Trump and impeachment

[GP270watch]

 We have a President whose defenders are arguing is somehow absolved because government officials refused to follow his orders, orders they deemed to be illegal or unstable. Please think about that.

 There are certain orders that government officials are not in a position to refuse from a President: military strikes and nuclear strikes being the most catastrophic.
 
 Do you really want President "crazy sh**t" to continue to sit in office. Impeach this clown already, who cares what the political consequences are. Democrats keep making miscalculations trying to play chess when this guy is playing with poop.

[pbrower2a]

Republican Senators elected or re-elected in 2016 and not up for re-election until 2022 will support this President, and that will be enough to make removal practically impossible. Several of those know that they would not have won election except with the Russian aid to Trump in the general election.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Republican Senators elected or re-elected in 2016 and not up for re-election until 2022 will support this President, and that will be enough to make removal practically impossible. Several of those know that they would not have won election except with the Russian aid to Trump in the general election.

That's why Toomey (will lose to Connor Lamb) isn't gonna get reelected, and Johnson, is retiring, anyways. Those two seats are secure for the Dems.

[Lincoln Republican]

Obviously, Mitt Romney is the only Republican lawmaker with any guts.

All other Republican lawmakers are cowing in their offices, afraid to speak up about the countless abuses of power made by Trump.

[LBJer]

I voted yes.  Since at least Michael Dukakis in 1988, Democrats have repeatedly adopted a self-censoring, "play nice" approach that has never worked, and I'm sick of it.  I find the argument that they shouldn't impeach because they need to concentrate on 2020 to be ridiculous.  There's no guarantee they'll win in 2020 even if they DON'T impeach!  And if that's what happens, they will have completely failed to stand up to Donald Trump and hold him accountable in any way.

And it's not at all clear that impeachment will make the Democrats more likely to lose the 2020 election.  The argument is that impeachment will anger Trump's base and make them come out in greater numbers.  Well, Trump voters aren't the only ones who can get angry.  If there's no impeachment, many Democrats and even some Independents will view the Democratic congressional leadership as not only a bunch of cowards who ignored their role specified by the Constitution for selfish political reasons, but also as accessories after the fact to Trump's crimes.  Many of these people (not me) may well stay home on Election Day 2020 as a result. 

And to be frank, I myself find Nancy Pelosi in particular to be an out-and-out coward where this issue is concerned.  Impeachment would be too "divisive"?!  Come on!!!  It certainly wouldn't be any more divisive that Trump himself is!  Lincoln was divisive.  FDR was divisive.  LBJ was divisive in pushing for civil rights.  That doesn't mean these men weren't also in the right.

And even from a purely constitutional standpoint, the fact that the Founding Fathers allocated different roles in the impeachment process to the two branches of Congress (the House to impeach, of course, and the Senate to vote on conviction) suggests that they didn't think the two branches should feel obligated to be in lockstep.  After all, they could have assigned both tasks to one or both houses of Congress.  And it seems to me that they definitely didn't intend for the House to effectively subordinate itself to the Senate, impeaching only if the Senate will convict.

[pbrower2a]

At the least the President needs to be put on notice.

Bad as the state of mental health was with Ronald Reagan with his Alzheimer's disease, at least he was able to act with a semblance of principle, and he had good people around him whom he could trust. Donald Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men. There is no George Shultz or Casper Weinberger to say no to him. Unlike Reagan, who could at least follow a script and seem normal, Trump is utterly uncoachable. We are in the worst Constitutional Crisis since the Civil War.

If our Republican politicians cannot see the danger of a President even whose legitimacy of election  is suspect who is so out of touch with reality that he must be impeached, then we need incapacity to remove him.  I certainly want the nuclear football out of his hands.

Legitimacy? It is hard to estimate how much help came from Russian intelligence services and how much was necessary for the difference between a Trump and a Clinton victory. There were severe and extensive violations of campaign finance laws whose effect may have been in excess of 1% in the electoral result for President.

Because of the nature of the Presidential election, Mike Pence is also tainted.

It may be up to elected Republicans in the Senate to show whether they will enable the worst behavior of a President. Donald Trump is a fighter; he does not concede in the face of defeat of any kind. In this he is far more dangerous than Richard Nixon was. Nixon had the capacity for shame -- something completely lacking in Trump. 

 

[The Mikado]

And it's not at all clear that impeachment will make the Democrats more likely to lose the 2020 election.  The argument is that impeachment will anger Trump's base and make them come out in greater numbers. 

