So many posts trying to plant the notion that impeachment is hopeless, meaningless, ill-advised.

[FreepFryer]

Last edited Tue May 21, 2019, 05:44 PM - Edit history (5)

Amazing how these waves of similar-sounding crap just seem to lap at our shores.

EDITED: See comments 19, 31, 128 and others for more info about why such notions are BS, demotivational foolishness based in a fundamental misunderstanding/ignorance/oversimplification of the impeachment process.

[marylandblue]

1. Amazing how people have different opinions.

But I checked the TOS and it doesn't say anything about marching in lock step. Do I need to refresh my browser?

[redstatebluegirl]

3. Yep, I'm tired of my way or the highway.

[FreepFryer]

5. Exactly. Me too. (n/t)

[StarfishSaver]

89. I also haven't seen all of these posts "trying to plant the notion that impeachment is hopeless,

meaningless, ill-advised," either.

[Nuggets]

93. Me either.

I’ve seen is that timing and evidence are extremely important and, Pelosi knows what she’s doing.

[FreepFryer]

98. And i agree 100% with those points you made, except if you haven't seen "its hopeless" posts on DU,

You haven't been reading them.

[Hortensis]

103. With drawing comment. I'm away

Last edited Tue May 21, 2019, 05:05 PM - Edit history (2)

From home and can’t but really should read a bunch of recent comments I have not. I suppose it was words like hopeless and meaningless that threw me off, but they can be very subjective and I guess could mean whatever to different people.

Have a nice evening.

[FreepFryer]

141. I continue to hold u in very high esteem, but there are bunches on this post alone...

for example, https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12116218

Also as an aside, did you happen to check out my posts 19 and 128? Honest thanks for any additional feedback you might have, once you have.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

175. What?

[Grasswire2]

2. noted nt

[shanny]

4. Yeah what's up with that?

[MineralMan]

6. Actually, there are more posts that call for immediate impeachment.

People have different ideas, don't they? It's funny how that works.

[MineralMan]

21. Well, the impeachment question is a serious one.

There are different ways of looking at it, and different views about when such proceedings should begin. Since I'm not competent to predict what might happen, I think it's just fine that different people have different opinions on that.

Frankly, most people don't really understand how the impeachment process works, really. It's been quite a while since we've had such a thing happen, and some people weren't even born the last time or the time before that.

I remember both the Nixon and Clinton processes pretty well. It's a long, complicate process with hearings and all sorts of things going on that take plenty of time to happen and interrupt normal congressional activities. Months go by with that being the heart of the news on a daily basis.

Since no President in the history of the USA has ever been impeached and removed by that process, it's not surprising that careful people don't want to jump into it again. The impact it might have on other things, too, isn't really certain. And there are a lot of things going on right now, and will be going on in the future.

So, I'm content to wait a bit longer and let things develop further before beginning such a process. I'm also content to let people who truly understand the process contribute their input.

So, I'm neither calling for impeachment nor am I against it. I'll wait right here to see what happens.

[ehrnst]

26. +1000 (nt)

[FreepFryer]

36. BINGO. (n/t)

[FreepFryer]

39. I also don't think people understand disqualification (a vote separate and apart from removal) nt

[RichardRay]

100. +1,001. n/t

[coti]

9. Are you saying there's not enough evidence to impeach Trump?

[Demsrule86]

17. Are you thinking a conviction in the Senate is possible? If so I have a bridge...

[ehrnst]

20. +1000. (nt)

[Demsrule86]

33. Thanks

[coti]

28. I think conviction is unlikely but not impossible. But the point is to be clear about the values

of our democracy, to stand up and defend them however we can.

Besides that, we need to hit Trump as hard as we can to de-legitimize him before he start taking more serious steps toward creating an autocracy. If anyone is "laying the groundwork," it's him- the groundwork for him to become a completely unchecked ruler of our country.

[Demsrule86]

32. Hitting Trump makes you feel like you are 'doing something' but all that will happen is the

Senate will find him innocent and he will go on to win in 2020. Let's take him down.

[coti]

35. No, you're defining him and laying out the evidence for the whole country, in the spectacle and

added attention of impeachment proceedings, that he is a criminal.

[ehrnst]

70. Oh, so televised hearings that are not part of impeachment procedings don't have enough

'spectacle' for you to believe that he's a criminal? I guess you missed the Kavanaugh hearings.

Speak for yourself. Everyone on this thread, and all of DU suspects him of criminal and ethical violations.

You want something specific in order to feel vindicated. It's not happening, so you need to believe that you are owed it, and whoever isn't giving it to you is not doing their job.

You equate not impeaching right now with giving him 'legitimacy."

You really think that those who now consider him 'legitimate' will change their minds, or think that he's being persecuted for being Republican?

[Demsrule86]

167. Those that don't, Ike Trump are dug in and so is the other side. This is not

1973. The idea that the country will rise up and insist on conviction in the Senate is naive given the divisions in our country.

[ehrnst]

40. You don't think that Dems are de-legitimizing him now?

He's frantically telling his inner circle not to show up to testify, he's trying to quash subpoenas left and right.

But tell me, if Democratic leaders are doing nothing, why do you think that is? If indeed what you say is so obvious and simple, why are they not doing it?

Any ideas?

[coti]

43. No, apparently he's legitimate enough that people like you won't even support impeaching him

If he wasn't legitimate, wouldn't you support impeaching him?

