Octopus Overlords

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:10 pm The difference between Clinton and Trump is that the Clinton Impeachment became all about getting Clinton for committing perjury.

Fixed that for you.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:40 am

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:10 pm The difference between Clinton and Trump is that the Clinton Impeachment became all about getting Clinton for committing perjury.

Fixed that for you.

Yes, Clinton became guilty of a crime while attempting to conceal his abuse of power while still cooperating with an investigation that was 100% partisan motivated. Investigating/Impeaching Trump based off the numerous instances of obstruction laid out by the SC report isn't the same. Clinton acted to try and show that he had done nothing wrong in the land deals. Trump has acted to make sure we never really get a clear picture of what he did.

Trump perjures himself daily. There is no doubt Trump would have committed perjury if forced to testify. If that is the standard, release the impeachment!

Zarathud wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:17 am Trump perjures himself daily. There is no doubt Trump would have committed perjury if forced to testify. If that is the standard, release the impeachment!

tRump lies daily. He doesn't commit perjury because he does not say anything under oath (his handlers obviously won't allow that to happen).

Grifman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:17 amTo undertake impeachment without a majority of Americans supporting it is political foolishness.

At what point, though, does the "Constitutional Duty" to attempt an impeachment overrule the popular opinion? If it's clear the man did something worth impeaching him, at least to enough people who've been elected and placed in order to make this determination, what does it matter if "the people" don't agree. "The people" don't always have all the facts - and increasingly aren't interested in them. I don't want to bend over the government to accommodate popular ignorance.

The constitution is why we exist as a country. If we're throwing out bits and pieces without adequate review and amendments, we throw out everything it stands for and everything it's made.

Yes, it may be foolish because it has no chance in hell - but it's still something we're supposed to do because that's our system.

There is no Constitutional Duty to impeach. There is the Constitutional option and procedure for impeachment.

They swear an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution. Lot of wiggle room there.

That's still stretching it to call impeachment a "duty". it's one of the options for supporting and defending the Constitution, but hardly the only one. Besides, if it is a duty, how is that obligation enforced? If Congress doesn't go through impeachment, do we impeach Congress? If something is a duty without any enforcement mechanism, it's not much of a duty.

The impeachment debate is an important one and I swing pro or against with the wind, but let's not muddy the waters by calling it a duty of Congress.

I find the idea that impeachment needs popular support to be mildly repugnant. It's not healthcare or taxes cuts. It's justice or lack thereof.

As pointed out multiple times, Nixon's impeachment proceedings had support in the teens when it started, and what was popular opinion about Clinton's impeachment? If that had popular support I'll be shocked.

If Clinton can be impeached for lying under oath *after* impeachment started, what are the chances of nailing drumpf for lying about something more significant? I'd think it would be something like 300%, and it sure as hell won't be about a blowjob.

I always kinda thought 'duty' was a word that didn't describe something 'enforceable', but rather the spirit of what one should do. Like 'honor'.

Maybe it's my legal training, but a "duty" to do something under the law is an enforceable obligation. Since we're dealing with the founding document of our government, I think the legalistic view is appropriate.

Now, if you want to call it a "moral duty" to impeach, that's fine. But that's distinct from a "Constitutional Duty".

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:06 am That's still stretching it to call impeachment a "duty". it's one of the options for supporting and defending the Constitution, but hardly the only one. Besides, if it is a duty, how is that obligation enforced? If Congress doesn't go through impeachment, do we impeach Congress? If something is a duty without any enforcement mechanism, it's not much of a duty.

The impeachment debate is an important one and I swing pro or against with the wind, but let's not muddy the waters by calling it a duty of Congress.

But would you agree that there's a congressional responsibility (if not a duty) to investigate well-founded reports of presidential criminality, especially since Congress is (apparently) the only body in government with authority to do so?

Yes Congress should investigate. But you can have an investigation without an impeachment. (And I'm not arguing against impeachment at this point. I'm just arguing against calling it a Constitutional Duty.)

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:18 am Yes Congress should investigate. But you can have an investigation without an impeachment. (And I'm not arguing against impeachment at this point. I'm just arguing against calling it a Constitutional Duty.)

Right.

When I call it a duty (solemn responsibility, whatevs), I'm referring to the opening of investigations and hearings. But isn't that what's called the "impeachment inquiry," and thus part of a (potential) impeachment process?

It comes before the vote (which might still not be called at all).

