Should Donald Trump be impeached?

[B5B7]

I couldn't see what I voted for nor its percentage, but I now notice that there is text that is just readable (black on black), and if you highlight it and the % figure then they are clearly readable.

[B5B7]

The posting function went strange when I tried to post and caused a double post that I can't remove.

[The Romulan Republic]

An article in a Seattle paper from a former Republican state Rep., arguing on behalf of immediately beginning the impeachment proceedings:

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/en ... ent-trump/

By Chris Vance
Special to The Times

So far Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the leadership of the U.S. House Democratic majority have approached the issue of impeachment cautiously; with politics on their minds. This is understandable, but also inconsistent with their constitutional duty.

The Constitution is being violated in plain sight. To protect the Constitution from this president, and future rogue presidencies, the House Judiciary Committee should wrap all the various investigations of Trump into a formal consideration of possible articles of impeachment. Now.

Americans have long debated what constitutes an impeachable offense, but it is clear that the standard for unacceptable presidential conduct is very different from the standard for prosecutable criminal conduct.

Writing in Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton said impeachable acts were:

Those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

During the Nixon impeachment proceedings, the Judiciary Committee declined to vote an article of impeachment against Nixon for tax evasion, because they did not view this personal criminal act as an impeachable offense, but did impeach for obstruction of justice. The committee based its conclusion on a staff report, “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” which traced the history, precedents and grounds for impeachment. The report concluded:

Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the president.

President Donald Trump may or may not have broken the law, but is there any doubt that he has abused his public trust? Any doubt that he has engaged in “conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the president?”

The emoluments clause forbids the president from accepting anything of value from foreign or state governments. Yet the president continues to profit from lobbyists and officials staying in his hotels and resorts.

Worse, Trump is the first president to use his emergency powers to defy Congress and ignore the Constitution’s appropriations clause. And even before his Attorney General chose to stonewall Congress and the public on the release of the Mueller report, the Brookings Institute released a remarkable report titled Presidential Obstruction of Justice: The Case of Donald J. Trump, which reads like a legal brief, and lays out the case for impeachment based on what is in the public record today about Trump’s attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation.

If a president can simply declare an emergency to get his way or use the powers of his office to block an investigation of himself, we no longer live in a democracy and the Constitution has no meaning. If this isn’t impeachable conduct what would be?

Trump is being sued over the emoluments clause and his emergency declaration. Congress is still investigating everything having to do with the Mueller investigation. But lawsuits and public hearings are not going to suffice. We have been told repeatedly that the president can’t be indicted while in office. Lawsuits get bogged down in narrow legal arguments. The vehicle provided by the Constitution is impeachment.

Beginning formal impeachment proceedings might be the only way Congress ever gets to see the full Mueller report, as Kyle Cheney wrote for Politico.

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti makes a strong case that the House has the power to impeach and the executive branch can’t deny it the information it needs to exercise that power, but first they need to begin impeachment proceedings.

During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee did not wait for a special prosecutor’s report before initiating impeachment hearings. Today, however, as pointed out recently in the Lawfare Blog, we find ourselves in a constitutional Catch-22:

At least the House instigated a Watergate impeachment inquiry on its own. By contrast, the House in 2019 has been waiting on Mueller before giving serious thought to an impeachment inquiry. (Admittedly, the Democratic majority is new.) When Congress outsources the work of an impeachment investigation, and when the Justice Department holds that an incumbent president can’t be indicted, the result is a system in which the executive branch can investigate but cannot prosecute, whereas the legislative branch can impeach but, at least for now, will not investigate. Whatever the Framers intended, surely it can’t be this.

The House might begin hearings and ultimately decide not to impeach. Senate Republicans may vote to acquit Trump no matter what the House finds. Impeachment hearings may affect the 2020 election. So be it. What matters is the Constitution.

Impeachment hearings will strengthen Congress’s hand in terms of bringing the Mueller report to light. And the House must quash the notion that this president, or any president, can brazenly defy the Constitution and assume the powers of an autocrat without there being serious consequences.

Putting the country through the trauma of an impeachment should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. In this case, it is. Let’s get on with it.

Chris Vance of Sumner is a former chair of the Washington State Republican Party, and a former Metropolitan King County Council member and state representative.