[ehrnst]

60. false dilemma for the win...

Fallacy Name:
False Dilemma

The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them. The range is false because there may be other, unstated choices which would only serve to undermine the original argument. If you concede to pick one of those choices, you accept the premise that those choices are indeed the only ones possible. Usually, only two choices are presented, thus the term "False Dilemma"; however, sometimes there are three (trilemma) or more choices offered.

This is sometimes referred to as the "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle" because it can occur as a misapplication of the Law of the Excluded Middle. This "law of logic" stipulates that with any proposition, it must be either true or false; a "middle" option is "excluded". When there are two propositions, and you can demonstrate that either one or the other must logically be true, then it is possible to argue that the falsehood of one logically entails the truth of the other.

https://www.thoughtco.com/false-dilemma-fallacy-250338

You're saying that if someone isn't demanding that impeachment go forward immediately, that person believes DT is "legitimate," which I assume you mean morally legitimate, as the electoral college put him there legally, or doesn't think that DT has committed ethical or legal offenses while in office.

Actually.... U.S. Voters Still Say 2-1 Trump Committed Crime, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; But Voters Oppose Impeachment 2-1

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2618

Do you see where you left out any other possibilities or options? That's where your false dilemma is.

You're welcome.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

179. Great response!!!! Not holding him accountable IS DEFINITELY legitimizing him and

His actions. General non-political public thinks ...well they did nothing when report came out...guess nothing to it, move on. Sad thing is that already happened. Hard to retroactively be outraged - credibility issue.

[Skittles]

86. WTF

we need to do what is RIGHT - what is JUSTICE, not defer to repukes because they are covering for a fucking TRAITOR.....impeachment proceedings would show just what these fascists assholes are supporting and excusing

[Demsrule86]

163. We Need to win in 20. If Trump wins again, it will be way worse.

Last edited Wed May 22, 2019, 09:49 PM - Edit history (1)

[Skittles]

164. and what if we don't impeach and he "wins" anyway?

we need to do what is RIGHT......NOW

[Demsrule86]

170. It won't matter. He will still

be in office either way. I would favor impeachment if we could win in the Senate, but we won't.

[Skittles]

171. if only for history's sake we need to start impeachment proceedings

this is ridiculous, the man is a criminal

and FUCK THE SENATE - let the world see how truly sick and slimy the entire GOP really is

[blueinredohio]

87. I know nothing about impeachment so my question is

I understand if the house votes to impeach but the Senate doesn't he won't be removed from office. But can he do everything he does now or does impeachment impede his powers on what he can or can't do?

[FreepFryer]

142. If 2/3rds of the Senate doesn't vote to remove, he stays in office, without any penalty... BUT

there is also disqualification, a separate vote that, if taken, would only require a simple majority in the Senate and would prevent him from re-election to any office in the US (and as a nice side-benefit, wouldn't open the door to President Pence by showing the door to Trump).

Some actual specifics about impeachment (and removal, and disqualification) are visible on this post in comments 19 and 128.

Awesome question, thanks for asking it and hope that answers in part!

[blueinredohio]

145. Thanks FreepFryer that helped explain a lot.

So maybe he's pushing for impeachment because he knows he's not going to win 2020. That would be his excuse he would have won if not for impeachment.

[FreepFryer]

146. He's pushing, imho, because he's 1. egomaniacal, 2. used to goading prosecutors and violating law, &

3. thinks we wont be able to keep a solid coalition together for the long haul.

Who knows - but we don't take our orders from Nazis so fuck what he thinks.

[Demsrule86]

162. Unless he is removed from office, he keeps all his powers.

[ehrnst]

18. Why are you asking me? I'm not in the House, nor am I a lawyer.

I don't know what the definition of "hard evidence" is in terms of a case to be made.

Do I personally want him gone? Yes, indeed.

Do I think he's unfit? Yes, indeed.

As for what is possible right now in terms of impeachment, and what legal ammunition is needed, I have the common sense to defer to far more experienced and knowledgable people such as Speaker Pelosi.

Next straw man....

[MineralMan]

30. Sure there is. The House can impeach for just about anything.

But, an impeachment without the Senate removing a President is something else, altogether. In one case I remember, the threat of impeachment caused Nixon to resign. In the other, Clinton hung on and kept his job, but it was a close thing.

What happens next is unknown, though, in the current situation. We might guess at what might happen, but we have no idea, really. That's a little worrisome, I think, don't you?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

83. The Clinton removal vote in the Senate wasn't really all that close.

Only 50 senators out of the required 67 voted to remove him on the obstruction of justice charge, and only 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge. No Democrat voted against him on either charge.

[MineralMan]

91. That's right.

And, yet, it totally distracted the country. All for nothing. I don't want that to happen this time, very much, unless it's very, very clear that it will not help Trump get re-elected or we lose Congress back to the Republicans.

Both are things to consider, I believe.

[watoos]

10. Trump being named a co-conspirator in a felony

is hard evidence. 1,000 prosecutors determining that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice is hard evidence.

Anyone who is waiting on 20 Republican Senators to convict Trump has taken impeachment off the table.

[Demsrule86]

14. What is the point of impeachment without conviction? In fact the Senate will exonnerate him.

[FreepFryer]

59. What about disqualification? Have you ever researched that?

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in horserace political philosophy.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

76. What about it? Disqualification is your point. You need to make it and explain it.

Your post is so terse as to be unclear. "What about disqualification?" Disqualification for what? Candidacy, office, pension?

