The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[GreenGoo]

edit: Whoops, malchior has it covered for the most part. My thoughts line up with malchior's on this pretty much spot on.

What's the next step of the plan after that? Or is it mission accomplished at that point?

Campaign the living fuck out of it, holding up pictures of drumpf, putin and mcconnell if words are too complicated. Attack ads for every single republican who voted nay. Quotes from Meuller's report beside quotes from Drumpf's "I'd take it" on foreign interference right beside every Rep's picture who voted nay.

I mean, what do you want? At worst, you get extra fodder for the election in 2020. At best, some drumpf supporters get extremely uncomfortable, maybe reconsider that support? Maybe?

Impeachment isn't magic. Doing nothing and hoping you win in 2020 isn't magic either. You were already doing nothing and hoping you'd win. You were doing nothing and hoping you'd win in 2016 too, and look how that turned out for you. The idea that impeachment stalling in the senate means drumpf wins in 2020 is a pretty big stretch, imo, but even if it were true, you'd have a public record of who does and doesn't support drumpf's actions in the WH. No sitting on the sidelines. No McConnell running cover for Reps in contested areas. No empty disapproving words to the press while doing nothing in the background. This is the line. Where do you stand on it, Mr. GOP member?

For every Republican you say "Drumpf is a crook, here's the proof, Tell the American people whether you support this crook or not. On the record, if you please". Then use that record in 2020. And 2024. And 2028. However many elections that Rep is around for.

[milo]

The impeachment process make Trump's crimes headline news for months and months.

He has worked so hard at these crimes. At least give him this.

You'd be shocked by how many Americans still believe Mueller exonerated him.

But it's doomed to failure.

But it won't change anyone's mind.

But the election.

Let me ask this. The House votes to impeach in (say) November 2019 to impeach, on essentially a party-line vote (Amash also votes yes, maybe half a dozen democrats in red districts vote no). The Senate holds an impeachment trial in December, which McConnell streamlines to the maximum extent possible. Late December, the Senate votes 54-46 to acquit (54 no / acquit votes, 46 convict votes) - all Republicans vote no, joined by Manchin.

What's the next step of the plan after that? Or is it mission accomplished at that point?

November? You gotta be kidding. The House is in recess for all of August and the first week of September. Getting to an impeachment vote will require months of hearings and subpoenas and witness testimony and court proceedings to enforce the subpoenas, and they haven't even started doing that.

Anyway, the "plan" is not about the vote to impeach. The plan is to use the impeachment process to be able to compel witnesses to testify in public before Congress so that even the diehards get to hear—in many cases for the first time—that, yes, the President has clearly committed several felonies both before taking office and while sullying it.

[El Guapo]

The Senate holds an impeachment trial in December, which McConnell streamlines to the maximum extent possible.

While the Senate sets the rules - I don't think McConnell would be able to change the exist procedures all that much. He is the evil master so perhaps he would but still Roberts would preside over the Trial. The process as laid out isn't especially quick and in the end the way to oppose this is to do as much damage as possible during the impeachment inquiries. Again make it obvious how bad Trump is. If the Senate refuses to be non-partisan make them pay a price for it.

Late December, the Senate votes 54-46 to acquit (54 no / acquit votes, 46 convict votes) - all Republicans vote no, joined by Manchin.

On the basis of the Mueller report alone you might have a couple of flips. If you do more damage, do you get a couple more? Maybe. To realistically handicap it, a devastating discovery of impeachable acts beyond the Mueller report might get you a 10% chance of a removal. About the same odds as Trump winning...which is better than 0.

What's the next step of the plan after that? Or is it mission accomplished at that point?

You go after every vulnerable Republican Senator for that vote. You use it as an opportunity to steal their seat out under them. You use that evidence all year to hammer away at Trump and his whole shoddy administration. They should continue to fight. The nation is likely on the line at this point. My only hope is that Pelosi is dragging her feet to get this closer to the election but I also fear they'll do what they always do and avoid the righteous fight in front of them.

I do wonder how much control McConnell has over the Senate trial. I would guess a fair amount, given that he controls the Senate. I would think at a minimum he would have a lot of control over when the trial happened and how many Senate days are allocated to the trial. If McConnell said "ok, the trial will be one day, on December 23rd, then we'll vote at the end and go on recess" is there anyone with the power to say no to him on that? Though maybe Roberts could be a wild card, and a lot of this is guesswork on my end.

