House Impeachment Inquiry

[tyr_13]

If the only reason not to impeach is this imaginary backlash, then hell yeah, let's go all in.

Clinton was a popular president who was impeached for lying about sex after what really was a multi-year, open-ended witch hunt. Trump is an unpopular president who not only broke the law on several matters concerning his election but is a continuing national security threat. I don't know why people think impeachment would play out the same.

Furthermore (and in addition to the ethical argument that it is the duty to impeach because the crimes are obvious), Trump is not Clinton (queue Trumpist taunting). Trump is a brittle, weak minded, petty narcissist criminal.

His reaction to impeachment hearings are likely to be criminal in and of themselves, and they will certainly be morally abhorrent.

Make all the Trumpist Senators own him and their depraved indifference to their civic duty.

 

[JoeMorgue]

His reaction to impeachment hearings are likely to be criminal in and of themselves, and they will certainly be morally abhorrent.

Make all the Trumpist Senators own him and their depraved indifference to their civic duty.

Great. And then what?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The more Democrats force Republicans to defend Trump, the longer the GOP will be tainted by the Trump legacy.
Going after Trump with all the force of the House and the Courts is a solid long-term political strategy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The 'impeachment is bad' memes are saturating the airwaves.

I don't believe them anymore than I believe Trump when he repeats over and over, Mueller exonerated him.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm saying the potential is there that an Impeachment that doesn't lead to a conviction (which seems to me we're all on-board with happen, nobody seems to be seriously advancing Trump being removed from office as a possibility to even be worth considering) is going to give Trump/the GOP a much stronger "We're clean" narrative then going into 2020 then not.

If we impeach Trump now the narrative he will sell to his followers and a lot of the margin sitters is "Well that proves I didn't do anything wrong; even after a full on Impeachment they couldn't make anything stick to me."

We leave Trump alone (in a legal sense) for now, our odds of beating him in 2020 are about 50/50 if things stay on the path they are now. We impeach him, those odds drop to 1 in 10, tops and we'll have a solid year of Trump and GOP in a "We have to get back at the Dems" mood.

Again I hope I'm wrong about this. I really do. I just don't think I am.

And just so this doesn't come across as paranoia I'm pulling out of my ass, public support for impeachment is not high and isn't getting any higher. Even after the most recent Mueller hearings only 48 percent of self identified Dems and 3 percent of self identified Republicans support impeaching Trump. And both Republicans and Dems are united in that the Mueller hearings didn't change their mind in any real numbers.

That's not exactly overwhelming support for the idea.

You wouldn't even being going into the impeachment with the Democrats all on aboard. Only about half the Dems in Congress support impeachment. I can't imagine I have to explain in too much detail how shaky that make impeachment.

Sure the possibility that the impeachment is what is finally going to get the ball rolling is... very possible. I just think it's naive to pretend it's not risky and idealistic to adopt a "Well we have to do it even if it's self destructive" mentality.

The thing is, in order to convict Trump, there will need to be more evidence. To get that evidence, it seems that the requests for that evidence need to be part of an impeachment inquiry. Without one, the Republicans are just going to keep successfully suppressing the evidence.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Furthermore (and in addition to the ethical argument that it is the duty to impeach because the crimes are obvious), Trump is not Clinton (queue Trumpist taunting). Trump is a brittle, weak minded, petty narcissist criminal.

...whose lawyers successfully argued that he should not be compelled to testify because he would be unable to refrain from perjuring himself.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If Dems have an entire 2nd term of Trump, there is plenty of time to run up all the way to the Supreme Court to force Trump to testify under oath.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Great. And then what?

Well, then, we burn the Party of Trump to the ground. Or just outnumber them at the polls, but you know Trump only plays Winner Take All games. Whatever is left of the Republican Party will have little taste for trumpism, I suspect -- they'll probably try to revive that "conservative movement" thing, like nothing happened.

 

[theprestige]

Heh, only lawyers would spend so much energy on such a technicality. Ultimately, no matter what it is called, the house will either vote to impeach or not impeach or it may drop the matter entirely.

It's gonna be a very important technicality, though. "Do we have enough to impeach?" is a very different question from "shall we now impeach?"

 

[Kestrel]

The more Democrats force Republicans to defend Trump, the longer the GOP will be tainted by the Trump legacy.
Going after Trump with all the force of the House and the Courts is a solid long-term political strategy.

There is however a question of timing. If the House took the fast track and impeached Trump in the next few weeks the Senate would exonerate Trump of all charges even faster. The entire mess would be old news next year when the voters go to the polls.

The slow path may work a lot better. Air most of the dirty laundry next year when it will be fresh in the voters minds as they go to the polls.

 

[The Shrike]

The slow path may work a lot better. Air most of the dirty laundry next year when it will be fresh in the voters minds as they go to the polls.

I go back and forth on the timing, and I can easily agree with you here.

Still, the thing I keep coming back to – perhaps idealistically – is this: if there are grounds for impeachment, i.e., there is legitimate reason to believe that the Executive Branch is in any way compromised, then it is the Constitutional duty of Congress to impeach. Regardless of timing, polling, etc., the Constitution says that if x happens, y needs to follow.

This should be the narrative for House Democrats.

We are in the midst of an extraordinary series of events suggesting that the Executive Branch is compromised by outside influences and that the President has on ___ counts acted in violation of his inaugural oath. . .

We know that impeachment is not popular among the American people, currently polling at ___% for Democrats and ___% overall. We know that even in the face of overwhelming evidence, the Republican-controlled Senate will clear the President of wrongdoing. We know that there is significant risk in pushing for something unpopular that ultimately goes nowhere, and that this will like end many of our political careers, etc. However, we have no choice.

