The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:42 pm

How so?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:43 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:41 pm FWIW, putting everyone "on the record" about Trump potentially puts many of the recently flipped D seats in traditionally R districts in jeopardy.

Doing nothing and allowing this to continue unchecked potentially puts democracy and the rule of law in jeopardy, IMHO. Elected officials need to be held to account.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:45 pm

El Guapo wrote:Doesn't this show exactly how an administration can act with impunity, as long as you maintain your political base?

No more than doing nothing does.

I'd rather have corruption and criminality confronted by someone - even if that someone is the opposing political party - than no one.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:48 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:42 pmHow so?

Because Trump is popular in many red districts / states.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:50 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:45 pm
El Guapo wrote:Doesn't this show exactly how an administration can act with impunity, as long as you maintain your political base?
No more than doing nothing does.

I'd rather have corruption and criminality confronted by someone - even if that someone is the opposing political party - than no one.

I agree that impeachment and acquittal would probably have the same effect on deterring lawless administrations that doing nothing would.

Worth doing in this case I think, but I don't see much reason for believing that it will have a significant deterrent effect going forward. The one caveat being that if Democrats impeach and Trump loses in 2020, then I imagine many people will attribute that loss in part to impeachment (though I expect the evidence there would probably be ambiguous).

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:51 pm

Right, but I suspect they flipped because voters in that area were sick of the GOP and Trump's antics, I would imagine.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:54 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:42 pmHow so?

If they vote for impeachment in districts that still skew R, they may end up losing those seats. These are not secure seats. Traditional R voters may have had a pang of conscience that caused them to vote D in 2016, but they still might have voted for Trump in the first place and might feel betrayed that the new people they voted in are harassing their president. It's a factor to consider that we don't discuss much - it's more than just a question of whether a quixotic impeachment bid will help Trump keep the presidency.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:43 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:41 pm FWIW, putting everyone "on the record" about Trump potentially puts many of the recently flipped D seats in traditionally R districts in jeopardy.
Doing nothing and allowing this to continue unchecked potentially puts democracy and the rule of law in jeopardy, IMHO. Elected officials need to be held to account.

If you knew for certain that impeaching Trump would lead to his reelection and push the House back to the Rs, would you still push for impeachment on principle?

Biyobi · Post by **Biyobi** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:55 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:48 pm
hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:42 pmHow so?
Because Trump is popular in many red districts / states.

Then why did those seats flip?

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:56 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:48 pm
hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:42 pmHow so?
Because Trump is popular in many red districts / states.

And that's the kind of electioneering that gets in the way of actual governing. Is the downside of losing those tenuous seats worth the risk of inaction in the face of this presidency?

I'll also note that the longer this goes on, the bolder he gets. While that increases the chance of a misdeed unforgivable to even his die hards, it also increases the chance of an misdeed catastrophic to the rest of us.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:57 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:51 pm Right, but I suspect they flipped because voters in that area were sick of the GOP and Trump's antics, I would imagine.

Depends. In districts where Trump still has positive approval ratings, it's at least a little more complicated than that.

And I expect for Pelosi, you imagine that she could get the votes for impeachment if she really wanted to. However, expecting that Amash is likely to be the only non-democrat voting to impeach, means that she can't lose that many Democratic votes. Which means that she would probably need to lean hard on at least a few reddish districts. I imagine a big part of her calculus is not wanting to burn Democratic representatives on an impeachment that won't result in removal. Which I do understand.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:59 pm

Those seats are already in jeopardy. Many of them flipped due to high turnout from anti-Trump voters. In 2020, both anti-Trump voters and pro-Trump voters will be motivated to turnout, so I would be shocked if many of those seats didn't flip back to red.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:08 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:59 pm Those seats are already in jeopardy. Many of them flipped due to high turnout from anti-Trump voters. In 2020, both anti-Trump voters and pro-Trump voters will be motivated to turnout, so I would be shocked if many of those seats didn't flip back to red.

