The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

We are talking about a failed impeachment that mobilizes potus’ base

That’s right wing pundit bullshit.  If anything, a failed impeachment would mobilize the resistance to Trump because it will be crystal clear there is nothing protecting the people and the country from a lawless autocracy. 

[BradInATX 9208]

BTW Hugo the stage you are currently in is called "bargaining". You should get to acceptance around November 2020

[Anastasis 23329]

21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Democratic Congress is being complicit in Trump’s malfeasance just as the Republicans were when they controlled the House.  That matters.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Anastasis

[GW Hayduke 1949]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s right wing pundit bullshit.  If anything, a failed impeachment would mobilize the resistance to Trump because it will be crystal clear there is nothing protecting the people and the country from a lawless autocracy. 

No impeachment proceedings or failed impeachment proceedings would have the same outcome concerning “protecting the people and the country from a lawless autocracy” except one increases the potential potus remains in office and immune to prosecution.

The idea a failed impeachment would help the Dems at the ballot box is a political question. It may be correct. But it may be incorrect. That is political calculation. Look to Nancy

[Asithappens 974]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Under our current DOJ policy, Congress is the only constitutional check on an outlaw president.  If the president proves himself to be an outlaw and the Congress fails to appropriately respond, they are complicit and there is nothing protecting the public from the abuses of power by the president. 

Again, bullshit.

There are 3 branches of govt. Not two. 

Impeachment is a political act, and it's just not worth it politically to the Dems. Imo.

 

[David Dennison 18487]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s right wing pundit bullshit.  If anything, a failed impeachment would mobilize the resistance to Trump because it will be crystal clear there is nothing protecting the people and the country from a lawless autocracy. 

You mean besides an election?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

1 minute ago, Asithappens said:

Again, bullshit.

There are 3 branches of govt. Not two. 

Impeachment is a political act, and it's just not worth it politically to the Dems. Imo.

Only one branch of government can remove a criminal president from office. 

[David Dennison 18487]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Only one branch of government can remove a criminal president from office. 

Only one half of that branch can remove him from office.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Just now, David Dennison said:

You mean besides an election?

You mean that thing where we vote and the candidate that cheats his way to be runner up in total votes becomes president?  

[David Dennison 18487]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You mean that thing where we vote and the candidate that cheats his way to be runner up in total votes becomes president?  

I do not disagree that we need to do away with the Electoral College. But it's currently how we do things in this country.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I do not disagree that we need to do away with the Electoral College. But it's currently how we do things in this country.

If only there was a more democratic body in our government that could better represent the will of the people and rein in an undemocratically elected outlaw regime. 

[David Dennison 18487]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If only there was a more democratic body in our government that could better represent the will of the people and rein in an undemocratically elected outlaw regime. 

There isn't at the moment. 

[triplehorn 2664]

re impeachment TODAY : too soon

 

 

bring on Congressional hearings.

[GopherRock 1765]

Some of the proceedings from the House Judiciary Committee in the summer of 1974 sound awfully familiar. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by GopherRock

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

If you’re looking for Nixon comparisons, we’re currently in quarter two of 1975 without an impeachment hearing. 

Nixon would get re-elected to his third term in today’s America. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[triplehorn 2664]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If you’re looking for Nixon comparisons, we’re currently in quarter two of 1975 without an impeachment hearing. 

Nixon would get re-elected to his third term in today’s America. 

Nixon also didn't have 14 other related investigations and a potential Assange extradition hanging like a sword of Damocles over his head.

Getting Don McGahn and others to publicly testify in detail how Trump enlisted them to obstruct and engage in lawbreaking will carry a significant impact.  If that overlaps with SDNY actions, the calculus will be very different than today.  Trump approval tanked 5% with revelations from the Mueller report.  More on the way.

 

 

[hobbes2702 12769]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

At this point, we aren’t talking about impeachment. We are talking about a failed impeachment that mobilizes potus’ base

This is why Dems lose. Stop caring about trumps fucking base.

[jimmyjazz 45429]

The Dems need to do the math (which I believe they have done) and try to assess the most likely approach to getting DOTUS out of office in 2020.

Impeachment is a dead end -- he will not be removed by Senate vote.

25A is even more of a pipe dream.

Voting him out is far and away the most likely solution.  How do the Dems generate more votes?  By putting more malfeasance in front of their faces.  Whatever effect the Mueller report had, and it was probably a net positive for the Dems, that effect is starting to die on the vine.  In today's world, that report will be a nothingberger within weeks.