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:28 am

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:18 am Yes Congress should investigate. But you can have an investigation without an impeachment. (And I'm not arguing against impeachment at this point. I'm just arguing against calling it a Constitutional Duty.)

Right.

When I call it a duty (solemn responsibility, whatevs), I'm referring to the opening of investigations and hearings. But isn't that what's called the "impeachment inquiry," and thus part of a (potential) impeachment process?

It comes before the vote (which might still not be called at all).

Any investigation of a President (or other federal officer) is in some sense automatically a pre-impeachment investigation / hearing, for the simple reason that it could uncover wrongdoing and be the basis for subsequent impeachment and removal. Whether current investigations are labeled "impeachment hearings / investigations" or whether they're just called hearings / investigations doesn't seem hugely important to me, but many people seem to care quite a bit about that.

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:28 am

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:18 am Yes Congress should investigate. But you can have an investigation without an impeachment. (And I'm not arguing against impeachment at this point. I'm just arguing against calling it a Constitutional Duty.)

Right.

When I call it a duty (solemn responsibility, whatevs), I'm referring to the opening of investigations and hearings. But isn't that what's called the "impeachment inquiry," and thus part of a (potential) impeachment process?

It comes before the vote (which might still not be called at all).

First, I said they "should". I didn't say it was required. (I'm a lawyer. I weasel word.) As far as I can tell, there is no explicit Constitutional requirement for them to investigate. Any requirement would be implicit (LawBeef's "support and defend" suggestion). Whether something is a "Constitutional Duty" requires it being set forth in the Constitution. Again, I'm cool with calling it a "solemn responsibility" or a "moral obligation/duty". That's all great, but it's a far cry from being mandated by the Constitution, which is what the term "Constitutional Duty" means.

And since all of these investigations are ongoing, whether they're labeled "impeachment" investigations/hearings or not, aren't we doing what you really want? Or are you arguing for the optics of officially labeling it as "impeachment investigations", regardless of whether that term has any practical meaning or impact?

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:07 am I find the idea that impeachment needs popular support to be mildly repugnant. It's not healthcare or taxes cuts. It's justice or lack thereof.

The best part is that a lot of the popular opinion against is due to the fact that the Dems have said that impeachment is risky wrt 2020, whether it succeeds or not. In other words a lot of popular opinion wants Trump out of office and doesn't think impeachment will be enough and therefore does not support it.

Justice is removing him from office in 2020, not putting a meaningless demerit on his official record that he can use to convince his classmates he's cool.

I'm surprised that some folks are still apparently under the mistaken belief that impeachment = removal.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:40 am

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:10 pm The difference between Clinton and Trump is that the Clinton Impeachment became all about getting Clinton for committing perjury.

Fixed that for you.

Per Barr, it has to be the underlying crime, so still for a BJ...

The sole reason Trump's team didn't want him talking to Mueller directly during the investigation is because they knew that Trump would NEVER be able to avoid perjuring himself. He would've done so within 3 seconds of sitting down for an interview. And I'm not employing hyperbole by writing that.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:20 pm Justice is removing him from office in 2020, not putting a meaningless demerit on his official record that he can use to convince his classmates he's cool.

I'm surprised that some folks are still apparently under the mistaken belief that impeachment = removal.

Worst case is that he wins in 2020 and there is never a "meaningless demerit". If the fear is that an impeachment will actually drive more supporters to his cause, well we're screwed no matter what. Might as well get impeachment on the public record.

Pussyfooting around the issue isn't the best way to fight a bully. I mean Trump and company's strategy is to hammer away with bullshit and accusations and insanity all day, every day. The Dem strategy is to hem and haw while praying for the perfect piece of evidence to end the presidency (either now or in November 2020). Guess which one is working?

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:20 pm Justice is removing him from office in 2020, not putting a meaningless demerit on his official record that he can use to convince his classmates he's cool.

Justice is holding him accountable for his malicious, unethical and in all likelihood, illegal behaviour while in the office of the presidency. Voting him out is not justice. That's just another election cycle. *If* he's voted out, he will have received as much justice as Bush the first received. If you feel Bush and Drumpf are worthy of the same justice, then...we have a different idea about the function of justice.

There's making a problem go away, and there's justice. They aren't the same thing.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:18 am Yes Congress should investigate. But you can have an investigation without an impeachment. (And I'm not arguing against impeachment at this point. I'm just arguing against calling it a Constitutional Duty.)