Due to higher democratic turnout and due to 2016 Trump voters flipping. And yes, those seats will almost certainly be at risk again, which a reason to be more careful with those districts.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:43 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:41 pm FWIW, putting everyone "on the record" about Trump potentially puts many of the recently flipped D seats in traditionally R districts in jeopardy.
Doing nothing and allowing this to continue unchecked potentially puts democracy and the rule of law in jeopardy, IMHO. Elected officials need to be held to account.

Even if it's only by history. What else do we do? Doing nothing. not great. Threat with no action? Turns us in to the boy who cried wolf. I can't stop red districts from holding us hostage and letting them hold us hostage so we play nicely has played out horribly since at least 2014, probably longer.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:17 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:54 pmIf you knew for certain that impeaching Trump would lead to his reelection and push the House back to the Rs, would you still push for impeachment on principle?

Yes. Unfortunately my personality type aligns with the Ned Starks of the world. You do the right thing, even if the ultimate cost is something bigger. Why? Because doing the right thing is important; its everything. It's one thing for news agencies to treat politics like a sporting event. For the actual elected officials to do so? Its inexcusable; do your jobs - the one thing you were elected to do - govern.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:26 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:17 pm Yes. Unfortunately my personality type aligns with the Ned Starks of the world. You do the right thing, even if the ultimate cost is something bigger. Why? Because doing the right thing is important; its everything. It's one thing for news agencies to treat politics like a sporting event. For the actual elected officials to do so? Its inexcusable; do your jobs - the one thing you were elected to do - govern.

+1. I don't always succeed but it's what I strive for. Lying eats me up so bad, I don't do it and it makes those around me very angry to which I always suggest not to put me in a situation where you know I will be inappropriate. I fail. If I try really really really hard, I can be delicate and it's obvious that I'm trying. Subterfuge, nope. I can't haggle. I got no game. You name it. And at least in my head it's all because "Doing the right thing is important" and so I got stuck with $120,000 in additional payments for a house I could have walked away from and paid $30,000 cash for an identical cookie cutter down the street. And contractually I'd have been within my rights to do so. But you do what's right, even when the gall eats you up inside and everyone else is benefiting from you being a sucker.

Maybe in retrospect, we all should have walked away in 2008 and let it all collapse. It took all of, what, six years set the pieces for this game coming out of that boondongle?

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:35 pm

Even when doing what's right will cause suffering for millions of innocent? When doing "what's right" would disenfranchise minorities, leave refugees to face horrors in their homelands, crash the US economy with pointless trade wars? Heck, doing "what's right" could lead to a nuclear war when Trump gets upset over a lousy news cycle.

Sorry, but you have a different opinion of "what's right" than I do. Blindly accepting the horrors of another Trump administration while unburdening yourself from considering the consequences is taking the easy way out. You can still consider all of those things and come out on the side of impeachment, but refusing to even consider those because you want to follow the Ned Stark ideal is not noble.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:44 pm

In my estimation doing *nothing* has already caused problems. All the laws he's gutted, all the court-packing he and the GOP have engaged in - all of it's disgusting. I guess I don't feel that trying to hold him accountable for his behaviors by imploring elected officials to take action is promoting more harm in the short or long term. Maybe that's naive or idealistic, but I cannot abide doing nothing. It grinds on me.

EDIT: And to be clear (though I've clarified this elsewhere), my issues are connected to but not cemented because it's Trump. He's a giant sack of crap, but it's instead this idea that the President is above the law. Mix that with the enablers in Congress and the entire thing is like nails on a chalkboard to me. We're at a crossroads and I fear everyone is so focused on the "possible implications" for 2020 that they're not thinking about what it could mean in the bigger picture for democracy in the United States to allow this go unchecked and unchallenged.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:01 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:44 pm In my estimation doing *nothing* has already caused problems. All the laws he's gutted, all the court-packing he and the GOP have engaged in - all of it's disgusting. I guess I don't feel that trying to hold him accountable for his behaviors by imploring elected officials to take action is promoting more harm in the short or long term. Maybe that's naive or idealistic, but I cannot abide doing nothing. It grinds on me.

