For those arguing against impeachment

[pdsimdars]

You should go watch Joy Reid's show. She had Dalia Lithwick, Michael Beschloss to name a few. Very sober, knowledgeable, respected people. Michael Beschloss was on later in the show and said that Joy had had a very excellent program so far. And she really did. It is enlightening to see these educated experts and hear how they look at it.
I think the point that stood out for me was one that Dalia made. She said that the first rule of parenting is setting a boundary and then there are CONSEQUENCES to crossing it. If there are not consequences imposed, the rule means nothing. Both Dalia and Michael said that just having Trump lose the next election does not correct the error. It means that breach is left in place for the next president. And presidents don't give up power.
There were many strong points made. Very informative show.

[J_William_Ryan]

1. Trump exonerated by the Senate won't correct the error, either - which is what will happen.

And the people rejecting a president by denying him a second term sends a clear message that such wrongdoing by a president won’t be tolerated.

Impeachment is a political – not legal – process; and the politics are such that impeachment is simply not warranted.

[Trueblue Texan]

3. We don't KNOW that he will be...

..."exonerated." If the House can make the investigations public and the public is able to see what really happened, it will make it more and more difficult to defend not throwing him out of office. I'm terrified by what I learned in Joy's coverage yesterday. We all should be and we should let our reps in House and Senate know what we know and how we feel about allowing the president to go unchecked in these obstructive and criminal actions he's taking. If enough is revealed and enough people are upset and communicate that, we have a chance of getting rid of this horrible traitor in the Oval Office.

[wasupaloopa]

7. Yes we do. You know as well as the rest of us that the repub majority in the Senate will never

turn on trump.

You say, let's play with fire and see if we get burnt. Maybe we can convince the fire to not act like fire.

[watoos]

27. Maybe playing with fire is not impeaching?

Trump will certainly claim that Democrats could find no wrongdoing.

Millennials may become discouraged and stay home in 2020.

Sometimes it is better to fight and lose then not to fight at all.

[wasupaloopa]

34. Seems to fight and know you will loose when there is a better alternative is

senseless.

I have not heard a millennial opinion on impeachment but they have the ability to reason as anyone else does.

If they stay home it is their future they are fucking with.

[watoos]

35. They stayed home for Hillary

[wasupaloopa]

62. Like I said it is their future they are fucking with. I don't think we need to

find ways to make them want to vote if they can’t see the importance for themselves. I remember 2014 here at DU when everyone pledged to vote. Yet young people said there was nothing to vote for after our loss. You can’t reason with stupidity

[sop]

33. Trump likely has Kompromat on too many GOP Senators

Or he will have by the time Barr is finished declassifying intelligence. Trump is willing to bring down the entire government to save his sorry ass.

[marylandblue]

2. I didn't see the show, but that doesn't make a lot of sense.

First, in the context of parenting, consequences on one child may not always serve as a warning to other children. Second, Trump is making a huge number of mistakes that invite impeachment. The next would be dictator will learn from Trump's mistakes to make themself unimpeachable, or at least unconvictable in the Senate. Trump may already have made himself unconvictable. Going back to the parenting thing, that's like threatening a punishment but not following through, the worst lesson of all.

[Irishxs]

4. I trust Nancy Pelosi.

[Hortensis]

28. And the rest of her team. Plus, NO ONE is against impeachment.

[Me.]

5. Yes, Yes

It seems Joy can't talk about anything else lately. I wonder if she thinks she can force them to do what she wants since she knows so much better than our members of Congress

[redstateblues]

47. All the talking heads are feverish for impeachment.

Ratings

[Me.]

48. ...

and they love a fight where they can kick Dems around

[wasupaloopa]

6. For you. What consequences will happen to trump if the House impeaches him? I will tell you.

The Senate will not convict him and he will declare his exoneration and he will be reelected!


You act as if you have power to punish or expel him by impeachment. Get real!

The only power we have over trump is our vote!


The House committees should do their work as best they can while also passing legislation so that we look like the reasonable and best choice in 2020.

[Qutzupalotl]

9. He's going to declare exoneration either way.

Look at what he and Barr did with the Mueller report, which shows multiple examples of impeachable conduct and abuse of power. He’s willing to flat-out lie about what’s in the report to try to save his political hide, the way he lies about everything else.

He can declare exoneration, but that doesn’t mean most people believe him. Most people believe Mueller, especially as people are wading through the report and seeing the damning information for themselves. Trump has never been above 50% approval. So him claiming exoneration — which he does constantly — does not mean he will be reelected.

