Let’s discuss the reasons NOT to start the impeachment PROCESS

[EuroHorn 3264]

Hugo is running his own active measures campaign 

[RayDog 682]

I think the house should have investigations continuously but not under the impeachment umbrella. In particular they need to broaden the inquires to other wrongdoers in politics in an effort to expose as many dirty politicians as possible. They can do one or so a week to keep the pressure on.

I would not start impeachment hearings until Senate Republicans say they give up and are ready to remove Trump.

If Republicans don't turn on Trump, impeach him the day after he wins the party nomination.

[burntorangebongos 10710]

The investigations that they have that will actually not be sabotaged by house Rs will inform them on when to start the impeachment process. I don't think they should wait for the Mueller report and they won't have to with the information that they can dig up on the motherfucker. On Emoluments alone, that will have people howling to impeach. There are so many ways to go that I think they need to pick the lowest hanging fruit that is most digestible for the public to consume and understand. I think impeachment needs to arise out of what they uncover in the committee hearings. If shit is as bad as it appears to be, Pelosi will be shot if she doesn't start the process then.

But I agree, they shouldn't wait on the Mueller report necessarily. As you point out, that could be folly.

[Biff Tannen 45682]

14 hours ago, Continental Op said:

Hugo is to Trump impeachment as Veruca Salt is to Willy Wonka's factory tour.

He wants a bean feast?

[bad_teammate 13195]

3 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

The investigations that they have that will actually not be sabotaged by house Rs will inform them on when to start the impeachment process. I don't think they should wait for the Mueller report and they won't have to with the information that they can dig up on the motherfucker. On Emoluments alone, that will have people howling to impeach. There are so many ways to go that I think they need to pick the lowest hanging fruit that is most digestible for the public to consume and understand. I think impeachment needs to arise out of what they uncover in the committee hearings. If shit is as bad as it appears to be, Pelosi will be shot if she doesn't start the process then.

But I agree, they shouldn't wait on the Mueller report necessarily. As you point out, that could be folly.

I agree with all this. I'm operating under the presumption that the Mueller report is coming in the next few months. If it stretches past that and past a serious and substantive set of House investigative committee meetings, then the House shouldn't wait.

Trump's criminal empire is so large and stupid that it would genuinely take a normal prosecutorial effort years to unravel and set up properly for justice, but that is not the timeframe we're working with. The Founding Fathers did not foresee this and the impeachment process and terms of office do not allow for that kind of time. If there is evidence for impeachment then the hearings need to happen.

I'm not an expert in the area, but can a president be impeached multiple times? I would assume so. If that is the case, then there are aspects to Trump's impeachment in the House that don't need Mueller at all (emoluments, etc...) and it isn't like Mueller has to burn all his files just because the House impeaches Trump on emoluments.

Also, Mueller mouthing off re: Buzzfeed reinforces my view that his ultimate goal is to ultimately shield the Republican president and Republican party.

Edited January 19, 2019 by bad_teammate

[berlinerbaer 678]

4 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

The investigations that they have that will actually not be sabotaged by house Rs will inform them on when to start the impeachment process. I don't think they should wait for the Mueller report and they won't have to with the information that they can dig up on the motherfucker. On Emoluments alone, that will have people howling to impeach. There are so many ways to go that I think they need to pick the lowest hanging fruit that is most digestible for the public to consume and understand. I think impeachment needs to arise out of what they uncover in the committee hearings. If shit is as bad as it appears to be, Pelosi will be shot if she doesn't start the process then.

But I agree, they shouldn't wait on the Mueller report necessarily. As you point out, that could be folly.

I agree with most of this. Clearly, House investigations need to begin in earnest on multiple fronts, in multiple committees, with Russia being the focus of only one or two of them. All of the other avenues toward eventual impeachment, such as emoluments or obstruction, can be handled separately from the House Russia investigation. The Dems need to start messaging that these other investigations are important in their own right and fight back against the media narrative that it's all Russia, Russia, Russia. This way, there is enough dirt on Trump to hurt him politically in case Mueller lets him off the hook re. collusion or other serious activities.