There's a wide gap in between doing nothing and impeaching. This has already led to taking the House from the Rs, which was important. I'm all for doing things that will help to temper Trump's (and GOP's) ability to lead and/or remove Trump from office. Impeaching Trump without removing him from office does not hold him accountable for his actions, however. There is the legitimate possibility (but by no means a guarantee) that it will undo some of the good that has been done. That's why I want there to be at least a reasonable chance that impeachment would lead to removal. If tapes or transcripts of the Ukraine call come out that have Trump threatening to withhold aid, that might actually be what does it and turns some Senate Rs to removal votes. So maybe now is a good time to start the proceedings so we can try to get those tapes or transcripts. We're only going to get one bite at the impeachment apple, and I want it to have the best chance of actually succeeding.

Smoove_B wrote:EDIT: And to be clear (though I've clarified this elsewhere), my issues are connected by not cemented because it's Trump. He's a giant sack of crap, but it's instead this idea that the President is above the law. Mix that with the enablers in Congress and the entire thing is like nails on a chalkboard to me. We're at a crossroads and I fear everyone is so focused on the "possible implications" for 2020 that they're not thinking about what it could mean in the bigger picture for democracy in the United States to allow this go unchecked and unchallenged.

Maybe I'm the problem here, because I think if we can get Trump out in 2020 we have a chance to fix things, even without impeachment. Let's face it, precedent and the like are illusory arguments, because precedent is not binding on either side. We already know McConnell has disavowed his "precedent setting" decision not to seat a Supreme Court Justice. People will do what they want to do in the future, precedent be damned.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:42 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:01 pm There's a wide gap in between doing nothing and impeaching. This has already led to taking the House from the Rs, which was important. I'm all for doing things that will help to temper Trump's (and GOP's) ability to lead and/or remove Trump from office. Impeaching Trump without removing him from office does not hold him accountable for his actions, however. There is the legitimate possibility (but by no means a guarantee) that it will undo some of the good that has been done. That's why I want there to be at least a reasonable chance that impeachment would lead to removal. If tapes or transcripts of the Ukraine call come out that have Trump threatening to withhold aid, that might actually be what does it and turns some Senate Rs to removal votes. So maybe now is a good time to start the proceedings so we can try to get those tapes or transcripts. We're only going to get one bite at the impeachment apple, and I want it to have the best chance of actually succeeding.

It's here where I get confused. We (collectively) elected representatives in the House (seemingly) in response to the Trump administration and the broad behaviors of the GOP. So you can possibly understand my confusion when presented with even more disgusting (unethical, illegal) behavior, the refrain is that we just need to elect more (D) representatives. No, I don't think that's right. We already elected some, let them *do something*. If they're stonewalled by the GOP or the GOP pulls BS procedural maneuvers to shut down investigations, that's a whole different story.

Maybe I'm the problem here, because I think if we can get Trump out in 2020 we have a chance to fix things, even without impeachment. Let's face it, precedent and the like are illusory arguments, because precedent is not binding on either side. We already know McConnell has disavowed his "precedent setting" decision not to seat a Supreme Court Justice. People will do what they want to do in the future, precedent be damned.

I think my core issue is that I have no faith in my fellow human beings to get out and vote. I can honestly stay that as a middle-aged hetero white married man with one kid, a dog and a house with a mortgage, the Trump presidency has impacted me (directly or indirectly) not at all - as near as I can tell. I fear I'm not alone and that far too many people just don't care because the issues being raised don't impact them directly (right now). That's why (IMHO) it's incumbent upon the elected officials to do what they were elected for - to act as representatives of the voting masses.

