Here we go. . . . from CNN:
I don’t think Pelosi can fight this one off. . .
(CNN)A majority of House Democrats are now on record publicly supporting an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, according to a CNN count — a sign of momentum for pro-impeachment lawmakers that is likely to ramp up pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leaders.
The current number of impeachment backers may not necessarily, or immediately, change the calculation for House Democratic leadership on how to proceed as Democrats continue their investigations into the President and his administration. But it nevertheless shows that support among Democrats on Capitol Hill for an inquiry is continuing to grow.
Rep. Salud Carbajal of California became the 118th Democrat to publicly support the start of an impeachment inquiry in a statement on Friday, at least the 23rd lawmaker to do so since special counsel Robert Mueller testified on Capitol Hill last week.
Maybe it will help bring Trump down, but of course I’m afraid it will make him a martyr, for there’s no chance that even if the House brings charges, the Senate will convict.
Sub
I love the smell of impeachment in the morning. It smells like … victory.
Oooo … … morning time, Mr Kukec ?
Howza’bout … … Friday at 5 ?!
the Universe’s .routine. dumping time, not ?!
Blue
And it sounds like…Wagner.
I’m heartened by this; it tells me the Mueller testimony compelled constituents to call their representatives demanding an inquiry. Keep the investigations on the front-page, and I’m confident public support will grow. I also agree with what Julian Castro said during the debate; if the House doesn’t move to an impeachment inquiry, Trump will say “see, the dems didn’t try to impeach me…you know why? NO COLLUSION!” He’ll use the House’s inaction as vindication, and many people will believe him (people that aren’t necessarily in the cult). If the House succeeds w/ impeachment and Moscow Mitch ignores it, that will rev up the dems more than the republicans.
I agree. One argument that definitely makes no sense to me is the “If the Senate doesn’t convict Trump will use that to his advantage” argument. No sense. Trump will use whatever the Dems do or don’t do to his advantage. And how he does that, what he says, won’t make any sense compared to reality but his core supporters won’t notice. They’ve been living in Trumplandia for a long time already. That being the case, which it very clearly is, then this is not a valid criteria to judge whether or not the Dems should impeach.
I agree, there is roughly no chance the senate will follow through (I love the “Moscow Mitch” designation btw) but it keeps the general sneeze in the public sphere for a good while. They just need to string it out for a long time.
And what will he say if he is impeached and acquitted?
If the House doesn’t impeach, Trump will crow about “all those investigations, and they couldn’t find anything bad enough for impeachment.” I say the Ds should run a full scale, televised impeachment hearing; even if they don’t vote to impeach, the hearings alone will inform the public. If the House does vote to impeach, and the Senate acquits, sure, Trump will crow about that, but the Ds can counter with, “look at all the crimes we uncovered, and Moscow Mitch and the R toadies chose to protect a criminal administration.”
No matter what the Senate does, Trump’s supporters are going to believe that he’s the Second Coming. So, yes, he’ll be a martyr to people who aren’t going to be swayed by impeachment hearings anyway.
I agree with Mark R. above – Trump will use the Dems failure to begin impeachment hearings as vindication.
I think it’s possible impeachment hearings will bring to light some very damning information about Trump’s illicit activities.
Indeed, folks like Michele Bachmann believe that ““He is, without a doubt, the most biblical president I have ever seen.” I suppose I’d have to agree since there are some despicable behaviors in the Bible, and Trump is certainly despicable.
LOL! Good one.
Pelosi is very stubborn, I think it will take a lot more than a majority of Dems to convince her. Plus, she may think she can just run out the clock. Rather than who will vote for impeachment, I’d like a list of Dems who would vote against it.
Apropos…
“I’m not trying to run out the clock. We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed, not one day sooner… Everybody has the liberty and the luxury to espouse their own position and to criticize me for trying to go down the path in the most determined positive way. Again, their advocacy for impeachment only gives me leverage.”
(emphasis added)
-Nancy Pelosi
I think she actually is running out the clock.
The moment it becomes clear that the voters in red states start to be convinced that Mr Trump is the criminal we think him to be, she will go for impeachment within a second, but not before.
One of the problems with impeachment is that if Mr Trump is impeached and convicted, Mr Pence will pardon him.
That’s not a problem with impeachment. It is a problem with Mr. Pence.