Who would it be applied to? Senators? tRump? Democratic Presidential candidates who don't support impeachment immediately?

[FreepFryer]

112. No, that's not my OP's point. THe point is that simplistic (mis)understandings and horserace denials

Are bullshit.

Did you check out my post above? Here is the text again for you. Disqualification is a formal vote, a real thing. An example of how it would be helpful to learn just what 'impeachment' really means, and in what contexts, before declaring it "hopeless."

In this case, a 'disqualification' vote would prevent Trump from running again, AND prevent Pence from taking Trump's place (unlike removal). However, it would mean Trump lasting out his term.

Just one example, but it helps to know what words mean, don't you agree?

During an impeachment trial, the Senate can "disqualify" an officeholder from holding any public office again, but that is a separate vote from their "removal". the Senate has the power to vote separately on removal (by supermajority) and/or disqualification (by simple majority), but the one does not imply the other.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution:

- Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Senate Overview of Impeachment Process:

- The Senate may subsequently vote on whether the impeached official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States. If this option is pursued, a simple majority vote is required.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf

[Bernardo de La Paz]

116. Thank you, but not in your OP or the post I replied. Interesting. . . . nt

[FreepFryer]

119. You're impugning my motives for articulating my argument? It surprises me that you would attack me

Such imputations are 100% off base.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

127. Sorry, no impugning, no attack. I was explaining why I simply did not see your 'other' post.

What part of thank you did you not understand?

The "interesting" comment was that Disqualification is an interesting concept and procedure. It was not meant to be a sardonic comment on you not providing a link and having to repeat your argument that you had posted elsewhere (for which I thanked you). I apologize; probably my 'nt' comment (Reply title only comment) was too terse.

[FreepFryer]

130. It's cool - I'm obv getting some friction for the post, and I have a lot of respect for you...

...so I think I overreacted. I'm grateful for the words of mediation and understanding, no matter whether we agree or not on any of this.

[Demsrule86]

165. The Senate run by McConnell is not going to disqualify Trump.

[Demsrule86]

161. So you think Trump can be 'disqualified like a horse? Nothing in the constitution

Supports this. I want Trump gone in 2020.

[redstateblues]

110. Then he'll gloat and claim victory

We’ll be playing right into his hands

[durablend]

158. He's doing that *right now*

[Demsrule86]

166. But after the Senate exonerated him , it will be worse.

[Demsrule86]

160. That is what I think.

[ehrnst]

29. Anyone thinking that impeachment is the only way to make a case against him

hasn't been keeping up with what Democrats are doing.

Again... I will defer to someone with far more experience than either of us, Speaker Pelosi.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

77. +1. . . . nt

[FreepFryer]

147. +1! (n/t)

[FreepFryer]

19. That's absolutely not what I'm saying.

I think Speaker Pelosi's approach is both the wisest course and the one most likely to bring about an effective impeachment.

And she doesn't think impeachment is hopeless, meaningless, ill-advised - nor a fait accompli of failure. It's the posters here making such strident claims.

Impeach. And then remove, or disqualify. Don't dis the Constitution or the process, nor the Democrats, who are taking a properly both judicious and conscientious approach.

Don't try to dissuade Democrats from executing Executive oversight.

During an impeachment trial, the Senate can "disqualify" an officeholder from holding any public office again, but that is a separate vote from their "removal". the Senate has the power to vote separately on removal (by supermajority) and/or disqualification (by simple majority), but the one does not imply the other.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution:

- Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Senate Overview of Impeachment Process:

The Senate may subsequently vote on whether the impeached official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States. If this option is pursued, a simple majority vote is required. https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf

[ehrnst]

23. Thank you for the clarification. I misread the OP.

My apologies.

[FreepFryer]

34. No worries, I really appreciate the acknowledgment - my post was rather strident. (n/t)

[RichardRay]

106. Clarification?

Art 1, §7, C3 says “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, AND disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States...” (emphasis mine)

Are you saying that disqualification may be selected as a ‘lesser count’ aside from impeachment? Wouldn’t that be an OR?

Not saying you’re wrong, but after living through our last two impeachment events I don’t recall hearing disqualification held out as a stand alone option.

[FreepFryer]

108. It's not a lesser count - it's a separate vote, as described in the Senate overview document.

Comments 19 and 128 on this post.

We've never had one, but the Senate guide makes clear the two votes are separate, following the proceedings in the Senate that initiate with a referral of impeachment from the House.

The disqualification vote may follow the impeachment vote, but whether it is taken or not is not contingent upon the result of the impeachment vote.

I agree we've not heard about it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it does.

[bornskeptic]

181. You are misunderstanding this. The disqualifiction vote only occurs after conviction.

Conviction on any count requires a 2/3 vote. An impeached official who is convicted on any count is removed from office, but is not automatically disqualified from holding a future office. An additional vote is held to deal with that, a simple majority being required for disqualification. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were not convicted, so no disqualification vote was held in their impeachment trials.

[cynatnite]

11. Personally, I don't want impeachment unless it goes all the way...

It's a toothless exercise without both chambers in Dem hands.

[FreepFryer]

31. Not necessarily true - a disqualification vote, if held in the Senate, requires only simple majority

But that's around the bend.