And I would be shocked if there were more than one or two Republican convict votes. *Maybe* Collins and/or the Colorado GOP senator...but even for Republican senators in blue states, Trump has die-hard support among the MAGA voters who dominate GOP primaries, and Trump would really put the screws on them. Flake, Corker, and Sanford all were borderline driven out of office for just furrowing their brows and saying negative things about the President without really doing much of substance. If Collins or Colorado GOP Senator Whose Name I Am Too Lazy to Google voted to remove the President from office.....what are the odds that they survive the next GOP primary - maybe 10%? Lower than their odds of surviving the general while voting no, for sure. I think the only way that they wind up voting yes is if McConnell basically grants them permission to vote yes because it won't change the outcome, and even then they would still have to worry a lot about the next primary.

And 10% chance of removal is wildly optimistic. Just take a look at the states that add up to 34 votes in the Senate - Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Tennessee, etc.... you can easily get to 34 Senate votes while relying on MAGA voters alone. I'd put the odds at 0.5%.

Anyway, at the end of the day I'm fine with going for it on impeachment. It's just that it's doomed to failure, its political impacts are uncertain, and at the end of the day we're still left with the 2020 election as the only plausible hope. But hey, maybe I'll be wrong. Or at the very least, I'll be able to tell my kids, as Trump prepares to hand the Presidency to Ivanka in 2036, that at least we held Trump accountable in 2019.

[El Guapo]

The impeachment process make Trump's crimes headline news for months and months.

He has worked so hard at these crimes. At least give him this.

You'd be shocked by how many Americans still believe Mueller exonerated him.

But it's doomed to failure.

But it won't change anyone's mind.

But the election.

Let me ask this. The House votes to impeach in (say) November 2019 to impeach, on essentially a party-line vote (Amash also votes yes, maybe half a dozen democrats in red districts vote no). The Senate holds an impeachment trial in December, which McConnell streamlines to the maximum extent possible. Late December, the Senate votes 54-46 to acquit (54 no / acquit votes, 46 convict votes) - all Republicans vote no, joined by Manchin.

What's the next step of the plan after that? Or is it mission accomplished at that point?

November? You gotta be kidding. The House is in recess for all of August and the first week of September. Getting to an impeachment vote will require months of hearings and subpoenas and witness testimony and court proceedings to enforce the subpoenas, and they haven't even started doing that.

Anyway, the "plan" is not about the vote to impeach. The plan is to use the impeachment process to be able to compel witnesses to testify in public before Congress so that even the diehards get to hear—in many cases for the first time—that, yes, the President has clearly committed several felonies both before taking office and while sullying it.

Don't get too hung up on the hypothetical schedule here. The point is to get at what happens after the impeachment trial, whenever that would be.

Anyway, they already have the power to compel witnesses to testify in public. That's what subpoena power is, and it's already mandatory. I still haven't heard an explanation about how exactly it is that impeachment testimony is double-extra binding on witnesses.

They are already doing what you want them to do, it's just that they haven't labeled them impeachment hearings yet.

[Holman]

Let's flip it around. Given the facts staring us in the face, how does NOT impeaching help anything?

The fear seems to be that a Senate acquittal will be widely seen as a legitimate weighing of the facts (when really no one expects that).

But is a partisan acquittal really worse than the House doing nothing at all? Trump will be running on "Even Nancy Pelosi knew she didn't have any real evidence! It was all nothing but PRESIDENTIAL HARRASSMENT! Witch Hunt!!"

[Skinypupy]

Anyway, they already have the power to compel witnesses to testify in public. That's what subpoena power is, and it's already mandatory.

It is?

Seems like the WH can just tell people not to show up, and there aren't any real consequences.

[El Guapo]

edit: Whoops, malchior has it covered for the most part. My thoughts line up with malchior's on this pretty much spot on.

Campaign the living fuck out of it, holding up pictures of drumpf, putin and mcconnell if words are too complicated.

I'm confused, I thought that planning around winning in 2020 was doing nothing and hoping for the best.

[GreenGoo]

And I would be shocked if there were more than one or two Republican convict votes. *Maybe* Collins and/or the Colorado GOP senator...but even for Republican senators in blue states, Trump has die-hard support among the MAGA voters who dominate GOP primaries, and Trump would really put the screws on them. Flake, Corker, and Sanford all were borderline driven out of office for just furrowing their brows and saying negative things about the President without really doing much of substance.