Guess we’ll just hafta see whether Trump gets impeached or indicted first.
The Manhattan DA’s office be droppin’ subpoenas on Trump World like they’re ’80s mix-tapes at an uptown house party (you know, relating to the same hush-money criming that Michael Cohen’s doin’ time up-state in Otisville for).
These are New York state charges, so the OLC memo, AG Barr’s machinations, and the pardon power can’t save the Donald’s ample ass on this one.
“ample ass” made me lol
The problem with any charge, state or federal, is that the government has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. The jury’s vote would have to be unanimous. Trump’s supporters range from 35 to 45% of the population. In New York that is likely to be on the low end of the scale. This probably means that on any jury of 12,somewhere between 3 to 5 of the jurors will be Trump supporters. All it takes is one to hang a jury and a mistrial declared. Sure he can be tried again, but the new trial would face the same problem.
This is what happened with the majority of the charges against Manafort. For some reason a holdout on most of the counts was convinced by the rest of the jury to convict him on 8 of the 24 or so counts. (If my recollection serves, the vote was 11-1 on the rest of the counts.) How the juror was convinced to find Manafort guilty on 8 counts will be an interesting story – if it is ever revealed. Had they not convinced that juror, and the jury was hung and a mistrial declared on all charges, Trump may have had the political cover to end the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt.
No one wants Trump behind bars more than I. The failure of the system to charge and convict him before he became president on any number of crimes will be recorded as one of the system’s greatest failures.
For now, I am not going to entertain any hope that he will ever see the inside of a cell (except perhaps a day or so with his initial arrest). If he should ever be convicted, I would celebrate with a expensive bottle of scotch that I have been saving for a very special occasion. (I will drink it if he is not reelected so I would need to buy another bottle for the trial.)
I sure like to think that a jury would base its verdict on the evidence presented at trial rather than mere political affiliation. (But, for what it’s worth, Trump won only 9.71% of the vote in Manhattan — the borough he calls home and where the voters know him best, and the county from which prospective jurors would be selected.)
In any event, even were Trump to be indicted on state charges today, I’m all but certain no trial could take place before the 2020 election. Trump would appeal the constitutionality of the indictment all the way up to SCOTUS (and would also doubtless seek a change of venue away from all those Trump-haters in Manhattan).
Thanks for the statistic. I did not know that. I am more optimistic now. This means a good chance of no Trump supporters on a jury. dj
They really have no choice. Russia was essentially the centrist Democratic gangplank from 2016, if they don’t impeach they end up losing all credibility on every other issue.
I’d like to see what the pollsters have discovered about the general public’s view of impeachment. If the house could get Trump’s tax returns and an unredacted Mueller report there might be enough for a strong case.
The letters to the editor in the local paper
from Trump’s supporters are almost giddy with the idea of impeachment and saying that Trump will walk all over it. I think we’re entering a dangerous time and we need to be prepared for a Trump win in 2020.
And 2024. If they are still having elections then.
Removing the limit on Presidential terms requires a change to the constitution.
“The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate….. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.”
And do you think that’ll stop him. Or indeed, them?
The worry that Trump will somehow trash the constitution and promote himself to dictator is wild fantasy. American institutions are much stronger than that.
In addition, thinking a fat marshmallow like Trump will avoid a heart attack through 2024 seems a bit of a stretch.
We may even be watching his political demise at this moment with the stock market in rapid decline due to his tariff policies.
Morning consult poll – this week (generally in line with most of what’s been around for a while):
Democratic voters are strongly in favor of impeachment, with 64 percent supporting it, combined with 18 percent who oppose it.
Republicans (6 percent support, versus 86 percent oppose)
Independents (34 percent support, versus 42 percent oppose)
But then there was a majority against impeachment proceedings against Nixon, that changed as they proceeded.
Sorry Mike – that was supposed to be a response to you
Sub
What is the high crime?
If only someone could State it clearly.
Yeah! It isn’t like he’s been accused of having oral sex out of wedlock!
I was partially hinting at that. The door to weaponizing impeachment was opened when the Republicans simply “went after” Bill Clinton. They “got him” on whatever they could grip:
Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:
the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky; prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition; prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit; his attempts to tamper with witnesses
Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:
encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit; encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify; concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed; attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony; permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit; attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie; making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses
Bill was probably guilty of all that. But there were not enough votes in the Senate to convict.