[houser2112]

former Republican state Rep.

Chris Vance of Sumner is a former chair of the Washington State Republican Party, and a former Metropolitan King County Council member and state representative.

Call me cynical, but these are mighty brave words from a man with nothing to lose. Yawn.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, no doubt, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

[Gandalf]

But like McCain, it does make him look like another guy just shopping for a legacy at a time when it's not likely to cost him anything.

[The Romulan Republic]

The impeachment question may be getting revisited in light of Trump's spree of attacks on Congressional oversight:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/p ... hment.html

WASHINGTON — The Trump family lawsuit to block oversight of its finances has House Democrats scrambling to confront what many see as the gravest threat to congressional independence since the Nixon era, reviving internal debate over the ultimate weapon in the Democrats’ arsenal: impeachment.

For nearly two weeks, Democrats have debated how to respond to Robert S. Mueller III’s findings that President Trump might have obstructed justice, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging her fractious rank and file to avoid a broad, open-ended impeachment inquiry she believed could backfire disastrously in 2020.

But Democrats see Mr. Trump’s latest string of provocations — starting with his blanket declaration last week that he would defy all subpoenas requested by Democratic committees and culminating in this week’s legal action — as a dangerous abuse of executive authority that they must address forcefully.

Allies of Ms. Pelosi are publicly floating possible countermeasures, including even pursuing a narrow path to impeachment based on Mr. Trump’s refusal to respect the oversight authority of Congress, a move modeled on the third article of impeachment drafted against President Richard M. Nixon in 1974.

“There are all these streams and creeks of offenses that seem to be converging into a bigger river — impeachment,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and former constitutional law professor who serves on the Judiciary Committee.

“There is nothing to explain how the executive branch can defy, categorically, every lawful request for information from the Congress of the United States,” added Mr. Raskin, who said he is open to the idea of a limited impeachment inquiry. “President Trump’s defiance of Congress is far more comprehensive and sweeping than anything Congress experienced during the Watergate period.”

Several Democrats close to Ms. Pelosi said that impeachment still remained unlikely, cautioning that Mr. Trump’s threats alone were not enough to spur such action. And her leadership team is keenly aware that Mr. Trump “is goading us” into making a political mistake, according to Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York, who is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Ms. Pelosi cautioned Democrats against getting too carried away with impeachment talk.

“While we may have our difficulties in other areas, we cannot, we cannot, we cannot ignore the needs of the American people as we go forward,” Ms. Pelosi said after meeting with the president about kick-starting a long-dormant infrastructure funding bill.

But sentiment appears to have shifted significantly over the past week.

“I am not there yet, but I have to say that the president’s obstruction of Congress now following his obstruction of the Justice Department is certainly adding new heft to the idea that he has to be held accountable,” Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said in an interview.

He suggested another possible way of striking back at Mr. Trump, using the House’s power of the purse. “We’re looking at other ways to fence money allocated to the agencies in a way that forces them to comply,” said Mr. Schiff, a close ally of Ms. Pelosi’s.

Still, the rage toward Mr. Trump is spreading from the left wing of the House to Ms. Pelosi’s more moderate allies in Democratic leadership and committee chairmanships. Ms. Pelosi’s office on Tuesday compiled a three-page set of talking points titled, “Trump Administration Obstruction: Unprecedented, Unwarranted, Unconstitutional.”

“President Trump’s stonewalling has metastasized from refusing to release his tax returns or divest his assets to the Trump Administration now refusing to cooperate on every level of government, from the sabotaging Americans’ health care to protecting our elections,” the document reads.

Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee, fumed, “If you let them get away with this, then what do you have?”

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has urged her fractious rank-and-file to avoid a broad, open-ended impeachment inquiry.

“If a president can get away with blocking any information or anybody from testifying before the Congress, what road are we going down? Just ask the question. That’s the question. I don’t think we have any choice but to do every single thing in our power to get him in,” said Mr. Cummings, who has been sued by the president over a subpoena issued by the committee for Mr. Trump’s financial records.

Democrats have other options, none of them particularly palatable or effective, ranging from votes to hold administration officials in contempt of Congress to civil lawsuits to pry free documents that the president is fighting to withhold.