That's not the argument and never has been. The argument is that Trump's eventual Senate acquittal will be massively demoralizing to Democratic voters, not so much anything about Trump's voters.

[pbrower2a]

If Democrats press impeachment in the House, and get it, we can be certain that the Senate majority will quash a conviction or removal. Most Republican Senators have connected to the Trump personality and agenda on regulation and taxes. The hazard to the Senate is that 2014 winners get connected with Trump foibles for defending a terribly-flawed President who can at the most charitable be considered a dupe of political forces that he does not fully understand.

Democrats have the House back, and dare not risk that. The second task is to replace Donald Trump, and if they oust him we end up with Mike Pence, a believer in absolute plutocracy with the worthless promises of fundamentalist Christianity as a reward for toil done in suffering bur with forced smiles. So we replace one amoral sexist pig who believes in class privilege as the dream for all with a moralizing sexist pig who believes in class privilege as the dream for all.

The third task is to get the Senate back, and you can expect the plutocrats who fully controlled American politics in the first two years of the ultra-plutocratic Trump administration to seek even more crushing control of American politics.  They have what counts in American politics most of the time -- campaign funds and support of corporate lobbyists who pull the strings on 'conservative' politicians.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The third task is to get the Senate back, and you can expect the plutocrats who fully controlled American politics in the first two years of the ultra-plutocratic Trump administration to seek even more crushing control of American politics.  They have what counts in American politics most of the time -- campaign funds and support of corporate lobbyists who pull the strings on 'conservative' politicians.

The moderates: Ernst, SMC and Collins and Murkowski aren't moderates since Murkowski voted for Gorsuch and Collins voted for Kavanaugh.  They, along with Mitt Romney voted to block Trump's emergency declaration.

Aside from Romney, no one will remove Trump. Plus, Elaine Chao, McConnell's wife is working withing Transportation, and knows if Trump is removed, risk his pension

[Frodo]

We should absolutely go ahead with it.  It doesn't matter that no crime was (technically) committed.  To use then-Congressman's Lindsay Graham's words in 1999, the object of impeachment is to restore honor and integrity to the office of the Presidency when the occupant has proven himself unworthy of the office.  You don't have to wait for an election.  And even if the Senate fails to convict, at least put Republicans on record for posterity to know that they supported a President obstructing an investigation and attempting to thwart the rule of law.         

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The third task is to get the Senate back, and you can expect the plutocrats who fully controlled American politics in the first two years of the ultra-plutocratic Trump administration to seek even more crushing control of American politics.  They have what counts in American politics most of the time -- campaign funds and support of corporate lobbyists who pull the strings on 'conservative' politicians.

The moderates: Ernst, SMC and Collins and Murkowski aren't moderates since Murkowski voted for Gorsuch and Collins voted for Kavanaugh.  They, along with Mitt Romney voted to block Trump's emergency declaration.

Aside from Romney, no one will remove Trump. Plus, Elaine Chao, McConnell's wife is working withing Transportation, and knows if Trump is removed, risk his pension

And whatever benefit he may gain from Russian oligarchs investing in Kentucky.

[Koharu]

These tweets sum up my responses to some of the reasoning espoused in this thread.

https://twitter.com/WesternLantern/status/1119729116553498624

https://twitter.com/JasminMuj/status/1119736478580527104

https://twitter.com/RepAlGreen/status/1119666294058627078

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The ethics of Trumps have given the Dems an electoral strategy, if Sanders, who probably will be thr nominee, wants to prosecute, Trump Jr, after election, let him do it. Otherwise, it will be like 2016, Clinton loses the election, but no jail time

[pbrower2a]

The third task is to get the Senate back, and you can expect the plutocrats who fully controlled American politics in the first two years of the ultra-plutocratic Trump administration to seek even more crushing control of American politics.  They have what counts in American politics most of the time -- campaign funds and support of corporate lobbyists who pull the strings on 'conservative' politicians.

The moderates: Ernst, SMC and Collins and Murkowski aren't moderates since Murkowski voted for Gorsuch and Collins voted for Kavanaugh.  They, along with Mitt Romney voted to block Trump's emergency declaration.

Aside from Romney, no one will remove Trump. Plus, Elaine Chao, McConnell's wife is working withing Transportation, and knows if Trump is removed, risk his pension

And whatever benefit he may gain from Russian oligarchs investing in Kentucky.