The president is a flash in the pan. He has literally dropped in from no where, but more importantly, he will be GONE once he's finished his tenure in the WH. These Senators want to have a career that spans a lifetime, I assume.

I get why one would keep their heads down and not make waves while drumpf is in power. On the way out? Once drumpf is gone expect a nearly unified revisionist history to be projected by Reps, how they were one of drumpf's biggest opponents, how they were working to change things from the inside, how they repeatedly voted against drumpf behind closed doors. It will be a savaging, and a complete lie. When that happens, you hold up the impeachment vote and ask them to explain it to the American people. Will it matter? Who knows? Maybe? Without the impeachment vote it's all "No you didn't" and "Yes, I did". With the impeachment vote it's "You're on record as supporting drumpf despite the evidence provided during the impeachment. Wouldn't that have been the ideal time to show your true colors? Why didn't you? Or did you?"

[El Guapo]

Anyway, they already have the power to compel witnesses to testify in public. That's what subpoena power is, and it's already mandatory.

It is?

Seems like the WH can just tell people not to show up, and there aren't any real consequences.

So the WH switches from telling witnesses not to appear in response to subpoenas to telling them not to appear in response to impeachment subpoenas.

The consequences, either way, are pending. Because the witnesses at the end of the day aren't really saying "Fuck you and your subpoena", they are saying (through lawyers) that "I can't comply with the subpoena because of X, Y, and Z borderline frivolous legal arguments." If those arguments were right, they would not have to comply with the subpoena. So the rubber doesn't ultimately hit the road until a court says "no, your arguments are wrong, and you are required to comply with the subpoena as written". At that point they have to either comply or go into open defiance of the law, which means facing contempt.

But I'm not aware of any reason why that situation is any different when there are impeachment proceedings.

[GreenGoo]

I'm confused, I thought that planning around winning in 2020 was doing nothing and hoping for the best.

Lol, doing nothing and hoping is not planning. In any case, my comments were about 2020, 2024, 2028 and so on. The benefits of impeachment aren't solely for elections however. The benefits of impeachment are shoring up the rule of law which this president is trying to destroy, the respect and faith in American institutions which this president undermines with every tweet (he's talking trash about the fbi and the free press, for god's sake), and a statement (one with the force of government behind it, not just criticisms to the press) to those who would use their positions for their own corrupt purposes. Those benefits may seem intangible, but they have very tangible consequences for the future.

And let's be frank. You can voice your disapproval of corruption or you can keep silent and hope it all works out. If you feel the latter is the right path, well, this is where we differ. There is right and there is wrong. There is building up the country, it's institutions and place in the world and there is tearing it down. There is making a statement, taking a stand for what's right, there is identifying wrong and calling it out, and there standing on the sidelines making disapproving noises and hoping that it doesn't repeat itself, despite reinforcing the idea to every greedy politician that misbehaviour will be overlooked because doing (even trying to do) something about it is a lot of work and might lose the next election.

If defending the presidency from corruption is just voting, then how in the hell did you get here in the first place? Voting is the norm. Voting is the default. Trying to win 2020 is something that you were already going to do, regardless of drumpf's actions. Trying to win in 2020 is not fighting drumpf and his corruption. It's just another day in politics. It puts Clinton, and Bush, and Obama, and drumpf all in the same pool. They are all equals, all needed to be defeated in the next election, so let's do that. Doing nothing is the same thing as saying drumpf did nothing out of the ordinary and his presidency was on par with Bush's and just like Bush, we'll vote him out, hopefully. Or Clinton's. Or whoever that didn't try to destroy America's faith and confidence in itself.

Drumpf will be gone, one way or another, eventually. What happens now will impact what happens next. I feel that impeachment proceedings, even if they fail, is fighting against carnage he's causing to America. Slowing it down. Pushing back. I think fighting him is a worthy cause, and one that will give America some confidence in the future, when looking back. America can say "we fought against his corruption even though we lost" instead of "remember when drumpf was president and we did nothing?".

Fighting the good fight has value in itself, whatever the outcome.

[YellowKing]

Great idea, but how do you hold them accountable? That takes voters and elections. I don't see a wave of discontented voters removing large numbers of Republicans from office any time soon, do you?

Possibly - if their crimes are exposed and they are put under constant public scrutiny. I don't see it happening if we just proceed with business as usual.

The reason we're in this position is not because a large swatch of American voters are corrupt assholes. We're in this position because those in power who ARE assholes have learned to exploit political complacency. Complacency is bred from lack of understanding and lack of visibility.