But regardless, yes, I agree precedent isn't binding - and I'll suggest it's a big reason we're in this mess. I maintain elected officials do what they want when there are no repercussions for violating norms and behaviors. Mitch McConnell should absolutely feel pressure.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:47 pm

Ive come to think that Trump will win again and kinda easy. Im betting not enough opposition will get out to vote thinking he will lose after this horrible presidency. Also fear the GOP will try to change stuff and keep him in forever. They love that feeling of all power they have and enjoy wasting that money on hookers.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:59 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:42 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:01 pm There's a wide gap in between doing nothing and impeaching. This has already led to taking the House from the Rs, which was important. I'm all for doing things that will help to temper Trump's (and GOP's) ability to lead and/or remove Trump from office. Impeaching Trump without removing him from office does not hold him accountable for his actions, however. There is the legitimate possibility (but by no means a guarantee) that it will undo some of the good that has been done. That's why I want there to be at least a reasonable chance that impeachment would lead to removal. If tapes or transcripts of the Ukraine call come out that have Trump threatening to withhold aid, that might actually be what does it and turns some Senate Rs to removal votes. So maybe now is a good time to start the proceedings so we can try to get those tapes or transcripts. We're only going to get one bite at the impeachment apple, and I want it to have the best chance of actually succeeding.
It's here where I get confused. We (collectively) elected representatives in the House (seemingly) in response to the Trump administration and the broad behaviors of the GOP. So you can possibly understand my confusion when presented with even more disgusting (unethical, illegal) behavior, the refrain is that we just need to elect more (D) representatives. No, I don't think that's right. We already elected some, let them *do something*. If they're stonewalled by the GOP or the GOP pulls BS procedural maneuvers to shut down investigations, that's a whole different story.

I think you're confused because you're attributing a refrain to me that I'm not singing. I'm not saying we need to elect even more Ds, I'm saying we should at least try to keep the D majority in the House. Yes, it would be nice to get a D majority in the Senate as well, but that's not going to happen before the next election cycle. And they are *doing something*. They are investigating. They are in preliminary impeachment investigations. The way you're writing it sounds like you think the only *something* is impeachment, and anything short of that is doing nothing. That may be how you feel, but it doesn't match reality.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:29 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:59 pmI think you're confused because you're attributing a refrain to me that I'm not singing. I'm not saying we need to elect even more Ds, I'm saying we should at least try to keep the D majority in the House. Yes, it would be nice to get a D majority in the Senate as well, but that's not going to happen before the next election cycle. And they are *doing something*. They are investigating. They are in preliminary impeachment investigations. The way you're writing it sounds like you think the only *something* is impeachment, and anything short of that is doing nothing. That may be how you feel, but it doesn't match reality.

I might be conflating things.

I think what I've been hearing (broadly) is the general solution to this entire Trump administration is to get out and vote in 2020 - let the voting public decide what's next. Linked with that is a general sentiment that anything that endangers sitting (D) officials should be avoided at all costs, lest it ruins the chances of protecting the gains made in Congress. To that I say, how did having a political capital work out for Merrick Garland? This is where I align with malchior in believing that there are still politicians working/thinking/governing like everything is normal or that it's going to go back to "normal" when the Trump administration ends (voted out, finishes 8 years, impeached, etc...). They're just going to follow the path that's been well-worn by their predecessors and hope the GOP follows along (they won't) or abdicates when they've been out-maneuvered (they won't).

I am (and have been) a fan of an aggressive press on the administration and the President. This "slow roll" towards 2020 to seemingly build a narrative or gain support is that "old mind" mentality. Or Pelosi is bought and sold by donors like the rest of them - I have no idea.

Doing or not doing something with the idea it will lead to (or influence) a specific outcomes is pointless. He's going to brag he was impeached and it failed. He's going to brag when they don't impeach because there was no collusion, no obstruction. He's going to brag he was impeached and they got him, but he was so smart for so long and he managed to get away with it for a long time.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:47 pm

Nothing to see here, move along...

in Ukraine, where officials are wary of offending President Trump, four meandering cases that involve Mr. Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, have been effectively frozen by Ukraine’s chief prosecutor.

