General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJust because impeachment proceedings backfired on Republicans doesn't mean that it will
backfire on Democrats. There are two totally different situations.
Everyone is gunshy about impeaching Trump because of the way the Clinton impeachment went. I think that backfired on Republicans because the country saw that Clinton's crime (lying in a civil case) was frivolous and politically motivated. Trump's crimes, however, appear to be crimes against the United States. Much more serious. Even if the Senate doesn't convict him, and they probably won't, people will see that Trump's crimes warrant these measures.
We, of course, need to see the Mueller report, but I'm guessing it will show considerable evidence of impeachable crimes. If the Democrats in the House can use that report to build an overwhelming case for impeachment, they should do so, even if the Senate fails to convict. It's important for history so that people can see the extent of Trump 's crimes. It's important for future generations to see that there are repercussions for abuse of power or illegal behavior.
The Founding Fathers put the impeachment clause in the Constitution for a reason; the framers anticipated that someone would become president who might commit high crimes and misdemeanors. They did not say to only bring up impeachment trials if is politically expedient. We have never seen a case where it is needed more than now (assuming the Mueller report shows substantial evidence of impeachable crimes). It would be a travesty if the Democrats did not act at this time.
Sometimes you just need to do what's right.
onecaliberal
(32,486 posts)ooky
(8,885 posts)It can't be ignored. The House should impeach him and then put on trial by the senate.
TheBlackAdder
(28,073 posts).
By the time an impeachment goes though, there will be another 10% of our institutions destroyed.
More Russia ties and money-laundering will be exposed.
.
onecaliberal
(32,486 posts)Knows about criminal activity that the public has not yet become aware of.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Actually is distributing pieces along the way (Like info on anyone who has been indicted or pled guilty along the way). I understand why hes doing that, but I do wonder if it is minimizing the total effect. Spreading crimes over months instead of all at once.
kimbutgar
(20,882 posts)SCantiGOP
(13,856 posts)The stakes are too high.
In a few weeks we may have repubs panicking and starting to reference impeachment; that might mobilize public support.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)according to CNN's national exit polls. ... 77% of self-identified Democrats supported impeachment in the exit polls, compared with just 5% of Republicans and 33% of independents."
Every month support is growing, but it's NOT TIME YET.
It's so much not time yet that this sudden surge in posts angrily demanding "Impeachment NOW!" (and even accusing our Democratic leaders of corruption if they don't) makes me wonder if the Republicans and Russia could be behind it.
A premature failed attempt to remove Trump from office -- against the wishes of a majority of Americans -- could possibly lose us everything in 2020. And more than restore lost power to the Republicans.
And, yes, it would OF COURSE be cast as a corrupt political attempt to undo an election for partisan reasons every bit as bad as what the Republicans do.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Impeachment than impeachment? With all due respect, that seems counterintuitive. A serious and sober public display of all his offenses at one time ( not just the dribble that happens today) would be worse than tacit acceptance of his behavior which minimizes the total seriousness?
Btw surprised at the 77% dem support for impeachment. I would venture a guess that on du its the opposite - 33%. Just like how more dems wanted Pelosi out than didnt (per CNN poll). Opposite here.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)We're in a huge battle for the future direction of our nation that's far bigger than Trump. Continued democracy or takeover by what has become a white nationalist authoritarian party.
Fwiw, eventual successful removal of Trump from office -- as long as it resulted in a far more competent president from their team, Pence -- could also serve Republican goals extremely well. Certainly, Christian reconstructionists would be on board for that.
Not that that could happen yet, of course, because right now the Republican senate would act as heroes protecting the president the people supposedly elected from the evil Democrats. With 95% of their voters opposing removal, they need the excuse and support the investigation results will give them before they can support it.
And those are coming. Nixon had become very unpopular with Republicans until we started investigating him for crimes. Then Republicans rallied around Nixon just as they are to Trump. Two years later (during which time they reelected Nixon by large numbers) when Nixon was proven a criminal to them, they turned on him. Or at least enough of them.
Trump's crimes are far worse than Nixon's. That every Republican senator voted for additional, big sanctions against Russia for election interference is a huge clue to what they are almost certainly eventually going to do as the results of this investigation come out.