Representative Gerald E. Connolly, Democrat of Virginia, joked that he would find a “nice jail cell” for administration officials slapped with contempt citations by the House. He called the battle between the branches the most important constitutional confrontation in decades.

“Some of my colleagues aren’t taking this seriously enough — we already have prima facie evidence of contempt of Congress — and that is pushing Democrats like me in the direction” of an impeachment inquiry, he added.

Some members of the Congressional Black Caucus have continued to push for a broad impeachment effort. Representative Al Green, Democrat of Texas, said on the House floor that he would try to force a vote on the matter.

A White House spokesman declined to comment. But the president’s lawyers have argued that Mr. Trump’s actions differ from Mr. Nixon’s refusal to hand over documents and recordings in 1974 — because the underlying inquiry into Mr. Trump’s actions by the House now is not actually an impeachment inquiry. And, they said, the president is merely trying to defend himself from what they called invasive and illegitimate Democratic inquiries.

“Do they have any lawyers in Congress?” said Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, who has cast Democrats’ actions as an attempt to damage the president’s re-election prospects. “Since when can’t you contest the legitimacy of a subpoena?”

Ms. Pelosi and her team have tried to stave off such actions, saying instead that the House first needs to investigate the issues raised in Mr. Mueller’s report.

In a separate action on Tuesday, Mr. Schiff sent the Justice Department a criminal referral to investigate whether Erik Prince, a private security contractor who figured in Mr. Mueller’s investigation, had knowingly lied to his committee in 2017 about meetings he had with foreigners. Mr. Schiff identified six potentially false statements, though a transcript of the committee’s interview with Mr. Prince has been public for more than a year.

Mr. Trump’s actions are intended to thwart further investigations, leaving Democrats with the prospect of holding witness-less, document-free hearings or exploring other means of punishment.

Over the past few days, Democratic aides and some lawmakers have discussed the possibility of opening an impeachment inquiry independent of, if not unrelated to, the findings in Mr. Mueller’s report. A narrower inquiry would put the focus on Mr. Trump’s defiance of Congress and could move the battle from the muddy conclusions of Mr. Mueller’s report to a loftier debate over separation of powers.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, whose Judiciary Committee is facing the brunt of the administration’s intransigence, appears to be losing patience. While Mr. Nadler views impeachment as a last-ditch alternative, he has been less categorical in his rejection of impeachment than Ms. Pelosi, according to several leadership aides with knowledge of his thinking.

The administration appears as if it will not comply with the Wednesday deadline for a subpoena demanding the full, unredacted Mueller report and underlying evidence. It has signaled that it will try to block another subpoena for documents and testimony from Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel who was crucial to Mr. Mueller’s work. Meanwhile, Mr. Nadler is threatening to issue another subpoena for Attorney General William P. Barr if he refuses to appear voluntarily at a hearing on the Mueller report scheduled for Thursday because of a dispute over procedure.

“It certainly builds the case that the administration is engaged in a wholesale obstruction of Congress,” Mr. Nadler told reporters on Monday. He continued, “It’s absolutely unacceptable, and we’ll take whatever action we have to do to deal with it.”

There really doesn't seem to be a choice to me. I don't think Schiff's suggestion of restricting funding to agencies that don't comply (if I'm understanding correctly) will do much. Trump has already shown that if he doesn't get the funding he wants, he'll declare a state of emergency and get it by executive fiat.

Impeachment is the most powerful, unambiguous tool that the Constitution gives to Congress to hold the President accountable. Even if the Republicans acquit him, there will have to be a trial, they will have to do it in the light of day, and impeachment will clear away a lot of ambiguity in terms of what information Congress can demand. This is the weapon the Constitution gives Congress for precisely this scenario: a criminal, despotic President. To not use it now is to essentially concede that the President is an autocrat.

So, it looks like we may be heading to a narrow impeachment inquiry focussed on Obstruction of Congress and violation of the separation of powers as the main charge.

That might actually be a smarter way to get moderate Democrats and maybe even the odd Republican on board- going after Trump not for the subjects of the Mueller Report directly (the impact of which was sadly watered down by Barr), but for his attacks on Congressional authority- something that will give even otherwise reluctant members of Congress pause, if they possess any self-interest whatsoever.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll add that a sharp reassertion of Congress's lawful powers against the ever-encroaching dominance of the Executive branch is long overdue, and was needed even before Trump. Probably since Bush Jr, if not since Reagan at least.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I'll add that a sharp reassertion of Congress's lawful powers against the ever-encroaching dominance of the Executive branch is long overdue, and was needed even before Trump. Probably since Bush Jr, if not since Reagan at least.