I personally think that if you do not use the mechanism when ample evidence abounds because the political reality is unsupportive of the outcome, you weaken the mechanism.

The decision to use the mechanism needs to meet the political reality halfway, lest the criminal Executive be protected by a failed effort.

[cynatnite]

42. The mechanism is weak without both chambers willing to impeach...

It's a pointless exercise unless he can be removed from office. We all know the evidence is there. With complicit repubs and AG, it's not going to happen.

Since that's the case, I'd rather Pelosi and the Dems focus their efforts on keeping the House, winning the Senate and the WH.

We're more likely to achieve those goals.

Plus I think impeachment would help tRump in today's insane political climate. The electorate doesn't give a fuck.

[FreepFryer]

51. If a disqualifying vote passed in the Senate, Trump couldn't run in 2020, and we wouldn't get Pence.

that wouldn't suck.

[cynatnite]

52. In a repub senate???

This fantasizing about impeachment is pointless, IMO. It's not going to happen when one house is full of complicit repubs who care more about covering tRump's ass than the country.

This is why 2020 is more important than impeachment, IMO. Even if we lose the WH in 2020, keep the House and win the Senate, impeachment is back on the table. It's a goal that's reachable.

I live in reality...not in a dream world.

[FreepFryer]

53. How is a simple majority in the Senate impossible? A 2/3rds majority perhaps, but a simple majority?

Declaring it impossible is untenable on the facts.

[cynatnite]

54. I'm declaring it impossible because of who is in charge and has majority already. n/t

[FreepFryer]

56. Read about the Nixon hearings and how many Republicans seemed in lockstep in June 1972, Feb 1974...

...and August 1974.

[cynatnite]

58. Nixon had tapes....

Doesn't seem to be the case here unless we get some bombastic testimony from those who refuse.

I'm not hanging my hat on hopes and dreams.

[FreepFryer]

61. And when did we learn about those tapes? July, 1973. AFTER HEARINGS HAD BEGUN.

[cynatnite]

67. Hey, I'm not looking to change minds here...

And you're not going to change mind.

I see impeachment as a hopeless endeavor at this point in time.

I don't think the Dems should rush into it. At least win the Senate before doing it. tRump's rallies are full of fucking crazy supporters and the Repubs are scared shitless of them enough to cover for tRump until hell freezes over. We've seen that first hand.

So, yeah...I'm on the side of reality here.

[FreepFryer]

71. Someone on the side of reality constructs arguments based on facts, not opinion.

I've posted facts, not opinion. No 'shoulds' in my posts, or characterizations of voters as crazy, GOP reps as scared shitless etc.

Just facts of history, law and context that I think are pertinent to the discussion.

[cynatnite]

82. Fact: Repubs have the senate and the WH. Period. n/t

[FreepFryer]

84. Mkay! EXCLAMATION POINT n/t

[redstateblues]

192. A simple majority? How does that magically appear?

Tell me which Republican Senators are flipping?

[NewJeffCT]

62. Republicans held both houses in 1998 and 1999

and impeached Bill Clinton. However, despite Clinton being acquitted, he was "damaged goods" in terms of poll numbers (pre impeachment polls were consistently 63-66% approval and post acquittal, they didn't rise about 60% for the last 8 months of 1999)

But, the Republicans were so hurt electorally that they "won" the presidency in 2000 despite running a bad candidate who was far less qualified than the Democratic VP.

[Trumpocalypse]

156. They stole the presidency in 2000

with Ralph Nader driving the getaway car.

[NewJeffCT]

157. Al Gore

was far more qualified for president than George W Bush. Bush was mediocre at best and should never have come close to winning because we had 8 years of a strong economy under Clinton.

But, because the media said Gore must distance himself from the morally tainted Clinton, he chose not to embrace the good aspects of the Clinton legacy - roaring stock market, awesome job numbers, etc. and Gore choose boring scold Joe Lieberman to counteract the moral outrage over Clinton.

[maxsolomon]

12. The truth is in the middle.

I want an airtight case from the Dems.

I want the courts to back their efforts.

I suspect that McCconnell will refuse to conduct the trial if he can.

I know the Senate GOP will not convict. Hell, I don't even think Manchin will vote to convict because he's as craven as Graham.

A hasty Impeachment is ill-advised, which Pelosi and Hoyer know.

A carefully constructed case is not ill-advised and will clearly illustrate our values, which Pelosi and Hoyer know.

We have time. Not a lot, but some. I'd take an Impeachment for my Christmas present.

[FreepFryer]

22. Exactly. Me too. (n/t)

[Demsrule86]

13. Oh you can impeach...no issue. But then the Senate declares him innocent and he goes on his

merry way and wins the 2020 election. He get gets four more years to destroy this country...so not worth the risk this late in his term.

[maxsolomon]

15. Impeach him again.

If he's acquitted this time, and he loses in 2020, I'd impeach his lying ass a second time in the Lame Duck session.

[uponit7771]

148. +1

[Demsrule86]

169. If we win this election, give thanks...it is going to be very tough.

[maxsolomon]

182. Oh, I will.

I'd simply like to see some Justice for a Republican, finally. They've been eating our lunch my entire adult life.