So, keep the bad news up on the headlines.  Subpoenas, testimonies, etc.  Bring impeachment proceedings as a last effort when all else is fading.  That's the play.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

21 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Nixon also didn't have 14 other related investigations and a potential Assange extradition hanging like a sword of Damocles over his head.

Getting Don McGahn and others to publicly testify in detail how Trump enlisted them to obstruct and engage in lawbreaking will carry a significant impact.  If that overlaps with SDNY actions, the calculus will be very different than today.  Trump approval tanked 5% with revelations from the Mueller report.  More on the way.

 

 

The Dems have slow played this every step of the way.  Mueller and Rosenstein should have already publicly testified.  They should have subpoenaed Trump’s tax returns back in January.  They let Bill Barr walk all over them and misinform the public with a false narrative about the Mueller report.  They still haven’t seen the full Mueller report.  There’s no guarantee Don McGahn is going to publicly testify.  What happened with Felix Sater’s testimony? Why hasn’t Don Jr testified?  What about Kushner, Ivanka, Mattis, or John Kelly? 

They are working with no sense of urgency or interest in getting the facts to the public.  They are trying as hard as possible to not be forced into the impeachment process and it’s working. 

I expect many more harsh letters and airing of grievances to the media over the next 12 months.

[hobbes2702 12769]

And that’s the problem. They continually let the republicans shape the media narrative. Put his malfeasance on display for the world. If that somehow results in a positive for Trump (it won’t, it never has) then so be it. Stop being reactive to what pubs do and shape the fucking narrative

[Lagunamadre 1975]

42 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If you’re looking for Nixon comparisons, we’re currently in quarter two of 1975 without an impeachment hearing. 

Nixon would get re-elected to his third term in today’s America. 

The better, more recent, example would be Clinton, who saw his approval ratings soar during and after the impeachment hearings. I think that is what scares Democrats more than anything, and rightfully so. 

Impeachment obviously isn't getting Trump out of office, so the question is what does a hearing do to his chances of reelection, if recent history is a guide, you would have to think it only helps. Nancy knows that. 

[David Dennison 18487]

38 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

This is why Dems lose. Stop caring about trumps fucking base.

They aren't worried about his base.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

The better, more recent, example would be Clinton, who saw his approval ratings soar during and after the impeachment hearings. I think that is what scares Democrats more than anything, and rightfully so. 

Except that comparison makes no sense.  After Clinton’s impeachment, the Republicans took the White House, retained their majority in the House (lost three seats), and held the Senate (lost four seats) with Cheney as the 50-50 tiebreaker. 

[hobbes2702 12769]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They aren't worried about his base.

Then start the proceedings

[GRHorn 105]

14 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

And that’s the problem. They continually let the republicans shape the media narrative. Put his malfeasance on display for the world. If that somehow results in a positive for Trump (it won’t, it never has) then so be it. Stop being reactive to what pubs do and shape the fucking narrative

lol wut

 

[hobbes2702 12769]

Just now, GRHorn said:

lol wut

 

I’m not sure what you’re struggling with

[David Dennison 18487]

6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Then start the proceedings

They have.

[sachick 1189]

The better, more recent, example would be Clinton, who saw his approval ratings soar during and after the impeachment hearings. I think that is what scares Democrats more than anything, and rightfully so. 
Impeachment obviously isn't getting Trump out of office, so the question is what does a hearing do to his chances of reelection, if recent history is a guide, you would have to think it only helps. Nancy knows that. 

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. That’s not the same as obstruction of justice. You cannot assume Trumps ratings will soar during/after impeachment hearings because Clintons did. An impeachment hearing will put all of the Mueller Report findings out there in a way that the normal everyday American who doesn’t follow politics and isn’t part of the Trump base will hear and understand their severity.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Except that comparison makes no sense.  After Clinton’s impeachment, the Republicans took the White House, retained their majority in the House (lost three seats), and held the Senate (lost four seats) with Cheney as the 50-50 tiebreaker. 

Apples to Oranges. Clinton would have easily won a 3rd term (left office with a 66% approval rating, highest in the history of any President leaving office). And Dems gained in the house and Senate. Also, Gore won the popular vote. And that all took place in the middle of the dot com bust.  

[GW Hayduke 1949]

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Then start the proceedings

Hearings are going on.

Patience.

A failed impeachment at this time doesn’t do anything but increase odds that potus is re-elected and any indictments have to wait longer

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

8 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

lol wut

What the headline should have been a month ago:  “Mueller has found significant evidence Trump committed obstruction of justice multiple times in the Russia investigation”

What the headline was a month ago:  “No criminal conspiracy established and the president can’t obstruct justice”

Bill Barr’s face should be the first image when anyone googles the phrase, “summary of principal conclusions”.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[hobbes2702 12769]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They have.