The whole thing was sordid. Where is the dignity?
The Democrats may be on the road to a similar debacle.
If Trumps behavior was in the same category as Clinton’s then, yes. But it isn’t remotely. If these conditions don’t call for impeachment, then what behavior ever would?
Giving secret concessions to insiders from the People’s Republic of China.
No problem as long as it is Russia or Saudi Arabia. But China would be a bridge too far.
/sarcasm
Clinton covered up getting a hummer — a cover-up sufficiently serious it should’ve merited censure by the US senate.
Trump has engaged in numerous acts of obstruction of justice into an investigation of the worst foreign attack on American electoral politics in US history — an attack likely to be repeated in spades in 2020, especially given that Trump refuses honestly to admit what happened in 2016, is endeavoring to staff the US intelligence community with his lackeys, and the US senate majority leader will not allow legislation protecting our next election to come to the senate floor for a vote.
I was going to offer that high crimes are those committed under the influence of weed. But, I’ve decided against it.
” there’s no chance that even if the House brings charges, the Senate will convict.”
1) Supposedly (I haven’t looked for confirmation), this is what was said before Nixon’s impeachment.
2) We need to retake the Senate.
I can not imagine a better campaign issue than a months-long demonstration of the seriousness of any obstruction of justice offense, the spectre (yes, a Bond reference) of Russians subverting our democracy – and the venality, corruption, and unpatriotic disregard for the rule of law that would be on high-definition display by a Republican Senate who would protect such criminality.
The Democrats could really use the opportunity to tell the world that they do actually stand for something worthwhile.
Meanwhile, back in the swamp – six Republican Senators have already announced they will not be seeking reelection. What do you suppose is motivating them?
I believe those were Republican Representatives, not Senators, who announced their “retirement” today.
Included is Texas rep. Will Hurd, the last African-American Republican in the House of Representatives (and maybe the last honest Republican in the House, too).
The 41-year-old Hurd and fellow early retiree Susan Brooks of Indiana were two of only four GOP congresscritters with the integrity to denounce Trump’s “send them back” attacks for the racism they were. There’s no place for such people in today’s Party of Trump.
Hurd’s departure will leave SC Sen. Tim Scott — the first and only black US senator from the South since Reconstruction — as the sole black Republican in all the United States congress.
How’s that Republican plan to diversify recommended by its “autopsy” following Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss coming along?
You mean like with the Brett Cavanaugh hearings?
Kavanaugh – my last name is in auto-correct.
No, like the Nixon hearings.
I remember the Nixon impeachment hearings quite well, and I don’t see any strong parallels.
Nixon was not impeached. He had to resign because his support collapsed after the House got hold of the Watergate tapes.
Do you think it’s likely that anything as damning as the Watergate tapes exist in respect of Trump. I don’t.
Not sure. But what Trump has done makes what Nixon did pale by comparison.
As hard as Nixon fought to keep his Watergate tapes from becoming public, Trump is fighting to keep from disclosing his tax returns and his records from Deutsche Bank (where the “suspicious activity” reports regarding his accounts and the accounts of his son-on-law Jared Kushner — some of which concern transactions with Russians — were quashed by top management in the private-banking division).
I don’t know what Trump’s tax returns will show, but I’m sure he’s not fighting disclosure merely because they’re “under audit” as he’s claimed. And I’m sure they will eventually be disclosed to congress. His reasons for resisting the congressional subpoenas for his tax returns and his banking records are utterly pretextual.
Maybe so, but the evidence we know about isn’t as good.
And what if the tax returns and other financial records show nothing worse than Trump isn’t as rich as he says he is? What are you going to tell me will definitely get Trump next?
I’m sick to the back teeth of people telling me that thing x will be the downfall of Trump and then finding out that thing x is a damp squib, Trump sails on unaffected and his supporters spin thing x as a victory for him against the witch hunters. It’s got to the point where, in moments of weakness, I wonder if he hasn’t done anything illegal and that’s why his enemies have been unable to nail him.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Trump is a terrible president and an amoral person. I don’t believe the Access Hollywood tape is mere “locker talk”, I do believe Trump deliberately obstructed justice with malicious intent. I do believe he is corrupt and racist. What I don’t see is enough evidence to convict him of these things, especially not in a process as political as impeachment. The only way to get rid of Trump is to vote him out of office in 2020.
