the public).

 

[Cabbage]

I think it's 100% an unproven claim. I don't think there's any more reason to believe it than there is to believe Lindsay Graham.

"100% an unproven claim"???

What the hell does that even mean? Does it mean you sincerely believe there's not even a single shred of evidence against Trump???

If that's the case, you're either not being 100% honest or you're not paying 100% attention.

LOL!

 

[Stacyhs]

"100% an unproven claim"???

What the hell does that even mean? Does it mean you sincerely believe there's not even a single shred of evidence against Trump???

If that's the case, you're either not being 100% even 5% honest or you're not paying 100% attention to anything but Trump tweets.

LOL!

FTFY

 

[acbytesla]

I think it's 100% an unproven claim. I don't think there's any more reason to believe it than there is to believe Lindsay Graham.

Unproven? What part is unproven? Seriously. This has to be the most ridiculous post.

The hypocrisy knows no boundaries.

 

[cullennz]

All an impeachment decision will do is result in Trump winning again.

The dems and left media are just too dim to realise.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's obvious to me, anyway.

But my question wasn't so much about motivation, but about practical results. "What are the Democrats realistically trying to get out of this, and are they succeeding?"

Realistically, I'd say that bringing the Impeachment would be a success, if they can get a few Republican Senators to actually look at the evidence and vote based on that and not Party over Country, then they will have brought about a wild success. In the current climate I doubt that most Republicans will even be willing to look at the evidence consider censure of the President for his actions.

The best goal really is to at least get an Impeachment so there is some form of indication to future Presidents that the actions of Trump in trying to use his office to obtain a declaration of an investigation looking into a political opponent is unacceptable behaviour.

Is the question. "Look at Lindsay Graham's hypocrisy!" isn't much of an answer.

Just as well it was never the answer then.

Unless the idea is to consider the possibility of Democrat hypocrisy here. Graham said a lot of noble-sounding stuff thirty years ago. Who's to say, thirty years from now, when the shoe's on the other foot, some House Democrat won't be making the same face-heel turn, for the same reasons?

If in thirty years time, we have a Democrat President who acts in the same way Trump apparently has, and a house Democrat makes a u-turn on their opinion, then any claims of hypocrisy against that person will be fully justified. However, regardless of the hypocrisy of people like Graham, if a President withholds the duties of his office until he gets an announcement of a criminal investigation into his political opponents, then he should be impeached at minimum because that is not acceptable behaviour. And it honestly doesn't matter the reasons behind that impeachment if the evidence clearly shows that he did it.

It's like, should you ignore the clear evidence of person being a murderer and let him off, just because the person who dobbed him in wants his job?

 

[acbytesla]

All an impeachment decision will do is result in Trump winning again.

The dems and left media are just too dim to realise.

This is a test for our democracy. Is the GOP too corrupt to uphold the Constitution? Or should we just bury the nation and its principles?

If this isn't impeachable, what is?

 

[PhantomWolf]

All an impeachment decision will do is result in Trump winning again.

The dems and left media are just too dim to realise.

How exactly will it do that?

 

[cullennz]

How exactly will it do that?

It plays into his stupid "everyone is just picking on me, with fake...." playbook his fanboys fall for.

The whole media attack thing has been a spectacular self inflicted seeping wound against themselves for years.

Funny to watch though when you have no skin in the game.

He is very good at playing the victim card.

Kind of using the lefts on methods against them.

 

[phiwum]

"100% an unproven claim"???

What the hell does that even mean? Does it mean you sincerely believe there's not even a single shred of evidence against Trump???

If that's the case, you're either not being 100% honest or you're not paying 100% attention.

LOL!

theprestige was responding to the following statement: "The House Democrats’ goal is upholding the Constitution by acting as a check on executive abuse."

He is claiming that it isn't clear the Democrats are doing this to act as a legitimate check on the president. He didn't say anything about whether there is evidence that the allegations regarding Trump are true.

 

[Cabbage]

theprestige was responding to the following statement: "The House Democrats’ goal is upholding the Constitution by acting as a check on executive abuse."

He is claiming that it isn't clear the Democrats are doing this to act as a legitimate check on the president. He didn't say anything about whether there is evidence that the allegations regarding Trump are true.

At best, it's ambiguous, and how separable are the two claims, really? The fact that there is evidence that the allegations against Trump are true simultaneously provides evidence that this is, indeed, a legitimate check on the president.

Only if there were no evidence of the former would there be conclusive (100%!) evidence of the latter.

Of course, good luck getting a straight answer on this supposed ambiguity (or any other relevant matter) from any Trump supporter/apologist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Watch Trump try to get even with any GOP Senators that vote to impeach him. There will be some that stand up and do the right thing. There might be a couple that have constituents pressuring them to stand up to Trump.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It plays into his stupid "everyone is just picking on me, with fake...." playbook his fanboys fall for.

The whole media attack thing has been a spectacular self inflicted seeping wound against themselves for years.

Funny to watch though when you have no skin in the game.

He is very good at playing the victim card.

Kind of using the lefts on methods against them.

That doesn't explain how he would win though, all you are saying is that those that will vote for him regardless already, will still vote for him after impeachment. The problem he has though is that his base currently isn't large enough to get him reelected.

So how exactly would impeachment change those numbers?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Watch Trump try to get even with any GOP Senators that vote to impeach him.

I can say with 100% certainty that no Senator on either side of the aisle will vote to Impeach him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can say with 100% certainty that no Senator on either side of the aisle will vote to Impeach him.

We need a poll. Maybe when it gets closer so people know what the evidence is.

Or we could have one poll now and one later to see who changed their minds.

Sen Sherrod Brown is on CSPAN now reminding us that the Kochs will spend millions to have any GOP Senator primaried who supports climate change prevention legislation.

Isn't it lovely to know a couple of people will be responsible for the greatest risk to the human population ever. Thank goodness there are other countries taking charge.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

That doesn't explain how he would win though, all you are saying is that those that will vote for him regardless already, will still vote for him after impeachment. The problem he has though is that his base currently isn't large enough to get him reelected.

So how exactly would impeachment change those numbers?

I was about to post a similar thought.

For the 50% or so of Americans who now support impeachment and removal, they’ll listen to the impeachment trial, weigh the evidence presented and likely come away more convinced than ever that Trump committed crimes and that at least some of those crimes warrant conviction in the Senate. If the Senate acquits, do you think Trump’s boasting about it will convince them otherwise?

Like PhantomWolf just said, his bleating about “No Corruption! No Collusion! No Quid Pro Quo! I told you it was a witch hunt!” will only play to his base, and hopefully a groundswell of disgust will drive record numbers of Democrats and Independents and disillusioned Republicans to the polls.

We can only hope.