Impeachment now certain

Smr, please note the thrust of your argument. You are not coping with the main issue. You are focusing on how the Democrats may or may not have messed up the procedure what their motives might have been, etc...

You are not the only one on this one. The House Republicans worked it for all it was worth. But the main issue is framed with the following questions as follows:

1. Did Donald Trump conspire to secure the help of a foreign power to influence an election in his favor? No less than Senators Alexander and Rubio say that the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2. What are the proper remedies for the threat to the integrity to our elections that this represents. How do we prevent a rogue president from assaulting our constitutional system in this way?

I know that I cannot jar you away from your point of view. But I will say that what I keep hearing is that the war against the liberals has become more important than basic questions of how we preserve our constitutional system and our liberties. I wish that the war on liberals could be put on hold long enough to consider if allowing a president to be above the law is something that compromises the essence of what America is all about.

Don

-

SMR, I fully agree with wondering why they didn't impeach on Mueller, or a hell of a lot of other things.

Hell, even the verdict in the Trump foundation is impeachable. Let alone Turnberry.

All I can think of is that they are either planning to do it again on a different charge, or saving one incase he wins a second term.

To me, both are stupid.

They should have hit hom with all ten or so impeachable offences. Some of which are literal slam dunk already proven actions.

Annachie wrote:All I can think of is that they are either planning to do it again on a different charge, or saving one incase he wins a second term.

Frankly, my IMHO is that Democrats simply panicked and blow their most powerful weapon (impeachment) as soon as they obtained it, without any serious tactical considerations. If they launched the impeachment campaign directly before the 2020 elections, it would be a really powerful blow. No matter how it would go, Republicans would probably be wary of supporting the candidate under juridical process.

But Democrats fired it too early. They knew beforehand that it would probably not work - even that it is almost surely not work - but still used it. This is a very poor tactical planning for sure.

Annachie wrote:SMR, I fully agree with wondering why they didn't impeach on Mueller, or a hell of a lot of other things.

Hell, even the verdict in the Trump foundation is impeachable. Let alone Turnberry.

All I can think of is that they are either planning to do it again on a different charge, or saving one incase he wins a second term.

To me, both are stupid.

They should have hit hom with all ten or so impeachable offences. Some of which are literal slam dunk already proven actions.

They probably didn't do it because the findings of the Mueller report, while serious, were fairly technical. The Ukraine issues were much more straightforward and easier to present to the public.

Dilandu wrote:Frankly, my IMHO is that Democrats simply panicked and blow their most powerful weapon (impeachment) as soon as they obtained it, without any serious tactical considerations. If they launched the impeachment campaign directly before the 2020 elections, it would be a really powerful blow. No matter how it would go, Republicans would probably be wary of supporting the candidate under juridical process.

But Democrats fired it too early. They knew beforehand that it would probably not work - even that it is almost surely not work - but still used it. This is a very poor tactical planning for sure.

Which would have opened them to accusations of using impeachment solely for political purposes, rather than because it's warranted, otherwise they wouldn't have waited.

Removal from office was never in the cards. The GOP Congress' conduct in this matter has been to basically stick their fingers in their ears and obstruct or ignore any evidence. There is virtually no possibility that enough Republican Senators would convict to remove Trump regardless of the evidence, and because of that there's almost no chance that any of them will vote to convict (everyone's afraid of being the first to stick their neck out). Because of that, the purpose was never a knockout punch, but attrition - make the evidence against Trump public record and force the Republicans to publicly defend his conduct. This gives them a whole lot of ammunition to paint the entire GOP as corrupt. McConnell being will to at least give the show of a more impartial trial would have taken some of the wind out their sails but that ship has sailed.

For an example of how this could end up, look at Hillary Clinton. The GOP has been investigating her for decades. None of the investigations ever uncovered something actionable. And yet, they left a cumulative impression of her in the public mind so that there are plenty of Americans who'll tell you she is corrupt even if they can't actually explain why. And there's plenty more evidence and juicy soundbites against Trump than there ever was against Clinton.