[Demsrule86]

191. I know.

[spanone]

25. don't impeach and he declares himself exonerated by the Mueller investigation...and blames democrats

and gets another four years

[FreepFryer]

27. Nixon was at 60% when impeachment began, 21 months after Watergate. He resigned when the tide turned

I don't think anyone here is a Master of Tides.

[Demsrule86]

168. Seriously? This is not 1973. There will be no turning of tides. Both sides are dug in.

[Demsrule86]

190. The tide will not turn.

[Rambling Man]

189. There is no proof of this

other than people on DU saying it is so.

[wasupaloopa]

16. Bullying people because they don't think the same as you sucks

[FreepFryer]

24. Doesn't it? It's getting really beyond tiresome being attacked for supporting the rule of law. (n/t)

[MineralMan]

38. Well, see, the law says that the House decides whether or not to impeach.

Not you. Not me. Not DU. Not anyone. Just the House of Representatives. Let them figure it out. We're not part of that decision, frankly.

[FreepFryer]

41. The House of Representatives IS us, just once removed by election. (n/t)

[MineralMan]

44. That is correct. And we vote again next year on the entire

House of Representatives. They know that, too. We vote for President then, as well.

It's a complicated decision, which will take some time to make, I think. In the end, November, 2020 is the time when we all get to weigh in in a real way.

Until then, we have the Congress we have. Let them do their job as they think best. That's what we hired them for, right?

[FreepFryer]

49. True enough! Again, the Nixon process tells us much re the tectonic shifts impeachment can enable...

it is a political process, for sure - but it is also a trial. Expecting it to be one, or the other, and expecting its outcome to be reliable enough for laypeople to predict well enough in advance to pronounce definitively on social media, is to be disappointed.

[MineralMan]

65. Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned before impeachment proceedings started.

Trump will not resign. Nixon had enough sense to know that he had to resign. Trump has no sense at all.

There's no question that the House has enough votes to impeach Trump. That's not the issue. But, it's guaranteed that the Senate would not vote in a 2/3 majority to remove Trump, so we can't get rid of him like we did Nixon. He won't resign.

And, if he is not removed by the Senate after the House impeached him, he will still be there, and still be running for President. He will still be Commander in Chief of the military. He will still have presidential powers. And he will be pissed off. The damage he might do could be catastrophic.

That is one of the factors people like Pelosi are considering. And they need to be considering it.

DUers, for the most part, do not have enough knowledge or experience to offer advice on this. Neither do I. So, I'm not offering any, except that whatever decision gets made needs to be made after serious consideration about what effects either decision will cause.

Do I want Trump gone? Absofuckinglutely. Do I want to risk everything over an impeachment that doesn't remove him. I'm not so sure about that.

We can vote him out next November. One way or another, he'll almost certainly still be President then, because he won't resign and the Senate won't remove him. So, it's sort of Hobson's choice.

Frankly, I'm paying no attention to what DUers think should happen. I don't know what should happen, so I'm not going to say, but it's going to be a very, very important decision, so it should not be made haphazardly, by any means.

[FreepFryer]

66. I'm well aware. I'm an historian.

And Nixon didn't resign before proceedings began.

He resigned before a vote was to be held in the House, which would have referred it to the Senate for a likely removal vote.

[Kaleva]

45. As we live in a republic, they are not us.

[FreepFryer]

50. No but they are We The People. (nt)

[Kaleva]

68. The Founding Fathers had concerns about the tyranny of the majority.

Which is one of the reasons they developed the form of government we have.

[FreepFryer]

69. Is it that or "the tyranny of the demos qua plebs" to which you object?

Because neither has anything to do with my comments.

[Kaleva]

73. I don't object to anything.

I'm fine with Nancy Pelosi making on the decision of when or if to start impeachment proceedings. I don't worry about it.

Truth be told, the vast majority of people are quite okay on how this is playing out as shown by how they are putting as much effort into promoting , or opposing, impeachment proceedings as one would in trying to get a post office named after a local notable. Which is making posts on forums and maybe calling one's Rep and Senators.

[coti]

48. NO- they have a RESPONSIBILITY to protect and defend our constitution and democracy nt

[ehrnst]

72. You're saying that Democratic leaders are NOT protecting and defending our constitution and

democracy?

[Nuggets]

97. That's what they are doing rather than

letting trump use the process to escape any consequences.

[coti]

102. No, this is appeasement. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

123. Appeasement does not mean what you think it does.

Appeasement is trying to buy off an attacker with something they value. The word does not apply here.

[coti]

172. No, your definition is far too narrow. It's making any explicit or implied deal beneficial to an

attacker in the hopes that the benefit- like NOT impeaching them- will help stave off or sate their attacks. This strategy is classic appeasement, exactly the same thing abused wives and electorates anxious about autocratic takeover have done for centuries.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

187. No. The Ds (realists) have no expectation tRump would ever stop attacking. So they aren't appeasing.

They aren't offering anything to tRump. Impeachment is definitely on the table.

They aren't hoping to get any benefit from tRump. Pelosi and the chairpeople are realists.

So there is no appeasement.

No offer and no benefit equals no appeasement.

[ehrnst]

173. No, it's not. (nt)

[coti]

174. Yes it is. nt

[ehrnst]

176. Nope, it's not.

This is fun!

GWB called opposing military action in Iraq "appeasement" too.

[coti]

177. I'm quite certain it is.

Yes, it is!

