Why don't we just plain admit that Trump et. al. are above the law?

[JoeOtterbein]

This is essentially the same argument made; that we should not start impeachment until we have such a powerful, or "ironclad case," that the GOP will suddenly come to their sense of duty and support impeachment.

This of course denies present GOP reality and ignores the history of the GOP since Nixon. That was the last time there was ever a chance-in-hell that the GOP would support the impeachment of a Republican POTUS.

So, we may as well make it plain and say that the blame for making Trump above-the-law is squarely on the GOP controlled Senate.

That will force the GOP to respond with a plain denial or continued obfuscation.

The American voters are waiting for clarity on impeachment. We need to provide it first.

Finally, let me just say that if the obstruction repeats, then we must impeach.

Thanks for reading!

[abqtommy]

1. Impeachment or Inherent Contempt

appear to be the only approved remedies in dealing with the level of corruption presented by
tRump, Smug Thug Barr and the rest of the reTHUGS.

[KT2000]

2. that is exactly what is at stake

how could they not? I just don't get it.

[JoeOtterbein]

3. Yes. We need to be as courageous as the brave Americans we all...

,,.honored yesterday.

[marylandblue]

4. We need to admit that there is a flaw in the Constitution.

A fundamental assumption is that Congress would jealously guard it's own prerogatives against any President who stepped over the line. Maybe that was true once, but it is not true today. Rather partisanship has become more important than institutionalism. As long as that is the case, impeachment is ineffective. It being demonstrably ineffective, people are now putting forward other justifications for impeachment - it's a "duty," it provides information to the voters, it shields us from the judgement of history. No, it was not designed for any of these things. It was designed to provide a way to remove a rogue President. It has failed in that. The reasons for its failure are much bigger than Trump and would continue to operate even if he were somehow convicted in the Senate.

Trump is not our real problem. Our real problem is the fraying Constitutional order that began before Trump and will continue after he is gone. Our second problem is that we are blind to this fraying order. We are like the Senators of Rome, who thought Julius Caesar was their problem, so they killed him. Only to find out that they themselves had struck the final blow against their Republic.

[JoeOtterbein]

5. I don't think you can say that impeaching Trump would be a "failure" and it has "failed"...

...when we don't even try?

And why are we wasting time and mental energy making the argument against impeachment, when Trump is not simply a "rouge" POTUS, but a clearly corrupt POTUS?

[marylandblue]

6. It's a failure because the outcome in the Senate is a foregone conclusion.

It's like a prosecutor unable to find 12 impartial jurors. Every potential juror says they will not listen to evidence or follow the law. What is the point of prosecuting knowing the accused will go free no matter what?

I mean by "rogue" POTUS any sort of President who willfully disobeys the law, whether he earns a personal profit or not.

Personally, I think impeaching the President under these conditions is a big mistake, which is why I don't want to do it. The argument is based on the book "What is Populism" by Jan Werner-Muller and other readings, which all argue that direct assaults on authoritarian populist leaders like Trump do not work. That the only things that work are
1) Healing the social divisions that lead to populism. Impeachment can't do this; and
2) Keeping the focus on policy, rather than attacking Trump. Populism win when they can reduce everything to a personal argument. They lose on policy because their policies are unworkable. As long as we are talking impeachment, we aren't talking policy, which is exactly what the authoritarian populist wants.

On edit: I'm pretty sure Pelosi has read the same things I read, or has spoken to political scientists thinking along the same lines.

[JoeOtterbein]

7. No, it's a "foregone conclusion" only in our political subjective decisions. Objectivity demands...

...that we explore all possible options before claiming failure.

When defending our nation, nothing should be left untried.

[marylandblue]

8. When someone tells you who they are, believe them.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/trump-impeachment-senate-gop-would-kill-charges-instantly.html

They have told us what they will do, I see zero evidence they will do something different.

I claim that impeachment is actually harmful to the country. It's a claim you should at least consider before claiming "objectivity" demands we do something that could make matters worse.

If you want to be objective, start studying how authoritarian populists do their damage.

[JoeOtterbein]

9. Thanks for pointing out that "authoritarian populists do their damage..." because that is exactly...

...what Trump is doing now.

We must be be clear in our opposition. Failure is literally not an option.

[marylandblue]

10. Yes we must be clear in our opposition, and I think we are.

But, unfortunately, failure is always an option. I've studied too much history to think differently.

[struggle4progress]

12. "Opposition" alone is meaningless. "Failure" only signifies that we need to try something different

[marylandblue]

14. I have no idea what the hell that means.

Failure means the Republic is dead and isn't coming back. My contention is that our biggest problem is that the Republic is unlikely to survive even if we impeach and convict him. Our second biggest problem is that we don't even realize we have the first problem.

I've seen this movie before and it's called The Fall of the Roman Republic. It was the end of republican government for millenia. The Roman Republic did not know what it's problem was either, and so was unable to prevent it's demise.

[struggle4progress]

15. .

[marylandblue]

17. Sorry, my phone does not play embedded videos.

So maybe you could give me a non-musical reply?

[struggle4progress]

11. The question is not one of "persuading" the GOP by logic -- it is one of winning

the field of public opinion, which can then be used to bring pressure on the GOP

The game is not -- what should somebody else be doing so my side will win?

The game is -- how can I work with other people in coordinated ways so my side will win?

We know what tools have worked over the years: leafletting on the streets, door-knocking, phone-calls, organized teach-ins -- all with action plans

Doesn't anybody remember how to do this stuff?

[JoeOtterbein]

13. Yes, we did that in November. Now we expect action. nt

[struggle4progress]

16. "... when FDR was confronted by the civil-rights leader A. Philip Randolph

about the racial injustices in the country and the need for the President to use his powers and his bully pulpit, F.D.R. said he agreed but he would only take action when he was forced to do so by a popular movement. "Make me do it," he told Randolph ... This is not the flaw of democracy, it's the entire point. It's the job of activists to generate, and apply, enough pressure on the system to affect change"

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/evolving/240972/

[anarch]

18. I've accepted that there is no "law" - at this point it's just a large-scale version village warlord

kind of situation. What "law" there is, is just to keep minorities in their place and protect private property. The "et al" in the subject would have to basically include the entire wealthy, ownership class.

Obviously the cops will deal with you swiftly if you cause trouble for the rich, or (in some areas more than others) if you are not white, or if you attract too much attention challenging authority in any way.

But that's not the rule of law so much as just armed thugs working in the service of the currently dominant set of warlords--"law enforcement," but what they enforce are a harsh set of controls meant to keep people from doing anything that might jeopardize the capital of our plutocratic wealthy class.