You have a peculiar perspective on how investigations should work. On one hand you say “…I do believe Trump deliberately obstructed justice…” (which is a crime) but then argue that there’s no reason to investigate because “…what if the tax returns and other financial records show nothing worse than…“.
These two arguments are not compatible.
One doesn’t only investigate crimes where you know in advance that a jury will convict. Impeachment is no different. The process is an exercise of Constitutional responsibility by Congress. It may (or may not) be that the only way to get rid of Trump is to vote him from office. But that is no (good) argument that impeachment should be off the table.
Nope. My arguments are compatible. The difference is in the standard of evidence needed to make me believe somebody has been involved in criminal behaviour and the standard of evidence required to put them in prison (or get them impeached) or get their supporters to vote for somebody else.
Impeachment is different because we know the Republican senate will not convict, at least not without evidence so blatant that it would be politically damaging to ignore it.
I’ve heard so many times “this thing will destroy Trump politically” and every time the thing turns out not to be true or true but not damaging.
I’m sorry but I just don’t believe you guys anymore when you come up with yet another straw to clutch and I’m afraid you are damaging the one real opportunity that we know we have to get rid of him.
What you believe is beyond my control. But you seem to constantly devalue the gathering and exposure of evidence. And you seem to think your insight that Moscow Mitch’s Senate won’t convict is somehow missed by those of us who think Congress has Constitutional responsibilities that must be exercised if the Republic is to survive. We aren’t that obtuse.
No, I’m disputing the faith you seem to be putting into it. Because so far, every time somebody comes up with new evidence that “will destroy Trump” they have been wrong.
Please point to evidence for such faith. Please show me where I (or someone else here in WEITville has used the phrase “will destroy Trump” or something to this effect.
That’s the ultimate aim isn’t it? To get Trump out of power?
That’s the thing. The debate isn’t whether to hold an impeachment vote, the debate is whether to open a formal impeachment inquiry. This is where any evidence is brought to light. If this inquiry brings out evidence that warrants impeachment, then they go to the next step. If not, so be it. The idea that there shouldn’t be an inquiry because the Senate wouldn’t convict is a disconnect of logic. It has to be one step at a time.
Jeremy, I’m with you here, down the line. You are not alone in these thoughts.
Friends, don’t let your Trump hatred make you stupid and reckless. Get your facts straight. Don’t assume something is true just because it puts Trump in a bad light. Try to interpret his statements charitably, before going off the deep end. You don’t need to grasp for venial or mortal sins – real, verifiable ones are there in abundance for the pointing out. If you think I’m imagining a type that doesn’t exist, I cite Don Lemon of CNN as a living, breathing example.
If I understand correctly, impeaching Trump would make make it much more difficult to resist requests for related information. Any lawyers know about this?
Since these things take time, it would be best if it is done quickly to expose information before the election.
The argument that Democrats should avoid impeaching and work on legislation important to voters is specious, since the senate wont let anything useful pass. Impeach the crooked, lying bastard!
Impeachment?
Does this mean Democrats can not defeat the worst president in US history through the ballot box?
Impeachment hearings are risky, but principled. An attempt to hold Trump accountable for his corruption is the right thing to do. After all, the Republicans held dozens of bogus hearings of Benghazi to whittle away Clinton’s reputation, etc. I see no reason Dems shouldn’t keep Trumps corruption in the public eye until the election. Given there will be no conviction, if there is no impeachment, Trump will declare victory. If there is impeachment, Trump will also declare victory. I say, impeach.
I fully understand the argument that Trump’s alleged misconduct cannot be ignored, and that to do so would set a dangerous precedent. Nevertheless, given the GOP’s majority in the Senate, any impeachment proceedings in the House will likely result in a Pyrrhic victory. Initiating them therefore remains a difficult choice. With a heavy heart I would choose not to launch them at this time.
I agree. Even if they never advance articles of impeachment to the Senate, Trump will still be able to make the claim that the Dems failed to impeach him with some justification. According to pundits, they have can pursue oversight with almost as much authority without risking the “failed impeachment” label.
How about if they impeach and hold hearings but announce up front that conviction is not their goal for the reason that the Senate Republicans are beholden to Trump? The goal is only discovery and education? That way they head off any claim that impeachment was a failure.