Where I differ is I would hold off on impeachment until one of two events occurs: 1) the Mueller report comes out and is reasonably serious or 2) further obstruction occurs by Trump or the GOP, such as by effectively torpedoing the Mueller investigation or through Trump pardoning someone from his inner circle. If the Mueller probe does not reveal Russia collusion but instead widespread corruption, this would qualify as impeachable.

Bottom line, the Dems need to keep their eye on the prize: an electoral blowout in 2020. I do not think impeachment proceedings are necessary between now and then for the Democratic base to remain fired up and to keep independents on their side of the fence. By resisting Trump legislatively, of course, as well as through multiple Congressional investigations, the Dems can keep the heat on and should be in good shape.

I'll go on to add, perhaps controversially, that I don't want Trump removed from office before the next election. I'll risk the small existential threat to democracy life as we know it to ensure that further damage is done to him and the GOP in the minds of as many American voters as possible. I'll happily let him keep fucking around for two years if it means total Democratic control of the executive and the legislature for 2021.

[Biff Tannen 45682]

30 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Re: Emoluments. This is the biggest joke, impeachment on these grounds will never happen and Luke crywalkers who got their hopes up two years ago about this can tell you, don’t bank on this one.

What?  Why?  Too obvious?

[berlinerbaer 678]

Um, Orca's a Republican projecting his tolerance of corruption onto everyone else.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

That's Orca? Makes so much sense now

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

Could be that the Dems are afraid of what any impeachment proceedings would uncover about them as well. They would probably be successful, but at what cost to their own ranks? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Is this a prisoner’s dilemma? 

Democrats will look too political if they attempt to impeach Trump now so they will hold off on impeachment for political reasons.  Makes perfect sense. 

My opinion that the democrats should begin the impeachment process isn’t based on the likelihood of success.

It’s based on my assessment that attempting to remove Trump is simply the right thing to do.  It does the country and constitution a disservice to stand by and allow Trump to continue his destructive path when there is legitimate process available to remove him.

Call me a romantic but it would be nice to see our elected officials make decisions based on the interests of the country and not their own political future.

Imagine a world where public opinion polls didn’t exist, would it alter the prospects of impeachment?  I believe it clearly would.

 

The impeachment clause:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The Constitution, Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

Edited January 22, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[texastough 1129]

I didn't read the whole thread so sorry if this has been covered, but I would like congress to start impeachment proceedings now under the "unfit for office" clause. Take the last 2-3 years of his lies, racism, betraying our allies, inflammatory behavior, disregard for intelligence reports, abuse of the media, etc. and put it all on blast in a much tidier package than the trickle of news. THEN, when/if Mueller finishes up and implicates DOTUS in multiple crimes, add the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause to the impeachment proceedings.

I agree with you Hugo that there is value in getting the senate votes on record even if they do not impeach. I would like Trump to me removed sooner rather than later, but he's not going to win reelection and he will likely be prosecuted criminally anyway. So I don't think the calculus should hinge solely on whether they can successfully impeach.

And, as a counterpoint to Brisket, I think the likely outcome of all this is that democracy in the U.S. gets stronger . . . follow me on this. Many countries have shithead autocrats that they can't get rid of. What is going to happen here is that while we got played and elected this piece of shit, we will remove him at most four years later, clean up a bunch of corruption and election funny business in the process, and shine a spotlight on the deplorables. In other words, I expect the pendulum to swing back in a big way. No, we can't go back to the way it was before and there will be some long term damage, but change is the only constant and I expect a lot of good to come out of it in the end.

Switching gears, I hope there gets to be enough pressure on the senate to end the shutdown that they pass a bill without the wall and override any veto. It would completely emasculate DOTUS and be a good barometer for impeachment.

Edit: I should have read up ahead of time, but it looks like only the VP and cabinet can act on the "unfit for office" clause -- not congress. But surely congress can still do some version of the above.