As for the statistics, my own take is that close to 100% of DUers really, really want Trump impeached. I know I consider it a moral duty, hopefully one we can fulfill, and am encouraged by incoming Judicial Committee chair Jerry Nadler speaking "impeachment." The gap is between those who want impeachment immediately and those who realize that moving too soon could be a very bad move that ultimately lost us everything.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)variables and possible outcomes.
Trump could up and quit
Trump could push on regardless of everything and run in 2020
The GOP could not back his nomination
He could truly be guilty of serious crimes and be indicted
He could be truly guilty of serious crimes and all could want him impeached
He could be truly guilty of serious crimes and the public and GOP dont care
We could end up with Pence until 2020
We could end up with Pelosi until 2020
Trump could be found innocent/nothing of consequence out of Mueller probe
No one knows the path this will all take us and no one should have a sure path forward yet.
All I know is one thing...we Dems have had no affect on his behavior,. The smarter constituents have figured it out on their own. We have no unified cogent plan or message. That is the benefit of impeachment. It would force us and the public to create and hear a complete, sober, succinct, and organized recap of his crimes.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Cohen/mistress paying crimes invented by Dems. Dems will do anything to hurt trump.
This is so absurd. We have zero to do with it, literally. So, obvious now the repukes, unless there's something on tape of trump telling Russia he loves them more than he loves America, we can assume that we will have zero support for impeachment.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)By far most of the big stuff is happening out of our sight.
Right now, sure, impeachment has zero Republican senate support. Big surprise with 95% of their voters against impeachment? The Republicans are already fighting ferociously for control of the nation in 2020, no way they would cave at this point.
There's so much going on that we don't know about. We do know that a bunch of top Republicans took money from Russia legally (they wrote the law making it legal) Will this alone make them fight to the (nation's) death to protect Trump as a way to protect themselves, does it create opportunity for a deal they really can't afford to pass up, or...?
Link to tweet
The news about Butina made me think of this article from last summer. The press talk very little about the religious right in politics. They should, of course, but they're understandably afraid to take Big RW Religion on.
Journalist and author Jeff Sharlet on the National Prayer Breakfast, Maria Butina, and the group that calls itself the Family.
The New York Times broke a story last week about the degree to which the National Prayer Breakfast has become a pay to play event. At the gathering, foreign dignitaries and lobbyists pay thousands of dollars for access to the event itself and perhaps more importantly the week of meetings and events surrounding the breakfast. According to the Times Kenneth P. Vogel and Elizabeth Dias, the annual event has become an international influence-peddling bazaar, where foreign dignitaries, religious leaders, diplomats and lobbyists jockey for access to the highest reaches of American power. ...
At the 2016 and 2017 breakfasts, Butina allegedly met with unnamed American officials and very influential Russians, and seems to have successfully attempted to broker meetings between figures in these groups.
As evidenced by the Times report, something more insidious than prayer has been understood to be taking place at the breakfast, says Jeffrey Sharlet, an associate professor of literary journalism at Dartmouth College.
In his 2009 book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, Sharlet chronicled the influence of a Christian organization known publicly as the Fellowship (and internally as the Family), the founders and administrators of the National Prayer Breakfast. The Family of which Vice President Mike Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions are members is an intensely powerful organization, whose specific vision of Jesus as the ideal strongman governs their political theology and who have found, in strongman-sympathetic President Trump, an ideal vessel for their beliefs. ...
Sharlet says the Family often uses the National Prayer Breakfast, and the events surrounding it, as a backdoor recruiting and diplomacy tool for between lobbyists and foreign governments that organizers feel share its strongman approach, without formal government oversight.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/18/17586516/jeff-sharlet-maria-butrina-national-prayer-breakfast-the-family
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)or at least not in evidence, at this time. They assumed the Senate would have the strength to stand up to the President and vote on the merits of the case. They show no evidence of being able to do that. Impeachment was not meant to be a show trial. But that's all we will get.
Maybe when the Mueller report comes out it will change everything. But it may not. So impeach or not, history will learn the same lesson - the process can be subverted by a demagogic President and 34 corrupt or spineless Senators.