An interesting idea but I doubt they could present that with a united front. They just need to put their “oversight” in overdrive. Unfortunately, it is probably too late. Trump will fight or ignore everything making the process so slow that we’ll have the 2020 election before they get anywhere. And, of course, we will start hearing cries that it makes no sense to impeach in an election year which has some truth to it.
Anybody remember when McMurphy bet the other patients on the mental ward he could lift the tub-room control panel? Thing musta been 400 pounds of concrete and steel. The other patients looked at it and knew it couldn’t be done, so they bet him all the money he’d won from them playing poker.
McMurphy straddled the beast with his boots, dug his hands into the levers at the bottom and strained. And strained. And strained some more, until the veins on his forehead were about to burst and his hands were a blood mess. And for a second — just a split second, maybe — the other patients coulda swore they heard the grinding of concrete and that the goddamn thing was about to come up off the floor.
It didn’t, of course. And McMurphy went to give the others back their poker IOUs, but his hands were curled up like claws, so he fished ’em outta his pocket and left ’em lying in a bloody pile on the floor.
Then, as he walked outta the tub-room, he turned back at the door and looked each of others in the eye.
The United States of America is big and strong as Chief Bromden. It just needs somebody to show it how to stand up to a thieving, lying, corrupt bully.
And that somebody might as well be the House Democrats doing impeachment. ‘Cause it sure as hell ain’t gonna be congressional Republicans, who’re scared shitless Trump will send a mean tweet their way, such that they’ll draw a primary opponent and their donors will disappear.
+1
Time after time I’m amazed at our common interests and values. Here you formulate a masterful excerpt from a favorite of mine, and apply it (you see this coming) in exactly the wrong situation.
If you want the Democratic party to be the Chief, they should keep inquiries as much out of the public eye as possible – and if they find nothing solid, shut up and go away.
Sam Harris has an interview with Benjamin Wittes anout the Muller report.
It is mentioned that a Resolution of Censure may be the best alternative to the conundrum
Latest poll:
67% of Democrats support impeachment proceedings, 35% of independents.
Not bad numbers, considering that they will certainly rise much higher after the process gets underway, ala Nixon. Count on it, the only number that will stay static is that 40% that represents his loony cult.
There’s no certainty at all. Presuming this will play out as with Nixon is wishful thinking. For starters, the Mueller report was no where near as damning as Judge Sirica’s.
Are you really counting the majority of Americans, including 1/3 of Dems and several of us here, as part of Trump’s “loony cult”?
Matt, how do you figure “majority ” of Americans?
Polls show a majority of Americans do not favor impeachment proceedings.
Ok
Picky, picky, picky! OK if not “certainly” then high probability. As for wishful thinking, you’ve shown me no evidence that your thinking, or judgement is more realistic or superior to mine. I at least have precedent for support of my position.
You can’t estimate probability on a single data point.
These are but reasoned guesses; I & others have laid out our reasoning. I wasn’t trying to ‘prove’ my thinking is superior to yours; all I can say in my defense is I’ve worked on political campaign polling & strategy in the past.
You, though, do believe you’re a superior judge of the political landscape than Nancy Pelosi. What is she missing that you see?
You’re are very skilled at rhetoric sir. I genuinely thank you for pointing out the flaws in in my word choices. I do strive for accuracy, but do not always quite hit the mark in my prose. However I stand by my own reasoned guess that impeachment will lower Trump’s support in the polls. As for my bona fides, I freely admit that I am not a political strategist strategist, like you and Nancy Pelosi. However there are many in the Democratic party who are that think impeachment is the best way forward, and that number seems to be growing. In any event, if we are going to be rhetorical, argument by authority is one of the classic fallacies.
+1
I should add that if Democratic strategy is to sacrifice the rule of law, the defense of the Constitution, and common decency in service to this constant triangulation chasing after wishy-washy independents, then we have already sacrificed the Republic on the alter of cynical expediency. Now that is my take, for what it is worth, but I’m just a naive idealist. The really sad thing is, is that I don’t think Pelosi misses all of these points, they just must not be that important to her.
I’m sorry but that angle just doesn’t make sense to me. In an impeachment, the House plays the role of prosecutor and the Senate judge and jury. Prosecutors often decide whether to take on a case based on whether they think it’s winnable. If they decide not to prosecute, it doesn’t necessarily mean they think the alleged criminal is innocent. It also doesn’t weaken the law with which they would have been charged. Pelosi doesn’t want to prosecute unless there’s a really strong case and the judge and jury are going to give them a proper trial.