Edited January 22, 2019 by texastough

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I'd impeach him for treason and bribery, plus all the other things like defrauding voters, emoluments, obstruction. 

There's enough observable evidence to make a treason case out in the open.  

In the impeachment process, like high crimes and misdemeanors, treason and bribery are whatever Congress decides they are and it doesn't have to meet the narrow legal threshold of treachery during wartime.  

Of course the democrats don't have the balls to do anything like that because "too divisive"

If someone was going to commit treason with Russia against the United States, how would it look any different than what Donald Trump has done?

 

 

[David Dennison 18856]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I'd impeach him for treason and bribery, plus all the other things like defrauding voters, emoluments, obstruction. 

There's enough observable evidence to make a treason case out in the open.  

In the impeachment process, like high crimes and misdemeanors, treason and bribery are whatever Congress decides they are and it doesn't have to meet the narrow legal threshold of treachery during wartime.  

Of course the democrats don't have the balls to do anything like that because "too divisive"

If someone was going to commit treason with Russia against the United States, how would it look any different than what Donald Trump has done

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

It's a high Constitutional bar. According to some lawyers who have commented on Donald Trump and treason, the United States is not technically at war, so it doesn't technically have enemies.

That doesn't mean you can't make the argument.

Edited January 22, 2019 by David Dennison

[texastough 1129]

I agree they should have started yesterday, but at the same time I can't fault them for allowing the DOTUS nose-dive to continue on its own. As soon as they move to impeach, you know all sides will end up covered in shit. I think/hope they have the balls, and that it is a calculation that the administration is self-destructing without any help so why put a target on your own back? Especially when Mueller may remove any doubt about crimes.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

Really all that has to happen in the House is drafting and presentation of articles of impeachment on which the House votes.  There could be hearings and debates on the content of the articles of impeachment, but that would be a complete shit show and will be bad enough in the Judiciary Committee, no matter what.  I suppose a discrete article of impeachment could be introduced for each potential crime/misdemeanor and have them sort of voted on together.

Anything that involves the House of Representatives acting as a criminal investigative body  makes me shudder.  In this sense, I much prefer waiting for the Mueller report.

Also, I think you political wonks overestimate the value of such hearings to sway the opinion of the vast majority of the electorate.  That's one of the problems of having a legislative body act as criminal investigators.

Edited January 22, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Anything that involves the House of Representatives acting as a criminal investigative body  makes me shudder.

I would prefer they use some hearings in the House as more of an educational exercise where they bring constitutional scholars and historians to go over the process of impeachment for the American people.  

Ask questions like, "Why did the founding fathers put impeachment in the constitution the way they did?"  

Just attempt to get a good faith national conversation going among the population that brings everyone out of their Fox News/CNN bubbles. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Thread by some random on Twitter @TomJChicago

 The House must commence impeachment hearings now. Waiting for Mueller is a big gamble. Yes there could be 25 indictments next week, but we don’t know that. Televised Watergate hearings were essential. We are losing time, right now, that we will never get back. Consider:

Mueller may be hung up with the courts. The mystery SCOTUS case & Assange status are examples. Using the judiciary to aid investigations by convicting & flipping may work, but it takes a long time. Butina, Assange, Corsi, Stone all point to more time being lost.

Note - Trump & Russia want to drag out the investigation to election season. It’s a strategy they would use to say the investigation has become 2020 election interference. Fortunately, Trump is too impaired to run, but he will still say it.

Mueller’s pace has left him vulnerable. The very existence of Whitaker & Barr, & exit of Rosenstein point to this. The GOP is highly motivated to create a soft landing, protect Congressional Rs & prevent a President Pelosi scenario.

The secrecy of Mueller’s investigation, while required, has left the public in the dark. It has given Trump oxygen to create an alternate reality that leaves 1/3 of the country in a lobotomized state of ignorance.

Time has been wasted. Prosecuting Manafort for old crimes to flip him failed. Sorry, but it’s true. It took over a year, then he fake flipped to learn info Mueller had. Worse yet, Mueller had to disclose 800 pages of redacted info to Manafort’s attorney’s documenting his lies.

