I think that if we wait to see what Mueller says, it'll give us a good idea of how impeachment would go. If the public reacts to Mueller clearly laying out the points of his report by turning on Trump, that's a good sign. If they don't give a shit, that's worrisome.
There really doesn't seem any reason to rush this. There's still lots of really basic shit the House Democrats are still trying to get a hold of. Witnesses like Mueller and McGahn. Documents like Trump's financials. The full unredacted report. There is plenty of time to play this out and build the case and see how the public and the press react and see decide based on all that if impeachment is a better or worse idea.
There needs to be a groundswell of Dems who will commit to prosecute Trump after office if he's not impeached. You forgave Bush II so they gave you Trump.
Can't prosecute a sitting president? There's term limits for a reason - and it's not like France hasn't done the same thing.
With the progressive wing sweeping in, and the Trump Administration trying to obstruct more justice - putting him and his cronies on notice seems worthwhile. Every new collaborator a potential witness.
As far as I remember reading, Trump can skip out on some of these charges if he gets reelected because it will have been too long or something like that. Which makes throwing his ass out in 2020 even more important. So you can then throw his ass in jail afterwards.
People keep talking about impeachment as "the morally correct thing to do" as if the method outlined in the constitution was written in stone by god himself, and not just a particular tool outlined in a really old document by some dead guys.
The rule of law is important, but laws aren't the be all, end all of morality, which is why laws change. The constitution is a good backbone for our nation of laws, but it's not infallible, which is why we've changed it 27 times so far. The impeachment process is a good thing insofar as it allows us to achieve justice. Using it is not, in itself, justice. It's just a tool. It's democracy's hammer. Using it to fix our current situation no matter its efficacy is no more a moral good than using a hammer to fix a leaky pipe. Your wife is not going to reward your sterling commitment to justice as you stand, hammer raised proudly, in your rapidly flooding basement.
Trump broke some laws and committed countless acts of unethical behavior. "Justice" involves him realizing legal and/or political consequences for those behaviors. An impeachment process that does not remove him from power and solidifies his support while sweeping him into a second term and losing Dems the House is not "justice". It's not anything.
I agree with the idea that we need to fight, even if failure is likely, or even a given. Sometimes it's the stand itself that's important. But framing our choice as between "impeachment" and "doing nothing" is a silly false dichotomy. We can try to impeach, we can hold further investigations, we can spend 18 months talking about what a criminal fuck Trump is. We can do each of those independently of one another, and decide on each based on its own merits.
We have a moral obligation to combat Trump using every tool that our democracy affords us. Maybe that's impeachment. Maybe it's elections. Probably it's both those, and some other things besides. We should use all those tools. We should not, however, stand around yelling at each other for not properly worshipping a hammer.
The disconnect I think is that there are no other fixes being suggested. It's true that failing to impeach trump, leading to a second term for him is not justice. But neither is talking heads saying what trump did was bad, and then ignoring that fact, and continuing on as normal. Holding hearings where you discuss all the bad stuff, but then don't hold anyone accountable, is also not justice. A democrat winning the office is something I believe would be good for the country, but is also not justice for the crimes committed.
So I have two issues with your point.
One, I don't agree with your dichotomy. Impeachment followed by a failure to convict in the senate is not at all guaranteed to be bad for democrats or their chances in future elections. It is very much possible that even if your primary goal is getting someone not crazy elected in 2020, impeachment might actually be the best way to do that. Hammers are sometimes the exact right tool.
Two, you could argue that you could do more to "fix america" by not impeaching Trump and focusing on winning the next election, but you are very clearly not doing more to fix the issues of corruption and illegal campaigning. By ignoring the injustices you make them defacto legal. Republicans should cheat in every election because if they win democrats wont be able to do anything, and if they lose democrats wont convict from fear of looking partisan. Maybe that doesn't change if you impeach but fail to convict, but at least everyone knows where you stand. You've shown as much light on the issue as possible, have taken every step to enact justice you could, and it's up to voters to decide if what they want is rule of law or partisanship.
By failing to impeach Trump you are making everything he did just as defacto legal. When Trump is found not guilty by the senate, he will have evaded justice just as much as if there were no impeachment at all. That's the long and short of it. Impeachment does not actually change the calculus on this front.
Like, seriously, this needs to be written in stone in everyone's minds: Trump will not be convicted by the Senate. Impeachment will not stop him or bring him to justice. It's just for show.
The only relevant question is if the show is, on the whole, good or bad for Democrats.
There is a difference between failed to convict and not indicted. Ask people if OJ simpson is guilty or not. I mean he was definitely not convicted, but I seriously doubt that fact is really influencing most people's understanding of his guilt. Compare that with people who aren't even indicted. I think that would go a lot further in swaying people's opinion on what the evidence really says.
Sure justice in any real sense is not possible right now because mcconnell and republicans don't care about rules just winning. But you can show the public how guilty he is without a conviction. The same is not true of doing nothing and letting things stand as is.
But nobody is arguing for doing nothing. You can demonstrate Trump's guilt in other ways. The question is whether impeachment is the best way to do that. And any method will be just as effective as impeachment at anything beyond the political show portions of the whole thing (ie - none of it will actually do anything other then that).
