If You Think Impeaching Trump Will Rally His Supporters, You Don't Understand The Authoritarian Mind

[TrollBuster9090]

Anybody who thinks that opening impeachment hearings on Trump will rally his base, and increase his support, doesn't understand how the authoritarian personality works.

The authoritarian personality is devoid of ideology, and simply follows the person who appears to be the alpha male. It's pure chimpanzee behaviour. You identify who is in your tribe from tribal markings (do you drive a truck or a Prius, do you drink tea or beer...), and then you identify the alpha male leader from who is the most aggressive, who appears to be the most sure of themselves, and who WINS the FIGHTS. They simply follow the apparent "WINNER." It doesn't matter if they show hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if they break the rules. It doesn't matter if they're a hypocrite, or a crook, or an amoral slime-bag. It doesn't matter if they fight dirty. So long as they win. They'll always support the winner, and quickly walk away from a loser.

Hypocrisy is not a factor. If their alpha-male, tribal leader says "Russia is BAD, free trade is GOOD" (Reagan in 1982) they'll follow that. And if their alpha-male tribal leader turns 180 degrees 30 years later, and says "Russia is GOOD, free trade is BAD" (Trump in 2019) they'll follow THAT INSTEAD.

This has been true of authoritarian personality followers through history. It was true for Napoleon chauvinists, for Fascists, for Nazis, for Stalinist Communists, and for Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Bathists etc. Fascist and Communist philosophies are as different as night and day, but they always follow the perceived STRONG MAN.

Therefore, the best thing a Democratic House can do to BOOST Trump's support is to NOT FIGHT HIM. If he thumbs his nose at House subpoenas, and the House does nothing about it...his support GROWS. If the Democrats go nuts over it, all the better!

If he thumbs his nose at COURT SUBPOENAS, and the COURTS do nothing about it...his support grows even MORE. Again, for the same reason. When he 'fights' he WINS. That only helps him attract MORE FOLLOWERS.

But if Democrats fight back, DIRTY or OTHERWISE, and Trump starts to LOSE some of these battles, support for him will CRUMBLE.

Anybody who doesn't realize this, doesn't understand simple chimpanzee anthropology.

[TEB]

1. Awesome post

[Hortensis]

23. No. Nixon won in a 49-state sweep during Watergate,

with approval and support soaring dramatically. It's not that the OP is wrong about authoritarians, only in imagining that the initial big move to remove their president, which is what impeachment would be, would cause authoritarians to surrender rather than grab weapons and rush to battle.

In Nixon's time, only when leaders of both parties, in their own impressive power demonstration, agreed in the face of massive criminal evidence that Nixon must resign or be removed immediately did support collapse among most conservatives, including many authoritarian-lites. Even then remaining authoritarian supporters would have approved ANYTHING Nixon did to keep power, but they were now a minority.

Trump's impeachment WILL tremendously enrage and energize most of the right. That's a given.
And the day after Trump's impeached it WILL be Trump WH as usual. He'll be watching TV in the White House dining room and sending dozens of tweets out trumpeting his very real, massive support.

MONTHS later, if as expected the Republican-controlled senate trial ended in refusal to remove, the authoritarians' leader would be a great winner, and Trump WOULD continue on as usual but with an almost ecstatic right, tweeting the next morning his triumphal "exoneration" and demanding the heads of Democrats and all media who displeased him.

Btw, no matter how much damning evidence was produced, we'd the ones looking like failures -- with a literally existential election fast approaching. The angry noise from clueless Democrats now would be nothing to their fury after they got their way. And the right? RW authoritarians would not only not care in the slightest how much the evidence presented dirtied Trump, they'd want to use it to kill Democrats.

Once we start this process, we MUST be able to defeat the leaders the authoritarians will do anything for. We must have a rock-solid case and the support of enough of the people that the Republican senators are forced to do their duty. That's why all the preparation for this battle.

[hatrack]

26. Got it - maintain world's largest supply of dry powder to the bitter end

.

[Hortensis]

35. Are you aware that Mueller witness George Nader was just arrested

and that over a dozen investigations continue?

The Republicans' eagerness to defeat us while they still can is completely understandable.

Your eagerness to rush to a horribly possible bitter end is not. Did 2016 teach nothing? The consequences would be even more dreadful, and we might not be able to come back. This is is REAL.

[hatrack]

41. Nader was arrested on an unrelated child pornography charge, so . . . what?

And as far as "rushing" is concerned, I haven't noted any "rush" to enforce subpoenas issued by multiple House committees to multiple members of this administration, past and present.

Of course, if I were as attractive as Hope Hicks, I'd certainly want to weigh my many existential options before deciding if I should, what do they call it . . . ? Ah, yes, "respond" to a subpoena.

And on we'll drift, slowly but steadily approaching that safe haven of the 2020 election cycle, at which point further investigative actions will be carefully shelved so as not to "upset" or "energize" Republicans.

And then we'll wonder why Democratic voters just couldn't quite pull off defeating Trump in 2020 - apparently they found tactical decisions by House leadership to pull their investigative punches, decisions made for the very best of Beltway Reasons . . . disheartening, and quite a few just stayed home as a result.

Who knew that enforcing legal orders for witnesses to appear before Congress and testify under oath was so difficult?

[Hortensis]

42. What happened to immunity? And why?

You know, I just don't understand the seduction of the fire. Is this about Pelosi?

[Chin music]

82. +1z

[Bettie]

36. But it will be VERY dry

and ready should there ever be an emergency.

Of course, if this isn't an emergency, I wonder what would rise to that level.

[StarfishSaver]

39. This is dry powder?

Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2019, 09:25 AM - Edit history (1)

(Courtesy Chowder66)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212157411

Link to House investigations of Trump and his administration: The full list

The article shows each investigation per committee and includes links to each committees website and description of investigation.

Here's a look at the probes that have been made public, organized by committee:

HOUSE INVESTIGATIONS

JUDICIARY: Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

Oversight of the administration's family separation policy
Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker’s appointment, his involvement in the Mueller investigation, and his conversations with Trump and involvement with World Patent Marketing
Voting rights and Department of Justice actions on voter ID, census cases
Easing of sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Trump's national emergency declaration
The president's "threats to the rule of law," covering three main areas:
Obstruction of justice, including the possibility of interference by Trump and others in a number of criminal investigations and other official proceedings, as well as the alleged cover-up of violations of the law;
Public corruption, including potential violations of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, conspiracy to violate federal campaign and financial reporting laws, and other criminal misuses of official positions for personal gain;
Abuses of power, including attacks on the press, the judiciary, and law enforcement agencies; misuse of the pardon power and other presidential authorities; and attempts to misuse the power of the office of the presidency.
Trump's interference in Time Warner merger
Threats to relocate migrants to sanctuary cities
Reports that the president said he would pardon acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan if he illegally closed the southern border to migrants
Firings of senior leadership at DHS
The administration's decision to stop defending the Affordable Care Act in court


OVERSIGHT AND REFORM: Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md.

