Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm disappointed not to see witness intimidation, or whatever charge would address his threats against the whistleblower.

I wonder if that is buried in the obstruction charge?

 

[theprestige]

I think the point is that things Trump did in response to being impeached can't be sold unless you sell the need to impeach him first. If the core "Misuse of Power" thing doesn't stick the rest will just slide off.

Again it's that whole "I can arrest you for resisting arrest even if I didn't have valid reason to arrest you in the first place" thing.

Regardless of what (g)you personally think of it or how "technically true" it is, that's not gonna sell well to a lot of people.

I think this is a pretty astute analysis.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I think they should definitely have gone for perjury re Mueller. That, IMO, had the greatest chance of success.

I don't think obstruction of Congress has a hope in hell, as the Republican rebuttal has already been laid out - Trump was exercising his right to due process by challenging subpoenas in court and/or defying them in the hope that the Democrats would try to enforce them so that he could challenge them in court. I can't see that one sticking at all, even if the Senate were reasonably non-partisan. Certainly not as is.

Abuse of power is one I could see working in a non-partisan Senate, but won't get anywhere in today's climate.

I definitely find it curious, although I'm sure it's based on a more thorough understanding of the law than I have.

If this were a criminal case, the obstruction charge would likely fail, but (1) it's an impeachment, not a criminal case, and (2) both charges are likely to fail in the Senate anyway, since the Republicans have traded their integrity for a ticket on the Trump Train. But since the purpose is to convince voters and Senators that Trump needs to be removed from office, the obstruction charge complements the abuse of power charge by implying that Trump knows full well what would happen if he allowed the subpoenas. It makes him look like he's trying to skate past disaster on a legal technicality. Which is accurate.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Bug-Eyed Burbank Bolshevik Schiff said Trump must be impeached to prevent another "illegitimate" win in the next election, embracing the same lie that started as soon as the votes were counted. Really, the Democrats should just disband if they're never going to stop lying. It's hard to take them seriously anymore.

 

[d4m10n]

…both charges are likely to fail in the Senate anyway, since the Republicans have traded their integrity for a ticket on the Trump Train.

Which is why I can't wrap my head around the current minimalist approach.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/one-episode-mueller-report-democrats-must-include-impeachment

 

[Belz...]

Bug-Eyed Burbank Bolshevik Schiff

That's just as stupid as calling Trump a Nazi, which I'm sure you're entirely ok with.

said Trump must be impeached to prevent another "illegitimate" win in the next election, embracing the same lie that started as soon as the votes were counted.

You know, what's becoming more and more clear is that you engage in repeated, hit-and-run postings. So I know you're not going to address the following: It's been demonstrated that Russian agents did their damnest to help Trump win in 2016. Whether they had much impact is debatable, but given how close the election was it's certainly a valid concern.

Really, the Democrats should just disband if they're never going to stop lying.

Should the GOP do the same?

 

[theprestige]

Should the GOP do the same?

That would be ideal.

But I think corrupt politicians are like money, and police: If we didn't have them, the first thing we'd do is invent them.

I guess if we did start fresh, with a baseline of ethical politics, it might buy us a hundred years or so, before things started to get intolerably bad again. But maybe not. Could be worth a try?

 

[Shalamar]

Bug-Eyed Burbank Bolshevik Schiff said Trump must be impeached to prevent another "illegitimate" win in the next election, embracing the same lie that started as soon as the votes were counted. Really, the Democrats should just disband if they're never going to stop lying. It's hard to take them seriously anymore.

You are actively advocating for a one party state in the USA? Bold move.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Which is why I can't wrap my head around the current minimalist approach.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/one-episode-mueller-report-democrats-must-include-impeachment

I suspect it is, in part, to try to keep the narrative simple for the public. The more articles there are, the higher the likelihood that people will go "TL/DR".

 

[ponderingturtle]

You are actively advocating for a one party state in the USA? Bold move.

Not really it has been on the republican agenda for decades.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

That's just as stupid as calling Trump a Nazi, which I'm sure you're entirely ok with.



You know, what's becoming more and more clear is that you engage in repeated, hit-and-run postings. So I know you're not going to address the following: It's been demonstrated that Russian agents did their damnest to help Trump win in 2016. Whether they had much impact is debatable, but given how close the election was it's certainly a valid concern.



Should the GOP do the same?

The Bug-Eyed Bolshevik is ignoring not only the results of the Mueller Investigation, but Zelensky's repeated assertions that there was no pressure at all. No amount of lies can change the facts, but today's Democrats' complete support from the corrupt mainstream media allows them to lie on demand.

 

[theprestige]

I suspect it is, in part, to try to keep the narrative simple for the public. The more articles there are, the higher the likelihood that people will go "TL/DR".