This would be *better* political show, because the media would slam us with it for months. They love that sort of high drama. Sure, a committee somewhere could get to the bottom of things just as well, but then it would be 1 column on p2 of the New York Times and 5 minutes on CNN, because committees are boring and not news.
Y’all keep arguing this like we’re Lord Baelish or Tyrion or Varys or whatever. We’re not, and the Dems aren’t either. They look like they’re acting political to the people because they are. Eventually they need to fucking stand for something. This is kind of the breaking point of Democracy. Time to put your cards on the table or go home broke.
What does this even mean?
This is all political. That's all it is and all it will ever be. There is no actually coherent or reality-adjacent argument for impeachment that is not about how it will help politically to win the 2020 election. That's all this is about in the end.
Trying to pretend like it's something else is just lying to yourself about the possible outcomes or meanings here. Nothing else is gonna happen here.
There are ethical absolutes that need to be upheld beyond political expediency. If all your positions are nothing but political calculations then you stand for nothing and I see no reason why anyone should have any faith or trust in you.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I think that if we wait to see what Mueller says, it'll give us a good idea of how impeachment would go. If the public reacts to Mueller clearly laying out the points of his report by turning on Trump, that's a good sign. If they don't give a shit, that's worrisome.
There really doesn't seem any reason to rush this. There's still lots of really basic shit the House Democrats are still trying to get a hold of. Witnesses like Mueller and McGahn. Documents like Trump's financials. The full unredacted report. There is plenty of time to play this out and build the case and see how the public and the press react and see decide based on all that if impeachment is a better or worse idea.
It doesn't feel like there's a lot of time. The narrative needs to be countered and Dems don't have a spokesperson who can stand up - plus there are confounding issues as the primary field is now up to like 19 fuckin people, all of whom would like to be the spokesperson and none of whom are willing to get onto a single message.
Impeachment needs to happen before primary season, all this becomes grist for the election mill by next January. There's basically only 6 months to do this, tops.
Y’all keep arguing this like we’re Lord Baelish or Tyrion or Varys or whatever. We’re not, and the Dems aren’t either. They look like they’re acting political to the people because they are. Eventually they need to fucking stand for something. This is kind of the breaking point of Democracy. Time to put your cards on the table or go home broke.
What does this even mean?
This is all political. That's all it is and all it will ever be. There is no actually coherent or reality-adjacent argument for impeachment that is not about how it will help politically to win the 2020 election. That's all this is about in the end.
Trying to pretend like it's something else is just lying to yourself about the possible outcomes or meanings here. Nothing else is gonna happen here.
There are ethical absolutes that need to be upheld beyond political expediency. If all your positions are nothing but political calculations then you stand for nothing and I see no reason why anyone should have any faith or trust in you.
Moral victories don't mean shit. Being right doesn't mean shit. You need to win to enact your agenda. "It's the moral thing to do" (arguable in and of itself) is as meaningful as Clinton winning the popular vote.
Whether you impeach or not is not a question of having political positions or not, it's a question of how to get into a place to do something about those positions. Of whether impeachment helps you to get into power so you can actually accomplish something.
I think that if we wait to see what Mueller says, it'll give us a good idea of how impeachment would go. If the public reacts to Mueller clearly laying out the points of his report by turning on Trump, that's a good sign. If they don't give a shit, that's worrisome.
There really doesn't seem any reason to rush this. There's still lots of really basic shit the House Democrats are still trying to get a hold of. Witnesses like Mueller and McGahn. Documents like Trump's financials. The full unredacted report. There is plenty of time to play this out and build the case and see how the public and the press react and see decide based on all that if impeachment is a better or worse idea.
Rush this?
We’ve known Trump has committed impeachable offenses numerous times before the Mueller report ever came out. Then we were told, “Wait for the report! The report will decide if he has done something impeachable!” and I went, okay.
Then the report came out and clearly showed that Trump needed impeaching, like, yesterday. And now I hear, “But let’s wait for McGahn!” and I’m less than lukewarm on it. After McGahn will Democrats be in an impeachment mood? Will something McGahn says be the final straw? Or is this just one more thing to wait for while the republic suffers, and then the call will be, “We must wait until X happens” or “Can’t impeach until Y’s testimony”?
I’ve heard over and over on this forum that we can do more than one thing, and in this case we should.
I think that if we wait to see what Mueller says, it'll give us a good idea of how impeachment would go. If the public reacts to Mueller clearly laying out the points of his report by turning on Trump, that's a good sign. If they don't give a shit, that's worrisome.
There really doesn't seem any reason to rush this. There's still lots of really basic shit the House Democrats are still trying to get a hold of. Witnesses like Mueller and McGahn. Documents like Trump's financials. The full unredacted report. There is plenty of time to play this out and build the case and see how the public and the press react and see decide based on all that if impeachment is a better or worse idea.
Rush this?
We’ve known Trump has committed impeachable offenses numerous times before the Mueller report ever came out. Then we were told, “Wait for the report! The report will decide if he has done something impeachable!” and I went, okay.