Oversight of the Trump administration’s family separation policy
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker's involvement with World Patent Marketing
Reports that the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman was failing failing to carry out statutory duties to help those applying for legal immigration programs
White House security clearances
Inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 census
Easing of sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Delayed back pay for federal workers impacted by the government shutdown
Michael Cohen hush-money payments
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos' efforts to replace her agency's acting inspector general
Transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia
Child separation actions at DOJ, DHS and Health and Human Services
Communications between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump
Michael Cohen's claims that Trump was improperly inflating financial statements
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt's schedules
Trump's threats to relocate migrants to sanctuary cities
Use of private email accounts by Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and other White House officials, and use of messaging apps like WhatsApp
Gag orders on White House staff
Title X gag rule regulatory review process
Potential lobbying conflicts of interest involving Environmental Protection Agency head Andrew Wheeler
Interior Department's handling of FOIA requests
Abandoning plan to move FBI HQ building from Washington to suburban location
Firings of senior leadership at DHS
Trump Administration’s response to hurricanes in Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands
Trump Administration’s decision to stop defending ACA


INTELLIGENCE: Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

Russia investigation, including the scope and scale of the Russian government's operations to influence the U.S. political process, and the U.S. government's response, the extent of any links and/or coordination between the Russian government, or related foreign actors, and individuals associated with Trump's campaign, transition, administration or business interests, whether any foreign actor has sought to compromise or holds leverage, financial or otherwise, over Trump, his family, his business, or his associates; whether Trump, his family, or his associates are or were at any time at heightened risk of, or vulnerable to, foreign exploitation; and whether any actors — foreign or domestic — sought or are seeking to impede, obstruct, and/or mislead authorized investigations into these matters
Whether lawyers for Trump and his family obstructed committee's Russia probe
Trump's personal finances, including loans from Deutsche Bank
Use of intelligence to justify building a wall at the southern border
Easing of sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Communications between Putin and Trump


WAYS AND MEANS: Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass.

Easing of sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Trump administration's use of user fees generated by the Affordable Care Act
Rule on short-term insurance plans
Trump administration’s decision to stop defending ACA
The president's personal and business tax returns


ENERGY & COMMERCE: Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J.

Short-term insurance plans
How the administration is spending user fees generated by the ACA
How HHS is caring for children impacted by the Trump family separation policy
EPA clean air rollbacks
EPA political appointees blocking release of a chemical study
EPA rollback of policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change
EPA political appointee steering litigation to benefit former client
EPA Officials ties to Utility Air Regulator Group
Trump Administration’s decision to stop defending ACA


FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.

Communications between Putin and Trump
Trump administration's failure to produce Russian sanctions report


FINANCIAL SERVICES: Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Easing of sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Trump's personal finances, including loans from Deutsche Bank
Trump administration's failure to produce Russian sanctions report
Reported ransom demand from North Korean government related to Otto Warmbier


HOMELAND SECURITY: Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.

Easing of sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Administration's border security policies
Investigation into Trump threats to relocate migrants to sanctuary cities
HUD disbursement of Puerto Rico disaster relief funds
Firings of senior leadership at DHS
Reports of ICE tracking Trump protesters


NATURAL RESOURCES: Chairman Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.

HUD disbursement of Puerto Rico disaster relief funds
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt's schedules
Agriculture/Interior Department decisions to further construction of a copper sulfite mine in Minnesota


VETERANS' AFFAIRS: Chairman Mark Takano, D-Calif.

Travel expenses of a political appointee in the Department of Veterans Affairs
Potential influence of several Mar-a-Lago members on VA decisions


EDUCATION AND LABOR: Chairman Bobby Scott, D-Va.

DeVos's efforts to replace the acting inspector general
Administration's decision to rescind Obama-era guidance on school discipline
Trump administration’s use of user fees generated by the Affordable Care Act
Trump administration’s decision to stop defending ACA


TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Chairman Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.

Trump Hotel lease of Old Post Office building
Abandoning plan to move FBI headquarters from Washington to suburban location


APPROPRIATIONS: Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.

Use of Pentagon funds for border wall
National emergency declaration and border wall funds
BUDGET: Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky.
National emergency declaration and border wall funds


Please visit the article at the link below. There are links within that take you to the committee websites for more information about each probe.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/house-investigations-trump-his-administration-full-list-n1010131

[Hortensis]

44. Just wow all together. Of course the Republicans are desperate

for us to rush to defeat, before we complete and deploy.

As for the meme that we must act now, the driver of all this self-destructive passion turned on us instead of the Republicans can't be all about removing Trump, any more than it was about defeating him in the runup to 2016. If it was, it'd be turned on the Republicans.

[Nuggets]

58. The question is why are so many Democrats

here pushing to rush to defeat, before we complete and deploy?

[Hortensis]

61. THE question, all right. We know the @50 (of 235 house Dems)

who reportedly support starting impeachment have mixed motives. Some are sincere, but some are just bloviating for the folk back home, and some are RW and LW power seekers uniting to try to cause trouble.

Those last are a very small part of the whole, but the media are making it sound like 200 are ready to march into Pelosi's office instead of firmly with her for good reason.

[SunSeeker]

74. These are regular oversight investigations. They are not impeachment inquiries.

They are what the House should do regardless of who is president. We have a lawless con man as president. Trump is ignoring subpoenas and directing his people to do the same. A week ago, Mueller all but begged the House to start impeachment proceedings.

Richard Nixon’s approval rating was at 65 percent when his impeachment process began and only 19 percent of the public supported his impeachment. By the end, the numbers had flipped: his approval was 24 percent and support for impeachment was 57 percent. https://www.gq.com/story/democrats-impeaching-trump

Impeachment inquiries hurt presidents who have committed serious crimes, since they expose and showcase those crimes. They garner national media attention that regular oversight hearings do not. Regular oversight hearings are not excepted from grand jury secrecy rules; impeachment inquiries are. We can't get Mueller's grand jury info if we just do oversight hearings. We don't have the time to recreate Mueller's 2-year investigation, even if it was possible, which it is not.

[Chin music]

81. Mines dry....dry as hell.

Anyone have a musket, ball and cap? Let's get this party started.

