The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Impeachment
Elki
get busyModerator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
get busyModerator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
You should know upfront this is not going to be a recurring thread.
Here you can talk about impeachment both historically and, more importantly, specifically regarding Trump as a lot of people want to.
Impeachment - As we always say, a political process so can be whatever you want it to be about, and no criminal conviction is necessary. But here's an incomplete list of some of what people consider high crimes Trump should be impeached for:
And people oppose impeachment for various reasons:
And remember to not be an asshole.
Here you can talk about impeachment both historically and, more importantly, specifically regarding Trump as a lot of people want to.
Impeachment - As we always say, a political process so can be whatever you want it to be about, and no criminal conviction is necessary. But here's an incomplete list of some of what people consider high crimes Trump should be impeached for:
- Obstruction of Justice
- Collusion with Russia
- Bribery/Emoluments clause violations/Corruption
- Crimes against humanity
And people oppose impeachment for various reasons:
- They don't believe he did those crimes
- They don't believe there's enough evidence he did those crimes
- They believe he did the crimes and there's enough evidence, but it'll be an unsuccessful effort and a politically damaging one.
- They don’t believe the crime is significant enough to warrant removal.
And remember to not be an asshole.
Elki on
+14
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
https://www.amazon.com/Impeachment-American-History-Jon-Meacham/dp/1984853783
What does impeaching him then having him not removed do to slow that?
Making that a bullet.
Its more what does not impeaching an obvious criminal do for the future. We're establishing a precedent for actively ruling out impeachment in the face of serious crimes.
Make congress do its job
Trump also seems to benefit in this way from the sheer volume of crimes. I can't even recall the specific offense, but I recall seeing a tweet with a pic of him shilling one of his brands from the Oval Office with the associated text "I know it's just one more thing, but this is illegal".
We already have years of precedent for not prosecuting this or that thing, which makes it harder, culturally and politically, to justify pursuing any one specific charge.
That's one of the larger obstacles - convincing a class of people who are very much disinterested in starting the precedent of holding the rich and powerful to something like the same criminal laws the rest of us are prosecuted under that the consequences of not doing so will be worse for their political aspirations.
But in reality these are separate things. If the House votes to impeach, the President is impeached; this begins a proceeding in the Senate. The impeachment action has succeeded in doing the only thing it ever does--forcing the Senate to put the president on trial.
Putting Trump on trial for his crimes (what impeachment actually is) is not the same thing as removing him from office (what people use the word impeachment colloquially to mean). Putting Trump on trial for his crimes sounds not only warranted by the circumstances but politically advantageous as well, because it means a big, long, public airing of all the sordid details of Trump's scandals--almost certainly followed at the end by Republican Senators standing firm beside Trump in the face of those sordid details, which Democrats can then hang around their necks.
You impeach Trump because the trial forces the media to keep the conversation during that trial about Trump's corruption and criminality, and you use that to help you in the run up to 2020.
There are other reasons to do it--Congress should fulfill its function to the best of its ability, Republicans should have to go on record with their votes protecting Trump, the trial alone is a political deterrent to future criminal presidents--but in terms of what kind of political impact a Senate trial would have, I think it would be very positive in terms of guiding the media coverage, cluing in some of the voters who haven't been paying attention (we need those people to pay attention and this is the loudest thing we can do), and galvanizing the many Democratic voters who gave Dems the House precisely so that they could exercise oversight.
Additionally, as I understand it the decision to impeach Nixon actually had an impact on the public perception of the scandal in terms of making it seem more serious and founded. I dunno if we'd still get that same impact today, but it's worth considering.
Or that the most recent example of such involved giving the affected president a large boost. Which they'd like to, you know, avoid.
It's possible the reaction would to closer Nixon than Clinton but the risk is very real.
that precedent was set with Iran/Contra
everyone reacted to the Russia stuff like it was Watergate, but I think it's clear now that Watergate was the exception; Iran/Contra was the model for this event
I don't know that there's any basis for impeachment being a political liability for the prosecuting party.
I guess there's a nuance in "Clinton should have been impeached but the Republicans were hypocrites in doing so" and "Trump should be impeached and the Democrats are hypocrites for not doing so", but I'm not confident that would counteract the effect you predicted tbh.
I do think the accurate perception that Democratic leadership would be dragged into this reluctantly would be substantial
republicans impeached bill clinton essentially for getting a blowjob and then being embarrassed about it, and what happened was that they lost like five seats, which wasn't enough for them to lose the house
And you can probably put that more on a general dissatisfaction among voters with how the Republicans behaved in office than the impeachment specifically.
It can be. I think you could argue that it ended Newt Gingrich’s career, so that would be one basis.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I think being perceived by the general public as shutting down the government out of personal spite did that.
Also losing 5 seats in the second midterm is pretty bad. It's not end of the world or anything but it's significant because that number should have been plus seats in normal conditions. It was down 13 from the previous swing (Regan) for example.
Fox News has definitely done its job, hooo boy
IIRC the Washington Post was the one that killed Iran-Contra, more than anyone else. Wheeeeeeeeee
Every bit of energy saved on not impeaching him is hopefully being saved for 2020 and the fight to bounce him out of Washington.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
Impeachment isn't a separate issue from 2020. Nothing much is actually going to pass through Congress, so start impeachment proceedings while the Primary candidates make policy arguments.
Why wouldn't he be impeached? McConnell has nothing to do with impeachment, only conviction
Yeah, it's a constitutional duty and blah blah blah but the constitution is frequently stupid and impeachment is a perfect example of that. Expecting Congress to check the Presidency like this assumes things about political parties and their bases that are just simply wrong. And that's basically what any attempt at impeachment is gonna run in to.
So unless you've got the super majorities you need to do it in a partisan manner, it's a fool's errand.
"Doesn't this just mean the President is practically above the law?" Yes. Yes it does. That's the consequence of how the system was designed.
I think impeachment might play out differently today because of the underlying crime. Or other reasons. I honestly haven’t given it much thought.
But the dates don’t really connect Gingrich’s leaving to the shutdown as much as they do impeachment.
The government shutdown happened in 1995.
During it, Clinton started his affair.
Impeachment passed the House December of 1998 and Clinton was acquitted in February 1999.
Gingrich resigned in January, shortly before the acquittal, but after the disappointment of the 1998 election.
(DEVIL'S ADVOCATE WARNING)
Because the media will fucking hate you for it and draw ridiculous false equivalencies.
Media, aside from already hostile sources, ate up the Mueller stuff, even the most bullshit rumors.
Theyre biased towards ratings.
It's like the Mr Bruns "too many diseases trying to get through the door" thing; all the crimes are causing a terrible equalization wherein nothing sticks since there's so fucking many of them
Also, You do not ask a question in trial you don't already know the answer to. So you let the investigations complete
The two are synonymous in people's minds. Bill Clinton was impeached but barely anyone talks about that other than an academic standpoint because he wasn't removed from office.
If Donald gets out the other side of the impeachment process and he's still in office then that means he wasn't impeached. That's the start and the end for a ton of people.
Focusing on it in any distinct way would be a terrible waste of time and messaging.
Depends on your messaging. Start with acknowledging the GOP won't convict their man. Tell the public you're doing it because its the right thing, regardless of how the Republicans don't care about law and order, and then spend months detailing all his crimes on prime time news while the GOP has to stand by their guy.