Fixed that for you.
The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
- Remus West
- Posts: 33592
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
- Location: Not in Westland
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
- Zarathud
- Posts: 16515
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois
The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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!
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
- Remus West
- Posts: 33592
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
- Location: Not in Westland
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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).
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
- Paingod
- Posts: 13135
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
Black Lives Matter
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
- ImLawBoy
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 14977
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
There is no Constitutional Duty to impeach. There is the Constitutional option and procedure for impeachment.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
- LawBeefaroni
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 55361
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
- Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
They swear an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution. Lot of wiggle room there.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- ImLawBoy
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 14977
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
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.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
- GreenGoo
- Posts: 42334
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
- Location: Ottawa, ON
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
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.
- Unagi
- Posts: 26513
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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'.
- ImLawBoy
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 14977
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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".
Now, if you want to call it a "moral duty" to impeach, that's fine. But that's distinct from a "Constitutional Duty".
That's my purse! I don't know you!
- Holman
- Posts: 28977
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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?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.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
- ImLawBoy
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 14977
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.)
That's my purse! I don't know you!
- Holman
- Posts: 28977
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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).
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
- El Guapo
- Posts: 41314
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
- Location: Boston
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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 amRight.
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).
Black Lives Matter.
- ImLawBoy
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 14977
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:28 amRight.
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).
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?
That's my purse! I don't know you!
- LawBeefaroni
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 55361
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
- Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- hepcat
- Posts: 51483
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
I'm surprised that some folks are still apparently under the mistaken belief that impeachment = removal.
He won. Period.
- Pyperkub
- Posts: 23659
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
- Location: NC- that's Northern California
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
Per Barr, it has to be the underlying crime, so still for a BJ...
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
- hepcat
- Posts: 51483
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
He won. Period.
- LawBeefaroni
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 55361
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
- Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.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.
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?
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- GreenGoo
- Posts: 42334
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
- Location: Ottawa, ON
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
- GreenGoo
- Posts: 42334
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
- Location: Ottawa, ON
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
- ImLawBoy
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 14977
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
OK?
That's my purse! I don't know you!
- hepcat
- Posts: 51483
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
...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.
Last edited by hepcat on Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He won. Period.
- GreenGoo
- Posts: 42334
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
- Location: Ottawa, ON
- hepcat
- Posts: 51483
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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!".
He won. Period.
- YellowKing
- Posts: 30194
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.hepcat wrote:Doing so beforehand does fuck all to hurt him.
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.
- Blackhawk
- Posts: 43845
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
- Location: Southwest Indiana
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
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.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
- Victoria Raverna
- Posts: 5107
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:23 am
- Location: Jakarta
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
Not doing it can also help him wins in 2020.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.
- YellowKing
- Posts: 30194
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.Blackhawk wrote:The long term is impeaching, even if it increases the risk of him staying in
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.
- Smoove_B
- Posts: 54702
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
- Location: Kaer Morhen
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
I'm all for a slow roll on this, but this needs to be be front and center every other day.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
- hepcat
- Posts: 51483
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
You don't really know much about Trump, do you?Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:03 amNot doing it can also help him wins in 2020.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.
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.
He won. Period.
- Paingod
- Posts: 13135
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
Black Lives Matter
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
- LawBeefaroni
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 55361
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
- Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
"If they don't like him, he must be doing something right! Stigginit giddyup!"
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- Grifman
- Posts: 21265
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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?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.
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.
Last edited by Grifman on Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
- Remus West
- Posts: 33592
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
- Location: Not in Westland
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
- Grifman
- Posts: 21265
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
- Holman
- Posts: 28977
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
- Smoove_B
- Posts: 54702
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
- Location: Kaer Morhen
Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread
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.
Maybe next year, maybe no go