The cases are just too sensitive for a government deeply reliant on United States financial and military aid, and keenly aware of Mr. Trump’s distaste for the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into possible collusion between Russia and his campaign, some lawmakers say.

The decision to halt the investigations by an anticorruption prosecutor was handed down at a delicate moment for Ukraine, as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins...

...Two months before Ukraine’s government froze the cases, Mr. Horbatyuk reached out to Mr. Mueller’s office with a formal offer to cooperate by sharing evidence and leads. Mr. Horbatyuk said that he sent a letter in January and did not receive a reply, but that the offer was now moot, since he has lost the authority to investigate.

But entries in the ledger appear to bolster Mr. Mueller’s money laundering and tax evasion case against Mr. Manafort, said Serhiy Leshchenko, a lawmaker who has closely followed the investigation. They indicate, for example, payments from Ukraine to a Cypriot company, Global Highway Limited, that was also named in an indictment Mr. Mueller filed in federal court in Virginia this year. The company covered hundreds of thousands of dollars of Mr. Manafort’s bills at a high-end men’s clothing store and antique shop in New York.

In another move seeming to hinder Mr. Mueller’s investigation, Ukrainian law enforcement allowed a potential witness to possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to leave for Russia, putting him out of reach for questioning.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:46 pm

Dems should impeach and impeach loudly. Trump's violations of the Constitution are numerous and obvious. It shouldn't even *be* a political calculation at this point. Let the Heavens fall.

But, sure, let's talk politics: it's true that some close-run red-state House seats might be endangered by strong rather than middling Democratic activity, but I'm not sure that's a sure thing. If they went blue in 2018 (a Trump referendum election), will they really be so hot to *defend* Trump after a thorough and no-doubt explosive impeachment process highlights his crimes in stark detail?

Impeach. Expose and detail the abuses. Make the Senate judge them, and then let voters judge that Senate along with the rest of the government.

Perhaps I'm somehow naive, but it really seems to me that this administration is what impeachment was meant for. If not, then what?

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:19 pm

Happy to see my rep on here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... rn-protect

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:45 pm

Case in point:

They threatened to subpoena. They didn't actually issue a subpoena today. No, instead they said we reserve the right at some point in the future if you don't give us these documents to maybe issue a subpoena.

F this half-measure bullshit.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:04 pm

This is solid for Romney:

Romney is in a unique position in the GOP, but still, good on him.

Tao · Post by **Tao** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:15 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:45 pm Case in point:

They threatened to subpoena. They didn't actually issue a subpoena today. No, instead they said we reserve the right at some point in the future if you don't give us these documents to maybe issue a subpoena.

F this half-measure bullshit.

When you are threatening someone with an empty gun you need to refrain from firing for as long as possible otherwise the ruse is up.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:17 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:29 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:59 pmI think you're confused because you're attributing a refrain to me that I'm not singing. I'm not saying we need to elect even more Ds, I'm saying we should at least try to keep the D majority in the House. Yes, it would be nice to get a D majority in the Senate as well, but that's not going to happen before the next election cycle. And they are *doing something*. They are investigating. They are in preliminary impeachment investigations. The way you're writing it sounds like you think the only *something* is impeachment, and anything short of that is doing nothing. That may be how you feel, but it doesn't match reality.
I might be conflating things.

I think what I've been hearing (broadly) is the general solution to this entire Trump administration is to get out and vote in 2020 - let the voting public decide what's next. Linked with that is a general sentiment that anything that endangers sitting (D) officials should be avoided at all costs, lest it ruins the chances of protecting the gains made in Congress. To that I say, how did having a political capital work out for Merrick Garland? This is where I align with malchior in believing that there are still politicians working/thinking/governing like everything is normal or that it's going to go back to "normal" when the Trump administration ends (voted out, finishes 8 years, impeached, etc...). They're just going to follow the path that's been well-worn by their predecessors and hope the GOP follows along (they won't) or abdicates when they've been out-maneuvered (they won't).