We would love the chance to be debating legislative policy in Congress and fighting for our constituents in our home districts. We would love to be in a situation in which, though we might disagree with the President on specific policy issues we would have no question but that he was acting in good faith on behalf of the American people and in accordance with the Constitution. But 33 indictments and potentially 10 counts of obstruction of justice from the Special Counsel's investigation demand emergency action, and the Constitution is quite clear where our primary focus must be, etc.

If Democrats could for once grow a spine and dictate the narrative, they might be okay regardless of the outcome. Lord only knows what kind of damning information could materialize during impeachment hearings. Remember, it was Bill's lying about his affair that did way more damage than the affair itself.

 

[Tero]

The Bill Clinton impeachment stuck to Hillary years later. It has implications. And the best plan is to impeach right through Nov election. Nixon did not have that burden, he was in his 2nd term. There they waited so long and had so much dirt, mere Watergate hearings was enough.

 

[Mumbles]

If the only reason not to impeach is this imaginary backlash, then hell yeah, let's go all in.

Clinton was a popular president who was impeached for lying about sex after what really was a multi-year, open-ended witch hunt. Trump is an unpopular president who not only broke the law on several matters concerning his election but is a continuing national security threat. I don't know why people think impeachment would play out the same.

Count me in amongst those who don't see any sort of master plan from the guy whose casino business, among many others, went bankrupt, and whose negative attributes are all perfectly obvious to anyone who is honest with themselves.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The thing is, in order to convict Trump, there will need to be more evidence. To get that evidence, it seems that the requests for that evidence need to be part of an impeachment inquiry. Without one, the Republicans are just going to keep successfully suppressing the evidence.

And not just suppressing the evidence, CONTROLLING THE NARRATIVE.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's gonna be a very important technicality, though. "Do we have enough to impeach?" is a very different question from "shall we now impeach?"

I dunno, you tell us, is perjury enough to impeach?

 

[Lurch]

I dunno, you tell us, is perjury enough to impeach?

A Dem? Sure is, yessiree!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I found a couple jewels, I'm sure there are more. It might need a new thread but really it is less cumbersome to just put it here. How did you feel about Clinton's impeachment and is it hypocritical now? Most of these are current, BTW.

Fast Eddie G

Clinton quibbling his way out of an irrelevant question...

Fascinating how a violation of Federal Law can be downplayed.

It showed one thing: that President Clinton's testimony under oath going forward would forever have to be viewed with the knowledge that he might choose to perjure himself whenever he found it suited his needs.

That was an important thing to know about his character.

That irony is friggin' hilarious.

I'm going to do these one at a time lest I lose the post to the post goblins.

Fast Eddie clearly denies supporting Trump, not sure if he's supported Trump's impeachment.

There are a couple more of his posts addressing impeachment for perjury. I'd say he's been consistent. But I'd like to know how FE views impeaching Trump because he might lie under oath in the future to suit his needs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

theprestige

Yup. Clinton, in an investigation of 20 year- old real estate deals may have lied about a consensual affair that occurred 20 years after the purported subject of the investigation. Much different than several of trump's closest associates lying under oath about illegal dealings with an adversarial foreign power that has been shown to have at lest attempted to subvert national sovereignty.

The biggest difference is that it's not the president doing it. Because Clinton was impeached for something he actually did, you want Trump to be impeached for things other people did. How is that rational?

So, is that conclusion different now?

theprestige

"directly or indirectly suspected"

A year in, folks. A year in, and this is the best they have.

Indirectly suspected. Might as well just admit to being addicted to truthiness.

theprestige

Not really. Clinton committed perjury under oath, while serving as president. That was certainly a fit subject for impeachment proceedings. The House of Representatives actually presented a case for impeachment on those grounds to the Senate, and the Senate actually voted on the matter. It was an actual impeachment, attended by no small amount of partisan glee, naturally.

But very different from the current situation, where no clear cause for impeachment has yet been produced. Instead, partisans on the left each week return to their exciting fantasies of The One Thing That Will Disqualify Trump For Sure This Time.

It's been going on for almost two years now--since before the election. Progressive "impeachment porn" is really just a sub-genre of progressive "disqualification porn".

Perhaps you might update us as to your current view?

I have two of my own posts next.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So here is my past POV, like I already said, the circumstances around Clinton's perjury and Trump's are simply not analogous.

SG

What is the purpose of the quote marks?

He did quite clearly lie under oath, no quote marks necessary.

I don't give a rip what you right-wingers think, they entrapped him into lying about cheating on his wife. Give me a *********** break.

Yes, you can fault Clinton for either being a womanizer or being a womanizer that also did some groping and maybe worse. But this perjury thing, what a joke.

Bet you you could find perjury in just about every GOP legislator's divorce hearings. OMG! Perjury!

Tell me, can we find any posts of you being equally adamant that half of Trump's inner circle also lied under oath either on security forms or in their confirmation hearings?

I'll wait.

SG

Says about the same thing, Fast Eddie and I debating the issue of levels of perjury.

Several other right leaners or wingers argued the same point, perjury was serious, but they didn't think in Clinton's case it should have been grounds for impeachment.

 

[Mumbles]

Honestly, I see no need to bring Clinton into this.

Dolt 45 has shown deference to at least one adversarial country (I'd argue multiple ones), who he is entangled with financially. He refuses to relinquish these financial ties, and has advised his staff to lie to law enforcement to aid him in hiding these ties.

That's quite enough, on it's own, for removal from office - along with his staff, and anyone providing "too much" cover, such as one Mitch McConnell (who most recently disgraced himself by stating that he would block any aid to miners suffering with black lung disease in his own state - but that's another matter)

Nothing any democratic president has done in my lifetime comes close. For that matter, GWB did nothing close, either (this covers my memories since the age of ...8?)