[H2O Man]

33. Watergate

was not an issue in the 1972 campaign. McGovern addressed it a few times, but there was no evidence publicly known that connected what became the most famous of a series of crimes, to the White House.There was also no evidence at that tim of Nixon obstructing any investigation.

[Hortensis]

38. Watergate was huge, but just like Russia-Trump now

it was not a popular issue on either side, which is why McGovern didn't hit it. The Democratic Party's role in the Watergate investigations was well known, though, and it cost us -- an unheard-of 49-state Republican sweep.

Don't bother pretending that had nothing to do with the Watergate investigations. Or that it was only RW authoritarians who voted to keep Nixon.

Our blue wave in the midterms just last November was created by focusing on healthcare. This "return to what matters" pleased the electorate greatly. It was proven winning move that gave us control of the house and many state governments, even while a treasonous president and congress revved up instilling corruption and dismantling our democratic systems while they still could. Without that clever strategy, the Republicans would still control everything.

Fortunately, our fools and scoundrels on the left are always outnumbered by those with at least basic good sense and principles. And it'll be a cold day in hell when our leaders are influenced to leap onto the Republican fire by our equivalent of horses trying to run back into a burning barn.

[H2O Man]

48. Way wrong.

The Senate hearings began in 1973 -- thus I am not "pretending" that they had no impact upon the 1972 election. I'm really interested in hearing you specifics on how Watergate impacted the '72 election.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

53. I always question when people argue a point that is

Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2019, 02:35 PM - Edit history (2)

Unprovable (and lacks logic when the underlying alleged crime is generally accepted as serious). Unless someone did an exit poll on Nixon's win that specifically asked "did the initiation of Watergate FBI investigations affect your vote?". Same unsubstantiated argument used today against impeaching trump - that it will affect people's vote.

But some unprovable outcomes can be assumed based on pure logic. Just like the meme regarding Russian interference in 2016. Everyone says, well it didn't affect the results. Of course it probably did, but it is unprovable...unless you interviewed a million people who voted for trump.

[SunSeeker]

77. Impeachment proceedings crushed Nixon's up to then high approval ratings.

Richard Nixon’s approval rating was at 65 percent when his impeachment process began and only 19 percent of the public supported his impeachment. By the end, the numbers had flipped: his approval was 24 percent and support for impeachment was 57 percent. https://www.gq.com/story/democrats-impeaching-trump

[Laura PourMeADrink]

79. Bring. It. On. I can't wait, SS!!!

[H2O Man]

112. In the case of Watergate,

one can easily look at the evidence that shows it played almost zero role in 1972's election. It is true that there was good reporting on Watergate in the lead-up to the election in at least two major newspapers. Yet the only people that were "influenced" in terms of voting were those already strongly against Nixon. And that was the Democratic Left -- members of the Democratic Party and the"left." As the election results indicated, this was not a majority. A significant percentage of Democrats actually voted for Nixon.

The Watergate investigation was not a significant issue in the presidential election. There are very few newspaper reports regarding the few times McGovern even raised the issue ....and remember, there was zero evidence connecting it to Nixon at that time. The majority of the public qaccepted Nixon's word at that time. Further, no other canndidates for the House or Senate were using Watergate in thir campaigns.

Thus, no political scientist nor historian has written that Watergate was a factor in 1972. In fact, quite the opposite: they tend to write that, if only the evidence at the time connected Nixon toWatergate, the election might have been competitive.

[StarfishSaver]

54. The hearings didn't start until 1973, but the public was aware of Watergate long before then

As I noted, the Washington Post started digging and uncovering wrongdoing in the summer of 1972. The revelations didn't start with the hearings. The hearings were the result of the revelations that came out in 1972.

[Hortensis]

65. Yes. Nixon was not a popular president with

his voters, much too moderate and progressive for them. UNTIL they believed he was under attack and rallied passionately to defend him from the Democrats. This was before the election. The technical timing being argued of the hearings etcetera is an irrelevant distraction from reality.

The right went to war when they realized the Democrats were "attacking" their leader and it was time to turn them out because a big election was coming up. Even though they weren't as well trained as today's RW, they were good authoritarians, so that, of course, was when RW leaders and RW media decided it was time to turn them out.

I've heard this one below passionately declare a few times (though I very seldom watch!) that the right must march by the millions to defend their nation against the liberal overthrow of their government. If Hitler hadn't been such an intense misogynist, he'd envy Trump having her. She got in trouble for her jihad against Ilhan Omar, but just let impeachment get started and she'll be in full fascistic glory. And fascism is now the right word.

[SunSeeker]

75. Nixon was very popular before impeachment proceedings began.

Richard Nixon’s approval rating was at 65 percent when his impeachment process began and only 19 percent of the public supported his impeachment. By the end, the numbers had flipped: his approval was 24 percent and support for impeachment was 57 percent. https://www.gq.com/story/democrats-impeaching-trump

Impeachment proceedings crushed Nixon.

[Bradshaw3]

93. You have a lot to learn about the history of Watergate

There was no "Democratic role" in the fledgling Watergate investigations of 1972 and it was NOT a campaign issue in 1972. I know, I worked on McGovern's campaign and it would have been great if it was. But the story was ignored by the national media and even the Post put some of the early stories inside. "Watergate" and possible impeachment weren't a topic at all and certainly had no effect on Nixon's victory.

[StarfishSaver]

40. Watergate was a huge thing in 1972

Woodward and Bernstein had already started covering it and before the election, broke several important stories, including:

August 1, 1972
An article in The Washington Post reports that a check for $25,000 earmarked for Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign was deposited into the bank account of one of the men arrested for the Watergate break-in. Over the course of nearly two years, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein continue to file stories about the Watergate scandal, relying on many sources.


September 29, 1972
The Washington Post reports that while serving as Attorney General, John Mitchell had controlled a secret fund to finance intelligence gathering against Democrats. When Carl Bernstein calls Mitchell for comment, Mitchell threatens both Bernstein and Katharine Graham, the publisher of the Post. The Post prints the threat.


October 10, 1972
Woodward and Bernstein report that the FBI had made connections between Nixon aides and the Watergate break-in.

October 1972
Articles by Woodward and Bernstein describe the existence of a major “dirty tricks” campaign conducted against Democratic Presidential candidate Edmund Muskie, orchestrated by Donald Segretti and others paid by CREEP and Nixon’s private attorney. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/watergate-scandal-timeline-nixon

On election night when I was so distraught, my father telling me "Just wait. The sabotage and crimes will catch up with him and he won't serve out his term."