My guess is that the core audience for the House impeachment hearings is voters in states whose GOP Senators might be worried about reelection, if they don't vote to remove.

Either that, or the core audience is swing voters in the 2020 presidential election. In which case, impeachment isn't so much about removing the president for high crimes and/or misdemeanors. Rather, it's a DNC campaign strategy.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The Bug-Eyed Bolshevik is ignoring not only the results of the Mueller Investigation, but Zelensky's repeated assertions that there was no pressure at all. No amount of lies can change the facts, but today's Democrats' complete support from the corrupt mainstream media allows them to lie on demand.

The Zelensky argument is stupid. He is not in a position to speak freely about the incident. His oath is to ensure the safety of Ukrainian citizens. Jeopardizing arms sales in the name of honesty does not accomplish that.

 

[Shalamar]

My guess is that the core audience for the House impeachment hearings is voters in states whose GOP Senators might be worried about reelection, if they don't vote to remove.

Either that, or the core audience is swing voters in the 2020 presidential election. In which case, impeachment isn't so much about removing the president for high crimes and/or misdemeanors. Rather, it's a DNC campaign strategy.

I suspect a little of column a and a little of column b. Pelosi didn’t really want to impeach and held off for a time until the yelling got to be too much to ignore.

Republicans are extremely unlikely to vote to remove, so Trump will stay, but it will likely still be damaging especially as he continues to rant about it. I do think that removal would be good for the GOP. They get president Pence, the party and the voters can rally around him. Trump can cry martyr, and Pence wins 2020. With Trump still president, I would give the edge to the Democratic Party to win the presidency in 2020.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

The Zelensky argument is stupid. He is not in a position to speak freely about the incident. His oath is to ensure the safety of Ukrainian citizens. Jeopardizing arms sales in the name of honesty does not accomplish that.

You do realize this comment is based on nothing except your own speculation? And people wonder why I don't wait with bated breath for responses to my comments.

 

[theprestige]

I suspect a little of column a and a little of column b. Pelosi didn’t really want to impeach and held off for a time until the yelling got to be too much to ignore.

Republicans are extremely unlikely to vote to remove, so Trump will stay, but it will likely still be damaging especially as he continues to rant about it. I do think that removal would be good for the GOP. They get president Pence, the party and the voters can rally around him. Trump can cry martyr, and Pence wins 2020. With Trump still president, I would give the edge to the Democratic Party to win the presidency in 2020.

Good points.

For completeness, I realize there's a third potential audience for the Impeachment hearings. voters in House districts whose representatives are worried about reelection, if they're not seen to be doing something about Trump.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You do realize this comment is based on nothing except your own speculation? And people wonder why I don't wait with bated breath for responses to my comments.

That would be true if I was speculating on his thought process. I am not. I obviously have no idea if his statements are true or not. The fact that he is not immune to ramifications of his comments and is not provided remedies developed to insulate witnesses from risk is the issue.


Pointing out incentive to lie is not assertion that they lied.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Which is why I can't wrap my head around the current minimalist approach.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/one-episode-mueller-report-democrats-must-include-impeachment

I agree -- I favor throwing the book at him -- but I was explaining why I think the obstruction charge should be there. But I'd throw in his obstruction in the Russia probe, too, because it indicates another pattern we can expect from him if he's not removed.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Can any of you geniuses tell me what the Dem's Plan C is if this one (Plan B) fails in the same way Plan A (Mueller) did?

I mean, they must be well considered strategies because it's not as if the Dems and their water-carriers are idiots who believe you can just keep flinging **** until some sticks and the Whitehouse becomes rightfully theirs, or anything like that.

I think that the Grand Design is aimed at 2022 when there is a real chance to flip the Senate.

 

[Segnosaur]

Republicans are extremely unlikely to vote to remove, so Trump will stay, but it will likely still be damaging especially as he continues to rant about it. I do think that removal would be good for the GOP. They get president Pence, the party and the voters can rally around him. Trump can cry martyr, and Pence wins 2020. With Trump still president, I would give the edge to the Democratic Party to win the presidency in 2020.

The way I see it, I think the Republicans are screwed either way.

If Trump stays, he becomes an albatross around the neck of the Republicans... Yes, they get their solid 40-45% base, but it won't be enough to take the election because Trump has alienated a large part of the electorate.

If Trump is removed, it becomes worse for them. Yes, many Republicans will still line up behind Pence, but between his personal lack of charisma, and the reaction of hardcore Trump supporters who will view Trump's removal as a betrayal. (They may not switch to the Democrats, but they may just sit at home on election day.) Plus, Trump has linked himself to the Republican party (with some primaries being cancelled, and joint fundraising). It will be a mess to undo that.

The Republicans had better hope for even stronger voter suppression, and/or help from Mother Russia, or some hail-mary October surprise.