And this farce of an impeachment trial makes it easier for the Democrats to drip out accusations against Trump in the future because it allows them to nullify any charges, when they uncover further misdeeds, that they'd impeach if it was really serious rather than fight it out public.

Aaaand... immediately after the Senate GOP voted to refuse to allow witnesses or evidence on the trial, DOJ was forced to reveal in a court proceeding that they are hiding dozens of emails detailing Trump's orders to illegally withhold the Ukraine aid.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/01/politics ... index.html

Which will change not one GOP vote, or the minds of people like smr or TFLY, because they already knew he was guilty which is why they wanted to block testimony and evidence. To keep a guilty corrupt criminal in the White House as long as that person is wearing their team colors.

gcomeau wrote:Aaaand... immediately after the Senate GOP voted to refuse to allow witnesses or evidence on the trial, DOJ was forced to reveal in a court proceeding that they are hiding dozens of emails detailing Trump's orders to illegally withhold the Ukraine aid.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/01/politics ... index.html

Which will change not one GOP vote, or the minds of people like smr or TFLY, because they already knew he was guilty which is why they wanted to block testimony and evidence. To keep a guilty corrupt criminal in the White House as long as that person is wearing their team colors.

Agreed. I have thought a lot about how someone like Trump could be nominated as a candidate for a major party, let alone elected. I think the answer is that the righties have been frustrated and angry for a long time. They saw the America they thought they knew slipping away from them culturally, economically, racially, politically. Combine that with how slowly the economy recovered after the 08 recession and you get a lot of frustration with people who worry about getting left behind. Put it all together and you get a real witches' brew.

Now along comes Donald Trump. He talks their talk and they start cheering. Do they vet him at all or ask what sort of man they are really getting? No. It doesn't really matter to them. He's talking their talk. Does Trump really make a difference? Not really. He has smashed up a lot of stuff and made a mess that is going to take a lot of time to repair.

But he hasn't really changed the fundamentals that are the cause of their frustration. They are in denial about that. They really do believe that if the rest of us would just agree with them and do it their way, the problems would go away. That's not going to happen, of course. So...They are stuck.

I can't predict the future, but I hope that come November that enough of the country gets past this to give us a new president. The righties will continue to rant. There is no cure for that. But maybe the rest of us can move on.

Don

-

Eyal wrote:.

Which would have opened them to accusations of using impeachment solely for political purposes, rather than because it's warranted, otherwise they wouldn't have waited.

Please, it was obvious from the very beginning, that they launched it only for political purposes! After all this "Russian interference" campaign, even the Democrats supporter would find it hard to believe that impeachement is anthing more than purely political assault.

To put it simply, Democrats already made themselves a reputation for hysterically attacking Trump on any opportunity, so there is no points for them to gain here.

Removal from office was never in the cards. The GOP Congress' conduct in this matter has been to basically stick their fingers in their ears and obstruct or ignore any evidence.

Then why start a battle doomed to be lost?

Because of that, the purpose was never a knockout punch, but attrition - make the evidence against Trump public record and force the Republicans to publicly defend his conduct. This gives them a whole lot of ammunition to paint the entire GOP as corrupt. McConnell being will to at least give the show of a more impartial trial would have taken some of the wind out their sails but that ship has sailed.

It may work - but only if Democrats have any real candidate to put on election. The attrition by itself us not enough; if you could not capitalise the effect, it would turns against you.

n7axw wrote:

I can't predict the future, but I hope that come November that enough of the country gets past this to give us a new president. The righties will continue to rant. There is no cure for that. But maybe the rest of us can move on.

Don

-

Sorry, but there would be no real moving on, as long as you just choose the candidate from opposing party, despite knowing that he/she would not be of much difference. When your only choice is between two well-established cliques of ruling oligarchy, it essentially means that you have no real choise of all.

I should point out, that two-party system is not establised by your Constitution. In fact, it is most likely anti-constitutional, for two parties to essentially monopolise the political spectrum without allowing anyone else to have any real power.