Anyone here think Manafort’s attorney’s haven’t shared that info w/ Kilimnik, Deripaska & Trump? Yet we, the public, are on a lower “redacted” tier and can’t see the info. That is totally unacceptable.

Investigating doesn’t stop attacks. We certainly have learned that by now. This is a war. House Dems can amplify the urgency around the attack on America and propose new laws and sanctions while educating the public. It's long overdue. Mueller can't do this alone.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

On 1/22/2019 at 11:34 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I would prefer they use some hearings in the House as more of an educational exercise where they bring constitutional scholars and historians to go over the process of impeachment for the American people.  

Ask questions like, "Why did the founding fathers put impeachment in the constitution the way they did?"  

Just attempt to get a good faith national conversation going among the population that brings everyone out of their Fox News/CNN bubbles. 

I get the ideal situation, but I see a couple of problems with it.  First, however noble in conception, congressional hearings always devolve into circuses of self-aggrandizement, where the investigatory and publicity aspects of it get lost.  Second, because of the political nature of congress, the results of the investigation are easily dismissed by those inclined to do so, and some that are more open minded (see first point), as political posturing.

Finally, no one that doesn't have a pretty good feel already for the place of impeachment in the constitutional scheme is going to watch the hearings.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I get the ideal situation, but I see a couple of problems with it.  First, however noble in conception, congressional hearings always devolve into circuses of self-aggrandizement, where the investigatory and publicity aspects of it get lost.  Second, because of the political nature of congress, the results of the investigation are easily dismissed by those inclined to do so, and some that are more open minded (see first point), as political posturing.

Finally, no one that doesn't have a pretty good feel already for the place of impeachment in the constitutional scheme is going to watch the hearings.

Even if I concede all of your arguments, it doesn’t excuse not trying.

Do you think the republicans did all those bullshit Benghazi hearings for fun? 

Circus or not, they need to do their jobs. 

[TwiceHorn 31463]

59 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Even if I concede all of your arguments, it doesn’t excuse not trying.

Do you think the republicans did all those bullshit Benghazi hearings for fun? 

Circus or not, they need to do their jobs. 

Benghazi was a great example of what I am talking about.  My loathing of congressional hearings applies to both houses and both sides.  BOTH SIDES!!!11111!!!1

I consider their job to be passing and repealing legislation, although impeachment falls within that category more than email or Benghazi or a significant amount of what they hold hearings on.

Funny anecdote.  I heard a judge, Paul R. Michel of the Federal Circuit, speak about being  on a list to testify before the Judiciary Committee about stupid patent reform legislation.  The chairman of the committee, would have had to have been Goodlatte or maybe Grassley, he didn't name names, asked him what industry group he represented.  He said "none, I have no agenda other than vast experience as a practitioner and judge in patent matters and an interest in the vitality of the US patent system."  They asked him why they should hear his testimony.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Benghazi was a great example of what I am talking about.  My loathing of congressional hearings applies to both houses and both sides.  BOTH SIDES!!!11111!!!1

Yeah, YOU hate it but the Republicans did it to achieve a political objective and they were successful by any measurable metric because Hillary isn’t president.  They played OFFENSE and won.

Removing a criminal president is a POLITICAL PROCESS way before being a legislative function.

[Pig Bellmont 8717]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Finally, no one that doesn't have a pretty good feel already for the place of impeachment in the constitutional scheme is going to watch the hearings.

Lulz. Ok. 

[TwiceHorn 31463]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, YOU hate it but the Republicans did it to achieve a political objective and they were successful by any measurable metric because Hillary isn’t president.  They played OFFENSE and won.

Removing a criminal president is a POLITICAL PROCESS way before being a legislative function.

If you believe the Benghazi hearings were a significant factor in Hilary losing, which would be a new theory to me.  AFAIK, the never Hillary crowd ate em up and no one else gave a fuck.  Which is kind of my point about these hearings.