Then the report came out and clearly showed that Trump needed impeaching, like, yesterday. And now I hear, “But let’s wait for McGahn!” and I’m less than lukewarm on it. After McGahn will Democrats be in an impeachment mood? Will something McGahn says be the final straw? Or is this just one more thing to wait for while the republic suffers, and then the call will be, “We must wait until X happens” or “Can’t impeach until Y’s testimony”?
I’ve heard over and over on this forum that we can do more than one thing, and in this case we should.
The Democrats have been in control of oversight for like only 4 months now dude. And have been working on subpoenaing shit and holding hearings the whole time. This shit is not instant and they've been working at it. I'm not sure what you are on about here. They've been working at this stuff this whole time.
There's another 18 months till the election and as everyone in here was arguing when Hoyer said there was no time, that's plenty of time. Like, they haven't even questioned Mueller yet. Nothing needs to be decided right now. Impeachment should be kept on the table but it doesn't need to be started tomorrow.
There needs to be a groundswell of Dems who will commit to prosecute Trump after office if he's not impeached. You forgave Bush II so they gave you Trump.
Can't prosecute a sitting president? There's term limits for a reason - and it's not like France hasn't done the same thing.
With the progressive wing sweeping in, and the Trump Administration trying to obstruct more justice - putting him and his cronies on notice seems worthwhile. Every new collaborator a potential witness.
As far as I remember reading, Trump can skip out on some of these charges if he gets reelected because it will have been too long or something like that. Which makes throwing his ass out in 2020 even more important. So you can then throw his ass in jail afterwards.
Statute of limitations should pause whilst you're unindictable. He's not the first candidate I've heard (France again, and maybe even Sarcozy again) who's run because getting President means you can't be charged.
Surely that's hard to vote against? Clock pauses whilst you hold public office, and it shouldn't be that hard to impeach dogcatcher Trump. Largely because he's not going to do anything.
there's a nonzero chance that the kavanaugh fight cost the dems electorally
show of hands who would have liked to see a unanimous vote for him, because really he was always gonna get through and maybe people end up liking him as a judge, especially when you don't make him lie to congress about the sexual assault he did
Let's reframe that question a bit.
What if Kavanaugh would have been voted down in the Senate if we hadn't held the hearings? (I don't think this would've happened, obviously.) What's more important - following process, or securing the favorable outcome?
I think it's actually a decent analogy, because in both cases, there is pretty much zero chance of actually getting the thing you really want (Trump impeached in one case, Kavanaugh behind bars in the other).
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Trump is 72 years old. If he gets another 4 years he's leaving office in his late '70s. He can fight any criminal charges until he's decrepit enough to inspire pity in the judge, so he gets to never go to jail.
Trump is 72 years old. If he gets another 4 years he's leaving office in his late '70s. He can fight any criminal charges until he's decrepit enough to inspire pity in the judge, so he gets to never go to jail.
Or dies in jail, bail refused, always a silver lining...
Y’all keep arguing this like we’re Lord Baelish or Tyrion or Varys or whatever. We’re not, and the Dems aren’t either. They look like they’re acting political to the people because they are. Eventually they need to fucking stand for something. This is kind of the breaking point of Democracy. Time to put your cards on the table or go home broke.
What does this even mean?
This is all political. That's all it is and all it will ever be. There is no actually coherent or reality-adjacent argument for impeachment that is not about how it will help politically to win the 2020 election. That's all this is about in the end.
Trying to pretend like it's something else is just lying to yourself about the possible outcomes or meanings here. Nothing else is gonna happen here.
It means that there is no apparent leadership on the appropriate response to the president's malfeasance and that the opposition is groping around trying to come to an agreement as to what they will do if anything about it. People elect representatives to act as leaders. Right now the supposed leaders are acting more like marketers checking their focus groups and pollsters as to what they should do next. Without leadership on the matter, I don't see and I think history backs me up that all that much will end up happening beyond further consolidation of the Republican power.
+1
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I do think there's something of a time limit, because I think we need to paint any action as a reaction to the Mueller report, rather than "oh hey, it's the Russia stuff again."
And tactically, I think getting this out of the way sooner rather than later is advantageous. If the public reacts negatively towards Trump, that gives the issue teeth as part of the campaign against Trump in 2020. And if there's a rallying effect, we can refocus the message on more meat and potatoes issues.
I don't think we need to start proceedings, like, next week, but I also think it hurts our chances if we hold out for another six months before we do anything concrete.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I do think there's something of a time limit, because I think we need to paint any action as a reaction to the Mueller report, rather than "oh hey, it's the Russia stuff again."
And tactically, I think getting this out of the way sooner rather than later is advantageous. If the public reacts negatively towards Trump, that gives the issue teeth as part of the campaign against Trump in 2020. And if there's a rallying effect, we can refocus the message on more meat and potatoes issues.
I don't think we need to start proceedings, like, next week, but I also think it hurts our chances if we hold out for another six months before we do anything concrete.
I think getting Mueller in front of a committee, along with a few other major players, qualifies as something concrete though. There's still plenty of avenues for keeping this a big story.