That is not really possible, at least as long as anything from the GOP still exists at the very minimum.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll add that a sharp reassertion of Congress's lawful powers against the ever-encroaching dominance of the Executive branch is long overdue, and was needed even before Trump. Probably since Bush Jr, if not since Reagan at least.

That is not really possible, at least as long as anything from the GOP still exists at the very minimum.

Congress is giving Trump some real pushback, but we would probably need at minimum for the Republican Party to be crushed in the next election across the board (or take Congress in a landslide and then impeach Trump), and then for the Democrats to continue to exercise their perogatives against a President of their own party, for it to stick.

Best chance for that might be a Democratic Congress and Presidency with one controlled by Centrists and the other by progressives. In that scenario, we might see Congress continue to exercise an oversight role stringently even with Republicocks effectively out of the picture.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I'll add that a sharp reassertion of Congress's lawful powers against the ever-encroaching dominance of the Executive branch is long overdue, and was needed even before Trump. Probably since Bush Jr, if not since Reagan at least.

That is not really possible, at least as long as anything from the GOP still exists at the very minimum.

Congress is giving Trump some real pushback, but we would probably need at minimum for the Republican Party to be crushed in the next election across the board (or take Congress in a landslide and then impeach Trump), and then for the Democrats to continue to exercise their perogatives against a President of their own party, for it to stick.

Best chance for that might be a Democratic Congress and Presidency with one controlled by Centrists and the other by progressives. In that scenario, we might see Congress continue to exercise an oversight role stringently even with Republicocks effectively out of the picture.

Please note that while the GOP are vulnerable, they still have their propaganda machine running, and to get rid of that means reinstating the old restrictions which will be decried as going against the freedom of speech.

[The Romulan Republic]

Or we could, you know, become more effective at running our own counter-propaganda machine. That doesn't require making sweeping changes to basic constitutional rights and setting authoritarian precedents that could easily be turned against us. It just requires money and media savvy and perhaps some willingness to bend the truth a bit.

It baffles me that anyone who claims to be opposed to fascism could look at the current US government and say "Yes, what they need is MORE power to regulate political speech."

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Or we could, you know, become more effective at running our own counter-propaganda machine. That doesn't require making sweeping changes to basic constitutional rights and setting authoritarian precedents that could easily be turned against us. It just requires money and media savvy and perhaps some willingness to bend the truth a bit.

It baffles me that anyone who claims to be opposed to fascism could look at the current US government and say "Yes, what they need is MORE power to regulate political speech."

Actually, the thing is that news in the US was regulated (via the Fairness Doctrine) to prevent FOX News and friends from even functioning. It was this law's repeal during Reagan's presidency that caused the situation we have now.

The problem with running a counter-propaganda machine is the fact that you'll need to penetrate the media bubble, and that ain't going to break anytime soon.

[The Romulan Republic]

Or we could, you know, become more effective at running our own counter-propaganda machine. That doesn't require making sweeping changes to basic constitutional rights and setting authoritarian precedents that could easily be turned against us. It just requires money and media savvy and perhaps some willingness to bend the truth a bit.

It baffles me that anyone who claims to be opposed to fascism could look at the current US government and say "Yes, what they need is MORE power to regulate political speech."

Actually, the thing is that news in the US was regulated (via the Fairness Doctrine) to prevent FOX News and friends from even functioning. It was this law's repeal during Reagan's presidency that caused the situation we have now.

The problem with running a counter-propaganda machine is the fact that you'll need to penetrate the media bubble, and that ain't going to break anytime soon.

I know it was more regulated in the past, although not to the extent of prohibiting all conservative/fascist bias in media.

But remember- the Democrats aren't in power right now. The Trumpers are. So any attempts to change the laws expanding censorship powers are giving THEM that power. We'd have to win before we could change those laws, not change those laws to win. And even if we did- there's no guarantee that we wouldn't lose power in the future and have those laws turned against us anyway.