Link to tweet

[wasupaloopa]

16. The Dems impeaching and him claiming exoneration is the combination that can get him reelected.

Dems will look petty and impotent. Nothing will come of impeachment but the repubs in the Senate rubbing our noses in defeat.

[Qutzupalotl]

22. Or it will outrage the public and create a backlash.

We don’t know that Trump claiming exoneration will help him. So far it hasn’t helped him get above 50%. A full airing of his crimes will only harm him.

We don’t even know the outcome of the Senate vote. We just need the information to be well established and testimony televised before sending the impeachment to the Senate. Remember, McConnell does not lead the trial and only gets one vote. Each senator has to examine each article and go on record approving or opposing that conduct. A third of the Senate is up for reelection in 2020.

If the Senate fails to convict, that will further expose the Republican party’s corruption, right before an election. At that point, Democrats will have lots of material to hammer them with, including riveting testimony. That’s in addition to the Helsinki surrender, the Oval Office breach, the call to hack Clinton, the insane tariffs, the sexual assaults, and all the other crimes committed in plain sight.

There has never been a president more deserving of impeachment. We must uphold our nation’s principles and not fear the consequences.

[watoos]

31. Trump's base is what it is,

it isn't going to grow if Democrats impeach him. If Democrats fail to impeach Trump it could discourage Democrats from showing up to vote.

If Trump's base shows up and our base shows up, we win, impeaching Trump will only energize our base, I don't give a hoot what it does to Trump's base.

[uponit7771]

55. +1,

[wasupaloopa]

59. Impeaching him or not will have no effect on our turnout. Women's right to decide their

own reproductive lives and affordable health care and affordable education and climate change and jobs will decide the turnnout

[CrispyQ]

10. The dems are damned if they do & damned if they don't.

If the House impeaches without a conviction in the Senate he will claim he's been exonerated. If the House doesn't impeach, he will claim that even the dems realize there isn't evidence to impeach.

[watoos]

36. Then stop looking at it from Trump's

Point of view.
I see impeachment invigorating our base.

[crazytown]

49. There will not ne a Senate Trial

McConnell is not obliged to hold one.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212129950

[KBlagburn]

63. If the house impeaches...

The Senate must hold a trial. McConnell has no choice. Its in the constitution!!!!!!!!!!!

[crazytown]

64. Not so.

There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies timing, and, as SCOTUS said in Nixon v United States procedure is up to Senate with no role for judicial review or supervision whatsoever.

If the courts reviewed the actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body “tried” an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be “functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference” ... Judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for purposes of judicial review, is counterintuitive be- cause it would eviscerate the “important constitutional check” placed on the Judiciary by the Framers.

So McConnell refuses to hold a trial before the GE - 'let the people decide' - what is the House supposed to do - go to the Roberts Court?

There will not be a trial before Nov 2020.

[crazytown]

61. There will not be a trial in the Senate

McConnell is not obliged to hold one
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212129950

[grantcart]

8. I have yet to hear a single Democratic politician argue "against impeachment"

The discussion is about when to start and, more specifically what critical mass is necessary to have an effective impeachment.

I do see some arguing for immediate impeachment even though the investigation has only just begun.

I, for one, believe that his financial crimes (tax evasion, insurance fraud, money laundering) will do two things; initiate criminal proceedings against Trump ( a New York State Grand Jury can indict Trump and his family) and be easier to understand for the non Trump supporting guy in the middle.

The argument to rush impeachment before the optimum time is being dealt with by Speaker Pelosi.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Thank you for saying this!

It needs to be repeated again and again in order to counter the lie being told about the Democrats' position and motivations.

Democrats are not saying he shouldn't be impeached. They are saying it should be done correctly.

Huge difference!

[Andy823]

41. I totally agree with you. nt.

[CaptainTruth]

11. Honest question: What would the "consequences" be?

The House could impeach, but at this point does anyone think there would be a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict, followed by majority Senate vote to bar from office?

In other words, the House could impeach but the Senate won't convict, so Trump remains in office & brags he was "completely exonerated" by the Senate. Nothing changes.

To use Dalia's parenting analogy, it's like mom (the House) says you've been bad so go to your room & you're grounded for a week, then dad (the Senate) comes in & says nah, it's ok, you're fine, go play with your friends, & the kid skips out the door to have fun because in this process dad has the final say.


I know a lot of people don't like to look at it this way, but this is the reality we face.

[pdsimdars]

12. Impeachment is the consequence.

[StarfishSaver]

15. And then what?

[watoos]

37. Our base is invigorated

And being impeached will devastate Trump.
Trump’s biographer claimed that.