Y’all keep arguing this like we’re Lord Baelish or Tyrion or Varys or whatever. We’re not, and the Dems aren’t either. They look like they’re acting political to the people because they are. Eventually they need to fucking stand for something. This is kind of the breaking point of Democracy. Time to put your cards on the table or go home broke.
What does this even mean?
This is all political. That's all it is and all it will ever be. There is no actually coherent or reality-adjacent argument for impeachment that is not about how it will help politically to win the 2020 election. That's all this is about in the end.
Trying to pretend like it's something else is just lying to yourself about the possible outcomes or meanings here. Nothing else is gonna happen here.
It means that there is no apparent leadership on the appropriate response to the president's malfeasance and that the opposition is groping around trying to come to an agreement as to what they will do if anything about it. People elect representatives to act as leaders. Right now the supposed leaders are acting more like marketers checking their focus groups and pollsters as to what they should do next. Without leadership on the matter, I don't see and I think history backs me up that all that much will end up happening beyond further consolidation of the Republican power.
But they are doing stuff about it. Right now. There's even an overall plan at work here.
The only place there isn't a defined plan on is whether or not they should impeach Trump. And that's neither the only question or action at hand, nor something that needs to be decided on immediately.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Y’all keep arguing this like we’re Lord Baelish or Tyrion or Varys or whatever. We’re not, and the Dems aren’t either. They look like they’re acting political to the people because they are. Eventually they need to fucking stand for something. This is kind of the breaking point of Democracy. Time to put your cards on the table or go home broke.
What does this even mean?
This is all political. That's all it is and all it will ever be. There is no actually coherent or reality-adjacent argument for impeachment that is not about how it will help politically to win the 2020 election. That's all this is about in the end.
Trying to pretend like it's something else is just lying to yourself about the possible outcomes or meanings here. Nothing else is gonna happen here.
There are ethical absolutes that need to be upheld beyond political expediency. If all your positions are nothing but political calculations then you stand for nothing and I see no reason why anyone should have any faith or trust in you.
We're literally arguing over which political process to use to send the best message to the people.
The politics are kind of baked in.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+8
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Trump is 72 years old. If he gets another 4 years he's leaving office in his late '70s. He can fight any criminal charges until he's decrepit enough to inspire pity in the judge, so he gets to never go to jail.
Or dies in jail, bail refused, always a silver lining...
They won’t refuse bail, New York has undergone bail reform which is really great, but in this case he’ll walk out because his crimes were stupid but non violent. I don’t see a federal indictment coming, and even then federal guidelines support him getting bail. It’s a non capital case so he’ll likely get bail on that too.
"Political Calculus" and "Morally Right Action" are not mutually exclusive things. In the case of impeachment, the calculus must be done in order to determine if impeachment is a morally right action.
I do think there's something of a time limit, because I think we need to paint any action as a reaction to the Mueller report, rather than "oh hey, it's the Russia stuff again."
And tactically, I think getting this out of the way sooner rather than later is advantageous. If the public reacts negatively towards Trump, that gives the issue teeth as part of the campaign against Trump in 2020. And if there's a rallying effect, we can refocus the message on more meat and potatoes issues.
I don't think we need to start proceedings, like, next week, but I also think it hurts our chances if we hold out for another six months before we do anything concrete.
I think getting Mueller in front of a committee, along with a few other major players, qualifies as something concrete though. There's still plenty of avenues for keeping this a big story.
They are hoping for grey-haired patriarch Mueller to give them permission by saying "Yes, I think Trump should be impeached," but he's not going to do that. So they'll have to make their own decisions.
I do think there's something of a time limit, because I think we need to paint any action as a reaction to the Mueller report, rather than "oh hey, it's the Russia stuff again."
And tactically, I think getting this out of the way sooner rather than later is advantageous. If the public reacts negatively towards Trump, that gives the issue teeth as part of the campaign against Trump in 2020. And if there's a rallying effect, we can refocus the message on more meat and potatoes issues.
I don't think we need to start proceedings, like, next week, but I also think it hurts our chances if we hold out for another six months before we do anything concrete.
I think getting Mueller in front of a committee, along with a few other major players, qualifies as something concrete though. There's still plenty of avenues for keeping this a big story.
They are hoping for grey-haired patriarch Mueller to give them permission by saying "Yes, I think Trump should be impeached," but he's not going to do that. So they'll have to make their own decisions.
No, they are hoping for Mueller to speak directly to what his report says and skip over all the redactions, as well as to help expose the extent of Barr's fuckery. There is really no reason to do much with the report before talking to Mueller.
I do think there's something of a time limit, because I think we need to paint any action as a reaction to the Mueller report, rather than "oh hey, it's the Russia stuff again."
And tactically, I think getting this out of the way sooner rather than later is advantageous. If the public reacts negatively towards Trump, that gives the issue teeth as part of the campaign against Trump in 2020. And if there's a rallying effect, we can refocus the message on more meat and potatoes issues.
I don't think we need to start proceedings, like, next week, but I also think it hurts our chances if we hold out for another six months before we do anything concrete.