[ehrnst]

178. Actually no, it's not.

GWB called opposing military action in Iraq "appeasement" too.

That's a word that gets thrown around when one can't really respond to logical rebuttals and data.

Perhaps you have some that you're keeping to yourself?

[coti]

180. If there were any "logical" (I assume you mean "well-reasoned") arguments or "data"

being offered by you or others promoting appeasement, you, conceivably, could be right. Of course, there aren't.

[ehrnst]

185. You present only your opinion as though it is data.

Then tell others who ask for your data that they need data to prove your data-less declarations to be data-less.

[ehrnst]

186. They are carrying out that responsibility. But you seem to look for reasons to

rationalize your anger towards them.

Why is that?

[dewsgirl]

37. One thing that has given me hope.... is the uptick in impeachment talk over the last couple

Of weeks. Especially the last few days, it is increasing....may not be anything...but then again something has got to give.

[FreepFryer]

46. Same here. The wheel is turning, and we don't want it flying off the wagon as we start moving. n/t

[dewsgirl]

47. Exactly.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

81. Yes. There has to be lots of talk first before the public scares the Republicon Senators. . . . nt

[dewsgirl]

94. I can't keep up with everything like before..to much happening.

But one thing I have noticed, is the word impeachment is showing up multiple times on every site I visit, especially the last couple days.
I wish I knew how to do a word cloud, impeachment has to be one of the big ones right now.

[Me.]

55. I Haven't Seen Hopeless

I've seen right now this very minute and, it's a process that needs to be worked through

This is enlightening

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212115462

[FreepFryer]

57. Here's a fresh example of 'hopeless'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12115664

[TwilightZone]

132. There's a difference between "it's hopeless"

and "it will fail in the Senate". Expecting impeachment to lead to removal is unrealistic in the present political environment. Senate Republicans won't even admit Trump has done anything wrong, much less anything that rises to the level of removal.

Noting that impeachment will fail at removal is not, contrary to your insistence, necessarily indicating that it is ill-advised or meaningless. Your sole example is certainly not evidence to the contrary.

[FreepFryer]

133. Assuming removal is the only possible binary outcome (and despairing its failure) is the error.

Please see post 128, for example.

[TwilightZone]

134. It is the only binary outcome.

Aside from Trump resigning, the Senate will either remove him or they won't. In this case, they won't.

If you don't understand even the basics of the impeachment/removal process, I suggest that you stop posting about it until you educate yourself.

[FreepFryer]

135. You clearly didn't read post 128, nor do u understand impeachment as well as u think u do (nt)

[MFM008]

184. The point is

The FFathers give this remedy as an option.
It doesnt say only IF everyone agrees
Or if the senate votes for it.

[appleannie1943]

63. I personally think we are working up to impeachment but until the Thugs

are convinced they will not be elected if they don't stand up for the country instead of Trump, it is sort of hopeless. With each refusal to testify before Congress, more people join the impeachment bandwagon but we are not quite ready to say it is in the bag. Give them a bit more time. It should and will happen. It isn't as if they are sitting on their laurels but if they try and fail, it won't happen at all. So make it foolproof before trying. Now we even have a couple Thugs that see the writing on the wall. We still need a couple more.

[Fiendish Thingy]

64. Is it merely cowardly, fear-based defeatism...

...or something more sinister at play?

[Stinky The Clown]

74. Impeachment is not removal

We have different opinions of how to move forward. Your brush is almost criminally broad. For me, I will trust age, cunning, and guile over youth, impatience, and exhuberance any day of the week.

[FreepFryer]

78. indeed, it is not - if you notice above I make the exact same point - uncriminally.

I think you either misread or haven't read my argument. Please review.

[marble falls]

96. I don't think he misread it at, the OP is "anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot" ...

and I agree with the clown.

I'm tired of these "if you don't agree with me you're stupid posts".

[FreepFryer]

99. That's an inattentive mischaracterization of the OP, perhaps brought on by fatigue. (n/t)

[marble falls]

101. And I think the OP was meant to provke a fight. I pay very close attention to this sort of post ...

How did I misrepresent this: "Amazing how these waves of similar-sounding crap just seem to lap at our shores."?

What sort of poser of this "sort of crap" is speaker Pelosi? Are you claiming people like Pelosi are the conduit of the crap you are worried about? We support Democrats here.

Why don't you be more specific about from what shore your 'crap' came to our shores from?

[FreepFryer]

104. I support SpkrPelosi 100%. She made NONE of those arguments. Again, u r being inattentive to my post

...and I suggest you actually take the time to read it properly without preconception.

[marble falls]

105. Speaker Pelosi has not been looking to impeachment as a solution to the Trump problem ...

and obviously the Democratic majority House hasn't either. You've noticed no-one has introduced any bill of impeachment yet, haven't you?

[FreepFryer]

107. What does that have to do with my OP? Your argument is not contradictory to it

Because Speaker Pelosi, nor the Democratic majority House, feels the way about impeachment as I describe in my OP.

Not sure why you don't seem to realize you are arguing with a phantom. I've not argued what you think I've argued - because you appear to misunderstand Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats' positions on impeachment.

[marble falls]

111. Your proposition is: 'anyone against impeaching the Orange Shitgibbon in in the sway ...

of unspecified foreign influence.'