Fine. Do that then. Do lots and lots of that. Then impeach. He does and says things in the public view that would have been impeachable for anyone else, especially Obama.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:21 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:18 am Yes Congress should investigate. But you can have an investigation without an impeachment. (And I'm not arguing against impeachment at this point. I'm just arguing against calling it a Constitutional Duty.)

Fine. Do that then. Do lots and lots of that. Then impeach. He does and says things in the public view that would have been impeachable for anyone else, especially Obama.

OK?

If he's still there in 2020, impeach away. Doing so beforehand does fuck all to hurt him. But it may end up helping him. If he still wins in 2020, then impeach the son of a bitch. It will still do fuck all to hurt him, but it may help establish a base line for what Americans should or shouldn't accept in terms of integrity from their leaders.

...which is a polite way of saying it will still do fuck all.

We've never encountered this kind of a monster before. You're trying to use wooden stakes to kill a werewolf. We've gotta find a silver bullet.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:23 pm OK?

Great.

Honestly, I think they should censure him. He gets a demerit that is used primarily for lower level politicians, which would hurt his fee fees because he's much bigger than that (in his head). It's easier to make happen than an impeachment. And it still puts a demerit on the books. If Trump's popularity takes a nosedive someday, folks can point to it and say "hey, remember when the GOP wouldn't do jack shit to keep this president in check? Well, we tried!".

hepcat wrote:Doing so beforehand does fuck all to hurt him.

This is a common assumption, and that's all it is. We don't know what impeachment proceedings would do. We don't know what they would uncover. We don't know what the public reaction would be. All we can do is speculate.

Personally, I don't feel an assumption is grounds for Congress to not do their job and not hold a President accountable who committed a crime.

I still look at it as a question of short term vs long term.

The short term is that we don't impeach in order to get him out sooner.

The long term is impeaching, even if it increases the risk of him staying in, but avoid the precedent that a US President can do what he did with zero consequences, even if those consequences are just the 'demerit' of being only the third president in US history to have been impeached.

Save the next four years, and a few extra years of damage control, or risk that and preserve the integrity of the office by showing, on the record, that the US doesn't blindly accept such behavior.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:23 pm If he's still there in 2020, impeach away. Doing so beforehand does fuck all to hurt him. But it may end up helping him. If he still wins in 2020, then impeach the son of a bitch. It will still do fuck all to hurt him, but it may help establish a base line for what Americans should or shouldn't accept in terms of integrity from their leaders.

...which is a polite way of saying it will still do fuck all.

We've never encountered this kind of a monster before. You're trying to use wooden stakes to kill a werewolf. We've gotta find a silver bullet.

Not doing it can also help him wins in 2020.

Blackhawk wrote:The long term is impeaching, even if it increases the risk of him staying in

Again, I don't know where this is coming from. The only thing we have to go by is Clinton's impeachment scenario. So we're basing all of our speculation off of one data point from a set that is completely different than the one we're actually dealing with.

If anything, recent history has shown that anything that happens with Trump - good or bad - doesn't move the needle much at all.

I just don't buy into the idea that exposing Trump's crimes in public hearings is suddenly going to make him popular. Energize his base? Maybe, but his base is going to vote for him anyway. The question is whether fence sitters will side with Trump's criminality or the appearance of partisanship on behalf of Democrats. If they're going to side with Trump's criminality, they were likely going to vote for him anyway.

Exactly. Hearings and investigations should happen - more of them. They should be public. There should be press. If these hearings lead to an eventual impeachment, so be it. I'm not foolish enough to believe this will actually remove him from office. Instead, this is about holding an elected official accountable for their behavior. Would an impeachment path embolden the garbage people that were on the fence about voting for him in 2020? Maybe. But you know what else might embolden them? The fact that he (and members of his administration) can seemingly do or say anything and get away with it.

I'm all for a slow roll on this, but this needs to be be front and center every other day.

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:03 am

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:23 pm If he's still there in 2020, impeach away. Doing so beforehand does fuck all to hurt him. But it may end up helping him. If he still wins in 2020, then impeach the son of a bitch. It will still do fuck all to hurt him, but it may help establish a base line for what Americans should or shouldn't accept in terms of integrity from their leaders.

...which is a polite way of saying it will still do fuck all.

We've never encountered this kind of a monster before. You're trying to use wooden stakes to kill a werewolf. We've gotta find a silver bullet.