I think getting Mueller in front of a committee, along with a few other major players, qualifies as something concrete though. There's still plenty of avenues for keeping this a big story.
They are hoping for grey-haired patriarch Mueller to give them permission by saying "Yes, I think Trump should be impeached," but he's not going to do that. So they'll have to make their own decisions.
The line I've been hearing from Dem reps lately is "We must go where the evidence leads us." To me, this is setting it up for impeachment to follow Mueller's testimony. We know that there will be no smoking gun, it will mostly be Mueller repeating and paraphrasing the report, but for the public, this is going to be Very Much Big Deal On The News, and what Mueller will say clearly points to impeachment.
I do think there's something of a time limit, because I think we need to paint any action as a reaction to the Mueller report, rather than "oh hey, it's the Russia stuff again."
And tactically, I think getting this out of the way sooner rather than later is advantageous. If the public reacts negatively towards Trump, that gives the issue teeth as part of the campaign against Trump in 2020. And if there's a rallying effect, we can refocus the message on more meat and potatoes issues.
I don't think we need to start proceedings, like, next week, but I also think it hurts our chances if we hold out for another six months before we do anything concrete.
I think getting Mueller in front of a committee, along with a few other major players, qualifies as something concrete though. There's still plenty of avenues for keeping this a big story.
They are hoping for grey-haired patriarch Mueller to give them permission by saying "Yes, I think Trump should be impeached," but he's not going to do that. So they'll have to make their own decisions.
The line I've been hearing from Dem reps lately is "We must go where the evidence leads us." To me, this is setting it up for impeachment to follow Mueller's testimony. We know that there will be no smoking gun, it will mostly be Mueller repeating and paraphrasing the report, but for the public, this is going to be Very Much Big Deal On The News, and what Mueller will say clearly points to impeachment.
If this is the case, will Democrats say "Now is the time to impeach" or "We need more evidence, because we are too lily-livered to ever stick out our necks by coming to a conclusion"?
+1
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
I saw someone on MSNBC the other day - I think Joy Reid - pin down some D congressman with, "Do you think Trump committed crimes and deserves to be impeached?" He says, "Yes, of course, but-" and she comes back with, "Then isn't it your constitutional duty to impeach him?"
His response? "I don't think the word 'duty' ever appears in the constitution."
I really wish you hadn't told me this because I am relatively certain that, were it possible to convert the fury burning within me to any form of useful energy, I would shine with the incandescence of a class O star
I cannot fathom being in his position, saying that live on national television, and then somehow not immediately murdering myself out of shame
+2
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I think there are two ways that a Mueller testimony could go. Either he'll say, "Yeah, you guys should impeach," which will make impeachment the logical next step in the public's eye, or he'll say, "This is the evidence, I think it's the duty of the House to make that call," which will make impeachment a reasonable next step.
Either way, the House will have a clear route towards impeachment, which will help their case. We need Mueller to give us a soundbite we can use to hammer home the notion that Trump's grabbing democracy by the pussy is an impeachable offense.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think that if we wait to see what Mueller says, it'll give us a good idea of how impeachment would go. If the public reacts to Mueller clearly laying out the points of his report by turning on Trump, that's a good sign. If they don't give a shit, that's worrisome.
There really doesn't seem any reason to rush this. There's still lots of really basic shit the House Democrats are still trying to get a hold of. Witnesses like Mueller and McGahn. Documents like Trump's financials. The full unredacted report. There is plenty of time to play this out and build the case and see how the public and the press react and see decide based on all that if impeachment is a better or worse idea.
Rush this?
We’ve known Trump has committed impeachable offenses numerous times before the Mueller report ever came out. Then we were told, “Wait for the report! The report will decide if he has done something impeachable!” and I went, okay.
Then the report came out and clearly showed that Trump needed impeaching, like, yesterday. And now I hear, “But let’s wait for McGahn!” and I’m less than lukewarm on it. After McGahn will Democrats be in an impeachment mood? Will something McGahn says be the final straw? Or is this just one more thing to wait for while the republic suffers, and then the call will be, “We must wait until X happens” or “Can’t impeach until Y’s testimony”?
I’ve heard over and over on this forum that we can do more than one thing, and in this case we should.
The Democrats have been in control of oversight for like only 4 months now dude. And have been working on subpoenaing shit and holding hearings the whole time. This shit is not instant and they've been working at it. I'm not sure what you are on about here. They've been working at this stuff this whole time.
There's another 18 months till the election and as everyone in here was arguing when Hoyer said there was no time, that's plenty of time. Like, they haven't even questioned Mueller yet. Nothing needs to be decided right now. Impeachment should be kept on the table but it doesn't need to be started tomorrow.
I think you're wrong here. Given the volume of charges, and the recalcitrance of the Trump Administration to delay the shit out of things, I figure an impeachment from the vote in the House through the vote in the Senate, is gonna be six months (it was 2.5 for Clinton, and there's a LOT more shit to unravel here). And any trial that goes too far into 2020 is going to be seen as partisan even by independents.
That's also not factoring in that January through April 2020 is going to be massively important for a significant portion of the Democratic nominees (Booker, Gillibrand, Gravel, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren), who'll be forced to either stop campaigning, or be painted as not taking their duties of impeachment seriously.