Dilandu wrote:

Annachie wrote:All I can think of is that they are either planning to do it again on a different charge, or saving one incase he wins a second term.

Frankly, my IMHO is that Democrats simply panicked and blow their most powerful weapon (impeachment) as soon as they obtained it, without any serious tactical considerations. If they launched the impeachment campaign directly before the 2020 elections, it would be a really powerful blow. No matter how it would go, Republicans would probably be wary of supporting the candidate under juridical process.

But Democrats fired it too early. They knew beforehand that it would probably not work - even that it is almost surely not work - but still used it. This is a very poor tactical planning for sure.

Democrats are renown for discharging prematurely. Just ask Monica Lewinsky how thoughs incriminating DNA stains got on Linda Tripp's blue dress.

As for politics, this entire Mueller report and impeachment shitshow is simply politics by other means. The irony is that it was the obsession to impeach as well as to evade criminal charges that drove Joe Biden to become a candidate for President in 2020. You will notice that Biden announced his candidacy almost immediately after Ukraine elected a new government that put a reasonably honest prime minister in power.

Contrary to Democrat assertions, President Trump had a reputation for delaying foreign aid to countries with corruption and other problems. Given Trump's track record for confronting foreign aid recipients about corruption, it was inevitable that he would challenge Ukraine's new President to honor his rhetoric on reform. Obviously; Hunter Biden and Joe Biden would be in deep legal shit, especially because the US has an extradition treaty with Ukraine. Obviously; this would not be a problem for the Bidens or the Democrats as long as a Democrat was President or if Ukraine's prime minister is corrupt. However; once the US has a Republican President and Ukraine has a reasonably honest Prime Minister, this becomes a huge problem for both Bidens as well as the Democrats. The weaponized solution was for Joe Biden to run for President so that President Trump could be accused of corruption if he urged Ukraine to investigate corruption.


The punchline to this reality is that because President Trump has survived impeachment, Trump and the Republicans are going to retaliate. The Senate intelligence committee has already announced plans to investigate how this shitshow was staged. The whistleblower along with the Vindman twins will be subpoenaed for questioning. The Vindmansd might get deported. Joe Biden and his drug addicted son will also be subpoenaed. Meanwhile, back in Ukraine, their investigation will result in indictments of the Bidens and requests for extradition which President Trump will eagerly honor.

When out on the campaign trail, President Trump will point out that while he became rich through a combination of inheritance and investments, Democrats such as the Clintons, the Obamas, and Bidens enter public service as paupers but retire as near billionaires through influence peddling and backroom dealing.

Michael Everett wrote:The problem is that the Democrats thought the same thing and repeatedly said so starting from the week he was first elected.

Anticipating impeaching him maybe, because when you put a lifelong career criminal in office anticipating his impeachment is a pretty sane thing to be doing.

And since he then started openly violating the constitution from DAY ONE by refusing to divest his businesses, and using them to collect income from foreign governments, well... complaining about people calling for his impeachment from early on is like accusing someone of spending all season "crying wolf" when there were actual wolves every damn day eating the sheep.

Given that the Impeachment Express started well before any proof could be found (or indeed, before Trump had a chance to do more than unpack his bags),

Well when he starts violating the constitution before his damn bags are unpacked that is only one person's fault isn't it?

And I'm just going to add a little emphasis to your words down here:

I'm not saying Trump has not done anything wrong, but the entire Impeachment process was flawed almost from the start due to the lack of professionalism amongst those pushing most eagerly to remove Trump from office by any and all means possible. They may have been right from a legal viewpoint, but they made far too many mistakes in the court of public opinion which in the end, was the only one which really counted.

Yes, if you don't care about the law or whether your government leaders follow the law then public opinion is indeed all that matters. You have summed up quite succinctly the position of American Republicans.

"Screw reality. Screw the law. The only thing that matters is how effectively we can sell our voters the lies we are telling. Which is why we created Fox News."