Impeachment might actually make things worse. It will play right into his demagoguery by making everything about him. Which is exactly where he wants it to be.
Stinky The Clown
(67,677 posts)Sugarcoated
(7,707 posts)In this case, is doing what's RIGHT
Bucky
(53,795 posts)SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time Bound.
BigmanPigman
(51,430 posts)and lying about a blow job.
Bucky
(53,795 posts)At the Constitutional Convention, James Wilson spoke for the majority view when he said:
gentlemen, we must rely on our experiences. Reason may mislead us
My hesitation to support impeachment is based on the frivolous calls for impeachment they come from both sides of the aisle whenever the other side is in power. The calls seem rooted a naive today about how traumatic and complicated and distracting an impeachment can be to the national life.
The latest revelations from Bob Mueller definitely build a stronger case, but the facts are not all in yet. It's premature. I say let Mueller build his smoking gun case further.
Impeachment is a political tactic, not a legal punishment. Impeachment carries no jail time. It's not useful if it's just used to rally the peanut gallery, which is how the Republicans have misapplied it against Clinton and Obama. It's a big powerful tool and should be used responsibly, and not to fire up the bass, but to pull over the political middle to our side.
No one wants to see Trump more gone than I do, but timing is important and you have to keep an eye on the long game. Even now, the impeachment process seems a little impulsive
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It's one of the legal recourses that Congress has. It is not a political tactic. Impeachment is the removal process of a President.
The House must impeach, if there is clear evidence of high crimes by Trump. They have no choice, if he won't leave. And he won't. The other option is to leave him in office, and that is unacceptable and failure to do their duty to protect the country.
They have to impeach. Like it or not.
Bucky
(53,795 posts)Not how it works.
Everybody in this forum wants to see Trump gone. But if you can't convince a majority in Democratic Underground to impulsively impeach before the ground is fertile, how can you hope to swing the political middle that it would take to make even the attempt worth the effort?
I know that it sucks that democracy moves so slow. Lord knows what that man is doing to undermine the country from within the White House even as we speak. But the moral arcs always move slow
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)They have to impeach, if there is clear evidence of serious crimes. They can't just leave a corrupt criminal running the country w/o doing the legal, proper thing about it.
Best case scenario is if he can be "convinced" to leave. But he won't.
Ford_Prefect
(7,823 posts)I do not forsee Trump functioning as President while his entire family and many in his administration are convicted and sent to prison. Nor while each political move he makes is contested as illegal and unconstitutional.
It may also come to pass that some of his strongest supporters in the Senate are themselves convicted. That's a circumstance to seriously consider.
This whole conspiracy is much larger than Trump alone. He is the distraction from it as much as the agent in place. The legal consequences of the Mueller investigation will probably take quite a while to unfold and prosecute. As we have seen so far the fraud charges in NY and the Emoluments cases elsewhere have lives of their own. The question of espionage and treason has been raised but remains largely unprosecuted. Money Laundering is one thing, withdrawing from the Nuclear Arms Treaty to enable selling nuclear power and weapons tools the Saudi Crown Prince is quite another.
ecstatic
(32,566 posts)the rug for political expediency is just as complicit as trump and will instantly earn my disgust. This is one of those cases where you have to do the right thing without trying to worry about political calculations. Democrats need to understand that there will always be a double standard where rethugs are concerned; and unfortunately, we feed into it by always playing by their rules. For once in your damn lives, make/set the playbook and stop waiting on rethugs to tell you how to think!
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Making sure you lay the groundwork for it is not "political expediency." It's the only way to make it work in the long run.
JI7
(89,174 posts)and then let things go from there .
whistler162
(11,155 posts)If you build it they will come. Build the case then talk of impeachment. Don't talk about impeachment without the case, lots of evidence at the moment but it needs to be brought together.
DFW
(54,055 posts)Wait for Mueller, and see what we can do with what he has found.