Meaning, if you want to get this done, and not give Trump an easy advantage of believably claiming interference, or almost half the field of real candidates a significant disadvantage having to decide between campaigning of doing their jobs, impeachment probably needs to start in the House before July this year, or it becomes a gift for Trump re-election.
Disclaimer, I want this fucker impeached. I think the argument that Trump and Republicans should be called on this shit is important even if it doesn't result in removal (hell, I think the Republicans covering for him is an easy attack against them). And I don't think the ACT of impeachment will be as indirectly detrimental as others claim (and if it is, then the country is probably irrevocably fucked). But that doesn't mean I think impeachment should be done if it directly kills 2020. And I think an impeachment trial lasting past the end of this year does just that.
So I think the clock IS ticking on this. And there's not a huge window to get it done.
+5
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The moral case for impeachment somewhat depends on the politics, but the politics also depends somewhat on the moral case. One way to get people behind impeachment is to forcefully articulate the case for it being a moral duty.
"Political Calculus" and "Morally Right Action" are not mutually exclusive things. In the case of impeachment, the calculus must be done in order to determine if impeachment is a morally right action.
Yeah, I'd say that Trump and the Republican Party in general are currently dangerous enough that the most important thing is to deny them power in the future, one way or another. I don't want a ton of people to be screwed over just so that we can feel good about "doing the right thing".
I think most people who take a dim view of impeachment don’t really know what it is. Impeachment is not the removal of the president. It is merely a trial to determine whether the president ought to be removed. It all comes back to a messaging failure on the part of Dems.
All this about “we should have more hearings before we decide to impeach”... nah. That’s what impeachment is. About the only exception I can think of is getting Mueller’s testimony first, since so much of the report is redacted it’s entirely possible that an enormous section of it is “CHRIST’S SAKE IMPEACH HIM” repeated 30 times.
Arguing that we can't impeach because an election is coming up is another way of saying that impeachment isn't really a thing that can ever be used.
Maybe this is true. Impeachment might just be a bad law and need to be changed
The law isn’t bad. There has to be a remedy for the situation we currently find ourselves in. The problem is the Senate, and Mitch McConnell, not impeachment.
I think most people who take a dim view of impeachment don’t really know what it is. Impeachment is not the removal of the president. It is merely a trial to determine whether the president ought to be removed. It all comes back to a messaging failure on the part of Dems.
All this about “we should have more hearings before we decide to impeach”... nah. That’s what impeachment is. About the only exception I can think of is getting Mueller’s testimony first, since so much of the report is redacted it’s entirely possible that an enormous section of it is “CHRIST’S SAKE IMPEACH HIM” repeated 30 times.
Mueller is respectful of Republican authority, so if he’s asked about the redacted sections, he will refuse to answer.
I think there are two ways that a Mueller testimony could go. Either he'll say, "Yeah, you guys should impeach," which will make impeachment the logical next step in the public's eye, or he'll say, "This is the evidence, I think it's the duty of the House to make that call," which will make impeachment a reasonable next step.
Either way, the House will have a clear route towards impeachment, which will help their case. We need Mueller to give us a soundbite we can use to hammer home the notion that Trump's grabbing democracy by the pussy is an impeachable offense.
Mueller would never, ever recommend impeachment, the foundational rules he sets for the investigation at the beginning of the report make it clear that he isn't interested in passing judgment, only presenting facts
His stance on who's job it is to do what is pretty clear, however
With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his
authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.
I expect Mueller to do everything he absolutely can to avoid being a political football while questioned, he doesn't want to be held up by a political party as an advocate on their behalf regardless of what his findings are
Y’all keep arguing this like we’re Lord Baelish or Tyrion or Varys or whatever. We’re not, and the Dems aren’t either. They look like they’re acting political to the people because they are. Eventually they need to fucking stand for something. This is kind of the breaking point of Democracy. Time to put your cards on the table or go home broke.
What does this even mean?
This is all political. That's all it is and all it will ever be. There is no actually coherent or reality-adjacent argument for impeachment that is not about how it will help politically to win the 2020 election. That's all this is about in the end.
Trying to pretend like it's something else is just lying to yourself about the possible outcomes or meanings here. Nothing else is gonna happen here.
There are ethical absolutes that need to be upheld beyond political expediency. If all your positions are nothing but political calculations then you stand for nothing and I see no reason why anyone should have any faith or trust in you.
Moral victories don't mean shit. Being right doesn't mean shit. You need to win to enact your agenda. "It's the moral thing to do" (arguable in and of itself) is as meaningful as Clinton winning the popular vote.
Whether you impeach or not is not a question of having political positions or not, it's a question of how to get into a place to do something about those positions. Of whether impeachment helps you to get into power so you can actually accomplish something.
Our animal instinct is to not trust sociopaths who believe in nothing and have no principles. Such people will not turn around and suddenly start following all those positions they threw away to get power once they have it. They will just keep doing whatever keeps them in power regardless of what it is.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Y’all keep arguing this like we’re Lord Baelish or Tyrion or Varys or whatever. We’re not, and the Dems aren’t either. They look like they’re acting political to the people because they are. Eventually they need to fucking stand for something. This is kind of the breaking point of Democracy. Time to put your cards on the table or go home broke.