Sir I hear and understand your arguments, and they are not without merit, however by not choosing to at least aggressively pursue the option of impeachment by opening further investigations the Democrats are showing a fatal weakness. Our friend Matt has reminded of us Judge Sirica and the Nixon investigations. If I understood him correctly (forgive me, Matt, if I haven’t) his point was that the Mueller investigations do not rise to that level of probity. I might attempt to contest that conclusion but I would, admittedly, be out of my depth. But recall that Sirica’s most damning findings came after a long series of in depth probes that finally gave us a smoking gun. Mueller’s probe was strictly limited from the very start precisely, I believe, because the Republicans have learned from that. There’s plenty of red meat in Trump’s closet. If not collusion, then obstruction, if not obstruction then the emoluments clause, and on and on. But your real mistake, I feel, is something many other people have brought up in this forum: The mere fact that the Senate will not convict is not the point! In the end impeachment is more about politics than law, and I will concede my that my own principled support for it as support for the rule of law is weakened by that admission. But this is the opportunity for the Democratic leadership to stand up against palpable wrong before history and the electorate. You say it’s a risk? Those who wrote the Constitution risked being hanged, drawn, and quartered!
Hyperbole aside, as others have pointed out, it doesn’t even need to rise to the level of impeachment, just keep the investigations going until the elections.
The Howard Baker seat it still available for the taking, and if something causes the overall tide to tip just a bit more, some R may just rise to the occasion. Sure, it’ll take more than just one, but once one of them sees it as a risk worth taking, more should follow.
Several retiring Republicans did position themselves as mild critics of Trump. Their impact was pretty negligible. But, I agree it seems as if more would come forward.
I am wondering if this may lead to a full inquiry in the House, but not an actual vote on impeachment prior to the election. That would set up the strange prospect of either Trump losing the election, or if he wins facing an impeachment vote at the outset of his second term. Could be interesting!
Does gibbon shit burn hot enough to sterilize the suppurating mass? Probably, if fanned by a lot of hot air – which La Donald produces in abundance.
Somehow, I like that image. A Tangerine Shitgibbon roast upon a pyre of his own verbal diarrhoea.
In the meantime nothing gets done, except much moaning and groaning.
There is no relationship between legislation passed by the House of Representatives and the debate over the wisdom of impeachment. The article referred to below discusses the many bills passed by the House only to be blocked by Mitch McConnell in the Senate, who is the Republican Majority Leader. So, people who moan and groan about nothing getting done due to the impeachment debate do not understand what is going on in the U.S. Congress or intentionally distort the reality. Those who think that things would get done if Democrats stopped talking about impeachment are either politically naïve or trying to divert attention from the real reason no bills turn into law.
https://www.vox.com/2019/5/24/18637163/trump-pelosi-democrats-bills-congress
On the very long shot that Trump was impeached, convicted, and expelled from office, Mike Pence would become President. Are we really sure a religious fanatic like Pence would be preferable?
No…
I dunno. Would Pence be able to reclaim his gonads from the lock box where Trump keeps ’em? 🙂
If there’s ever been a more simpering sycophant in public life, it’d be news to me.
Again, you don’t watch Fox enough. Hannity and Jeanine Pirro challenge anyone’s Trump sycophancy.
I force myself to watch Sean and Jeanine from time to time, Carl, and you’re right on the sycophancy front. But nobody, but nobody does simpering like our Veep.
Ken, I think you would appreciate this masterful, if ultimately dead wrong prediction by George Will from 2016. It has this to say about Pence:
Yeah, that’s good stuff. Ol’ George has come into his own since going “never Trump” and leaving the GOP. It’s liberated his thinking and his prose.
I think Pence would be a big improvement. Trump is that bad. Nevertheless, impeaching Trump is a fool’s errand.
On the very long shot that Trump was impeached, convicted, and expelled from office, Mike Pence would become President. Are we really sure a religious fanatic like Pence would be preferable?
If Trump is impeached, he will not be convicted. This exercise seems not only pointless but damaging to the country and beneficial to Trump.
The entire country will get bogged down as the circus drags out interminably. Neither Trump nor his supporters will feel any pain from the process. Good luck to any Democrat attempting to campaign or get any oxygen at all while it goes on.