[StarfishSaver]

40. You don't seem to have a lot of faith in our base

I don't think our base needs an impeachment to "invigorate" them to turn out to vote.

It's pretty odd to assume that our bass will be so angry that the Democrats didn't impeach Donald Trump that they will then Make sure that he stays in office another 4 years. That doesn't even make any sense.

If that's the only way they will turn out to vote Trump out, they can't be trusted to turn out even with an impeachment - and I have more faith in them than that.

But if you're right - and I don't think you are - then we have much bigger problems on our hands than whether we're impeaching or not.

[watoos]

45. I simply looked at the last election, the 2016 election,

one of the reasons that Hillary lost was because our turnout was low with millennials.

[StarfishSaver]

53. True about 2016.

But if millennials are going to refuse to vote Trump out because he wasn't impeached, why would you trust them to vote him out if he is impeached?

[pdsimdars]

13. For those commenting on this thread. . . My personal summary isn't their whole argument

People only seem to be parroting their talking points. I think you should at least be open minded enough to go and listen to those people who have studied these things all their lives. Seems just like the GOP echo chamber bubble at times. These people are constitutional and historical experts, . . . oh, never mind. If you're not interested to hear what educated people think, I'm not going to waste my time. I thought some might be interested. . . .

[wasupaloopa]

18. I am educated as are most of the DUers here. TV talking heads are not super authorities.

WE are the electorate! What we think is what matters!

[pdsimdars]

19. So you think Michael Beschloss, the presidential historian is a talking head?

If so, you are not very educated at all. And Dalia Lithwick?
I couldn't live in a bubble that small.

[wasupaloopa]

23. They do not do my thinking for me. They are not infallible. I listen to what they say

but I will not burn incense to their alters.

What matters is what we think and do on election day.

[pdsimdars]

24. And what intelligent people do is listen to people who study these things all their lives.

That's called "getting informed". No one said to let anyone think for you. You are making that up all on your own. But, people who want to do the right thing, listen to experts. Of course there is the Trump way of not being able to listen to or accept anything from the outside, just rely on the gut . . . I guess that's the way "stable geniuses" do it. I prefer to listen to how smart people think about it and then incorporate that into my thought process. But if you have no process, just do it the Trump way. . . . whatever comes into your head at the time. Oh well.

[grantcart]

26. Really? Yours is a very two dimensional understanding of a three dimensional situation

1) My personal summary isn't their whole argument

So your opening point is that these experts have really great points but you haven't actually presented their best points.

2) If your not interested to hear what educated people think . . .

Your the person who isn't interested in having a discussion with "educated people".

You have taken the erroneous assumption that because somebody doesn't agree with "A" that they are anti "A" and again this is a very two dimensional way at looking at a 3 dimensional situation.

Let's pretend that you are looking for an apartment and are showed an apartment on the first floor and refuse to the offer to lease. That doesn't mean that you are against renting a different apartment on the 15th floor but in your limited binary world it can only be one thing or the opposite.

The Greeks frequently have multiple words that define subtle permutations of an English word that has a single and less precise meaning. One of those words is ??ό??? or chronos which is translated as time but really has a much more subtle meaning as "the right timing of a thing" and becomes the foundation for the word chronology.

So, in Greek, if you are asked about impeachment you could answer that it is not the correct "chronos" and that would mean that certain things have to happen to make the timing right. Its not that you are against it but that the timing is essential to meet the existential crossroads that will fulfil the historic destiny of the moment.

Now we are facing a number of complex charges against the President. We haven't even received the full report on the very narrow question of Russian interference in the Presidential election of 2016. No investigation has been made yet of the Trump's financial involvement with the Russian and various economic crimes (including specific testimony by his attorney that he committed insurance fraud).

The question of whether or not Trump has been compromised and is a Russian asset and is cooperating with Putin is one that is very subtle and is not likely to have a "smoking gun" moment that is objectively defined like a camera that captures a speeder or a DNA match.

The economic crimes that the President has almost certainly committed, and has been committing for some time will have a much more black or white quality to it and even more importantly, will be more easily understood by the average Joe.

Last week I was in a convenience store in a deep red area that went 70% for Trump. When I got to the cashier I mentioned to the cashier that I couldn't wait to see what was in Trump's tax filings (the story on the TV above her at the time). She laughed and agreed and then every single of the 7 people in line, including guys who had NRA stickers on their trucks and who generally appeared to fit MAGA demographics, said that they agreed. I was floored.