[Poiuyt]

68. Watergate didn't really take hold until we learned about the tapes in 1973

Once people started hearing Nixon talk on the tapes, the tide started to turn. It really started to turn after the Saturday Night Massacre. Yes, there was reporting done before that, but the only people really paying attention were us liberal college kids.

[StarfishSaver]

69. Maybe it didn't take hold with YOU in 1972 before the tapes, but it did with a lot of people

And maybe you assumed you "liberal college kids" were the only ones paying attention (college kids often think they're the only ones clued in to things), but lots of other people were paying attention, too.

[Poiuyt]

70. Okay, maybe I should have said that Nixon's favorability ratings held firm until 1973

[Bradshaw3]

91. Absolutely wrong historically

Most of the national media didn't cover Wategate at all during 1972 and it was not a "huge thing" among the electorate. Totally the opposite. It played no role in the election at all despite what your daddy told you.

[StarfishSaver]

108. Three words: Woodward and Bernstein

[Bradshaw3]

109. Eight words and a number: Their reporting had zero effect on the 1972 election

Watergate was not only NOT a huge issue in 1972, it wasn't an issue at all, as any historian would tell you. The Wapo was a regional paper before Watergate and if you would bother to read or watch All the President's Men, wire services weren't carrying the story nationwide and even top editorial members of its staff didn't buy the story. Those are facts.

Here's more facts from the Washington Post. An analysis of polls during that election showed there was little to no interest among voters in something that wasn't even known as "Watergate" until 1973:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/15/how-america-viewed-the-watergate-scandal-as-it-was-unfolding/?utm_term=.1207f323440e


Here's more on the subject from Virginia's highly respected Miller Center:
"During most of this outwardly triumphant year, however, a scandal of epic proportions was quietly growing within the administration." See, the scandal was "growing". It was not an issue and didn't become one until guilty pleas for the burglary started in 1973, followed by congressional investigations. To say it was important in 1972 is like saying the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. Funny, but not factually true.

Claiming that Watergate was an issue in 1972 is at best lack of knowledge on the subject. Trying to tie it in with what is happening now by claiming that it had an effect on Nixon's landslide win is disingenuous.

[H2O Man]

113. Thank you!

Those of us who were alive at the time -- and those who have actually studied history since -- know that Watergate was not a factor in the 1972 election.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

114. But getting back to the original point, does a typical voter hold it against one party or the

other to investigate allegations, hold impeachment inquiries, whatever. There may be no proof in history to prove that one way or the other?

Perhaps it depends on what the average person deems as a serious allegation? For instance, Clinton lying about an affair (although he didn’t think a blowjob was sexual intercourse), to me was not a serious crime. But i had a hundred other, more important reasons to vote against the republicans in 2000 anyway. And so would people who love trump no matter what.

I know the bar is probably higher now than in 1972-3 for what people think is horrible behavior and it’s gone up a lot since trump got in. But I sincerely think that a lack of immediate, unilateral outrage from our side the moment mueller report came out, along with a declaration that we all believed the obstruction incidences were indeed impeachment worthy, set the tone. And, you can’t be retroactively outraged.

So now, we are in a difficult place. It will be a long time until the various jurisdictions adjudicate other allegations to pile on to the obstruction if they apply. And with stonewalling, it is difficult and time consuming to replicate the other allegations in the House if they apply. We also run the risk of backlash for appearing like we are on a fishing expedition. If there are other allegations that aren’t yet public, and they need time to investigate those, why wouldn’t Nadler know that, since he sounds like he is close to breaking rank.

Bottom line, this has become a difficult time and scope problem.

[H2O Man]

117. Watergate holds

as the best example of how congressional hearings are processed by then public, and then by republicans in office. But it is not of value in regard to presidential elections, other than being a contributing factor in Ford's loss in 1976. Likewise, after Clinton's impeachment, our party lost the next presidential election.

Hence, as I've noted on this thread and numerous others, Watergate provides the best model for why the Democrats should hold hearings on impeachment.

[StarfishSaver]

120. Watergate may be model for the importance of hearings, but not necessarily impeachment hearings

since it was the pre-impeachment hearings in Watergate that exposed the most compelling evidence of Nixon's corruption and turned the tide, not the impeachment hearings themselves.

[Bradshaw3]

115. Thank you

Like I wrote I worked on the McGovern campaign but just a brief glance at the 1972 election history (or by simply watching All the President's Men) would tell you anyone implying that Watergate played a role in Nixon's win is wrong.

It's disheartening how many times we see factually incorrect history posted on this site, especially when it is done with such assurance. Even though I know it's an internet forum, you hope for better on a Democratic site and that those who get it so wrong would learn for their mistake.

[H2O Man]

116. Right.

They could also read, among one hundred other things, Bruce Miroff's book "The Liberals' Moment." It details the frustration that the McGovern campaign experienced, because they knew Watergate was important, but could not make it a campaign issue.That's such a basic part of Watergate history that, when one reads something different, you realize that person really doesn't have a clue. If it is simply ignorance or bad intentions on their part is an open question that I don't concern myself with. Sadly, that includes on too many discussions on this site.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

118. On the same page. Didn't realize anyone still asserting differently?

[H2O Man]

119. There are

two people on this section of the discussion saying Watergate was a factor in the 1972 election.

[Bradshaw3]

122. Well said water man

I will have to check out that book. McGoven was my first presidential vote and while we knew near the end it wasn't going to happen it still felt good to have an honorable, decent candidate who was right on the issues and we believed in fully. I don't think any Democrat would have beaten Nixon in an election that one pundit said showed just how pissed the voters were about everything and they took it out on McGovern (a WWII pilot hereo BTW).

[Bradshaw3]

92. Most national media ignored the story and their reporting played no role in the election

It didn't catch fire as a story with the media and the public until the spring and summer of 1973, despite the reporting by the Times and Wapo in 1972..

[guillaumeb]

51. An excellent analysis.

Make it a separate post.

[ArizonaLib]

73. Yes - and then 4 years after Nixon/Ford: Reagan/Bush for 12 years

Authoritarian personalities love a winner, but it is not the only thing driving republican enthusiasm. The republican money machine specializes in coagulating its coalition of interest groups. Being on the side that likes to spike the football the hardest, win or lose is only part of it - those type people used to be Democrats after the republicans were shamed so badly by constant defeat during the Republican Great Depression. Nancy Pelosi can win all the she wants - those Republicans are only going to get more energized unless they experience total shaming defeat. Mere impeachment in the house won't come close. The Republican cult followers, just like after Coolidge/Hoover, and just like the Confederacy, won't disparage until they are totally defeated into humiliation. That is the only thing they understand. They don't understand much else or they would not be part of that group.