Not doing it can also help him wins in 2020.

You don't really know much about Trump, do you?

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:49 am The question is whether fence sitters will side with Trump's criminality or the appearance of partisanship on behalf of Democrats. If they're going to side with Trump's criminality, they were likely going to vote for him anyway.

The simple fact is that right now polls show that a majority of Americans are against an impeachment. That doesn't mean I think he doesn't deserve it. And it sure as hell doesn't mean I support him. It does mean that we risk alienating the very people you hope it would appeal to. I don't want to take that kind of risk right now. At the very least, let's wait and see if more facts come to light. Then perhaps we can use impeachment the way it should work: as a meaningful effort to oust what is undeniably the most dangerously divisive, corrupt and mentally incompetent president our country has ever had.

I can already see Trump sitting in front of the House, fuming at being called in, and declaring the whole room a bunch of traitors... and his base loving him for it.

"If they don't like him, he must be doing something right! Stigginit giddyup!"

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:07 am I find the idea that impeachment needs popular support to be mildly repugnant. It's not healthcare or taxes cuts. It's justice or lack thereof.

As pointed out multiple times, Nixon's impeachment proceedings had support in the teens when it started, and what was popular opinion about Clinton's impeachment? If that had popular support I'll be shocked.

If Clinton can be impeached for lying under oath *after* impeachment started, what are the chances of nailing drumpf for lying about something more significant? I'd think it would be something like 300%, and it sure as hell won't be about a blowjob.

Your example is not very good support for your argument, if anything it supports me. Clinton was not convicted, and his impeachment was very unpopular with the public - he left office with a pretty high approval rating. Is that what you want for Trump - a boost for the 2020 election?

Repugnant or not, the opinion of the electorate matters. You can live in a idealistic dream world all you want, but we exist in a real world where the opinion of the people matters. The fact is unless some startling new revelation about Trump appears, the Senate is not going to convict Trump. So in the end, what is the purpose of impeachment - so you and others can feel good about it? The most important thing right now is that we insure that Trump is NOT re-elected. If impeachment does not serve that purpose, then it's a total waste of time.

The election in 2020 is the key. At this point, people are pretty set - they either hate Trump or love him - there's not a lot in between - very few opinions are going to be changed by any impeachment process. So the key in 2020 is turnout - get your people out, discourage the other side from turning out (or don't give them extra incentive to turn out). Trump's followers love to feel like he is being persecuted, they love feeling like underdogs. And impeachment will only reinforce those feelings, increasing their likelihood of turning out. Better the resources and time spent on impeachment be spent on Democratic voter turnout, rather than it encouraging Trump supporter turnout.

I really wonder how many of those who poll as against impeachment while believing he has committed crimes hold that belief due to a similar belief that impeaching him won't actually remove him from office. I know the thought that there is a near zero chance of conviction by the Senate makes me question whether to bother with it or simply focus on highlighting how horrid his leadership is in an effort to be sure voters remove him in spite of the Senate. Which, of course, is the entire debate the Dems are facing.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:35 pm Save the next four years, and a few extra years of damage control, or risk that and preserve the integrity of the office by showing, on the record, that the US doesn't blindly accept such behavior.

The Senate will not convict, so the result will be that the US does blindly accept such behavior. All you will show is that the Democrats in the House won't, and we already know that. Without a conviction by the Senate, impeachment is practically worthless.

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:16 am

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:35 pm Save the next four years, and a few extra years of damage control, or risk that and preserve the integrity of the office by showing, on the record, that the US doesn't blindly accept such behavior.

The Senate will not convict, so the result will be that the US does blindly accept such behavior. All you will show is that the Democrats in the House won't, and we already know that. Without a conviction by the Senate, impeachment is practically worthless.

Except that it will force the GOP to -actively- countenance Trump's lawlessness. If impeachment hearings go as they should, this could be a hard choice for some senators facing re-election.

I keep seeing surveys showing that the vast majority of Americans don't really even know what's in the Mueller Report. It's going to take something like impeachment to shine a light on Trump's crimes.

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:16 amWithout a conviction by the Senate, impeachment is practically worthless.

Here's where we disagree. The GOP has managed to maintain a two year run without being put on the official record regarding anything Trump has said or done. It's long overdue - we need to know exactly where they all stand - all the elected officials running our government. Having Mitch McConnell run interference so they can coast through midterms and reelection is unacceptable.