What does this even mean?
This is all political. That's all it is and all it will ever be. There is no actually coherent or reality-adjacent argument for impeachment that is not about how it will help politically to win the 2020 election. That's all this is about in the end.
Trying to pretend like it's something else is just lying to yourself about the possible outcomes or meanings here. Nothing else is gonna happen here.
There are ethical absolutes that need to be upheld beyond political expediency. If all your positions are nothing but political calculations then you stand for nothing and I see no reason why anyone should have any faith or trust in you.
Moral victories don't mean shit. Being right doesn't mean shit. You need to win to enact your agenda. "It's the moral thing to do" (arguable in and of itself) is as meaningful as Clinton winning the popular vote.
My problem with this argument is that it implies the GOP was right to do all the shitty things they've done because hey, all that matters is if you win and get to enact your agenda.
Posts
There really doesn't seem any reason to rush this. There's still lots of really basic shit the House Democrats are still trying to get a hold of. Witnesses like Mueller and McGahn. Documents like Trump's financials. The full unredacted report. There is plenty of time to play this out and build the case and see how the public and the press react and see decide based on all that if impeachment is a better or worse idea.
As far as I remember reading, Trump can skip out on some of these charges if he gets reelected because it will have been too long or something like that. Which makes throwing his ass out in 2020 even more important. So you can then throw his ass in jail afterwards.
This would be *better* political show, because the media would slam us with it for months. They love that sort of high drama. Sure, a committee somewhere could get to the bottom of things just as well, but then it would be 1 column on p2 of the New York Times and 5 minutes on CNN, because committees are boring and not news.
There are ethical absolutes that need to be upheld beyond political expediency. If all your positions are nothing but political calculations then you stand for nothing and I see no reason why anyone should have any faith or trust in you.
It doesn't feel like there's a lot of time. The narrative needs to be countered and Dems don't have a spokesperson who can stand up - plus there are confounding issues as the primary field is now up to like 19 fuckin people, all of whom would like to be the spokesperson and none of whom are willing to get onto a single message.
Impeachment needs to happen before primary season, all this becomes grist for the election mill by next January. There's basically only 6 months to do this, tops.
Moral victories don't mean shit. Being right doesn't mean shit. You need to win to enact your agenda. "It's the moral thing to do" (arguable in and of itself) is as meaningful as Clinton winning the popular vote.
Whether you impeach or not is not a question of having political positions or not, it's a question of how to get into a place to do something about those positions. Of whether impeachment helps you to get into power so you can actually accomplish something.
Rush this?
We’ve known Trump has committed impeachable offenses numerous times before the Mueller report ever came out. Then we were told, “Wait for the report! The report will decide if he has done something impeachable!” and I went, okay.
Then the report came out and clearly showed that Trump needed impeaching, like, yesterday. And now I hear, “But let’s wait for McGahn!” and I’m less than lukewarm on it. After McGahn will Democrats be in an impeachment mood? Will something McGahn says be the final straw? Or is this just one more thing to wait for while the republic suffers, and then the call will be, “We must wait until X happens” or “Can’t impeach until Y’s testimony”?
I’ve heard over and over on this forum that we can do more than one thing, and in this case we should.
The Democrats have been in control of oversight for like only 4 months now dude. And have been working on subpoenaing shit and holding hearings the whole time. This shit is not instant and they've been working at it. I'm not sure what you are on about here. They've been working at this stuff this whole time.
There's another 18 months till the election and as everyone in here was arguing when Hoyer said there was no time, that's plenty of time. Like, they haven't even questioned Mueller yet. Nothing needs to be decided right now. Impeachment should be kept on the table but it doesn't need to be started tomorrow.
Statute of limitations should pause whilst you're unindictable. He's not the first candidate I've heard (France again, and maybe even Sarcozy again) who's run because getting President means you can't be charged.
Surely that's hard to vote against? Clock pauses whilst you hold public office, and it shouldn't be that hard to impeach dogcatcher Trump. Largely because he's not going to do anything.
How about the principal of getting rid of the person damaging the country? Or does that not count?
Let's reframe that question a bit.
What if Kavanaugh would have been voted down in the Senate if we hadn't held the hearings? (I don't think this would've happened, obviously.) What's more important - following process, or securing the favorable outcome?
I think it's actually a decent analogy, because in both cases, there is pretty much zero chance of actually getting the thing you really want (Trump impeached in one case, Kavanaugh behind bars in the other).
Or dies in jail, bail refused, always a silver lining...
It means that there is no apparent leadership on the appropriate response to the president's malfeasance and that the opposition is groping around trying to come to an agreement as to what they will do if anything about it. People elect representatives to act as leaders. Right now the supposed leaders are acting more like marketers checking their focus groups and pollsters as to what they should do next. Without leadership on the matter, I don't see and I think history backs me up that all that much will end up happening beyond further consolidation of the Republican power.