[Ralin]

It baffles me that anyone who claims to be opposed to fascism could look at the current US government and say "Yes, what they need is MORE power to regulate political speech."

I generally agree. That said, going to point out that a substantial part of the US government has continued trucking along ignoring Trump's loonier orders and that it's entirely possible that would hold true here too. Remember when people were decrying the FCC or whatever agency exactly is in charge of broadcast standards investigating Colbert and nothing came of it?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Or we could, you know, become more effective at running our own counter-propaganda machine. That doesn't require making sweeping changes to basic constitutional rights and setting authoritarian precedents that could easily be turned against us. It just requires money and media savvy and perhaps some willingness to bend the truth a bit.

It baffles me that anyone who claims to be opposed to fascism could look at the current US government and say "Yes, what they need is MORE power to regulate political speech."

Actually, the thing is that news in the US was regulated (via the Fairness Doctrine) to prevent FOX News and friends from even functioning. It was this law's repeal during Reagan's presidency that caused the situation we have now.

The problem with running a counter-propaganda machine is the fact that you'll need to penetrate the media bubble, and that ain't going to break anytime soon.

I know it was more regulated in the past, although not to the extent of prohibiting all conservative/fascist bias in media.

But remember- the Democrats aren't in power right now. The Trumpers are. So any attempts to change the laws expanding censorship powers are giving THEM that power. We'd have to win before we could change those laws, not change those laws to win. And even if we did- there's no guarantee that we wouldn't lose power in the future and have those laws turned against us anyway.

Problem is FOX News and friends, and that has to be taken care of if we're going to do much of anything.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bringing it back to the topic of the thread, I'd say the best way to get your message out is to have a strong, clear message and stand by it. Perhaps the worst choice we can make as a party is continuing to waffle on impeachment.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Bringing it back to the topic of the thread, I'd say the best way to get your message out is to have a strong, clear message and stand by it. Perhaps the worst choice we can make as a party is continuing to waffle on impeachment.

The Dems can't because the GOP would hound on it and use it as political ammunition to further energize their base. That is something that would easily tip things in the GOP's favor right now, especially this close to 2020.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bringing it back to the topic of the thread, I'd say the best way to get your message out is to have a strong, clear message and stand by it. Perhaps the worst choice we can make as a party is continuing to waffle on impeachment.

The Dems can't because the GOP would hound on it and use it as political ammunition to further energize their base. That is something that would easily tip things in the GOP's favor right now, especially this close to 2020.

And you keep coming back to repeating the same assertion as fact. No matter how many times I cite historical examples, post statistics, present arguments for why you are exaggerating this risk, and why there is a political danger as well as a moral and legal danger to NOT impeaching, you ignore it, and just repeat your same unproven assertion as proven fact. You know that the Republicans won the next election after their failed attempt to impeach Bill Clinton, a much more popular President, on vastly weaker grounds? Of course you do, but it doesn't matter. You know that there was not clear majority support for Nixon's impeachment until after the House Judiciary Committee recommended impeachment? You ought to, because I cited it just a few days ago. You know that the vast majority of the Democratic base wants impeachment, and that Warren, who backed impeachment, appears to be soaring in the polls all of a sudden? And that not one of the three Presidential impeachment attempts in American history has been followed by an electoral victory for the party who's President faced impeachment? And yet you keep just repeating this same trite overplayed assumption, that impeachment inevitably means a Republican victory, as though it were a self-evident fact. Its like ramming my head against a fucking brick wall.

Yeah, the Republicans will lie about impeachment. They will lie about anything the Democrats do. I guess we better never stand up to them on anything because they might lie about it and use it to fire up their base. Oh wait, they'll lie about us doing nothing and make something up, like saying we run a pedophile pizza joint and getting an innocent restaurant shot up.

Letting fascists win because you're afraid of what they might do if you stand up to them is called appeasement. It didn't work last time, and it won't work now. The Democratic leadership has by and large spent decades trying to appear "moderate" and "civil" while the Republican Party shameless ran roughshod over the law, human rights, and basic facts. The result? We look weak, the Republicans dominate the narrative, and a large portion of the Electorate believes that there is no real difference between us and the fascists. Voters like backbone. They like candidates who stand for something. They like the appearance of strength. Right now, when Trump and his lackeys publicly spit on the law on a near-daily basis and gets away with it, he looks strong. He looks like a winner. He looks like he's in the right, because if he were really that bad, wouldn't the Democrats have done something? And we look weak.