[Bradshaw3]

90. Nixon didn't win reelection during "Watergate"

The election was in November of 1972. The story then was often on the inside pages of the Wapo and NYT during that time, and was not covered at all by most newspapers or other media. The intense scrutiny didn't heat up until July of 1973 when evidence implicated Nixon's staff. The Watergate story played no role in the 1972 election, there was absolutley no talk of impeachment at that time and certainly didn't contribute to his victory.

[SunSeeker]

94. No, Nixon was reelected months BEFORE the Watergate hearings.

And months BEFORE Nixon was connected to the Watergate break in. Here's the key dates of the timeline:

June 17, 1972: The plumbers are arrested at 2:30 a.m. in the process of burglarizing and planting surveillance bugs in the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate Building Complex.

November 7, 1972: Nixon re-elected, defeating George McGovern with the largest plurality of votes in American history.

January 8, 1973: Five defendants plead guilty as the burglary trial begins. Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. are convicted after the trial.

March 17, 1973: Watergate burglar McCord writes a letter to Judge John Sirica, claiming that some of his testimony was perjured under pressure and that the burglary was not a CIA operation, but had involved other government officials, thereby leading the investigation to the White House.

May 9, 1974: Impeachment hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee.

May 17, 1973: The Senate Watergate Committeebegins its nationally televised hearings.

May 19, 1973: Independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox appointed to oversee investigation into possible presidential impropriety.

April 30, 1974: White House releases edited transcripts of the Nixon tapes, but the House Judiciary Committee insists the actual tapes must be turned over.

May 9, 1974: Impeachment hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee.

June 15, 1974: Woodward and Bernstein's book All the President's Men is published.

July 24, 1974: United States v. Nixon decided: Nixon is ordered to give up tapes to investigators. Congress moves to impeach Nixon.

July 27 to July 30, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes Articles of Impeachment.

August 8, 1974: Nixon delivers his resignation speech in front of a nationally televised audience.

So, it wasn't until AFTER the election that the Watergate break in was connected to Nixon. Even then, his approval was high...until impeachment commenced. Richard Nixon’s approval rating was at 65 percent when his impeachment process began and only 19 percent of the public supported his impeachment. By the end, the numbers had flipped: his approval was 24 percent and support for impeachment was 57 percent. https://www.gq.com/story/democrats-impeaching-trump

The Democrats won against Nixon without it ever going to the Senate for a vote. But by your apparent definition of success (a Senate vote to remove the president), they lost.

Stop calling Democrats who support starting an impeachment inquiry "clueless Democrats." 76% of Democrats favor impeachment. You are mouthing a right wing talking point.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/opinion/impeachment-trump.html

[BannonsLiver]

62. Not really

By the OPs logic all we need do is act tougher than fat Donny and his supporters will abandon him and flock to us. What about the current state of affairs makes anyone believe that would happen?

[Thekaspervote]

2. Thx for the great post!!

[OnDoutside]

3. You're largely misunderstanding the impeachment caution. It's not that people are against

impeaching him, it's that based on the evidence that is publicly available, Democrats would look like lemmings going over the cliff with a Senate that will not impeach him. And then where are we ? We've already seen that No Collusion, No Obstruction mantra from the Mueller Report. Now the WH have stopped everyone from testifying before Congress, Barr with his lies and obstruction and we still do not have access to the unredacted Mueller Report and underlying evidence. And his tax returns. Democrats have to get some wins through the courts and then use that to launch an Impeachment Inquiry. If Dems can't win that way (you'd have to do it in an Impeachment Inquiry anyway), they you're sunk.

[SunSeeker]

80. The "no collusion no obstruction" mantra is NOT from the Mueller report.

The Mueller report all but begs Congress to impeach.

We can't get Mueller's grand jury info through the courts if all we're doing is oversight hearings. Impeachment inquiries are excepted from grand jury secrecy rules, regular oversight hearings are not.

The costs of NOT impeaching are much higher than any risk of impeaching a criminal president. https://www.gq.com/story/democrats-impeaching-trump

[OnDoutside]

95. I haven't heard anyone from the Democratic Party side who has said he shouldn't be

impeached. The issue is going headlong into an impeachment process without having prepared the path to do so. It would be the equivalent of lemmings running off the cliff. The likes of Pelosi has been in Congress for 30+ years and I trust her to know how to do this.

And there currently is still no guarantee that we will get the grand jury info etc even if they go through an impeachment inquiry. They will still try to stonewall, in order to delay until after 2020. And if that happens, Dems will have pulled the trigger without anything coming out the other side.

[SunSeeker]

98. Starting formal impeachment investigation hearings is the responsible thing to do.

It is not akin to lemmings mindlessly jumping off a cliff. That is quite an offensive thing to say about your fellow Democrats. It sounds like a right wing talking point. Conducting an impeachment investigation to determine if there is enough evidence to impeach is the responsible thing to do, in light of the Mueller Report.

Pelosi needs a groundswell of support for impeachment. Bashing Dems who call for impeachment is not helping Pelosi.

On what possible grounds would a court deny our request for Mueller's grand jury info, if made by the House impeachment inquiry committee?

Not impeaching will guarantee we won't get Mueller's grand jury info, in light of McKeever v. Barr. How is that responsible?

[OnDoutside]

103. That's just ridiculous, you clearly didn't read what I said. Rushing headlong into an

impeachment process, without preparation is the equivalent of lemmings rushing over the cliff. You think that just because Dems open an impeachment Inquiry, the Trump WH and Barr will roll over and hand over everything ? No, they won't. They won't play by the norms, and the Democrats will still have to go to the courts, and Barr will keep appealing to higher courts, delaying as long as they can.

As it stands, we don't have

The unredacted Mueller Report with underlying evidence

Trump associated subpoenaed witnesses

his tax returns

Let's get at least one of that before opening an impeachment inquiry. And to repeat, I have not heard of one Dem who doesn't want to see Trump impeached, but a lot of people out there seem to think that an impeachment inquiry will open all sorts of doors. It won't, because Trump and his gang do not obey norms.

[SunSeeker]

104. An impeachment inquiry is the preparation. Drop the insults.

I did read what you wrote and nothing I said is "ridiculous." Just because you disagree with me does not mean you should be disagreeable.

Of course we will have to go to court for everything. But at least with an impeachment inquiry, we stand a good chance of getting Mueller's grand jury info. Under McKeever v. Barr, we stand no chance with just regular oversight hearings.

Don't you think Trump refusing to comply with subpoenas is an impeachable offense in and of itself?


Why can't we pursue his tax returns in court AND commence an impeachment inquiry?