I am (and have been) a fan of an aggressive press on the administration and the President. This "slow roll" towards 2020 to seemingly build a narrative or gain support is that "old mind" mentality. Or Pelosi is bought and sold by donors like the rest of them - I have no idea.

Doing or not doing something with the idea it will lead to (or influence) a specific outcomes is pointless. He's going to brag he was impeached and it failed. He's going to brag when they don't impeach because there was no collusion, no obstruction. He's going to brag he was impeached and they got him, but he was so smart for so long and he managed to get away with it for a long time.

Well, for me the only plausible way to get Trump out of office is to vote him out in 2020. Congress is important but way, way less important than the presidency - if Trump gets reelected and the Democrats control both the House and Senate in 2021, that's still a major disaster for American democracy (and the world). So the core imperative is to maximize the chances of a Democrat winning the presidency (and of winning it by a lot, because the narrower the margin the greater the chance that Trump defies the results).

Of course, *how* impeachment impacts the Presidential race is necessarily uncertain. Given that, and given how bad the conduct is (especially on the Ukraine scandal) I think impeachment makes sense. But it's not a slam dunk.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:16 am

Same circles we've been going in: accept the wrong thing for safer win (but set a bad long-term precedent), or stand up to the wrong thing but risk the win (and set a good long-term precedent.)

And the idea that standing up against the wrong thing is harmful is just speculation.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:18 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:04 pm This is solid for Romney:

Romney is in a unique position in the GOP, but still, good on him.

Trump's already released an attack tweet of Romney so he's not happy with Romney's opinion.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:49 am

I wonder what Mitch McConnell and the GOP are up to in light of Trump's admissions:

Senate Republicans are scrambling to contain the political fallout from reports that President Trump pressured a foreign leader to investigate his leading Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

Several Republican lawmakers have called on Trump to reveal more details from his conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the president on Sunday acknowledged discussing Biden and his possible links to corruption in Ukraine. This effort comes as some Democrats in the House are ramping up their calls for a vote on an impeachment inquiry.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced on the Senate floor Monday afternoon that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) is trying to bring the Trump-appointed intelligence community’s inspector general who received a complaint from a whistleblower before his panel to investigate the matter.

They better be careful or they're going to get a strongly worded letter later this week!

But McConnell cautioned his colleagues to handle the issue with bipartisan cooperation and refrain from some of the political fireworks that have erupted in the House over the complaint.

“I believe it’s extremely important that their work be handled in a secure setting with adequate protections in a bipartisan fashion, and based on facts rather than leaks to the press,” he said.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to make this a political issue, he says while circling the wagons. F you Mitch.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:49 am

I've been in the IMLawBoy camp since the beginning. But this latest revelation, if it proves to go as far as Trump actually withholding aid until a foreign power helps him try to discredit a political rival, does make me think we should at least put it in writing for future generations, and as an indication that the Dems tried to do the right thing, even if it ultimately proved futile.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:48 am

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:46 pm Dems should impeach and impeach loudly. Trump's violations of the Constitution are numerous and obvious. It shouldn't even *be* a political calculation at this point. Let the Heavens fall.

But, sure, let's talk politics: it's true that some close-run red-state House seats might be endangered by strong rather than middling Democratic activity, but I'm not sure that's a sure thing. If they went blue in 2018 (a Trump referendum election), will they really be so hot to *defend* Trump after a thorough and no-doubt explosive impeachment process highlights his crimes in stark detail?

Impeach. Expose and detail the abuses. Make the Senate judge them, and then let voters judge that Senate along with the rest of the government.

Perhaps I'm somehow naive, but it really seems to me that this administration is what impeachment was meant for. If not, then what?