Why can't you own up to that? Part of the 'anyone' is the Speaker and most of the Democratic majority of the House where a bill of impeachment has to come from. You are saying most of the Democrats in the house are under the sway of some unspecified offshore conspiracy.

Shame on you.

[FreepFryer]

115. No it's exactly NOT what i've said - you 100% misunderstand my OP and are resistant to dialogue.

Please read, rather than preclude doing so.

[marble falls]

118. I am precluding anymore of your dancing around the issue. You want an immediate impeachment ...

and the majority doesn't and that doesn't mean anyone is in the sway of your unspecified off-shore conspiracy.

Have a nice day.

[FreepFryer]

121. I do NOT want immediate impeachment, as described elsewhere in this OP. You're COMPLETELY WRONG(n/t)

[marble falls]

122. Keep dancing.

[FreepFryer]

125. LOL. Read my comments here and you might see you are arguing against an inverse of my argument.

[marble falls]

131. ... and a five, six, seven, eight .....

[brooklynite]

124. "Amazing how these waves of similar-sounding crap just seem to lap at our shores."

Since so many of us have "100% misunderstood" your comment, please do us the courtesy of better explaining it.

[marble falls]

126. Good luck with that!

[GulfCoast66]

75. Your amazed that some DU members disagree with you?

Reasonable, well intentioned people can view the same set of circumstances and reach different opinions. You are aware of that fact, correct?

I happen to believe Impeachment with no conviction right now actually harms us in 20. Honorable and well meaning people can and do disagree.

But there is no sinister plot involved.

[LanternWaste]

79. So many posts calling a mere difference of opinion and analysis "crap" as well.

Amazing how these torrents of unsupported positions just seem to rain down on our heads.

(six of one, half a dozen of the other in both substance and support)

[FreepFryer]

80. Exactly right - and a terrible lack of facts and context. History and law versus horseraces. (n/t)

[BlueJac]

85. I think we are headed in the right direction...

I just wish we would be as tough as the law allows on people in contempt of Congress. If lawyers are violating laws and refuse to testify we should do all we can about their right to practice law! Time to be as tough as possible and keep moving forward and then finally on to impeachment!

[FreepFryer]

88. Yes, agreed - but since power is based on the perception of power, it's a careful balance between...

...an action which 'forwards the ball' in one context and an action which 'fumbles' it in another.

The last thing anyone who appreciates the separation of powers would want is the Sergeant at Arms of the House standing before Barr or McGahn's closed door, impotently unable to act in the face of a jeering criminal Executive.

[ehrnst]

90. Do you know that they are not being as tough as possible? (nt)

[FreepFryer]

95. +1. I agreed that we are moving in the right direction, I reject that Democrats are not being tough.

IMHO They're being smart, because they are a political body and they know the stakes better than we do (they've seen things).

[BigDemVoter]

92. I don't think it's so much ill advised. . . .

I just think that some of the people calling for it are full of shit.

For example, Micah and Joe Scarborough from Morning Joe have NO room to talk, as they certainly enabled this motherfucker and the rest of the repigs in past elections. I just find it offensive that just now they are starting to speak up with Pussy Grabber. Joe Scarborough thought George W. Bush was wonderful and enabled his crimes.

[Vinnie From Indy]

109. Agreed!

[jberryhill]

113. Or perhaps people have opinions which differ from yours

I'm agnostic on it. I believe that once investigations get rolling, then impeachment will build its own steam.

But the sowing of distrust over simple matters of differences of opinion is a classic troll tactic. Amplify division and distrust, instead of accepting that opinions can differ.

[FreepFryer]

114. It certainly is - this is not a simple matter of opinion, it's about misunderstanding impeachment

Both in law and in political context.

[brooklynite]

117. Are you saying that I part of some external trolling effort?

I've been clear what my position; and I've been here for more than 15 years.

BTW - since Nancy Pelosi is resisting implementing Impeachment efforts, is she part of the conspiracy?

[fescuerescue]

120. It's not as if those folks make a difference.

Let them run their notions.

It's not as if any us will read their message and then start the impeachment. We just don't have that power, now matter how convinced either way.

[FreepFryer]

128. MIGHT WANNA READ AND UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT BEFORE INVERTING OR TWISTING IT

(repeat of post 19)

Simplistic (mis)understandings and horserace denials of the nature and power of impeachment (and its applicability here) are the problem. Calling something 'hopeless' because you misunderstand its nature is the height of ignorance - and we are being deluged with overly simplistic condemnations based on ignorance by people who want to diminish our belief in our own power, and that of our Constitution. Some of these miscreants and deceivers are even (gasp) Republicans.

Moreover, our elected Democratic Representatives have NOT called impeachment 'hopeless' - Speaker Pelosi in particular, whose position I support, has made clear her reluctance but it is not based in a misunderstanding as so many of the posts to which I refer - it's based in a deep knowledge of the nature of the legal and political processes underway.

Disqualification is a formal vote, a real thing. An example of how it would be helpful to learn just what 'impeachment' really means, and in what contexts, before declaring it "hopeless:"

During an impeachment trial, the Senate can "disqualify" an officeholder from holding any public office again, but that is a separate vote from their "removal". As part of formal impeachment proceedings the Senate has the power to vote separately on removal (by supermajority) and/or disqualification (by simple majority), but the one does not imply the other.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution:

- Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Senate Overview of Impeachment Process:

- The Senate may subsequently vote on whether the impeached official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States. If this option is pursued, a simple majority vote is required.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf

In the case of impeachment, a 'disqualification' vote (different and apart from 'removal') would prevent Trump from running again, AND prevent Pence from taking Trump's place (unlike removal). However, it would mean Trump lasting out his term.