[OnDoutside]

105. You should follow your own advice and stop accusing fellow DUers of repeating right wing talking

points, when they don't line up with your views.

"we stand a good chance " - evidence of such a claim ?

Almost everything Trump does is impeachable but unfortunately the American people need to be led by the hand to see that. Not everyone is as aware as our fellow DUers. I'm firmly in the camp of Death by 1000 cuts, where we will get to a point that every day will bring some new revelation of Trump Inc crime, and to that end, let's set it up properly. I would expect that there will be sort of breakthough in the courts over his tax returns with a couple of months, and we'll be in an impeachment inquiry by September.

Optics is a terrible word but being denied evidence like the tax returns while in an impeachment inquiry, will only create more false hope for voters. We've only one shot at this, I trust Pelosi to know what she's doing.

[SunSeeker]

111. Why do I think we stand a good chance? McKeever v. Barr.

As Prof. Tribe said in the Washington Post:

The uncertain prospect that the House Judiciary Committee will receive the raw, unredacted report generated by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III got even less certain Friday. A decision by the federal court of appeals in Washington now confronts the House leadership and Attorney General William P. Barr with some difficult political choices.

In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no “inherent power” to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.

In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trump’s former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.

In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.

One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.

Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.


But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is “not worth it.” That decision may hamstring Nadler’s quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government “oversight” to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.

For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee — and the public — about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trump’s selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense — unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html

Not only would trying to recreate the grand jury testimony be time-consuming and wasteful in a regular oversight hearing, now that the White House has ordered all Trump aides, including McGahn, to not respond to Congressional subpoenas, it will be next to impossible to do it in light of McKeever v. Barr.  But not if it is a formal impeachment investigation hearing.  That is why we must go this route, and do it immediately.

We stand no chance of getting grand jury info with just regular oversight hearings. McKeever makes that clear.

Calling for impeachment does not mean we don't trust or support Pelosi. Just the opposite. It gives her the groundswell of support she obviously is waiting for to start impeachment proceedings.

[rampartc]

4. how did they ever accept this new yorker who pretends to be a billionaire

as a member of their tribe much less their leader?

[certainot]

17. it's his royal "i'm never wrong" certitude along with russian use of talk radio with

limbaugh, his golf buddy and palm beach neighbor making excuses for him

the trumpers are dittoheads/teabags. limbaugh has been their god for 30 years. russians have been poaching talk radio/limbaugh away from establishment GOP for at least a decade, and trump was the perfect front man for limbaugh - limbaugh with stage presence and better hair, and capable of such massive sex on the wrong brain authoritarian denial. he actually believes it all

[pecosbob]

5. Every time you bloody his nose

his numbers go down...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

55. Yup!! Just looked at his approval trends. Down when Mueller

Report came out then slowly rebounding since. (RCP)

[Chin music]

83. He's a counter-'clotter'.

Heh heh.

[lunatica]

6. Yeah, it's pretty basic and has proven to be the case

historically. Though I think a better comparison is a Baboon troop. The Alpha male just has to beat the shit out of any other male who provokes him. He will have underlings who help him. All kinds of alliances are formed and reformed jockeying for power. But until the Alpha male is defeated the entire troop follows him unwaveringly. Once he’s defeated though he gets pushed to the lowest position in the troop.

[JLSS]

7. BAD strategy-Mitch McConnell will stop it in the Senate

I am a life long 70 year old DEM that's worked in national politics for decades.

I'm wondering why all these people who want to impeach him now haven't figured out that even IF the HOUSE OF REP does so, Mitch McConnell will laugh and stop it in the US SENATE immediately. It is a complete waste of time. Why hand such a gift to the Republicans controlling the US Senate? They would make us look out of control and crazy and worst of all, it would look like Trump did nothing wrong after all.

I'm also a retired lawyer. Doing this and allowing the US Senate to stop the impeachment would mean we would have trouble charging Trump when he's out of office!

All these DEMS just don't get any of this, apparently. Nancy Pelosi DOES get it. She has honed in on making Trump pay for his crimes even if it's not now and instant gratification. The goal is to make him pay. Impeachment now, is throwing that chance away.

If DEMS controlled the US Senate it would be easy to impeach him and get him out of office but that's NOT THE CASE.

Get educated and trust those with an education on this matter that have good strategy.

[lunatica]

8. Welcome to DU

[rusty fender]

13. Impeachment proceedings

are not criminal proceedings so how would impeachment make it harder to charge Trumpilthinskin afterwards

[pangaia]

15. Then go after republicans.

Ther are the real villains in all this.

[Blues Heron]

25. Wrong. History demands that we do what we can to stop this monster.

NOW

[NewJeffCT]

43. WRONG on charging him once he's out of office

Impeachment is political and has nothing to do with additional charges once he leaves office. Pelosi may have claimed that, but all the legal analysis I read strongly disagrees with that notion.

[StarfishSaver]

47. Pelosi never claimed that

She said there's a school of thought who believe that, so we shouldn't just assume that he'll be prosecuted if he's impeached but not removed.

Saying that it's possible he won't be criminally prosecuted as a private citizen is not the same as saying that he can't be.

JLSS is right. If he's not removed from office, it COULD be difficult - although not impossible - to criminally charge him later. The point is that that possibility is one of the many that Pelosi and and the Democrats must consider as they weigh all of the options.

[rpannier]

67. I checked your post with my father, a retired federal judge

He said you are wrong about making it harder, as impeachment is not a criminal proceeding it is a political one.
Charging him in criminal court is not thwarted by failed impeachment
Also, control of the senate does NOT guarantee a conviction, as it takes more than simple majority to gain conviction. Ask the Republicans in the senate from both the Clinton and Johnson (Andrew) years

I know some really well educated people; I know some federal judges, I even know a few sitting and former sitting congress people (George Miller, Cheri Bustos, Pete Visclosky for example) and I know people who have worked for congressional reps (Ben Nelson - NE). And while some of them may disagree with me on the best case for dealing with this, they would disagree with your arrogant claim that you and those who agree with your position are the only 'educated' ones and everyone else is an uneducated twit.

[Chin music]

84. My regards to your Dad.

Keep up the fireside chats.

[larwdem]

72. when

when in history did a former president get charged with anything ???? I call bull shit.

[loyalsister]

121. John Tyler died before he could be charged with treason

After he betrayed the US by actively supporting the confederacy, he was elected to the confederate congress. He died before he was seated and before he might have been prosecuted.
I'm sure it's debatable whether he would have been, but he shamelessly abandoned the US in favor of the opposition in a time of war.
I wonder what politics would look like if he had lived long enough to be prosecuted.