[LawBeefaroni]

So who is going to apologize? Seems we were all wrong:

President Donald Trump said Friday he would "absolutely" report political dirt dug up by a foreign country to federal authorities, seeking to quell a controversy over comments he made a day earlier in a high-profile interview.

"Of course you give it to the FBI or report to the attorney general or somebody like that," Trump told Fox and Friends in a live interview Friday. "Of course you do that. I thought it was made clear."

See? All this impeachment talk is moot now.

[GreenGoo]

See? All this impeachment talk is moot now.

And zero reason for the fbi to have a special task force investigating foreign interference. Zero. Reason. Waste of money. They could be charging the Clintons with that money. Why aren't they? Partisan hacks, is why. Biased. Free speech. Political hit job. Dems suck! San Dimas high school football rules!

[Victoria Raverna]

When the attempt simply enboldens and fires up his supporters while simulatenously being the equivilent of softly saying "hey stop it" when someone punches you in the face? Sorry, I'd rather we make sure he gets out in 2020 and THEN address his crimes.

How do you make sure he gets out in 2020?

[Victoria Raverna]

When the attempt simply enboldens and fires up his supporters while simulatenously being the equivilent of softly saying "hey stop it" when someone punches you in the face? Sorry, I'd rather we make sure he gets out in 2020 and THEN address his crimes.

How are you making sure you get him out in 2020? By hoping really, really hard?

I think the general plan is to campaign against him and do intensive get out the vote efforts. It's a crazy plan, I know, but it just might work. The key to the plan is that Trump is fairly unpopular among the general population.

If he is fairly unpopular among the general population, impeachment attempt won't change that.

A failed impeachment attempt might help in getting people to vote against Trump.

[Victoria Raverna]

The impeachment process make Trump's crimes headline news for months and months.

He has worked so hard at these crimes. At least give him this.

You'd be shocked by how many Americans still believe Mueller exonerated him.

But it's doomed to failure.

But it won't change anyone's mind.

But the election.

Let me ask this. The House votes to impeach in (say) November 2019 to impeach, on essentially a party-line vote (Amash also votes yes, maybe half a dozen democrats in red districts vote no). The Senate holds an impeachment trial in December, which McConnell streamlines to the maximum extent possible. Late December, the Senate votes 54-46 to acquit (54 no / acquit votes, 46 convict votes) - all Republicans vote no, joined by Manchin.

What's the next step of the plan after that? Or is it mission accomplished at that point?

Next step is to use that to win the election.

[Grifman]

Latest poll results from Quinnipac:

And a majority — 55-35 percent — believe that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report did not clear Trump of all wrongdoing.

Still, voters by 61-33 percent believe Congress should not try to impeach the president, and 50-44 percent say he doesn’t deserve to be impeached.

https://nypost.com/2019/06/12/61-percen ... rump-poll/

Unless you can get that number up, impeachment is going to do anything for the Democrats, and it still might backfire against them. Investigate all you want, and if something turns up, great, go for it. But as far as I can tell now, the real thing Democrats have right now is obstruction of justice. That's not the easiest thing to understand when there is no underlying crime to obstruct. Yes, you can still obstruct even if there is no underlying crime, but how many Americans are going to understand that? The Republicans will offer differing interpretations, and it will all get lost in the noise.

Look, we have a sitting president that has defended white supremacists, has made all sorts of comments attacking federal institutions such as the courts, used the totalitarian term "enemy of the people' to describe the press, can barely put together a coherent sentence at times, has made an absolute mess of foreign policy, and has just yesterday said he would accept election aid from a foreign government. If stuff like that is not going to move people, then an impeachment won't.

Another thing - the Democrats have passed a number of bills in the House that would make life genuinely better for people that the Republican Senate has ignored. Bills that could be promoted and used against the Republicans in the election, that I believe would be much better campaign issues than impeachment. Remember that health care, not any Trump issues, was the big driver of the mid terms. But due to all of the investigation noise, all of those bills have been lost to the public. Impeachment would amplify that by sucking up the limited public attention span. Resources would be better spent on promoting what Democrats are doing to make life better for the average citizen that Republicans are obstructing. People care more about bread and butter issues than a political impeachment fight in Washington.

That's my take, I know a number here seriously disagree with that. I guess time and events will tell.

[Kraken]

That's my take, I know a number here seriously disagree with that. I guess time and events will tell.