We need a lot of Republican Senators saying "OMG, Trump did THAT?" Republican Senators who would actually prefer Trump out of there need some cover before they vote their conscience (those that still have one, that is) without suffering dire political consequences, also known as "losing their next primaries." The Mueller report could provide it, just like the Nixon tapes sealed his fate.
dansolo
(5,376 posts)An impeachment trial will backfire on the Dems, and won't even end up with Trump in jail. Trump has Fox News in his corner, spreading his propoganda.
Impeachment assumes that Congress is comprised of honorable people who will consider the evidence of crimes objectively. I don't see a single Republican voting to convict, which means that there wouldn't even be a majority.
Trump can still be indicted and convicted when he is out of office.
Chasdev
(33 posts)That's exactly how many times the new house should vote to impeach drumph.
Each time the senate refuses to convict, the house should vote to impeach again...rinse....repeat.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)It'd be helpful however, if his approval falls more by the time he rises to the level where impeachment is a slam dunk. It's the rednecks and idiots who support Trump that republicans fear on election day.
pecosbob
(7,509 posts)Rs attempted to impeach Bill Clinton for something most Americans didn't care about. Rs base never contituted more than 20-30% of the electorate. Dems 'must' impeach as DOJ has implicated the president in multiple felonies. It is Congress' duty to impeach. If Rs in the Senate do not vote to impeach, use it against them in 2020. Dems have the numbers and Dems have the motivation. Failure to impeach would be to abrogate their contitutional duty.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)In fact, the Republicans impeached Clinton in the Senate in late 1998 during the lame duck session. Looking at the 1998 elections when impeachment was clearly on the table, the Senate was a wash, and trhe Democrats gained 5 seats in the House, with the Republicans having more votes cast for them. We had a net gain of one Governorship. 1998 was almost as stable a year as you will find.
The first election AFTER impeachment was 2000. Remember that GWB, well known as a mean drunk until he was 40 years old, ran on bringing "honor and decency" back to the White House. Al Gore was a former eagle scout, married to his high school sweetheart with a wonderful family. He was given more responsibility than most VPs and was considered to have done a great job. This should not even have been close!
As to the House, the Democrats gained 2 seats, with Republicans narrowly retaining the House. In the Senate, the Democrats gained 4 seats -- however this was a Senate class where the Republicans had gained 8 seats in 1994, the last time they ran. So, we DID have modest gains in Congress, but in BOTH houses we were still in far worse shape than we were before the 1994 election.
Imagine there were no impeachment. Gore, strongly supported by Clinton, emphasizing the state of the world - that might have been better if Congress/administration would not have been absorbed by the impeachment. Not to mention, no way could Bush have gained traction on "honor and decency".
Scruffy1
(3,239 posts)The soutces I have talked to about agree the Republicans didn't want him impeached and it would have been pointles when he was a lame duck. If it would been close some Republicans would have voted no. What it did accomplish was to keep Clinton largely off the stump because he was a great vote getter. It's quite possible Gore would have won by a large enough vote to make the Florida election unstealable. In its own way they were successful by keeping control of all three branches. Just like they were successful in pillaring Obama and Hillary to control the whole damn government.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)and symbolic victories arent really victories at all. Trump will be gone in due time, and we will repair the damage he has caused. We are a resilient nation. Trump will be consigned to historys dustbin and we will bury him in a legacy of shame and failure.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)Never mind the fantasy of an impeachment exiting the Senate, are we even sure it would actually enter? Can McConnell just forget about it and refuse to even take it up? I don't believe the subject has ever arisen, and I'd hate to take it in front of this SCOTUS.
Until the case gets ironclad, and the Senate develops integrity, it's pure fantasy. Just pass a House Resolution crapping on Trump and the Senate detailing why, and accept that's about all that can really be done on the subject at the moment.
OnDoutside
(19,908 posts)GOP beg Democrats to impeach him.
marble falls
(56,358 posts)convicting him in the Senate with a 2/3 majority is.
elocs
(22,474 posts)Why not wait for the Mueller investigation to be completed along with other House investigations to build a strong case for impeachment?
There's no need to do it right away.
SunSeeker
(51,369 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,104 posts)if Monica Lewinski had been a Russian spy, Clinton would have been removed from office in a heartbeat.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)I why are we so ineffectual?