[SunSeeker]

97. McConnell cannot stop Dems from impeaching Trump in the House.

Just impeaching Trump in the House will hurt him. Richard Nixon’s approval rating was at 65 percent when his impeachment process began and only 19 percent of the public supported his impeachment. By the end, the numbers had flipped: his approval was 24 percent and support for impeachment was 57 percent. https://www.gq.com/story/democrats-impeaching-trump

The Articles of Impeachment do not need to go to the Senate for Trump to be hurt. They didn't with Nixon. He resigned before they went to the Senate. You appear to be confusing impeachment with the Senate trial. The House, and only the House, impeaches. The Senate conducts the trial on the Articles of Impeachment passed by the House. Democrats control the House and absolutely can impeach Trump, whether McConnell likes it or not.

There are a lot of lawyers on DU. That does not make you particularly more knowledgeable than others here. I highly recommend you let your posts speak for themselves rather than resorting to the old "listen to me, I'm lawyer" line. If your arguments are well stated, with citations to legal authority, people (other lawyers especially) will know you're a lawyer, you won't need to say it.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. Please explain why you think impeachment will make it harder to charge Trump with a crime later. And please cite legal authority, if any, that supports your assertion. Thanks in advance.

[gopiscrap]

123. welcome to DU

[Mike Nelson]

9. His fans don't need...

… impeachment to rally. The will rally for impeachment, or anything. I'm thinking of the hard-core fans - the group Hillary called the Deplorables (which they wore as a label of honor). They don't care what he does... they are irredeemable... that quote where he says he could shoot someone on 5th Av. and get away with it is true... his fans would love that he shot someone! Big Man! They would say he's so wonderful he doesn't even need the Secret Service to protect himself from deranged liberals.

[Kind of Blue]

10. +1000

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Exactly. eom

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. So right!! Irredeemable deplorables are called irredeemable deplorables for a reason...

They're irredeemable and deplorable!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[safeinOhio]

12. I think impeaching trump could go either way.

Like an alpha male in the chimp tribe, his biggest fear is a stronger chimp that makes him look bad to the tribe. The stronger chimp might even be a strong alpha female, like in the coyote tribe where a female is in charge.

I see the quickest way to rid us of him is to use his personality against him by mockery and laughing at him. He can not stand it. He makes his biggest blunders by going after those that make him look bad. Like McCain even after he has passed, he's doing a great job of destroying him. Look at yesterdays Rolling Thunder's public support. A group that "stands" for MIAs and POWS. It's written on every shirt they wear. Now all we have to do is keep attacks on trump for his hatred of McCain. Show the clip over and over again of him saying I don't like soldiers that were captured". We might think about making up tee shirts with that quote and wearing them around bikers. What can they say?

His own uncontrolled mouth will hang him in the end. Our job is to push the buttons that we know will get the reaction.
I don't know if impeachment will or will not prod him into more gaffs, but I'm sure investigations will.

[Jake Stern]

14. "What can they say?"

Can answer that one quite easily as I've pointed out that very quote by Trump to Trumper family and almost without fail they excuse it by bringing up a claim that McCain ratted out his fellow prisoners implying he doesn't deserve respect.

The one who didn't thought McCain was working for the Dems.

[safeinOhio]

20. "I don't like soldiers that were captured" is a

universal statement that that can not be defended. That quote with a picture of trump, along with I support ALL MIAs and POWs might work.

[scarytomcat]

24. Yes

Pick at him make him look week. Point out his mistakes.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

56. Why it appears they are trying to undermine mueller

report and wanting to nail Steele.

Because the Mueller team took a long time, it gave trump enough time to place his chess pieces. Barr, head of IRS.

I agree with you. And especially focus in the things that will humilate and anger him and that his supporters don't like. They hate his tweeting, and disrespectful personna.

[lindysalsagal]

16. Losers want to identify with a winner. When his lack of wealth is finally exposed, they'll go.

They won't stick with a disgraced loser. So, we should hack away at his obstructions to expose the truth.

We should also expose all the middle class contractors he's robbed. I've met some of them in my regular life. They know the lawyer's fees would exceed whatever he owes them so they give up and take the losses.

[treestar]

18. What percentage are they? They don't rally behind the winner when

the winner is a Democrat.

[certainot]

19. and according to the sex on the wrong brain theory it and greed is caused by diverting

impatient satisfaction demanding reproductive impulses through the side of the brain used for logic, where it wants finality/certainty. since nothing is certain they get scared until someone like trump comes along who got so scared at some point he had to learn to make it all up. he judges the complicated world in simple black and white to help them create certainty and ease the fear.

greed is caused by mixing sex and numbers, where it wants more, bigger, faster

[Hortensis]

21. Masha Gessen, speaking to this, said hard-core authoritarians

want strong leaders and the one thing that causes them to fall away is finding they've backed a loser. Not depravity, destructive policies, or evil deeds. Just being revealed as weak and failing.

W's strong authoritarians supported everything he did, and would have everything he might have done, all through 2 disastrous terms. As the second wound down humiliatingly and disappointingly, his approval fell, but authoritarians determinedly expressing strong approval held it in the mid 30s for a long time anyway. Then their numbers declined into the 20s close to the end of his second term as more finally accepted that he was a failure. And then it dropped into the low teens in the very, very last days as some among his most deluded, hard-core followers finally realized their leader wasn't somehow going to pull some great-leader victory out of a hat. Something like 12% claimed high approval to the bitter end.

[SunSeeker]

99. Masha Gessen appears to be on a mission to make us as depressed as she is. nt

[Hortensis]

106. Wondering what you were seeing, I just checked her

twitter, and she really does sound grim. Tweet after tweet on big signs of rising authoritarianism. And, of course, as a dual-citizenship Russian-American, gay, female, Jewish, journalist and adoptive mother, a lot of it has to be personal. She is eminently persecutable.

The Dread of Waiting for the Supreme Court to Rule on L.G.B.T. Rights

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear three cases that seek to determine whether existing federal law bans workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Among L.G.B.T. activists and advocates, one could sense something like a deep intake of breath, of the sort one makes when a fragile object is starting to tumble off a shelf across the room. You know it’s going to shatter, you are too far away to try to catch it, and you watch, helplessly, its interminable path to catastrophe.

They mostly expect nothing but bad from this Supreme Court as appeals for protection from the wave of renewed legalized persecution in many states arrives.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. Recommended!

And, I agree. His base is already riled up. They are such everyday

[watoos]

28. Also, his base is what it is,

it isn't going to grow. His base will turn out to vote with or without an impeachment inquiry.