If something new and telling comes out, I might change my opinion. I think that’s unlikely and all the major facts are already known. Americans will only become more rigid in their hatred for one another.
The purpose of a formal impeachment inquiry is to discover things new and telling.
tomh, Of course, but I think the likelihood of a telling discovery is remote, and not worth the damage it would do creating more rancor among the people and ultimately aiding Trump.
Fortunately, a majority of Democratic representatives disagree. Unfortunately, Pelosi is not one of them. She won’t come around until it’s politically expedient for her to do so, as holding onto power is the driving force of her agenda. IMO, Democrats won’t progress until the old, centrist, do-nothing powers that be are usurped.
“…major facts are already known.”
Ahhh, no.
We don’t have the complete Mueller report including non-redacted grand jury information, we don’t have Trump’s tax returns, we don’t have testimony from important figures, we haven’t got Deutsche bank info yet…we don’t know a lot of “major facts”. The Democrats who are campaigning can use the investigation’s findings as fuel for their arguments, more oxygen, not less.
Either way, I agree that Americans will become more rigid in their hatred. So be it I say. That’s a bad reason to ignore crime and corruption on a level we haven’t seen in this country since Nixon. And I have an inkling that Trump’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” will make Watergate look like jaywalking.
They’ll certainly be worse than fibbing about a blowjob.
“I’m afraid it will make him a martyr.”
Absolutely. Total waste of time and playing right into Trump’s “witch hunt” mantra–which, for anyone with an ounce of objectivity–is not without foundation. Forget impeachment already and just give me someone I can vote for come 2020.
Don’t you already have someone you can vote for? Trump?
Several commentators here think that if Trump is impeached by the House and not convicted by the Senate (which will be certainly the case) then he would crow that he has been proven innocent. This is true. On the hand, if the House does not impeach, Trump will brag that the House did not even have enough evidence to impeach him. Either way, Trump will argue that he was vindicated. This being the case then Trump should be impeached. It will uphold the rule of law and present to the nation and posterity the crimes of a president. An impeachment would be a major effort to defend this democracy against a person who views himself as a petty despot. The Founders put an impeachment clause in the Constitution for a reason. Trump’s actions provide the reason.
In my experience, people against whom a grand jury cannot muster enough evidence to demonstrate probable cause to indict have more bragging rights to innocence than someone whom a court determines there’s enough evidence to submit to a jury.
I should think that’s triply true where the jury that does the acquitting isn’t comprised of one’s peers, but of a gang of pusillanimous political hacks willing to ignore the evidence set forth before the nation on tv for fear of drawing a primary challenge from their far rightwing.
Impeachment is the right thing to do if the uncovered facts will convince a big enough majority of the voters that it was the right thing to do, regardless of the Senate. But do we know that to be the case?
Make him a martyr then. Who cares? He can join the ranks of Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The south can erect orange statues in adulation. There is no “forgetting” a monster like Trump. He needs to be impeded by any way possible. An impeachment inquiry is the correct step forward. I don’t know (as tomh implies) if you’re a Trump supporter, but hopefully you’re a supporter of truth and justice (sorry that sounded so canned).
“There is no ‘forgetting’ a monster like Trump.”
As I see it, Trump will be remembered long after Washington and Lincoln are forgotten—and not until then. The man is a hiccup in history.
I want his brain to be saved after his death. Studies should be conducted to figure out what went so terribly wrong.
Would be like sponge toffee but not sweet
Maybe someone’s already removed it for testing. How would we know the difference?
Throw a marble against his head and listen for a “DOINGK!”
The administration must be labeled, for posterity – it cannot be seen as anything other than corrupt.
This is something I’ve read quite a few informed opinions about. My view at this point is that the impeachment investigations would likely be a good thing. Educating the American public, many of whom are woefully underinformed about the extent of DJT’s corruption, seems critical. DJT, of course, will claim exoneration no matter what happens – it’s what he does. But investigations with the weight of Constitutional law behind them, with months of televised hearings and all the talking points those generate, will hopefully bring honest but confused people around. This fight needs to be more effectively brought to the American people.
Just IMHO.
Can you share links to some of those informed opinions?
I find considerable hubris in the intellectual elite presuming they can school the “confused” and “woefully uninformed” masses. It’s projection to imagine the general public will sit glued in front of hearings televised on C-Span (which in any case will be little more than Dem-GOP back-and-forth demagoguery), or only watch MSNBC’s spin but not FOX’*.