Just one example, but it helps to know what words mean, don't you agree?

[TwilightZone]

137. Your OP doesn't make an argument.

It's simplistic pablum, intended to provoke a response.

You seriously expected everyone to "understand" and assume that this:

"Amazing how these waves of similar-sounding crap just seem to lap at our shores."

meant the same thing as this 1000-word treatise on impeachment that has exactly nothing to do with your OP?

That's...impressive.

[FreepFryer]

138. It has everything to do with my OP, but I appreciate the feedback!

I made the same point in post #19, it's not revisionism.

[TwilightZone]

139. Then you should have made those points in the OP.

Instead of just posting a vague rant and then assuming that everyone else could read your mind or had any clue what you were talking about. You then doubled-down on the nonsense by chastising people who didn't divine the 1,000 words you "really meant" by your vague OP.

Sometimes the problem isn't everyone else. Sometimes, the problem is in the mirror.

[FreepFryer]

140. Indeed - thanks again for the feedback, it's not just about me - we should all use Windex!

Last edited Tue May 21, 2019, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)

For example, nastily calling someone grossly ignorant of impeachment when it's painfully obvious one doesn't even know what 'disqualification' is.

Don't leave streaks!

[Dream Girl]

129. I actually go back and forth. Most of the time I think it absolutely must happen,

Other times, not.

[FreepFryer]

144. That's probably the most well-adapted psychological posture for surviving this craziness :)

Total confidence is rarely a gift, and far more often a curse.

[malaise]

136. Amazing indeed

Rec

[FreepFryer]

143. I'm particularly fascinated by the people who take my OP personally... very revealing indeed. (n/t)

[Locutusofborg]

149. Can anybody name the 20 Republican Senators

Who possibly could be persuaded to vote Guilty in an impeachment trial and thereby install Mike Pence as President of the United States?
I can’t.

[FreepFryer]

150. Me neither. We'd only need 4 for disqualification, however. (n/t)

See posts 19, 31, 128, etc etc etc

[FreepFryer]

151. I've posted the info about disqualification in the Senate from comms 19, 31, 128, etc. to a new post

Thanks TwilightZone for the great suggestion!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212116567

[Locutusofborg]

152. There would have to have been a guilty verdict first

To remove the president from office by a two-thirds majority in order to proceed to a disqualification vote by a simple majority.
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, **AND**disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”—Article I, Section 3

[FreepFryer]

153. Patently incorrect. Cite your Const. interpretation. I cited the Senate's own overview, which reads:

When the presentation of evidence and argument by the managers and counsel forthe respondent has concluded, the Senate as a whole meets in closed session to deliberate.Voting on whether to convict on the articles of impeachment commences upon return to open session, with yeas and nays being tallied as to each article separately.35

A conviction on an article of impeachment requires a two-thirds vote of those Senators present. If the respondent is convicted on one or more of the articles against him or her, the Presiding Officer will pronounce the judgment of conviction and removal. No formal vote is required for removal, as it is a necessary effect of the conviction.

The Senate need not vote on all of the articles before it. Where an individual has already been convicted on one or more of the articles, the Senate may decide that subsequent votes on the remaining articles are unnecessary.

Conversely, when the Senate did not convict President Andrew Johnson in the votes on three of the articles of impeachment against him, the Senate did not vote on the remaining articles.

The Senate may subsequently vote on whether the impeached official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States.36 If this option is pursued, a simple majority vote is required.37

CRS-636 III Hind’s § 2397; VI Cannon’s § 512.37 VI Cannon’s § 512.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf

[FreepFryer]

154. Here's another interpretation from US Law Justia supporting my argument. Can I see one for yours?

The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.854 This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote.

Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.856

853 See discussion supra of the differences between English and American impeachment.

854 3 Deschler’sprecedents Of The United States House Of Representatives ch. 14, § 13.9.

855 See Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional And Historical Analysis 77–79 (2d ed. 2000).

856 The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 Cannon’sprecedents Of The House Of Representatives § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 Deschler’sprecedents ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607 (1936).

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html

[FreepFryer]

155. Please see this post, wherein FreepFryer eats fried crow. :) thanks all, this was very educational!

Thanks to starfishsaver for the ‘nowledge

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212116567

[Ilsa]

159. What I'm hearing is that the waiting

is to first establish the best case possible for impeachment, with the most evidence and testimony, for absolute success and support by the American people.

[Gothmog]

183. How are you going to get 20 GOP Senators to vote to remove?

Impeachment without removal is a waste of time

[stillcool]

188. I notice the opposite..

posts screaming for impeachment right now, with snide remarks about Democrats they do not like. They don't want to hear about process, interviewing witnesses, uncovering more evidence of crimes. The worst part is that they "know" the best way forward. How can they know? Are they in those committee's? Do they know the consequences for taking the action they advocate? I understand the frustration of not knowing what's going on, but I also understand each committees need to get a clear grasp of what crimes they are working with, how best to procure evidence, and to allow themselves autonomy in the process. I don't know that I'm right, and that they're wrong, but I know that I don't know, and unless they're on a committee, they don't know either.