Has the judiciary committee referred impeachment to the full house? Have they even debated it in committee?

Edited April 23, 2019 by hobbes2702

[David Dennison 18487]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What the headline should have been a month ago:  “Mueller has found significant evidence Trump committed obstruction of justice multiple times in the Russia investigation”

What the headline was a month ago:  “No criminal conspiracy established and the president can’t obstruct justice”

Bill Barr’s face should be the first image when anyone googles the phrase, “summary of principle conclusions”.

Those aren't the headlines anymore. 

[David Dennison 18487]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Has the judiciary committee referred impeachment to the full house? Have they even debated it in committee?

It would probably lose in committee right now.

[hobbes2702 12769]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Hearings are going on.

Patience.

A failed impeachment at this time doesn’t do anything but increase odds that potus is re-elected and any indictments have to wait longer

No it doesn’t. 

[jimmyjazz 45429]

6 minutes ago, sachick said:

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. That’s not the same as obstruction of justice. You cannot assume Trumps ratings will soar during/after impeachment hearings because Clintons did.

Well, the average American knows what a blowjob is, and they understand why someone would lie about receipt of said blowjob.  The average American can't even fucking wrap their heads around the concept that it's possible to obstruct justice by intervening in an investigation that ultimately fails to formally declare that a crime was committed.

I think you have more faith in the average American than I do.

[GW Hayduke 1949]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

No it doesn’t. 

How so? What rationale got you to this?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Impeachment that dies in the Senate will put GOP Senators on Trump's sinking ship.  The potential rewards are much greater than the risks. 

[hobbes2702 12769]

Criminal activity by the president displayed to the entire world with public testimony does not help the president. The only people who will still be in his pocket are already in his pocket. Who gives a shit about them? 

[hobbes2702 12769]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

Impeachment that dies in the Senate will put GOP Senators on Trump's sinking ship.  The potential rewards are much greater than the risks. 

Winner winner

[Lagunamadre 1975]

4 minutes ago, sachick said:

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. That’s not the same as obstruction of justice. You cannot assume Trumps ratings will soar during/after impeachment hearings because Clintons did. An impeachment hearing will put all of the Mueller Report findings out there in a way that the normal everyday American who doesn’t follow politics and isn’t part of the Trump base will hear and understand their severity.

The gamble is that everyday American's who don't follow politics are tired of hearing about Russia/Mueller and will resent the Democrats keeping it in the headlines instead of pivoting to healthcare, civility, tax cuts, etc. the things they are actually polling very well on. Impeachment would suck all of the oxygen out of what could be winning talking points. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Impeachment would get people not paying attention to pay attention. 

Not sure how that could be construed as a win for Trump.

[David Dennison 18487]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Impeachment that dies in the Senate will put GOP Senators on Trump's sinking ship.  The potential rewards are much greater than the risks. 

They are already there without the benefit of a political victory, which is what a win in the Senate would be.

[David Dennison 18487]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Impeachment would get people not paying attention to pay attention. 

Not sure how that could be construed as a win for Trump.

It would, but maybe not in the way that you'd like.

[hobbes2702 12769]

Benghazi hearings were a huge political win for Hillary weren’t they? The email investigation helped her a ton I bet?

Edited April 23, 2019 by hobbes2702

[GW Hayduke 1949]

 

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Impeachment that dies in the Senate will put GOP Senators on Trump's sinking ship.  The potential rewards are much greater than the risks. 

Who doesn’t currently know or feel like the GOP and trump are one? Is there a segment of the population that would suddenly understand this after it fails in the senate?

[hobbes2702 12769]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

 

Who doesn’t currently know or feel like the GOP and trump are one? Is there a segment of the population that would suddenly understand this after it fails in the senate?

The same people who don’t know that trump has committed crimes.

[David Dennison 18487]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Benghazi hearings were a huge political win for Hillary weren’t they? The email investigation helped her a ton I bet?

Clinton is not Trump and Democrats are not Republicans. You are assuming that if Democrats act like Republicans, the result will be the similar. I'm not sure that's a good assumption.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They are already there without the benefit of a political victory, which is what a win in the Senate would be.

Right, like in 2018?

[deech 2248]

6 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

The gamble is that everyday American's who don't follow politics are tired of hearing about Russia/Mueller and will resent the Democrats keeping it in the headlines instead of pivoting to healthcare, civility, tax cuts, etc. the things they are actually polling very well on. Impeachment would suck all of the oxygen out of what could be winning talking points. 

Because they are going to be able to put together a working healthcare plan that the Senate will approve or the President will not veto?  Or any other policy they want?