Those oligarchs are investing in real estate in New York City and San Francisco -- not Detroit or St. Louis.

[HisGrace]

One thing that should be noted here is that even though Clinton's approvals went up during the impeachment proceedings the Republicans still won two years later because it became the voters overwhelmingly wanted an "honest and trustworthy" candidate more than anything else and Bush was perceived as more honest than Gore.

Impeachment proceedings against Trump would get massive ratings and just get even more exposure to the real contents of the report (i.e, not whatever it was Barr was writing about a few weeks ago). That can't be good for him politically. 

So in other words, I don't really know what they should do. I still think they should move slowly on it and not rush into anything, which they appear to be doing. Mueller testifying in public and getting Congress access to the underacted report would be good moves to make now.

[Progressive Pessimist]

One thing that should be noted here is that even though Clinton's approvals went up during the impeachment proceedings the Republicans still won two years later because it became the voters overwhelmingly wanted an "honest and trustworthy" candidate more than anything else and Bush was perceived as more honest than Gore.

Impeachment proceedings against Trump would get massive ratings and just get even more exposure to the real contents of the report (i.e, not whatever it was Barr was writing about a few weeks ago). That can't be good for him politically. 

So in other words, I don't really know what they should do. I still think they should move slowly on it and not rush into anything, which they appear to be doing. Mueller testifying in public and getting Congress access to the underacted report would be good moves to make now.

I 100% agree with this. And, so far, Pelosi and House Leadership seem to know what they're doing. At the barest minimum, the investigations should, and will, continue.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump Jr, is the most vulnerable of the family than any of the Trumps.  He would have gotten pardoned, anyways.  It's best for the Dems to wait until they have the Oval Office and prosecute Trump Jr.

Trump Jr had direct contacts with the Russians

[LBJer]

One thing that should be noted here is that even though Clinton's approvals went up during the impeachment proceedings the Republicans still won two years later because it became the voters overwhelmingly wanted an "honest and trustworthy" candidate more than anything else and Bush was perceived as more honest than Gore.

"Overwhelmingly"?  Bush actually lost the popular vote (and may have lost the Florida vote as well). 

But I agree with you that just noting that the Republicans lost seats in the House in 1998 is far from the whole story when analyzing the impact the impeachment had (or didn't have) on their fortunes. 

[HisGrace]

One thing that should be noted here is that even though Clinton's approvals went up during the impeachment proceedings the Republicans still won two years later because it became the voters overwhelmingly wanted an "honest and trustworthy" candidate more than anything else and Bush was perceived as more honest than Gore.

"Overwhelmingly"?  Bush actually lost the popular vote (and may have lost the Florida vote as well). 

But I agree with you that just noting that the Republicans lost seats in the House in 1998 is far from the whole story when analyzing the impact the impeachment had (or didn't have) on their fortunes. 

I was referring to polls before the election. Between choices of things like "strong leader" and "cares about people like me" being honest was the thing most voters were concerned about going into 2000 by a big margin.

[Koharu]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-report-demands-impeachment-inquiry

The problem is that impeachment isn’t a purely political matter—though certainly it is political in part. It’s a constitutional expression of the separation of powers, of Congress’s ability to check a chief executive overrunning the bounds of his power. It’s also, under the OLC memo, the only release valve in the constitutional structure for the urgent and mounting pressure of an executive who may have committed serious wrongdoing. To say that the appropriate course is to simply wait for the next presidential election in 18 months, is to offer a judgment that—even in light of his conduct as described by Mueller—Trump is not truly unfit for the office. It is to say he is no different from, say, Vice President Mike Pence, who would take his place, or any other Republican for that matter. It is to say that what matters is winning elections, even if it risks further institutional harms.

Emphasis mine, obvs.

[Slander and/or Libel]

One thing that should be noted here is that even though Clinton's approvals went up during the impeachment proceedings the Republicans still won two years later because it became the voters overwhelmingly wanted an "honest and trustworthy" candidate more than anything else and Bush was perceived as more honest than Gore.

Impeachment proceedings against Trump would get massive ratings and just get even more exposure to the real contents of the report (i.e, not whatever it was Barr was writing about a few weeks ago). That can't be good for him politically. 

So in other words, I don't really know what they should do. I still think they should move slowly on it and not rush into anything, which they appear to be doing. Mueller testifying in public and getting Congress access to the underacted report would be good moves to make now.