I am still on the fence and appreciate your defending the minority position. Both sides are persuasive, and so I am not persuaded.

[malchior]

Latest poll results from Quinnipac:

And a majority — 55-35 percent — believe that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report did not clear Trump of all wrongdoing.

Still, voters by 61-33 percent believe Congress should not try to impeach the president, and 50-44 percent say he doesn’t deserve to be impeached.

https://nypost.com/2019/06/12/61-percen ... rump-poll/

Unless you can get that number up, impeachment is going to do anything for the Democrats, and it still might backfire against them. Investigate all you want, and if something turns up, great, go for it. But as far as I can tell now, the real thing Democrats have right now is obstruction of justice. That's not the easiest thing to understand when there is no underlying crime to obstruct. Yes, you can still obstruct even if there is no underlying crime, but how many Americans are going to understand that? The Republicans will offer differing interpretations, and it will all get lost in the noise.

It has been stated over and over - the percentage who agreed with the Nixon impeachment at the beginning was 19%. NINETEEN. It too was just obstruction of justice. It took awhile to get that number up but they did. Similarly there was no direct underlying crime attributed to the President. It is eerily parallel since they both involved attacks on an election. Both obstructed an investigation into such. Support is more than double that now. Plus again it isn't about polls - this is about integrity. People can keep pointing at the polls but it is not a strong argument.

Another thing - the Democrats have passed a number of bills in the House that would make life genuinely better for people that the Republican Senate has ignored. Bills that could be promoted and used against the Republicans in the election, that I believe would be much better campaign issues than impeachment. Remember that health care, not any Trump issues, was the big driver of the mid terms. But due to all of the investigation noise, all of those bills have been lost to the public. Impeachment would amplify that by sucking up the limited public attention span. Resources would be better spent on promoting what Democrats are doing to make life better for the average citizen that Republicans are obstructing. People care more about bread and butter issues than a political impeachment fight in Washington.

This makes sense to an extent. But to be honest while healthcare was important it was Trump that sealed the House for the Dems. It was the highest turnout in 104 years for a midterm. It is a safe bet that people were not turning out in record numbers to save the ACA. Additionally if one thing has been learned over the past 6 or so cycles it is that the independents in the American public don't pay attention to how the sausage is made. They don't punish obstruction and the Republicans thrive on selling it to their base as stigginit to the Libs.

[El Guapo]

And I would be shocked if there were more than one or two Republican convict votes. *Maybe* Collins and/or the Colorado GOP senator...but even for Republican senators in blue states, Trump has die-hard support among the MAGA voters who dominate GOP primaries, and Trump would really put the screws on them. Flake, Corker, and Sanford all were borderline driven out of office for just furrowing their brows and saying negative things about the President without really doing much of substance.

The president is a flash in the pan. He has literally dropped in from no where, but more importantly, he will be GONE once he's finished his tenure in the WH. These Senators want to have a career that spans a lifetime, I assume.

I get why one would keep their heads down and not make waves while drumpf is in power. On the way out? Once drumpf is gone expect a nearly unified revisionist history to be projected by Reps, how they were one of drumpf's biggest opponents, how they were working to change things from the inside, how they repeatedly voted against drumpf behind closed doors. It will be a savaging, and a complete lie. When that happens, you hold up the impeachment vote and ask them to explain it to the American people. Will it matter? Who knows? Maybe? Without the impeachment vote it's all "No you didn't" and "Yes, I did". With the impeachment vote it's "You're on record as supporting drumpf despite the evidence provided during the impeachment. Wouldn't that have been the ideal time to show your true colors? Why didn't you? Or did you?"

I think the core of our difference here is that I really don't place a lot of value on that sort of thing. Yes, Senators would be on record as voting no on impeachment, and yes, they would have to explain that in later years. But I really don't think that's actually going to be all that hard. They can just say "oh I strongly disagreed with the President and his policies, but I respect democracy, you see, and the Mueller report, while it found conduct that was extremely troubling, did not find anything that I thought merited overturning the will of the American people."

There will always be a story, and Senators almost by definition will be people who are at least reasonably adept at telling a story. It may weigh them down a little bit, but I doubt it will be anything particularly fatal.