You have framed the argument that the Democrats who want to be smart about the "chronos" of impeachment and are saying "not yet" are saying "never" and that is not is what is happening. We don't want to issue a speeding ticket because someone says they saw him speeding we want to get the picture from the camera.

But let's go back to your simplified binary two dimensional world:

Please advise which of these experts is saying that we should impeach the President before we get the data from the banks and the tax filings and want to initiate Articles of Impeachment now?

[pdsimdars]

29. and the kids are on your lawn.

[grantcart]

32. The kids are in line to be indicted by the NY State Attorney general for

criminal charges related to the Trump foundation.

This is another element that thinking people want taken before impeachment officially begins.

[watoos]

38. I believe those charges are not criminal however

[grantcart]

50. Normally they wouldn't but Trump's use of the foundation for illegal purposes was so aggregious

that it alone could put him in a NY jail cell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation

Given the violations alleged in the civil case, some experts believe a tax investigation could lead to state criminal charges filed against Trump

[Trumpocalypse]

17. Not against Impeachment

Just want to see it done right. Follow the Watergate model. A year of investigation to turn public opinion and republicans. Then start impeachment proceedings.

[spanone]

20. Trump's investigations of the investigators will get off the ground before the House investigations.

we need to impeach and get it going. imho

[watoos]

39. Exactly

The courts aren’t going to be making final decisions until next year, is my guess.

[pdsimdars]

21. Another point I remember was that if they don't use impeachment

that will mean the damage to our institutions and government will be the new normal because they didn't come out and officially call him out.

[pdsimdars]

25. I didn't mean to get "snitty" in some of my replies (probably what Barr would say . . .)

Anyway, what I find is that I can follow and appreciate the points that all sides are making, but when I heard the people on Joy, especially Dalia and Michael, they pretty much convinced me. I thought I'd mention that reference for anyone who wanted to hear what those great minds thought about it. It's a good reference.
If people don't want to, that's OK, but I thought some would appreciate the reference.

[Hortensis]

30. NO ONE in our Democratic caucuses is AGAINST impeachment.

Phony premise.

Btw, I've liked Joy Reid for some time and am severely disappointed in her. What everyone else needs to know is that Reid almost killed her career early on by reporting sensationalist, dishonest spin instead of responsible information people could make decisions on. She recovered by cleaning up her act before I starting watching her.

What I saw from her the other day, however, was a flashback to the bad Joy Reid who abused her viewers' trust, and I removed her program from my list to be recorded.

Two fails is now two too many. I don't care what a nice smile she has or how charming -- I won't be watching for a third. I also turned off Rachel's show last night when Reid subbed. She's probably adequately constrained by Rachel's requirements, but...no.

[Kurt V.]

42. your subject line is simply not true. you have no way of knowing that. wth?

[Kurt V.]

43. I'm so past worrying about that. not anything i can do. my passion is flipping

republicans and im on a tough nut right now.

[Locutusofborg]

44. I do not want a President Pence

Running for the presidency during his honeymoon period with the American people. I want Trump/Pence soundly defeated at the polls and then Trump prosecuted for his crimes. Electoral defeat and criminal prosecution are also setting boundaries on bad behavior.
Besides it would take TWENTY Republican Senators to vote guilty to remove Trump from office. I could see 4 or 5 Republican Senators voting him guilty but not twenty.
A not guilty verdict would make impeachment a symbolic act by the House of Representatives only.

[crazytown]

51. There will not be a Senate Trial

McConnell is not obliged to hold one
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212129950

[watoos]

46. Here is another thought not discussed,

the conviction trial in the Senate will not be presided by Mitch McConnell. John Roberts will conduct the trial.

[grantcart]

52. And Mueller cannot testify "in private".

[Locutusofborg]

54. McConnell would control if and when a Senate trial is scheduled

McConnell’s already established willingness to bend, break and subvert tradition and the law makes it anybody’s guess as to whether McConnell would hold a trial if the House impeached Trump. The Constitution does not mandate a trial, it only says that the sole power to conduct a trial rests with the Senate.
“Can the Senate Decline to Try an Impeachment Case?”
https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

[watoos]

57. It would be political suicide if Senate Republicans

voted to not hold the trial. McConnell would not preside over the trial, once it is scheduled, Chief Justice Roberts would.

[Locutusofborg]

58. McConnell doesn't care

Did he hold a vote on Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court? Did he invoke “the nuclear option” to take away the Democrats’ ability to filibuster court nominees?
Yes, the Chief Justice presides over an impeachment trial but the Majority leader can slow walk when that trial is held. McConnell could schedule a trial for after election day in 2020.

[wasupaloopa]

60. The outcome will still be the same no conviction