I agree with this. I used to be of the opinion that it would be a waste of time if they weren't certain to convict in the Senate, but the report has changed my mind. Even just thinking about it politically, I don't think it's entirely clear what will happen, though people (myself, not long ago, included) seem certain. Here's the possibilities:

1a) Impeachment happens, a trial and acquittal happens in the Senate. The Republican base gets hopped up and turns out in droves for 2020.

1b) Impeachment happens, a trial and acquittal happens in the Senate. The Democratic base gets depressed and stays home in 2020.

2) Democrats in the House don't even try impeachment, and the Democratic base wonders what they even turn out to vote for and stays home in 2020.

I'm starting to see 2 as much more likely than 1a and/or 1b. People know conviction is unlikely, but the report makes it crystal clear that Trump committed obstruction, and if he can't be impeached on evidence as strong as that contained in even just the unredacted report, then impeachment means nothing from here on out.

[LBJer]

These tweets sum up my responses to some of the reasoning espoused in this thread.

https://twitter.com/WesternLantern/status/1119729116553498624

https://twitter.com/JasminMuj/status/1119736478580527104

https://twitter.com/RepAlGreen/status/1119666294058627078

Indeed.  There has to be an element of danger/uncertainty in an act for the person doing it to be considered a "hero/heroine" at all.  If you do something good, but there was no possibility of serious negative consequences and/or catastrophic failure as a result, then your conduct, while praiseworthy, can hardly be called "heroic" either.  If there was no danger in protecting Jews during the Holocaust, Yad Vashem would not award people who did it the title of "Righteous Among the Nations."  If someone appears dead and you manage to resuscitate them, you'll be considered heroic.  If they're conscious and say, "Get me that medicine over there, I'll die if I don't have it," then while giving it to them is obviously the right thing to do, you won't be considered heroic for doing it either.

[Sir Mohamed]

The most prudent thing to do would be to start impeachment proceedings and let the chips fall. That’s what the report recommends. Basically, that he should be impeached for obstructing the investigation and continue to have claims of conspiracy, espionage, and corruption either handled by Congress or in civil court.

This.

The problem is any impeachment won't go anywhere with this GOP senate and will give him new ammunation to play to the victim of any angry left and the so called Deep State. And it will further divide the country. The best way to get rid of the orange clown is on 11/03/20.

[Koharu]

The most prudent thing to do would be to start impeachment proceedings and let the chips fall. That’s what the report recommends. Basically, that he should be impeached for obstructing the investigation and continue to have claims of conspiracy, espionage, and corruption either handled by Congress or in civil court.

This.

The problem is any impeachment won't go anywhere with this GOP senate and will give him new ammunation to play to the victim of any angry left and the so called Deep State. And it will further divide the country. The best way to get rid of the orange clown is on 11/03/20.

That may be the only way well get rid of Trump, but what does it say about crime and corruption in our leaders if we do not hold him accountable? Without impeachment, the take-away for politicians is that you can get away with pretty much anything as long as your party is in power. With that, we will have achieved what the Framers feared the most and what Washington specifically warned against: despotism masquerading as democracy.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The most prudent thing to do would be to start impeachment proceedings and let the chips fall. That’s what the report recommends. Basically, that he should be impeached for obstructing the investigation and continue to have claims of conspiracy, espionage, and corruption either handled by Congress or in civil court.

This.

The problem is any impeachment won't go anywhere with this GOP senate and will give him new ammunation to play to the victim of any angry left and the so called Deep State. And it will further divide the country. The best way to get rid of the orange clown is
 on 11/03/20.

That may be the only way well get rid of Trump, but what does it say about crime and corruption in our leaders if we do not hold him accountable? Without impeachment, the take-away for politicians is that you can get away with pretty much anything as long as your party is in power. With that, we will have achieved what the Framers feared the most and what Washington specifically warned against: despotism masquerading as democracy.

I think he needs to be impeached, if only to force the Republicans to publicly take a stand and demonstrate that the Democrats are willing to take a stand themselves.

It may turn out to be a poor tactical move, but if the Democrats allow Republicans to continually shape the conflict, they (and American democracy and freedom) will lose in the long run.

Impeaching Trump will force the Republicans to stand with the rule of the law and the Constitution or against it. And when they do vote in favor of dictatorship, we - the citizens of the United States - need to make sure that they are held to account for it, because the ratings-hungry mass media never will.