[GungHo]

I think it's tough to sell impeachment as an 'integrity' thing when the most recent (albeit 20 year old) example was, in the mind of the public, over a BJ. Impeachment is inherently political, assuming you had the votes you could impeach the president for their hair color. The Founders were so afraid of having a king rule their country they explicitly made the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' clause vague so that Congress could make it whatever they wanted. Which goes back to Mueller should have arrested his ass like any other person who broke the law; impeachment isn't the only way to remove a president from office. It's just an additional way.

It still melts my brain that friggin departmental policy overrides the damn law.

And yeah I think that's good info recognizing where the public was on Nixon to start, but I'd say that the circumstances are actually quite different in that trump has the benefit of a state run 'news agency' that trumpets his narrative more effectively than he does. Add in the hundreds (thousands??) of other potential sources of disinformation available for public consumption that had no absolutely no parallel in Nixon's time, and you have a very different problem in trying to change public perception. And our habit of 5 second soundbite consumption of news really hurts us here when it comes to narrative: trump will say in 3 seconds 'congress found me innocent' while like Grifman said the Dems will be stuck trying to tell a 15 min story about obstructing a crime that didn't happen. Or might have happened. Or something. Mueller needed 400 pages to say it(sort of).

I think Grifman nailed it when he noted there are SO MANY things this president has done that prove he's unfit for the job that honestly if you don't know that in your bones by now, you aren't ever going to. Impeachment or not.

Maybe that's just pure, caustic cynicism RE: the American public on my part but IMO you have to be drinking from the fire house of trump BS or burying your head in the sand to not know that fundamental truth. Nothing short of the downfall of civilization would register for either of those groups.

[YellowKing]

So, again I ask - why have the tools if they're not worth using? I think you guys bring up some excellent points, but in the end doing nothing implies that nothing can be done when a President oversteps his bounds. What happens when the next corrupt President isn't a moron?

In essence, we're dealing with Trump the way he's always been dealt with. He's so extreme, he's so out there, that we just throw up our hands and wait for it to blow over. That's exactly why he is the way he is, and the reason why he's gotten away with all manner of shady shit for decades.

He surrounds himself with people who are loyal to him because they're too afraid to cross him and risk the fallout. And now we're all doing the same thing, just on a national scale.

[malchior]

In essence, we're dealing with the GOP the way it's always been dealt with. It is so extreme, so out there, that we just throw up our hands and wait for it to blow over. That's exactly why it is the way it is, and the reason why it has gotten away with all manner of shady shit for decades.

The GOP surrounds itself with people who are loyal to the party because they're too afraid to cross them and risk the fallout. And now we're all doing the same thing, just on a national scale.

Mortoned.

[Grifman]

So, again I ask - why have the tools if they're not worth using? I think you guys bring up some excellent points, but in the end doing nothing implies that nothing can be done when a President oversteps his bounds. What happens when the next corrupt President isn't a moron?

You're absolutely right - there's nothing that can be done as long as the President's party supports him no matter what, and they have control of one of the houses of Congress so that they can protect him. It really shows the moral swamp into which the GOP has fallen - they will support Trump no matter what because he gives them federal judges, tax cuts, and deregulation. They've made a deal with the devil and they see no problem with that.

[YellowKing]

Incidentally, I think this is partly why Biden believes the GOP will "get back to normal" when Trump is gone.

While I don't believe that - McConnell is all the proof you need that the GOP was corrupt before Trump and will be after - I do believe that Biden is right to an extent. As soon as Trump is out of office and no longer a political benefit, it will be "Trump who?" among the GOP. Biden has formed close relationships with many of these GOP congressmen, and probably feels that those relationships will still be valid once the Trump distraction has been removed. We've all heard the stories of congressmen supporting Trump in public but trashing him behind closed doors.

[Blackhawk]

We're still going in circles. The question we should be arguing isn't "Is impeachment a good idea?", but "is getting Trump out in 2020 more important than responding to Trump's crimes?" That's what determines whether impeachment is the way to go.

[Smoove_B]

We're still going in circles. The question we should be arguing isn't "Is impeachment a good idea?", but "is getting Trump out in 2020 more important than responding to Trump's crimes?" That's what determines whether impeachment is the way to go.

I'd probably tweak it a bit to this:

"Is getting Trump out in 2020 more important than responding to crimes committed by the President of the United States of America?"

[Blackhawk]

Good tweak, and important distinction.

[YellowKing]

I'm arguing we can do both. I don't know why it has to be an either/or.

[Pyperkub]

Good tweak, and important distinction.

Yup, because part of the reason to impeach is to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

If Trump loses, who will be the GOP contenders in 2024?