The American people are bored and sick of this fight. When they aren’t simply ignoring it, you will only annoy them with it.
* (If you are not watching Tucker Carlson on a regular basis, you have no idea what you’re up against.)
My goodness, Matt, You’re always challenging people for their primary sources! Good for you! Do you have any sources to corroborate your assertion that the public will not watch tv during an impeachment hearing?
Also, you have claimed to be a political strategist, but this is difficult to verify as you comment anonymously.
You’re laying it on a bit thick, Jim.
Thank you again for correcting me, this time for my breach of manners. As usual you went right to the very heart of the argument.
Apologies sir if I hurt your feelings. I may have gotten a bit too personal inquiring about your bona fides. It is just that, to my ear, your style of commenting seems highly authoritarian, you make very many argumentative, and not self evident assertions, and you tend to slap other commentators down pretty hard. To what do you owe your rock hard certainty?
And you avoided answering my questions.
I tire of this. Can we just agree to disagree? You ignore me, and vice versa?
I believe a certain amount of disagreement is both healthy and necessary, and WEIT is one of the few places where serious discussions can occur without devolving into rancor.
I have no problem with forceful refutations or rejections of my assertions. I do consider incessant demands for citations to be disputatious, though freely sharing sources comes naturally to this community of evidence-based reasoners. I think the sharing of personal circumstances should be accepted on the honor system.
I’ve already felt obliged to put a handful of tendentious commenters on ‘manual ignore’; I’d prefer not to add to that list, so hope you and I can continue to enjoy a vibrant discussion. If you prefer not to engage further with me, I will of course respect that wish.
That’s a fine answer sir.
Matt, one thing I genuinely apologize for is framing this as you being the aggressor. In looking back over the comments I see that I have usually been the one to criticize one of your comments first. That makes me more of the aggressor, and you no doubt are tired of me now.
Trump is guilty, no question. Now it’s just a matter of finding out of what.
People bringing up that “the Senate won’t convict” keep forgetting or perhaps never understood in the first place that the House has full discretion as to when it wants to kick the can to the other chamber. Launching an impeachment inquiry and convening a special House committee to string together all the disparate threads currently dispersed among different regular committees is the goal. That’s the airing of dirty laundry that is needed. After that’s done, then you send it to the Senate, and hopefully by then enough facts have been brought to light (and more importantly, to public consciousness) that a Senate acquittal is seen as the capstone on the corruption.
Alternatively, the process could well run into November 2020. Given the amount of foot-dragging over starting the damn thing that’s becoming more and more probable. In that case you never actually get around to drafting Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate doesn’t get a say.
Sure, but once an impeachment inquiry has been launched, if it doesn’t result in charges filed (articles of impeachment written by the House) and a conviction (by the Senate), then Trump is going to say he was “exonerated” or that impeachment “failed”. As you say, it is all too little too late. The probability of this mode of failure is near 100% at this point.
I think the timing is reasonably good, a bit early maybe, but then I’m no politician/tactician. I think Harrison is right, these hearings can be protracted, and it may not even be passed to the Senate before November 2020.
While Trump may have committed crimes that would budge his supporters and his GOP protectors, I doubt it. Certainly not his obstruction of justice which can easily be portrayed as him doing everything he could to defend himself against the Dems. Same for his ignoring of subpoenas. If he shoots someone on Park Ave, perhaps he could be impeached but it would depend on the victim.
Dems would be better off spending their energy and air time going after Trump’s policy and governing failures. For the most part, what Trump promised to do is either despicable or he’s failed to do it. Even the so-called “good economy” he inherited and is slowing down, either by itself or due to his misguided trade wars. His big tax cut mostly benefited his rich friends. He has not solved the immigration problem, just used it to get his base riled up. These things can be easily demonstrated. All the time spent on impeachment is time not spent hammering this home with the voters.
Impeachment may be the “right thing to do” but since when does politics reward the pure of heart?
Mr. Topping I think that is very perceptive of you to point out the juicy campaign issues based on Trump’s manifest incompetence. A possible strategy, I think, would be for the candidate to focus on those issues, possibly even isolate him/herself from whatever aggressive moves the House undertakes up to and including impeachment. This would be a classic pincer movement.