And tactically, I think getting this out of the way sooner rather than later is advantageous. If the public reacts negatively towards Trump, that gives the issue teeth as part of the campaign against Trump in 2020. And if there's a rallying effect, we can refocus the message on more meat and potatoes issues.
I don't think we need to start proceedings, like, next week, but I also think it hurts our chances if we hold out for another six months before we do anything concrete.
I think getting Mueller in front of a committee, along with a few other major players, qualifies as something concrete though. There's still plenty of avenues for keeping this a big story.
But they are doing stuff about it. Right now. There's even an overall plan at work here.
The only place there isn't a defined plan on is whether or not they should impeach Trump. And that's neither the only question or action at hand, nor something that needs to be decided on immediately.
We're literally arguing over which political process to use to send the best message to the people.
The politics are kind of baked in.
Then this country has some original sin that it's never recovering from, which ...
Well, I see your point.
They are hoping for grey-haired patriarch Mueller to give them permission by saying "Yes, I think Trump should be impeached," but he's not going to do that. So they'll have to make their own decisions.
No, they are hoping for Mueller to speak directly to what his report says and skip over all the redactions, as well as to help expose the extent of Barr's fuckery. There is really no reason to do much with the report before talking to Mueller.
The line I've been hearing from Dem reps lately is "We must go where the evidence leads us." To me, this is setting it up for impeachment to follow Mueller's testimony. We know that there will be no smoking gun, it will mostly be Mueller repeating and paraphrasing the report, but for the public, this is going to be Very Much Big Deal On The News, and what Mueller will say clearly points to impeachment.
If this is the case, will Democrats say "Now is the time to impeach" or "We need more evidence, because we are too lily-livered to ever stick out our necks by coming to a conclusion"?
I really wish you hadn't told me this because I am relatively certain that, were it possible to convert the fury burning within me to any form of useful energy, I would shine with the incandescence of a class O star
I cannot fathom being in his position, saying that live on national television, and then somehow not immediately murdering myself out of shame
Either way, the House will have a clear route towards impeachment, which will help their case. We need Mueller to give us a soundbite we can use to hammer home the notion that Trump's grabbing democracy by the pussy is an impeachable offense.
I think you're wrong here. Given the volume of charges, and the recalcitrance of the Trump Administration to delay the shit out of things, I figure an impeachment from the vote in the House through the vote in the Senate, is gonna be six months (it was 2.5 for Clinton, and there's a LOT more shit to unravel here). And any trial that goes too far into 2020 is going to be seen as partisan even by independents.
That's also not factoring in that January through April 2020 is going to be massively important for a significant portion of the Democratic nominees (Booker, Gillibrand, Gravel, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren), who'll be forced to either stop campaigning, or be painted as not taking their duties of impeachment seriously.
Meaning, if you want to get this done, and not give Trump an easy advantage of believably claiming interference, or almost half the field of real candidates a significant disadvantage having to decide between campaigning of doing their jobs, impeachment probably needs to start in the House before July this year, or it becomes a gift for Trump re-election.
Disclaimer, I want this fucker impeached. I think the argument that Trump and Republicans should be called on this shit is important even if it doesn't result in removal (hell, I think the Republicans covering for him is an easy attack against them). And I don't think the ACT of impeachment will be as indirectly detrimental as others claim (and if it is, then the country is probably irrevocably fucked). But that doesn't mean I think impeachment should be done if it directly kills 2020. And I think an impeachment trial lasting past the end of this year does just that.
So I think the clock IS ticking on this. And there's not a huge window to get it done.
Yeah, I'd say that Trump and the Republican Party in general are currently dangerous enough that the most important thing is to deny them power in the future, one way or another. I don't want a ton of people to be screwed over just so that we can feel good about "doing the right thing".
Maybe this is true. Impeachment might just be a bad law and need to be changed
All this about “we should have more hearings before we decide to impeach”... nah. That’s what impeachment is. About the only exception I can think of is getting Mueller’s testimony first, since so much of the report is redacted it’s entirely possible that an enormous section of it is “CHRIST’S SAKE IMPEACH HIM” repeated 30 times.
The law isn’t bad. There has to be a remedy for the situation we currently find ourselves in. The problem is the Senate, and Mitch McConnell, not impeachment.
Mueller is respectful of Republican authority, so if he’s asked about the redacted sections, he will refuse to answer.
Cool. Then we go ahead and impeach. Because he has committed obviously impeachable offenses. It really is that simple.
Mueller would never, ever recommend impeachment, the foundational rules he sets for the investigation at the beginning of the report make it clear that he isn't interested in passing judgment, only presenting facts
His stance on who's job it is to do what is pretty clear, however
I expect Mueller to do everything he absolutely can to avoid being a political football while questioned, he doesn't want to be held up by a political party as an advocate on their behalf regardless of what his findings are
Our animal instinct is to not trust sociopaths who believe in nothing and have no principles. Such people will not turn around and suddenly start following all those positions they threw away to get power once they have it. They will just keep doing whatever keeps them in power regardless of what it is.
My problem with this argument is that it implies the GOP was right to do all the shitty things they've done because hey, all that matters is if you win and get to enact your agenda.