Right now, it seems as if they will be from the same group of lying demagogues that Palin and Trump represent. Or worse, the competent theocrats bent on culture wars against the bill of rights and the constitution.

If /Trump is out, there will be a power vacuum there. Someone will fill it, and likely win, because without the unholy union with the hate wing of the party, the policies are not competitive anymore, or even really coherent.

[Jeff V]

I'm arguing we can do both. I don't know why it has to be an either/or.

Probably because too many people are buying into his divine kingship and the infallibility that goes with it. You don't want to get solid charges dismissed under the pretense "a sitting president can't be charged with crimes" bullshit.

[GreenGoo]

We're still going in circles.

+1 and have been for days and probably weeks.

I'll just say that expecting impeachment to fail and/or have no effect is not a strong argument against it. It's an argument for passivity and inaction, which isn't the same thing. If drumpf wins in 2020 you can at least say you tried didn't try, which should be some consolation for whatever happens.

I don't see any progress being made on either side of the argument and not much left to say that hasn't already been said. "It won't matter and might hurt" is not convincing to me, even if it turned out to be true. Pelosi will impeach or she won't based on what she thinks is best for the Dems. Whatever she decides, I hope it works out for America.

Good luck, everyone.

[Blackhawk]

Best for the Rs/Best for the Dems.

Best for America.

I wish this wasn't the order of our priorities. Sigh.

[GreenGoo]

I'd probably tweak it a bit to this:

"Is getting Trump out in 2020 more important than responding to crimes committed by the President of the United States of America?"

As YK points out, this is not an either/or scenario. Drumpf will be voted out or he won't, whether impeachment proceedings occur, or not. The *real* tweak imo is "will impeachment proceedings help or hurt the GOP in 2020?"

There is no way to prove either scenario and everyone already has their pre-conceived notions on the matter and those carry the weight of fact for many, so it's an impossible debate, imo. As Jeff points out, enough people believe he is untouchable because he hasn't been touched that trying to touch him is pointless. That's...straight up defeatism and resignation masquerading as pragmatism.

[Remus West]

No one gives a crap about a former president, not with regard to holding them accountable anyway. He's golden, whatever happens in 2020.

None have ever been jailed for Treason before. They will care. If only because being out of office won't remove his desire for the spotlight. Prison will.

OK, how about a gentleman's bet? The bet will only matter if he loses in 2020 (which I think he will, as my thinking is similar to El Guapo's in this regard). Within the first year talk of drumpf in anything but past tense will drop to near zero, and calls for investigation and/or prosecution will diminish until only a few pundits mention it in passing. This is my position.

We can meet again here a year after the election to discuss, if you are amiable.

You'll have to remind me because I' sure I'll forget.

Sure. Although it may be the first time I've been involved in a "gentlemen's" anything.

[Smoove_B]

And of course, while everyone is trying to figure out if it's worth it to try and hold him accountable, Trump continues to give our nation an Upper Decker by mandating cuts via executive order on a Friday evening:

President Trump is directing all agencies to cut their advisory boards by “at least” one third.

The executive order issued Friday evening directs all federal agencies to “evaluate the need” for each of their current advisory committees.

The order gives agencies until Sept. 30 to terminate, at a minimum, one-third of their committees.

...

There are an average of 1,000 advisory committees with more than 60,000 members, according to data from the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), that cover a range of topics including disposal of high-level nuclear waste, the depletion of atmospheric ozone, addressing AIDS and improving schools.

They are often filled by people considered to be at the top of their fields who can provide important technical advice, and GSA said the boards and committees “have played an important role in shaping programs and policies of the federal government from the earliest days of the Republic.”

Friday’s order is the most dramatic step in the Trump administration’s escalating pushback to the advisory committees.

[GreenGoo]

You'll have to remind me because I' sure I'll forget.

Me too. We'll have to rely on Isgrim, probably.

Bet's off if he wins. God help us all.

[GreenGoo]

President Trump is directing all agencies to cut their advisory boards by “at least” one third.

Nobody puts baby in a corner. Nobody.

Take that, legitimacy!

[malchior]

I'm reasonably sure this didn't come from Trump. The GOP has been hell-bent on building their oligarchy and Trump serves as the useful idiot in these circumstances.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is cutting Trump out of the loop because they do not trust him on Russia. #deepstate

[malchior]

Trump is now having a tantrum about the NY Times story calling it treason...and untrue. Fucking clown.