[watoos]

27. Best post I have seen supporting impeachment,

Trump's biographer who spent a lot of time with Trump writing one of his books, stated that an impeachment hearing would devastate Trump.

I fear that the time is growing short to start the inquiry, it may even be too late now.

It will be pretty hard for Democrats to convince judges to expedite decisions when they are showing no signs themselves of urgency.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. Excellent point!! There's no time to waste... impeach that shitstain on the presidency NOW!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Kaleva]

30. Where are your references to studies that would support your claim?

Your OP is devoid of any such links.

[sarisataka]

45. You don't need REFERENCES

When you have CAPITALS to PROVE your LOGIC is UNQUESTIONABLE

I am unsure if the OP realizes a failed impeachment is exactly the win that strengthens support for the strong leader spoken of in the post or if they just choose to ignore that.

[Kaleva]

49. I forgot that the use of ALL CAPS makes a claim bulletproof and beyond questioning.

[beachbum bob]

32. who cares about his supporters, we outnumber them and democrats must rally us to vote in 2020

[SunSeeker]

100. Exactly. 76% of Democratic voters want impeachment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/opinion/impeachment-trump.html

If we want to fire up the Dem turnout, we need to impeach Trump in the House. McConnell cannot stop us from doing that. We control the House.

[HAB911]

34. K&R

[yardwork]

37. Trump would win an impeachment fight. The Republican controlled Senate will support him.

[SunSeeker]

101. No he wouldn't. Any time a president is impeached, he is wounded.

The more serious the crime, the more he is wounded. Impeachment proceedings will showcase Trumps crimes. It needs to be done. The average American has not and will not read the Mueller report. Dems can show America how Russia attacked our election to help Trump, how Trump welcomed that help, and how he obstructed an attempt to investigate Russia's attack. Trump will go down in history as the 4th president to be impeached. And Senate Republicans will go down in infamy for refusing to remove him. That is not a "win" for Republicans.

Richard Nixon’s approval rating was at 65 percent when his impeachment process began and only 19 percent of the public supported his impeachment. By the end, the numbers had flipped: his approval was 24 percent and support for impeachment was 57 percent. https://www.gq.com/story/democrats-impeaching-trump

[yardwork]

107. Clinton survived and thrived after he was impeached but not removed.

Republicans control the Senate. They will not vote to remove Trump.

[SunSeeker]

110. Clinton survived because because he did not commit a high crime.

He lied about a BJ. He did sell us out to a foreign adversary then fire the FBI director to stop an investigation into his crimes. The present situation is more akin to the Nixon impeachment, not the Clinton impeachment, except what Trump did (and is doing) is MUCH worse than what Nixon did.

The GOP may or may not remove Trump. That is no reason not to impeach Trump. We need to do what's right.

[sarisataka]

46. I drive a truck

And drink tea so what tribe do I belong to?

[world wide wally]

50. Very insightful OP

Here is what can happen: We will make Americans understand and push our numbers higher or we won't. If Americans can look at all the evidence and decide Republicans are right.. then maybe America isn't what we thought it was.
We already know that McConnell will do all he can to rig the outcome so we can't waist the opportunity to nail him and his cohorts as well.

And if we don't do anything, we'll just never know but we will be famous for being cowards.

[JustAnotherGen]

52. I agree with your analysis of them

I just don't like the word Impeachment.

Simple televised investigations will do.

[yonder]

57. Good thread/comments.

[EleanorR]

59. Kavanaugh nt

[Initech]

60. Amen! Trump is currently digging his own political grave right now.

And it's more fun watching him squirm. It's almost as if they are trying to egg on impeachment. Not going through with it is the opposite of what they want. I say don't give them what they want and watch their heads explode!

[ancianita]

63. I believe that the history of impeachment's application is widely misunderstood, leading Americans

to mistake it for a dangerous threat to the constitutional order.

That is precisely backwards.

It is absurd to read the Constitution's own delineating impeachment as a mechanism that's too potent to ever actually be employed.

Impeachment, as the Constitution presents it, is in fact a vital protection against the dangers a president like Trump poses.

And, crucially, many of its benefits accrue -- from the political health of the country, to the stability of the constitutional system -- regardless of its ultimate result.

Impeachment, as Speaker Pelosi has said, is a process, not an outcome.

Media should take greater pains to show how its rule-bound procedure for investigating a president goes
-- considering ALL evidence (UNredacted info, further financial document corroboration,
-- formulating charges of obstruction or just corruption,
-- deciding whether to continue to trial or not.

Those of us who want it are misrepresented here. We don't think "now" means NOW. But whenever the formal inquiry can begin, so that missing documents and evidence come before The People's House.

The process of impeachment itself is likely to shift public opinion -- it highlights what’s already known and brings new evidence to light.

"The Truth," as Speaker Pelosi says.

The Truth has Authority. So do stories, the lies that tell the Truth.

People like to follow, but Authoritarians need followers as much as followers need leaders.

My take on Authority is that Americans will move toward the One Who Is AN Authority when their IN Authority leader looks weak, and the story of his corrupt leadership shreds his false authority.

One lesson of Richard Nixon’s impeachment is that when legislators conclude a presidency is doomed, they can switch allegiances in the blink of an eye.

[Gore1FL]

64. If we don't impeach Trump we should amend the Constitution to remove impeachment.

There is absolutely no point in the safeguard if it is going to be ignored.

[ffr]

66. I see your point in everything the red followers around me are doing.

Just like in your script.

We need to keep striving for impeachment inquiry.

[Gore1FL]

71. It's weird to me that people are afraid of energizing his already-energized base.

There was a blue wave in 2018--including the Senate where we won 20 of 33 seats.

It was because people were sick of Trump and the GOP giving him a pass on everything.

Democrats avoiding impeachment for political reasons isn't any better than the GOP impeaching for political reasons.

[SunSeeker]

102. Agreed. nt

[EveHammond13]

76. people who don't understand this need to get with the program immediately

[CanonRay]

78. Fantastic post

Off to the greatest page

[moondust]

88. Yup.

No matter what anybody says or does he's going to strut around with his nose in the air a la Mussolini, pretending to be the biggest, baddest, winningest strongman ever, blaming somebody else for all his failures. His cult of bigots & pigs & suckers will continue to fall for his act while everybody with any critical thinking skills and integrity long ago saw through him and his endless barrage of self-serving lies and deception.

Pathetic situation.

K/R

[Turbineguy]

89. Great!

It seems to be going in that direction.

[UniteFightBack]

96. As soon as we get those financial documents rump better get ready for body blows and he'll long

for the days of wine and roses and bloody noses.