Edited January 23, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you believe the Benghazi hearings were a significant factor in Hilary losing, which would be a new theory to me.  AFAIK, the never Hillary crowd ate em up and no one else gave a fuck.

I don’t know how much influence the Benghazi hearings had on the election but the point is the republicans, who are masters at this stuff, thought it was worth the money and time to do it.  

They didn’t just say, “we’re not doing that because it would be a partisan circus.”  They kept their foot on the gas until Hillary lost to Donald Trump.  Even after the election they kept going with the Hillary hearings to protect Donald Trump. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31463]

17 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Lulz. Ok. 

Joe Six Pack probably has a job that will keep him from watching any hearings and if he doesn't he aint gonna be tuning into CNBC.  People who watch congressional hearings are mostly already decided. viz, cloak room people.  Others are going to get whatever they get filtered through their preferred media sources.  It don't make a shit for the vast majority of people.

No one is going to tune into Trump hearings for a civics lecture.

I think starting any impeachment related hearings should be after the professional and non-partisan Mueller Report lands.  It's going to be a shitshow either way, but I would prefer to minimize the poo flinging.

I abhor congressional hearings for the reasons I have enumerated.  It long precedes the Trump administration.

Edited January 23, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Joe Six Pack probably has a job that will keep him from watching any hearings and if he doesn't he aint gonna be tuning into CNBC.  People who watch congressional hearings are mostly already decided. viz, cloak room people.  Others are going to get whatever they get filtered through their preferred media sources.  It don't make a shit for the vast majority of people.

No one is going to tune into Trump hearings for a civics lecture.

I think starting any impeachment related hearings should be after the professional and non-partisan Mueller Report lands.  It's going to be a shitshow either way, but I would prefer to minimize the poo flinging.

I abhor congressional hearings for the reasons I have enumerated.  It long precedes the Trump administration.

Do you not remember the OJ trial? 

[Pig Bellmont 8717]

37 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Do you not remember the OJ trial? 

Or the Clinton impeachment hearings/votes? It’s not like there isn’t recent history here

[TwiceHorn 31463]

Those actually make my point.  In a less partisan era, the OJ trial didn't change anyone's mind and neither did the Clinton hearings. They were just theater.

Moreover, the Clinton "hearings" followed and were based almost entirely on the Starr Report.  There were almost no investigatory hearings in the House, just a trial in the Senate.

I have only vague memories of the Watergate hearings, but that was definitely a different era (Senate Select Committee established 77-0), and there were active criminal trials of the co-conspirators and a Special Prosecutor/Counsel appointed that were as influential as the hearings.

Edited January 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Bump for topicality 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

I support impeachment. Not a joke.

[sachick 1189]

It is time. 

[Chrispy 132]

Let’s get this party started. 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

14 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

I support impeachment. Not a joke.

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Let’s get this party started. 

[tantric superman 4667]

Man, January of 2019.   Seems so long ago.

How happy and carefree I was.

Hell, we all were.

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Thanks Hugo!

[DigglerontheHoof 21197]

38 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Obviously, some “strategy “ they picked up on some Trumpster fanboi site.

[TexArcher 37774]

Pretty sure they've realized it's inevitable and now want to get it over with while there's a Republican Senate.  So clever.  Trump has all the cleverest nutswingers, believe me.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

They think it will help them politically and give Trump coattails GOP candidates can ride in 2020. Congressional redistricting in 2022 sets the districts until the 2030 Census.

If the dems win in 2020 at the state legislature level, all that hard won GOP gerrymandering is going away. 

Redistricting raises the stakes considerably. The political calculus would be very different if this was taking place in a non-census year.

 

 

[EastTexan 662]

15 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Pretty sure they've realized it's inevitable and now want to get it over with while there's a Republican Senate.  So clever.  Trump has all the cleverest nutswingers, believe me.

With all the intelligent dems in Washington, I would suspect they start the process in December 2024. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Hunger Games baby. Bring it on.