I don't think anyone here is really questioning whether Trump's offenses merit impeachment (no one worth listening to, anyway). The problem that some people have with impeachment is whether the political risks are worth going through the exercise based on what we know of his offenses (the Ukraine thing is changing the calculus here, as it might push the chances of removal from office to 0% to something slightly higher than 0%). I'll ask a modified version of the hypothetical I posed to Smoove:

If you knew with 100% certainty that impeachment would not result in removal and that it would guarantee Trump would win in 2020 and the GOP would retake the House, would you still support impeachment? Does it change your response if you knew with 100% certainty that not impeaching would guarantee the opposite (i.e., Trump is defeated in 2020 and the Dems retain the House)?

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:51 am

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:16 am Same circles we've been going in: accept the wrong thing for safer win (but set a bad long-term precedent), or stand up to the wrong thing but risk the win (and set a good long-term precedent.)

And the idea that standing up against the wrong thing is harmful is just speculation.

Precedent is less than meaningless in this case. If your concern is posterity and how this will look to historians, that's one thing. I'm more concerned with making things better as quickly as possible. If impeachment does that, great. If not impeaching does that, so be it.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:54 am

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:48 am
If you knew with 100% certainty that impeachment would not result in removal and that it would guarantee Trump would win in 2020 and the GOP would retake the House, would you still support impeachment? Does it change your response if you knew with 100% certainty that not impeaching would guarantee the opposite (i.e., Trump is defeated in 2020 and the Dems retain the House)?

Of course not. But that's less a hypothetical and more an impossibility (knowing the outcome of any future event with 100% certainty).

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:57 am

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:49 am I've been in the IMLawBoy camp since the beginning. But this latest revelation, if it proves to go as far as Trump actually withholding aid until a foreign power helps him try to discredit a political rival, does make me think we should at least put it in writing for future generations, and as an indication that the Dems tried to do the right thing, even if it ultimately proved futile.

You don't know what camp I'm in.

Seriously, I've gone back and forth on the issue. Some days I just want to impeach the MFer already. Some days I want to be cautious and not risk the gains that have been made. There's value in giving Trump rope to hang himself. Let's face it, if there had been impeachment right after the new Congress was seated it would have failed to remove Trump from office. There would be no appetite to do it again, so we'd be stuck until 2020 anyway. With this Ukraine stuff, though, now we might have something. It's still a long shot, but at least there's a non-zero chance at this point. (In other words, I'm for impeachment at the moment, but I reserve the right to change my mind like the wishy washy person I am.)

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:58 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:54 am
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:48 am
If you knew with 100% certainty that impeachment would not result in removal and that it would guarantee Trump would win in 2020 and the GOP would retake the House, would you still support impeachment? Does it change your response if you knew with 100% certainty that not impeaching would guarantee the opposite (i.e., Trump is defeated in 2020 and the Dems retain the House)?
Of course not. But that's less a hypothetical and more an impossibility (knowing the outcome of any future event with 100% certainty).

Yeah, but this is a hypothetical that teases out the moral issue. A lot of people are arguing that the House should impeach Trump as a moral / principles issue, because it's the right thing to do. ILB's hypothetical is essentially asking whether the outcome of impeachment matters at all in the calculus. If it does, then the next likely question is how much does one weight "doing the right thing" vs. "the expected practical consequences" in a situation like this.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:59 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:54 am
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:48 am
If you knew with 100% certainty that impeachment would not result in removal and that it would guarantee Trump would win in 2020 and the GOP would retake the House, would you still support impeachment? Does it change your response if you knew with 100% certainty that not impeaching would guarantee the opposite (i.e., Trump is defeated in 2020 and the Dems retain the House)?
Of course not. But that's less a hypothetical and more an impossibility (knowing the outcome of any future event with 100% certainty).

That's the point of a hypothetical. Smoove's answer was helpful to me because it helped me understand that discussion of the political calculus with him would be pointless - he was going 100% on principle and was unwilling to consider the political fallout.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:00 am

https://secondnexus.com/news/donald-tru ... udd-legum/

Pro-Trump Facebook Group with over a Million Followers, ‘I Love America,’ Largely Managed by Ukrainians