If the House doesn't impeach because its afraid of political backlash for doing its Constitutional duty, then impeachment is a dead letter, and the main Constitutional check on a criminal and despotic Presidency is gone. And many voters will rightly see a party of weak, ineffectual cowards.

[The Romulan Republic]

Continuing investigations when the leadership is making it clear that they're unwilling to impeach also sends a message that there's nothing there, that this is just political grandstanding.

Those investigations have to go somewhere, if voters are going to take them or their results seriously.

In a country where both major parties put duty over power, Trump would have been impeached at the latest after he fired James Comey, or after Charlotsville. In this country, he should have been impeached the day after the new House was sworn in. Okay, they wanted to wait for Mueller. We waited. We got confirmation of what we already knew- Trump obstructed justice. We've waited long enough. Time to act.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

TRR, you are forgetting that there is a bigger picture to politics, and right now the big picture isn't that good for an impeachment proceeding, especially this close to an election. The time to act isn't now, but with the other investigations (~ 20 of the damn things, a good portion of them STATE level and thus untouchable by the GOP) underway, we can afford some time to get everything ready. That is what the Dems need, time. Time to simply have this impeachment more than the criminal investigation Mueller undertook, to ensure that the GOP doesn't shut it down post-haste. The only reason that this hasn't ended up like Iran-Contra is because there are simply far too many investigations involved to simply shut it down, and quite a few of them are state-level.

An impeachment is a MAJOR investment in political capital, and one not to be taken lightly. Right now the only way to make sure that an impeachment doesn't cause problems with the Dems is consolidate and build a wider case. We've only got the equivalent of one round in the cylinder right now, and the round isn't of top quality, meaning that it might simply misfire on us (and thus hurt us), simply be a dud (and thus be useless), or fire. The former are more likely than the latter in this situation.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Remember, TRR, we have to convince the 'goldfish' voters for an impeachment, and simply making the optics look like a Benghazi isn't going to convince them. That is the major problem with impeachment right now, the 'goldfish' voters and the optics.

[Ace Pace]

I want to ask a question.

especially this close to an election.

Considering American politics are always close to an election, do you have an appropriate time period? Can you speculate on one?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I want to ask a question.

especially this close to an election.

Considering American politics are always close to an election, do you have an appropriate time period? Can you speculate on one?

More specifically, this close to a Presidential Election. Sometime between post-Presidential election and midterms would be the best window for an impeachment. Then there is the fact that 2020 is shaping up to be a repeat of 2018, just with a bad map for the GOP this time around.

[Civil War Man]

I want to ask a question.

especially this close to an election.

Considering American politics are always close to an election, do you have an appropriate time period? Can you speculate on one?

Honestly, that question is like asking when is it an appropriate time to discuss how to address the problem with the US having so many mass shootings. When a mass shooting just happened, it's too soon to talk about it because emotions are running high. If it's been a while since the last one, then there's no need to talk about it because obviously the problem doesn't exist anymore. If someone has either a vested interest or an emotional investment in that conversation not happening, then they will always be able to come up with a reason why it's not the right time.

The logic of Trump supporters who don't support impeachment is pretty straightforward. They either truly believe he did nothing wrong, or they don't care because he's on their team, or something to that effect. For people who oppose Trump but also oppose impeachment, it mostly seems to boil down to hoping that someone else will take care of it for them so they don't have to do anything themselves. It's why they opposed doing anything for a long time, because they assumed/hoped that Mueller would indict Trump and the whole problem would go away, so it was all "wait for the Mueller report" when there was no indication when it would end. When Mueller's report did come out and, from what we could see from the unredacted portions, basically amounted to "DOJ rules prevent me from making a recommendation, so here's a bunch of evidence for Congress to run with," then we get hemming and hawing about how Trump's "not worth it," or there's no point to trying to make a case for impeachment until everyone already supports it, or "wait for the unredacted Mueller report that we'll only get over Barr's dead body," or other variations of foot dragging that amount to assuming/hoping that the election will kick Trump out of office and the whole problem will go away.